Menu Icon

Debt Rattle July 28 2026

Jul 282026
 
 July 28, 2026  Posted by at 9:14 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , ,  29 Responses »


Pablo Picasso Femme 1930


• Trump Ready For ‘Strong Military Action’ If Talks Fail (ZH)
• CENTCOM Chief Believes US Strikes Around Hormuz No Longer Effective (RT)
• Iran’s Regime Builds More Scaffolds for Protesters (Salgado)
• Rubio’s Genius Move: Venezuela Quits the ICC (Anderson)
• Insider Politics is an Elite Clique (CTH)
• Democrats Keep Digging Their Hole Deeper (Amy Denton)
• The Democratic National Committee Is Imploding (Matt Margolis)
• Rick Scott Joins Push to Force SAVE Act Vote (Salgado)
• The Fair Share Myth and Other Socialist Fables (Turley)
• Jury Duty For Illegal Aliens (CTH)
• Will the “Fat Lady” Finally Sing? (James Howard Kunstler)
• Greece Refuses EU Sanctions Against Russia (TASS)
• Judge Boasberg Keeps Ruling Against POTUS, But Keeps Getting Overturned (JTN)
• Prosecuting The Prosecutor: Will Jack Smith Face Criminal Charges? (JTN)
• Chamath Warns Ban On Open-Source AI Would Tank The Market (ZH)

 


 

https://twitter.com/Tironianae/status/2081321145375014970?s=20

 


 


“Trump Cites ‘Deep Talks’ – Warns of Expanded Action; Houthis Claim Responsibility for New Aramco Attacks..”

• Trump Ready For ‘Strong Military Action’ If Talks Fail (ZH)

President Trump has told Axios on Monday that he decided to pause American military attacks on Iran in order to give negotiations another chance, despite there currently being no evidence that Tehran has been urgently requesting them. Trump warned in the comments that war could immediately return with expanded strikes if diplomacy fails.But it seems there’s at least some indirect ‘note passing’ between capitals going on, even as Saudi Aramco facilities have apparently come under drone assault from Iran-aligned militants in Yemen and Iraq. Axios writes that “The talks are being conducted mainly between Iran and Oman.


But Qatar, Pakistan, Egypt and Trump’s envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, are actively involved.” “We are in very deep talks with Iran. If they don’t work out, we will go back to very strong military action,” Trump said in an interview. Again, very deep talks?… The Iranian side is certainly not confirming this, but instead quite the opposite. Tehran has definitively stated its position that there are no talks currently happening. It seems it is merely the mediating powers that are most urgently trying to get the sides back to the negotiating table. Trump said he won’t give diplomacy “much time” and that it “either goes fast or not at all.”

“All of the people that deal with Iran asked me: ‘Don’t fire,'” he also said, perhaps alluding to reports like the following: The top U.S. military commander in the Middle East recommended ending the bombing campaign around the Strait of Hormuz after concluding it reached the limits of its effectiveness, a recommendation that helped shape President Donald Trump’s decision to pause strikes against Iran, Axios reported Sunday. Adm. Brad Cooper, commander of U.S. Central Command, advised Pentagon leaders, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the White House last week that two weeks of sustained airstrikes had weakened Iran’s ability to threaten commercial shipping through the strategic waterway, multiple sources familiar with the discussions said.

As for new reported strikes on Saudi Aramco facilities (below), and particularly the sprawling Abqaiq site, the Houthis are claiming responsibility.

Previously Trump vowed to hold Iran directly responsible for any attacks carried out by its proxy groups.

Read more …

“Admiral Brad Cooper reportedly told President Donald Trump that designated bombing targets in southern Iran had largely been exhausted”

• CENTCOM Chief Believes US Strikes Around Hormuz No Longer Effective (RT)

The top US commander in the Middle East, Admiral Brad Cooper, advised President Donald Trump that striking Iranian targets around the Strait of Hormuz was no longer effective, Axios reported on Sunday, citing two people familiar with the matter. Cooper, who leads US Central Command (CENTCOM), reportedly told Trump that the designated bombing targets in the area had largely been exhausted. He added that there was no point in continuing the strikes unless the US returned to major combat operations, according to Axios.


Trump paused the strikes on Friday, abruptly ending a 13-day bombing campaign amid reports that regional mediators were rushing to broker a new ceasefire. Several US news outlets reported that Trump was also concerned about dwindling stocks of interceptors used to counter Iran’s retaliatory missile and drone attacks on American bases across the Middle East. Trump, however, denied that the US was running short of ammunition.= The Strait of Hormuz, a vital maritime chokepoint, remains closed to regular commercial shipping despite US strikes on Iran’s port infrastructure and military sites in the country’s south.

The US resumed its maritime blockade of Iran earlier this month following attacks on tankers attempting to transit the strait. Both sides have signaled that the truce, first reached in April and later expanded through a memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed on June 17, is effectively over. The latest round of hostilities erupted over differing interpretations of the MoU, which was intended to provide more time for negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. Tehran insists it has the right to control all traffic through the Strait of Hormuz and has labeled routes designated by the US Navy as illegal.

Read more …

52,000 and counting..

• Iran’s Regime Builds More Scaffolds for Protesters (Salgado)

The terrorist Iranian regime is planning to execute more political prisoners while also continuing its indiscriminate attacks on neighboring countries.


About a week ago, the murderous mullahs hanged 19-year-old Erfan Esfandiari and 23-year-old Gol Mohammad Mohammadi for participating in the freedom protests this year that culminated in the regime massacring between 40,000 and 52,000 of its own Persian people. This month, Iranian attacks on Jordanian and Iraqi targets also resulted in the deaths of four American soldiers: 1st Lt. Tyler James Feehan, Sgt. Angel S. Rampersad, and Pvt. Isabella Gonzales, and Sgt. Michael Emmanuel Swinton. Of course, the death-worshipping ayatollahs see this all as a great success for them, so they want to pile up more casualties.

The Kurdish militias are potential allies if the United States wished to reach out to them; prospective ground troops should there be yet another escalation in the never-ending conflict with the Iranian regime. The ayatollahs obviously understand this, which is why they are now reportedly bombarding the Kurds, an ethnic minority that lives in parts of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. The Kurds face different levels and outbursts of persecution in each country where they live, including Iran, which is why they are not exactly friendly with the terrorist Tehran regime.

Meanwhile, the ayatollahs are also getting ready to execute up to four political protesters, triggering another wave of protests. Unfortunately for the protesters, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — the entity that organizes international terrorism and enforces domestic tyranny — is also out on the streets.

Whenever Israel has to defend itself and strikes Lebanese or Gazan jihadis, practically the whole world goes crazy with fury. There are riots in every Western country and condemnations from most governments on the killing of terrorists. But for some reason, when Hamas’s sponsors in Tehran butcher innocent civilians, the self-righteous Westerners and Muslim dictators who decried Israel fall silent or barely object.

We cannot make lasting peace with people who believe that murdering innocents is laudable.

Read more …

“..on Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacked Israel, and Khan applied for arrest warrants against Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant in May of 2024..”

• Rubio’s Genius Move: Venezuela Quits the ICC (Anderson)

On Friday, the Venezuelan regime’s current Foreign Minister Félix Plasencia announced that “interim president” Delcy Rodríguez had instructed him to express to the current UN secretary-general that Venezuela had made the “firm and irrevocable decision to denounce the Rome Statute and initiate its definitive withdrawal from the [International Criminal Court (ICC)], in accordance with Article 127.” He added:


Venezuela considers that the Court’s actions reflect a demonstrated geographical bias, which has disproportionately concentrated its work on African and Latin American countries, to the detriment of the Global South. This pattern reveals an international justice system that, far from being applied equitably, has been instrumentalized to deepen inequalities among peoples and disregard their right to self-determination and sovereignty.

This bias is not a mere procedural coincidence, but the reflection of an institution that has placed its mechanisms at the service of interests alien to justice and the peoples it claims to protect. For this reason, we reject this dimension of lawfare, which perpetuates the persecution against the Venezuelan people and exacerbates the inequalities that international justice should correct. We reiterate our commitment to a genuinely equitable justice, respectful of the sovereignty and self-determination of peoples.

The United States State Department responded almost immediately on Saturday, welcoming the move and calling on all other members to follow the South American nation’s lead. It also pointed out that the court serves no real purpose, as it had been investigating Nicolás Maduro since 2018 with “no result.” Here’s more: The United States welcomes the decision by interim President Delcy Rodriguez and Venezuela to withdraw from the ICC and the new Venezuelan government’s partnership on American-led efforts to dismantle the corrupt and worthless ICC. The so-called court has been ‘investigating’ Nicolas Maduro since 2018 with no result.

The ICC has instead wasted its resources on investigating and charging persons from countries that have competent, independent judicial systems and which never submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. This is blatant overreach, political bias and selective enforcement. The ICC is neither credible, independent, nor legitimate. Thanks to President Trump’s leadership and the efforts of brave American service members, Maduro is now facing justice in a U.S. court for crimes he has committed. It is time to dismantle the ICC. The U.S. calls on all members of the ICC to withdraw from the Rome Statute.

If you’ll remember, Marco Rubio came out a couple of weeks ago and basically told the ICC where it could go and said the United States will dismantle it “brick by brick, if necessary.” Here’s something I wrote about that earlier this month: We’re starting by launching a diplomatic campaign with a simple message: ‘sovereign states over globalism.’ He added that, ‘Those who benefit from American security must not stand idly by while those who provide that security are targeted.’ And that’s only the beginning, Rubio said. We’ll use every tool at our disposal to take down the ICC with the help of every ally really to join our cause.

Of course, we also know that Rubio is largely running Venezuela, so this isn’t some big coincidence. Delcy and the rest of the regime were given their orders and followed them. It’s mutually beneficial. These criminals still overseeing the country buy themselves some insulation against future warrants, and Rubio kicks off his diplomatic campaign to encourage other countries to follow with a concrete example.

As the State Department mentioned, Venezuela is no stranger to the ICC. In 2018, several other Western Hemisphere countries — Argentina, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Paraguay, and Peru — referred the regime and its security forces to the court for “crimes against humanity,” largely based on crackdowns on protests in 2014 and 2017 that led to death, violence, arbitrary detentions, and forms of torture, including severe beatings, electric shocks, asphyxiation, sexual assault, and other brutal techniques.

In 2021, under prosecutor Karim Khan, the ICC opened a case against Maduro’s regime, while also signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with it, promising cooperation and “positive complementarity” — which is basically letting Venezuela handle cases domestically if it can show genuine progress. For two years, nothing happened but a lot of talk. During this period, the regime claimed it was conducting its own investigations.

In 2023, after no progress, the ICC reopened the investigation and even set up a technical office in Caracas to work with Venezuelan authorities. However, the court shut it down, claiming it received no cooperation. There’s also the factor that Khan’s sister-in-law, Venkateswari Alagendra, is a lawyer representing Maduro’s regime. Not a conflict of interest at all. In 2025, a judge ordered Khan to recuse himself from the case, a case on which there has still been no progress made.

In 2026, the Donald Trump administration took matters into its own hands and decided that we’d prosecute Maduro on our soil, but this comes after seven plus years of the ICC dragging its feet on one of the most abusive regimes in the world. To put that in perspective, on Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacked Israel, and Khan applied for arrest warrants against Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant in May of 2024, roughly seven months later. There’s no bias going on here. Nothing to see. But this also shows us that Venezuela was already hostile toward the court. It’s also important to note the language used by the regime. It says the court has “disproportionately concentrated its work on African and Latin American countries.”

Read more …

“There was always a problem for George Clooney in the political world which centered around his intelligence. Clooney is not a smart fellow, ..”

“Amal Clooney then went to work for the International Criminal Court (ICC) ..”

• Insider Politics is an Elite Clique (CTH)

The relationship between George Clooney and Barack Obama is well known and well documented. However, there are some interesting aspects that fill in a story and highlight how the constructs of U.S. political circles are always managed. The origin of Clooney’s intersection with the Chicago machine likely begins during his time as an actor playing the role of Dr. Doug Ross in the TV series ER (circa mid 1990’s). The show was based in Chicago. Fast forward a few years, and Clooney was considered an alternate fellow traveler for potential as an insurance policy during the 2012 reelection of Obama.


There was always a problem for George Clooney in the political world which centered around his intelligence. Clooney is not a smart fellow, and efforts to educate him on matters of strategic politics were doomed to failure. He was not competent as lead; the male AOC of his time. However, in 2012 those who control the mechanisms of Democrat politics were worried about the reelection of Obama when contrast with the chaos created by the Arab Spring, which he purposefully triggered.

Enter Amal Alamuddin, an international “human rights” lawyer with significant leftist bona-fides. Amal Alamuddin was Lebanese and British. In/around mid-2012, Clooney was told by his lawyer that Amal was coming to his home on the Amalfi coast of Italy; the lawyer said, “This is the woman you need to marry.” Given the frustration of Clooney’s intellectual challenges, the objective was to immerse Clooney in competency and see if it would rub off. Controlled leftism is always following a similar playbook (again, see AOC as a reference).

On June 30, 2012, the overthrow of Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarek was concluded. Part of the USAID regime change operation, the part that triggered the original Islamist Spring, worked with great success to install Muslim Brotherhood member Mohammed Morsi. Morsi took power in Egypt and quickly went to work on the platform of extremist Islam. In November of 2012, President Mohammed Morsi issued a provisional constitutional declaration that granted him unrestricted authority and the authority to legislate without the need for judicial oversight or review. The objective was a new Egyptian constitution based on Islamic Law, Sharia Law.

In the background of the Obama administration, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton running the USAID operation supported by CIA Director Leon Panetta, the September 12, 2012, Benghazi crisis in neighboring Libya presented a problem. The U.S administration and the international control agents who supported the Muslim Brotherhood had their hands full. Morsi in Egypt was going fully Islamist at the same time Libya was in turmoil. Back home the Benghazi crisis was filling the headlines as the U.S. reelection loomed large. Clooney was in London and the Amal Alamuddin operation was still ongoing. That’s the context for this video clip.

Listen to George Clooney talk about asking Amal Alamuddin to come meet him and what Alamuddin was working on at the time. The video is prompted; it only takes around 30 seconds to get the point.

Amal Alamuddin was working for the Muslim Brotherhood on the Egyptian constitutional changes in support of the objectives of introducing Sharia Law on behalf of Mohammed Morsi, the hand-selected leader approved by Barack Obama. For those who are only just beginning to realize how candidates, politics and elections are controlled by global elites, you can literally see how the small group was operating through this example. Obviously, Obama won re-election; however, despite getting married to Amal Alamuddin, now Amal Clooney, George Clooney’s intellectual deficiency could never be overcome.

Although, to be fair, there are still Obama operatives at work within the DNC who don’t want to give up on the Clooney enterprise. Six months after Obama’s second inauguration, in June 2013, the Egyptian people had enough of the hardline extremism. The military led by General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, dispatched Morsi, closed the border with Libya, outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood, put the remaining extremists like Mohammed al-Zawahiri (brother to al-Qaeda #2 Ayman al-Zawahiri) into jail and saved themselves from the Islamist spring.

Amal Clooney then went to work for the International Criminal Court (ICC) and was part of the legal team that assembled the war crimes charges against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that have recently been in the headlines. Clooney was working for ICC lead prosecutor Karim Ahmad Khan who has also been in the headlines recently. “:

”(UK Guardian) – The prosecutor of the international criminal court, Karim Khan, has been removed from office after the court’s governing body concluded in June that he had committed serious misconduct in connection to allegations of sexual abuse. The ICC’s member states voted on Friday to oust the British prosecutor in an unprecedented move that concludes a damaging episode for the court two years after the allegations were first raised. According to sources familiar with the result, 82 of the court’s 125 member states voted in favour of removing Khan at a special meeting at the UN’s headquarters in New York. (more)”:

…And now you probably know more than you ever wanted to know about these things.

Read more …

“Someone close to the disaster, who did not want to lose his or her job, spoke to the New York Post, saying, “The midterms are going to come before we know it and then we’re going to be really f****d.”

• Democrats Keep Digging Their Hole Deeper (Amy Denton)

Today’s Democrats are so far from the Democrat Party of twenty or thirty years ago that no Democrat back then would be willing to claim them now. The leaders of the Democratic Party of today do not seem to understand that the farther and farther they go to the left, the less people will be willing to donate to them. Putting aside the mess that ActBlue built with its creative fundraising, the Democratic National Committee is in serious financial trouble. Ever since Kamala Harris’ disastrous campaign burned through $1.5 billion—yes, billion with a “b”—the DNC has had the problem of what to do with the remainder of her debt.


In August 2025, the DNC agreed to pay off $20.5 million in campaign debts while Harris agreed to raise money for the DNC to “make the entity whole financially.” Where the money came from to pay that amount off is anybody’s guess. The DNC already had financial problems as of June 2025, with the main fundraising committee looking to borrow money.Wait a minute. If your fundraising committee needs to borrow money, what does that say about how capable the committee is of raising funds? Nothing good.

Because of Harris, because of ActBlue, because of whatever dumpster fire was going on, major donors were pulling back, forcing the fundraising committee to look at borrowing money simply to keep the lights on. While the Republican National Committee has more money than it knows what to do with, the DNC does not. Someone close to the disaster, who did not want to lose his or her job, spoke to the New York Post, saying, “The midterms are going to come before we know it and then we’re going to be really f****d.”

That was last year. This year, the hits keep on coming with the news that the DNC put up its building in Southeast Washington, D.C. as collateral on a $15 million line of credit last year. And yet, the DNC did not declare the building as collateral in its monthly or loan-related filings to the Federal Election Commission. Why not? Was it supposed to and just “forgot”?

The DNC has two goals this election year. First, take back the House and/or the Senate in the midterm elections. Second, win as many gubernatorial and local elections as possible. Both are nearly impossible to do without money. As of June 2026, the DNC had $16 million in its accounts and $18 million in debt. In contrast, over the same period, the RNC had $128 million in cash and no debt. Rather amazing, isn’t it? Completely ignore the electorate, advocate for illegal aliens and genital mutilations of children, and the money starts to dry up. Who would have thought?

The DNC states that using its building as collateral has been done before and was not news. A spokesman for the DNC stated that the building had been used as collateral in 2019, 2018, and 2014, among many other years. Here’s the kicker: the DNC doesn’t own the whole building, only part of it. So, what does it do? Put the part it owns up as collateral?

All of the financial problems have landed firmly on the shoulders of Ken Martin, the Democratic Party chair. Apparently, Martin has not had success in getting donors to maximize their donations, which has led to the low level of cash on hand. Nor has he handled the pressure well. According to an internal human resources inquiry, in early July, he chucked a phone at an aide in frustration after speaking with donors and political allies. The phone did not hit the aide but left other aides who witnessed the incident shaken.

The phone throwing incident on top of the lack of fundraising and the ever-growing skepticism of the Democratic faithful has only led to the deepening of the tense mood in the DNC. Add in the highly edited explanation of what really went wrong in the autopsy of the 2024 presidential election loss, and it becomes obvious why Martin has not been successful in his time as DNC chairman, even though he’s only been chairman since February 2025. In eighteen months, not only have the DNC’s fortunes not reversed, but they’ve also grown worse.

Not so according to Martin. In an op-ed on Substack, he defended the lack of cash on hand, stating that the DNC made the decision to spend more on electoral assets such as more people, earlier organizing, and stronger state parties. Stronger state parties? I don’t know about the rest of the country, but the Texas Democratic Party is a mess. While that is amusing to conservatives and Republicans, it is not helpful to the Democratic Party overall. He ends the editorial with, “A party is not a savings account. Its purpose is to build power.” Wow. If that is indeed the case, the DNC will have quite a time on its hands come November.

Another problem for the DNC is the 2028 Democratic presidential primary schedule. South Carolina is the first state to vote in the Democratic primary, with Nevada and New Hampshire coming next. Dating back to 1972, New Hampshire was the first state to vote in the Democratic primary; it’s a state law. New Hampshire lost the first-in-the-nation primary status in 2022. This year, it came in a distant third. What will happen in 2028 when the primary season begins in New Hampshire? No one really knows.

Having to mortgage the building it only partly owns seems to be the least of the DNC’s problems at the moment. Perhaps the party will find a way to right the ship; perhaps the party will simply make things worse. Considering what has already happened this year in Maine and the appalling lack of decent candidates elsewhere in the country, it doesn’t appear likely. The DNC does look like it is going to go down with the ship instead of righting it. That anonymous source who said that the DNC was f****d could well turn out to be more prophetic than intended.

Read more …

“The DNC has paid more than $700,000 in interest on that $15 million line of credit, averaging over $75,000 a month, and starting in January it owes $1.66 million in principal payments every month.”

• The Democratic National Committee Is Imploding (Matt Margolis)

The Democrat Party has spent months promising a blue wave midterm election and projecting confidence, but behind closed doors, the Democratic National Committee is in turmoil. =According to a New York Times report, the Democratic National Committee can’t pay its bills and Chairman Ken Martin is paranoid and unhinged. In other words, the committee is drowning in internal chaos. This is threatening to blunt whatever momentum Democrats thought they had heading into the midterms, which are now just 100 days away.


PJ Media previously reported that the DNC put up its own DC headquarters as collateral for a $15 million line of credit last year. That was bad news on its own. But it’s gotten worse. Party leaders have now asked vendors to hold off sending invoices until after the midterms, according to three people briefed on the discussions. Ouch. And then there’s the issues with Chairman Martin. According to the report, he has become isolated, anxious about his job security, and dependent on a shrinking circle of trusted aides. More than two dozen current and former Democrats and DNC officials described his behavior to the New York Times, most speaking anonymously because nobody wants their name near this dumpster fire.

And who could blame them? Just how unhinged has Martin become? Well, in early July, Martin allegedly threw his phone at a junior aide’s desk while reprimanding him, prompting a formal HR complaint. Accounts differ on how hard he threw it, though everyone agrees it hit the desk, not the aide. Martin later met with HR about his behavior. The DNC declined to comment, and Martin declined an interview request. Martin has also made dark jokes about how long he’ll last as chairman, even though his term runs through 2029, but he still insists he’s committed to the party and hopeful about November.

The big problem for the Democrats, of course, is the money gap with Republicans. President Donald Trump controls a $400 million super PAC. The Republican National Committee reported $128.5 million in cash on hand. The DNC is $2 million in debt. Before filing its July report, the DNC even transferred $1 million out of its 2028 convention fund to prop up its main accounts.The loan hasn’t helped. The DNC has paid more than $700,000 in interest on that $15 million line of credit, averaging over $75,000 a month, and starting in January it owes $1.66 million in principal payments every month. The DNC has funneled money to its House and Senate campaign arms every cycle for more than a decade, but officials have privately told congressional leaders that won’t happen in 2026.

There isn’t any cash left to give, and a big factor in this debacle is Kamala Harris. In 2024, Kamala Harris raised a ton of money in her campaign but left behind millions in debt that the DNC spent much of last year paying down with her help. Last fall, Martin sent $3 million each to Democratic gubernatorial campaigns in Virginia and New Jersey, structuring the loan for those transfers, hoping the wins would revive DNC fundraising. The bet hasn’t paid off yet. Martin’s paranoia bled into his own team. This spring, he confronted the party’s finance director over what he believed was an effort to push him out.

In May, finance chairman Chris Korge was already talking with other officers about an emergency meeting on the party’s finances. Martin read those talks as a plot against him, and when the two finally spoke late one Tuesday night, things got ugly fast. The emergency meeting Korge wanted eventually happened in Pittsburgh in June. For the first time, party officers had to sign nondisclosure agreements just to be in the room. I wrote before that this was the sign of a huge problem. Well, there’s the proof.

Make no mistake about it, the Democratic National Committee is a dumpster fire right now. It’s deep in debt, can’t pay its vendors on time, and its chairman is a paranoid wreck who needs nondisclosure agreements to keep its own board members quiet. We’re 100 days out from the midterms, hardly enough time for things to turn around for the Democratic National Committee. This is gonna be fun to watch.

Read more …

“Right now Senate Democrats enjoy all the benefits of the filibuster with none of the political cost—and without even having to work for it. Enforcing a real talking filibuster would change that dynamic overnight.”

• Rick Scott Joins Push to Force SAVE Act Vote (Salgado)

RINO and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) thought he could get to the August recess without having to vote for election integrity legislation or a budget resolution. But two Republican senators have now stepped up to force a roll call vote on the SAVE America Act.


Get-out-the-vote warrior Scott Presler triggered the upset in the Senate by begging one senator — any senator — to request a roll call vote and force senators to go on the record about the SAVE America Act before the recess. This action is in accord with Senate rules and is based on Article I, Section 5, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) responded to Presler by offering to take up the challenge, and then notified Thune, “I hereby object to any effort to put the Senate into recess in August—at least until such time as the Senate has passed the SAVE America Act—and hereby request a roll call vote.”

Then on Sunday Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) joined in the effort. “I stand with [Mike Lee]. I will vote to stay in session unless we have passed the SAVE America Act. The American people expect us to deliver. They deserve secure elections,” Scott wrote on X.

Scott subsequently reposted Presler’s enthusiastic message of gratitude. “Senator Rick Scott, On [sic] behalf of millions of Americans, thank you for being one of the very few Senators that actually care about us,” Presler exclaimed. “Thank you for working tirelessly to pass the SAVE America Act & secure our elections. We are finding illegal aliens on the voter rolls in Pennsylvania. This is a constitutional crisis.” Presler has been going through the non-juror and registered voter data in Pennsylvania.

Thune wants Americans to believe he can’t get the SAVE America Act or any of its provisions through. But Lee has laid out a plan. Back on July 22, Lee posted on X, “We could break the Democrats’ filibuster the old-fashioned way: make them actually speak on the Senate floor, knowing we can ‘call the question’ and pass it at a simple-majority threshold the minute they stop speaking. We could add pressure by working through weekends and recess weeks as needed, with a public commitment to keep the Senate in session until the bill passes.”

He went on, “Right now Senate Democrats enjoy all the benefits of the filibuster with none of the political cost—and without even having to work for it. Enforcing a real talking filibuster would change that dynamic overnight. We could also advance key provisions of the SAVE America Act using budget reconciliation. Or we could nuke the filibuster.”

The House had actually found a workaround to thwart Democrat shenanigans, as the pre-recess House budget resolution included provisions of the SAVE America Act and vital military funding. Unfortunately, Thune, ever the backstabber, delivered a nonsensical lecture about the importance of consulting Democrats—you know, the ones who aim to defund ICE and oppose funding related to the Iran conflict, fund foreign criminals, and kill all election integrity efforts—while coming up with a “bipartisan” funding package. With Republicans like him, who needs Democrats?

Read more …

“.. his promised “warmth of collectivism.”

• The Fair Share Myth and Other Socialist Fables (Turley)

New York City socialist mayor Zohran Mamdani is back in his element. After admitting that he cannot fulfill his campaign pledge to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Mamdani returned to his class warfare narrative. This week, he taunted the city’s highest-earning taxpayers with a letter informing them of another special tax awaiting them in the Big Apple.As wealthy citizens flee the city, Mamdani strongly suggests that those who remain are going to get burned by his promised “warmth of collectivism.” In doing so, he repeated a socialist myth about how the wealthiest taxpayers are not paying “their fair share.”


Mamdani went on X to tell those with second homes in New York City worth more than $5 million that “you’ve got mail” and a “new pied-a-terre tax.” He gleefully declared, “The best city in the world deserves the best p arks, libraries, and schools in the world. That’s only possible when we all pay our fair share.”The fair share myth is a virtual mantra among socialist and Democratic leaders, from Mamdani to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.). In my book, “Rage and the Republic,” I address the false claim that the wealthy are not “paying their fair share.” In fact, the top 10 percent already pay more taxes than the bottom 90 percent combined.

In 2023, the top 1 percent paid an estimated 38.4 percent of all federal individual income taxes. One can certainly raise the need for additional taxes to support public works, but it is simple demagoguery to claim that the wealthy do not pay their fair share when the top 10 percent pay an estimated 75 percent of federal income taxes. The U.S. income tax system is already the most progressive in the developed world, even before additional New York state and city taxes are added in.=The demonization of the wealthy is one of the oldest tactics of politicians seeking to empower themselves by harnessing mob rage.

Combined with pledges of free stuff under socialism, it creates a dangerous delusion among disgruntled citizens. Another common fable has been repeated by socialists such as Darializa Avila Chevalier, the prison abolitionist who won a recent primary for Congress in New York. This radical, who once boasted how she wiped her hands on the American flag in lieu of a napkin, was pressed on whether there has ever been a “successful model of socialism anywhere in the world outside the U.S., in terms of both human rights and widespread economic justice.”

She responded by citing Sweden and Norway, as other figures such as Sanders have done before her. Indeed, the claim of successful Scandinavian socialist systems is a sort of Marxist bedtime fairytale, told to children about a workers’ paradise in quaint Nordic fishing villages. But Sweden’s experience only shows the limits of socialism even in a relatively small nation. Decades ago, after disastrous results to its economy, Sweden turned away from the very kind of socialist theories increasingly fashionable in the U.S. today.

Norway has large public welfare systems, it is true. But there is a very specific reason for that: It has enormous direct oil revenues supporting a very small population. The Norwegian state produces about 120 barrels of oil for every man, woman and child living in the country. If the U.S. could produce that much oil per person through a state-controlled entity, it would be more oil than the entire world produces today and worth enough money to replace all federal individual and corporate income tax revenue. In truth, countries like Denmark and Sweden strongly embrace capitalist principles today.

They are listed among the most capitalist nations on Earth — in some rankings ahead of the U.S. Indeed, many of their leaders have expressed disbelief or amusement at longstanding claims by American leftists about their being socialist nations. In 2015, Danish Prime Minister Lars Rasmussen observed, “I know that some people in the U.S. associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.” Likewise, the former Swedish Social Democratic Minister of Finance Kjell Olof Feldt said, ” That whole thing with democratic socialism was absolutely impossible. It just didn’t work. “

Read more …

“The Scale of Ineligible People Called for Jury Duty Starts to Highlight Number of Illegal Aliens Currently on Voter Rolls”

Do you want your court case decided by people who have no right to be in the country?

• Jury Duty For Illegal Aliens (CTH)

In most states the jury duty summons process comes from registered voter rolls. As a consequence, when a person is called for jury duty and is then disqualified as a non-citizen, we have another way to judge the scale of non-citizens on the voter rolls.


Reviewing lists of disqualified non-citizen jurors is now taking place in many counties led by citizen inquiry. The disqualification records, “non-juror” lists are public records in many states and counties. These reviews are turning up tens-of-thousands of non-citizens who are on juror lists, which means they are also on voter rolls.

(New Jersey Globe) – About 75,000 noncitizens are summoned for jury duty in New Jersey each year, based on data from three state government agencies, including the Motor Vehicle Commission — a stunning figure that widens the scope of a growing controversy over government databases that may incorrectly identify noncitizens as eligible voters and jurors.While the number is alarming, there’s no indication that noncitizens have served on a jury since the judiciary implemented additional guardrails to prevent it.

“Prospective jurors are asked about their citizenship and other qualifications when they complete the mandatory juror qualification questionnaire,” said Pete McAleer, a spokesman for the New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts. “Those who advance are reminded of the eligibility requirements during jury orientation and are directly questioned about their citizenship during jury selection by the judge and, as permitted, the attorneys.” In between, potential jurors watch a training video that includes the citizenship requirement.

The revelation of noncitizens making their way into jury pools comes three days after Gov. Mikie Sherrill disclosed that an alleged software glitch at motor vehicles led to the inclusion of roughly 6,600 noncitizens on New Jersey’s voter rolls; Sherrill blamed the vendor, IDEMIA, and said less than 400 noncitizens have voted in recent elections. According to McAleer, the judiciary processes more than one million summonses annually for potential jury service and randomly selects records provided from the Division of Elections, the Division of Taxation, and the MVC. (read more)

That 75,000/yr number are just those summoned people who disqualified themselves by being truthful about their status. I firmly believe the average non-pretending American will soon to realize/admit that many non-citizens actually remained on juries and passed judgement during trial.

Illegal aliens voting in elections is happening, we all know it and even though the media is still trying to retain their lies, you can tell that stance is softening against the reality. However, illegal aliens sitting as jurors in trials, will create a big-time constitutional mess that is something the communist left and media will never admit.

Read more …

“The Fauci diary is amazing. He monologues like a Scooby Doo villain.” El Gato Malo on “X”

• Will the “Fat Lady” Finally Sing? (James Howard Kunstler)

Remember Covid-19? Seems like long ago in a world that time forgot. Well, you get to revisit the whole sketchy business on Wednesday, July, 29, when Dr. Anthony Fauci is called to testify about it to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee chaired by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). Though half the USA is still psychotic and unable to process reality, the other half of the country understands that Dr. Fauci has some ‘splainin’ to do.


Dr. Fauci was initially invited but declined to appear (didn’t feel like it), so the committee issued a subpoena compelling him (under penalty of up to a year in jail for failure to show). Because Dr. Fauci was given a peremptory pardon by “Joe Biden,” he cannot legally invoke the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination. He will have to answer the questions. Of course, Dr. Fauci has demonstrated in previous appearances that he is a world champeen of failing-to-recall stuff and, at age 85, one might expect him to work that angle to the max.

One big question hanging over the whole proceeding is whether Covid-19 was concocted in the Wuhan Institute of Virology or “jumped from animals to humans” as Dr. Fauci posited around the 2:14 mark (near the end) of this video from a White House press conference, April, 13, 2020:

The Intel Community now kind of leans toward the lab leak theory. Anyway, that all leads to another question as to whether Dr. Fauci directed his agency, the NIAID, to arrange funding for gain-of-function research at Wuhan on coronaviruses found in Asian bats. IOW, did they make the chimeric virus on-purpose? In past testimony, Dr. Fauci has equivocated and dissembled about that, played word games that led to raised voices between himself and Sen. Paul.

As it happened, then-Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard recently unearthed the paper trail of emails and memoranda between Dr. Fauci and his colleagues / partners in other corners of the epidemiological world that show how, at the time, they were all scrambling to cover their collective asses in the Covid-19 business. One partner in particular, Peter Daszak of the New York based EcoHealth Alliance, which had channeled many grants to Wuhan since 2014, was especially active in fabricating alibis and ruses — including a major paper in the UK’s leading medical journal, The Lancet (the article was later nullified).

Behind that smokescreen of confabulation lies the wreckage of American society by the evil Covid-19 business. It was even evident at the time (spring 2020) that President Trump suspected he was being played by the committee of “experts” that had been set up to make Covid-19 policy. His body language suggested as much in news conferences where he shifted uncomfortably from side to side, watching while others spoke at the podium, as if rehearsing his later YMCA dance. At one point, April 23, 2020, (Fauci wrote in an email) President Trump called advisor Deborah Birx (“Scarf Lady”) into the Oval Office and yelled at her: “You and Fauci have destroyed the country and the economy. I should never have listened to you. You have completely destroyed us.” (Thanks to @JeffreyTucker on “X” for citation.)

And that was only the beginning of an event that led to a more momentous string of operations against the welfare of the American people, including the mass shutdown and ruin of small businesses, the orchestrated George Floyd riots, the year-plus of no school, and the mass mail-in ballot policy that enabled widespread voting fraud, ushering-in the election of Deep State tool “Joe Biden,” with the epic fuckery his handlers later laid on the body politic — including the open border, universal DEI, transsexuals celebrated on the White House lawn, the Ukraine money-laundry, weaponization of law and intel, build-out of the USAID-NGO grift matrix to fund Democratic Party operations, and much more.

Read more …

“EU may abandon current sanctions mechanism against Russia due to Greece’s position.”

The LNG ships are often Greek.

• Greece Refuses EU Sanctions Against Russia (TASS)

The European Union may revise its mechanism for imposing sanctions on Russia after Athens delayed the adoption of the latest package of measures for several weeks, securing exemptions for a Greek shipping company, the Financial Times reported.


Athens refused to support the new sanctions package until the remaining EU countries agreed to grant an exemption for the company Dynagas, according to the report. The Greek side reportedly sought to ensure that the company’s vessels could continue transporting Russian liquefied natural gas to countries outside the bloc. This marks the first instance of the EU’s collective economic sanctions regime against Russia being relaxed, the publication said. At the same time, the existing strategy allowed capitals to see that many EU member states would face the economic consequences of sanctions decisions, the newspaper said.

Now, new approaches to imposing restrictions are being discussed in Brussels, according to the FT. Officials are considering the possibility of approving sanctions individually or in small thematic batches. This approach is expected to reduce the risk of a national veto by a single country delaying the approval of other measures. Greek officials, for their part, argued that the ban on LNG transport had been agreed to by mistake, would harm the company Dynagas rather than the Russian economy, and would benefit rival shipowners from China and other non-EU countries, the publication said.

Read more …

“In April 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit shut down Boasberg’s contempt inquiry, with the majority describing it as an improper “judicial intrusion into the autonomy of a coequal department.”

• Judge Boasberg Keeps Ruling Against POTUS, But Keeps Getting Overturned (JTN)

A controversial federal judge keeps ruling against President Donald Trump and then consistently gets overturned by higher courts. James “Jeb” Boasberg, the chief judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, has seen some of his highest-profile decisions stayed, overturned or sent to appellate courts for review. Boasberg, 62, was appointed to the federal bench by President Barack Obama in 2011 after serving nearly a decade on the District of Columbia Superior Court, and has decided several cases connected to the Trump administration in the areas of immigration and executive authority.


In March 2025, he temporarily blocked the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to rapidly deport alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua without traditional immigration proceedings. When deportation flights continued, Boasberg later determined that he found probable cause to pursue criminal contempt proceedings against administration officials. That contempt effort ultimately did not survive after appellate review.

Boasberg’s problem: Accepting separation of powers
In April 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit shut down Boasberg’s contempt inquiry, with the majority describing it as an improper “judicial intrusion into the autonomy of a coequal department.” Boasberg also ordered the administration to provide due-process protections for Venezuelans deported under the Alien Enemies Act. The Supreme Court vacated that order on April 7, 2025. He also directed the U.S. government to facilitate the return of more than 130 deportees so they could challenge their removals. That order is reportedly still under appellate review.

Roberts: Impeachment not the answer to activist judges
Trump called for Boasberg’s impeachment after one of his deportation rulings, which led to Chief Justice John Roberts deciding to issue a rare public statement. “Impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” he said. Attorney General Pam Bondi later directed the U.S. Justice Department to file a judicial misconduct complaint alleging Boasberg made inappropriate comments about the administration during a Judicial Conference meeting. The complaint was ultimately dismissed by another federal judge, who concluded it did not establish misconduct.

Read more …

“Allegation stems from Smith’s closed-door deposition before the House Judiciary Committee on December 17, 2025.”

• Prosecuting The Prosecutor: Will Jack Smith Face Criminal Charges? (JTN)

Former Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith spent years investigating and prosecuting Donald Trump. Now, with Trump back in the White House as the president, Smith has become the subject of a potential criminal investigation of his own. Earlier this month, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan referred Smith to the DOJ for potential criminal prosecution, alleging he made false statements during congressional testimony. President Trump has repeatedly argued that Smith should be held accountable for what he has described as politically motivated prosecutions.


Whether Smith will indeed face criminal charges remains uncertain. Although Congress can recommend prosecution, the decision ultimately rests with the Justice Department, and any case would face significant legal and evidentiary hurdles. On July 22, Jordan, an Ohio Republican, sent a formal referral letter to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, asserting that there is “strong evidence” that Smith violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the federal statute prohibiting materially false statements to the federal government. The allegation stems from Smith’s Dec. 17, 2025, closed-door deposition before the Judiciary committee.

During the deposition, Smith testified that his office had sought only lawmakers’ “toll records” – that is metadata such as call logs – and had not sought warrants for the contents of members’ text messages. Jordan contends in his letter that Justice Department records produced this month contradict that testimony. According to the referral, Smith’s investigation ultimately obtained text messages from 44 members of Congress, with some records reportedly acquired through the National Archives rather than by subpoena. Jordan argues that Smith’s testimony created the misleading impression that investigators had never obtained the substance of lawmakers’ communications.

Smith’s attorneys, Peter Koski and Lanny Breuer, rejected the allegation, arguing that Smith answered the specific question posed to him truthfully and was under no obligation to volunteer information beyond its scope. They contend the referral itself acknowledges that Smith did not make a false statement but instead criticizes him for failing to provide additional, unrequested information.

Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, the committee’s top Democrat, likewise dismissed the referral, arguing that Republicans characterized Smith’s testimony by conflating questions about subpoenas with questions about presidential records maintained by the National Archives. “This referral, if ever brought before a judge, will get laughed out of court,” Raskin said in a statement. A DOJ spokesperson confirmed receipt of the referral and said the department “will investigate all evidence of criminal conduct.”

A Long-Running Conflict
Jordan’s referral is the latest development in a years-long dispute between congressional Republicans and Smith, who in November 2022 was appointed special by Attorney General Merrick Garland to oversee two high-profile criminal investigations involving Trump. The Judiciary committee began investigating Smith’s office in 2023, and Smith testified publicly before the committee in January 2026. Republicans have repeatedly questioned the conduct of Smith’s investigations into Trump, while Democrats have defended his work as consistent with the rule of law.

The possibility of criminal liability was also raised during Blanche’s confirmation hearing, when Missouri GOP Sen Josh Hawley asked whether Smith could be prosecuted for false testimony. He responded only that testimony before Congress is taken “very seriously.” Trump has long characterized Smith’s investigations as politically motivated “witch hunts,” while Smith has maintained that the evidence supported criminal charges against Trump and that any investigation into Smith himself would amount to political retaliation. Smith resigned from the Justice Department shortly before Trump’s second inauguration after overseeing the federal prosecutions involving classified documents and alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

Could Smith Actually Be Prosecuted?
The referral alone does not initiate criminal charges. Under federal law, Congress may recommend prosecution, but the Justice Department retains exclusive authority to decide whether to investigate and bring a case. To secure a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, prosecutors generally must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant knowingly and willfully made a materially false statement. An answer that is incomplete, imprecise, or arguably misleading may not satisfy that standard, particularly if it is responsive to the specific question asked.

Supporters of Jordan’s referral argue that newly disclosed records contradict the overall impression Smith left during his testimony.Smith’s defenders counter that his statements were literally accurate because they addressed only the subpoenaed toll records discussed during questioning, not every method by which investigators obtained communications. As with many alleged false-statement cases, the precise wording of both the questions and the answers could become central to any prosecution.

Read more …

“Tank The Market … and crater Anthropic and OpenAI ..

It would seem to me that someone stealing your AI model is inevitable.

That said, how do you know which model something is stolen from?

• Chamath Warns Ban On Open-Source AI Would Tank The Market (ZH)

Venture capitalist Chamath Palihapitiya warned that any U.S. move to ban open-source AI would blow a hole in corporate balance sheets and drag the stock market down. “If the United States government intervenes, it will tank the stock market. Not debatable,” Palihapitiya said on the “All-In” podcast released over the weekend. “Now, you can debate which companies get tanked. For example, if they said, ‘No more open source. American companies cannot use open source.'”


“Okay, let’s take an average normal company, Coca-Cola,” Palihapitiya continued. “‘Hey, Coca-Cola, you’re trying to use AI to improve your business. You know what? You can only use these two options. And those things cost 50-100x more than your other best alternative that you may use otherwise.'” “That will eventually show up in your costs. And so this incredibly important input into your cost model is now orders of magnitude, multiples greater than your competitors that are outside the United States, simply because you’re in the United States,” he added. “You’re forced to absorb costs that aren’t rational nor market-driven. So then Coca-Cola has to get re-rated.”

Palihapitiya then turned on the labs themselves, arguing that their revenue depends on government-erected barriers rather than real market demand. “But then you look at the people who are selling those tokens, and this is where Anthropic and OpenAI need to understand, if the government comes in and actually tells you that there’s no open source, their valuation will crater,” he said. “Why? Because all of that revenue is artificially being propped up. It’s not being driven by market demand where you’re being forced to compete. It’s because of regulatory capture where you now get an artificial constraint. But it only works in one market.

“All roads lead to market chaos if anybody gets involved, so we should just not get involved.” Palihapitiya’s co-host, former AI and Crypto Czar David Sacks, went further, accusing Anthropic of running to Washington for regulatory cover.

“If you say that American companies can’t use what’s in the public domain, or that somehow it’s tainted with IP theft, you are basically going to put a dagger through the heart of the entire American open source ecosystem,” he added. The fight has consumed Washington since Moonshot AI’s release of Kimi K3. The Beijing startup’s open-weight model beat Anthropic’s Fable 5 and OpenAI’s GPT-5.6 Sol in blind front-end coding tests, according to Axios, and unlike its closed American rivals, anyone can download it.

Nvidia, Microsoft, Meta, Palantir and more than 20 other companies fired off a joint letter on Friday urging policymakers to avoid “premature restrictions” on open-weight models, warning that such limits would “stifle competition or drive innovation overseas,” CNBC reported.

Anthropic did not sign.

If the letter was meant to cool things off, it didn’t. The Trump administration spent the week accusing Moonshot of stealing American technology outright. White House science chief Michael Kratsios said Wednesday that Moonshot built Kimi K3 by distilling Anthropic’s technology, and accused the startup of obtaining restricted Nvidia GB300 chips through servers in Thailand.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle July 24 2026

Jul 242026
 
 July 24, 2026  Posted by at 10:01 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , ,  33 Responses »


Pierre-Auguste Renoir The Return of the Boating Party 1862


• Trump “Close” To Ordering “Massive Attack Greater Than Anything Before” (ZH)
• Oil Soars As Trump Warns Iran Will Pay For Future Houthi Shipping Attacks (ZH)
• Houthis Threaten Saudi Aramco (ZH)
• There Are Only Two Possible Endgames for Iran (A.j. Christopher)
• Jim Jordan Refers Jack Smith to DOJ for Prosecution (Bryan S. Jung)
• Judge Boasberg Under Renewed Scrutiny Over Unilateral Actions (Turley)
• DSA Think America Is Worse Than Mao Zedong (Victor Davis Hanson)
• Wiring Kiev for war: Palantir’s Greatest Salesman (RT)
• Why Were Americans Funding Jobs for Transgender Workers in Nepal? (David Manney)
• James Carville Calls On Democrats To Cave On Voter ID (ZH)
• Elon Vows AI-Made ‘Odyssey’ After Blasting Nolan’s Take on Homer (AmG)
• Cheap AI Models are a Game-Changer (MKTCONTEXT)

 


 

https://twitter.com/mitchellvii/status/2079906536189464682?s=20

 


 


Trump has fallen into the Iraqi trap of a war of threats. They’ve been doing it for 47 years.

• Trump “Close” To Ordering “Massive Attack Greater Than Anything Before” (ZH)

After being at the White House just last week, Iraq’s new “Washington approved” prime minister is apparently now the new shuttle diplomacy guy, after Qatari and Pakistani peace efforts on Iran have come to naught. The NY Times is reporting Thursday afternoon that “Iraq’s prime minister, Ali al-Zaidi, is in Tehran carrying a proposal for a cease-fire between Iran and the United States, according to Iranian and Iraqi officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about matters of national security.”


But the messaging apparently went the other way to, from Tehran to Washington, per more from the Times: Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, told local news media that the Iraqi leader had shared with Iranian officials his “insights and impressions” from his recent meeting with Trump. Araghchi added that Tehran and Washington don’t have a problem when it comes to finding mediators, “the problem is America’s attitude.” At the moment, Trump is threatening new, massive attacks on Iran, which could come tonight or at any time, with the whole region on edge and the State Department telling Americans to urgently find flights out of the Middle East.


President Trump has newly been cited in Axios as saying he’s seriously considering restarting major combat operations in Iran. He’s previewing strikes that would be bigger than anything before, including in the opening days of Operation Epic Fury, when dozens of Iranian government and military leaders were killed, including the Ayatollah. There’s also chatter that Israel could rejoin the attacks this time, after Israeli jets have been absent in the past twelve days of renewed bombing raids.

However, Axios stipulated that Trump has yet to make a final decision. Mideast regional Al Hadath and Israel’s Channel 12 are separately reporting that US officials have told regional allies to “be prepared” for such a new major assault on Iran. Axios writes, “In a brief interview, Trump acknowledged that such a decision would have consequences and stressed he hasn’t made a determination yet.” This as Brent Crude has climbed past $100 per barrel on Thursday, and as the prospect of all-out war remains unpopular among American voters, especially with months to go ahead of the midterms.

“I am considering a massive attack. Bigger than ever before. I am close to making a decision. We are all set for it,” the president said. And more via the Axios interview: Trump said Israel “would join in two minutes if I ask them to,” but added that “we don’t need anybody” to launch a new operation against Iran. He also said there would be “consequences” for Israel joining the strikes, hinting at Iranian retaliation against Israel. Trump said the Iranians “want to negotiate” but are not ready to make a deal at the moment. “They haven’t received enough pain yet,” he said.

Two regional sources with knowledge of mediation efforts said Iranian leadership hasn’t accepted the latest proposal put forward. “We are trying, but the Iranians are not being helpful,” one of them said. The Houthis have meanwhile been ratcheting their involvement, apparently having been called upon by Tehran to help it keep leverage over key oil transit chokepoints. All the while, there have been widespread reports of the Pentagon surging large aircraft, especially refueling tankers, from Europe to the CENTCOM area.

Read more …

More of that..

• Oil Soars As Trump Warns Iran Will Pay For Future Houthi Shipping Attacks (ZH)

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Thursday that Iran is “begging for a deal” and “they need to come to their senses,” adding that Tehran will “pay a very heavy price for the things they are doing.” Speaking on the sidelines of the ASEAN conference in Manila, he claimed that “Iran is begging us, both directly and indirectly, ‘Let’s do a deal. Let’s talk.'” But the reality remains that there’s no public indicators showing this; instead, the Iranians have pretty aggressively sought to enforce their red lines, this week attacking a series of international ships in the Hormuz Strait.


Rubio tried to blame an alleged fracturing of the Iranian government, and a takeover by the ‘hardline’ faction of leadership. “The problem with Iran is every time they make a deal, the people in charge either break it or they want to change it. So it looks like they’re not ready to make a deal, so they’re going to continue to pay a price, and every night the price gets higher and higher,” he asserted. Rubio then characterized Iran and its policies as “run by radical clerics” – calling them “oblivious” to its economic problems. In the background is the fact that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent months ago boasted that US policies and sanctions engineered a currency collapse in hopes that the January economic protests would topple the regime.

This never materialized and now people in the Trump administration seem perplexed. Rubio continued the blame-game while suggesting that if Tehran were to play ball on negotiating a deal for the Hormuz Strait, it could receive major economic benefits. “Iran can be the richest country in the Middle East if they wanted to be. But instead, they take their money, and they use it and they give it to Hezbollah. They give it to Hamas. They give it to the Houthis. They give it to Shia militias. They give it to sponsored terrorism all over the world,” he said.

Iran “will pay a very heavy price for the things they are doing. They are already paying a heavy price,” he said. Rubio also responded to recent statements of the Iranians talking about exacting “an eye for an eye” in terms of military approach. The US top diplomat then asserted that President Trump’s approach was “a head for an eye”. He described that currently Iran’s military-industrial base is being “decimated” – suffering “billions” of dollars” in damage. This as…

The US bombs Iran for the 12th consecutive night, killing at least two people and wounding 11 others in an attack on the Shalamcheh border crossing with Iraq. Jordan, Bahrain and Kuwait have reported retaliatory missile and drone attacks from Iran. But what’s happening in the Red Sea right now does suggest that the Iranians have more cards to play. Their allies, the Houthis of Yemen, have initiated closure of the Bab al-Mandab Strait to all Saudi shipping. At least two vessels were attacked, with unconfirmed but widely circulating video showing one on fire and in distress:

Read more …

War is spreading.

• Houthis Threaten Saudi Aramco (ZH)

After the Iranian-aligned Houthis confirmed they struck two Saudi oil tankers as part of a naval blockade on Saudi Arabia, as a second chokepoint on global oil supplies opens alongside the Strait of Hormuz, on Thursday the Shia militant group is now openly threatening Aramco facilities inside the kingdom… or at least some unnamed officials are telling regional media. The Houthis have characterized their campaign as “a blockade for a blockade,” saying it is intended to pressure Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have already been blockading Houthis controlled-ports in Yemen for years, which hearkens back to a Gulf vs. Houthi chiefly aerial war that opened in 2015.


The group is threatening to carry on with attacks even if Saudi vessels seek to avoid the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. US regional allies are currently scrambling to establish alternative energy shipping routes that avoids the Strait of Hormuz chokepoint.Al Jazeera has cited unnamed Houthis sources who say that Saudi Arabia’s Aramco oil facilities could be next:”The ship, confirmed by both the Houthis and British maritime organisations, was struck on its top deck, which caught fire – a less severe outcome than a hull strike, which typically causes a vessel to sink. The Houthis claim both ships were hit, though British monitors say the second tanker made a U-turn and redirected toward the Suez Canal.

At least 10 vessels attempting to cross Bab el-Mandeb strait have been forced to reroute towards the Suez Canal instead, facing a much longer journey around Africa via the Cape of Good Hope. The two targeted vessels had been heading to India and China.The Houthis describe the campaign as “a blockade for a blockade”, warning that Saudi Arabia must lift its blockade on Yemen or face further consequences. Houthi officials say they plan to escalate operations to target Saudi oil tankers and ships even when not crossing Bab el-Mandeb – meaning vessels rerouting via the Suez Canal could still be at risk.

Houthi sources also say Aramco oil facilities could become a future target if the blockade on Yemen is not lifted.” The Houthis have until this week largely remained on the sidelines of the US-Israel war on Iran, but are now clearly ratcheting their involvement, helping Tehran with keeping leverage over global oil shipping. It was in March of 2022 that the last major strike on Saudi Aramco facilities was reported. Prior to that, 2019 saw the major Abqaiq–Khurais attack.

However, which group was ultimately behind some of those past, historic attacks remained somewhat of a mystery, also amid speculation that it could have been pro-Iranian groups out of Iraq. This as Brent Crude has on Thursday returned to the $100 per barrel mark.

Read more …

“The only reason they “negotiated” over the past few months was to give themselves breathing space ..”

• There Are Only Two Possible Endgames for Iran (A.j. Christopher)

“The strikes are designed to further degrade…” This is the copy-and-paste headline I’ve read for the past week about Iran. We’re degrading their radar, we’re degrading their naval capabilities, we’re degrading their ability to disrupt shipping. That’s all fine and dandy, but we need to “further degrade” a lot more. And we need to “further degrade” from the top down, not the bottom up. The Iran War ends one of three ways:


Option A: The Iranian regime is toppled, its leaders killed or forced to flee, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is completely dismantled. Whatever government arises from the ashes is friendly to the West, or at least not openly hostile.

Option B: We eventually tire of the cat-and-mouse game, pack up our military, and go home. The status quo reasserts itself, albeit with an Iranian regime that can claim it defeated the Great Satan. We accept another 47 years of the same, though Iran will have acquired a nuclear weapon well within that timeframe.

Option C: We pound the current regime into compliance. They finally agree to give up their pursuit of nukes, reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and cease funding regional terrorism. And I have bad news for those banking on Option C. That option doesn’t exist. For anybody not whistling past the graveyard, it should be abundantly obvious at this point that the IRGC thugs and their cardboard cutout mullahs have absolutely no intention of ending the jihad so long as their bodies draw breath. The only reason they “negotiated” over the past few months was to give themselves breathing space from which to resume their headlong rush.

President Donald Trump is keeping the “negotiations” door open while bombing them nightly, in a Hail Mary attempt to get them to come to the table in good faith. But we all know where that route leads, i.e., another few months of fruitless talks that will lead us to the same dead end, all the while Iran continues to lob missiles at our allies and attack shipping. I know it. You know it. President Trump knows it.

In 1941, our government did what needed to be done. And the American people supported our government and the troops to the best of their abilities. They cut back on meat and bread. They planted victory gardens. They bought Victory Bonds to help fund the campaign. The men answered the draft. The women headed off to the factories to replace the men. And nobody whined. And this was on the tail end of the Great Depression.

Nowadays? GAS PRICES ARE TOO HIGH!!! MY LIFE IS INCONVENIENCED BECAUSE GAS PRICES ARE TOO HIGH!!! I DEMAND THE GOVERNMENT DO SOMETHING ABOUT GAS PRICES SO I CAN GET BACK TO STARING AT MY iPhone 24/7!!! Imagine what the “resolve” of the American public will be 47 years from now.

At this point, President Trump has little choice but to follow through with Option A. He is a master negotiator and has been able to maneuver his way around roadblocks that would have paralyzed other presidents. But sometimes the forces of history box you in and narrow your path. His best path forward is to topple the regime and deal with whatever replaces it. And he needs to explain this to the American people, some of whom openly root against us, and others who still fail to grasp both the severity of the situation and the rare opportunities it presents. The 2026 midterms will not define Trump’s legacy. His handling of Iran will.

The biggest mistake we can make at this point is if the Iranian leaders stop firing missiles for a couple of days and express interest in restarting talks, and our government takes the bait, immediately stops the current bombardment, and winds up in exactly the same place we are today, but a week before the midterms.Option B means the can is kicked down the road. Option B means our kids get to deal with nuclear-armed ayatollahs who never let something so trivial as a sense of self-preservation deter them.

Option B means that, when that happens, we run the risk of it happening during a Democrat administration which, at best, will do nothing but make laughably empty threats (think Biden) or, at worst, openly side with the ayatollahs (think Obama). But hey, at least we’ll be able to tell our kids that the price of gas came down in the fall of 2026, right?

Read more …

Lawfare casts long shadows.

• Jim Jordan Refers Jack Smith to DOJ for Prosecution (Bryan S. Jung)

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has formally referred former Special Counsel Jack Smith to the Department of Justice for possible criminal prosecution, alleging that Smith made false statements under oath to Congress about the scope of his investigation into President Donald Trump. According to Fox News, in a July 22 letter to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Jordan alleges that Smith intentionally misled the House Judiciary Committee during a December 2025 deposition by testifying that his office obtained only telephone toll records and did not seek or review the contents of lawmakers’ text messages.


Jordan contends newly released records contradict that testimony and amount to obstruction of Congress. “All individuals have an obligation to comply with a duly authorized congressional inquiry. Mr. Smith is no different,” Jordan writes, accusing the former special counsel of making “intentionally false statements” designed to impede congressional oversight. The referral follows the release of documents by Republican Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, who says Smith’s investigative team accessed and reviewed text messages involving 44 members of Congress from both political parties, along with current and former Trump administration officials, during an investigation known as “Operation Arctic Frost.”

Grassley also alleges investigators viewed some communications before a Justice Department “filter team” completed its privilege review, raising concerns about compliance with procedures intended to protect privileged information. During his December deposition, Smith testified that his office sought telephone toll records containing historical routing information — including call numbers, dates, times and durations — but not the contents of calls or text messages. Republicans argue the newly released records show Smith’s team obtained and reviewed message content, directly contradicting his sworn testimony.

The Justice Department confirms receipt of Jordan’s criminal referral and says it will investigate any evidence of criminal conduct. No criminal charges have been filed, and the referral itself does not constitute a criminal prosecution. Smith denies wrongdoing.

Last week, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) told Fox News’ Sean Hannity that Smith should be “prosecuted.” “What did he do with the text messages? We don’t know that yet. What we do know is he absolutely read them. He absolutely shared them with members of his team and all of that illegally,” Hawley alleged. “The Justice Department requires that there be screening for any members of Congress [regarding] their text messages. Jack Smith said under oath that he didn’t seek the text messages of members of Congress, but in fact, we know that he did. So he lied, he violated the law, he violated the Constitution. This guy ought to be prosecuted.”

Democratic House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin condemns the referral as “baseless and vindictive,” arguing Republicans misrepresent Smith’s testimony. Raskin says committee investigators never specifically questioned Smith about presidential records or members’ text messages during more than 13 hours of testimony and maintains Smith truthfully answered the questions that were asked regarding telephone toll records rather than message content.

The referral marks the latest escalation in congressional Republicans’ scrutiny of Smith. In November 2025, Jordan separately referred Smith’s former deputy, Thomas Windom, to the Justice Department for alleged obstruction of Congress. Jordan told then-Attorney General Pam Bondi that “Congress cannot perform its oversight function if witnesses who appear before its committees corruptly refuse to provide information that the law requires them to furnish. The obstruction of a committee investigation undermines Congress’s core constitutional oversight obligations.”

Jordan’s latest referral asks the Justice Department to determine whether Smith’s testimony warrants prosecution for perjury or making false statements before Congress.

Read more …

After 10 years of anti-Trump, it becomes normal.

• Judge Boasberg Under Renewed Scrutiny Over Unilateral Actions (Turley)

Chief Judge James Boasberg is frustrated … and he is not alone. Recently, the D.C. federal judge reportedly “groused” that the D.C. appellate court had ordered him to reconsider a case about whether the D.C. government engaged in biased enforcement against political graffiti. Conversely, the litigants are equally irked over what they see as Boasberg’s bias after he responded by, again, dismissing their claims without a trial.


For a second time, Boasberg has barred pro-life groups from access to a jury after members were arrested for writing in chalk “Black Pre-Born Lives Matter” on a sidewalk while Black Lives Matter writings were left untouched. I wrote earlier about the emerging body of “Boasberg’s Law,” cases in which the judge has increasingly shown an untethered and expansive view of his own authority. Recently, Boasberg was found to have committed an “abuse of discretion” in twice finding that the Trump Administration was in contempt of court for failing to turn around deportation flights.

My disagreements with Boasberg are not over the underlying issues, but rather the court’s rejection of basic limits on its own authority. While chastising President Trump for exceeding his authority, Boasberg has been reversed for exceeding his own. In the earlier case, Boasberg dismissed grand jury subpoenas in the probe of Fed Chair Jerome Powell. I have been critical of that probe, but Boasberg’s refusal to allow the subpoenas to be executed was based on an opinion that was rife with open hostility for President Trump, dubious sources, and biased observations.

I have similar reservations in this latest case. During the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, streets in Washington were covered with BLM graffiti and the police watched as protesters wrote slogans and slurs on stores, streets, and sidewalks. The government itself even commissioned a massive painting of the message on a street near the White House.However, when Frederick Douglass Foundation and Students for Life of America wrote their pro-life version of the slogan, they were immediately arrested and the chalk protest removed.

The D.C. Circuit’s reversal of Boasberg in the case was a major victory for free speech. Boasberg had applied the wrong standard to kill the case, holding that the group could not challenge the selective enforcement of the laws. In reaching that conclusion, Boasberg applied the wrong standard, imposing the heavy burden of proving that the city was engaged in “invidious enforcement.” While that standard was used correctly to dismiss an equal protection claim, it is not the standard for a free speech challenge. The Court did not hide its dissatisfaction with the thrust of Boasberg’s opinion in dismissing the First Amendment claim:

“The First Amendment prohibits government discrimination on the basis of viewpoint. ‘To permit one side … to have a monopoly in expressing its views … is the antithesis of constitutional guarantees.’ The protection for freedom of speech applies not only to legislation, but also to enforcement of the laws.”The appellate court sent the case back to Boasberg with the opportunity to apply the correct standard and to create a substantive record before issuing a ruling on the free speech claim.

Boasberg took the case and ruled again that the groups would not be allowed a trial. The new dismissal was issued despite the standard that, in seeking such a dismissal before a trial, the court must accept all material facts in favor of the nonmoving party or, in this case, the pro-life and pro-free speech litigants. Boasberg rejected the factual claim that they were “similarly situated” to the BLM protesters. The litigants presented the results of discovery on the point, but Boasberg dismissed the claim on his own subjective view of the evidence. They have now filed again with the appellate court to appeal his order.

Some of Boasberg’s factual findings are baffling. For example, he maintains that the groups did not show that MPD officers “even witnessed any specific defacement during [Black Lives Matter] protests.” However, the groups presented such evidence as bodycam video of officers watching as a protester spray-painted ‘I can’t breathe’ on the street near the White House two weeks after the arrests of the pro-life protesters. They submitted other video evidence of officers watching protesters spray-painting BLM messages outside of the Department of Justice.

Moreover, they presented what they claimed is guidance from Assistant Chief of Police Jeffery Carroll, in charge of the Metropolitan Police Department’s Special Operations Division, in the application of different treatment for graffiti. Carroll reportedly admitted to being “present” at BLM protests featuring “defacement” of property, public and private and Lt. Jason Bagshaw admitted that he also saw defacement “related to” BLM protests. This does not mean that a jury would rule for these litigants but rather that court cannot substitute its judgment for a jury when a credible and supported claim has been made by litigants.

Boasberg declares that no such credible evidence was presented. The fact is that a reasonable jury could conclude that there was a different treatment shown in the enforcement of these laws based on the content of the speech. The biased enforcement of laws is a common reality in other countries where courts enable such selective enforcement. In countries such as Iran and China, no level of evidence is sufficient to overcome the bias of courts in showing a preference for one side.

Judge Boasberg has had a distinguished career that is now being undone by a lack of restraint in these decisions. Again, I believe that the judge has been on solid ground in some of these conflicts, including criticizing the use of “intemperate and disrespectful” language in filings and demanding compliance with his orders. However, while Chief Judge Boasberg has described the President’s claim of expansive powers as “awfully frightening,” the same can be said about a judge who substitutes his own judgment for juries and disregards legal standards for disfavored groups.

Read more …

DSA = Democratic Socialists of America = rich kids.

• DSA Think America Is Worse Than Mao Zedong (Victor Davis Hanson)

We’re hearing more and more from the Democratic Socialists of America about all of the sins of America and very little of the good things we’ve done to ourselves and to the world at large on our 250th birthday. What is it, the nature of this DSA, Democratic Socialists of America, and the diversity, equity, inclusion criticism that we were racist, sexist, nativist, cruel, ruthless, etc., etc. But my question is, compared to what? Mao Zedong? He killed 70 million people. He was the greatest mass murderer in history, and that government is still communist in an unbroken chain from [Chinese leader] Xi [Jinping] all the way back to Mao. Do we ever talk about that or the million people who are in concentration camps in China?


Compared to historically to the Aztecs? We’re told the Aztecs were great people. They had an empire, but they crushed over a million people to create their empire. Some years, they sacrificed up to 10,000, maybe 15,000 a year of conquered tribes of fellow Indigenous people. Do we remember Shaka Zulu, the 19th-century creator of the Zulu nation? He was responsible for a genocide in crushing his enemies that probably cost over a million lives. Do we really think that the Native Americans were living in paradise until Europeans came? The story of Native Americans was conquest, enslavement, butchery of rival tribes. So, what is going on?

We have a tradition in the West of self-criticism. That’s what makes us different. Rationalism, self-criticism, improvement. But when that goes to an extreme, it ventures from self-criticism and self-reflection to nihilism, and it’s quite destructive. So, let’s just take a look at where the United States is compared to the rest. Look at immigration. Why do a million people, or 2 million people, 10,000 a day under Joe Biden, from very poor countries, most of them from what we would call the former Third World that were victims of socialism, why do they risk their lives coming here every year?

Why do all these critics of the United States … [Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez], why did her parents want to come here? Why did [Rep.] Ilhan Omar’s father want to come here? Why did [Rep.] Rashida Tlaib’s father want to come here? Why did [New York City Mayor] Zohran Mamdani’s parents want to come? Was it so bad? Can’t they ever acknowledge that they came here because they had greater security, they had greater freedom, they had greater economic opportunity? And if they had criticisms, it was never enough that they wanted to go back to the places that they praised, but only from a distance and in the abstract.

The truth is that the poor in the United States are better off than most of the middle classes in every other country. We saw that in the World Cup when middle- and upper-middle-class Europeans came over, and unlike … to watch the games, and unlike most tourists, they didn’t just stick on the coasts. They went to places in Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, the South, and the Midwest. And they found two things. One, Americans were amazingly friendly and open, upbeat, not downers and drab, and everything’s terrible, which they expected from their experiences in Europe.

And more importantly, they were affluent. They had big homes. They had air conditioning. the poor had appurtenances. Everybody has a cell phone. Nobody worries about the cost, apparently. There’s also then the hypocrisy of a lot of our critics. And let me just give you an example of a few of them.

Hasan Piker is a child of very, very wealthy Turkish immigrants that became U.S. citizens. He grew up for much of his life in Turkey. He gave a talk the other day in a Mao suit to Democratic Socialists of America. Think about that. He put on the uniform, so to speak, of the greatest mass murderer in history, and then he denounced capitalism. But he didn’t denounce capitalism in his own life because his parents are multimillionaires. He is a multimillionaire, and he drives a, what? $120,000 Porsche. Isn’t that a luxury of the bourgeoisie?

And then there’s Zohran Mamdani, of course. His family, as I pointed out numerous times, was the elite of the elite of the elite in Uganda, a community of expatriates, Indians, from India that control 60% of the wealth, and they’re only 1% of the population. And he grew up in privilege here. He had a very nice home. He has a family estate on Lake Victoria, of all places. Ro Khanna, the congressman from California, he always is pointing out the evils of Republicans, and as he looks at the drift of the Democratic Party, he puts his finger in the wind, and he says socialism is the answer. Ro Khanna does.

But he’s a multimillionaire. His father-in-law is one of the wealthiest members of the Indian American community, probably worth $500 or $600 million. His own children have been deeded golf courses. His wife drives a $190,000 Range Rover, and he’s lecturing us about our shortfalls? And then, of course, we come to [California Gov.] Gavin Newsom. He wants to get in on the socialist craze, so he said the other day, as is his wont, moving his arms around and being very slick and glib, that capitalism fails. It didn’t work. It worked for you, Gavin. You have a $9 million home. You are the, basically, the quote-unquote, “protégé” of the Gordon Getty oil for- fortune, who backed all of your business opportunities.

Read more …

How do you close down the most lucrative trade in the world? Even if it’s already killed a million people?

• Wiring Kiev for war: Palantir’s Greatest Salesman (RT)

Palantir’s reported job offer to former Ukrainian Defense Minister Mikhail Fedorov demonstrates how Kiev’s defense establishment has become a recruiting pool for the Western military-industrial complex, where vibes, not results, are rewarded. Fedorov was fired by Vladimir Zelensky on July 16, ostensibly over a long-running conflict between him and the commander-in-chief of Ukraine’s armed forces, Aleksandr Syrsky. A self-styled ‘digital innovator’ and architect of Ukraine’s transition to a primarily drone-based war footing, Fedorov has since blamed his dismissal on Syrsky, an unpopular Soviet-trained general who was fired several days after Zelensky sacked Fedorov.


Immediately after his dismissal, Fedorov claimed that he had already been offered a new job. “Even tech giants have called with job offers,” he said. “Alex Karp, the head of Palantir, suggested we do something together, but I told him, ‘let’s talk about it later’.” Fedorov’s reluctance to accept Karp’s offer may have something to do with his political ambitions – it’s widely acknowledged that Zelensky sees Fedorov as a political rival who could relieve Brussels of its Kiev-corruption problem – but Karp’s offer was likely made for one reason: Mikhail Fedorov has been Palantir’s greatest salesman in Ukraine.

Fedorov first met with Karp in June of 2022, when he was still serving as Ukraine’s Minister of Digital Transformation. Palantir opened an office in Kiev shortly after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict and signed memoranda of cooperation with the country’s Defense, Digital Transformation, Economy, and Education ministries the following year.

Appointed defense minister in January of 2026, Fedorov aggressively courted Palantir, pushing its AI-powered command-and-control software at the expense of homegrown alternatives. Fedorov marketed Ukraine as “the best training ground” for contractors like Palantir, and offered the company and its competitors – including Anduril Industries, ShieldAI, and AeroVironment – tax breaks, favorable regulations, and unprecedented access to battlefield data.

By early 2026, Karp claimed that Palantir was “responsible for most of the targeting in Ukraine.” Fedorov hyped up the partnership, claiming in June that Karp “was just shocked by how we use Palantir. He was shocked by our vision, what we do and what we plan to do.” Fedorov oversaw Ukraine’s expansion of medium- and long-range strikes against Russian infrastructure, winning praise from Western media for “turning the tables” in the conflict – in the words of the Financial Times. Palantir’s software has been instrumental in “planning deep strike operations,” Fedorov said in May of 2026.

While his vision of an AI-powered, high-tech military is hugely popular in Silicon Valley boardrooms and among Ukrainian officials tired of the Russian military’s inexorable, grinding advance in Donbass, it has been questioned by Ukrainian troops and commanders. Every new wave of strikes on Russian commercial warehouses seems to invite a retaliatory storm of missiles and drones on Kiev, and frontline troops told Ukrainska Pravda that the ‘deep strike’ campaign has had no measurable impact on the progress of the conflict.

“I don’t know where we seized the initiative; there was simply a wave of PR activity in some areas,” an officer operating near Donetsk told the newspaper. Even mid-range strikes (<150km) on Russian command posts have had “no effect, not a drop” on the front, an officer near Konstantinovka added. Former Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief Valery Zaluzhny has warned that deep strikes are “expensive, technologically demanding, and ultimately reciprocal. Russia retains the ability to strike back with equal or greater force and neither side can rely on this form of warfare to produce a decisive strategic outcome.”

Shortly before he was sacked from the same position, Syrsky published a lengthy article insisting that drones alone do not win wars. “You need artillery, mortars, engineering means, air defense, electronic warfare and dozens of other items,” he wrote. “You need to buy everything, not just what is currently in style.”

At least two of Fedorov’s predecessors in the defense ministry – Aleksey Reznikov and Rustem Umerov – used their positions to enrich themselves through graft and embezzlement. Corruption carries consequences, however, and both Reznikov and Umerov have been investigated for wartime profiteering. Fedorov’s de-facto lobbying for Palantir is a safer and more legal path to riches, and one that has become more popular among Ukrainian defense and military officials. They include:

All of these companies depend on contracts with the Ukrainian government – contracts that Shevchenko, Danilyuk, Honcharuk, and Matveichenko can leverage their connections to secure. For Western investors, this proximity to power amid an ongoing war represents a potential goldmine, particularly in the case of UFORCE and Trypilian. The former counts former British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace among its board members, and the latter is part owned by former British MP and minister Brooks Newmark. With the EU pouring €6 billion into Ukraine’s domestic drone industry this year alone, Honcharuk, Matveichenko, Wallace, and Newmark stand to profit handsomely.

Read more …

Plus the rest of the world…

• Why Were Americans Funding Jobs for Transgender Workers in Nepal? (David Manney)

Former HIV outreach worker and biological male Rubi Lama lost a job he’d held for nine years when U.S. funding vanished from a health program in Nepal. He tested people, counseled those at risk, and helped sex workers avoid infection. Months later, unable to find other work, he joined them along a highway outside Hetauda. Fox News:


“An Associated Press social media post about transgender aid workers in Nepal turning to sex work after losing their jobs due to U.S. foreign aid cuts sparked a wave of conservative backlash, with critics arguing the video made the case for defunding USAID rather than saving it. The AP post said that in Nepal, where “a conservative culture leaves openly transgender people with few legal job options,” around 100 LGBTQ aid workers left jobless by U.S. funding cuts had turned to sex work to survive. An accompanying video focused on Rubi Lama, a former HIV outreach worker who said USAID-funded programs had provided free condoms, lubricant and HIV-prevention medication before the cuts.

“When USAID funding was there, condoms were free, lubricant was also distributed … for free,” Lama said in the video, adding that HIV treatments, including PrEP, were also available without cost. “But, now it is gone.” The framing quickly drew criticism from conservatives who said the story raised the opposite question: why American taxpayers were funding those programs in the first place.”

His story is painful on a human scale; it also raises a question many Americans are asking: why was the United States expected to keep paying his salary?Lama worked for Friends Hetauda, part of a network connected to the Blue Diamond Society. The society received 85% of its funding from USAID, operated 20 clinics, and employed 350 people. Associated Press (cue the maudlin music):

“For nine years, Lama — who is transgender — had devoted her life to conducting HIV outreach in Nepal’s marginalized communities, including the LGBTQ+ sex workers who wait by this highway each night. But after the United States slashed its foreign aid funding last year, Lama and more than 280,000 aid workers worldwide found themselves out of a job.Much has been written about the devastating impacts the U.S. foreign aid cuts have had on the millions of people the funding once helped. Far less is known about the impacts on the helpers themselves.

In impoverished Nepal, where a conservative culture leaves openly transgender people with few legal job options, the impact on aid workers’ lives was particularly crushing. Starving and scared, Lama and around 100 other LGBTQ+ aid workers left jobless by the funding cuts have turned to sex work to survive, walking the streets alongside the very people they once fought so hard to help.”

When the money stopped, 262 employees lost their jobs, and the organization says 35% to 45% of those former workers later entered sex work.The clinics provided HIV tests, condoms, counseling, antiretroviral drugs, and PrEP. More than 1,200 clients reportedly lost access to PrEP after the shutdown. Those are real health services, and the people affected aren’t punchlines. The political reaction followed a familiar script: President Donald Trump cut foreign aid, vulnerable workers suffered, and American taxpayers were cast as villains for refusing to continue the arrangement.

Trump’s Executive Order:

Section 1. Purpose. The United States foreign aid industry and bureaucracy are not aligned with American interests and in many cases antithetical to American values. They serve to destabilize world peace by promoting ideas in foreign countries that are directly inverse to harmonious and stable relations internal to and among countries.

Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of United States that no further United States foreign assistance shall be disbursed in a manner that is not fully aligned with the foreign policy of the President of the United States.

Sec. 3. (a) 90-day pause in United States foreign development assistance for assessment of programmatic efficiencies and consistency with United States foreign policy. All department and agency heads with responsibility for United States foreign development assistance programs shall immediately pause new obligations and disbursements of development assistance funds to foreign countries and implementing non-governmental organizations, international organizations, and contractors pending reviews of such programs for programmatic efficiency and consistency with United States foreign policy, to be conducted within 90 days of this order. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) shall enforce this pause through its apportionment authority.

Critics spoke as though Washington had fired public employees in Ohio rather than ended overseas grants in Nepal.Foreign aid can serve American interests; HIV prevention can reduce disease, improve stability, and protect people who travel across borders. Compassion also has limits when one country becomes the permanent source of salaries and program funding for organizations half a world away. Nepal has a national government; it has health agencies, wealthy residents, international charities, and neighboring countries with their interest in regional health.

Fox News: “USAID later told partners to pause new funding obligations and issue stop-work orders or suspensions for existing awards, while critics have said the review led to major disruptions, staff reductions and the cancellation of critical foreign-assistance awards. But Federalist editor-in-chief Mollie Hemingway argued the AP post exposed misplaced priorities, particularly among the media, saying the outlet presented U.S. tax dollars flowing to a “trans Nepalese job protection program” as though it was a good use of public money.

Read more …

Carville on preference for voter ID: ”I guess you could say it exists, anything could exist, it exists on such a minuscule scale, and it’s been proven time and time and time again.“..

• James Carville Calls On Democrats To Cave On Voter ID (ZH)

The SAVE America Act, which would mandate proof of citizenship along with valid ID for federal elections and tighten mail-in voting rules, remains stalled in Congress due to the Democrats’ filibuster in the Senate, even though the underlying idea is among the most popular in American politics.


Gallup found 84 percent of Americans favor requiring photo identification at the polling place, and 83 percent favor proof of citizenship for first-time registrants – including 98 percent of Republicans, 84 percent of independents, and 67 percent of Democrats. Pew Research Center put photo-ID support at 83 percent, with 95 percent of Republicans and 71 percent of Democrats behind it and only 16 percent opposed. Rasmussen found 77 percent of likely voters calling photo ID a reasonable measure to protect election integrity. Thirty-six states already request or require identification for in-person voting.

As CNN’s Harry Enten put it: “The bottom line is this: Voter ID is NOT controversial in this country.” A bill with that kind of consensus isn’t controversial, yet Senate Democrats keep blocking it. Now longtime Democratic strategist James Carville is looking at those numbers and has decided his own party needs an exit ramp. On his podcast, Politics War Room, he told Democrats to stop fighting voter ID and find a way out of a fight he believes is already lost.

The trigger for the conversation was New Jersey. Carville’s co-host Al Hunt opened by noting the right had seized on Gov. Mikie Sherrill’s disclosure that roughly 6,600 noncitizens were registered to vote in the state, fewer than 400 of whom cast ballots. “Voter fraud in the United States is an infinitesimal problem,” Carville said. “I don’t even… to the extent, I guess you could say it exists, anything could exist, it exists on such a minuscule scale, and it’s been proven time and time and time again.”

That is where most Democrats stop – the problem is too small to bother with. Carville kept going. “But I don’t know if we’re not better off saying, okay, we’ll take that alternative ID, bring your gas bill or your light bill or something,” he said. “Because for whatever reason, it polls at 75%.” He pointed to his home state of Louisiana, where voters already have to show a driver’s license at the polls, and asked why the national party keeps treating that standard as an emergency. A rule allowing alternative documents such as a gas or electric bill still polls at 75 percent – a number that should give pause to a party that has spent a decade calling identification requirements a modern poll tax.

“We are not gonna win the war” on some kind of ID, Carville said. “I never had a problem with it. I’m just saying of all the things… if every poll shows 75 or better, saying we should have some kind of ID to vote… just quit fighting it and go along with it and move to the next thing.”Hunt pushed back, arguing that most states already have ID requirements and criticizing the SAVE America Act directly. Carville was quick to draw the same line. “I’m not talking about the SAVE Act, I’m not talking about the SAVE Act at all,” he said. His proposal was narrower: “Whatever the law in Louisiana is, make it the national law.”

It is worth being precise about what the New Jersey episode actually was, because it is not quite the case for the policy Carville is conceding. Those 6,600 people had pressed “no” when a Motor Vehicle Commission keypad asked whether they were U.S. citizens, and a software defect registered them anyway. They held valid state identification – that is why they were at the MVC. An ID check at the polling place catches someone voting under another person’s name. It does not catch a state agency overriding what an applicant told it.

Which is rather the point of Carville’s argument. He is not claiming voter ID would fix anything. He is saying it costs Democrats nothing and they are losing the fight anyway – that a party cannot win by declaring war on a basic expectation shared by nearly every voting bloc, and that the energy would be better spent on arguments it can win. The concession is notable coming from this particular program. Politics War Room has hosted the Brennan Center’s Michael Waldman to argue that widespread voter fraud is a myth and to pick apart the SAVE Act. Carville still believes the first part. He has simply stopped believing it matters.

Read more …

I get the sentiment, but do realize the Odyssey is Greek mythology, not a history document.

Why do we want Helen of Troy to have pale skin? Did Homer explicitly give her that?

• Elon Vows AI-Made ‘Odyssey’ After Blasting Nolan’s Take on Homer (AmG)

Elon Musk says he’ll beat Hollywood at its own game, pledging that his artificial intelligence venture will produce a full-length film of Homer’s “The Odyssey” by year’s end, one he insists will stay faithful to the ancient text in a way Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation has not. Musk, believed to be the first trillionaire in modern history, unveiled the project Tuesday evening on X, posting AI-generated footage from Grok Imagine depicting a scene from the epic poem. “Before this year ends, Grok Imagine will make a full-length movie of ‘The Odyssey’ that is historically accurate and true to the art of Homer,” he wrote, offering no further details on production, casting or distribution.


In a follow-up post, Musk said he was “down” with a fan’s pitch to instead hand the project to actor and director Mel Gibson, backed by $100 million, to produce “an Odyssey adaptation with painstakingly historically accurate ships, armour, weapons and casting, with all dialogue taken straight from the original poem and delivered in Homeric Greek.”The announcement is the latest salvo in Musk’s long-running feud with Nolan’s “The Odyssey,” a Matt Damon-led adaptation Musk has criticized repeatedly over its casting choices. In January, Musk wrote that “Chris Nolan lost his integrity,” responding to a post that called the film “an insult to the author” over the casting of Lupita Nyong’o as Helen of Troy.

In May, after conservative commentator Matt Walsh suggested Nolan cast Nyong’o only to avoid being labeled “racist,” Musk replied with a single word: “True.” Musk’s criticism hasn’t dented the film’s commercial performance, however. The R-rated, three-hour epic pulled in a $120 million opening weekend, according to Breitbart News, far exceeding pre-release industry projections of $80 million to $90 million.

Read more …

Maybe this realization will help keep down costs as well. You don’t need your Lamborghini to do groceries..

• Cheap AI Models are a Game-Changer (MKTCONTEXT)

Last week, Chinese startup Moonshot AI released one of the largest AI models ever built. Within 24 hours, the model “Kimi-K3” climbed to the top of the leaderboard for coding, beating Anthropic and OpenAI:


The announcement reminds us of DeepSeek’s entrance back in Feb 2025. The combination of cutting-edge capabilities, aggressive pricing, and open distribution is threatening the US players. Moonshot doesn’t need to be the best; only close enough, cheap enough, and accessible enough to make customers question why they are paying several times more for American systems.K3 itself is a marvel of AI engineering. It is efficient in routing queries to specific parts of the model, allowing enormous scale without the full computation cost. It supports a context window of 1M tokens for input, enough to analyze a large codebase or document collection. This underscores just how rapidly China’s AI developers are closing the gap with US rivals.

What do we make of this announcement? Investors will be more concerned about this than DeepSeek. Given the industry’s unprecedented spending spree, they need every dollar of revenue to justify the capital spending. Competition and substitutes erode the ROI of that spending. It is only a matter of time before Trump bans the use of Chinese AI models on the basis of national security concerns (feeding inputs to state actors and such). This will further strain an already-frail trade relationship between the US and China, potentially sparking Trade War 3.0.

Cheap Models are a Game Changer It’s worth asking why cheap models like Kimi-K3 are so impactful to the AI discussion. Companies are racking up massive expenses from their employees’ AI usage. Rather than capping usage (which hampers productivity), CEOs are trying to be more efficient with tokens. In practice, this means routing routine tasks to cheaper, open-source models like DeepSeek, Qwen, Kimi, and Llama. Only the genuinely hard queries get escalated to expensive frontier models. This chart shows just how much open-source models have grown:

As a direct result, token usage continues to skyrocket (black line) but the cost of those tokens are collapsing (colored bars):

The vast majority of the world’s AI workloads can be done by cheaper, open-sourced models which don’t rely on expensive compute from Nvidia. The essence of commoditization. This is bad news for the frontier model makers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta) but great news for hyperscalers because even lagging models need to run on someone’s data centers. The cloud providers (Microsoft, Google, Amazon) provide that infrastructure.

Remember, cheap tokens don’t shrink usage. It proliferates it. That means more revenues for the cloud providers that help enterprises deploy AI widely. This realization is why Mag 7 stocks have moved opposite of the broader AI sector.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle April 15 2026

Apr 152026
 
 April 15, 2026  Posted by at 9:25 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , ,  74 Responses »


Thomas Cole The Course of Empire – Destruction 1836


• Over 20 US-Approved Ships Pass Through Hormuz (ZH)
• U.S. Says Israel and Lebanon Agree to More Peace Talks (New York Times)
• The Money in the Background of the Iran Conflict (CTH)
• Blood, Money, and The Trump Dynasty – Iran Shows How To Fight (Helmer)
• All in All, It’s Just Another Brick in the Wall Around China (Stephen Green)
• Appeals Court Terminates Criminal Contempt Proceedings Against Trump Admin (ET)
• FBI “Is Reviewing Closely New Allegations On Ukraine Impeachment Accuser” (JTN)
• Johnny Didn’t Bark – But Tulsi Did (CTH)
• Irish Patriots are Fighting Back (J.B. Shurk)
• Eric Swalwell and the Fall of a Made Man (Turley)
• Mamdani Pledges to Open First City-Run Store (Tuirley)
• American Pope Leo Has a Massive Case of TDS (Rick Moran)
• ‘Unwavering Commitment’ to Fight Hatred (Salgado)
• Remembering the Faith of Lincoln on the Anniversary of His Death (Tom Griffin)

 


 

https://twitter.com/_Postive_Vibes/status/2043732003951129020?s=20 https://twitter.com/ColorApril/status/2043807069581537616?s=20

 


 


I was looking for coverage of why the US insists on a 20-year moratorium, and sees 5 years as too little.

When Trump said he wanted 100% (Jeffrey Sachs didn’t get it), this is what he meant.

“..such a timeframe is necessary to permanently limit Iran’s nuclear capabilities.”

• Over 20 US-Approved Ships Pass Through Hormuz (ZH)

5-Years vs. 20-Year Nuclear Moratorium


More info and color has been added in the wake of failed talks between the US and Iran in Pakistan, per The New York Times citing officials from both countries. Iran signaled Monday it would halt uranium enrichment for up to five years. The Trump administration rejected the offer, according to two senior Iranian officials and one US official who spoke to the Times. The US position, shaped in part by Vice President JD Vance, calls for a roughly 20-year suspension. Vance has argued such a timeframe is necessary to permanently limit Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

“The Iranians, in a formal response sent on Monday, said they would agree to up to five years, according to two senior Iranian officials and one U.S. official. Trump has rejected that offer, the U.S. official said,” writes NY Times. “The official said the U.S. has also asked Iran to remove highly enriched uranium from the country, and the Iranians have insisted the fuel stays inside Iran. But they have offered to dilute it significantly, so that it could not be used to produce a nuclear weapon,” the report adds.

Read more …

Bits and pieces.

• U.S. Says Israel and Lebanon Agree to More Peace Talks (New York Times)

President Trump reiterated that Iran wanted to negotiate a deal, telling Maria Bartiromo of Fox News that the war was near its end. “I think it’s close to over, yeah, I mean I view it as very close to over,” he said when asked if the war had ended, speaking in a clip from the interview posted on Tuesday night. The president has previously indicated that the war was ending. In his address to the nation on April 1, he estimated that it should wind down within three weeks. His interview with Bartiromo is scheduled to air on the Fox Business channel on Wednesday morning.


[..] The U.S. military has completely stopped commercial traffic to and from Iranian ports, Adm. Brad Cooper, the Central Command leader, said late Tuesday. The blockade began on Monday but trackers showed several Iranian-linked vessels traveling through the Strait of Hormuz after that. It was unclear if those ships departed within a grace period. Intelligence experts have also observed ships using tactics to avoid detection in waters in and around the strait.

… uptick in ‘spoofing’ by ships near the Strait of Hormuz.
[..] Maritime intelligence experts are starting to see a new pattern of “shadow” activity in waters in and around the Strait of Hormuz since the United States naval blockade on vessels coming in and out of Iranian ports went into effect on Monday, suggesting that more ships seem to be adopting tactics to avoid detection than during the previous weeks of war.“Now, we are starting to see vessels going dark or using ‘zombie’ or random identification,” said Ami Daniel, the chief executive of Windward, a maritime intelligence data provider, in an interview on Tuesday.

In the weeks after the American-Israeli attack on Iran in late February, Iranian exports went “uninterrupted” and had “almost no need to go off radar,” Mr. Daniel said. But in the past 24 hours, more ships appear to be manipulating the global system intended to keep tabs on vessel activity and traffic, suggesting that some vessels linked to Iran are being “a bit more cautious,” he said. Under international maritime law, most large commercial vessels must travel with a transponder that automatically transmits the ship’s name, location, route and other identifying information. That includes a 9-digit number with a country code, which serves as a digital fingerprint for a ship.

Vessels in Middle Eastern waters that are now trying to hide their location or are otherwise falsifying information are employing methods that have been perfected by Russian “shadow fleet” vessels evading sanctions related to the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, some experts say. “Shadow fleet tankers have been experimenting with stateless ID numbers,” said John C.K. Daly, a nonresident fellow at the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute in Washington who has been tracking Russian shadow ships. “What the Russians have been doing is altering the numbers.”

When a ship is engaged in “spoofing,” as the practice is known, its captain can type in a false origin or destination or can pretend to be piloting another ship altogether. Vessels can also temporarily turn off their transponders, seeming to disappear in one place and reappear in another, sometimes with altered data. This approach has enabled Russia to keep up its energy exports and finance its war, generating up to $100 billion a year. It appears that vessels linked to Iran are using similar methods now, experts say. Some ships have gone dark, while sanctioned and falsely flagged vessels seem to still be active, a Windward report on Tuesday noted.

“Under previous enforcement frameworks, including the December blockade of Venezuela, sanctioned and stateless tankers were primary targets for interdiction,” the report said. “The continued movement of similar vessel profiles indicates that operators are testing the practical limits of enforcement in real time.” By manipulating the global system meant to illuminate ship movements, so-called ghost or shadow vessels may compound confusion about the state of the Strait of Hormuz, even if in the end they cannot breach the American blockade.

“Right now, the strait is a contested information environment,” said Erik Bethel, a partner at Mare Liberum, a maritime technology venture capital fund. Detection-avoidance tricksmay make it harder for the Navy to identify boats for interdiction. “A blockade is only as strong as the intelligence behind the interdictions,” Mr. Bethel said.The maritime system is complex. A vessel may be owned by one country, leased to another and travel under a third country’s flag of convenience, Mr. Bethel said. That makes determining who is truly behind any given journey a “really hard thing to do.”

Maritime intelligence companies and militaries use an array of sources to stitch together information about vessels, including optical satellites, radar satellites and radio frequencies. They also collect information being transmitted by sailors, sometimes unwittingly, through their own personal technology, like Fitbits and cellphones. Still, whatever ruses they employ, vessels off Iran might only get so far. It is difficult to get out to the open ocean via a waterway as narrow as the Strait of Hormuz without being detected.

A U.S. official said that more than 12 American military vessels were stationed in international waters in the Gulf of Oman. And on Tuesday, United States Central Command said that six merchant vessels had complied with directions by radio from U.S. forces to turn around and re-enter Iranian ports. “My expectation is that the U.S. Navy can sit out in the Gulf of Oman,” Mr. Daniel of Windward said. “I don’t think there’s a way to breach the blockade.”

Read more …

“.. Trump has forced a hidden imperial system into the open “

• The Money in the Background of the Iran Conflict (CTH)

Promethean Action Follows the Money in the Background of the Iran Conflict. A generally good summary into some of the financial issues happening in the background of the dire Straits of Hormuz. Susan Kokinda highlights UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer declining to join an American blockade and claims Britain has lost control of the choke point. She details financial actions targeting Iranian money flows, including UAE arrests of IRGC-linked money changers, Treasury Secretary Bessent using Patriot Act Section 311 against a Zurich bank, and scrutiny of London-based crypto exchanges and Santander UK. She cites a UK military chief admitting Britain’s war planning has lapsed since the Cold War and links fuel disruptions and protests to the conflict, concluding Trump has forced a hidden imperial system into the open.


Trump Names the Hidden War — Britain Has No Cards Left

Read more …

Helmer lost track too. Iran has nothing left to fight with.

• Blood, Money, and The Trump Dynasty – Iran Shows How To Fight (Helmer)

In the world in which President Donald Trump plans his future and the presidential dynasty of his sons to succeed him, the gunman believes he can take away both lives and bribes. Unless the victim catches him by surprise, outgunning him and those of his allies who have paid the price of his protection. It’s blood for money. This is the new stage of Iran’s war. It is the stage which the Iranian and pro-Iranian post-mortem analyses of the Islamabad negotiations have not disclosed; the stage which the US and Israeli propaganda organs cannot comprehend; the stage which the Trump dynasty’s rivals are afraid of, Vice President JD Vance in front.


This stage of Iran’s war is also an example to President Vladimir Putin and President Xi Jinping of the futility of paying bribes, as their advisors tell them; and the vulnerability of Trump and his sons to political defeat at home. [..] In the Iranian account of the Islamabad negotiations, there was initial progress in the expert-level negotiations on release of Iranian assets and relief of trade and financial transfer sanctions. No detail has leaked or been disclosed officially by either side. The Iranian negotiator was Central Bank Governor, Naser Hemati. The Iranian pre-conditions – an Israeli ceasefire in Lebanon and release of Iranian assets blocked in Qatar – were partly fulfilled, partly glossed over.

A US attempt to send two destroyers into the Hormuz Strait boomeranged as a test of the IRGC’s readiness to open fire, and the vessels reversed course. However, when the talks reached the level of the principals – Vice President JD Vance, Steven Witkoff, Jared Kushner for the US; Mohammad Bakr (Bagher) Ghalibaf, Abbas Araghchi, Ali Akbar Ahmadian, and Ali Bagheri Kani – the US side added new deal-breaking conditons, according to the account of Mohammed Marandi, one of the Iranian delegation’s official spokesmen. The first of these was Iran’s agreement to give up its entire civilian nuclear programme, not only its nuclear material enrichment capacities and stockpiles; the second was a US half-share in the Hormuz Strait regime tolls. Neither of these proposals was included in the 15-point plan sent by the US to Iran through Pakistan in the run-up to the ceasefire announcement of April 8.

According to the Israeli-American outlet Axios, “the U.S. proposed that Iran accept a 20-year moratorium on uranium enrichment during negotiations in Islamabad over the weekend, according to a U.S. official and a source with knowledge.” The second source was Israeli. There has been no Iranian confirmation.

Several US moves were also unexpected, according to Marandi. Vance had interrupted the negotiations to make repeated telephone calls to Washington, including one — the Iranian delegation claims — to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Vance has acknowledged in his brief press appearance at the conclusion that he had made calls “half a dozen times, a dozen times”. In the Iranian interpretation, Vance did not have a clear negotiating mandate for the negotiations, and lacked personal authority.

Read more …

MDCP= Major Defense Cooperation Partnership

• All in All, It’s Just Another Brick in the Wall Around China (Stephen Green)

Last year, Chinese Communist Party boss Xi Jinping played the rare earths card, forcing President Donald Trump to slow his roll on decoupling from the Middle Kingdom. This year, Trump played the oil card against China — first in Venezuela, then in Iran — and he just slapped it on the table again in Indonesia. Their summit in Beijing next month already promised to be interesting, with the U.S. enjoying significant leverage over Venezuela, Iran in tatters, and the U.S. Navy taking charge of the Strait of Hormuz. Until very recently, both countries served as Beijing’s reliable sources of discounted oil. Today, Xi might ask, “Et tu, Indonesia?” If he spoke Latin, that is.


It might have seemed like one of those dry, bureaucratic, almost meaningless announcements on Monday, when War Secretary Pete Hegseth posted on X that the U.S. and Indonesia “are elevating our relationship to a Major Defense Cooperation Partnership.” According to a joint statement, the partnership covers “military modernization and capacity building,” “training and professional military education,” “exercises and operational cooperation,” and I can hear you snoring already.But a Major Defense Cooperation Partnership is kind of a big deal — and it’s aimed directly at China’s oil imports. China’s difficulties begin in the Strait of Hormuz, but they peak at Malacca.

Nearly two-thirds of China’s imports — largely the raw materials that keep its export machine humming — and a whopping 80% of its energy imports pass through Indonesia’s Strait of Malacca. But that hardly means Beijing minds its manners around its southern neighbor. While the two countries maintain a close strategic partnership, there are also persistent strains, particularly around Beijing’s claims in the South China Sea, Chinese fishing boat fleets intruding on Indonesian waters, resulting in naval tensions, and ongoing trade disputes. And here comes Washington — with no territorial ambitions and no invading fishing fleets — with an MDCP.

And Another Thing: Honestly, China is now so powerful and aggressive that its neighbors ought to be attracted to Washington like iron filings to a magnet. It took significant displays of American weakness and dithering — thanks, Obama and Biden! — for countries like Indonesia to have fallen even partly into China’s orbit in the first place.

An MDCP usually means regular joint military exercises, interoperability training, and streamlined access to U.S. weapons systems. In other words, even though an MDCP is less than a formal military alliance, it allows the U.S. and its partners to effectively act as allies, should the need arise. The MDCP with Indonesia, just announced by Hegseth, even includes military overflight access.= Unlike NATO, there’s no Article Five-type guarantee requiring us to come to Indonesia’s defense, but should the need arise to act against China, our two militaries ought to have enough familiarity with one another to make it work.

In response to Trump’s tariffs last year, Beijing used its control over the majority of rare earth processing to get a better deal. But rare earths aren’t actually all that rare, and the U.S. sits on major deposits. Our problem is that we outsourced the processing to China. We’re working to correct that mistake. When Trump and Xi meet in May, the balance between our two countries will have shifted significantly in our favor since 2025. Seen that way, our new defense partnership with Indonesia is just another brick in Trump’s Great Wall Around China.

Read more …

BIG ruling against Boasberg et al.

• Appeals Court Terminates Criminal Contempt Proceedings Against Trump Admin (ET)

An appeals court has put a stop to criminal contempt proceedings initiated by a district judge against the Trump administration. In a brief, unsigned order on April 14, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated a previous order by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, and ordered him to terminate the contempt investigation he launched in December. The contempt proceedings stemmed from the deportation of illegal immigrants—suspected gang members—to El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT, last year. Boasberg had ordered planes carrying those detainees halted and turned around, but the men were sent to El Salvador anyway.


The Trump administration had appealed Boasberg’s order all the way to the Supreme Court, which overturned his ruling. Despite that, Boasberg tried to hold members of the administration in contempt of his order unless they returned the suspected gang members to the United States. The appeals court blocked that move by vacating Boasberg’s first contempt order, but he decided to move ahead with a contempt investigation in November. “Undeterred, the district court is proceeding with criminal contempt for the government’s decision to transfer the plaintiffs to the custody of El Salvador,” the Appeals Court’s opinion reads.

Read more …

“.. the so-called whistleblower behind the 2019 impeachment singled out Director Patel by name, relied on hearsay, submitted false claims, and had documented political bias — all of which was hidden from the American people..”

• FBI “Is Reviewing Closely New Allegations On Ukraine Impeachment Accuser” (JTN)

The FBI said Monday night that it is “closely” reviewing newly declassified memos showing the intelligence community kept secret for years evidence raising questions about the credibility and bias of the main accuser in President Donald Trump’s 2019 impeachment case. “The declassified impeachment memos show the so-called whistleblower behind the 2019 impeachment singled out Director Patel by name, relied on hearsay, submitted false claims, and had documented political bias — all of which was hidden from the American people,” FBI spokesman Ben Williamson wrote on his X account.


“This is the same playbook used during the Russia collusion hoax — which Director Patel exposed. The FBI has previously been reviewing these revelations closely and will continue to do so,” he added. The FBI was one of several agencies to react to a story Sunday night by Just the News that revealed the CIA analyst who alleged wrongdoing by Trump involving Ukraine policy was flagged for the “potential for bias,” had lied to investigators about a key fact and only had hearsay evidence to back his claims.

That evidence was kept from Trump’s impeachment proceedings by ex-Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said Monday. Gabbard accused the former watchdog of “weaponizing” the whistle-blower process to hurt Trump. The alleged whistleblower’s name was redacted from the newly declassified memos but has been identified in some media reports as retired CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella, who now works at a D.C. think tank and is a regular on a podcast critical of Trump policies.

Officials declined to publicly confirm whether Ciaramella was, in fact, the whistleblower when questioned by Just the News. Ciaramella has appeared on numerous podcast episodes put out by the anti-Trump Lawfare outlet. Benjamin Wittes, the editor-in-chief of Lawfare, appeared on multiple episodes with Ciaramella. Wittes was described by Politico in 2017 as “The Bard of the Deep State” and is a longtime Trump critic and a self-described friend of fired FBI Director James Comey and Strzok.

Read more …

“The Lawfare impeachment crew, led by Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, Mary McCord, Dan Goldman, Barry Berke, Stephen Castor and Norm Eisen also weaponized the “ongoing investigation” classification to keep the CIA/ICIG report hidden during the impeachment effort.”

• Johnny Didn’t Bark – But Tulsi Did (CTH)

I’m going to try and keep this short. You can tell from the transcripts of the testimony from ICIG Michael Atkinson that at the time of his testimony, September 19, 2019 and October 4, 2019, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) was not in a classified session; simply closed-door. In fact, during the October 2019 deposition, Ranking Member Devin Nunes went out of his way to clarify the status of the hearing itself. Chairman Schiff reemphasized this was not part of the impeachment inquiry, simply a hearing to clarify questions from Republicans to ICIG Atkinson about the nature of the complaint created by CIA whistleblower Eric Ciaramella.


This is interesting, because that means at the time of the hearing itself in 2019 any one of the members could have immediately gone to the microphones and discussed all of the information gained from within the questioning. They didn’t. Later on, Chairman Adam Schiff classified the Atkinson testimony in order to bury it. The Lawfare impeachment crew, led by Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, Mary McCord, Dan Goldman, Barry Berke, Stephen Castor and Norm Eisen also weaponized the “ongoing investigation” classification to keep the CIA/ICIG report hidden during the impeachment effort.

President Trump was not even allowed to see/review the classified IC IG information that was being used to impeach him. Now, as you can see from the attendance above, John Ratcliffe was present for both Atkinson depositions. Despite his immediate silence, we know John Ratcliffe was concerned about the content within ICIG Atkinson’s statements as he relayed in a series of questions during a public hearing December 9, 2019. Ratcliffe questioned both Dan Goldman and Stephen Castor who were part of Adam Schiff’s staff and present during the October 2019, testimony of ICIG Atkinson.

John Ratcliffe knew all of the details from ICIG Atkinson’s testimony because he was present and part of the questioning during both sessions. Here’s where it gets interesting Following the failed impeachment effort (Senate acquittal), President Trump fired IC IG Michael Atkinson April 3, 2020, and then nominated John Ratcliffe to the position of DNI to replace Acting DNI Ric Grenell. The ICIG investigation of the alleged claims by CIA whistleblower Eric Ciaramella ended during the impeachment inquiry. Following the impeachment acquittal, and following the subsequent firing of Atkinson, all of the ICIG work product returned to the custodial review of the ODNI.

DNI nominee John Ratcliffe was confirmed by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on May 21 and sworn in on May 26, 2020. John Ratcliffe was now a constitutionally confirmed DNI with access to the full record and work product that led to the previous impeachment effort. Why didn’t DNI John Ratcliffe release the ICIG investigative material and CIA whistleblower report? Why did it take another six years and DNI Tulsi Gabbard to discover, dig out, declassify and release the material that was in the custodial review of DNI John Ratcliffe back in 2020?

Congressman Ratcliffe was in both Atkinson depositions during Sept/Oct 2019, and he knew the impeachment allegations were false. He essentially called out the HPSCI Democrat staff in December of 2019. Congressman Ratcliffe became DNI in May 2020 and knew the entire background of the IC IG material that was now at his fingertips. Ratcliffe knew President Trump was set up. Why didn’t John Ratcliffe release the evidence of it in 2020?

I might also note that following the 2022 midterm election, Republicans took back control of the House in January 2023.Why didn’t HPSCI Chairman Mike Turner (2023/2024) release the Atkinson transcripts to the public? Why didn’t HPSCI Chairman Rick Crawford (2025-present) release the Atkinson transcript in 2025, without the request of DNI Tulsi Gabbard. To be fair, former HPSCI Chairman Mike Turner might say that back in 2023 without the underlying CIA/ICIG report, the explosive Atkinson testimony didn’t have context…..

…. But that brings us back to the question of why DNI John Ratcliffe didn’t release the CIA/ICIG report as soon as he took office in 2020. Has the statute of limitations tolled? Johnny didn’t bark – Tulsi did!

Read more …

“The spirit of revolution hangs in the air.”

• Irish Patriots are Fighting Back (J.B. Shurk)

So you say you want a revolution? Well, take a look at what’s happening in Ireland right now. Tens of thousands of farmers, truckers, and other fed-up “normies” are taking to the streets of Dublin to protest fuel taxes, mass immigration, and poverty-inducing “climate change” policies. For the most part, corporate news propagandists in both Europe and North America are intentionally ignoring the combustible situation. Just when I had begun to think that all the “fighting Irish” had moved to America, the Old Country has started to show signs of life. Perhaps there are still a few irascible pugilists willing to bash heads and take on the globalist empire after all.


Speaking of irascible pugilists, Irish slugger Conor McGregor issued a bit of an ultimatum to the ruling class after the government mobilized the military and sent tanks to intimidate the protesters: “One wrong move by government here, and you will see, at the very least, 250k Irish people descend on the capital in a blink. They must step down, there is no other way.” Declaring war against ordinary Irishmen isn’t a good look for an Irish Deep State that can’t be bothered to guard its borders from hordes of invading foreigners. While McGregor and his compatriots are out feeding protesters in the streets, the Irish government is hiking taxes on those who can least afford to pay them. “One wrong move” could spark a revolution.

Perhaps that’s why — after an initial show of force — Ireland’s globalist government appears to be trying to settle things down. Reports on the ground say that police officers have remained friendly with protesters. Some have suggested that Irish authorities are wary of following in the footsteps of Canada’s former prime minister, Justin Trudeau, when he exercised martial law powers to seize the bank accounts of and jail “Freedom Convoy” truckers protesting coercive COVID “vaccination” mandates. On the other hand, a lot of the Irish protesters have also described a sense that many of the law enforcement officers patrolling the streets appear to be on their side. If that’s the case, then Ireland’s political class may be worried about the effectiveness of siccing the military on a broadly-backed citizen uprising.

Although few people saw the present brouhaha coming, Ireland makes a natural “ground zero” in the war between Big Government globalists (aka, the “international rules-based order” club of World Economic Forum totalitarians) and ordinary citizens willing to defend their nation’s sovereignty and their own personal freedoms. For two decades, the globalists have been taking over Ireland and stripping it for parts. As a country that once took pride in its meaningful traditions, customs, family loyalties, and Catholic heritage, Ireland has been one of the globalists’ favorite targets for conquest.

If the “multicultural” atheists could convert Ireland into another globalist outpost devoid of religious or civilizational allegiances, they knew that they would collect a valuable scalp in their war against the West. Sadly, the globalists have been largely successful. By transforming a conservative, staunchly pro-life, Catholic nation into a “woke” re-education zone embracing abortion, “trans” surgeries for children, open borders, Islamic supremacy, and the fetishization of “diversity,” the World Economic Forum’s “Borg” hive mind gutted one of the most culturally rich nations on the planet and mounted Ireland’s head on globalism’s wall of slaughtered states.

Two months ago, free speech defenders Lorcán Price and Graham Linehan testified before the House Judiciary Committee concerning the mass censorship operation being run through the expanding Big Tech enclave in Dublin. There are over 32,000 NGOs in Ireland receiving billions of dollars in U.S. and E.U. grants meant to help shape public opinion. These organizations — one for every 155 Irishmen — represent the “information warfare” army that supports Europe’s globalist policies. Over 70% of Irish legislation is copy-and-pasted from bureaucratic edicts originating in the European Union. These laws include special incentives for illegal immigrants who arrive on Ireland’s shores. They also include “hate speech” laws that have been used to criminally prosecute Irish citizens who object to foreigners raping and murdering their children. The NGO-E.U. takeover of the Irish political system this century has drastically reshaped the country.

Once Christian Ireland now has constitutional protections for gay “marriage” and abortion up to a baby’s birth. Two years ago, Ireland’s globalist cabal nearly succeeded in removing all mentions of “women” from the national constitution, as well as nearly redefining “family” as a “durable relationship.” The Irish government continues to attack Ireland’s Catholic history, going so far as to depict Catholic saints as pagan goddesses in shameless acts of historical revisionism. Globalists continue to rename historic institutions due to ludicrous accusations that Irish clergymen and scholars had ties to slavery and “white supremacy.” As Irish writer Roger Berkeley sorrowfully observes, “Ireland shows what happens when elites, bureaucracies, and ideology override national identity.”

[..] What is clear is that ordinary people in nations across the West are becoming aware of the information war that has long been waged against them. For decades, they have been conditioned to believe false things: “Diversity is our strength.” “Islam is a religion of peace.” “Trans-women are real women.” “Sex is a social construct.” “Man-made climate change is killing the planet.” “New taxes will save the planet.” “Christianity is hate speech.” “Hate speech is a violent crime.” “Free speech requires government-moderated censorship.” “National sovereignty is fascist.” “Families promote white supremacy.” “Merit is white supremacy.” “Math, home ownership, mowed lawns, and punctuality are all forms of white supremacy.” “Equal rights require ‘Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity.’” “Unelected bureaucrats protect democracy.” “NATO must protect non-NATO Ukraine.” Et cetera ad infinitum.

Read more …

That he was.

• Eric Swalwell and the Fall of a Made Man (Turley)

The resignation of Rep. Eric Swalwell (D., Cal.) came with one of the most spectacular falls in political history. Just days ago, Swalwell was the leading Democratic candidate for governor of California and positioned to be one of two final candidates (the other a Republican). He expected that, regardless of his unpopularity, California Democrats would never vote for a Republican. Now Swalwell has pulled out of the race, pulled out of Congress, and was even tossed out of the home of a billionaire who had been letting him crash there during the scandal. Swalwell continues to deny the allegations and pledges to fight them.


For the record, I have been one of Swalwell’s most vocal critics for the last ten years. Yet, while I am not surprised by the allegations, I am surprised by how quickly Swalwell was abandoned by his political patrons in Congress and the unions. In Washington, Harry Truman advised politicians that if you want a friend in this city, get a dog. However, even Swalwell’s dog Penny has yet to appear in public with him. Presumably, she is consulting with her own canine crisis team. Swalwell has spent his entire career protected by an enabling establishment and media. He was a made man in Washington, and those who made him protected him despite years of rumors and allegations of misconduct.

He was never much of a legislator. One 2025 study showed that he was outvoted in Congress by a colleague who had died months earlier. His value was his vicious signature. He was always first to a mob. When Sen. Susan Collins received death threats, it was Swalwell who mocked her. In running for governor, he not only pledged to arrest ICE agents but to deny them driver’s licenses and jobs. He trafficked in unadulterated rage to a nation of rage addicts. His greatest patron was Nancy Pelosi, who single-handedly saved Swalwell’s career when he was found to have had an affair with an alleged Chinese spy. She told the media, “I don’t have any concern about Mr. Swalwell.”

For most of the media, that was enough and they slinked away. When critics sought to remove him from the classified House Intelligence Committee, Pelosi shocked many by insisting that he remain in the sensitive position, lashing out at those “trying to make an issue of this.” Now, Pelosi and the media allies are gone. Even Swalwell’s friend, Sen. Ruben Gallego (D., Ariz.), has morphed into Claude Rains and proclaimed that he is “shocked” by the allegations. His former campaign chair, Gallego was shown in a picture bare-chested and riding camels with Swalwell on a luxury junket paid for by Qatar business interests. The photo has not aged well for Gallego any more than his earlier lament that the Democratic party “used to be the party of sex, drugs, and rock and roll.”

The abandonment of Swalwell is a familiar move of political triage. By letting Swalwell succumb to the scandal, Pelosi and others hope to protect the establishment from any blowback after years of enabling his career. The media, as usual, is complying. The media will cover a scandal involving a leading Democrat if there is no real alternative. What is interesting is how the Democratic establishment is now signaling that they want Swalwell destroyed — quickly and surgically. The media is content calling Swalwell a monster without delving into who created and released that monster. Swalwell is no self-made man. He is a made man of the Democratic establishment.

The alleged victims have lashed out not only at Swalwell but also at many in the establishment. They allege that they were rebuffed when they tried to bring their allegations to reporters. One independent reporter said that he had been raising similar allegations about Swalwell with California Democrats from before Swalwell was elected to Congress. He was also turned away. Swalwell had a use and that made his “appetites” irrelevant. If even half of these allegations are true, it shows the sense of license that Swalwell developed for years in Washington. He lost that political immunity this week and now faces real legal liability. That does not mean that Democrats will not try to control the damage. They want Swalwell to take a deal to avoid any investigations that will pull other Democrats into the vortex of the scandal.

They are counting on New York and California district attorneys to produce the type of controlled explosion seen in construction where a hotel is brought down without damaging the adjacent structures. The problem is Republicans may not just accept his resignation as the final act. They could call the women to testify and even call some of his congressional friends who took trips and partied with him. They could cite Swalwell himself for demanding such total transparency.

Read more …

“La Marxista: Mamdani Pledges to Open First City-Run Store with Projected $30 Million Initial Cost “

Turley is not his biggest fan.

• Mamdani Pledges to Open First City-Run Store (Tuirley)

Mayor Zohran Mamdani used his “First 100 Days” speech this week to announce that he has kept his promise to create a chain of city-run stores . . . by pledging to open one store sometime “next year.” According to the New York Post, the city is planning to make an East Harlem location the first store at a cost of $30 million. It will be located in La Marqueta near Park Avenue. Hopefully, La Marqueta will be renamed La Marxista for clarity. It will follow a long line of failed state-operated and city-operated stores. Chicago’s mayor, Brandon Johnson, also pledged such city-run stores.


It is notable that the stores received such emphasis by Mamdani. It is not difficult to set up a grocery store, particularly when you run the city that approves permits and compliance conditions. It is not even difficult to set up a money-losing store as long as you have a city budget to pay for it. It is far more difficult to set up an independently sustainable store. In my book, “Rage and the Republic,” I discuss the rise of support for socialism and communism among young citizens who have no experience or memory with the failures of such systems in the 20th Century. I specifically discuss Mamdani and his policies. These are calls that are likely to increase with the emerging new economy:

With the rise of American socialism, there are new calls for state subsidies and even the establishment of state-run grocery stores in places like Chicago. Past efforts have been colossal failures, including the still-ongoing effort in Kansas City. Over seven years, KC Sun Fresh is gushing money with losses in 2024 at $885,000. The millions lost on this store are on top of the $17 million that the city paid to buy the entire strip mall. By 2025, many of the shelves were entirely bare, while private grocery stores were successfully operating in the area. Despite these failures, there are new calls in other states to create their own state-owned stores.

In New York City, socialist mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani was heralded for his campaign to open up “government-owned, government-operated grocery stores” in 2025. There are also calls to subsidize key industries that are becoming less competitive in the global market—an effort that is unlikely to succeed as jobs are lost to cheap labor markets or automation. Since the city already owns La Marqueta, it can avoid paying rent. However, it will lose any rent that could be earned by renting the property to a business.

Mamdani pledged that these will be “stores where prices are fair, where workers are treated with dignity, and where New Yorkers can actually afford to shop at our stores…Eggs will be cheaper, bread will be cheaper, grocery shopping will no longer be an unsolvable equation.” Of course, that has not worked out that way in other cities. Governments are not known to be either efficient or competitive. The start-up costs of this first store will consume almost half of the budget for the original cost estimate for all five stores.

Soon, New Yorkers will be subsidizing grocery stores to artificially support the myth of socialism. In the Soviet Union, state-run grocery stores were the subject of gallows humor. The “reimagining” of grocery stores left shelves bare with only imagined essential products. The most widely told joke spread just before the fall of the Soviet Union:

A man walks into a shop. He asks the clerk, “You don’t have any meat?” The clerk says, “No, here we don’t have any fish. The shop that doesn’t have any meat is across the street.” As Mamdani demands a 10% property tax to fund his promises of free buses and other socialist programs, he is returning to the same socialist script. Of course, as the University of Chicago’s Milton Friedman noted, “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand.”

Read more …

“.. was only put there by the Church because he was an American, and they thought that would be the best way to deal with President Donald J. Trump.”

• American Pope Leo Has a Massive Case of TDS (Rick Moran)

The papacy is one of the most unique institutions in the world. The pope is not “elected” in any meaningful sense. A bunch of older males who played the same kind of political games that Republicans, Democrats, Communists, and Socialists play to get ahead, to become “cardinal,” meet to fill a vacancy following the death of a pope. How a new pope is chosen is steeped in tradition and ritual. It’s all baloney. The pomp and circumstance were created to hide the simple fact that choosing a pope is no different than choosing a CEO or president of a large company. The assembled cardinals decide who should lead the church, the same way a board of directors chooses a new leader: someone who can best advance the goals and interests of the Catholic church.


There’s nothing holy about it. There’s nothing sacred in the process. It’s politics, plain and simple. Pope Leo XIV played the game exceptionally well in order to get elected last year. He had a huge obstacle to overcome; he is an American (and Peruvian), and there is a large faction in the Vatican that hates America. Leo was seen as a compromise candidate who, although close to the radical Pope Francis, who died in 2025, was not considered as confrontational as the former pope. That belief turned out to be very wrong.

In April 2025, the Italian newspaper La Repubblica stated that Leo was seen as a “cosmopolitan and shy figure” who was “appreciated by conservatives and progressives” within the church. The pope destroyed that illusion by going after Donald Trump in a very un-papal way. On Sunday, Trump let loose on Leo for his constant sermonizing. Of course, that’s what popes do, but Trump saw an opening to attack Leo on very secular grounds.

Truth Social:”I don’t want a Pope who thinks it’s OK for Iran to have a Nuclear Weapon. I don’t want a Pope who thinks it’s terrible that America attacked Venezuela, a Country that was sending massive amounts of Drugs into the United States and, even worse, emptying their prisons, including murderers, drug dealers, and killers, into our Country. And I don’t want a Pope who criticizes the President of the United States because I’m doing exactly what I was elected, IN A LANDSLIDE, to do, setting Record Low Numbers in Crime, and creating the Greatest Stock Market in History. “Pope Leo is WEAK on Crime and terrible for Foreign Policy,” Trump wrote.

“Leo should be thankful because, as everyone knows, he was a shocking surprise,” Trump said. “He wasn’t on any list to be Pope, and was only put there by the Church because he was an American, and they thought that would be the best way to deal with President Donald J. Trump.”

I don’t think there’s any doubt that the church considered an American for pope because Donald Trump was president. Trump’s roundup of illegal aliens was bound to cause friction with the Vatican. Leo tried to sound diplomatic in his response, which was, in itself, a shocking departure from tradition. Popes aren’t supposed to play the tit-for-tat political game.”I don’t want to get into a debate with him [Trump],” the U.S.-born pope said. “I don’t think that the message of the Gospel is meant to be abused in the way that some people are doing.” The pope is referring to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth asking “the American people to pray “every day, on bended knee” for a military victory in the Middle East “in the name of Jesus Christ.” “

We are not politicians, we don’t deal with foreign policy with the same perspective he might understand it, Leo told reporters. The pope said that “to put my message on the same plane as what the president has attempted to do here, I think, is not understanding what the message of the Gospel is.” Leo has entered the political fray with his words and has lost the moral authority to comment as the leader of one billion Roman Catholics. Commenting as a famous religious celebrity is perfectly fine, but getting in the mud and rolling around with a politician should be beneath Leo and the papacy. “I do not look at my role as being political, a politician,” Leo said. “Too many people are suffering in the world today, too many innocent people are being killed, and someone has to stand up and say there’s a better way.

Read more …

Holocaust Remembrance Day was Jan 27. Then why this? “Israel marks Holocaust Remembrance Day this year starting on the evening of April 13 into today, April 14.”

• ‘Unwavering Commitment’ to Fight Hatred (Salgado)

President Donald Trump issued a powerful message against antisemitism and a commitment to honoring the memory of Holocaust victims through a freer future in his message for Holocaust Remembrance Day. Israel marks Holocaust Remembrance Day this year starting on the evening of April 13 into today, April 14. While the Nazis killed political dissidents, Catholics, other Christians, and ethnic minorities, their death camps were most strongly focused on wiping out the Jewish people. In fact, the global Jewish population has never fully recovered since the Holocaust.


The Trump White House issued a message on April 13. “During the Days of Remembrance of Victims of the Holocaust, our Nation remembers the more than 6 million innocent Jewish lives taken in one of the most horrific atrocities and worst acts of anti-Semitism in human history; we commemorate the Roma and Sinti, Slavic and Polish people, persons with disabilities, Soviet prisoners of war, Jehovah’s Witnesses, people targeted for their sexual orientation, and countless others who were victims of the Holocaust; and we renew our unwavering commitment to ensuring that such evil is vanquished forever,” President Trump wrote.

Unfortunately, the fundamentalist Muslims who were allies of Hitler during World War II, because of their shared goal of destroying Jews, are more powerful than ever, somehow gaining the sympathy of the West every time they attack Israel and commit heinous atrocities. To give just one number for context, Hezbollah alone launched over 6,500 missiles, UAVs, and rockets at Israeli civilians during the first five weeks of Operation Epic Fury/Roaring Lion.

Trump continued, “On Yom HaShoah, we recall the horrors Nazi Germany inflicted across Europe during the harrowing years of the Second World War, where men, women, and children of many backgrounds were subjected to vicious acts of persecution, degradation, and death by methods beyond comprehension. Yet, in the midst of this unfathomable darkness, the resilience of the human spirit endured.” “From the outset of my Administration, I have taken decisive action to defend the God-given worth of every human being,” Trump affirmed. “By establishing the Federal Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, my Administration is bolstering coordination across federal agencies in an effort to prevent acts of hatred and violence in our streets and on our college campuses that were allowed to spread under my predecessor.”

He concluded: “I am directing the Department of Justice to relentlessly pursue those who threaten or harm Jewish Americans, and we will not stop until every case of terrorism perpetrated against the Jewish people is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

As our Nation marks these Days of Remembrance, we honor the memory of all who were murdered and vow to never forget the victims of the Holocaust—the most heinous violation of human dignity in the history of the world. Together, we reaffirm our solemn obligation to stand guard against antisemitism in every form and carry forward the enduring legacy of the more than 6 million innocent souls of the Holocaust with vigilance and unwavering resolve. May the memories of all who perished forever be a blessing. Global antisemitism has been on the rise ever since Hamas committed the Oct. 7 massacre. Each one of us is responsible for seeing that “never again” is more than a slogan.

Read more …

Forever ago, I read a biography of Abe. Which was John Hay’s POV.

• Remembering the Faith of Lincoln on the Anniversary of His Death (Tom Griffin)


On April 14, 1865, President Abraham Lincoln was shot in the head and killed by John Wilkes Booth at Ford’s Theatre during the showing of “Our American Cousin.” It was Good Friday. It is eerily fitting that the murder occurred on the most somber day of the Christian year. Lincoln mentioned God frequently in his presidency, and his journey with God was deeply connected to the gravity of his work during the Civil War.

Between his election in November 1860 and his inauguration in March 1861, several southern states seceded from the Union. In Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address on March 4, 1861, he spoke about how the nation must be firm in faith: “Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him, who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust, in the best way, all our present difficulty.” Here Lincoln showcased his distinctively American spirit. He believed that our nation was built on faith as well as love for both neighbor and country. Those qualities, in his view, can sustain the American people during tumultuous times.

In September 1862, during one of the most personally challenging parts of the Civil War, Lincoln wrote a private “Meditation on the Divine Will.” The Union had recently lost the Second Battle of Bull Run, and there were immense challenges ahead for the president. The country was tiring of the war. The growing death toll weighed heavily on the president. Had the time come to end the war? According to one of his White House secretaries John Hay, the letter was the president’s way of working through his confusion and stress about the most important decision of his life. Hay also noted that this letter was not meant to be seen by men, which is why we have only one section. Lincoln writes:

“The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God’s purpose is something different from the purpose of either party — and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect His purpose. I am almost ready to say that this is probably true — that God wills this contest, and wills that it shall not end yet. By his mere great power, on the minds of the now contestants, He could have either saved or destroyed the Union without a human contest. Yet the contest began. And, having begun He could give the final victory to either side any day. Yet the contest proceeds.”

The words above are filled with religious significance and depth. They relate the broken heart of a man—and a president—for his fellow countrymen. Faith demands that we be utterly honest with both ourselves and God. Lincoln’s meditation was more than a mere method to inform the president’s decision making; it was itself a prayer.

First, Lincoln writes that God’s will is victorious. To understand what that means for him, Lincoln then references a philosophical idea called “the principle of noncontradiction.” Most famously explained by Aristotle, the principle holds that two opposing claims cannot both be true in the same way at the same time. Therefore, either the south was right that human beings are not equal, and some can thus be owned by others. Or the north was right that the expansion of slavery—even its existence—is immoral because all human beings have dignity.

Second, Lincoln writes that the outcome of the war might be different from what either side hopes for. God often works in unexpected ways. God’s logic often makes itself known through challenging and confusing times. Though painful, this can ultimately teach us to rely on God and trust that providence will lead us through. Finally, the president’s meditation on God’s will does not seem to have resolved all Lincoln’s confusion. The war must continue, for now. This brings him much grief, but he knows that it is right.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

You driving? Not on a public road any more. Go to a private circuit. https://twitter.com/HungaryBased/status/2043743519664185462?s=20 https://twitter.com/NiohBerg/status/2043783291178782888?s=20

 

 

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle August 9 2025

Aug 092025
 
 August 9, 2025  Posted by at 9:51 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,  45 Responses »


Heinrich Hofmann Christ and the Rich Young Man 1889

 

• Trump Reveals Time And Place Of Putin Summit: Alaska August 15 (RT)
• Putin Doesn’t Need To Meet Zelensky For Russia-US Summit – Trump (RT)
• Polish News Outlet Claims Insider Info on Trump-Putin Tentative Agreement (CTH)
• Oil Tumbles On Report Of US-Backed Russia-Ukraine Truce Deal (ZH)
• What Putin And Trump Want From The Ukraine Peace Deal (Bobrov)
• ‘Vital’ Poll Shows Ukrainians Are For Peace – Putin Envoy Dmitriev (Sp.)
• China Ready to Promote Peace & Negotiations on Ukraine – Xi (Sp.)
• Going, Going Gone. . . . (Kunstler)
• Appeals Court Nukes Boasberg’s Contempt Order In Trump Deportations Case (ZH)
• New Daily Fine Could Sap Resolve Of Texas Dems Who Fled State (ZH)
• Orban Calls For Russia-EU Summit (RT)
• Trump Yelled At Netanyahu For Dismissing Gaza Starvation – Media (RT)
• US Consulting Firm Modelled Mass Resettlement of Palestinians to Africa (RT)
• US Slaps Tariffs On Gold Bars (RT)
• Swiss President Blamed For ‘Disastrous’ Deal With Trump – FT (RT)

 

 

https://twitter.com/MyLordBebo/status/1953415357869281408

jobs
https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1953555467189506327

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1953611969803800802

100
https://twitter.com/TheGabriel72/status/1953435750927929474

Zero seats

jay

 

 

 

 

With history in mind, a great location.

What a move. Zelensky and the EU left in the dark by the curb. Who saw that coming? We want peace!

• Trump Reveals Time And Place Of Putin Summit: Alaska August 15 (RT)

US President Donald Trump has said that he will meet his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in Alaska next Friday. Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov confirmed immediately afterward that Moscow and Washington will be working on making the Alaska summit happen. “The highly anticipated meeting between myself, as President of the United States of America, and President Vladimir Putin, of Russia, will take place next Friday, August 15, 2025, in the Great State of Alaska,” Trump announced on Truth Social on Friday. According to the Kremlin, the upcoming meeting will revolve around reaching a longstanding peace in the Ukraine conflict.

Moscow expects that the two leaders’ next meeting after this will take place in Russia, the presidential aide said. Trump has officially been sent an invitation, he added. The US president’s special envoy Steve Witkoff visited Moscow on Wednesday for a meeting with Putin that Trump later called “highly productive.” The US leader has expressed his growing impatience with the pace of peace talks dedicated to resolving the Ukraine conflict, and has threatened to impose further secondary sanctions on Russian trade partners. According to the Kremlin, Moscow had received an “acceptable” offer from the US during Witkoff’s visit.

Russia had long said that it was interested in a peaceful resolution to the Ukraine conflict, but has insisted on one that brings about a permanent and stable peace. Russia and Ukraine have held three rounds of direct talks in Istanbul: in May, June, and late July. While the sides have failed to reach a breakthrough, they agreed to exchange prisoners of war and the bodies of fallen soldiers. Russia insists that a sustainable peace deal must include Ukraine’s commitment to stay out of NATO, demilitarization, and the recognition of the new territorial reality on the ground. Kiev has rejected these terms.

Read more …

Zelensky has nothing that Putin wants.

• Putin Doesn’t Need To Meet Zelensky For Russia-US Summit – Trump (RT)

US President Donald Trump has said he is willing to hold a summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin regardless of whether Putin meets with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky. On Thursday, the New York Post cited a White House official as saying, “Putin must meet with Zelensky for the meeting [with Trump] to occur.” The US president, however, was quick to reject the report. “He doesn’t, no,” Trump told reporters when asked whether Putin would have to first meet Zelensky. “They would like to meet me, and I’ll do whatever I can to stop the killing.”

Zelensky has repeatedly called on Putin to hold in-person talks with Zelensky to end the conflict. The Russian president has said he has “nothing in principle” against a meeting, but reiterated that “certain conditions must be created” for it to take place. He has also cast doubt on Zelensky’s legal capacity to sign binding agreements, as the Ukrainian leader’s presidential term expired last year and he has refused to hold a new election, citing martial law. This has prompted Moscow to declare him “illegitimate.”

Trump’s remarks come after Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov said Putin and Trump could have a face-to-face meeting as soon as next week. Later, Putin floated the United Arab Emirates as a possible location for the summit. The summit developments follow a visit to Moscow by Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff, who held three-hour talks with Putin over the Ukraine conflict. The Kremlin described the discussion as “constructive,” while the White House said the meeting went better than expected. Trump also later commented that “great progress was made,” although no specific outcomes have been detailed.

Read more …

“..does not include guarantees against NATO expansion – one of Moscow’s consistent demands. Russia did not receive any promises that military support for Ukraine would cease.”

Clever:
“De facto recognition of Russian-occupied territories by postponing the status issue for 49 or 99 years.”

• Polish News Outlet Claims Insider Info on Trump-Putin Tentative Agreement (CTH)

I would approach this Polish media report with a note of caution and skepticism. The reason is not what most might think about. The CIA/GCHQ will likely be conducting covert IC propaganda operations to disrupt Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin from reaching any agreement. Therefore, for the next several weeks we should watch the sourcing of the media reports to identify familiar patterns. A Polish media outlet is reporting to have gained insight into the deal carried by President Trump special envoy, Steve Witkoff. As outlined, both President Trump and President Putin would be working from this framework.

“POLAND – Although Onet does not name its sources, it says that the proposal was coordinated with European states. “We have learned that Moscow received a very favorable offer from the Trump administration,” the outlet reported.”According to Onet, the US proposal includes:
• A ceasefire in Ukraine, though not a full peace agreement.
• De facto recognition of Russian-occupied territories by postponing the status issue for 49 or 99 years.
• The lifting of most sanctions imposed on Russia and, in the long term, a return to energy cooperation namely, imports of Russian gas and oil.”

Meanwhile, the proposal reportedly does not include guarantees against NATO expansion – one of Moscow’s consistent demands. Russia did not receive any promises that military support for Ukraine would cease. However, according to the outlet, this last point is said to be acceptable to the Russians. Broadly, this type of an outline makes sense; particularly the three main points and the removal of the sanctions. President Trump has noted repeatedly it was short-sighted for the Western financial system to think they could hurt Russia directly with the 2021 economic sanctions, given the pre-existing sanctions already in place since 2014. All of my research sources in eastern Europe and Russia generally agree the 2021 sanctions regime was about Western global banking interests (CBDC), together with Blackrock, State Street and Vanguard investments.

Common Question: “What is the fundamental reason that the IC wants to prevent the US from aligning with Russia? Is it simply to keep the conflict (and money) going in Ukraine?”
My response is, No. Several facets involved:
1. Russia does not align with current global banking control. This is the background motive behind the current western sanctions’ regime. Russia does not consider the global finance system to be legitimate. From Putin’s long-held perspective the dollar is too easily weaponized for geopolitical leverage. Ironic considering that’s exactly what the sanctions are. As a consequence, the Western global banks dislike Russia immensely.

2. Ideologically, Russia is not ‘woke’ in every sense of that weird word. Even the concept of DEI is crazy from the perspective of society in Russia. The Russian economy and socioeconomic system do not recognize modern western values, ie. “wokeism”. Explaining non-merit-based DEI is one of the most unusual conversations you can have with Russian people. They cannot fathom the concept of employment, subsidy or financial benefit from gender, skin color, ethnicity or race. It doesn’t compute to them because they have no concept of the motive or intent behind DEI. Russia is the least politically correct country you could ever visit.

3. Russia is an unusual caste system that rewards those closest to govt with enhanced status. However, on the caste continuum, Vladimir Putin is more Trumpian toward this internal political dynamic. Putin recognizes that all ships must rise, not just the connected. Think of Russia like visiting Disney. Those who can afford the ‘fast-track’ pass have a better experience than the ordinary ticket holder. Putin recognizes that in the modern era this system creates national vulnerability and political instability that can be exploited by narratives from the West. An entire division of USAID was created for this task. Putin’s goal is changing this dynamic.

4. MAGA understand that Trump needs to be authoritarian in order to cleanse the govt corruption. However, our constitutional system -which was weaponized by the radical leftists- does not allow this approach. In many ways, this type of authoritarian approach is what Putin uses to ensure the same manipulation does not happen to Russia. This puts him in opposition to the global intelligence apparatus who use social friction to stir up internal trouble.

5. Finally, Vladimir Putin has often said the enemy of Russia is not Americans; the identified enemy of Russia is the CIA and UK intelligence (GCHQ). There is a big difference, and the IC feel the same toward him. Hence their activity against him on behalf of their benefactors, the London banking interests.

President Trump is appreciated in Russia because:
(A) he is also not politically correct and speaks his mind.
(B) Trump has no friends in the IC who view Trump in the same oppositional context as Putin.
(C) Trump is honest, and Russians are brutally honest people.
(D) Trump is strong but respectful toward all voices.

Read more …

Where will it be Monday?

• Oil Tumbles On Report Of US-Backed Russia-Ukraine Truce Deal (ZH)

US and Russian officials are working toward an agreement on territories for a planned summit meeting between Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin as early as next week, the people said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations. The US is working to get buy-in from Ukraine and its European allies on the deal, which is far from certain, the people said. Putin is demanding that Ukraine cede its entire eastern Donbas area to Russia as well as Crimea, which his forces illegally annexed in 2014. That would require Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to order a withdrawal of troops from parts of the Luhansk and Donetsk regions still held by Kyiv, handing Russia a victory that its army couldn’t achieve militarily since the start of the full-scale invasion in February 2022.

Such an outcome would represent a major win for Putin, who has long sought direct negotiations with the US on terms for ending the war that he started, sidelining Ukraine and its European allies. What are the odds Zelensky goes for this deal… and will Europe back it? Zelenskiy risks being presented with a take-it-or-leave-it deal to accept the loss of Ukrainian territory, while Europe fears it would be left to monitor a ceasefire as Putin rebuilds his forces. Russia would halt its offensive in the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions of Ukraine along the current battlelines as part of the deal, the people said. They cautioned that the terms and plans of the accord were still in flux and could still change. Oil prices immediately tumbled on the report…

It’s still unclear if Putin would agree to take part in a trilateral meeting with Trump and Zelenskiy next week, even if he had already struck an agreement with the US president, the people added. The Russian leader told reporters on Thursday that he didn’t object to meeting Zelenskiy under the right conditions, though he said they don’t exist now.

Read more …

“..the paradox of diplomacy: in business, a deal signed is a deal done. In geopolitics, even signed agreements can be quietly gutted after the cameras stop rolling.”

• What Putin And Trump Want From The Ukraine Peace Deal (Bobrov)

Ahead of the anticipated summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump, Moscow and Washington – like so many times before in the realm of diplomacy – appear to be chasing fundamentally different goals. The United States seeks to maintain the current status quo but also needs a result it can spin as “progress” on Ukraine. That could mean anything from a partial ceasefire to a full cessation of hostilities. Russia, by contrast, is looking for long-term, legally binding agreements. These would cover the full scope of Russia-US and Russia-Ukraine relations and include built-in enforcement mechanisms to prevent sabotage or unilateral withdrawal. With today’s US-Russia relations still steeped in Cold War-style hostility, the upcoming summit recalls another tense era. One might liken the two delegations to the intelligence officers who used to meet at Glienicke Bridge – the famous ‘Bridge of Spies’ – to exchange captured agents.

Like those secretive, high-stakes handoffs, diplomacy in 2025 still demands that both sides inch toward the middle to make any exchange possible. The very fact that this summit is happening suggests that the gap between Moscow and Washington has narrowed, at least tactically. Russia took the first step by hosting US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff in Moscow. In the quiet language of diplomacy, the country that initiates the visit is often the more eager to make a deal. Russia’s openness to holding the summit quickly signals a willingness to negotiate. And truthfully, it’s Washington that appears more anxious to move things forward. Time, at this point, seems to favor Moscow. President Putin made that clear during his recent meeting with Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko in Valaam. Trump, on the other hand, urgently needs a foreign policy win. The White House is under fire on multiple fronts – from the looming Epstein files scandal to mass protests erupting in Democrat-controlled states over immigration policy.

Trump understands that securing peace in Ukraine could be the crown jewel in a larger global strategy. If he can notch progress in the Russia-Ukraine conflict – on top of de-escalating India-Pakistan, Thailand-Cambodia, Iran-Israel, and Armenia-Azerbaijan – he would be well-positioned to claim a ‘royal flush’ on the world stage. That, in turn, could make him a contender for the Nobel Peace Prize. But how exactly did Trump manage to extract concessions from Vladimir Putin – a veteran of global diplomacy with over 25 years of experience at the highest level? The answer lies in tactics familiar to Trump from his business career, many of which he outlined decades ago in his bestseller, The Art of the Deal. From that playbook, he appears to have used a select few strategic moves:

1) Creating artificial time pressure
Trump began by issuing a 50-day ultimatum. He warned that if no movement came from the Russian side, the US would impose sanctions targeting Russia’s shadow fleet. But just days later, he shortened the timeline dramatically – to eight days – clearly hoping to force Moscow’s hand with a sense of urgency.

2) Fostering strategic uncertainty
Witkoff’s recent visit to Moscow, successful by current standards, was wrapped in deliberate ambiguity. It was originally planned for the first weekend of August. But at the last moment, the American side requested a reschedule for August 6, citing the envoy’s packed calendar due to his parallel role in the Middle East. The unpredictability sent a signal: the US side would not play by a rigid script.

3) The good cop / bad cop routine
While American foreign policy is ultimately shaped by the president, internal dynamics still matter. Trump has surrounded himself with both hawks and doves. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Special Envoy for Ukraine Keith Kellogg often play hardball, while Steve Witkoff takes on the more diplomatic, conciliatory role. Notably, it is always Witkoff – not Rubio – who travels to Moscow, sending a clear message about who is empowered to build bridges.

4) Instilling fear
Trump knows how to apply pressure not just with words, but with policy. While continuing negotiations with China, he slapped a 25% tariff on India – Washington’s key partner in the Indo-Pacific – just before his Ukraine deadline expired. He’s used similar tactics with Canada, the EU, and other close allies. The subtext is clear: even friends aren’t immune from tough love.

Like a spy exchange on a Cold War bridge, diplomacy is the art of meeting halfway. That principle is playing out in real time, as both sides consider where to hold the summit. The location must be neutral, protocol-friendly, and equally distant from both capitals. During UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan’s recent visit to Moscow, Putin floated the UAE as a potential host. The country meets all the right criteria. And under the diplomatic principle of reciprocity, Trump may have little choice but to accept.

Meanwhile, efforts are underway to prevent third parties from sabotaging the summit. Kiev, with backing from the London-Berlin-Paris axis, is pursuing two goals. The maximalist aim is to derail the bilateral format and force a trilateral meeting that includes Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky. The fallback plan? Render any US-Russia resolution meaningless. In many ways, that’s the paradox of diplomacy: in business, a deal signed is a deal done. In geopolitics, even signed agreements can be quietly gutted after the cameras stop rolling.

So, will Trump’s instincts and tactics deliver a diplomatic breakthrough? The answer will come next week. But one thing is certain: whatever happens, this summit is bound to leave a mark on the annals of history.

Read more …

“..69% of Ukrainians (up from 20% in 2022) support negotiated peace as soon as possible not war..”

• ‘Vital’ Poll Shows Ukrainians Are For Peace – Putin Envoy Dmitriev (Sp.)

The head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) and Russian special presidential envoy for economic cooperation with foreign countries, Kirill Dmitriev, ahead of the Russia-US summit, took note of a public opinion poll showing a significant increase in the number of Ukrainians who support peace through talks. Dmitriev cited relevant sociological data from the American Gallup Institute, according to which 69% of Ukrainians (up from 20% in 2022) support the earliest possible achievement of peace through negotiations, rather than war. “An absolutely vital poll before the US-Russia summit: 69% of Ukrainians (up from 20% in 2022) support negotiated peace as soon as possible not war,” he wrote on X.

Russian presidential aide Yury Ushakov said Thursday morning Moscow and Washington had begun work to prepare for the upcoming Russia-US summit. American media reported on Wednesday evening that Trump wanted to meet with Putin as early as next week. Putin’s last meeting with a US leader took place in 2021 in Geneva, when the Russian president met with Joe Biden. Putin on Thursday named the UAE as one of the possible venues to meet with Trump.

Read more …

Still a BIG voice.

• China Ready to Promote Peace & Negotiations on Ukraine – Xi (Sp.)

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping have held a telephone conversation, the Chinese Central Television reported. The leaders held a telephone conversation at the initiative of the Russian side, the broadcaster reported. Beijing welcomes maintaining the contacts between Russia and the United States, Xi told Putin, according to the report. “China welcomes Russia-US contacts, improving relations and advancing political settlement of Ukrainian crisis,” Xi Jinping was quoted as saying by the China Central Television (CCTV) broadcaster. Commenting on the Ukrainian crisis, the president said that there is no simple solution to complex issues, adding that China will continue to promote peace and negotiations. The leaders also welcomed the high level of political mutual trust and cooperation between China and Russia, the broadcaster reported.

Read more …

“It was in the racketeering ecosystem that billionaires such as George Soros and Bill Gates could use their fortunes..”

• Going, Going Gone. . . . (Kunstler)

In case you’re wondering why the Democratic Party is in a death spiral, it is the proportionate response to the damage they have done to American culture and politics. You might think that they fell haplessly into error, but their turn to Marxian idealism was a cover for a matrix of hustles and rackets to make up for a void of any sane political program. Coming into the 21st century, our country was beset by looming decline. Our industrial base was going, going, gone, and with it millions of well-paying blue-collar jobs, the Democratic Party base. It was replaced by a so-called “financialized economy,” which was sanitized language for sets of swindles and frauds allowed to operate in the de-regulated banking system, in concert with the politicized Federal Reserve and crooked Congressional interests — you notice how many politicians paid $175-K a year somehow acquired multi-million-dollar fortunes?

What mainly grew in this period was government and things that fed off of it, such as the war industries, computer tech allied with the Intel gang, and especially the burgeoning universe of government-sponsored non-profit advocacy orgs, which became the jobs program for otherwise unemployables churned out of higher education, a racket that fed on federal loan guarantees. It was in the racketeering ecosystem that billionaires such as George Soros and Bill Gates could use their fortunes to advance their own personal obsessions through webs of non-governmental orgs (NGOs) to influence public affairs. By 2016, that was really all that the Democratic Party had left. It was the source of their money and their power. They also had the accumulated political capital of race advocacy, starting with the civil rights crusades of the 1960s. After our victory over manifest evil in World War Two, the Jim Crow system had to go, or else America could not pretend to lead the so-called “free world.”

Read more …

He lost to the Supreme Court.

“..failed judicial overreach at its worst.”

• Appeals Court Nukes Boasberg’s Contempt Order In Trump Deportations Case (ZH)

Activist judge James Boasberg has just been slapped down, after an appeals court removed an order which could have resulted in the Trump administration being found in contempt as part of a tense confrontation with the US District Judge. Earlier this year, Boasberg said he found probable cause to hold the administration in contempt because it purportedly violated his orders to halt deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. However in a 2–1 decision on Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit indicated that Boasberg went too far. Judge Gregory Katsas said that one of Boasberg’s orders could have been read in different ways.

“The district court here was placed in an enormously difficult position,” wrote Judge Gregory Katsas. “Faced with an emergency situation, it had to digest and rule upon novel and complex issues within a matter of hours. In that context, the court quite understandably issued a written order that contained some ambiguity.” Katsas noted that the appellate court ruling doesn’t center around the lawfulness of Trump’s Alien Enemies Act removals in March, when the administration invoked the 1798 immigration law to send over 250 Venezuelan nationals to CEDOT, El Salvador’s maximum-security prison. “Nor may we decide whether the government’s aggressive implementation of the presidential proclamation warrants praise or criticism as a policy matter,” he added. “Perhaps it should warrant more careful judicial scrutiny in the future. Perhaps it already has.”

“Regardless, the government’s initial implementation of the proclamation clearly and indisputably was not criminal.” As the Epoch Times notes further, Judge Neomi Rao described Boasberg’s decision as an “egregious” abuse of the court’s contempt power and said Boasberg had lost the authority to try and “coerce compliance” with his original order. That’s because his initial halts on the deportations had been vacated by the Supreme Court in another decision from April. One of the judges, Judge Cornelia Pillard, defended Boasberg and said the Trump administration appeared to have disobeyed his directions. “Our system of courts cannot long endure if disappointed litigants defy court orders with impunity rather than legally challenge them,” Pillard said. “This is why willful disobedience of a court order is punishable as criminal contempt.”

Read more …

Are there historical precedents?

“We’re gonna lose this vote”. “Well, not if we don’t vote at all..”

“In addition to the fine, they’ll also be hit with a bill for their pro rata share of what the House Sergeant at Arms spends to force them to come back to work.”

• New Daily Fine Could Sap Resolve Of Texas Dems Who Fled State (ZH)

Democratic state representatives who fled Texas to prevent a vote on a GOP-led congressional redistricting plan are under mounting pressure to return to Austin. On Thursday, Sen. John Cornyn announced that the FBI will help Texas law enforcement track them down, pursuant to Gov Gregg Abbott’s order that they be arrested and investigated for potential bribery charges. While that makes for dramatic headlines, the AWOL Democrats face another force that may do far more to motivate their return: a daily $500 fine that didn’t exist last time they pulled this stunt. That mounting tab has already blown past past the $600 monthly salary Texas House reps receive. They also receive a $221 per diem every day the legislature is in session, but it’s not clear if they’re entitled to claim it while they’re on the lam in Chicago.

In addition to the fine, they’ll also be hit with a bill for their pro rata share of what the House Sergeant at Arms spends to force them to come back to work. Those punitive measures are a new twist, added to the state House rules after Democrats in 2021 similarly absconded in an eventually failed attempt to derail GOP-led election reforms that included a ban on drive-through voting, more stringent requirements for mail-in voting, and the criminalization of distributing mail-ballot applications. The legislators’ run-and-hide tactic is called “denying quorum,” referring to the minimum number of lawmakers present in order to conduct legislative business. By state law, the Texas House can only conduct business when two-thirds of its 150 members are present, meaning at least 51 of the state’s 62 Democrats must continue to stay away from Texas.

In addition to facing mounting individual fines that didn’t exist last time they denied quorum, Democratic leaders say many representatives’ incomes from their regular jobs was already under strain from the calling of the current special session. Most representatives have other careers, as the Texas legislature only convenes for six months every two years. One of those whiners is Rep. Gene Wu, leader of the state House Democratic Caucus, who told NBC News.. “During the special session, I can’t work. Most people can’t work. They’re away from their families. … All of us are making actual, real sacrifices to be here…There’s people who are single moms, single dads, with their kids, and we just do what we can. None of this is fun.”

Democrats have been using their quorum-break as a fundraising vehicle. However, that’s putting themselves in different kind of crosshairs, as Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has said they risk felony bribery charges for accepting money “to assist in the violation of legislative duties.” On Monday afternoon, Abbott ordered the civil arrest of the AWOL Democrats. He is also working to have them removed from the legislature altogether, and use his powers under the Texas Constitution to pick their successors.

Texas Republicans currently control 25 of the state’s 38 congressional seats; the new map would likely give them 30, all of which Mr. Trump carried by at least 10 percentage points in 2024. The GOP holds a narrow 219-212 majority in the U.S. House, with four vacancies, and party leaders see Texas as central to preserving their legislative agenda. Meanwhile, Democrats across the country are threatening reprisals in the form of their own redrawing of district maps. They may be at a disadvantage, however, as Democrats have already perpetrated some of the most blatant gerrymandering of all:

Read more …

Nice twist:

“..the leaders of Germany and France – not EU officials – should directly negotiate with Russia..”

• Orban Calls For Russia-EU Summit (RT)

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has proposed holding a summit between Russia and the EU to address the Ukraine conflict. His remarks come shortly after the Kremlin said that Russian President Vladimir Putin could meet his US counterpart, Donald Trump, as early as next week. A member of both the European Union and NATO, Hungary has opposed Brussels’ policies on the Ukraine conflict since its escalation in February of 2022, particularly with respect to supplying Kiev with weapons and imposing sanctions on Russia. In an interview with Kossuth Radio on Friday, Orban called the potential Trump-Putin meeting “good news,” suggesting it could pave the way to a ceasefire.

Orban criticized fellow EU members for not engaging in diplomacy. He said that he had long maintained that the leaders of Germany and France – not EU officials – should directly negotiate with Russia. “There should be a Russian-European summit. Because the war is in Europe,” Orban argued, insisting that such a top-level meeting should take place “as soon as possible.” Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov told reporters on Thursday that Moscow and Washington had agreed in principle that Putin and Trump hold talks as soon as next week.

US special envoy Steve Witkoff had met with Putin in Moscow the previous day, in what Trump later described as “highly productive” talks. Also on Wednesday, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto stated that Ukraine can have no place in the EU and “doesn’t even belong among civilized nations,” citing a recent case in which a member of the Hungarian ethnic minority in Western Ukraine died after reportedly being beaten by draft officers. The Ukraine conflict will only be resolved when both the West and Kiev accept that Ukraine cannot be a NATO member, Orban said earlier this month.

Read more …

“..an utterly disturbing example of how humanitarian relief can be exploited for covert military and geopolitical agendas.”

• Trump Yelled At Netanyahu For Dismissing Gaza Starvation – Media (RT)

US President Donald Trump reportedly shouted at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a phone call after the Israeli leader attempted to downplay reports of starvation in Gaza, NBC News reported on Friday. Netanyahu has publicly claimed that “there is no starvation” in the Palestinian enclave, which is being blockaded by Israeli military forces, despite multiple claims to the contrary from medical staff in Gaza. During a recent trip to the UK, Trump pushed back, telling journalists the starvation is real. According to the outlet, Netanyahu insisted during the call that allegations of widespread hunger in Gaza were fabricated by the militant group Hamas, but Trump interrupted him, raising his voice and stating that his aides had shown him evidence to the contrary.

The conversation was reportedly initiated at Netanyahu’s request, but the exchange ended up being “mostly one-way,” with Trump doing most of the talking, according to one source. Netanyahu’s office denied the claim, calling it “complete fake news” in a brief statement. NBC News suggested that Trump has taken a personal interest in the issue due to US support for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), an Israeli-affiliated organization conducting limited relief work in the enclave since May. The foundation has been shunned by the UN, which operates its own aid network in Gaza and has accused Israel of obstructing food deliveries.

This week, a group of UN experts criticized the GHF, calling it “an utterly disturbing example of how humanitarian relief can be exploited for covert military and geopolitical agendas.” They accused the foundation of operating as a “tangle of Israeli intelligence, US contractors and ambiguous non-governmental entities,” rather than a legitimate relief agency. The UN estimates that nearly 1,400 people have been killed in Gaza while searching for food. Israel is currently preparing for a military operation to occupy Gaza City, marking yet another escalation in the conflict.

Read more …

Recognize insanity when you see it.

Trump will have to get rid of both Zelensky AND Netanyahu. That’s been clear for a while.

• US Consulting Firm Modelled Mass Resettlement of Palestinians to Africa (RT)

US global advisory firm Boston Consulting Group (BCG) modelled the resettlement of around a quarter of all Palestinians to other countries, including Somalia, as part of plans for postwar Gaza, the Financial Times has reported. In February, US President Donald Trump suggested moving more than 2 million Palestinians out of the war-torn enclave into neighboring countries to turn it into the “Riviera of the Middle East.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has praised the idea, said on Thursday that the Jewish state will commit to a full military takeover of Gaza, to later hand it over to a transitional Arab government.

BCG’s postwar redevelopment model for Gaza envisioned relocating approximately 25% of its population to multiple nations, including Somalia and the breakaway region of Somaliland, “despite civil conflict and high levels of poverty in the region,” the FT wrote on Thursday, citing people familiar with the proposal. Washington has held preliminary talks with Somaliland about a broader deal that would establish a US military base there in exchange for the recognition of sovereignty, the FT wrote. Accepting relocated Palestinians was one of points discussed, according to the newspaper. BCG first developed its relocation model in March, working for a group of Israeli businessmen who were devising plans for postwar Gaza, the newspaper wrote.

It reportedly allowed for a number of scenarios and estimates for the cost of what was described as a “temporary relocation program.” The advisory firm’s calculations were included in slides intended for the US administration, other governments and “stakeholders,” the FT reported. The slide deck envisaged that the majority of the relocated Palestinians would not return. BCG earlier this year disavowed the controversial project and said it had fired the employees who worked on it. Key regional players have refused to participate in Trump’s relocation plan, which has been criticized by a number of Washington’s European allies, including France, Spain, and Germany. The UN has stated that the move would amount to ethnic cleansing.

Read more …

Doesn’t smell very practical.

• US Slaps Tariffs On Gold Bars (RT)

The US has imposed tariffs on imports of gold bars, according to media reports on Friday, citing a notice from Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Analysts say the decision could harm Switzerland’s gold refining sector and shake up the global bullion market. According to the Financial Times, which first broke the story, CBP stated in a July 31 ruling letter that 1kg and 100-ounce gold bars – the most commonly traded formats – should fall under a customs code subject to tariffs. The reported move brings gold bars under US President Donald Trump’s new tariffs, which target dozens of trade partners, including Switzerland. Trump imposed a 39% tariff on Swiss goods last Friday after rejecting Bern’s offer of a 10% tariff in exchange for $150 billion in US-bound investment.

When the tariff campaign began in April, some commodities – including certain bullion types – were exempt. The CBP ruling, issued in response to a Swiss refinery’s request, said 1kg and 100-ounce bars are considered “semi-manufactured” goods rather than “unwrought, nonmonetary gold,” the only exempt category. Switzerland is the world’s largest gold refining hub, and bullion is one of its biggest exports to the US. Traders told Bloomberg it’s unclear whether the tariffs are already in effect. Some said CBP may have erred, calling the decision “shocking” and likely to face legal challenges. “We never ever thought that [gold bars] would be hit by a tariff,” Robert Gottlieb, a former JPMorgan Chase metals trader, said.

Christoph Wild, the president of the Swiss Association of Manufacturers and Traders of Precious Metals, told FT the ruling “deals a blow” to Swiss-US gold trade, saying the widespread belief had been that “remelted bullion was tariff-free.” Experts say the fallout could disrupt the global bullion market. Gold is often used as a safe store of value during times of political and financial uncertainty. It has seen a historic rally this year, rising 27% since the end of 2024. Following the FT report, gold futures in New York hit an all-time high, with December contracts climbing to $3,534 on Friday morning.

Read more …

From a few days ago, before the gold bar decision. She must have really pissed him off…

• Swiss President Blamed For ‘Disastrous’ Deal With Trump – FT (RT)

Swiss President Karin Keller-Sutter is facing backlash after trade talks with Washington collapsed following a “disastrous” phone call with US President Donald Trump, the Financial Times has reported, citing sources familiar with the matter. Trump announced a 39% levy – one of the highest globally – on Swiss goods on Friday, coinciding with Switzerland’s national day. According to an FT report published on Sunday, Swiss negotiators believed they had secured a provisional deal for a 10% tariff, similar to the UK’s arrangement. In exchange, Bern pledged nearly $150 billion in US-bound investment and remained in regular contact with US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. The offer was approved in early July, with Swiss officials convinced it only awaited Trump’s signature.

Keller-Sutter, who also serves as finance minister under the Swiss rotating presidency, had publicly stated last month that she had gained rare “access to Trump.” However, during a 30-minute call on Thursday – described by sources as “disastrous” – the US leader reportedly rejected the offer and instead focused on Switzerland’s $39 billion trade surplus. “The call did not go well, in the sense that from the very first minute Trump made it clear 10% was not enough, and all he could focus on was Switzerland stealing money from the US. There was nothing Keller-Sutter could say,” one source told the FT. Trump reportedly asked what more the “very wealthy” Alpine country could offer.

Swiss media called the outcome Keller-Sutter’s “biggest fiasco,” with tabloid Blick likening it to the country’s worst defeat since 1515, when Swiss troops lost to France at the Battle of Marignano. Greer later denied that a final deal had been secured, telling Bloomberg: “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.” The tariff hike followed Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ speech on April 2 announcing a global trade overhaul. After multiple delays and a series of negotiations, a revised executive order signed last week adjusted rates based on “trade imbalances,” with the tariffs now set to enter into force on August 7.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/RobSchneider/status/1953330368385282517

RFK

RICO
https://twitter.com/Project_Veritas/status/1953574256769741057

Spain
https://twitter.com/TheBritLad/status/1953402175960289458

Limits

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle July 30 2025

Jul 302025
 
 July 30, 2025  Posted by at 9:56 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,  53 Responses »


Edward Hopper Burly Cobb’s House, South Truro 1930-33

 

• Trump Issues 10-Day Ultimatum To Russia (RT)
• Kremlin Responds To Trump’s Ukraine Deadline Change (RT)
• ‘It’s Not For You Or Trump To Dictate’ – Medvedev To Lindsey Graham (RT)
• US, UK Hold Talks on Replacing Zelensky – Russian Foreign Intel (Sp.)
• EU Threatens Ukraine Aid Freeze – Media (RT)
• EU Roads Not Ready For War – Transport Chief (RT)
• Ukrainian Troops Face ‘Critical’ Attrition – CNN (RT)
• Ukrainian Army To Recruit Pensioners (RT)
• New Details Emerge on Obama’s Role in Russiagate Scandal (Victor Davis Hanson)
• EU’s $750bn Energy Pledge To US Is ‘Fantasy’ – Politico (RT)
• Sen. Kennedy Says ‘We Need More Idiot Control’ After NYC Shooting (Margolis)
• Tesla Picks Taylor, Texas for Next Gen ‘Made in the USA AI Chips’ (PJM)
• DOJ Files Complaint Over Judge’s Out-of-Court Statements (Rowland)
• Israel Might Annex Gaza… All Because of France? (PJM)
• Trump Says He Believes Epstein ‘Stole’ Virginia Giuffre From Mar-a-Lago (JTN)
• Must Watch – Tucker Carlson Interviews Richard Werner (CTH)

 

 

 

 

ADAS
https://twitter.com/newstart_2024/status/1949891547744379254
poll

lose you

 

 

 

 

Trump rightfully runs with Tulsi Gabbard’s picture of Russiagate. But he fully ignores the influence it had -and has- on US-Russia relations. He should go talk to Putin first. And, as i said, apologize.

• Trump Issues 10-Day Ultimatum To Russia (RT)

Washington will impose new sanctions against Moscow if it fails to reach a deal with Kiev to settle the Ukraine conflict within ten days, US President Donald Trump stated on Tuesday. His initial deadline was due to expire in early September. Trump announced his plans to reduce the time frame during a visit to the UK on Monday. When further pressed on the issue by journalists on his way back on Tuesday, the president said it would be “ten days from today.” “And then… we’re going to put on tariffs and stuff,” he added. The new sanctions are expected to include 100% tariffs on Russian imports and secondary sanctions on countries and companies that continue to trade with the nation.

Moscow has repeatedly said it is willing to negotiate but has maintained that any talks must account for the realities on the ground and the root causes of the conflict. Commenting on Trump’s statements on Monday, the Kremlin said his words were “taken into account.” Russia will still continue its military operation but it also remains “committed to the peace process to resolve the conflict around Ukraine and to ensure our interests in the course of this settlement,” according to Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov. On Tuesday, Trump admitted that he did not know if the new restrictions were going to work. It “may or may not affect them [Russia],” he said. Since entering office this year, Trump has repeatedly stated he wanted a quick diplomatic solution to the Ukraine conflict.

Trump has recently grown frustrated with what he described as the lack of progress and spoke about his “disappointment” with Russia, while threatening the country with sanctions. Moscow responded by calling such actions counterproductive. No new sanctions would prevent Moscow from continuing to “move along our independent, sovereign, and sustained path,” Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov stated earlier this month. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said this week it was not up to Washington to “dictate” when Moscow and Kiev should negotiate. Any threat only marks “a step towards war” between Russia and the US, he warned.

Read more …

No ultimatum scares Russia. They’ve been preparing since 1991. This is from before the last ultimatum, btw.

• Kremlin Responds To Trump’s Ukraine Deadline Change (RT)

Russia has taken note of US President Donald Trump’s decision to shorten the deadline for a peace deal in Ukraine and to issue new threats, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said. On Monday, Trump cut his previous 50-day deadline for a Ukraine peace deal to just 10-12 days, warning that Moscow could face sweeping sanctions if no agreement is reached. He has threatened 100% tariffs on Russia’s trading partners and said he no longer wishes to speak with President Vladimir Putin “just to talk.” “We have taken into account President Trump’s statement yesterday,” Peskov told reporters on Tuesday, while refraining from making any “judgments” about the remarks.

Peskov noted that while Russia’s military operation will continue, Moscow remains “committed to the peace process to resolve the conflict around Ukraine and to ensure our interests in the course of this settlement.” Regarding the possibility of a meeting between Trump and Putin, which has been widely anticipated in the media in recent months, Peskov reiterated that the issue has not been raised in practical terms and is still not on the agenda. He went on to say that Russia remains interested in rebuilding ties with the US, a process initiated after the two countries’ meeting in February, while acknowledging that progress has been slow.

“So far, the normalization process is proceeding sluggishly. We would like to see more momentum,” he said, adding that in order to “move forward, impulses are needed from both sides.” Since entering office this year, Trump has said he respects both Russia and Putin and wants to find a quick diplomatic solution to the Ukraine crisis. In recent weeks, however, he has increasingly expressed disappointment over the lack of progress in the peace process and has resorted to sanctions threats against Moscow. Russian officials have rejected ultimatums from Washington, warning that these threats only serve to prolong the war.

Read more …

“..negotiations would only end “when all the objectives of our military operation have been achieved.” “Work on America first, gramps!”

• ‘It’s Not For You Or Trump To Dictate’ – Medvedev To Lindsey Graham (RT)

It is not up to Washington to dictate when Moscow should negotiate a peace deal with Kiev, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has told US Senator Lindsey Graham, urging him to focus on domestic issues instead. Medvedev’s comments follow US President Donald Trump’s decision on Monday to shorten his 50-day deadline for a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine to just 10-12 days. Trump has threatened to impose additional sanctions on Moscow and 100% tariffs on its trading partners if no deal is reached. Medvedev, who serves as deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council, had cautioned Trump against issuing ultimatums. “Russia isn’t Israel or even Iran,” he wrote on X, warning that each threat marks “a step towards war” between the US and Russia.

Graham, a senior Republican and longtime war hawk, responded by claiming that Russia and its “customers” would “soon be sadly mistaken” and ordered Moscow to “get to the peace table.” Medvedev hit back on Tuesday, stating, “It’s not for you or Trump to dictate when to ‘get at the peace table.’” He added that negotiations would only end “when all the objectives of our military operation have been achieved.” “Work on America first, gramps!” Medvedev wrote. Graham, officially labeled a terrorist and extremist by the Russian government, receives major donations from US defense contractors and consistently supports US military action abroad, describing the Ukraine conflict as a proxy war between Washington and Moscow.

He has backed continued military aid to Kiev and unsuccessfully tried to push through a bill that would impose 500% tariffs on countries trading with Russia. While Trump had initially vowed to resolve the Ukraine conflict, in recent months he has grown frustrated with the lack of progress and resorted to threats of sanctions in an effort to push Moscow and Kiev toward the negotiating table. Russian officials have welcomed Trump’s peace efforts in principle but strongly opposed what they call the “language of ultimatums,” insisting any settlement must reflect battlefield realities and address the roots of the conflict.

Read more …

” So, a new president of your country was elected at an Alpine resort. Is this how you envisioned the triumph of Ukrainian ‘democracy, independence, and self-sufficiency’ that you have long dreamed of?”

• US, UK Hold Talks on Replacing Zelensky – Russian Foreign Intel (Sp.)

The Americans and British announced their decision to nominate Zaluzhny for the post of Ukrainian president, with Yermak and Budanov* “saluting the decision.” Representatives from the US and UK, with the participation of Ukrainian Presidential Office Head Andriy Yermak, Ukrainian Military Intelligence Directorate Head Kyrylo Budanov, and Ukraine’s Ambassador to London Valery Zaluzhny, discussed the prospects of replacing Volodymyr Zelensky, according to the press service of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR). “According to information received by the SVR, not long ago, representatives from the US and the UK organized a secret meeting in a resort area in the Alps, with the participation of Head of the Ukrainian President’s Office A. Yermak, Head of the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense’s Intelligence Directorate K. Budanov, and former commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Ukraine’s Ambassador to London V. Zaluzhny,” the statement said.

“The prospects of replacing V. Zelensky as the head of the Kiev regime were discussed,” the press service added. “The prospects of replacing Zelensky as the head of the Kiev regime were discussed. Zelensky’s replacement has, in essence, become a key condition for the ‘reset’ of relations between Kiev and Western partners, primarily Washington, and for the continuation of Western assistance to Ukraine in its confrontation with Russia,” the statement said.
Yermak and Budanov secured promises from the “Anglo-Saxon” countries to maintain their current positions after Zelensky’s replacement, the statement reads. Washington and London want to nominate Zaluzhny for the position of Ukrainian president. “The Americans and Brits have announced their decision to nominate Zaluzhny for the post of president of Ukraine. Yermak and Budanov ‘saluted the decision.’

They also secured promises from the Anglo-Saxons to maintain their current positions and to take their interests into account when making other personnel decisions,” the SVR statement said. The agreement reached in the Alps regarding the replacement of Volodymyr Zelensky sheds light on the underlying reasons for his recent attempt to limit the powers of Ukraine’s anti-corruption agencies, according to the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service. “The agreement reached in the Alps sheds light on the background of the recent scandalous attempt by the ‘president’ to limit the powers of local anti-corruption bodies. By clearing the political ‘field’ for Zaluzhny, Yermak ‘set up’ Zelensky – convincing him that such a move would not damage relations with Western partners, while in fact creating an opportunity for the West to begin a campaign to remove the ‘outdated’ leader from power as someone who ‘threatens democracy,'” the SVR noted.

On July 22, the Ukrainian parliament supported a bill that cancels the independence of two anti-corruption agencies: the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO). The bill was later signed by Zelensky. Several Ukrainian lawmakers viewed the bill as a move to dismantle the country’s anti-corruption structures. According to Ukrainian media reports, protests against the law, which stripped NABU and SAPO of their independence, took place across the country starting July 22.

On July 24, against the backdrop of mass protests across Ukraine, Zelensky claimed he had agreed on a draft law that would supposedly strengthen the independence of these agencies. According to documents on the Rada’s website, the bill was submitted on July 24. Previously, Ukrainian Parliament Speaker Ruslan Stefanchuk stated that the Rada would consider the bill on July 31, adding that he would propose adopting it in both the first and second readings and immediately sending it to Zelensky for signature. “The meeting that took place and its results give reason to address the citizens of Ukraine. So, a new president of your country was elected at an Alpine resort. Is this how you envisioned the triumph of Ukrainian ‘democracy, independence, and self-sufficiency’ that you have long dreamed of?” the SVR concludes.

Read more …

Zelensky is no longer Churchill.

• EU Threatens Ukraine Aid Freeze – Media (RT)

Kiev is facing deeper cuts in EU financial support than it has publicly acknowledged, Ukrainian and German media have reported. Brussels reportedly views Ukraine’s crackdown on anti-corruption institutions as an attempt to shield an ally of Vladimir Zelensky. Last Friday, the European Commission said it would reduce support under the Ukraine Facility program from a €4.5 billion ($5.2 billion) installment to €3.05 billion ($3.5 billion), citing Kiev’s failure to meet commitments on anti-corruption reforms. However, Ukrainskaya Pravda has reported that the program has been de facto frozen, alongside another mechanism, ERA Loans, with a total of $60 billion at stake. On Monday, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) reported on an EU letter to the Ukrainian government which threatened the suspension of aid.

The Ukrainian government has placed two departments established with Western support to address rampant graft in Ukraine – the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) – under the authority of the country’s prosecutor general. However, following widespread Western rebukes, Zelensky promised to reverse the decision. Several of Zelensky’s close political supporters, particularly in the Defense Ministry, are in danger of becoming caught in the organization’s crosshairs. He claimed the move was an effort to eliminate “Russian influence” in the agencies, but EU experts reportedly found the explanation unconvincing.

According to an internal analysis cited by FAZ and shared with EU embassies in Kiev, the changes were described as “the largest interference in the affairs of the Ukrainian anti-corruption system since its inception.” The analysis also indicated that the action was likely prompted by NABU’s investigation into former Deputy Prime Minister Aleksey Chernyshov, a close political ally and personal friend of Zelensky. Ukraine’s security service (SBU) allegedly seized case files from NABU investigators, including the lead officer handling the probe, raising concerns about the admissibility of evidence and the integrity of the case. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova claimed that Ukrainian bodies were designed not to combat corruption but to give Western governments leverage over Kiev.

Read more …

Nothing in Europe is ready. The people least of all.

• EU Roads Not Ready For War – Transport Chief (RT)

The EU’s roads and railways are unprepared for war, the bloc’s transport chief has warned. In an interview with the Financial Times published on Tuesday, commissioner Apostolos Tzitzikostas said the transportation infrastructure, including bridges, railways, and tunnels, is incapable of moving tanks, troops, or military supplies in case of conflict. European officials have long warned of a possible conflict with Russia and pushed for militarization, despite Moscow denying it has any plans to attack. Tzitzikostas said defending the region would be impossible if armies cannot move quickly. He argued that if NATO tanks were needed to respond to an invasion, they would risk getting stuck in tunnels, collapsing bridges, and being delayed by border protocols.

“The reality today is that if we want to move military equipment and troops from the western side of Europe to the eastern side, it takes weeks and in some cases months,” he said. “We have old bridges that need to be upgraded, we have narrow bridges that need to be widened and we have nonexistent bridges to be built.” He explained that much of Europe’s infrastructure is not designed for heavy military transport. Trucks generally weigh up to 40 tons, while a tank can weigh up to 70. According to Tzitzikostas, Brussels is preparing a strategy to ensure troops can move swiftly. The plan includes upgrading 500 infrastructure projects along four military corridors and cutting bureaucratic red tape to ease border crossing.

The projects, identified with NATO, are classified, but are estimated to cost €17 billion ($19.7 billion). The strategy will be presented later this year. The initiative comes amid a push for greater militarization across the bloc over what officials describe as the ‘Russian threat’. Recent moves include the €800 billion ReArm Europe program and a pledge by European NATO members to raise defense spending to 5% of GDP. Moscow has dismissed the claims as “nonsense.” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said last month that the West uses Russia as a “monster” to justify growing military budgets. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused Western leaders of pushing Europe toward direct confrontation.

Read more …

“We have a critical shortage of personnel. No one wants to fight. The war is over (for them)..”

“The old personnel are left, they are tired and want to be replaced, but no one is replacing them.”

• Ukrainian Troops Face ‘Critical’ Attrition – CNN (RT)

Ukraine’s forces are exhausted and suffering from a “critical shortage of personnel,” with no recruits to replace them, CNN reported on Tuesday. With few volunteers, Kiev’s draft campaign has reportedly become more brutal and has drawn criticism for violence and abuse. Ukrainian troops deployed to Konstantinovka – a major logistics hub in Donetsk Region – have not seen reinforcements for eight months, the outlet wrote, citing a member of Ukraine’s 93rd Mechanized Brigade. The city is currently facing encirclement by Russia. “We have a critical shortage of personnel. No one wants to fight. The war is over (for them),” CNN cited the serviceman as saying. “The old personnel are left, they are tired and want to be replaced, but no one is replacing them.”

According to the soldier, Ukraine’s army doesn’t relay many of these frontline difficulties to the state, and Kiev “doesn’t communicate a lot of things to the people.” When we say that the situation is difficult, no one understands. You have to be in our shoes. We are tired. Everyone is tired of this war, and I believe that other countries are also tired of helping us. The remaining Ukrainian infantry hold positions around the city with as few as two people, CNN wrote. They are resupplied in the dark hours of dawn or dusk via the larger of Ukraine’s quadcopter models, as frontline positions are vulnerable to Russian UAVs.

Russia’s newer drone forces from the Rubicon unit are “well-trained and professional,” sometimes needing nothing but a thread hanging from a quadcopter to entangle the rotors of a Ukrainian drone to crash it, CNN cited their source as saying. Ukrainian troops in Konstantinovka are increasingly turning to fishing nets as anti-drone defenses to fight against the high-tech aerial threat, but some Russian drone operators exploit gaps to bypass them, according to CNN. Russian forces have gained control of key lines of communication on the city’s flanks, moving to encircle it. The Russian Defense Ministry reported on Tuesday that its southern army group has “improved its positions” around the key logistics hub.

Read more …

“Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova called the program “a one-way ticket,” suggesting that Ukraine is “annihilating” its youth..”

• Ukrainian Army To Recruit Pensioners (RT)

Ukraine will start enlisting men over 60 for contract-based military service, according to a new law signed by Vladimir Zelensky on Tuesday. The measure appears aimed at addressing recruitment shortfalls in the country’s armed forces. The new law enables pension-eligible men to enlist for non-combat roles if they are deemed fit by military doctors and approved by a unit commander. Contracts will last for one year and may be renewed upon further approval. Originally introduced in April by a group of lawmakers, the bill passed its second reading in the Verkhovna Rada earlier this month. Under current Ukrainian law, 60 is the minimum retirement age for men.

The country announced a general mobilization in February 2022 under which most men between the age of 18 and 60 were barred from leaving the country. In 2024, faced with mounting losses, Kiev lowered the conscription age from 27 to 25 and tightened mobilization rules. The draft campaign has increasingly relied on coercion, sparking numerous violent confrontations between conscription officers and civilians. Reports of beatings, street detentions, and extortion have circulated widely, though Kiev has routinely dismissed such allegations as “Russian propaganda.” In a recent interview with Hungarian media, Zelensky admitted that mobilization remains a major challenge.

More than 213,000 registered cases of desertion have now been reported in Ukraine, with widespread corruption and extortion of combat pay by military commanders listed among the reasons Ukrainian soldiers abandon their units. Earlier this year, Kiev launched a voluntary military recruitment campaign targeting men aged 18 to 24. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova called the program “a one-way ticket,” suggesting that Ukraine is “annihilating” its youth. Russian officials have long said that Kiev’s Western backers are ready to fight Moscow “until the last Ukrainian.”

Read more …

“You go back—we only have a few weeks left, I’m a lame-duck president—and bring me the right assessments.” And that’s exactly what they did..”

• New Details Emerge on Obama’s Role in Russiagate Scandal (Victor Davis Hanson)

I’d like to talk about the ongoing melodrama of what former President Barack Obama knew or did not know in his involvement with Russian collusion, the hoax that plagued the Donald Trump 2016 campaign, tried to undermine his transition in 2016 and 2017, and ate up the first 22 months of his presidency in 2017 and 2018, and was found to be completely bogus. There are three blind mice involved in this tale: John Brennan, the former CIA director; James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence; and James Comey, the former FBI director. And they all have new manifestations of their untruthfulness.

Let’s start with John Brennan. He’s very angry right now because the trove that was released by National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard of new documents and investigations may or may not have criminal referrals come out of them, and Attorney General Pam Bondi may file new charges. The problem that Brennan has is that he went to a meeting and he presented a false picture of CIA assessments. The so-called CIA heads of various divisions found no Russian collusion. They said to John Brennan, “There’s nothing there that we can see that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians.” He rejected that, cherry-picked four or five other analysts, and then presented a false picture to Barack Obama. Or did he? Or did Barack Obama request that he do that? It’ll be “he said, he said,” but it’s more likely that Barack Obama asked John Brennan to come up with the correct CIA assessments.

Sort of like Lavrentiy Beria, the head of the Soviet secret police during the Cold War and at the end of World War II. He said, “I have the criminal. You find me the crime.” So: “I have the criminal, Donald Trump. All I need is Russian collusion.” And that was the methodology that they proceeded by. The problem with Brennan, though, is, in the process of preparing this false assessment, he said again and again, both publicly but also under testimony, he didn’t know anything about the Steele dossier. Didn’t know anything about it. He didn’t read it. It didn’t compute into CIA assessment. That was a lie. We know now from other testimonies, especially from the trove, that he did draw on the fake Steele dossier. He referenced it to other people. And the problem with John Brennan is this isn’t the first time he’s misled us. He lied about the Senate staffer computers. That was under oath. He lied, remember, about Predator drones, when he said there was no collateral damage. And remember he lied also as one of the 51 intelligence authorities who tried to float that bogus idea that Hunter Biden’s laptop was cooked up in Russia.

Then we come to James Clapper. He was sitting at this meeting in December of 2016, where he gave a false assessment and he misrepresented what the 18 intelligence agencies under his direction had found. They had not found Russian collusion, and yet he participated in this. He went so far as later to thanking and giving credit to Barack Obama for demanding that they find Russian collusion. He said, “If he hadn’t have ordered us to do this, we wouldn’t have found it.” I.e., the subtext is, “There was no evidence in our intelligence agency for it, so we concocted it on the directive of Barack Obama.” But remember, he lied too. He swore under oath to the U.S. Congress that the National Security Agency had never spied on Americans. That was an abject lie. And he was part of the 51 intelligent authorities who also lied to the American people in 2020 on the eve of the second debate when Joe Biden denied that Hunter lied, Hunter Biden’s laptop was authentic. He quoted the 51 authorities. The FBI, remember, at that time, had it in its possession and had already authenticated it as genuine.

Then we come to James Comey. He also says that he had really nothing to do with the Steele dossier. The fact is, he was completely acquainted with it. He offered, his FBI offered a million dollars. They were so desperate to validate it. They said to Christopher Steele, “Just give us some proof. We can use this. We’ll give you a million dollars.” He couldn’t even come up with the substantive arguments to corroborate his own dossier, so he didn’t get the million dollars. More importantly, James Comey has a problem. He leaked, on an FBI device, a conversation he had memorialized to The New York Times via a third party. James Comey, remember, went before the House Oversight Committee, as I said earlier, and lied 245 times. If you say, “I don’t remember, I don’t recall, I don’t know,”—can you imagine an FBI director with all that knowledge at his fingertips saying, “I don’t remember, I don’t know,” about the most important investigation in recent history?

Let’s sum up these three blind mice. There’s new evidence that Barack Obama asked intelligence, investigatory heads—like John Brennan, like James Clapper and James Comey—to “find me evidence that you haven’t found yet so that we can continue the Russian collusion hoax after it was ineffective in the campaign, Hillary Clinton lost the election. Now we want to sabotage.” This is the subtext of the transition and his presidency. “You go back—we only have a few weeks left, I’m a lame-duck president—and bring me the right assessments.” And that’s exactly what they did, and that’s why they’re terrified that new information is coming forth that suggests to the American people what they did and how they were culpable.

Read more …

“The EU spent €76 billion on US energy last year – tripling that would require sidelining cheaper suppliers and diverting nearly all US oil and gas exports to Europe. “It’s just never going to happen.”

• EU’s $750bn Energy Pledge To US Is ‘Fantasy’ – Politico (RT)

The EU’s pledge to buy $750 billion worth of American energy over three years to avert a trade war with Washington is “almost impossible” to honor, Politico reported Tuesday, citing analysts and officials. The EU and the US finalized a wide-ranging trade pact on Sunday, narrowly avoiding a transatlantic trade war. Under the agreement, most EU exports to the US will face a baseline tariff of 15%. Brussels also pledged to buy $750 billion in US energy and invest $600 billion into the US economy over three years. According to the outlet, limited US supply, technical obstacles, and the EU’s lack of control over import deals make hitting the targets extremely difficult.

The headline figure is “completely unrealistic,” Laura Page, senior analyst at commodities firm Kpler told the outlet. The EU spent €76 billion on US energy last year – tripling that would require sidelining cheaper suppliers and diverting nearly all US oil and gas exports to Europe. “It’s just never going to happen.” Despite European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s claim that the plan would boost energy security and reduce reliance on Russia, the numbers remain unconvincing, the outlet noted. While pipeline flows plunged after sanctions and the Nord Stream sabotage, Russian LNG surged, making up 17.5% of EU supply last year, second only to the US at 45.3%.

In 2024, the EU imported €23 billion in oil, gas, and nuclear fuel from Russia—too little to close the gap. EU refineries also have limited capacity to process American oil, capped around 14%, said Kpler’s Homayoun Falakshahi. “It really is a fantasy,” he said. A senior Commission official told the outlet the deal depends on having sufficient LNG infrastructure and US shipping capacity, which is not in place. The Commission also can’t make purchases itself – it relies on private companies. “This is not something the EU can guarantee,” one official said.

Read more …

“I don’t know why bad things happen to good people,” Kennedy said. “If I make it to heaven, I’m gonna ask.”

• Sen. Kennedy Says ‘We Need More Idiot Control’ After NYC Shooting (Margolis)

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) once again demonstrated why he’s among the most blunt voices on Capitol Hill as he threw cold water on the left’s knee-jerk fixation with gun control in the aftermath of Monday’s deadly Midtown Manhattan shooting that left five people dead, including an NYPD officer. Kennedy, appearing with Sean Hannity, directly called out what’s become a predictable routine from progressives: a fresh crime, and immediately, another chorus calling to shred the Second Amendment. Kennedy, who has long opposed additional gun control legislation, made it clear he expects Democrats to push for more restrictions in response to the attack. “On Capitol Hill, probably beginning in the morning, there’ll be the inevitable call by some of my colleagues for more gun control laws,” Kennedy predicted.

But, as he put it bluntly, “We’ve got hundreds of gun control laws, Sean, maybe thousands… We don’t need more gun control. We need more idiot control.” Kennedy was unwavering in his characterization of the shooter and the crime. “I believe there’s objective evil in this world,” he said. “And we saw it today.” He dismissed any anticipated sympathy for the shooter, saying, “I don’t want to hear anyone feeling sorry for this guy. ‘He was confused.’ ‘He was just sick.’ ‘His mom or daddy didn’t love him enough.’ All that may be true, but from the bottom of my heart, I don’t care.” The Louisiana senator also criticized the broader climate of hostility toward law enforcement in major cities like New York. “There are a lot of people in political leadership today who believe that cops are a bigger problem than criminals,” he said. “If a cop has to shoot a criminal, it’s always the cop’s fault. But if a criminal shoots a cop, it’s the gun’s fault.”

As New York City remains embroiled in debates over policing policies ranging from defunding the police to replacing officers with social workers, Kennedy warned against policies that undermine public safety. “Police aren’t perfect,” he said, “but they’re the only distance between us and whack jobs like this guy who killed these innocent people today.” He went further, calling for a return to more assertive policing measures. “New York’s gonna have to face the issue of whether we should bring back more aggressive stop and frisk,” Kennedy said, referring to the tactic ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court but later abandoned under former Mayor Bill de Blasio. “The crime went up as soon as he did.” Although there is little public information about the shooter at this stage, early reports indicate that the attack was not random. “It seems to be targeted,” Hannity noted. “He seemed to know exactly where he wanted to go.”

Kennedy’s remarks offered a stark reminder that evil is not just theoretical—it has consequences, and those consequences are now being felt by the families of the victims. “I don’t know why bad things happen to good people,” Kennedy said. “If I make it to heaven, I’m gonna ask.” Kennedy is absolutely right. The radical left seizes on every tragedy as an excuse to chip away at the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans. They push the same tired agenda, demanding more gun control that punishes the innocent while doing nothing to stop the evil at the heart of the violence. This horrific act took place despite New York having among the strictest gun laws in the nation — proof, yet again, that oppressive laws fail to deliver their advertised safety. Not a single law they’ve passed or proposed would have prevented the carnage we saw yesterday.

Read more …

Should that be 1st gen? And can this bring Musk and Trump closer?

• Tesla Picks Taylor, Texas for Next Gen ‘Made in the USA AI Chips’ (PJM)

Tesla has signed a $16.5 billion deal with Samsung Electronics to manufacture its new AI6 chips, the brains behind its next-generation autonomous vehicles, not in Taiwan or South Korea, but in Taylor, Texas. This news is fantastic on several levels. It’s more than simply a business deal; it’s a declaration that America is no longer outsourcing its tech future. As Elon Musk bluntly X’d:

For years following World War II, the world lived under the silent bottleneck pressure of Taiwan’s semiconductor industry. The chips used in defense systems, neural networks, and autonomous vehicles are advanced AI using materials found within a rock’s throw of Beijing. Suddenly, a significant business decision has a profound impact on our national security. At long last, this AI chip deal shifted the fulcrum. Samsung’s Taylor facility becomes a beachhead in the global chip war due to its $40 billion investment. These investments aren’t just about cars anymore; they’re about securing AI, data infrastructure, and laying the economic foundation of this century. What Taiwan is to the global chip supply, Texas has become a shining example of American self-reliance—a modern Silicon Alamo. This time, though, we’re not playing defense.

Tesla’s AI6 chips are vital for achieving Full Self-Driving ambitions. They’re not just processors; they’re the cornerstone for real-time decision-making, leveraging visual processing and paving the way for future autonomy. With production anchored in Texas, Tesla does more than improve logistics; it creates a closed-loop ecosystem with design, fabrication, testing, and deployment all on U.S. soil. When Apple launched its M-series chips, they sought the same control. The difference? Apple makes devices, while Tesla builds a nervous system for AI-driven mobility, robotics, and energy systems. Texas is on a roll! Its population isn’t the only thing growing; the state is expanding its relevance. This Samsung-Tesla deal creates thousands of high-tech jobs, helping to fabricate and reinforce a talent pipeline that elevates the Lone Star State into a global hub for next-gen chip production.

We’re witnessing an industrial revolution covered with Texas barbecue and no state income tax. The deal again demonstrates how America is competing. No subsidies are lining the pockets of backroom board members who work to stifle innovation by engineering regulations. This was done the Smith-Barney way: They earned it by creating private-public partnerships, drawing investment, brains, and resolve. We need to give credit where it’s due: this deal wouldn’t have happened without the Trump administration’s aggressive CHIPS and Science Act reforms, which helped reshore critical manufacturing. Trump’s policies focus on the long game, emphasizing semiconductors, steel, and sovereignty. In contrast, the Biden administration didn’t simply slow-walk similar projects; instead, they scoffed while investing in green vanity projects. Thank God the grown-ups are back. There’s no denying the results we see nearly every week.

We can’t forget about China. They’re not sitting still; the CCP is racing to dominate chip fabrication by pouring billions into domestic fabs and luring Taiwan and South Korea with million-dollar paychecks. The West is relearning what Beijing has known for decades: Whoever controls the chips controls the future. The Samsung-Tesla alliance is making a loud and clear statement that the United States will no longer depend on hostile or unstable regions for the future’s machinery. The coalition serves as a counterpunch to the Belt and Road Initiative, TikTok’s spyware tentacles, and especially to the notion of America’s inevitable decline. If that message wasn’t enough, we’re sending one to NATO and its allies: America isn’t back in the game; it is THE GAME — not just militarily, but industrially, telling allies that if they want to remain competitive, they bloody well better follow our lead.

Samsung is taking a high-stakes gamble for its foundry. The Korean tech giant played second fiddle to the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) for years. It struggled with yields and volume in 3nm and 4nm nodes. With Musk’s vote of confidence and Tesla’s elite engineering standards, Samsung might finally have its breakout moment. Unlike a company still chasing relevance in AI chip production (Intel), Samsung has secured a front-row seat on the ship to our future. If it delivers, the ripple effects will stretch worldwide. Samsung’s partnership with Tesla is less about profit and more about positioning. For America, it’s a strong wedge between China and one of its most advanced neighbors. But for Musk, it’s a day ending in “Y.”

America doesn’t need to simply dominate every industry overnight. The long game helps us outlast, outthink, and out-invest every regime wanting to replace us. The best part? That starts by building, hiring, and anchoring our future right here. We can tell the World Economic Forum to pound sand, while expressing the iron resolve of American workers and American soil. Tesla’s deal with Samsung isn’t just a tech story; it’s a quiet return to national purpose. Wait one! Do you hear that? That noise sounds a lot like WINNING!

Read more …

“..@TheJusticeDept filed a misconduct complaint against U.S. District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg for making improper public comments about President Trump and his Administration,”

• DOJ Files Complaint Over Judge’s Out-of-Court Statements (Rowland)

The Justice Department filed a complaint alleging misconduct by a federal judge overseeing several cases involving the Trump administration regarding out-of-court statements the judge made about President Donald Trump. The complaint, filed by Attorney General Pam Bondi’s chief of staff, Chad Mizelle, alleges Judge James Boasberg made improper public comments at a conference in March. Mizelle alleges Boasberg tried to influence Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and other federal judges at the conference with comments that Trump would disregard court orders leading to a “a constitutional crisis.” “Although his comments would be inappropriate even if they had some basis, they were even worse because Judge Boasberg had no basis—the Trump Administration has always complied with all court orders,” Mizelle wrote in the complaint. “Within days of those statements, Judge Boasberg began acting on his preconceived belief that the Trump Administration would not follow court orders.”

“At my direction, @TheJusticeDept filed a misconduct complaint against U.S. District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg for making improper public comments about President Trump and his Administration,” Bondi wrote in a social media post. “These comments have undermined the integrity of the judiciary, and we will not stand for that.” Mizelle asked Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan to direct the complaint to a special investigative committee, reassignment of all related Trump cases to another judge, and to “impose appropriate disciplinary action.”

Boasberg was the judge in the Alien Enemies Act case, which was filed in mid-March when multiple deportation flights took off from the United States to El Salvador. During an emergency hearing, Boasberg ordered that any planes that were midair and bound for El Salvador return to the United States. Boasberg later initiated contempt proceedings to determine if the Trump administration willfully violated court orders. An appeals court paused the process, however. The Supreme Court ruled in April that a lower federal court doesn’t have jurisdiction in a lawsuit filed to prevent deportations of Venezuelan Tren de Aragua prison gang members illegally in the U.S. The White House has called for Boasberg to be impeached in March.

Read more …

France will recognize Palestine shortly. So will Britain. Holland refuses entry to Ben Gvir and Smotrich. Starvation is all over everyone’s tv screens.

• Israel Might Annex Gaza… All Because of France? (PJM)

When Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005 — and some settlers had to be removed at gunpoint — it probably seemed unthinkable that Israel would ever again lay claim to the Strip. Various reports indicate that Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu is indeed thinking the unthinkable, and French President Emmanuel Macron is likely the accidental instigator. “Netanyahu is considering a plan to annex territories in Gaza if Hamas doesn’t agree to a ceasefire plan. This is one of several options,” an unnamed Israeli source told ABC News. The Israeli government has repeatedly told Hamas that the war can end immediately — all it has to do is release the remaining hostages. Or, probably more accurately, return their remains. Hamas refuses to do so, even though Israel has made clear that its war aim is the elimination of Hamas as both a military and political force.

Why would Hamas take such a suicidal risk? You can thank Western politicians like Macron for providing Hamas with the political cover the terrorist organization believes will allow it to survive any IDF onslaught. Just last Friday, Macron announced that his country will recognize a Palestinian state starting in September. Western recognition of the Palestinians — an imaginary people that the Soviets and Egyptian-born Yasser Arafat conjured up in the 1960s — would create a legal nest of vipers for Jerusalem. I’ll let the international law experts go into those details, but my GPT research served up a big, steaming bowl of “Not Good.” For America’s part, President Donald Trump brushed off Macron: “That statement doesn’t carry any weight.” Nor should it, for anyone interested in peace and in eliminating one of the world’s worst terrorist outfits — two inextricably intertwined and mutually reinforcing goals.

That recognition effort may have triggered far more than diplomatic friction. It could set the stage for a major and permanent shift in Israeli policy. Israel’s N12 news service analyst Amit Segal called the potential annexations “significant” because once Israel annexes territory, giving it back is nearly impossible.”While the military can simply relinquish any territory it controls, annexing parts of the strip is almost irreversible,” Segal explained this morning on X. “According to Israeli law, if the government wants to relinquish territory it has annexed, it has two options: the withdrawal can either be approved by 80 of the Knesset’s 120 members, or through a referendum.” As divisive as Israeli politics are, getting 80 votes on anything as contentious as giving up land seems highly unlikely. As horrible as Oct. 7 was, getting Israeli voters to approve of giving land back to Hamas seems even less likely.

Here’s the kicker: Annexation is hard to undo, but actually annexing new real estate requires nothing more than Netanyahu’s approval. What one man can do requires 80 to undo. Earlier this month, France’s National Court of Asylum “ruled that Palestinian nationals from Gaza who are not under the United Nations protection may be granted refugee status under the 1951 Geneva Convention.” That would presumably include any Gaza Arabs in lands occupied — or annexed — by Israel. If I were Netanyahu, I’d be thinking very hard about two things right now. The first, of course, is which parts of the Strip are essential to Israeli security and ripe for annexation. The second is how to play hardball with Macron. Maybe — just maybe! — Israel won’t flood France with Gazans they’re legally obligated to take in as refugees, so long as Macron backs away from recognition. Two can play this game. And should.

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1950224020206465221?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1950224020206465221%7Ctwgr%5E403b0421a1ce3aafa21ef1b0c98241332b6404f5%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fgeopolitical%2Fstarmer-warns-uk-could-join-france-recognizing-palestinian-state

Read more …

“Giuffre, who committed suicide in April..”

After saying she never would.

• Trump Says He Believes Epstein ‘Stole’ Virginia Giuffre From Mar-a-Lago (JTN)

President Donald Trump on Tuesday told reporters that he believes Jeffrey Epstein’s most prominent accuser, Virginia Giuffre, was among the former Mar-a-Lago employees that the late financier “stole” from his resort. Giuffre, who committed suicide in April, has been credited by other Epstein accusers with inspiring them to speak out about their own experiences with the convicted felon. Epstein died in prison in 2019, while awaiting trial on multiple sex-trafficking charges. Trump spoke out about his fallout with the late financier over the weekend as his administration faces blowback from lawmakers and supporters regarding its handling of Epstein’s alleged client list.

The president claimed the falling out was over Epstein stealing employees from his Florida resort. “He took people that worked for me. And I told him, ‘Don’t do it anymore.’ And he did it,” Trump said. “I said, ‘Stay the hell out of here.'” Trump confirmed that the employees were young women who worked in the club’s spa, including Giuffre. The accuser previously said she met Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell while working at the resort as a teenager, per NBC News.

“I told him, I said, ‘Listen, we don’t want you taking our people, whether it was spa or not spa.’ … And he was fine. And then not too long after that, he did it again,” Trump said. “I think [Giuffre] worked at the spa. I think so. I think that was one of the people. He stole her, and by the way, she had no complaints about us, as you know, none whatsoever.” The president’s comments are true that Giuffre has never accused Trump of wrongdoing, but she has sued Prince Andrew, alleging she was sexually abused by him when she was a teenager. The British prince has denied the allegations but settled the lawsuit in 2022.

Read more …

Ran this yesterday as a video with no context. Sundance’s enthousiasm for it makes me run it again.

• Must Watch – Tucker Carlson Interviews Richard Werner (CTH)

This is one of those interviews that simply must be watched in its entirety. It’s long, almost 3 hours, but take the quiet time to watch and absorb the information provided by economist Professor Richard Werner. Werner discusses something absolutely vital to understand about the nature of economics and the banking system that underpins it. You have often heard me say “there are trillions at stake” when describing the elements aligned against President Trump. Well, Werner gives context to what lies behind those trillions. Nine years ago, as President Elect Trump won his first election, I wrote about the future of economics and the potential if a Main Street monetary and banking system was created. Richard Werner discusses the specific issue of how credit creation by regular banks actually creates money. He’s the first person I have seen speak who really gets it.

There are distinct differences between banks creating money for asset purchases (inflation), consumer purchases (inflation) and GDP growth (Main Street expansion). He simply nails it, and that is why he was put on the CIA radar. When Werner speaks of the need for two distinct banking systems as a solution to the “inflationary” impact of money created for asset purchases vs GDP growth, he is specifically highlighting the difference between Wall Street money and Main Street money. This, in the largest measure, is exactly why President Trump and Secretary Mnuchin created the dual banking system. This is what led to the global pandemic as a tool to stop President Trump.

I cannot recommend this interview enough. However, don’t sell yourself short. Find a quiet place, quiet time, and take notes as you listen to Richard Werner outline the true and unspoken nature of how money is created. When you understand what Werner is saying, everything the FED and Central Banks do starts to make sense. Behind what Werner is explaining you will find the motives to oppose President Trump. Werner doesn’t draw the connection to Trump’s policies, but when you hear him outline the history and the problem you will get it.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Makis

Fertility
https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/1949721049286738278

cell

pole
https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1950065059020845390
malaka
https://twitter.com/FreshSummerWind/status/1950135110180667890

bull

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle May 7 2025

May 072025
 
 May 7, 2025  Posted by at 9:30 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,  64 Responses »


Felix Vallotton Verdun 1917

 

• Bessent Says US Is Negotiating With 17 Out of 18 Major Trade Partners (JTN)
• Bessent and USTR Greer Will Meet Chinese Trade Counterparts in Switzerland (CTH)
• Chinese Exporters Dodging US Tariffs – FT (RT)
• China May Cave to Trump on Tariffs Soon (Matt Margolis)
• The EU Zombie Uses Trump as Cover to Further Feed on Citizens (NC)
• The Death of Old Europe (von Hoffmeister)
• Canada’s War on… Canada (Solway)
• Canada: A Post-Election Autopsy (Solway)
• The Trump-Iran Deal, Explained (Victor Davis Hanson)
• $373M in DEI Funding at US Universities in Four Years (Salgado)
• OpenAI Blinks: Scraps For-Profit Plan After Outside Pressure (ZH)
• (None Dare Call It) Treason of the Judiciary (Miele)
• SCOTUS Rules On Trump’s Ban On Transgenders In The Military (Downey Jr)
• President Trump Sends Message of Support for Ed Martin as DC Attorney (CTH)
• This One Judge Keeps Getting Trump Cases, and It’s No Accident (Matt Margolis)
• America First Legal sues Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts (JTN)
• The Treaty That Kept India And Pakistan In Check Is Gone. Now What? (Chopra)

 

 

 

 

Big as it gets

Carney

Ritter
https://twitter.com/SMO_VZ/status/1919507173295718879

Orban
https://twitter.com/PM_ViktorOrban/status/1919730442808307869

Levine

Sharia

Fico
https://twitter.com/GlobalDiss/status/1919724917135646990

Catherine Austin Fitts talked about it

 

 

 

 

“I would be surprised if we don’t have more than 80% or 90% of those wrapped up by the end of the year,” he continued. “That may be much sooner. I would think that perhaps as early as this week, we will be announcing trade deals with some of our largest trading partners.”

• Bessent Says US Is Negotiating With 17 Out of 18 Major Trade Partners (JTN)

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Tuesday testified to Congress that the United States is in the process of negotiating with 17 of its largest trading partners. The secretary told the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government that they have received good offers from the countries they are currently negotiating with, in the wake of President Donald Trump’s tariffs. Bessent did not give a specific timeline for when trade deals would be reached, but said he expects most deals will be reached by the end of the year, according to Fox Business.

“There are 18 very important trading relationships. We are currently negotiating with 17 of those trading partners,” Bessent said. “China – we have not engaged in negotiations with as of yet. “Approximately 97% or 98% of our trade deficit is with 15 countries, 18% of the countries are major trading partners, and I would be surprised if we don’t have more than 80% or 90% of those wrapped up by the end of the year,” he continued. “That may be much sooner. I would think that perhaps as early as this week, we will be announcing trade deals with some of our largest trading partners.”

Bessent did not specify what countries they expect a deal with soon, or what the details of those deals would be. But he did state he believes the U.S. will see a reduction in the tariffs it’s charged by other countries. Hours after his testimony, officials indicated that formal trade negotiations with China could take place as early as Thursday, when the secretary travels to Switzerland. U.S. trade representative Jamieson Greer is also expected to meet with Chinese trade officials in Switzerland. The testimony also coincided with Trump’s meeting with new Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. Canada and Mexico are two of the U.S.’s largest trading partners, along with China, Germany and Japan.

India
https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1919798852426858673

Read more …

A chance meeting! It allows everyone to save face…

• Bessent and USTR Greer Will Meet Chinese Trade Counterparts in Switzerland (CTH)

The media have been going bananas wondering when President Trump will begin negotiations with China. President Trump has been very clear that there is no need to open negotiations with China, but all discussions are welcome. Essentially the point is that tariffs will remain in place until Beijing gets to a point where they acquiesce to the reality of President Trump’s terms for reciprocal trade. The goal is to bring manufacturing back to the USA, not generate terms where manufacturing remains in China. The Chinese trade delegation is scheduled to be in Switzerland at the same time as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer are scheduled to be there. Both Bessent and Greer announced today they will meet with their Chinese counterparts on the sidelines of their travel to Switzerland.

USTR Press Release – […] “At President Trump’s direction, I am negotiating with countries to rebalance our trade relations to achieve reciprocity, open new markets, and protect America’s economic and national security,” said Ambassador Greer. “I look forward to having productive meetings with some of my counterparts as well as visiting with my team in Geneva who all work diligently to advance U.S. interests on a range of multilateral issues. ”While in Switzerland, Ambassador Greer will also meet with his counterpart from the People’s Republic of China to discuss trade matters.”

Treasury Secretary Press Release – “During Secretary Bessent’s visit to Switzerland, he will meet with President Karin Keller-Sutter of Switzerland, during which the Secretary will follow up on their recent meeting on the sidelines of the recent World Bank Group (WBG) – International Monetary Fund (IMF) Spring Meetings. While in Switzerland, Secretary Bessent will also meet with the lead representative on economic matters from the People’s Republic of China (PRC). (link) As we previously noted, the Swiss are very interested in resolving their trade status quickly. The Swiss Franc is now at the highest point against the U.S dollar in decades. One franc is worth 1.21 dollars. This makes their exports cost even more. The Swiss government desperately needs to lower the value of their currency. The Swiss central bank has already dropped interest rates to 0.25% and is now contemplating negative interest rates as a result.

Read more …

Xi can’t deny knowing about it.

• Chinese Exporters Dodging US Tariffs – FT (RT)

Chinese exporters are using various methods to avoid steep US tariffs, including shipping goods through third countries to obscure their origin, Financial Times reported on Sunday, citing trade consultants, customs officials, and social media posts. The practice, known as “place-of-origin washing,” involves rerouting goods through countries such as Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, and South Korea, and re-exporting them to the United States with new certificates of origin. The administration of US President Donald Trump recently imposed steep tariffs of up to 145% on Chinese goods, citing national security and trade imbalance concerns.

Chinese exporters fear that the tariffs will deprive them of access to one of their most important markets. According to the outlet, Chinese social media platforms are awash with ads offering “place-of-origin washing.” “The US must know of it,” one Malaysian salesperson has told FT. “It cannot get too crazy so we are controlling the amount [of orders we take].” According to FT, authorities in Malaysia, Vietnam, and Thailand are looking into the alleged practice and are implementing measures to tighten origin checks. Chinese exporters typically sell goods “free on board” (FOB), transferring liability to buyers once the goods leave China, which complicates enforcement efforts, the outlet added.

The other reported circumvention method is mixing high-cost items with cheaper goods, so exporters can underreport overall values of shipments, the FT quoted a cross-border trade consultant as saying. There are intermediaries who reportedly offer “grey area” tariff workarounds to small- and medium-sized enterprises. Beijing has accused Washington of “economic bullying,” retaliating with 125% duties on all US imports and implementing export controls. The Chinese Commerce Ministry said last week that it was evaluating the possibility of trade negotiations with the US but reiterated that Washington must show “sincerity” by canceling its tariffs if it wants meaningful dialogue.

Read more …

“China’s social safety net is practically nonexistent. When Chinese workers lose their jobs, they’re completely on their own: no unemployment benefits, no food stamps, nothing. That’s why we’re seeing increasing unrest as workers demand back pay and protest unfair dismissals.”

• China May Cave to Trump on Tariffs Soon (Matt Margolis)

President Donald Trump’s tough stance on China is already producing results, and the evidence suggests that Chairman Xi Jinping will have no choice but to back down. The Chinese economy, long propped up by unfair trade practices, is starting to crumble under the weight of Trump’s strategic 145% tariffs on Chinese imports. Protests from furious factory workers in China demanding back pay are spreading across the country after President Trump’s tariffs on Chinese imports began impacting the communist nation’s economy. Unrest has been reported across the country as workers have taken to the streets protesting unpaid wages and challenging unfair dismissals following the closures of factories squeezed by US tariffs, according to Radio Free Asia.

Chinese industry leaders, meanwhile, are “extremely anxious” about the steep duties, with many telling factories and suppliers to halt or delay supplies, Wang Xin, head of an industry group representing more than 2,000 Chinese merchants told the Financial Times. The scale of the crisis is staggering. Goldman Sachs’ analysis indicates that 16 million Chinese jobs are at risk due to Trump’s tariffs. Chinese industry leaders are reportedly “extremely anxious” about the steep tariffs, which is likely an understatement given the mounting evidence of economic turmoil. “It’s not easy at the moment,” a 26-year-old toy factory worker told the FT. His employer, in the Chinese city of Zhejiang, mostly sells to the US, and management recently forced workers to take two weeks off unpaid in the face of the tariffs.

Last month, construction workers threatened to throw themselves off the buildings they were working on unless they received their unpaid wages in the northeastern city of Tongliao, Radio Free Asia reported. Elsewhere, a sporting goods factory in southern Hunan province also shut without warning last month, offering no compensation or social security benefits, leading hundreds of workers to go on strike, the outlet said. But here’s the key point that the mainstream media keeps missing: China’s social safety net is practically nonexistent. When Chinese workers lose their jobs, they’re completely on their own: no unemployment benefits, no food stamps, nothing. That’s why we’re seeing increasing unrest as workers demand back pay and protest unfair dismissals.

The Chinese Communist Party maintains its grip on power through economic growth and iron-fisted control. But when millions of workers take to the streets, even totalitarian regimes start to sweat. History shows that no government, not even one as powerful as China’s, can ignore the fury of its people indefinitely. Last month, Kevin O’Leary predicted that China’s economy would face serious pressure if the U.S. got tough on trade, which it has. He pointed out that millions of Chinese factory workers rely on American demand, and without access to it, China risks internal unrest or potentially economic collapse if the government prints money to keep people employed. This vindicates what Trump has been saying all along: China needs us far more than we need them. While some American companies are feeling the pinch from the tariffs, our diverse economy and robust worker protections provide a crucial buffer. China enjoys no such luxury. If Xi wants to stay in power, he’ll have to cave sooner rather than later.

Read more …

” It’s getting pushback from the European Parliament, but the fact is Ursula can do it anyways with minimal support from EU governments. She’s likely just waiting for the right moment.”

• The EU Zombie Uses Trump as Cover to Further Feed on Citizens (NC)

Donald Trump is the gift that keeps on giving for the western misleadership class. Any anti-democratic swindle on the EU wish list is now being sold as a remedy to the Orange Man. (And if it’s not Trump, it’s Russia). The US is no longer a reliable defense partner, they say. We must give more power to Brussels and send untold billions to weapons companies. The US is no longer a reliable economic partner, they say. We must increase competitiveness by weakening labor and empowering finance. The UK voters may have opted for Brexit, but London and Brussels are “defying Trump” with a “free and open trade” declaration that includes negotiations ‘on defense and security, fishing and energy, as well as a “common understanding” of which topics will be covered by intensive Brexit reset negotiations this year.’

The strange thing about these plans, however, is that they include reliance on US weapons and energy and alignment with US geopolitical and geoeconomic goals. Let’s focus here on how the EU is pressing ahead with plans to dramatically increase defense spending due to Trump Abandonment Syndrome. The EU Jazz Band Recent commentary by Rosa Balfour, director of Carnegie Europe, perfectly sums up these arguments. In a piece titled “Europe Tried to Trump-Proof Itself. Now It’s Crafting a Plan B” she explains why the EU has no choice but to redirect social spending towards the arms industry. Balfour’s romantic version of recent history starts on February 28. That’s when “the televised humiliation of Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky” took place, and “Europe realized it could no longer rely on its longtime ally, the United States.” And here she is on the jazzy wreckage:

“The shocking depth and breadth of this realization cannot be overemphasized. Political leaders in European states, the European Union, and NATO displayed composure and coordination, but behind the scenes, the soundtrack was a frantic free jazz jam session with dramatic thuds and a long pause—the silence at the realization that the European comfort zone was over. And now, what are these composed and coordinated “political leaders” doing? They announce that Ukraine is Europe’s first line of defense, make grand plans for a “coalition of the willing,” and declare that Ukraine will become a “steel porcupine”. The coalition of the willing has fallen apart. The steel porcupine was ridiculed. And while those in the Kremlin likely aren’t losing any sleep, Europeans should be. That’s because, as Balfour writes, the European Commission “can play supporting roles by mobilizing financial resources and handling complicated in-house horse trading.”

That’s one way of putting it. The Commission is inching its way towards invoking emergency powers to push through parts of its rearmament slush fund. It’s getting pushback from the European Parliament, but the fact is Ursula can do it anyways with minimal support from EU governments. She’s likely just waiting for the right moment. Let’s look at the status of the European militarization billions. On March 19, the Commission introduced a 150 billion euro proposal — a first installment of what’s to be at least $900 billion— for establishing the Security Action for Europe (SAFE) through the reinforcement of European defence industry Instrument. It wants to move forward with it under Article 122 emergency powers which need only a qualified majority in the Council —as opposed to the usual consensus— which allows Ursula and friends to get around pesky vetoes from member countries.

The procedure for 122 is as follows: 1) the Commission proposes a Council measure; following which 2) the Council adopts the measure in line with [qualified majority voting]. No additional elements or participants are envisaged. This article allows the proposal to bypass parliamentary negotiations and go straight to the Council for negotiation and adoption. The Parliament’s role is reduced to submitting suggestions and requesting debates. How’s that for your democratic rules-based order? In an April 23 secret vote, the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affair unanimously backed a legal opinion rejecting the Commission’s attempt to bypass it on a 150 billion euro rearmament fund. While it is a non-binding vote, it does signal opposition to Ursula’s plan, but it’s not some principled stand for the will of the people or any romantic notion like that.

No, it’s more about dividing up slices of the pie as European weapons industry lobbyists are increasingly active in Brussels and are trying to make sure their clients are rewarded. And so much of the feeble opposition is over getting a stronger “buy European” clause in SAFE (it currently requires 65 percent of war consumables and complex systems to come from within the EU, Ukraine, or EEA/EFTA states, which includes Turkiye and Norway. Why must Ursula’s commission sideline the Parliament and some member states in order to spend 900 billion on military purchases? They lay it out in their proposal. There’s the usual nonsense about Russia:

The EU and its Member States now face an intensifying Russian aggression against Ukraine and a growing security threat from Russia. It is also now clear that this threat will persist in the foreseeable future, considering that Russia has shifted to a war-time economy enabling a rapid scaleup of its military capabilities and replenishment of its stocks. The European Council therefore underlined, in its conclusions of 6 March 2025, that “Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and its repercussions for European and global security in a changing environment constitute an existential challenge for the European Union”. There’s also the Trump abandonment syndrome: At the same time, the United States, traditionally a strong ally, is clear that it believes it is over-committed in Europe and needs to rebalance, reducing its historical role as a primary security guarantor.

Read more …

” The disconnect between rulers and ruled has never been wider. The elites, ensconced in their Brussels bubble, continue to govern as if the people are an inconvenience, as if democracy means compliance rather than choice. The social contract is broken, and the backlash will only intensify.”

• The Death of Old Europe (von Hoffmeister)

The European Union, that grand and failing dream of technocrats, is dying. Its decline is not sudden or dramatic but a slow unraveling, a bureaucratic collapse in which every policy designed to sustain it only hastens its demise. It starves itself on the thin gruel of ideology – open borders dissolving nations into contested spaces, green mandates suffocating industry under the weight of unattainable standards, and a moralizing anti-Russian fervor that has left it isolated and energy-dependent. Once, Europe was the center of empires, the birthplace of civilizations that shaped the world. Now, it is a patient refusing medicine, convinced that its sickness is a form of enlightenment, that its weakness is a new kind of strength. The architects of this experiment still speak in the language of unity, but the cracks in the foundation are too deep to ignore.

Immigration was the first act of self-destruction, the point at which Western Europe’s ruling class severed itself from the people it claimed to govern. The elites, intoxicated by the rhetoric of multicultural utopia, flung open the gates without consideration for cohesion, for identity, for the simple reality that societies require more than abstract ideals to function. Cities have fractured into enclaves where parallel societies thrive, where police hesitate to patrol, where the native-born learn to navigate their own streets with caution. The promise was harmony, a blending of cultures into something vibrant and new. The reality is a quiet disintegration, a thousand unspoken tensions simmering beneath the surface. Politicians continue to preach the virtues of “diversity,” but the people – those who remember what it was like to have a shared history, a common language – are beginning to revolt. The backlash is no longer confined to the fringe. It is entering the mainstream, and the establishment trembles at what it has unleashed.

Then came the green delirium, the second pillar of Western Europe’s self-annihilation. Factories shutter under the weight of environmental regulations, farmers take to the streets in protest, and the middle class is squeezed between rising energy costs and stagnant wages. The climate must be saved, the leaders insist, even if the cost is economic ruin. Germany, once the industrial powerhouse of the continent, dismantles its nuclear infrastructure in favor of unreliable wind and solar power, only to return to coal when the weather turns unfavorable. There is a madness in this, a kind of collective hysteria where dogma overrides pragmatism, where the pursuit of moral purity blinds the ruling class to the suffering of ordinary citizens. The rest of the world watches, perplexed, as the EU willingly cripples itself for a cause that demands global cooperation – cooperation that is nowhere to be found. China builds coal plants, America drills for oil, India prioritizes growth over emissions, and the EU alone marches towards austerity, convinced that its sacrifice will inspire others. It will not.

And Russia – the great miscalculation, the strategic blunder that may yet prove fatal. Europe had a choice: to engage with Moscow as a partner, to integrate it into a stable continental order, or to treat it as an eternal adversary. It chose the latter, aligning itself fully with Washington’s confrontational stance, severing ties that had once provided cheap energy and economic stability. The pipelines are silent now, the ruble flows eastward, and Western Europe buys its gas at inflated prices from distant suppliers, enriching middlemen while its own industries struggle. Russia, spurned and sanctioned, turns to China, to India, to those willing to treat it as something other than a pariah. The Eurasian landmass is reconfiguring itself, and Europe is not at the center. The EU is on the outside, looking in, a spectator to its own irrelevance. The Atlanticists in Brussels believed they could serve two masters: their own people and Washington’s geopolitical whims. They were wrong.

In this unfolding drama, America and Russia emerge as twin pillars of Western civilization – different in temperament but united in their commitment to preserving sovereign nations against globalist dissolution. America, the last defender of the West’s entrepreneurial spirit and individual liberty, stands firm against the forces that would destroy borders and identities. Russia, keeper of traditional values and Christian heritage, guards against the cultural nihilism consuming Europe. Both understand that civilizations must defend themselves or perish; neither suffers the death wish that afflicts the Western European elites. And of Western Europe? It is a ghost at the feast, clutching its empty wineglass, muttering about “norms” and “values” as the world moves on without it. The European elites still cling to their illusions, still believe in the power of rhetoric over reality.

They speak of “strategic autonomy” while marching in lockstep with Washington’s wars, of “diversity” while their own cities become battlegrounds of competing identities, of “democracy” while silencing dissent with bureaucratic machinery and media censorship. The voters sense the decay. They rebel – in France, where Marine Le Pen’s supporters grow by the day; in Italy, where Giorgia Meloni’s government rejects the EU’s dictates on immigration; in Hungary, where Viktor Orbán openly defies the liberal orthodoxy. Yet the machine grinds on, dismissing every protest as populism, every objection as fascism. The disconnect between rulers and ruled has never been wider. The elites, ensconced in their Brussels bubble, continue to govern as if the people are an inconvenience, as if democracy means compliance rather than choice. The social contract is broken, and the backlash will only intensify.

Read more …

“Carney’s globalist net-zero platform will be sufficient to bring Canada to its knees without ever having to confront a political adversary.”

• Canada’s War on… Canada (Solway)

Canada is walking down a dangerous path. In a recent episode of “The Winston Marshall Show,” Steve Bannon has warned that “Canada could become ‘the next Ukraine’ if Russia or China presses territorial claims in the Arctic. “There’s no money there to defend anybody,” Bannon said, arguing that the United Kingdom, Canada’s historic security partner, “can’t defend itself.” Bannon suggested that Ottawa has only “two, maybe three years to act before external pressures harden.”

Bannon’s warning about Canada becoming a second Ukraine seems a gross exaggeration. Yet we recall that both Trudeau père and Trudeau fils were enamored of Communist China, that China has interfered in Canada’s elections favoring the Liberals, that Mark Carney is beholden to China to the tune of hundreds of millions in loans and “over $3 billion in politically sensitive investments with Chinese state-linked real estate and energy companies,” and that Canada hosted the Chinese military for tactical training in cold-weather warfare. Carney, a man of no charisma and less common sense for all his parenthetical savoir faire and encapsulated expertise, has already said that Canada’s friendly relationship and customary economic partnership with the U.S. is at an end. Meanwhile, an impoverished Canada will need generous amounts of foreign aid and may conceivably get it from China, in exchange for military bases and Canada-China cooperation in the Arctic.

As of this writing, Carney is in Washington for talks with Donald Trump. (Note, Trump is not in Ottawa for talks with Carney.) As Managing Editor for the Saskatchewan Standard, Christopher Oldcorn reports, Carney warned that any new deal “must be negotiated on our terms.” Trump was not impressed, telling Fox Business, “I’m not sure what he wants to see me about, but I guess he wants to make a deal.” Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick added, “They have their socialist regime, and it’s basically feeding off of America.” Carney is out of his depth, and Canada is in for a shock. Should a deal eventually emerge, it will not be on Carney’s terms.

At present, Canada reminds me of that preposterous knight in the Monty Python classic “The Holy Grail,” who continues pugnaciously challenging his antagonist even after he has lost both his arms and both his legs in the fight. This does not suggest that Canada is not a dangerous stump, and that it does not pose a threat to the U.S., for its alignment with China might conceivably mean a fentanyl-producing, militarily powerful, economically belligerent antagonist encroaching on its Arctic perimeter and entrenched along the 4,000-mile undefended border with the U.S. I would not put such recklessness past Carney as he labors diligently to turn Canada into a plebiscitarian sinkhole, deprived of political virility, reduced to penury and dependent for its survival on a foreign enemy.

I don’t see the U.S. engaging in open warfare with Canada, which Bannon considers a possibility. The scenario is far-fetched. Canada is not Ukraine; it is Lower Slobbovia. If you run a podcast called a “War Room,” you are prone to flights of fancy. This is not 1812, and America does not need to fire a single shot. It can batter Canada economically into submission with a stroke of the president’s pen despite China’s axial influence. America needs nothing that Canada has to offer, says Trump, neither cars, energy, lumber, etc. But it is also clear that the U.S. will not tolerate a Chinese presence on its northern border. For all his absurd bluster and his putting a Canadian slant on things, little man Carney will have to listen up.

Regrettably, Canada has become what Christopher Rufo, applying a well-known psychological personality concept, calls a “Cluster B society,” where “ideology replaces competence as a marker of distinction,” focusing on emotional excess, self-image, and dramatic posturing and leading to what psychologist Andrzej Lobaczewski calls a “pathocracy.” In a syndrome of this nature, Rufo laments, “The spontaneous life and beauty that are the fruits of a more balanced society will be snuffed out by grim commissars administering a Cluster B pathocracy. Our self-governing regime would be over.” Welcome to Canada and its preening prime minister.

Indeed, Canada is now foolishly engaged in a costly, surreptitious, self-harming skirmish with the U.S, which it could have avoided with a soupçon of maturity. The issue was never in doubt. To begin with, Canadian unity is fractured. There is little to no chance of gluing the pieces back together again and presenting a united front as a negotiating partner. It is at a distinct economic disadvantage in the so-called tariff war should Trump move to erase Canada’s $200 billion trade rip-off that helps to keep the country afloat, as Justin Trudeau himself admitted. Carney’s globalist net-zero platform will be sufficient to bring Canada to its knees without ever having to confront a political adversary. For the truth is that Canada is at war with itself. And it does not matter if it wins or loses, since it amounts to the same thing.

Read more …

“What Canada was, is not as important as what Canada is, and what it is becoming.” —Jason Stephan

• Canada: A Post-Election Autopsy (Solway)

As a result of the Liberal victory and the installation of Mark Carney as prime minister of Canada in the April 28, 2025, election, the country is now speeding down the Trans-Canada highway to certain destruction. Carney, of course, is a global financier, a promoter of centralized government control, a lover of censorship, and a climate change apostle who doubles as a trustee of the World Economic Forum and the United Nations Special Envoy on Climate Change and Finance. He carries three passports, Canadian, Irish, and British, and has spent the last decade out of Canada, which obviously makes him the ideal candidate for the prime ministership, Canadian to the bone. He is, in fact, the spitting image of the Canadian psyche, a small man, slack-faced, awkward in comportment, grim and humorless, rag doll-like in his person. The fit is almost providential.

As one commenter put it, “Carney looks the part… the funeral director of Canada.” The question that is making the rounds is how the Liberal Party managed to erase a 20-point deficit in the polls and shrug off three terms of social and economic devastation that have seen the country plummet toward third-world status while at the same time elevating the most unprepossessing choice possible to the prime minister’s office. Is the nation brain-dead? Does it have a death wish? Is it merely greed for government largesse? What are the factors that have contributed to Canada’s accelerating decline? There are several possibilities, acting singly or in concert. Donald Trump: When Trump began trolling Canada with his 51st state bagatelle, he proved once again that Canadians have no sense of humor.

Canadians, by and large, with thank-the-Lord saving exceptions, are an earnest, priggish, self-massaging, unexciting people of limited intelligence who, like most of a leftist bent, cannot recognize a joke, especially when brandished by an American. What former New York Post correspondent Emma Jo-Morris says of the media seems largely true of the Canadian electorate: “The media isn’t biased because it’s liberal; it’s biased because it has no concept of reality. The people who make media content are incapable of separating their own self-worship from objective truth.” Of course, being Liberal and having no concept of reality amount to the same thing. So Canadians took Trump seriously and got their hackles up, huffing and puffing and strutting and posturing. But when Trump launched his tariff fusillade, this was a bridge too far.

Canadians girded themselves for war like a mighty gnat prepared to crush an elephant rather than adopt the grown-up approach of Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, who visited Trump and proposed a negotiated settlement. This was Mark Carney’s and the Liberals’ gold-plated opportunity to rally a subfusc Canadian electorate to a losing cause and scrub the Conservatives’ favorable poll numbers, leading ultimately to an electoral victory that will likely destroy the country. Indeed, Canada is more ragged than it ever was. What was once a Hudson Bay blanket is now a patchwork quilt. The New Democratic Party: After years of propping up the Liberals, leader Jagmeet Singh and the NDP came crashing down. The Party lost not only its longtime leader but also its official party status.

Its 25 parliamentary seats were reduced to seven. It is likely that many of the lost 18 seats defected to Carney’s Liberals, putting them over the top, good enough for a minority government, just three seats short of a majority. There is speculation that some or all of the remaining NDP rump may follow suit, giving the Liberals the majority government they desperately crave. Biased Coverage: The Canadian media and paper press are basically no different from their Pravda-like American cousins, trafficking in lies, innuendoes, suppressions, and outright interference in the electoral process. This is their stock-in-trade. With only a few outliers like Rebel News, the Western Standard, and two or three others, the press has become a vast and undifferentiated propaganda network for the Liberal machine, flush with Liberal plugola. Canada’s public broadcaster, the CBC, is supported by an annual $1.4 billion grant, which Carney has promised to inflate and Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre had threatened to eliminate. The sequel was predictable.

Read more …

Can’t conquer Iran, Victor. Start there. Or Yemen.

• The Trump-Iran Deal, Explained (Victor Davis Hanson)

Just recently, the Houthis, that is the terrorist organization that controls half of Yemen and has been hit hard by the United States for its interruption of maritime commerce in the Red Sea and its serial attacks on Israel, has been—I guess you would say—neutered. Its port facilities, its airport, a lot of its missile depots, its command and control have all been neutralized. But yet, here they are with a vestigial force. They just sent a missile, not just into Israel, but into Israel’s international Ben Gurion Airport. It almost hit one of the terminals. Didn’t kill anybody. But it made a huge crater right on the periphery of the airport grounds. And for some reason it was not intercepted by Israel’s tripartite missile defense system. Let me add another incident. Just recently, almost at the same time, four more terrorists were arrested in the United Kingdom for organizing Iranian-inspired terror against citizens of Britain. And of course, we remember that Iran was involved in an effort to assassinate President Donald Trump.

What am I getting at is, we’re right in the middle of negotiations with Iran. Donald Trump feels that they are historically vulnerable. The Assad regime, their lifeline to the Arab world, is gone. Kaput. Vanished. They can’t use the Damascus airport to airlift weapons for Hezbollah. Hezbollah has been reduced dramatically in its effectiveness. Hamas is—I don’t know what you’d call Hamas. It’s living underground among the rubble of Gaza. And then, of course, the Houthis, as I mentioned, have been attacked. Israel has demonstrated that it can penetrate, at will, the supposedly formidable air defenses of Iran. The United States, in addition, is building up its strategic bombing force—in Diego Garcia and in areas that can reach Iran—with the capability of dropping these 20,000 to 30,000-pound bunker busters. We have two carriers that will soon be assembled near there.

What am I getting at again? The pressure is all on Iran. Militarily. Diplomatically. Economically. Socially. Culturally. What do I mean by that? Culturally, there is about 30% to 40% of the country are non-Farsi Persian speakers. And they’re very restive, angry. Power outages. The regime is unpopular. It’s diverted billions of dollars to these terrorist appendages that now didn’t pay off, that they’re defunct. And so, Donald Trump thinks that he, with this maximum pressure, putting this crushing oil embargo—which by the way, former President Joe Biden lifted—that he can bring them to negotiations one last time. Personally, I don’t think he can. Nothing that that regime has ever said is accurate. Nobody in the MAGA movement wants an optional war in the Middle East. But they will have nuclear weapons, perhaps in a year. So, what is the likely scenario? The likely scenario is they will lose face if they negotiate away their nuclear weapons.

That is the only lever they have over Western powers now that their terrorist children are all gone. So, I don’t think they’re gonna make a deal. They’re gonna delay, delay, delay; lie, lie, lie; use the Houthis. And they are playing with fire because once Donald Trump gives them an opportunity for a peaceful way out of their dilemma—that is they can negotiate an end to their nuclear program. They don’t need nuclear power. They have the fourth-largest fossil fuel reserves in the world. They have enough energy for themselves and for export for an endless amount of time. And yet they still are working on this nuclear project, not for peaceful energy generation, but to have a nuclear deterrent. And so, what we should look for in the next few months is that an exasperated Trump administration will finally throw up its hands and say, “You can’t deal with these people, but they’re not gonna get a nuclear weapon.”

At that point, one of two things will happen—I should say one of three things. Israel will hit back because of the Houthis’ attack on its airport. And that could come sooner or later. Or the United States will intervene. I don’t think it’ll intervene on its own. Or there’ll be a joint Israeli-American operation. But by the end of the year, I don’t think Iran will have a nuclear deterrent. And then we’re gonna be watching a mystery unfold. If it should be hit, and if it should lose its nuclear potential, what will be the reaction of the Iranian people? Will they be angry that their national sovereignty has been attacked? Or will they be delighted that this 50-year hated regime is now gone and they don’t have to spend money on these Arab terrorist groups that have brought them no profit? That’ll be something to see. And I think we’ll see it at the end of the year.

Read more …

“Decades after the civil rights movement, academia is obsessed with fixating not on intelligence, qualifications, or content of character, but rather on skin color..”

• $373M in DEI Funding at US Universities in Four Years (Salgado)

Educayshun has become mere propaganda at hundreds of American schools and universities. In fact, Defending Education has identified a staggering $373 million in DEI funding since 2016 across more than a hundred institutions of higher learning. Defending Ed investigated 130 colleges and universities across 44 states and Washington, D.C. to date, identifying 281 diversity, equity, and inclusion funds (DEI). These include scholarships and programs based around race and sexual “identity.” Defending Ed warned that, while many universities and colleges have now officially ended DEI programs under Trump administration pressure, in many cases, the programs have simply been renamed or gone underground for the time being. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln, for example, simply retitled its “Office of Diversity and Inclusion Fund” to be the “Community and Belonging Support Fund.”

Just add more pablum for a surface-level makeover. From the Defending Ed website: “To date, we have been able to track down over $373,344,424 in donations to fund institution DEI programs, scholarships, and offices. While some of the funding has been tracked down via “Day of Giving” style campaign webpages, the vast majority of the money has been traced through university announcements, webpages, and reports. The information contained in this report primarily covers the years from 2021 to present with one or two exceptions noted below. Decades after the civil rights movement, academia is obsessed with fixating not on intelligence, qualifications, or content of character, but rather on skin color.

This is a vast disservice to students of all ethnicities, and has turned our institutions of higher learning into little more than propaganda machines. Defending Ed also provided examples of some of the DEI projects and funds. The University of Michigan “raised over $98,665,269 for a wide range of DEI initiatives and funds, including scholarships for first-generation students” and established a “George Floyd Memorial Scholarship.” According to a 2023 University of Delaware report, the university was able to raise $21 million to expand its diversity, equity, and inclusion programming.

One of the funds included in the donor haul was it’s “Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion, or JEDI, Fund” which states that support “helps provide programs, resources and opportunities to cultivate educated and empowered individuals who not only understand the origins of societal challenges related to equity and social justice but also have the tools to create solutions to address them.”… The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) School of the Arts and Architecture includes its “Anti-racism Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion” program which includes the UCLA Arts Racial Equity Fund. Meanwhile, the University of California, Berkeley fundraised $186,420 for “Increasing Diversity and Opportunity at Cal” during a 2025 campaign. These universities need to be exposed and their federal funding cut off so long as they continue to promote racist DEI.

Read more …

Altman doesn’t dare to go up against Musk? it’s not just them anymore. It’s people seeing endless profit vs people seeing endless trouble.

• OpenAI Blinks: Scraps For-Profit Plan After Outside Pressure (ZH)

In a blog post overnight, the OpenAI Board revealed that its nonprofit arm would retain control of the chatbot company following backlash over its attempt to restructure into a for-profit business. “We made the decision for the nonprofit to retain control of OpenAI after hearing from civic leaders and engaging in constructive dialogue with the offices of the Attorney General of Delaware and the Attorney General of California,” the OpenAI Board wrote in a blog post. Last fall, OpenAI’s Sam Altman was preparing to overhaul the company’s structure and transition to a for-profit business—an effort that sparked a heated legal battle with co-founder Elon Musk, who sought to keep OpenAI ‘open’. The board provided new details about OpenAI’s evolving structure:

OpenAI was founded as a nonprofit, and is today overseen and controlled by that nonprofit. Going forward, it will continue to be overseen and controlled by that nonprofit. Our for-profit LLC, which has been under the nonprofit since 2019, will transition to a Public Benefit Corporation (PBC)–a purpose-driven company structure that has to consider the interests of both shareholders and the mission. The nonprofit will control and also be a large shareholder of the PBC, giving the nonprofit better resources to support many benefits. Our mission remains the same, and the PBC will have the same mission.

“We want our nonprofit to be the largest and most effective nonprofit in history that will be focused on using AI to enable the highest-leverage outcomes for people,” Altman wrote in a letter to employees. He also provided details about OpenAI’s evolving structure: OpenAI’s nonprofit will remain in control of the organization after discussions with civic leaders and attorneys general from California and Delaware. The for-profit LLC will convert to a Public Benefit Corporation (PBC)—a mission-aligned model also used by other AI labs like Anthropic and X.ai.

This move replaces the old capped-profit structure with a simpler equity-based model, but does not represent a sale. The nonprofit will retain oversight and become a major shareholder in the PBC, giving it more resources to advance AI for broad societal benefit. A new nonprofit commission will help guide efforts to ensure AI supports public good in areas like health, education, science, and public services. OpenAI says this new structure will enable it to make faster and safer progress toward its mission of democratizing AGI. Meanwhile, Marc Toberoff, lead counsel for Elon Musk in the ongoing lawsuit against OpenAI, told Bloomberg via email that Altman’s decision to scale back for-profit plans “changes nothing.”

“OpenAI’s announcement is a transparent dodge that fails to address the core issues: charitable assets have been and still will be transferred for the benefit of private persons, including Altman, his investors and Microsoft,” Toberoff said. In March, US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers blocked Musk’s request to stop Altman from restructuring OpenAI into a for-profit company. This led the judge to expedite a trial for this fall. Given “the public interest at stake and potential for harm if a conversion contrary to law occurred,” Rogers said, adding that an expedited trial later this year would be on “core” claim that OpenAI’s structure conversion plan is unlawful and “potentially the interrelated contract-based claims.” Earlier this year, a Musk-led group offered to purchase OpenAI for around $100 billion, a bid that was quickly rejected.

Read more …

“Now, at long last, we can see the fruit of the corrupt tree sprouting in our court system, where judges help illegal immigrants escape through the back door of the courtroom, where other judges demand the return of deported gang members or halt the deportation of antisemitic radicals, and where every effort to put America first is ruled unconstitutional..”

• (None Dare Call It) Treason of the Judiciary (Miele)

Thursday, April 24, was a day like any other day—the sun came up, the sun went down, and President Donald Trump was hit with at least three nationwide injunctions by federal district court judges. That’s just the way it goes if you are a president who wants to take back America from the entrenched left-wing bureaucracy and restore common sense to government before it is too late. The danger of the bureaucracy was predicted by Julien Benda in his 1927 book “The Treason of the Clerks,” which warned of the danger of the intellectual class adopting political passions that had previously been the sole domain of the masses. We see this most distinctly today in the federal bureaucracy, which I dare say has the greatest concentration of degree-holders from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia (and the like) of any sector in the nation, other than the incestuous universities themselves.

The treason that Benda described was the loss of independence of thought and dispassionate reason by intellectuals, and the accompanying subservience of intellect to political passions. During Trump’s first term, I wrote a column describing the danger that Benda had foreseen: Benda wrote at the beginning of the age of mass communication, and yet he already saw that “political passions have attained a universality never before known. … Thanks to the progress of communication and, still more, to the group spirit, it is clear that the holders of the same political hatred now form a compact impassioned mass, every individual of which feels himself in touch with the infinite number of others, whereas a century ago such people were comparatively out of touch with each other and hated in a ‘scattered’ way” …

It seems that we are now living out Benda’s worst nightmare—an age of manipulation of the masses by those who think they know better—whether you call them the “deep state,” the “opposition party,” “the national elite,” “the entrenched bureaucracy,” or just “the establishment.” And for the past 10 years, they have turned their hatred on Donald Trump. Without rhyme or reason, they fight him on every reform and arm themselves with invented scandal and fake news. Now, in Trump’s second term, we see that the bureaucracy has a close ally in the judiciary—not one judge, but multitudes that aim to preserve the status quo of liberal governance. If that wasn’t clear before April 24, there was no room for doubt after the day was filled with one court ruling after another telling Trump to “stand back and stand by” rather than to exercise his lawful power as president.

Here’s what tumbled out of the judicial branch that day: – A federal district court judge in California blocked Trump’s executive order that would have denied federal funds to so-called sanctuary cities that limit or forbid cooperation with federal immigration authorities. – A Washington, D.C., judge blocked the Trump administration from following through on the president’s executive order requiring that voters in federal elections show proof of citizenship when registering. – A district judge in New Hampshire blocked efforts to defund public schools that utilize diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. Not to be outdone, judges in Maryland and Washington, D.C., essentially issued the same order, giving added protection to one of the least popular programs ever shoved down the throat of American citizens. At the time, those were the latest of more than a dozen nationwide injunctions issued by unelected federal judges who appeared more interested in preserving and protecting left-wing shibboleths than the Constitution.

Also in courts across the nation that week were attempts by judges to reject Trump’s authority as commander in chief to ban transgender participation in the military, to deny Trump the right to strip security clearances from law firms that he says put national security interests second to political partisanship, and stop the administration’s efforts to eliminate federal news services such as Voice of America that engage in anti-American propaganda. Those are all in addition to the several injunctions issued relative to Trump’s promised reform of the immigration system to expedite deportation of illegal immigrants, especially those who have a criminal history or are members of international gangs. If that seems normal, it isn’t. There were only six nationwide injunctions during the eight years of the George W. Bush presidency, and only 12 during the Barack Obama presidency. That increased to 14 under President Joe Biden, which was surpassed by Trump in the first nine weeks of his second term when 15 such injunctions were issued.

Of course, Trump should be accustomed to such judicial abuse. In his first term, there were 64 injunctions against his policies, a staggering 92.2% issued by Democrat-appointed judges. Julien Benda would have clearly recognized the “political passions” that had supplanted the disinterested intellectual rigor we once expected of our judges. Yet because of our habituated respect for the separation of powers, none dare call it the treason of the judiciary. That of course is a reference to the 1960s tract “None Dare Call It Treason” by John A. Stormer. Stormer took on the country’s intellectual elites, blaming them for working against the interests of the nation by tolerating or quietly promoting communism. The left-wing elites of the day laughed it off as another right-wing conspiracy theory, but as time has passed it’s become clear that there was indeed a long-range effort to corrupt our institutions with Communism 101—reducing social acceptance of religion, turning education into indoctrination, and infiltrating government with the intelligentsia that thinks American values are outdated.

Now, at long last, we can see the fruit of the corrupt tree sprouting in our court system, where judges help illegal immigrants escape through the back door of the courtroom, where other judges demand the return of deported gang members or halt the deportation of antisemitic radicals, and where every effort to put America first is ruled unconstitutional. Fighting back against the overreach of the judiciary must be Trump’s No. 1 priority as he seeks to restore sanity to the federal government. Because the most important principle of constitutional law that is being decided in the next few months is whether the president is truly the chief executive or whether he serves at the pleasure of left-wing judges who put political passion ahead of national interests. In the ultimate irony, the case must be decided by nine men and women in black robes, the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. The fate of the nation’s future hinges on whether they will seek justice impartially or be swayed by partisan rancor. Unfortunately, it’s an open question.

Read more …

“After Trump’s triumphant return to the White House, he appointed Pete Hegseth as secretary of defense. Since then, recruitment numbers have exploded, after years of the number of recruits tumbling..”

• SCOTUS Rules On Trump’s Ban On Transgenders In The Military (Downey Jr)

The Supreme Court issued a brief order on Tuesday allowing the Trump administration’s ban on transgender people in the military to proceed. Though the order was unsigned, the usual suspects, Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, locked arms and said they would have denied the Trump administration’s request to pause the lower court’s order. Several years after the Biden administration chased warriors away from the military by mandating the COVID vaccine and also encouraging transgender people to join through DEI initiatives, the Supreme Court paused a decision by U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle, located in Seattle, who suggested that Trump’s decision to ban transgender soldiers was unconstituional, claiming that it was “unsupported, dramatic and facially unfair.”

“A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member,” Trump’s decree stated. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, located in San Francisco, refused to put a hold on Judge Settle’s decision. The ruling is sure to set off a dumpster fire of liberal whining, crying, and protests, not to mention another reason the left will complain that “Trump hates the LGBTFBI crew.” Shortly after taking back the White House, Trump issued a directive stating that people with a history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria would no longer be allowed to serve in any branch of the U.S. military. Under the Biden administration, many transgender people chose to join the military, some of whom opted for costly gender reassignment surgeries. Trump also released a directive stating that federal funds would no longer be spent on such surgeries.

Another important factor to keep in mind regarding Trump’s decision to keep out transgenders, the woke, and people hired and promoted through DEI initiatives is the very real notion that woke military members would be more likely to fight fellow Americans when told to do so, as some news media pundits are inclined to believe. It is unknown how long it will take to purge the military of transgender service members who pretend to be a gender other than that which science deemed them at birth. Left-leaning news sites, like Reuters, are reporting the story and suggesting that it is an attack against people who do not agree with the “gender they were assigned at birth.”

The decision is just the latest in a wave of Supreme Court victories for President Trump. The exact number of service members currently suffering from gender dysphoria is unknown, but some believe there are as many as 14,000 transgender people throughout all five branches of the military, though a senior-level member of the Defense Department suggested that there may be only 4,240 who are currently serving. After Trump’s triumphant return to the White House, he appointed Pete Hegseth as secretary of defense. Since then, recruitment numbers have exploded, after years of the number of recruits tumbling during Joe Biden’s single four-year presidential term.

Read more …

“..If the nomination is not successful by May 20th, there is a scenario where DC Judge James Boasberg could appoint the U.S. attorney. Mary McCord is smiling.”

• President Trump Sends Message of Support for Ed Martin as DC Attorney (CTH)

President Trump has sent a message of support via Truth Social on behalf of Ed Martin to be confirmed as U.S. Attorney for the important Washington DC office. Multiple ‘republican’ members of the Senate do not support the nomination. If the nomination is not successful by May 20th, there is a scenario where DC Judge James Boasberg could appoint the U.S. attorney. Mary McCord is smiling.

PRESIDENT TRUMP – “Ed Martin is going through the approval process to be U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia. According to many but, in particular, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., his approval is IMPERATIVE in terms of doing all that has to be done to SAVE LIVES and to, MAKE AMERICA HEALTHY AGAIN. This is a passion for Ed, more so than for almost anyone that I have seen. One of the reasons that I was so successful in winning the 2024 Presidential Election is my commitment to Health, and helping to Make America Healthy. The Cost of the Chronic Disease Epidemic has gotten out of control over the past four years of the Biden Presidency. We are going to take our Country BACK, and FAST. Ed Martin will be a big player in doing so and, I hope, that the Republican Senators will make a commitment to his approval, which is now before them. Ed is coming up on the deadline for Voting and, if approved, HE WILL NOT LET YOU DOWN. When some day in the future you look back at your Vote for Ed Martin, you will be very proud of what you have done for America and America’s Health. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

The Republican opposition group to Ed Martin is the traditional element of the party who stand against the basic principles of what the MAGA movement is all about.

“Via CNN – […] Trump and his allies have a short window to get Martin over the finish line. If Republicans don’t confirm him by May 20 when his interim position expires, there would be a new process to play out in picking a new nominee. One option could be US District Judge James Boasberg appointing someone to become DC’s top prosecutor. Boasberg, a Barack Obama appointee, has presided over a number of high-profile cases challenging Trump policies, drawing the ire of the president and his allies. After this story published on Monday evening, Trump posted about Martin’s confirmation battle on Truth Social writing that his “approval is IMPERATIVE.” Top Justice Department officials, who had preferred another candidate for the job, have had to caution Martin about some of his public activities since taking on the job on an interim basis, sources briefed on the matter told CNN.

Despite growing blowback on the nomination, allies of Trump and Martin have made clear that the president has so far been thrilled with Martin’s job performance. “Martin is President Trump’s favorite US Attorney,” one source familiar with his nomination process previously told CNN. . On top of Trump’s direct calls to GOP senators, 23 Republican state attorneys general sent a letter to Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley and Senate Majority Leader John Thune on Monday urging them to move forward on Martin’s confirmation, according to a copy shared with CNN. Trump ally Charlie Kirk also posted on X over the weekend about the need to successfully confirm Martin. DOJ officials who may have wanted someone else for the job have come to terms with the fact that he is Trump’s pick and are doing everything they can to help get him confirmed, sources briefed on the matter told CNN.

Martin has successfully implemented Trump’s “law and order agenda” and been a “fantastic U.S. Attorney for D.C.,” said Alex Pfeiffer, White House principal deputy communications director. “The White House looks forward to his continued success in the role. Ed has shown he is the right man for the job.” Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are expected to keep Trump’s nominee on track, despite diminishing odds Martin will advance to see a full Senate vote.”

Let us not pretend amongst ourselves…. In basic truth, both the democrats and republicans lost in the 2024 election. Donald Trump defeated the republican candidate, Ron DeSantis, and Donald Trump defeated the democrat candidate, Kamala Harris. As the second term of President Trump continues, the republican party will show increasingly obvious opposition to all of the policies and results coming from the MAGA agenda. In the background of our political dynamic the Republican apparatus is already having conversations about what comes next, after the MAGA infection identified as President Trump is removed. When we ask ourselves why President Trump’s agenda hasn’t been codified by congressional action, the honest answer is, because the MAGA policy is not supported by the Republicans in congress. Nothing about this dynamic is likely to change. The republican resistance is simply wearing a mask right now, and there are certain times when that mask slips. It has always been thus….

Read more …

Boasberg rules!

• This One Judge Keeps Getting Trump Cases, and It’s No Accident (Matt Margolis)

In a development that should send chills down the spine of every American who cares about the rule of law, Judge James Boasberg — you remember this guy, right? — has somehow ended up with case after case involving President Donald Trump’s second term. The D.C. swamp’s judicial machine continues its relentless assault on our duly elected president, with Boasberg emerging as its not-so-secret weapon. The so-called “random” assignment system has produced results that defy probability and reek of deliberate manipulation. The good news is that House Republicans are fighting back. Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Darrell Issa (R-Calif), and Chip Roy (R-Texas) are demanding answers from Angela Caesar, the court clerk who oversees this suspicious case assignment system.

In a letter that Townhall obtained on Monday, they are demanding explanations for what any rational observer would recognize as a coordinated effort to undermine the Trump presidency. “Many of these nationwide injunctions have raised concerns that Article III judges are exceeding their constitutional authority by replacing the policy decisions of the duly elected President with their own preferences, eroding public trust in the integrity and fairness of our judicial system. Many high-profile cases challenging policy decisions of the Trump Administration have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (District Court),” the letter states. “As Congress considers potential legislative reforms to address the abuse of nationwide injunctions and adjust the national distribution and local assignment of cases challenging Executive Branch policy decisions, we write to request information about the District Court’s assignment of cases.”

Boasberg has been handed several significant cases within a remarkably short timeframe relating to the Trump administration. His docket now includes cases challenging the administration’s implementation of the Alien Enemies Act for deportations, as well as matters concerning administration officials’ use of the Signal app, both assigned less than two weeks apart. But that’s not all. The judge is also overseeing cases involving the Department of Government Efficiency and disputes over federal funding for programs allegedly violating civil rights laws (though the latter was dismissed at the plaintiff’s request). While the D.C. District Court’s local rules govern case assignments, the concentration of such politically sensitive matters under one judge has sparked legitimate questions about the process. The timing and clustering of these assignments demand closer scrutiny.

Last month, the House passed critical legislation aimed at restraining these activist judges who have abandoned their constitutional role in favor of political warfare. But is it too little, too late? The Left’s judicial assault continues unabated while the mainstream media yawns or actively cheers it on. The American people deserve to know: Who is pulling the strings behind these courthouse doors? How deep does this corruption go? Furthermore, will anyone be held responsible for the misuse of our judicial system against the President of the United States?

Read more …

“America First Legal, led by Trump’s powerhouse advisor Stephen Miller..”

• America First Legal sues Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts (JTN)

The President Donald Trump-aligned legal group America First Legal Foundation on Monday sued Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, accusing him of acting beyond his scope as head of the U.S. Judicial Conference. The lawsuit was also lodged against Robert Conrad, who serves as the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, according to Fox News. The legal action accuses the men of operating beyond their scope of resolving cases or controversies, citing their cooperation with Congress in helping them investigate Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, and a willingness to create or adopt a code of ethics for the court.

“Under our constitutional tradition, accommodations with Congress are the province of the executive branch,” the foundation said. “The Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office are therefore executive agencies,” which would be overseen by the president and not the courts. U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden will preside over the case.

Read more …

Complex. Given their history and their nuclear status, they should never be allowed to come even this far. Call Xi.

“By Air Marshal Anil Chopra (Retired), an Indian Air Force veteran fighter test pilot and is the former Director-General of the Center for Air Power Studies in New Delhi.”

• The Treaty That Kept India And Pakistan In Check Is Gone. Now What? (Chopra)

India launched ‘Operation Sindoor’ on the night of May 7, targeting terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan in retaliation for a deadly terrorist attack in Pahalgram, Kashmir last month. New Delhi stated that it hit at least nine targets. “Our actions have been focused, measured, and non-escalatory in nature. No Pakistani military facilities have been targeted. India has demonstrated considerable restraint in the selection of targets and method of execution,” the Indian government said in a statement. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif descried the strikes as a “cowardly” attack and said Islamabad “has every right to respond forcefully to this act of war imposed by India, and a forceful response is being given.” Tensions between India and Pakistan escalated to military actions following the killing of 26 innocent vacationers in Pahalgam, Kashmir by Pakistan-backed terrorists in a Hamas-style terror attack.

Pakistan Army and Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) links were established by India’s National Investigation Agency days after the mass killing. The public was angry, and sought appropriate revenge. A wide range of diplomatic and economic measures were announced by both nations following the attack. Remarkably, India has put the 1960 Indus Water Treaty (IWT) in abeyance for the first time since the pact was inked by the two neighbors. Rejecting India’s move to suspend the IWT, Pakistan warned that any diversion of water will be treated as an ‘Act of War.’ Islamabad also said that it would hold “in abeyance” its participation in all bilateral agreements with India, including the landmark 1972 Simla Agreement.

Pakistan pledged a full-spectrum national power response to any threat against its sovereignty, put its armed forces on high alert, and began selective mobilisation. Most measures were quite expected. But by suspending the Shimla Agreement, Pakistan unwittingly handed over big advantage to India. What is the Shimla Agreement? The Shimla agreement between India and Pakistan was signed on July 2, 1972 at Barnes Court (Raj Bhavan) in the town of Shimla in the Indian state of Himachal Pradesh, between then-Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and her Pakistani counterpart Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. It was ratified on July 15, 1972 (by Pakistan), and August 3, 1972 (by India), and became effective the next day. The agreement had come in the wake of Pakistan’s comprehensive defeat in the 1971 war that split the country and created independent Bangladesh.

The agreement stated:“The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan are resolved that the two countries put an end to the conflict and confrontation that have hitherto marred their relations and work for the promotion of a friendly arid harmonious relationship and the establishment of durable peace in the sub-continent, so that both countries may henceforth devote their resources and energies to the pressing task of advancing the welfare of their peoples.” The document was meant to lay the foundation of a peaceful and stable relationship between the two nations. It was decided that the two countries are resolved “to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them.”

The treaty mandated that the two countries resolve issues bilaterally, and superseded the United Nation’s resolution on Kashmir. Perhaps more importantly, under the agreement, India and Pakistan established the Line of Control (LoC), previously called the Ceasefire Line, making it a quasi-border between the two nations. New Delhi succeeded in persuading Islamabad to change the name of the ceasefire line to the Line of Control (LoC), thus delinking it from the UN-imposed 1949 ceasefire line and highlighting that Kashmir was now a purely bilateral matter between India and Pakistan. The treaty clearly stated that Indian and Pakistani forces must be withdrawn to their respective sides of the “international border.” That in Jammu and Kashmir, the LoC resulting from the cease-fire of December 17, 1971, shall be respected by both sides without prejudice toward the recognised position of either side.

Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. India returned around 13,000 square kilometers of land taken in battle on the western border but retained some strategic areas, including Turtuk, Dhothang, Tyakshi, and Chalunka in Chorbat Valley, covering more than 883 square kilometers, so as to facilitate lasting peace. Both sides further agreed to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of the LoC. The fact that there has only been one limited war since the agreement was signed reflects its effectiveness. Some Indian bureaucrats later argued that a tacit agreement to convert this LoC into a international border, was reached during a one-on-one meeting between the two heads of government. Pakistani bureaucrats have denied any such thing. Nor was that acceptable to Indian public.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Green
https://twitter.com/SteveLovesAmmo/status/1919731269673365609

Spike

OMG
https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1919702279579455976

Elephant

Baby
https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1919766603157406118

 

 

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle April 18 2025

Apr 182025
 
 April 18, 2025  Posted by at 10:03 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , ,  33 Responses »


Salvador Dali The knight of death 1934

 

• China Is In Much Deeper Trouble Than Most Realize (Strom)
• US Expects Ukraine Ceasefire Within Weeks – Bloomberg (RT)
• Europe Seeking ‘Direct Line’ With Trump – NYT (RT)
• Meloni’s White House Trip Paves Way For European Union Rapprochement (JTN)
• US Will Pull EU to Pieces Before Letting It Partner Up With China (Sp.)
• Trump Admin Fights Back Against Rogue Judge’s Contempt Warning (Margolis)
• Convicted FBI Lawyer Clinesmith Was Spared From Prison By Boasberg (JTN)
• REPORT: President Trump Opposed Israeli Strikes on Iran Nuclear Sites (CTH)
• Pam Bondi Outlines Timeline and History of MS13 Illegal Alien (CTH)
• Bondi Announces Lawsuit Against Maine Over Boys in Girls’ Sports (ET)
• Rubio Shuts Down Censorship Program Biden Admin Claimed was Ended (Turley)
• A Chihuahua That Thinks It’s A Lion: The Decline of Britain (Bordachev)
• China Replacing US Oil With Canadian – Bloomberg (RT)
• Trump Tariffs Could Cost EU $1.25 Trillion (RT)
• German Anti-Russia Propaganda Is Reaching Nazi-era Levels (Amar)
• Court Rules Google Illegally Holds “Monopoly Power” In Online Ad Tech (ZH)
• Trump to Make an Epic Move at the IRS (Margolis)
• Climate Myths (John Stossel)

 

 

 

 

Trust

Ritter

Poso
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1912573038303863007

What is China’s messsage here? That you might as well make it at home?No wait, that’s Trump’s message.
https://twitter.com/acnewsitics/status/1912841340968395205

 

 

Pepe

 

 

 

 

Contentious topic.

“[Xi] has counted on making the US economy dependent on China to keep us cowed. Trump is turning that logic on its head.”

• China Is In Much Deeper Trouble Than Most Realize (Strom)

In the tariff war between China and the United States, a lot of chatter in the Pravda Media is about Xi Jinping’s defiance, his outreach to European countries and other less important but collectively significant developing countries, and his retaliatory moves against America. They make it sound like China has a lot of cards to play in the trade war with America. Collectively, these stories tell a tale: Donald Trump may have bitten off more than he can chew in his economic war with China. Trump’s moves will hollow out the American middle class! Europe will choose China over the United States! We are doomed! The Chinese are putting up a very brave front, until recently matching Trump’s blow for blow and pointing to Chinese willingness to endure everything up to eating grass for a year to defeat their adversaries. The Chinese plan for the long term! Yeah, well, not so much.

It all sounds impressive, and some pissed-off ally countries have even hinted at turning Chinaward as a response to what they consider a stab in the back from President Trump. Except…Reality. Our ticked-off allies are acting like 6-year-old children angry at their parents, threatening to run away. As much as they resent the United States, they are utterly dependent upon us and chose to be so. They are militarily weak and have sputtering economies that rely on the US as an export market. The United States, not themselves, defends its sea lines of communication, and they all know that China is a predatory power and not a reliable economic partner. The US not only represents 25% of the world economy, which is quite impressive in itself. But it has about 40% of the world’s consumer spending. No manufacturer of consumer products can afford to turn their backs on the US.

China may be an attractive market, but it is not sufficiently large enough to make a dent in their losses should the US close our markets to them. Which brings us to China itself. All that bluster sounds good, but it hides a stark reality: their economy is utterly dependent on US consumption. As much power as they have over us–they can cause us temporary pain as we adjust to finding new suppliers–we have infinitely more over them. Even their holdings in US debt are a double-edged sword. The US has relied on China to purchase government bonds, but as the old saying goes–If you owe the bank a billion dollars, you have power over them. The tariffs on China have been DEVASTATING. Not will be devastating. They are already devastating. China’s economy is reeling from the impact of tariffs, and public discontent is growing.

On Douyin, China’s version of TikTok, videos show citizens openly criticizing the government’s rigid stance on tariffs, with some even taking to the streets in protest. Chinese authorities are cracking down, forcibly dispersing crowds and suppressing evidence of unrest, but these efforts can only hold for so long. As joblessness and food shortages deepen, desperation is setting in, pushing people to the brink. China’s heavy reliance on the U.S. market gives America the upper hand—we can outlast them until they yield or face internal upheaval, potentially threatening President Xi’s leadership. China’s government is and appears quite strong because it is. But something can be both very strong and very brittle–meaning that it performs well until the moment it shatters. Think ceramics or glass, both of which can be very strong until the moment they shatter. They don’t bend and spring back–they are good until the breaking point, and then boom.

China’s government is not loved, but it is tolerated because it is strong and because it generally delivers on its major promise: economic growth, pulling a billion people out of poverty as quickly as possible. Tariffs aren’t just a threat to that strategy. If Trump really pushes, Xi Jinping’s government is in real trouble, and not the kind of trouble that means a midterm loss or failure to get reelected. This is regime-threatening. Xi, who looked to be in the catbird seat, could be facing a collapse of his legitimacy as leader of China. The Trump administration plans to use ongoing tariff negotiations to pressure U.S. trading partners to limit their dealings with China, according to people with knowledge of the conversations. The idea is to extract commitments from U.S. trading partners to isolate China’s economy in exchange for reductions in trade and tariff barriers imposed by the White House.

U.S. officials plan to use negotiations with more than 70 nations to ask them to disallow China from shipping goods through their countries, prevent Chinese firms from locating in their territories to avoid U.S. tariffs, and not absorb China’s cheap industrial goods into their economies. These measures are meant to put a dent in China’s already rickety economy and force Beijing to the negotiating table with less leverage ahead of potential talks between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping. The exact demands could vary widely by nation, given their degree of involvement with the Chinese economy. China’s strategy of growing its economic power and influence depends on a river of money with its headwaters in the United States. And its ability to make deals in countries not hostile to the United States is only possible because the US tolerates its moves and is committed to using only modest soft power to oppose the moves.

Donald Trump is not in a mood to tolerate expanding Chinese influence. Look at the Panama Canal port deals. Trump’s goal is not so much to own the canal as to deny China influence in the region. China, not Panama, is the target. In fact, most of Trump’s seemingly bizarre foreign policy moves–Canada as the 51st state and annexing Greenland are about trying to change the political geography to keep China from gaining influence in the Arctic. The flow of information out of China on economic performance since the tariffs hit is sparse, but I have been checking in on the social media chatter coming out of China, and the news is bleak. Consumer spending is down, export products are being sold at firesale prices, and business owners are locking doors and leaving employees unpaid. This is all chatter right now, but also likely true.

Trade wars suck for everybody involved, and when the cost of Chinese-made products go up there will be some pain here in the United States, whatever Trump and his people say. But none of this pain will be an existential threat to Trump, the country, or the Republican Party. There will be a price to pay, but it will be modest in the longer term. Not so for China. Their regime is under threat because their hand is much, much weaker. Weaker than Trump’s and weaker than people think. Of course, if China were a normal country, what Trump is doing would be a horrible policy. Generally speaking, destroying a trading partner’s economy is both morally questionable and terrible for business. Normally you would cut a deal. But China and the United States are heading for a war, and a big one at that. Xi Jinping has made that abundantly clear, and he has counted on making the US economy dependent on China to keep us cowed. Trump is turning that logic on its head.

Read more …

I don’t think they do. Looks more like they’re getting ready to pull out.

• US Expects Ukraine Ceasefire Within Weeks – Bloomberg (RT)

Senior US officials have told European allies that Washington anticipates a comprehensive ceasefire in the Ukraine conflict within weeks, Bloomberg has reported. US presidential envoy Steve Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio outlined the timeline during a series of meetings in Paris on Thursday, hosted by French President Emmanuel Macron, Bloomberg reported the same day, citing anonymous sources. The European side sought to persuade the Americans that President Donald Trump should “harden its position toward Moscow,” the report said, describing the discussions as “the latest attempt by Europe to influence the outcome” of US talks with Russia.

Last week, Witkoff traveled to St. Petersburg for talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, which he has characterized as “compelling.” Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has criticized Trump’s envoy, accusing him of echoing “Russian narratives.” Russian officials have expressed skepticism about the feasibility of a ceasefire with Ukraine, asserting that Kiev’s backers in Europe are undermining US efforts. Speaking to journalists on Thursday, Moscow’s UN representative, Vassily Nebenzia, highlighted that Kiev has failed to adhere to a US-mediated moratorium on strikes against energy infrastructure.

The diplomat said that the West’s record of using purported peace deals to build up the Ukrainian military means that expectations for a full ceasefire are “simply unrealistic at this stage.” “I cannot speak on behalf of President Trump,” Nebenzia said. “Perhaps, he knows better what I don’t know.” The 30-day energy ceasefire announced on March 18 is set to expire this week. When asked on Wednesday whether Russia would alter its military strategy, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated that Putin had issued no new directives on the matter.

Read more …

What Europe? Do you mean Von der Leyen, who has no links to any European, or Macron, who’s despised by those he does have a link to? Who would Trump talk to, and why?

• Europe Seeking ‘Direct Line’ With Trump – NYT (RT)

European officials are seeking to establish a “direct line” of communication with US President Donald Trump, unsure whether his team can make any real decisions or is willing to cooperate at all, the New York Times reported on Thursday, citing sources. The report, based on interviews with numerous unnamed European officials, describes the US president as “the ultimate decision maker” who is often difficult to predict, making the goal of getting Trump’s ear a priority for the Europeans. Many top-level negotiators in European NATO countries have found traditional diplomatic channels – such as the State Department and embassies – ineffective, the report said. The confusion is compounded by the fact that the most effective interlocutors on the US side are not career diplomats but rather trusted special envoys and advisers, such as Elon Musk and Steve Witkoff, the article said.

The officials also told the NYT that their US counterparts are primarily focused on fulfilling the president’s wishes, showing limited interest in the perspectives of America’s allies. The Trump administration is “not terribly interested in what the Europeans have to say,” a NYT source said. “It’s all about unilateralism and they don’t consult much. After all, if they don’t consider us allies to that extent, why would they?” While senior Trump officials have held “cordial” talks with their European counterparts on a number of issues, “it is never clear to allies” whether they have “real power over foreign policy or trade,” the article said. ”Everyone in D.C. says you have to talk to Trump directly,” a senior European official told the NYT.

However, this has proved difficult even for the highest-ranking EU officials, as Trump “despises the collective power of the European Union and sees many NATO allies as freeloaders,” the paper said, adding that leaders such as European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen are struggling to get on Trump’s calendar. The communication breakdown comes at a time of tenuous US-EU relations, marred by Washington’s decision to slap the bloc with tariffs and its push to make European NATO members pay more for their defense. Differences over the Ukraine conflict have also come into play, with Trump pursuing active diplomacy with Russia to end the conflict while the EU insists on supporting Kiev for “as long as it takes.”

Read more …

Yes, Meloni might be the EU contact for Trump. But Brussels would not give her any voice of her own.

• Meloni’s White House Trip Paves Way For European Union Rapprochement (JTN)

President Donald Trump’s meeting with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni on Thursday at the Oval Office came amid the ongoing trade dispute between the European Union and Washington and appeared to pave the way for a presidential visit to the continent to address the matter with its leaders. “I want to thank President Trump for having accepted an invitation to pay an official visit to Rome in the near future and consider the possibility in that occasion to meet also with Europe,” Meloni told reporters in the Oval Office. “The goal for me is to make the West great again, and I think we can do it together. We can and we will keep [working] on that.” The Italian leader generally ranks among those European figures with the strongest relationships with Trump himself.

A stalwart conservative and opponent of illegal immigration, Meloni shares many of Trump’s own positions, putting her on solid footing with her counterpart in the Oval Office. She further acknowledged those points in the meeting, saying “I know that we share lots of things on tackling illegal migration, on fighting against synthetic drugs.” Meloni was the only European Union leader to attend Trump’s 2024 inauguration and was among the first to congratulate him on his reelection. The pair have generally enjoyed a strong relationship and Trump himself called her a “great prime minister” during the meeting. Ahead of her trip to Washington, Meloni had been widely regarded as the European leader best suited to negotiating with Trump.

Italy is the 25th most populous nation globally with more than 59 million residents, according to data from the U.N. Dept. of Economic and Social Affairs, and a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of $2.3 trillion (USD). In January 2025, the United States exported $2.82 billion to and imported $6.11 billion from Italy, resulting in a negative trade balance of $3.29 billion. The Observatory of Economic Complexity reported that in January 2025, the top exports of the United States to Italy were Hormones ($580M), Petroleum Gas ($249M), and Crude Petroleum ($211M). In the same month, the main imports to the United States from Italy were packaged medicines ($634M), vaccines, blood, antisera, toxins and cultures ($436M), and commodities not specified otherwise ($268M).

In early April, Trump declared “Liberation Day” and announced the imposition of sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs on most foreign nations. He later paused some of the largest tariffs, though he maintained a 10% baseline on most countries and left in place large-scale tariffs on China. Shortly after Liberation Day, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced a “zero for zero” tariff offer to the United States, though Washington has yet to agree to any permanent arrangement. Trump initially imposed 20% tariffs on most European goods, but he has since brought Brussels down to the 10% rate for a 90-day period and Meloni was expected to pursue a resolution to the issue. Ahead of the meeting, the White House was optimistic that it would be able to secure agreements with many nations eager to reach lasting agreements. “We’ve got 90 deals in 90 days possibly pending here,” White House advisor Peter Navarro said.

Multiple White House officials have shared that sentiment publicly, though it is not clear which nations have expressed interest in negotiating trade deals. Meloni’s visit was decidedly more jovial than that of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, which resulted in his removal from the White House after a tempestuous press conference. By contrast, the Oval Office meeting with Meloni saw many laughs as the pair exchanged compliments and pronounced the productiveness of their talks. “We have been talking about many bilateral topics and things that we can do together, about defense, about economic [sic], about economy, about space, about energy, Italy will have to increase its LNG imports and also nuclear that we are trying to develop,” Meloni said. “I think there can be ways to work together.” She further highlighted the commitment of Italian firms to American investment, but did not speak to the prospect of an individual trade deal between the United States and Italy.

“And the Italian enterprises will invest, as they’ve been doing for many years, as you know, in the next years, I think around $10 billions,” she added [sic]. “That shows how interconnected our economies are.” Meloni did not arrive officially as an envoy for the EU, though she did emphasize the importance of America’s relationship with the continent. During the Oval Office meeting, she pointed primarily to the economic relationships between Italy and the United States, but used the American relationship with her country as a segue to discuss the continental issue. “Mr. President, it’s not only about Italy, it’s about the entire Europe. The exchange between us is a very big one, investments, trade,” she said. “So I think even if we have some problems okay between the two shores of the Atlantic, it is the time that we try to sit down and find solutions.” “I know that when I speak about the West mainly, I don’t speak about a geographical space. I speak about [the] civilization, and I want to make that civilization stronger,” she added.

Read more …

“In the US’s ‘grand geopolitical chessboard’, the EU remains “one of the big, most important parts..”

• US Will Pull EU to Pieces Before Letting It Partner Up With China (Sp.)

Trump’s global trade rampage has left the European Union and China seeking improved trade and investment relations. But that’s not a realistic prospect, says veteran Hong Kong-based Italian financial analyst Angelo Giuliano. For starters, “you need to keep in mind that the EU leaders were pre-selected by the Bilderberg Group and the US. Basically…the EU is actually a US project to destroy nation states,” Giuliano told Sputnik. Much of the bloc’s former and current top leadership (including European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Economy Commissioner Paolo Gentiloni, Chancellor Friedrich Merz of Germany, France’s Emmanuel Macron and NATO chief Mark Rutte) are members of the Atlanticist club or have spoken at its meetings.

Second, the EU doesn’t decide its own fate, a reality demonstrated by Washington’s success in decoupling the bloc from Russia’s cheap, plentiful energy resources, and forcing it to import much more costly US LNG, Giuliano said. This left the EU’s industrial output uncompetitive globally and triggered widespread deindustrialization as hundreds of companies downsized, stopped production and shifted production abroad, including to the US. Washington can and will do the same vis-à-vis Europe and China as it consolidates alliances against the emerging, BRICS-led multipolar world order, Giuliano believes. “There’s going to be some backfiring from the business community, but ultimately [Europe’s] leaders are going to side with the US as they see Russia and China as the enemies,” the observer emphasized.

Besides US vassalage, closer EU-China ties are stymied by other factors, like:
• China’s warm relations with Russia, a sharp contrast to active EU support for the anti-Russia proxy war in Ukraine.
• The acrimonious relationship with Russia means new infrastructure like the Northern Sea Route, the North-South Transport Corridor and overland transit via Russia remain closed to the EU. Instead, Europe-China trade relies on transit via the Red Sea, hindered by Houthi ops against the US and Israel.
• Fears of China’s sophisticated and cost-competitive automotive and green tech, which along with consumer goods, chemicals and steel could further deindustrialize the EU, especially as China enjoys access to discounted Russian energy while the bloc is stuck with pricey American gas deliveries.
• Unresolved industrial subsidies, agricultural dumping, IP and tech-related bitterness.

Ultimately, enhanced EU-China would be possible, and advantageous, Giuliano says, but only if Brussels “had a more neutral stance” in international affairs, “siding a little bit with BRICS and also the Belt and Road Initiative. “But again, there are a lot of obstacles for that, and the US would not allow it to happen, because they want to have a sphere of influence between North and South America and the EU. They want to control those blocs. And they fight with the multipolar world and this transition to a multipolar world,” the observer noted. In the US’s ‘grand geopolitical chessboard’, the EU remains “one of the big, most important parts,” Giuliano summed up.

Read more …

“A single Obama-appointed district judge is trying to hamstring the entire executive branch’s ability to enforce immigration law.”

• Trump Admin Fights Back Against Rogue Judge’s Contempt Warning (Margolis)

The Trump administration has just shown exactly how to handle judicial activism: by fighting back with everything it has. In a bold move that’s sure to have the Democratic establishment sputtering with rage, Trump’s legal team filed an immediate appeal Wednesday evening against Judge James Boasberg’s outrageous contempt threat. The judge’s unprecedented power grab attempted to block crucial deportation flights, and he’s learning the hard way that the Trump administration isn’t taking his judicial overreach sitting down. The administration’s legal response was swift and devastating. Its appeal systematically dismantled Boasberg’s ruling, pointing out how it represents a “massive, unauthorized imposition on the Executive’s authority” and directly contradicts recent Supreme Court precedent.

The Trump administration’s brief appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court does not include any new details, as the facts of the case have already been heard by the district and appellate court. The appellate court last month ruled 2-1 to uphold Boasberg’s temporary restraining order. The Supreme Court, however, ruled 5-4 last month that the Trump administration could resume its deportation flights under the Alien Enemies Act, so long as individuals subject to removal under the law were given due process protections, and the opportunity to pursue habeas relief – or the ability to have their case heard by a U.S. court prior to their removal. Boasberg said Wednesday that the court found that the Trump administration had demonstrated a “willful disregard” for his March 15 emergency order, which temporarily halted all deportation flights to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 statute providing for such deportations during “a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion” by a foreign nation.

What makes this pushback so satisfying is how it exposes the left’s double standard. When Trump follows the law and exercises his constitutional authority to protect Americans, leftists cry “contempt.” But when Democratic appointees like Boasberg ignore Supreme Court rulings they don’t like? Crickets from the mainstream media. Team Trump’s legal filing didn’t pull any punches. It meticulously detailed how Boasberg’s ruling attempts to usurp executive authority that the Supreme Court explicitly confirmed just last month. The 5-4 decision authorized these deportation flights, but apparently, left-wing district court judges think they can override the Supreme Court because “Orange man bad.” The administration’s response demonstrates exactly why Trump’s approach to the judiciary is so necessary.

While previous Republican administrations might have meekly complied with such judicial overreach, Trump’s team recognizes these tactics for what they are — an attempt to legislate from the bench. A single Obama-appointed district judge is trying to hamstring the entire executive branch’s ability to enforce immigration law. The Trump administration isn’t just fighting back against one bad ruling; it’s defending the fundamental separation of powers. This appeal systematically addresses every aspect of Boasberg’s flawed and blatantly partisan reasoning while simultaneously highlighting the urgent national security implications of these deportation flights. Of course, the left is not used to an administration that actually fights back against judicial activism. It expected Trump to roll over like so many Republicans before him. Instead, it’s getting a masterclass in constitutional governance.

Read more …

“Knee-deep in the mud..”

Trump’s present day nemesis judge fulfilled that role also during the Russiagate years. When Clinesmith falsified a FISA application.

• Convicted FBI Lawyer Clinesmith Was Spared From Prison By Boasberg (JTN)

Convicted FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith — whom Judge James Boasberg gave a slap on the wrist for his crimes years before becoming a public foe of President Donald Trump’s deportation policies — was more deeply involved in the deeply flawed Crossfire Hurricane investigation than previously known. Clinesmith, who worked on both the FBI’s Hillary Clinton email investigation and on the Trump-Russia collusion inquiry, pleaded guilty to falsifying a document during the bureau’s efforts to renew FISA authority to wiretap Carter Page, who was an adviser to Trump’s 2016 campaign. Newly-declassified details about Clinesmith’s involvement include a wide swath of information about his role in the case. He was a key go-to for former FBI lawyer Lisa Page and fired FBI special agent Peter Strzok throughout the debunked collusion saga and a main driver in obtaining a FISA warrant against Page based on the infamous Steele dossier.

Clinesmith also granted his seal of approval on a document describing the FBI’s pretextual briefing of then-candidate Trump, was deeply involved in the investigation into retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, played a role in going after former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, and more. He also helped the FBI push its “Cross Wind” investigation, which Just the News can confirm related to the targeting of security expert Walid Phares, which resulted in no accusations of wrongdoing and no charges. Clinesmith confessed in August 2020 that he had manipulated a CIA email in 2017 to state that Carter Page was “not a source” for the CIA when that agency had actually told the bureau on multiple occasions that Page was in fact an “operational contact” for the CIA.

Boasberg, the federal judge who is blocking Trump’s efforts to deport Venezuelan gang members, also played a key and controversial role in the aftermath of the Trump-Russia collusion saga as the leader of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The judge, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by then-President Barack Obama in 2011, is currently engaged in an all-out legal battle with the Trump Justice Department. But in his role as the head of the FISA Court he made a number of divisive decisions, including a slap on the wrist for a member of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane team, the appointment of officials who had defended the FBI’s actions during the Russiagate saga, the renewal of the FBI’s FISA powers, and more. Boasberg ruled this week that “probable cause exists” to hold Trump administration officials in criminal contempt after they violated his orders by continuing deportation flights. But his ruling follows the Supreme Court holding that Boasberg’s court was in an improper venue for the case altogether.

Boasberg, in his role as a federal judge, denied the Justice Department’s efforts to seek up to six months behind bars for Clinesmith, who pleaded guilty in Special Counsel John Durham’s Trump-Russia investigation — instead giving Clinesmith a year of probation, 400 hours of community service, and no fine. Durham argued that Clinesmith’s “deceptive conduct” related to the FISA application fabrication “was antithetical to the duty of candor and eroded the FISA’s confidence in the accuracy of all previous FISA applications worked on by the defendant,” and said his deception “fueled public distrust of the FBI and of the entire FISA program itself.” But Boasberg seemed to defend Clinesmith’s deceptive FISA-related actions during his January 2021 sentencing.

“Mr. Clinesmith likely believed that what he said was true,” Boasberg wrote, adding, “I do not believe he was attempting to achieve an end he knew was wrong.” The judge claimed that “it is not clear to me that the fourth FISA warrant would not have been signed but for this error. … Even if Mr. Clinesmith had been accurate about Mr. Page’s relationship with the other government agency, the warrant may well have been signed and the surveillance authorized.” Durham had argued that Clinesmith’s deception “fueled public distrust of the FBI and of the entire FISA program itself.” Anthony Scarpelli, then a top prosecutor on Durham’s team, also argued that “the defendant’s criminal conduct tarnished the integrity of the FISA program” and that “the resulting harm is immeasurable.”

Clinesmith told the court that “I am deeply remorseful for any effect my actions may have had” on the FISA process even as he claimed that “I never intended to mislead my colleagues about the status of Dr. Page.” But Boasberg lamented that Clinesmith had been “abused” and “vilified” on a “national scale” when the judge handed down his sentence, though he did acknowledge that the FISA court’s reputation “has suffered” from the ex-FBI attorney’s actions. DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz in 2019 found huge flaws with the FBI’s Russia collusion investigation, finding at least 17 “significant errors and omissions” related to the FISA warrants against former Trump campaign associate Carter Page. He also criticized the “central and essential” role of British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s debunked dossier in the FBI’s politicized FISA surveillance. Clinesmith reportedly circulated the dossier to other law enforcement staff.

FBI notes of a January 2017 interview with Steele source Igor Danchenko showed he told the bureau he “did not know the origins” of some of Steele’s claims and “did not recall” other dossier information. Danchenko also noted much of what he gave to Steele was “word of mouth and hearsay,” some of which stemmed from a “conversation that [he] had with friends over beers,” and the most salacious allegations may have been made in “jest.” The special counsel assessed that “the FBI ignored the fact that at no time before, during, or after Crossfire Hurricane were investigators able to corroborate a single substantive allegation in the Steele dossier reporting.” The new revelations about Clinesmith come partly through further declassified text messages sent by Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and others involved in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

Read more …

“We keep watching….”

• REPORT: President Trump Opposed Israeli Strikes on Iran Nuclear Sites (CTH)

The report comes as a result of leaks to the New York Times. Which, given the nature of the subject matter and administration officials involved, indicates the sourcing is from the domestic IC side of things. Specifically, the greatest likelihood is from someone in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) talking to media. Keep that in mind. According to leaked information to the New York Times, President Trump did not agree with an Israeli proposal to launch military strikes against Iran. According to the narrative as advanced, President Trump, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth were in agreement to attempt diplomatic solutions instead of bombing Iran. Israel could not conduct the attack without U.S. support, which President Trump decided not to give. Instead, Trump wanted a more forceful push toward engagement and diplomacy with Iran surrounding the ongoing contentious issue of nuclear development.

NEW YORK TIMES – “Israel had planned to strike Iranian nuclear sites as soon as next month but was waved off by President Trump in recent weeks in favor of negotiating a deal with Tehran to limit its nuclear program, according to administration officials and others briefed on the discussions. Mr. Trump made his decision after months of internal debate over whether to pursue diplomacy or support Israel in seeking to set back Iran’s ability to build a bomb, at a time when Iran has been weakened militarily and economically. The debate highlighted fault lines between historically hawkish American cabinet officials and other aides more skeptical that a military assault on Iran could destroy the country’s nuclear ambitions and avoid a larger war. It resulted in a rough consensus, for now, against military action, with Iran signaling a willingness to negotiate.

Israeli officials had recently developed plans to attack Iranian nuclear sites in May. They were prepared to carry them out, and at times were optimistic that the United States would sign off. The goal of the proposals, according to officials briefed on them, was to set back Tehran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon by a year or more. Almost all of the plans would have required U.S. help not just to defend Israel from Iranian retaliation, but also to ensure that an Israeli attack was successful, making the United States a central part of the attack itself. For now, Mr. Trump has chosen diplomacy over military action.”

This is where we need to insert the element that all media generally refuse to associate, Russia.” Iran has reengaged with officials from President Trump’s administration following a letter Trump wrote to the leadership in Iran. President Trump wants Mideast peace; he also wants to avoid the issue of Iran having a nuclear weapon. President Trump views military action as the last possible resort for failed diplomatic and geopolitical efforts. Israel wants to attack Iran. President Trump wants to support Israel but doesn’t want expanded military conflict that pulls the USA into more Mideast war. As we see in the continued issues within Ukraine, the CIA supports expanded conflict in both Ukraine and Iran. Israel and the CIA are in alignment. Hence, in our ongoing restaurant analogy, the CIA is the kitchen, and Israel has a table there. Russian President Vladimir Putin could be an influential geopolitical partner with President Trump, if Trump can get the issues of Ukraine and Russia solved and then pivot to Iran.

Unfortunately, the CIA does not want the issues within Ukraine solved, doesn’t want Trump and Putin coordinating and certainly doesn’t want Trump and Putin to work out a new strategic global map that does not contain useful conflict. Again, Israel and the CIA are in alignment. If President Trump builds a new bridge to Putin the bypass will significantly hurt traffic around the restaurant. The congressional zoning commission (House) is sympathetic to the long-term contract held by the chef, and the Israeli chamber of commerce are paying the county commissioners (senators) ‘indulgency fees’ to maintain the current ingress and egress. With the January change in shingle, Secretary of State Marco Rubio is now the maître d at the front of the house. Secretary Rubio is not using the menu options created by the kitchen team.

The kitchen is not happy (drones into Moscow). DNI Gabbard in place as the IC hostess, is trying to keep the restaurant operation seamless so the customers generally don’t notice. Unfortunately, the kitchen isn’t soundproof, and we can hear plates crashing (NYT leaks). Around the neighborhood, the locals are worried the kitchen staff might start spitting in their food if they are seen enjoying the new service and menu options. A few of the regulars have told the maître d and hostess about the rumors. The issue is being discussed as part of a pre-planned remodel. The interior architect (Trump) and interior designer (Musk) are proposing to remove the walls so the customers can see the kitchen operation as part of a new and modern decor, style and ambiance [transparency]. However, the guys who eat in the kitchen aren’t going to be happy if they are exposed to the riffraff and forced to eat at ordinary tables.

We keep watching….

Read more …

“Pam Bondi: Every American should be thanking Trump tonight..”

“..it was a stealth DOJ Lawfare operative who purposefully wrote in a court filing that Garcia’s deportation was a “mistake.”

• Pam Bondi Outlines Timeline and History of MS13 Illegal Alien (CTH)

Not since the Sandra Fluke election operation have the intel democrats coordinated so heavily with their media allies to organize support for a random person within the political/social narrative space, as they have with Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Apparently, the controlled U.S. media and their leftist politicians in office are choosing to use Garcia as a 2026 midterm election cry, similar to 2020’s George Floyd. The professional democrat party, their social media warriors/foot soldiers and the aligned propaganda media are all-in to use Kilmar Abrego Garcia as the face of their politics.

Attempting to counter the false narratives that surround the deportation of Garcia, Attorney General Pam Bondi makes her 77th appearance on Fox News to push back. Sean Hannity provides the Fox venue du jour. The responsibility is accurately applied to Bondi’s effort, considering it was a stealth DOJ Lawfare operative who purposefully wrote in a court filing that Garcia’s deportation was a “mistake.” The failure of Main Justice to catch the Lawfare operation within their ranks, has triggered these media events.

Read more …

“Maine Democrats have doubled down on their far-left agenda, and now our students and families stand poised to lose hundreds of millions in federal funding..”

Maine claims that keeping guys out of girls’ private rooms is “politically motivated”. Huh?

• Bondi Announces Lawsuit Against Maine Over Boys in Girls’ Sports (ET)

The Department of Justice is seeking a federal court injunction requiring Pine Tree State schools to immediately stop transgender boys from competing in girls’ sports and return all athletic records and titles to their rightful female owners. The federal agency will also consider retroactively pulling funding from school districts that have not complied with Title IX regulations in the past, Attorney General Pam Bondi said during an April 16 news conference in Washington. “Pretty basic stuff,” she said. “This is about women’s sports. This is also about young women’s personal safety.” Bondi was flanked by Education Secretary Linda McMahon and Maine Assemblywoman Laurel Libby, who was censured by her state’s Democrat-led state legislature for posting photos and the identity of a male transgender athlete from Greely High School who won an indoor track state pole vaulting title this year.

Maine high school athletes who competed against transgender males also appeared on stage, along with Riley Gaines, a former NCAA swimmer who brought this debate to the national stage after losing the championship to a transgender male who had competed in the men’s division until his senior year. Bondi said a Maine transgender male also won a cross-country state title last fall in the girls’ division and placed at state-level skiing competitions this past winter. “That took away a spot from young women in women’s sports,” Bondi said. “Shame on him.” Bondi did not disclose where this federal lawsuit was filed. In a separate court case related to the same debate, a judge ordered the federal government to unfreeze Department of Agriculture funding to schools.

President Donald Trump previously issued executive orders clarifying Title IX and prohibiting males from competing in women’s sports. The NCAA has already complied, and Republican House members are working on a bill to codify that regulation. Maine’s attorney general has already informed Bondi that his state has no intention of complying with the order. School district superintendents told their communities that until directed otherwise, they are expected to comply with state laws that are contrary to Trump’s executive order. Trump publicly sparred with Maine Gov. Janet Mills at a governor’s workshop on Capitol Hill in February, warning her that he would pull funding if she continued to defy his executive order. At the state level, the Greely High School community has shown public support for all transgender athletes, including their state champion pole vaulter, criticizing Trump and the NCAA for its compliance. But Libby has also received plenty of support via her social media presence and continues to state that most Mainers do not support men competing as women in their state.

“Maine Democrats have doubled down on their far-left agenda, and now our students and families stand poised to lose hundreds of millions in federal funding,” Libby said in a statement provided to The Epoch Times. “Their radical gender ideology is endangering the continued existence of women’s sports and penalizing Maine students against the will of Maine citizens.” Mills issued a statement after Bondi’s news conference, saying that Trump and the Department of Justice’s actions are politically motivated. “As I have said previously, this is not just about who can compete on the athletic field, this is about whether a President can force compliance with his will, without regard for the rule of law that governs our nation. I believe he cannot,” the governor said.

Read more …

They would simply rename a office and say they shut it down.

• Rubio Shuts Down Censorship Program Biden Admin Claimed was Ended (Turley)

For years, I have written about the Global Engagement Center (GEC) in columns and my book, The Indispensable Right. It was one of the hubs of the censorship network under the Biden Administration, which claimed it was shut down after Congress cut off funding. However, Secretary of State Marco Rubio just announced that he has terminated the office, which was operating under a different name (a familiar tactic by the anti-free speech movement). Secretary Rubio announced the closure of the State Department’s Counter Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference office, which was previously known as the Global Engagement Center (GEC): “Over the last decade, Americans have been slandered, fired, charged, and even jailed for simply voicing their opinions. That ends today…

When Republicans in Congress sunset GEC’s funding at the end of last year, the Biden State Department slapped on a new name. The GEC became the Counter Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (R-FIMI) office, with the same roster of employees. With this new name, they hoped to survive the transition to the new administration. Today, we are putting that to an end. Whatever name it goes by, GEC is dead. It will not return.” Bravo, Mr. Secretary, Bravo. We previously saw this dishonest practice in the Biden Administration when they claimed to shut down a censorship office only to shift work to other offices.

As we celebrated the demise of the infamous Disinformation Governing Board, the Biden administration never disclosed a larger censorship effort. That includes a recently disclosed back channel to Twitter where dozens of FBI agents tagged citizens for censorship. I have testified on that evidence of evasion and censorship. The new move will remove 50 full-time staff positions at the Counter Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference office. Rubio discussed his decision in an op-ed for The Federalist. The GEC was part of the Election Integrity Partnership, which we have also discussed as a consortium of nonprofits, social media platforms, and government agencies that were key to the censorship system.

The Biden Administration created censorship offices throughout the government while sending massive amounts of federal funding to groups and universities to help target individuals and groups.Rooting out these offices and grants will take a prolonged effort, but great progress has already occurred under the Trump Administration. Of course, this will add to the ranks of censorious Ronins looking for new sponsors. Many will find homes in academia and in Europe. Yet, there is reason to take heart even as we fight to regain the ground lost under Biden. As Winston Churchill said in 1942, “This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

Read more …

A Chihuahua rules the waves…

• A Chihuahua That Thinks It’s A Lion: The Decline of Britain (Bordachev)

There are only two countries in the world that have exercised full autonomy over major political decisions for more than 500 years: Russia and Britain. No others come close. That alone makes Moscow and London natural rivals. But now, we can say with confidence that our historical adversary is no longer what it once was. Britain is losing its foreign policy clout and has been reduced to what we might call “Singapore on the Atlantic”: an island trading power, out of sync with the broader trajectory of world affairs. The fall from global relevance is not without irony. For centuries, Britain caused nothing but harm to the international system. It played France and Germany off one another, betrayed its own allies in Eastern Europe, and exploited its colonies to exhaustion. Even within the European Union, from 1972 until Brexit in 2020, the UK worked tirelessly to undermine the project of integration – first from within, and now from without, with backing from Washington.

Today, the British foreign policy establishment still attempts to sabotage European cohesion, acting as an American proxy. The late historian Edward Carr once mocked the British worldview with a fictional headline: “Fog in Channel – Continent Cut Off.” This egoism, common to island nations, is especially pronounced in Britain, which has always existed beside continental civilization. It borrowed freely from Europe’s culture and political ideas, yet always feared them. That fear was not unfounded. Britain has long understood that true unification of Europe – especially involving Germany and Russia – would leave it sidelined. Thus, the primary goal of British policy has always been to prevent cooperation between the major continental powers. Even now, no country is more eager than Britain to see the militarization of Germany. The idea of a stable Russia-Germany alliance has always been a nightmare scenario for London.

Whenever peace between Moscow and Berlin looked possible, Britain would intervene to sabotage it. The British approach to international relations mirrors its domestic political thought: atomized, competitive, distrustful of solidarity. While continental Europe produced theories of political community and mutual obligation, Britain gave the world Thomas Hobbes and his “Leviathan,” a grim vision of life without justice between the state and its citizens. That same combative logic extends to foreign policy. Britain doesn’t cooperate; it divides. It has always preferred enmity among others over engagement with them. But the tools of that strategy are disappearing. Britain today is a power in steep decline, reduced to shouting from the sidelines. Its internal political life is a carousel of increasingly unqualified prime ministers. This is not simply a result of difficult times. It reflects a deeper problem: the absence of serious political leadership in London.

Even the United States, Britain’s closest ally, is now a threat to its autonomy. The Anglosphere no longer needs two powers that speak English and operate under the same oligarchic political order. For a time, Britain found comfort in the Biden administration, which tolerated its role as transatlantic intermediary. London leveraged its anti-Russian stance to stay relevant and inserted itself into US-EU relations. But that space is narrowing. Today’s American leaders are uninterested in mediators. During a recent trip to Washington, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer could barely answer direct questions on foreign policy. His deference reflected a new reality: even the illusion of independence is fading. Meanwhile, France’s Emmanuel Macron, for all his posturing, at least leads a country that actually controls its nuclear arsenal.

Britain claims to have authority over its nuclear submarines, but many doubt it. In ten years, experts believe it may lose even the technical capacity to manage its nuclear weapons without US support. At that point, London will face a choice: full subservience to Washington or exposure to EU pressures, especially from France. Recent talk in London of sending “European peacekeepers” to Ukraine is a case in point. Despite the unrealistic nature of such proposals, British and French officials spent weeks debating operational details. Some reports suggest the plan stalled due to lack of funds. The real motive was likely to project relevance and show the world that Britain still has a role to play. But neither the media spin nor the political theater can change the facts. Britain’s global standing has diminished. It is no longer capable of independent action and has little influence even as a junior partner. Its leaders are consumed by domestic dysfunction and foreign policy fantasy.

In practical terms, Britain remains dangerous to Russia in two ways. First, by supplying weapons and mercenaries to Ukraine, it increases our costs and casualties. Second, in a moment of desperation, it might try to manufacture a small nuclear crisis. If that happens, one hopes the Americans would take the necessary steps to neutralize the threat – even if that means sinking a British submarine.There is nothing positive for Russia, or the world, in the continued existence of Britain as a foreign policy actor. Its legacy is one of division, sabotage, and imperial plunder. Now, it lives off the crumbs of a bygone empire, barking from the Atlantic like a chihuahua with memories of being a lion. The world moves on. Britain does not.

Read more …

Trump will have tariffs for that.

• China Replacing US Oil With Canadian – Bloomberg (RT)

China has been importing record amounts of crude oil from Canada and drastically reducing supplies from the US in light of the trade war with Washington, Bloomberg reported on Wednesday. Washington and Beijing have implemented a series of reciprocal tariff hikes over the past two months in light of which the latter has slashed purchases of US oil by roughly 90%, according to the outlet. China previously indicated that it would not implement more tariff hikes against US goods but would rather employ alternative ways to retaliate. Chinese crude imports from a port near Vancouver on Canada’s Pacific coast soared to a record 7.3 million barrels in March and may exceed the figure this month, Bloomberg reported, citing data from London-based global oil and gas cargo tracking firm Vortexa Ltd.

Chinese imports of US oil, meanwhile, have fallen to 3 million barrels per month from a peak of 29 million last June, it added. China’s direct imports of Canadian crude oil had historically been minimal, primarily due to infrastructure constraints. Chinese refineries have mainly sourced crude from the Middle East and Russia. Roughly 1.7% of China’s total crude imports came from the US last year, according to Chinese customs data, down from 2.5% in 2023. Nearly all of Canada’s oil is shipped to the US to be processed there or re-exported to Asia. However, the completion last May of the Trans Mountain Expansion pipeline, which takes crude to Canada’s Pacific coast, provided the country with an alternative route to export more volumes directly, primarily to Asia, thus reducing its reliance on the US.

“Given the trade war, it’s unlikely for China to import more US oil,” Bloomberg quoted Wenran Jiang, president of the Canada-China Energy & Environment Forum, as saying. “They are not going to bank on Russian alone or Middle Eastern alone. Anything from Canada will be welcome news.” China accounted for roughly 5% of US crude oil exports last year, according to ship-tracking data from Kpler. Russia remains China’s largest supplier of crude oil. Russian shipments to China reached the highest level on record in 2024. The increase in recent years is largely attributable to the discounts being offered on Russian crude. China’s imports of oil from Saudi Arabia, its second-largest supplier, declined by 9% year-on-year in 2024.

Read more …

EU will buy US LNG. Lots of it.

• Trump Tariffs Could Cost EU $1.25 Trillion (RT)

A trade war with the US could cost the EU up to €1.1 trillion ($1.25 trillion) over the next four years if Donald Trump proceeds with proposed tariffs, according to a study by the German Economic Institute (IW). Earlier this month, the Trump administration announced a sweeping 20% tariff on all EU goods and a 25% tariff on all car imports in a bid to eliminate what Washington sees as a large trade deficit with the bloc. Brussels was set to introduce 25% retaliatory tariffs on US imports before Trump announced a 90-day pause on most tariffs to allow for negotiations. If an agreement is not reached and US tariffs are imposed, the EU’s cumulative costs are estimated to range between €780 billion ($886.5 billion) and €1.1 trillion ($1.25 trillion) from 2025 to 2028, depending on the scenario, the study released on Thursday said.

The institute also projects that Germany’s GDP could slump by 1.2% annually during the same period under tariffs. If trading partners respond with similar measures, the costs for Berlin could rise to 1.6%, according to the report. Germany’s economy, already facing challenges, is expected to grow by only 0.1% in 2025 after two consecutive years of contraction. The IW forecasts a total economic output loss of €180 billion (around $205 billion) by 2028 for Germany, primarily due to export losses and declining investments. The US was Germany’s largest trading partner in 2024, with bilateral trade totaling €253 billion ($287.5 billion). A trade conflict could significantly impact key sectors, including automotive and pharmaceuticals, experts have warned.

The IW also pointed out that although the tariffs have been suspended for 90 days, uncertainty remains high, hitting global investment planning.European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen earlier proposed a “zero-for-zero” tariff agreement to eliminate duties on industrial goods between the EU and the US. However, Trump rejected the offer, stating it was insufficient and demanded that the EU commit to purchasing $350 billion worth of American energy to receive tariff relief. Trump has criticized the EU’s trade practices, asserting that the bloc is “very bad to us” and highlighting the US trade deficit as justification for his stance. Officials from Washington and Brussels met for trade talks earlier this week, but made little headway in resolving their differences. US officials signaled that most tariffs on EU goods are likely to remain in place, according to Bloomberg.

Read more …

“The current iteration of traditional German the-Russians-are-coming..”

• German Anti-Russia Propaganda Is Reaching Nazi-era Levels (Amar)

Like people almost everywhere in NATO-EU Europe, Germans are currently being subjected to a relentless barrage of shameless, often astonishingly crude propaganda. That’s because their political elites and mainstream media are desperately trying to prepare them for war against Russia. And this time, not by proxy, that is, by way of a devastated Ukraine and dead Ukrainians, but directly. As a former, very evil but in his prime all-too-popular German master of mass manipulation – who also happened to love war with Russia more than was good for him (or Germany) – explained a century ago, effective propaganda keeps the world very, very simple. Or, to add a little detail, propaganda’s sometimes literally stunning success is built on two primitive yet powerful – and very old – tricks: the broken-record principle and the litany effect.

Their meaning, too, is elementary: In essence, if your image of reality is delusional, you don’t have sound arguments, and your case is absurd, do not despair. Instead, ceaselessly drum in a few very basic and bogus ideas until the audience is dizzy with repetition (the broken-record principle), while also eliciting frequent consent from it (the litany effect). In short: Keep shouting the same nonsense at them and make them bleat back “yes” regularly. You know, like a ritual, really. In the case of the manufacturing of the current iteration of traditional German the-Russians-are-coming hysteria as well, it is easy to identify its handful of specious, daft, and childishly simplistic key motifs: Russia and Russia alone is to blame for the war in Ukraine; Russia intends to attack Europe (if not the world) – and soon; and Russia is incredibly devious and scheming, so you cannot find a reasonable compromise with it.

Yet what about the nuts and bolts of this propaganda campaign? Even a simple story needs detail, and, if told and retold almost without letup, that detail at least needs to vary: Same old story but different flavor. That’s where things get tricky. For one thing, if you pick the wrong flavor, your propaganda may start looking as silly as it actually is. A current example in Germany – as well as the EU parliament – would be the recent hysteria over the global hit Sigma Boy from Russia. Its brilliantly catchy tune is a piece of art, like it or not. But its lyrics are about as profound as a margarine commercial.

Yet that won’t stop Germany’s radical-Centrist elite from exploring the song’s ominous depths as a weapon of nefarious Russian cultural warfare. Because Sigma Boy, one EU parliamentarian from Hamburg has noticed – with a little help from Ukraine – is really “a viral Russian trope used on social media that communicates patriarchal and pro-Russian worldviews” as well as “only one example of Russian infiltration of popular discourse through social media.” Also, you see, Sigma Boy is really just code for – scary sound effect – PUTIN!

Read more …

Google is huge, it has many branches and companies, spends a fortune. Still, 77.4% of its revenue came from online ads in 2023. Break it up fast. It’s a threat to a million small companies.

• Court Rules Google Illegally Holds “Monopoly Power” In Online Ad Tech (ZH)

A U.S. federal court ruled that Google had illegally monopolized key digital advertising markets, including publisher ad servers, ad exchanges, and advertiser ad networks. This ruling could deal a major blow to Google’s core business pillar: advertising revenue (advertising accounted for about 77.4% of Google’s total revenue in 2023). U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema found on Thursday morning that Google had violated antitrust law by “willfully acquiring and maintaining monopoly power in the open-web display publisher ad server market and the open-web display ad exchange market.”

Here are the key findings in the landmark antitrust case (U.S. v. Google, 23-cv-00108, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria):
Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by willfully acquiring and maintaining monopoly power in:
• The open-web display publisher ad server market, and
• The open-web display ad exchange market Google also violated Sections 1 and 2 by unlawfully tying its publisher ad server (DoubleClick for Publishers/DFP) to its ad exchange (AdX). The court did not find that

Google held monopoly power in the third alleged market: advertiser ad networks.
Legal and Procedural Notes:
• The DOJ and 17 states originally brought the suit, accusing Google of monopolizing three key ad tech markets.
• Google had earlier tried to dismiss the case and transfer it to New York but failed.
• The court conducted a three-week bench trial and reviewed extensive expert testimony and evidence.

This case is one of several antitrust actions pending against Google. In a separate lawsuit, the Justice Department seeks to force Alphabet to divest its Chrome browser following a landmark ruling that found the company had monopolized the online search market. “Google will be drastically reshaped by court decrees in the next year or two,” The Information said, adding, “Google will likely be forced, as a result of today’s decision, to dismantle much of its ad tech business which dominates both how advertisers buy ads on independent websites, and how web publishers sell their ad space.”

Here are the next steps for Google, and it appears the court will be deciding on potential remedies:
• Google was found liable on Counts I, II, and IV, violating Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. Count III was dismissed.
• The court will set a schedule for briefing and hearings to determine remedies, potentially including divestiture of DFP and AdX, injunctions against anticompetitive practices, and other measures to restore competition.
• The ruling highlights Google’s decade-long strategy of tying products and imposing exclusionary policies to maintain dominance in digital advertising, harming publishers, competition, and consumers.

Market response: Alphabet shares fell as much as 3.2% after the ruling. Competitor The Trade Desk’s stock jumped nearly 8%, reflecting investor optimism about improved competition in the ad tech space.

Read more …

He put the whistleblowers in charge.

• Trump to Make an Epic Move at the IRS (Margolis)

Tax Day was Tuesday, and it goes without saying that we’d all love to see the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) disappear into the dustbin of history. But just as it is certain that we’re all going to die, we’re going to have to pay taxes. There have been some welcome changes at the IRS. As PJ Media previously reported, the IRS is now sharing illegal aliens’ tax information with ICE to help facilitate deportations. Trump has been pushing to turn every federal agency into an effective tool for catching and deporting illegal immigrants. And wouldn’t you know it, acting IRS Commissioner Melanie Krause couldn’t handle doing the right thing and resigned. And guess who’s likely to take her place? Gary Shapley, the IRS whistleblower who blew the lid off the Hunter Biden tax probe. He testified under oath that he faced retaliation simply for doing his job and cooperating with congressional investigators looking into the shady business dealings of the president’s son.

Now, according to the Associated Press, Shapley is expected to be promoted to acting commissioner of the IRS. Shapley and fellow IRS investigator Joseph Ziegler were sidelined from the Hunter Biden probe in December 2022 after raising serious concerns with their superiors. According to their testimony, the Justice Department under then-U.S. Attorney David Weiss repeatedly “slow-walked investigative steps” and stalled enforcement actions in the critical months leading up to the 2020 election. The saga over Hunter Biden’s taxes ended when Joe Biden gave Hunter a blanket pardon for any and all crimes he may have committed for a nearly ten-year period. Hunter had been facing trial in California for failing to pay at least $1.4 million in taxes but abruptly agreed to plead guilty just as jury selection was about to begin.

Despite that unfortunate ending to the story, the promotion of Shapley is welcome news. It’s a classic Trump-style move — putting truth-tellers in positions of power and pushing out the bureaucrats who’ve been protecting the swamp. In March, Shapley was promoted to Deputy Chief of IRS Criminal Investigations, and another IRS investigator who testified about Biden’s taxes, Joseph Ziegler, was assigned to the Treasury Secretary’s office as a senior adviser for IRS reform. Now, the tax collection agency is planning to name Shapley to one of the highest-ranking roles at the agency — in an interim role — as former Missouri congressman Billy Long awaits a confirmation hearing to lead the agency permanently, the people say. They were not authorized to speak publicly about the plan.

President Donald Trump nominated Long, who worked as an auctioneer before serving six terms in the House of Representatives, to serve as the next commissioner of the IRS. “Gary is a long-tenured civil servant who has dedicated the last 15 years of his professional life to the IRS,” a Treasury spokesperson told the Associated Press. “Gary has proven his honesty and devotion to enforcing the law without fear or favor, even at great cost to his own career. He’ll be a great asset to the IRS as we rethink and reform this crucial organization.” Shapley may only serve temporarily, but you can’t ignore the symbolism behind the move.

Read more …

“The era of global boiling has arrived!”

• Climate Myths (John Stossel)

I guess United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres didn’t think his hyping global warming risks brought him enough attention, so now he says, “The era of global boiling has arrived!” Global boiling? Give me a break. Yes, the climate is warming. We can deal with that. What annoys me is politicians, activists and media pushing hysterical myths.

Myth 1: The Arctic will soon be ice-free. It “could already be ice-free by the summer of 2030!” shrieks a DW report. “‘Doomsday Glacier’ is melting faster than scientists thought,” adds the BBC. “Earth’s biggest cities are at risk!” Nonsense. “It’s not happening at nearly the catastrophic pace that they claim,” says Heartland Institute fellow Linnea Lueken in my new video. But the media show dramatic images of melting and missing ice. “No ice! There’s all these walruses laying out on a stony beach. … It’s because it’s the summertime! In the winter, it all comes right back!”

As far as ice disappearing in winter, too, “Compared to the amount of ice that’s in the Arctic,” says Lueken, it “is like a grain of sand … so minuscule compared to the amount of ice that’s there, it doesn’t even show up on a trend chart when you plot it.” But zealots push hysteria. In 2009, Al Gore, while collecting a Nobel prize, said there was “a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap … during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years!” In just five to seven years! Oh, no! Wait … seven years have passed. In fact, 16 years passed. The ice cap has plenty of ice, even in summer. Yet nobody calls him on it. “They absolutely should be calling him on it,” says Lueken.

Myth 2: Polar bears are going extinct. Polar bears look cute, so environmental groups use them in ads to sucker you into donating money. But Polar bear populations have increased! In the 1960s, 17,000-19,000 was the highest of three scientific estimates of polar bear population. Today, there are about 26,000 polar bears. Yet the Environmental Defense Fund collected almost a quarter-billion dollars from gullible donors running ads that say: “Your support can help Environmental Defense Fund save the polar bears!” The EDF hasn’t agreed to my interview requests. I understand why. I would call their advertising sleazy. “Absolutely,” agrees Lueken, “the data is right there. It’s not hard to find out that polar bears are fine.” OK, maybe polar bears aren’t going extinct, but we might starve!

That’s Myth 3. MSNBC shrieks, “Climate change could create a massive global food shortage.” President Barack Obama said, “Our changing climate is already making it more difficult to produce food!” “There is no claim less true.” sighs Lueken. “Food production has skyrocketed.” She’s right, and the data is there for everyone to see. Agriculture output sets record highs year after year. In fact, the extra carbon dioxide in greenhouse gasses probably increases food production. “We inject CO2 into greenhouses for a reason,” Lueken points out. “It helps to fertilize plants for faster and better growth.” As the climate has warmed, the world experienced the biggest drop in hunger and malnutrition ever.

Still, when food prices rise, media idiots still blame climate change. The New York Times claimed “devastation that climate change had wrought” caused a rise in coffee prices.But global coffee production has increased by 82% since the 1990s.The Times story focused on a brief decline in coffee production in Honduras. But since the ’90s, coffee production there rose more than 200%. “They never apologize,” I note. “They never say, ‘Oh, we got this wrong.'” “No,” replies Lueken. “Even if they did have a retraction, the damage is already done.” Alarmist media and environmental groups never apologize. When doom doesn’t happen, they just move on to the next scare. I’ll cover four more myths about climate change next week..

Read more …

 

 

 

 

IVM

 

 

Alarma

 

 

K2-18b

 

 

Cartoon

 

 

Egret

 

 

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle April 17 2025

Apr 172025
 
 April 17, 2025  Posted by at 9:54 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , ,  33 Responses »


Piet Mondriaan Trafalgar Square 1939-43

 

• What Is a Woman? The UK Supreme Court Knows the Answer (Margolis)
• Trump Shot Down Israel’s Plan To Attack Iran – NYT (RT)
• New York AG Letitia James Accused of Alleged Mortgage Fraud (Turley)
• Judge to Trump Administration: I Feel Unfacilitated (Turley)
• Judge Boasberg Floats ‘Criminal Contempt’ Against Trump Admin (ZH)
• Scott Jennings Schools CNN Panel Over Gang Member’s Deportation (PJM)
• OpenAI Planning To Take On Musk’s X (RT)
• Trump Is Right to Hammer Environmental Lawfare (DS)
• What Can We Expect from the Peace Negotiations? (Paul Craig Roberts)
• ‘Stop Blackmailing’ – China to US (RT)
• US To Restrict China’s Access in Exchange for Fewer Tariffs on Allies (Sp.)
• US To Tie Tariff Deals To China Curbs – WSJ (RT)
• Dutch MPs Call For Ban On Amplified Islamic Calls To Prayer (RMX)
• Belgium Eyes Welfare Cuts To Meet NATO Target (RT)
• Trump Confronts Economic and Geopolitical Reality (Ring)

 

 


Longhorn beetle’s face.

 

 

Genetics

Hero

AI

CCP

Macleod

Bukele taxes
https://twitter.com/MAGAVoice/status/1912335542806802689

Flynn

Tucker Bernier

 

 

 

 

From a bit of an unexpected corner, but we’ll take it. A man’s no. 1 duty is to protect women, and that was not happening.

• What Is a Woman? The UK Supreme Court Knows the Answer (Margolis)

The U.K. Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling Wednesday that affirmed that the legal definition of “woman” refers specifically to those born biologically female, excluding biological men who “identify” as women from that category. The decision marks a major course correction after years of gender ideology sweeping Europe. The AP reports: “Several women’s groups that supported the appeal celebrated outside court and hailed it as a major victory in their effort to protect spaces designated for women. “Everyone knows what sex is and you can’t change it,” said Susan Smith, co-director of For Women Scotland, which brought the case. “It’s common sense, basic common sense and the fact that we have been down a rabbit hole where people have tried to deny science and to deny reality and hopefully this will now see us back to, back to reality.” The ruling brings some clarity in the U.K. to a controversial issue that has roiled politics as women, parents, LGBTQ+ groups, lawmakers and athletes have debated gender identity rights.”

This wasn’t some razor-thin ruling divided on ideological grounds. The UK Supreme Court ruled unanimously, with all five judges in agreement: under the Equality Act, biological men can be lawfully excluded from women-only spaces and services even if they “identify” as women. That includes places like changing rooms, female-only shelters, swimming areas, and women-centered medical or counseling services. The court made it explicit that even a transgender person holding a certificate legally recognizing them as female does not qualify as a “woman” under equality law. As far as I know, none of the judges on the UK Supreme Court are biologists, yet they were able to answer the question “What is a woman?” when Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson couldn’t do the same when asked during her confirmation hearings.

The case stems from a 2018 law passed by the Scottish Parliament stating there should be a 50% female representation on the boards of Scottish public bodies. Transgender women with gender recognition certificates were to be included in meeting the quota. “Interpreting ‘sex’ as certificated sex would cut across the definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ … and, thus, the protected characteristic of sex in an incoherent way,” Hodge said. “It would create heterogeneous groupings.” Hannah Ford, an employment lawyer, said that while the judgment will provide clarity, it would be a setback for transgender rights and there would be “an uphill battle” to ensure workplaces are welcoming places for trans people. “This will be really wounding for the trans community,” Ford told Sky News. Groups that had challenged the Scottish government popped the cork on a bottle of champagne outside the court and sang, “women’s rights are human rights.”

The UK Supreme Court’s landmark ruling defining women based on biological sex isn’t just a victory for common sense; it’s a desperately needed course correction following years of radical gender ideology being legitimized worldwide. Thankfully, President Donald Trump has been fighting to bring this return to sanity to America, despite relentless opposition from radical leftists and activist judges who seem determined to deny basic biological reality.

Read more …

Looks like a narrow escape. Bombing Iran is sheer stupidity. A country that has always said it doesn’t want nukes, for religious reasons. Good to see multiple cabinet members get input.

• Trump Shot Down Israel’s Plan To Attack Iran – NYT (RT)

US President Donald Trump has rejected Israel’s proposal to strike Iran’s nuclear sites, The New York Times reported on Wednesday evening, citing White House officials and others familiar with the matter. Trump reportedly chose instead to pursue a new deal with Tehran.According to the Times, Israel had drafted plans to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities in early May, aiming to delay its ability to develop a nuclear weapon by a year or more. After considering a combination of airstrikes and commando raids, the Jewish state reportedly proposed “an extensive bombing campaign” that would have lasted more than a week. Israeli officials had hoped that the US would not only greenlight the operation but also actively support it.

Trump, however, shot down the plan earlier this month, following a “rough consensus” in the White House. Vice President J.D. Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard were among the top administration members who reportedly raised concerns that the strikes would “spark a wider conflict with Iran.” Iran and Israel exchanged strikes in April and October of last year, marking the most dramatic escalation between the regional arch-rivals.

Trump tore up the 2015 UN-backed agreement on Iran’s nuclear program during his first term in office. The president accused Tehran of secretly violating the deal and reimposed sanctions. Iran responded by rolling back its own compliance with the accord and accelerating its enrichment of uranium. Last month, Trump threatened to bomb Iran “if they don’t make a deal,” to which the Islamic Republic vowed not to bow to pressure. Despite the belligerent rhetoric, the US and Iran held a first round of talks in Oman on Saturday. The negotiations took place in a “productive, calm and positive atmosphere,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said.

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1912670170977382901

Read more …

She deserves it.

• New York AG Letitia James Accused of Alleged Mortgage Fraud (Turley)

“No matter how big, rich or powerful you think you are, no one is above the law.” Those words by New York state Attorney General Letitia James echoed throughout the media, lionizing her after her office secured a judgment against Donald Trump for false business practices, including misrepresentations on loan documents. They may echo even louder this week as James finds herself the subject of a criminal referral for committing alleged financial fraud to secure her own property loans. On April 14, William J. Pulte, Director of US Federal Housing (FHFA), sent a referral letter to the Justice Department detailing alleged false statements made in filings by James to secure housing loans. For an attorney general who just prosecuted Trump for everything short of ripping a label off a mattress, the irony is crushing.

The alleged false statements are particularly damning for someone who insisted that she had zero tolerance for such irregularities or errors in financial filings. Indeed, the greatest danger is that the Letitia James standard could be applied to Letitia James in guaranteeing that “no one is above the law.” The allegations against James run from the demonstrably false to the downright bizarre. In securing a loan for a home in Norfolk, Va., James is accused of claiming through her representative that the property would be her principal residence. As the referral notes, primary residences receive more advantageous rates. However, as “the sitting New York Attorney General of New York [James] is required by law to have her primary residence in the state of New York.” Notably, the Justice Department has prosecuted those who have committed this common fraud.

For example, in 2017, it charged a man in Puerto Rico with false statements on a reverse mortgage loan application in which he falsely claimed the property as his principal residence. It emphasized that “mortgage lenders provide capital so people can purchase homes, not enrich themselves illegally.” There are other such cases under 18 U.S.C. 1014 and related laws. James could claim that these representations were made by a third party acting on her behalf. However, that is precisely the argument that she repeatedly rejected in the Trump case, insisting that he was legally obligated to review all filings made in his name or that of his companies. James is also accused of misrepresenting a five-unit property in Brooklyn as a four-unit property “to receive better interest rates … and to receive mortgage assistance through [the Home Affordable Modification Program].”

The referral also includes a claim that James filed papers that listed herself and her father as a married couple. The referral notes that just last year, Baltimore’s State Attorney, Marilyn Mosby, was convicted by the Biden administration of filing a false mortgage application. Another case resulted in a guilty plea last week for fraudulent filings in a home loan. The timing for James could not be worse. The Trump civil case has languished on appeal for months with a long overdue opinion. The appellate argument did not go well for James in the case that resulted in a grotesque half-billion-dollar fine in a case where no one lost a dime. James accused Trump of inflating property value in filings, a common practice in the real estate field. It did not matter that the company warned banks to do their own evaluations. It did not matter that bank officials testified that they made money on the deal. Indeed, the “victim” wanted more business from Trump. None of that matters.

James not only demanded an even greater fine but wanted to foreclose on Trump properties after Trump was told to secure a ridiculous $455 million bond to simply secure appellate review. Throughout that case, James repeated her mantra that there would be no exceptions for the rich and powerful. She insisted that accuracy on such financial records is essential and must be rigorously enforced. Many of us objected that James was selectively targeting Trump after she ran for office on the pledge to nail him on some unspecified offense.

James insisted that this was not lawfare and that she would prosecute anyone guilty of false or misleading statements on financial filings. She is now allegedly that person. It is not clear what James’ defense will be to these allegations. However, she may cite the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Thompson v. United States, which ruled in March that 18 U.S.C. § 1014 does not criminalize statements that are merely misleading but are not false. The problem is that, if proven, these statements are not misleading. They are false.

Read more …

Two separate judges are on the MS-13 case.

• Judge to Trump Administration: I Feel Unfacilitated (Turley)

After the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, I wrote a column disagreeing with the media coverage that claimed that the Trump Administration was ordered to return Garcia to the United States from El Salvador. The Administration mistakingly sent Garcia to a foreign prison. However, the Court only ordered that the Administration “facilitate” such a return, a term it failed to define. Now, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis is indicating that she feels unfacilitated, but it is unclear how a court should address this curious writ of facilitation. After the ruling, many on the left claimed “Supreme Court in a unanimous decision: He has a legal right to be here, and you have to bring him back.” The Court actually warned that the district court could order the government to facilitate but not necessarily “to effectuate” the return.

“The application is granted in part and denied in part, subject to the direction of this order. Due to the administrative stay issued by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, the deadline imposed by the District Court has now passed. To that extent, the Government’s emergency application is effectively granted in part and the deadline in the challenged order is no longer effective. The rest of the District Court’s order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps. The order heretofore entered by THE CHIEF JUSTICE is vacated.”

So what does that mean? As I asked in the column, “what if the Trump Administration says that inquiries were made, but the matter has proven intractable or unresolvable? Crickets.” The Administration has made clear that it views the orders as meaning that, if El Salvador brings Garcia to its doorstep, it must open the door. The court clearly has a different interpretation. Judge Xinis said yesterday, “I’ve gotten nothing. I’ve gotten no real response, and no real legal justification for not answering,” she continued, adding that if the administration is not going to answer her questions “then justify why. That’s what we do in this house.” There is nothing worse than a feeling of being unfacilitated, but how does the court measure good faith facilitation? Garcia is an El Salvadorian citizen in an El Salvadorian prison. The refusal of El Salvador to send the accused MS-13 gang member back effectively ends the question on any return.

Many of us suspect that El Salvador would send back Garcia if asked, but how can a court measure the effort of an Administration in communications with a foreign country? Judge Xinis is suggesting that she will be holding someone in contempt. However, this is a discussion occurring at the highest level. Would a formal request be enough? Is Judge Xinis suggesting that the court can require punitive or coercive measures against a foreign country to facilitate a change in its position? The fact is that a unanimous decision of the Court is not hard when no one can say conclusively what the order means. If Judge Xinis is going to move ahead with new orders, it will find its way back to the Supreme Court.

The Court clearly (and correctly) held that Garcia deserves due process and that this removal was a mistake. As I have previously stated, the Administration should have brought him back for proper deportation. I still believe that. However, the Court also held that the President’s Article II authority over foreign policy has to weigh heavily in such questions. As the court goes down this road, it can quickly get bogged down in subjective judgments on what constitutes facilitation. That is the can kicked down the road by the Supreme Court and it is now likely to come rattling back to the justices.

Read more …

The de facto ruler of America.

• Judge Boasberg Floats ‘Criminal Contempt’ Against Trump Admin (ZH)

US District Judge James Boasberg ruled Wednesday that “probable cause exists” to hold the Trump administration in criminal contempt for ignoring oral instructions to turn a plane full of alleged Venezuelan gang members around mid-flight, despite the US Supreme Court determining that Boasberg’s court was an improper venue for the case altogether – and vacating two of his temporary restraining orders related to the case. “The Court ultimately determines that the Government’s actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for its Order, sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt,” Boasberg wrote in a “46-page rant” (as Julie Kelly puts it). “The Court does not reach such conclusion lightly or hastily; indeed, it has given Defendants ample opportunity to rectify or explain their actions,” Boasberg continues. “None of their responses has been satisfactory.” Oh, and if the DOJ won’t prosecute the Trump admin’s alleged contempt, “the Court will “appoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt.””

https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1912553159269949783?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1912553159269949783%7Ctwgr%5Ea3688f29ee12125fd4b2930b336905f62a939345%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fpresident-jeb-boasberg-floats-criminal-contempt-against-trump-admin-over-deportations

That said, the Supreme Court is partially to blame here over their refusal to draw clear boundaries for District court judges… Which has created a complete shit-show…

Read more …

“There’s no version of this man’s life where he comes back.”

• Scott Jennings Schools CNN Panel Over Gang Member’s Deportation (PJM)

CNN’s Scott Jennings was having none of the hand-wringing on Monday’s panel discussion over the Trump administration’s handling of the deportation of MS-13 gang member Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia — the latest cause célèbre of the radical left. While the liberals on the panel tiptoed around legal technicalities and rhetorical posturing, Jennings delivered a blunt reality check that left the rest of the table scrambling. Anchor Abby Phillip tried to tee up criticism of Trump by focusing on “the optics” of sending “Americans” to El Salvador — even though Abrego Garcia is an illegal immigrant. But Jennings wasn’t distracted. “Yes. He said they were studying the laws. I mean, there wasn’t any definitive statement,” he clarified, before cutting right to the core of the debate: “I think you guys need to understand, for the Trump administration, there’s no version of this man’s life that ends up with him living in the United States.”

Jennings laid out the Trump administration’s reasoning without flinching: “He’s an illegal alien from El Salvador who came to the country illegally, who has a deportation order, who, in their view and in the view of some immigration courts, has an affiliation with MS-13.” Phillip tried to interject by claiming that Garcia’s affiliation with MS-13 isn’t definitive because Abrego Garcia “strongly disputes in court.” Well, I guess that settles it, right? “I’m telling you that their view of it is that… it’s an El Salvador citizen who was sent back to El Salvador, who was in the country illegally,” Jennings reiterated. “According to some people in his long process… he has an existing deportation order, [and they] believe he has an affiliation with MS-13.” Then Jennings repeated his knockout point: “There’s no version of this man’s life where he comes back.”

As the panel continued to push the narrative of unjust exile, Jennings laid out the consequences if Abrego Garcia is returned. “If the president of El Salvador releases him and we do facilitate his return, when he lands in this country, one of two things will happen,” Jennings explained. “He’ll either be arrested… or sent to another country that I promise you you don’t want to go to. He’s not going to be allowed to come back and live in this country as though he is a U.S. citizen.” Harvard Law’s Jay Michaelson jumped in with the melodramatic accusation, “That’s literally the definition of tyranny, right?” Umm, no? What are they teaching at Harvard Law these days? Seriously.

Michaelson continued, “So, here’s what’s going to happen: We’re going to throw him in jail. No, there’s a thing called the rule of law and due process, which has not been followed in this case. And if I have a slightly optimistic take on this; I actually think this is going to come back to bite the Trump administration. Because what’s going to happen is the next time this goes up the court system, they have absolutely zero credibility to say, Don’t worry, you can file a habeas petition. You can get your person back.” But Jennings coolly reminded the panel, “They have the ability to deport people who have deportation orders.” He added that Garcia “got due process. He has a deportation order.”

Later, he dissected the legal victory Trump’s team got last week. “The reason the administration believes they got a big win at the Supreme Court is because the district court was trying to compel the executive on foreign affairs. The Supreme Court threw that out,” Jennings explained. “The courts have long recognized that they cannot compel the executive on foreign policy matters.” As for the politics? Jennings didn’t sugarcoat it. “What they also believe is that, politically, the American people want them to be as aggressive as possible… to solve a crisis that has festered for years,” he asserted. Then he drove the moral argument home with a chilling reminder: “We keep calling this guy ‘Maryland man’ in the press. Nobody seems to worry about the Maryland mother, Rachel Morin, who was murdered by someone that the previous administration let out of jail.”

Read more …

Social media without people. Just AI bots.

• OpenAI Planning To Take On Musk’s X (RT)

OpenAI, a San Francisco-based company best known for ChatGPT, has reportedly been working on a new social media app similar to Elon Musk’s X. The early prototype features a feed centered on AI-generated images, according to sources familiar with the project cited by The Verge on Sunday. The experimental platform reportedly includes a social media feed and is being tested internally. CEO Sam Altman has also been seeking private feedback from individuals outside the company, the outlet reported. It remains unclear whether OpenAI intends to release the project as a separate app or integrate it into ChatGPT, which was the most downloaded app worldwide last month, with 46 million new downloads, according to Appfigures.

OpenAI’s potential social media network “would likely increase Altman’s already-bitter rivalry with Elon Musk,” The Verge writes. Musk was a co-founder of OpenAI but left the company in 2018. In February, Musk offered $97.4 billion to acquire OpenAI, but Altman rejected the offer, reportedly saying, “no thank you but we will buy twitter [now known as X] for $9.74 billion if you want,” according to The Verge. Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, could also be in OpenAI’s sights. The report noted that Meta is planning to launch its own AI assistant app with a social media feed. Following reports that Meta is building a ChatGPT rival, Altman responded on X in February: “ok fine maybe we’ll do a social app.”

Having a social media platform would reportedly allow OpenAI to collect unique real-time user data to enhance its AI models, similar to how Meta and Musk’s xAI currently operate, according to The Verge. Musk has merged his AI company xAI with X. Grok is a chatbot developed by xAI. It has been integrated with X and pulls content from the platform to inform its responses. According to a source from another AI lab cited by the Verge, “The Grok integration with X has made everyone jealous,” particularly regarding its role in helping users create viral content. It is reportedly uncertain whether OpenAI’s social media prototype will be released publicly.

Read more …

“Making America Great Again” has to include energy dominance and eradicating the barriers to innovation and growth at all levels of government, including courtrooms.”

• Trump Is Right to Hammer Environmental Lawfare (DS)

President Donald Trump’s critics are right about one thing: The first few months of his second term have been a reckoning. Starting with the federal government’s pursuit of law firms and organizations that committed lawfare against the president to hobble his political comeback, Trump has now supercharged executive authority to stop the flood of ideologically based lawsuits targeting America’s energy providers. In an executive order signed last week, Trump empowered Attorney General Pam Bondi to turn up the heat on local prosecutors and state attorneys general abusing the legal system with lawsuits against energy companies. He is right to do so. “Making America Great Again” has to include energy dominance and eradicating the barriers to innovation and growth at all levels of government, including courtrooms.

Trump has directed Bondi to “expeditiously take all appropriate action to stop the enforcement of state laws and continuation of civil actions” that threaten American energy dominance, including restrictive rules and civil actions against oil, natural gas, hydroelectricity, and nuclear energy projects. What Trump is specifically targeting here is the well-resourced cadre of state attorneys general and liability “lawfare” firms that have deployed creative legal strategies to try to extract money from companies by claiming they’ve committed “climate” crimes. This genre of lawsuit relies on the alleged violation of state nuisance or consumer deception laws, and litigators argue that the energy companies actively strove to mislead the public about their products’ impact on the climate.

A local lawsuit in North Carolina against Duke Energy, one of the largest nuclear energy utilities in the nation, provides the most baffling case. Officials in the small suburb town of Carrboro want the company to pay for the “climate-related harm” caused by its electricity generation, even though Duke Energy’s carbon-free nuclear energy fleet powers half the homes in North and South Carolina, and the region’s use of natural gas is one of the lowest per capita in the country. Climate lawfare has a direct impact on consumers who rely on affordable energy of all types by forcing these companies to beef up their legal departments rather than improving the delivery of their goods and services. The end result is higher prices for consumers who already live on tight budgets due to the rising cost of living in other areas of the economy.

Most, if not all, of these cases are filed in blue states and launched by attorneys on behalf of city governments such as Honolulu; Boulder, Colorado; and San Francisco. The states of Minnesota, Oregon, Vermont, Maine, New York, and California each have their own lawsuits aimed at recouping the “costs” of climate change on local communities and enforcing “net-zero” energy policies. Net-zero policies seek to rapidly choke off fossil fuel use in order to reach zero carbon emissions by reducing them as well as removing them from the atmosphere and relying on renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and sometimes, nuclear power. Oil companies like Exxon, Chevron, Shell, and BP get hit hardest, but like in the case of Duke Energy in North Carolina, electricity utility companies get dragged into the mess as well.

But as far as messes go, it’s one carefully orchestrated by the climate litigation industry, armed with deep pockets and patience in its quest to pull the rug out from under Big Energy. That’s why Trump’s revamp of federalism to review many of these laws and statutes is not only legal but deeply necessary. Consumers who need affordable energy and who rely on continued innovation from the companies that power their lives should not have their standard of living cut by greedy environmental lawyers jamming up district courts where judges are ideologically inclined to their side. In March, the Supreme Court declined to weigh in on the deluge of Democrat state-led climate lawsuits, denying the request by red states to put a halt to the lawfare.

In their dissent, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito made clear that the court was punting on a vital constitutional case “for policy reasons.” When the Supreme Court refuses to address the obvious abuse of our litigation system for energy providers and the consumers that rely on them, the intervention of the executive branch becomes a necessity. The most likely unconstitutional state statutes that enable these costly lawsuits should meet the wrath of a president willing to exercise some federal authority. Trump has answered that call, and at least on this specific issue, he’s proved that our government’s unique balancing act between state and federal power does make it possible to get important things done for Americans.

Read more …

PCR won’t give Putin a break. But Putin has a problem with dead Ukrainians: they’re Russia’s brothers.

• What Can We Expect from the Peace Negotiations? (Paul Craig Roberts)

Are the peace negotiations leading anywhere we want to go, or are they leading nowhere, or to more conflict? If I had to bet, I would pick one of the last two choices. Most likely more conflict. It is a tendency of peace negotiations to go nowhere except to a ceasefire that is immediately broken. As for the Ukraine negotiations, the Russians are the only party to the limited cease fire in Ukraine that have kept the agreement. Putin’s reward is to be told by Trump to stop fighting and put Russia’s fate in Washington’s hands or there will be more sanctions. Negotiations tend to keep on continuing, because it is in the interest of the negotiating teams. It is their time of fame. They are in the limelight. They enjoy being important. An agreement would make them invisible again. It is their 15 minutes of fame that they stretch into months and years.

Consider how long peace negotiations have been going on between Israel and Palestine to no effect except the utter and total destruction of Palestine and its people. The same could happen to Russia as the Kremlin seems to consist of 19th century naive liberals. In my recent interview on Dialogue Works I wondered why Iran was negotiating when the solution is to invite inspectors in to see if there is any evidence of nuclear weapons production. I wondered why Putin was negotiating when his real responsibility to Russia is to win the conflict and dictate the peace terms. After all his sad costly experiences with negotiating with Washington, why does Putin desire yet another sad experience? As far as I can tell, I am the only person who has answered the question. Putin is trying to use the conflict to negotiate a Great Powers Agreement like Yalta. If he wins the war, as he should have done long ago, to his way of thinking he loses the chance for a new Yalta that naive Russian foreign affairs commentators are talking about.

My view differs from Putin’s. If he won the war, especially if he had done so right away, Russia would be recognized as a great power worthy of a Great Power Agreement. Instead, by preventing the Russian military from winning, Putin has convinced the West that Russia is not a formidable military force, and that its leadership is irresolute. Among the consequences, we have today the French and British considering sending their soldiers to fight against Russia in Ukraine. Only Putin’s irresolution could have convinced the British and French that they could take on Russia. We also have Baltic countries with small populations engaging in unresisted and unanswered aggression against Russia. Both Estonia and Finland have moved to use military force to capture and detain Russian oil tankers.

If you were the captain of a Russian oil tanker delivering oil to somewhere in Europe, you might already be wondering why your government is fueling the ability of its enemies to wage war against Russia. But when you are boarded by a two-bit country whose population is less than Moscow’s and the Kremlin does not intervene, what do you think about the world’s respect for your country? You must be heart-broken. Powerful Russia humiliated by Estonia! Putin does not think about these things. His focus is only on negotiation. He is wedded to it, firmly. He might even be a little crazed by it. It is all that is important. He won’t respond to humiliations because it might queer the all-important negotiations. So the smallest countries on earth can humiliate Russia at will.

This must affect the Russian population, unless they have been so corrupted by Western “culture” that they are no longer Russian. That is the case with many of the Russian intellectuals. If Russia can’t be a part of the West, they feel isolated and alone. Decades of Washington’s propaganda succeeded in diminishing the Russian in them. From the day that Putin, who had erroneously relied on negotiations, was forced by Washington to intervene in Donbas, Putin and his foreign minister have not ceased bleating how welcoming they would be of peace negotiations. Consequently, no one in Western governments thought, or think today, that the Kremlin has an ounce of resolve on the battlefield. This is the problem Putin caused himself.

Do you remember Prigozhin and the Wagner Group? The Wagner Group was the essentially private military force under the command of Yevgeny Prigozhin that Putin had to rely upon when he belatedly intervened in Ukraine. Having erroneously relied on the Minsk Agreement, which the West used to deceive Putin, Putin had no military force prepared to deal with the massive Ukrainian army Washington had trained and equipped. Prigozhin found Putin’s way of fighting a war problematical. He said his top echelon troops were being required to take casualties but were prohibited from fighting to win. The dissatisfaction of the troops with Putin’s strictures that prevented victory, led to a protest march on Moscow, which the jealous Russian General Staff misrepresented as a “rebellion.” Prigozhin was removed and later died in a mysterious airplane crash, and the Wagner Group was broken up, thereby depriving Russia of its hardest hitting military force. This is a huge sacrifice in behalf of a distant possible negotiated settlement.

Prigozhin wasn’t alone. The second most effective Russian force were the Muslim troops from Chechnya. Their leader also complained that his force had to take casualties but were prevented from winning. He asked publicly, why can’t we get this conflict over with? I think the answer is that Putin thinks a negotiated settlement possibly leading to a Great Power Agreement is more important than the reputation of Russian military arms and Russian and Ukrainian casualties. If Washington comes to my conclusion, the settlement imposed on Putin will look good on paper but will perpetuate American hegemony. I have said many times that Putin does not need a mutual security agreement with the West. He does not need a New Yalta. Russia needs a mutual security agreement with China and Iran. A mutual security agreement of these three powers would end all wars. The US, NATO, Israel cannot possibly confront these three countries militarily.

But there is no agreement. Why? Is it a lack of vision of Russian, Chinese, and Iranian leaders? Or is it distrust between them? Russia and Iran walked away from Syria, leaving the country to Israel, Washington, and Turkey. Why wouldn’t they walk away from one another? China, knows that if China wished, China could crush Taiwan, with or without US support to Taiwan, in a few hours. But Putin can’t defeat outclassed Ukraine in more than three years, longer than it took Stalin’s Red Army to destroy the powerful German Wehrmacht, driving the Germans out of thousands of miles of Russia, Eastern Europe, and arriving in the streets of Berlin in a shorter time than Putin has been fighting over a few kilometers in Donbas. China must wonder what sort of military help would Russia be?

My conclusion is, and I much regret it, it is not a conclusion I want, that Putin has so badly handled the Ukrainian situation, the pipeline, and all other matters with Washington that the only agreement that can be reached is Russia’s surrender. Putin has shown no will to fight, only to engage in fruitless negotiation. Putin rolls out all of Russia’s superior weapons systems, which clearly are superior to anything the West has. But no one in the West believes he would use them. Putin has failed to present himself and his country as entities that must be contended with on their terms. Consequently, Putin is dismissed by Trump as someone to be bossed around, and by militarily impotent Britain and France who are talking about sending their soldiers to Ukraine to defeat Russia.

Read more …

Blackmail? Is that what it is?

• ‘Stop Blackmailing’ – China to US (RT)

China has called on the US to “stop threatening and blackmailing,” if it wants to resolve the escalating trade dispute between the two countries through dialogue. Beijing has stressed that it will continue to protect its interests in the face of US pressure. The two countries have implemented a series of reciprocal tariff hikes over the past two months, with the US imposing a cumulative rate of 145% last week. On Tuesday, the White House warned that Chinese imports to the US could face tariffs as high as 245%, and claimed the ball is in China’s court. “If the United States really wants to solve the problem through dialogue and negotiation, it should give up the extreme pressure, stop threatening and blackmailing,” Foreign Ministry Spokesman Lin Jian told journalists on Wednesday.

The diplomat reiterated that the tariff war was initiated by the US and stated that China’s response was aimed at safeguarding its legitimate rights and interests. Beijing’s retaliation has included a hike to 125% on all American imports, a suspension of global shipments of rare-earth metals and magnets used in tech and military industries. In addition, Beijing ordered Chinese airlines to stop accepting Boeing jets and parts, according to Bloomberg. President Donald Trump previously suggested that the “proud” Chinese want to make a deal, they “just don’t know how quite to go about it.” The Chinese authorities have meanwhile insisted that “the door remains open” for negotiation with the US, but dialogue must be based on mutual respect. The Ministry of Commerce last week dismissed the multiple rounds of duties imposed by the US on China as “numbers game” with no practical meaning and vowed to “fight to the end.”

Read more …

The US wants to prevent China from using third countries to circumvent tarriffs.

• US To Restrict China’s Access in Exchange for Fewer Tariffs on Allies (Sp.)

During negotiations with more than 70 countries, the US administration plans to secure commitments from trade partners to economically isolate China in exchange for lower tariffs imposed by the White House, The Wall Street Journal newspaper reported. The White House plans to convince countries to prohibit China from transporting goods through their territories, the report said on Tuesday, adding that Washington also wants to ban Chinese companies from locating in these countries in order to circumvent US tariffs, and prevent cheap Chinese industrial goods from entering their markets.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has become one of the key developers of this strategy, the report read. In his opinion, in the near future, such agreements can be reached primarily with Japan, the United Kingdom, Australia, South Korea and India. On April 2, US President Donald Trump announced reciprocal tariffs on imports from various countries, establishing a baseline rate of 10%. The tariffs were intended to be adjusted based on the rates charged by those countries on US goods. However, on April 9, Trump declared a 90-day pause on tariffs for all countries except China and lowered the rate to 10% to facilitate negotiations.

Read more …

“The ball is in China’s court. China needs to make a deal with us. We don’t have to make a deal with them,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said..”

• US To Tie Tariff Deals To China Curbs – WSJ (RT)

The US plans to use tariff negotiations to push trade partners to scale back economic ties with China, the Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday, citing sources familiar with the talks. The strategy is reportedly aimed at securing commitments from countries hit by recent US tariff hikes to help isolate China’s economy and pressure Beijing to negotiate. US President Donald Trump announced new “reciprocal” tariffs on nearly 90 countries earlier this month, citing unfair trade practices. After global markets reacted by dropping sharply and several governments sought exemptions, he paused most of the tariffs for 90 days, reducing them to a baseline rate of 10%. However, the pause does not apply to China, whose exports to the US are now subject to tariffs of up to 145% amid an ongoing tit-for-tat trade war.

US officials aim to convince trade partners to accept permanent tariff cuts in exchange for curbing their economic engagement with China, according to the WSJ. Proposed commitments may vary by country, but could reportedly include stopping China from rerouting exports through third-party nations, banning Chinese firms from setting up operations locally to avoid US tariffs, and limiting imports of low-cost Chinese industrial goods. Sources said the measures are meant to undermine China’s economy and reduce its leverage ahead of potential negotiations between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping. The US has already raised the proposal in early discussions with some countries, sources claimed.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was reportedly one of the main architects of the plan. Sources claimed he presented the strategy to Trump during an April 6 meeting at Mar-a-Lago, arguing that obtaining concessions from partners could prevent China from evading tariffs and export controls. He previously named the UK, Australia, South Korea, India, and Japan as countries likely to finalize trade agreements with Washington in the near future.

The White House and Treasury Department declined to comment on the WSJ report. On Tuesday, Trump urged China to initiate negotiations to resolve the tariff dispute. “The ball is in China’s court. China needs to make a deal with us. We don’t have to make a deal with them,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said, quoting a statement she claimed was dictated by the president. Beijing, however, has so far refused to back down. On Friday, China announced it would impose a 125% tariff on all US goods, reiterating it will “fight to the end” against Washington’s trade policy. Beijing also signaled this could be the last increase, noting that “at the current tariff level, there is no market acceptance for US goods exported to China,” while adding that other countermeasures are being considered.

Read more …

You grow up in Holland and you’re forced to hear the call to Muslim prayer 5x a day. Get real.

• Dutch MPs Call For Ban On Amplified Islamic Calls To Prayer (RMX)

Two minor conservative parties in the Netherlands, the SGP and JA21, have tabled a private members’ bill aiming to ban amplified Islamic calls to prayer in residential areas, arguing that the practice is increasingly at odds with Dutch cultural norms. The proposed legislation, submitted by SGP MP André Flach and JA21 leader Joost Eerdmans, targets the growing use of loudspeakers in mosques to broadcast the adhan — the Islamic call to prayer — across neighborhoods. While amplified calls were rare until the 1990s, the MPs claim they are now heard in dozens of communities nationwide, “from Amsterdam to Alblasserdam.” “It doesn’t fit in with Dutch culture,” Flach said, as cited by De Telegraaf newspaper. He noted that current broadcasts loudly proclaim religious texts such as “Allah is the greatest” and “there is no other god but Allah” several times a day. He argued that when laws were changed in 1988 to allow amplified religious calls under the Public Manifestations Act, lawmakers did not anticipate how pervasive and loud such calls might become.

Eerdmans expressed equal concern over the trend, pointing to what he sees as a steady increase in Islamic practice seeping into the Dutch way of life. “Today, around 40 mosques play the adhan on Fridays, but with about 500 mosques in the Netherlands and that number growing, how many will there be in 10 years?” sIn some neighborhoods, “you really feel like you’re in Istanbul or Marrakesh,” he added. The MPs also cited a poll commissioned from researcher Maurice de Hond, which claims that nearly 80 percent of Dutch citizens view amplified calls to prayer as inconsistent with Dutch culture and find them bothersome. While the government had already signaled plans to tighten regulations on amplified prayer calls earlier this year, Flach and Eerdmans are pushing for a complete ban on sound amplification for such broadcasts.

“This is not about restricting freedom of religion,” Flach insisted. “People can still make the call to prayer, just without sound amplification. The current law simply lacks the word ‘unamplified’ — and we are adding it,” he said. In a statement, JA21 wrote, “More and more Dutch streets are drowned out by amplified Islamic calls to prayer. The public space belongs to everyone – the mosque does not have to rise above it. That is why JA21 and SGP are submitting a private members’ bill to ban the reinforced call.” The proposal follows earlier statements by Integration Secretary Jurgen Nobel, who in February pledged to review existing legislation to better manage noise disturbances from amplified religious expressions. Supporters argue that the measure would restore balance and respond to long-standing complaints from residents in affected areas. The bill will now move to parliamentary debate.

Read more …

Just to get to 2%. Then that becomes 5%. And then Ursula wants $800 billion on top of that.

• Belgium Eyes Welfare Cuts To Meet NATO Target (RT)

Belgium is preparing to raise debt and cut welfare to meet NATO’s minimum military spending target, the EU country’s budget minister has said. Vincent Van Peteghem told the Financial Times on Wednesday that Brussels recently agreed to lift its 2025 military budget to 2% of GDP through a mix of temporary cash injections, creative accounting, and structural reforms. The planned hike in military spending could exacerbate the budget crisis as debt mounts. Recent government plans to cut social services have sparked protests, with over 100,000 people rallying in Brussels in February. Belgium had previously planned to meet the 2% target only by 2029. Military spending currently stands at around 1.31% of GDP, or roughly €8 billion ($8.5 billion), according to Defense Minister Theo Francken.

The shift comes amid pressure from Washington and ahead of a NATO summit in June, where members are expected to consider raising the spending target to above 3% of GDP. US President Donald Trump has urged the bloc members to increase military spending to 5%, warning that countries that fail to do so may no longer be guaranteed American protection. Higher spending on military budgets would take a toll on the EU’s welfare programs, Van Peteghem warned. Last month, the European Commission proposed exempting military budgets from fiscal rules and offering €150 billion in loans as part of its ‘ReArm Europe’ plan, which aims to mobilize up to €800 billion through debt and tax incentives for the bloc’s military-industrial complex.

Van Peteghem said Belgium would tap both options to fund additional military spending this year. To maintain the 2% level, the government plans to raise more debt and may privatize state-owned assets, the minister said. The remaining gap would be filled through spending cuts, including curbs on unemployment benefits, pension reforms, and tax changes. “But of course, we will need to do more,” Van Peteghem, who also serves as deputy prime minister, said. France has also announced plans to cut €5 billion from its budget, with some of the savings potentially redirected to military spending. Moscow has condemned the EU’s military buildup. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov called it “a matter of deep concern,” noting that it was aimed at Russia.

Read more …

“That would raise the annual federal interest payment on the national debt to $1.5 trillion. At what point does this become a crisis?”

• Trump Confronts Economic and Geopolitical Reality (Ring)

By the time this is published, everything may have changed, and that is to be expected. Throughout his career, well before and since becoming a politician, Trump has explicitly stated that he does not think it is always a good strategy to be predictable. And while markets love predictability, sometimes markets, and the systems propping them up, need disruption. This is such a moment. Nobody should deny that the anxiety is genuine. An older friend of mine, well into his 70s, still working but ready to retire, is wondering how he and his wife will survive if their savings are wiped out. That’s true for all of us, but it begs the question: What if the painful restructuring we may be about to endure, and which may last for many years, is necessary to avoid an even worse fate? Trump’s abrupt escalation of import tariffs goes well beyond violating the principles of comparative advantage, but we can start there.

“Comparative advantage” is not all it’s cracked up to be. Repeated in business schools as if it were gospel since the 1980s, it goes something like this: “Wool is cheaper in Scotland, and wine is cheaper in France, so France should sell their wine to Scotland, and Scotland should sell their wool to France.” Everybody wins. Period. That’s the extent of it. That is the essence of free trade theory. In the real world, though, policies that rely on “comparative advantage” doctrine as their moral justification have gotten pretty ugly. While overall economic growth may be maximized when every nation exports products that it produces most cost-effectively, the local impacts are not always benign. Nations that produce coffee at competitive global prices, for example, end up with valuable cropland converted from food production to coffee plantations.

These coffee plantations are typically owned by multinational corporations that repatriate profits to low-tax nations elsewhere while buying off a small local elite that streamlines the regulatory environment. Meanwhile, the nation becomes dependent on imports for everything except coffee, and even the coffee ends up priced out of reach for the average citizen. Replace “coffee” with any specialty product, and all too often, the “gains of trade” translate on the ground into nations with seething, destitute populations dependent on accumulating debt and foreign aid. These examples aren’t restricted to foreign nations, nor are they restricted to commodities. While American multinationals moved manufacturing overseas, in the process destroying millions of jobs and thousands of communities in America, it wasn’t just cheap wool, cheap wine, and dirt-cheap flat-screen TVs that were pouring into the country in exchange. We offshored our production of steel, our chip manufacturers, our pharmaceutical industry, and much more.

And even that devastation was tolerated for decades because its effects were mostly felt in what we now call rust belt states. Our service economy and tech sectors boomed, along with what was left of manufacturing, satiating a majority of the population that loved buying cheaper foreign imports. But this whole scheme could never go on forever. America’s trade deficit in 2024 was up to $918 billion, a new record. America’s cumulative trade deficit, nearly all of it incurred since 2000, is now estimated in excess of $17 trillion.

To balance the trade deficit, there is what economists call the “current account.” If dollars flow overseas for us to purchase foreign imports in excess of foreign nations spending dollars to purchase our exports, the surplus dollars are repatriated in the form of foreigners bidding up the prices for assets they purchase in America. A slight oversimplification would be that trade deficits equate to cheap flat screens and unaffordable homes. But there is another reason America has huge trade deficits. It floods the world with dollar-denominated transactions, and by permitting foreigners to buy American assets, we effectively collateralize our currency. And so long as America is for sale in this manner, that helps sustain the dollar as a hard currency.

That comes in handy. For 46 out of the last 50 years, Americans have logged federal budget deficits. So far, the dollar’s status as the dominant transaction and reserve currency of the world gives America’s federal government the ability to borrow money by selling Treasury Notes. This is all well known and rehashed beyond the need to elaborate further. So, why are people acting like this was sustainable? How long can the global economic model rest on American trade deficits funding the military and industrial development of nations that, in some cases, aren’t even allies, with all of it balanced through foreign purchases of American assets? And how long will international demand for dollars finance federal budget deficits? To understand why this had to come to a head, consider federal budget trends in recent years.

In 2019, the last year of Trump’s first term, the federal budget was $4.4 trillion, with interest payments of $400 billion. For 2025, the first year of Trump’s current term, the projected federal budget is $7.0 trillion, with interest of just under $1.0 trillion. What changed? While the COVID pandemic was used to justify massive infusions of stimulative federal cash into the economy, much of it probably necessary, why hasn’t spending been reduced since the pandemic’s impact has been over for at least two years? Are we supposed to just expect massive federal budget deficits year after year? Is it sustainable to log a federal budget deficit that has grown from an alarming $900 billion in 2019 to $1.9 trillion in 2025, more than twice as much?

A roughly accurate summary of the economic reality we confront is federal budget deficits of $2 trillion per year and trade deficits of $1 trillion per year. Trade deficits translate into growing foreign ownership of American assets. Federal budget deficits add up in the form of accumulating, interest-bearing national debt. In 2019, the interest payments on what at the time was $22 trillion in national debt had already reached $575 billion, at an average interest rate of 2.5 percent. By 2024, the national debt had skyrocketed to $35 trillion, an increase of $13 trillion in just six years. Interest payments in 2024 were $1.1 trillion, and the average interest rate had risen to 3.3 percent. “Average” interest rate requires explanation. Ten-year treasury notes currently pay 4.4 percent. Interest rates have risen over the past few years. Imagine if that continues, and $35 trillion (or more) in treasury notes mature and are reinvested at 4.4 percent. That would raise the annual federal interest payment on the national debt to $1.5 trillion. At what point does this become a crisis?

Read more …

 

 

Favorite Calvin of all time.

 

 

https://twitter.com/khnh80044/status/1911960834559148452

Holy week

 

 

Fairy

 

 

Vancouver
https://twitter.com/dom_lucre/status/1912240470480285729

 

 

Charlie
https://twitter.com/khnh80044/status/1912456564352717089

 

 

Two things
https://twitter.com/RealDonKeith/status/1912496724888690887

 

 

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle April 9 2025

Apr 092025
 
 April 9, 2025  Posted by at 10:02 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , ,  54 Responses »


Salvador Dali Christ of Saint John of the Cross 1951

 

• Trump Assassination ‘Justified’ For Half of Left-Leaning Americans (RT)
• Trump Slaps ‘Proud’ China With 104% Tariffs (RT)
• White House Lacks Financial Literacy – ‘Tariffs’ Show (MoA)
• Don’t Like Trump’s Plan for the Economy? Let’s Hear Yours (Victor Davis Hanson)
• US Chamber of Commerce Considers Block on Trump’s New Import Tariffs (Sp.)
• EU Commission Eyeing 25% Tariffs on US Goods (Sp.)
• Von der Leyen Endorses Meloni As Main Tariff Negotiator (Sp.)
• The Tariff Issue (Paul Craig Roberts)
• President Trump Bestows Great Honor on Nation of Japan (CTH)
• Musk Wants Trump To Cancel Tariffs – WaPo (RT)
• Billionaires Slam Trump Tariffs (RT)
• Officials Quietly Drafting Plan To Cushion Trump Tariff Fallout – Bloomberg (RT)
• Apple Staged Emergency iPhone Airlift From India (RT)
• More Than 900k “Biden-App”Migrants Told to ‘Self-Deport’ (NYP)
• USAID Operations Rebooted in Several Crisis Zones (Sp.)
• Judge Boasberg Scraps Trump Hearing On Deportations After Scotus Ruling (JTN)
• Legal Experts Sound Alarm On Judge Blocking Trump’s Deportations (DC)

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/itscarterhughes/status/1909334208536846529

MAGA
https://twitter.com/gaborgurbacs/status/1909348105675211192

Bessent

GOAT
https://twitter.com/iam_smx/status/1909347460960653353

Rubio

Bondi

 

 

 

 

Won’t surprise too many people. And that’s not good at all.

• Trump Assassination ‘Justified’ For Half of Left-Leaning Americans (RT)

More than half of all left-leaning Americans believe there would be some justification for the assassination of US President Donald Trump, according to a new survey. The alarming finding was reported on Monday by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI). The organization monitors radical ideologies and examines what it refers to as “assassination culture” in America. The nonprofit conducted an opinion poll to assess whether American citizens would condone lethal attacks on Trump and his government efficiency tsar, Elon Musk. Among the 1,264 individuals surveyed, 31% and 38% expressed at least some justification for murdering Musk and Trump, respectively. The figures increased to 48% and 55% among respondents identifying as center or left-leaning. In the latter group, 9.1% would deem the assassination of Musk to be “completely justified,” while 13.2% said the same about Trump.

A majority of 57.6% indicated that attacking Tesla dealerships to protest Musk’s involvement with the Trump administration was at least somewhat acceptable. Commenting on the poll’s findings and claims that Democratic leaders have “incited” the situation, Musk branded the political organization “the party of violence.” He previously characterized arson attacks on Tesla-affiliated businesses in the US and abroad as “terrorism.” Last weekend, thousands of Americans marched in various cities to protest Trump’s policies and his support for Musk’s approach to reducing government spending. Critics have labeled the activities of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Musk, as an “illegal power grab” orchestrated by the president.

Trump barely escaped death during a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania last July, when a shooter opened fire at him, killing and injuring several supporters of the Republican candidate. The NCRI said its survey confirms broader “troubling trends” within US political culture, suggesting that the endorsement of violence is rooted in a particular far-left ideology. The institute also posits that this ideology fuels the online “memeification” of Luigi Mangione, the alleged murderer of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Some Americans view Mangione, against whom the Trump administration is seeking the death penalty, as a folk hero, arguing that his actions could be seen as justifiable vigilantism against a predatory corporate healthcare system.

Read more …

Went into effect at midnight.

• Trump Slaps ‘Proud’ China With 104% Tariffs (RT)

The US has hiked tariffs on all Chinese imports to a staggering 104%, escalating the ongoing trade conflict and wiping out another $1.5 trillion from US stock markets on Tuesday. China was originally set to face a 34% tariff increase on Wednesday, as part of President Donald Trump’s “reciprocal” measures targeting virtually all US trade partners. However, after Beijing responded with a proportional 34% duty of its own, the US president raised the blanket tariff to a total of 104%. “After all of the abuses they’ve perpetrated, China is attempting to impose additional unjustified tariffs,” Trump said at a National Republican Congressional Committee dinner in Washington on Tuesday. That’s why additional tariffs on Chinese goods are in place, effective midnight tonight at 104 percent. Until they make a deal with us, that’s what it’s going to be.

The White House published an amendment to the April 2 executive order in which Trump declared a national emergency over the US trade deficit and imposed a baseline tariff on all imports to the US. The administration said that nearly 70 countries had sought negotiations to mitigate the impact of the tariffs, as Trump pursues “tailored deals” with individual nations. The president went on to say that Beijing will have to “make a deal at some point,” claiming that “they just don’t know how to get it sorted because they’re proud people.” Until then, he added, China “will now pay a big number to our Treasury.” “Right now, China is paying a 104 percent tariff, think of it… Now, it sounds ridiculous, but they charged us for many items 100 percent, 125 percent,” Trump said. “They’ve ripped us off left and right. But now it’s our turn to do the ripping.”

Beijing previously condemned the escalating trade war as a form of “blackmail” and “economic bullying.” A spokesperson for the Commerce Ministry said on Tuesday that “China will fight till the end if the US side is bent on going down the wrong path.” The latest escalation has had a significant impact on US and global stock markets. Major indices such as the S&P 500, Dow Jones, and Nasdaq suffered further declines after a brief surge earlier this week, wiping out an estimated $1.5 trillion from US markets on Tuesday. Trump acknowledged that the fallout from his move was “somewhat explosive,” but defended his strategy, claiming that “sometimes you have to mix it up a little bit.” He insisted that the tariffs are necessary to address trade “abuses” and to promote domestic manufacturing, adding that the US is already generating $2 billion a day from the tariffs.


Read more …

A good fried pointed to this Moon of Alabama piece from a few days ago. It gives the impression that the Trump team is being sloppy with the tariffs. The only thing is, they say their numbers come “including Currency Manipulation and Trade barriers”. And those are not very clearly defined. But the impression of sloppy is still not a good thing.

• White House Lacks Financial Literacy – ‘Tariffs’ Show (MoA)

‘The foundation of American economic prosperity is a society empowered with the knowledge and tools to make informed financial decisions to achieve the American Dream. … ‘ I welcome that message. Teaching financial literacy must start at the top. The members of the Trump administration obviously lack the knowledge and tools to make informed financial decisions. It is the only possible explanation for how they came up with these numbers:

China does not have a 67% tariff on U.S. goods (it’s 7.3%). The EU does not have a 39% tariff on U.S. goods (it’s 5.2%). The numbers are bollocks. So where do they come from? The official explanation from the U.S. Trade Representative is here. Its baloney:

“James Surowiecki @JamesSurowiecki – 0:22 UTC · Apr 3, 2025 “Just figured out where these fake tariff rates come from. They didn’t actually calculate tariff rates + non-tariff barriers, as they say they did. Instead, for every country, they just took our trade deficit with that country and divided it by the country’s exports to us. So we have a $17.9 billion trade deficit with Indonesia. Its exports to us are $28 billion. $17.9/$28 = 64%, which Trump claims is the tariff rate Indonesia charges us. What extraordinary nonsense this is.
…
Even given that it’s Trump, I cannot believe they said “We’ll just divide the trade deficit by imports and tell people that’s the tariff rate.” And then they decided to set our tariffs by just cutting that totally made-up rate in half! This is so dumb and deceptive. .. it’s actually worse than I thought: in calculating the tariff rate, Trump’s people only used the trade deficit in goods. So even though we run a trade surplus in services with the world, those exports don’t count as far as Trump is concerned.”

The last point is a major one, for China, but especially for the EU :

“EU-US trade in goods and services reached an impressive €1.6 trillion in 2023. This means that every day, €4.4 billion worth of goods and services cross the Atlantic between the EU and the US. … The total bilateral trade in goods reached €851 billion in 2023. The EU exported €503 billion of goods to the US market, while importing €347 billion; this resulted in a goods trade surplus of €157 billion for the EU. Total bilateral trade in services between the EU and the US was worth €746 billion in 2023. The EU exported €319 billion of services to the US, while importing €427 billion from the US; this resulted in a services trade deficit of €109 billion for the EU. …EU-US goods and services trade is balanced: the difference between EU exports to the US and US exports to the EU stood at €48 billion in 2023; the equivalent of just 3% of the total trade between the EU and the US.”

Despite that Trump has decreed a 20% on all goods from the EU. The natural countermeasure from the EU will be to put a 20+% tariff on all import of U.S. services. Trump also decreed a minimum 10% tariff on imports from every country. Products made by the penguins of the uninhabited Heard and McDonald Islands in the Antarctic will now come with a 10% surcharge.”

There is really no economic reasoning behind these numbers. “Arnaud Bertrand @RnaudBertrand – 4:16 AM · Apr 3, 2025 “To illustrate just how nonsensically these tariffs were calculated, take the example of Lesotho, one of the poorest countries in Africa with just $2.4 billion in annual GDP, which is being struck with a 50% tariff rate under the Trump plan, the highest rate among all countries on the list…. As a matter of fact Lesotho, as a member of the Southern African Customs Union (SACU), applies the common external tariff structure established by this regional trade bloc. … So since the tariffs charged by these 5 countries on U.S. products are exactly the same, they must all be struck with a 50% tariff rate by the U.S., right? Not at all: South Africa is getting 30%, Namibia 21%, Botswana 37% and Eswatini just 10%, the lowest rate possible among all countries.

Looking at Lesotho specifically, every year the U.S. imports approximately $236 million in goods from Lesotho (primarily diamonds, textiles and apparel) while exporting only about $7 million worth of goods to Lesotho (https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/LSO/Year/2022/TradeFlow/EXPIMP/Partner/by-country). Why do they export so little? Again this is an extremely poor country where 56.2% of the population lives with less than $3.65 a day (https://databankfiles.worldbank.org/public/…), i.e. $1,300 a year. They simply can’t afford U.S. products, no-one is going to buy an iPhone or a Tesla on that sort of income… The way the tariffs are ACTUALLY calculated appears to be based on a simplistic and economically senseless formula: you take the trade deficit the U.S. has with a country, divide it by that country’s exports to the U.S and declare this – falsely – “the tariff they charge on the U.S.”

And then as Trump did in his speech last night, you magnanimously declare that you’ll only “reciprocate” by charging half that “tariff” on them. As such, for Lesotho, the calculation goes like this: ($236M – $7M)/$235M = 97%. That’s the “tariff” Lesotho is deemed to charge this U.S. and half of that, i.e. roughly 50% is what the U.S. “reciprocates” with. It’s extremely easy to see why this makes no sense at all. ”

Lesotho has a comparative advantage over the U.S. as it can dig up and sell diamonds. But it lacks the purchasing power to buy U.S. goods and services. The calculations by the Trump administration ignore those basic facts. No tariffs were by the way introduced against Belarus, Russia and North Korea. This because of sanction, the U.S. has allegedly no trade relation with them. (Other than buying enriched Uranium for its nuclear power stations?) Did the Trump administration anticipate how this nonsense will explode in its face? It is Smoot-Hawley writ large.

Read more …

“If you don’t believe that what Donald Trump is trying to do on debt, budget, workforce, trade, then come up with a better agenda. And show why it will work and why his will fail..”

• Don’t Like Trump’s Plan for the Economy? Let’s Hear Yours (Victor Davis Hanson)

Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. I’d like to talk about the economy and politics very quickly. Whether you like it or I like it or whether the administration likes it or whether the Congress or the American people like it, the success or failure of President Donald Trump will hinge on the status of the economy. It will overshadow the miraculous achievement on the border, where he went from a rate of about 2 million people a year to almost zero illegal immigration. It will even outrank the question of peace and stability in Ukraine or the Middle East. It’ll outrank everything. So, here’s my question. There is now outrage, hysteria over the last 24 hours to 48 hours that Donald Trump has outlined his tariff program to bring down the nearly $1 trillion trade deficit, and the stock market has taken hits.

So, here’s my question, though, when Sen. Cory Booker stands up for 25 hours, does he give an alternate agenda on the economy? Does Rep. Nancy Pelosi talk about the economy? She used to. Does The Wall Street Journal, when they criticize Donald Trump, why don’t they get a columnist and say, “These are the 10 points that are preferable in addressing our economic challenges”? Now, what are our economic challenges? Well, the first is debt. We owe $37 trillion. We’re paying $3 billion a day in interest. We’re running a $1.7 trillion deficit. So, if you were on the left and you were part of the machine that borrowed $7 trillion under President Joe Biden, created these huge new programs, why don’t you make an argument? Just say, “I believe in modern monetary theory. I believe, if we can just get down to 1% or 2% interest, you can service any debt because the bondholders, they’re wealthy anyway. So, that’s what we’ve been doing. And I don’t—I believe money’s a construct. It’s just an idea. So, there is no such thing as, you know, red or blue ink—any of that. So, just keep spending. There’s no problem—$37, $40 trillion.” Say that.

Or, if you’re on the right, say, “I prefer to look at the debt in a different way. If you’re going to cut, why select particular fraud, waste, and abuse areas? Why not just go across the board and treat everybody the same with a 4% or 5% or 10% cut?” Or, if you don’t believe in cutting government to reduce the debt, then say, “Let’s just go completely laissez-faire and let’s grow the economy so it’s growing at 4% or 5% gross domestic product. And it will solve the problem.” Or, if you’re in the middle and you’re an independent, why don’t you just say, “We had three balanced budgets. We were reducing the debt because former House Speaker Newt Gingrich controlled taxes and former President Bill Clinton controlled spending. And he was able to find an incentive plan to increase revenue and Bill Clinton decreased spending. OK? Why not we go back and follow their model?”

But the problem is none of these areas—right, center, and left—nobody in these disciplines is offering any alternative agenda. It’s just attack Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump. Let’s go to trades. So, we have, again, about a trillion-dollar trade deficit. We haven’t had balanced trade for 50 years. Our opponents, challengers, allies, whatever you want to call them, feel that protected tariffs in China, in India, in Europe, in South Korea, in Japan have been very conducive to their economic miracle—postwar miracles. And they feel that there must be some wisdom in them because they continue to perpetuate them. They have not run deficits for a half-century. They’re not, in terms of GDP, debt, quite like we are. So, maybe you can argue that tariffs are just an American problem. An obsession. And they don’t really matter. Or you can say that we should have reciprocal tariffs based on each one. But tell us what you want to do.

Why don’t you just say that if you—and I have read this from scholars as diverse as the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute. This is just a construct, trade deficits, they don’t matter. Because the people, if they run up a surplus, they buy our bonds or they invest, and it’s a circular process—just say that. Or, if you believe that trade deficits matter, then you say, “Well, the answer is not through tariffs. It’s through greater productivity. And here’s how I want to do it.” But again, there’s nothing. And then we get, finally, into foreign investment. Donald Trump is bragging, I think justifiably so, that he may have $3 to $5 trillion in foreign investment. Nobody says a word about it. Nobody says this many trillion dollars will result in this many new jobs created. No, they just kind of ignore it. So, give us a reason why. Just say, “You know, the new massive amounts of foreign aid will have no effect on either our trade deficit or our budget deficit. It’s just a construct that Trump says.”

Or say that it will but it won’t nullify the pernicious effects of tariffs. But what I’m getting at, in conclusion, is what if Cory Booker had said, “I’m going to speak for 25 hours on why Donald Trump’s trade, debt, and federal workforce investment are all wrong. And here’s da, da, da, da”? Or what if House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said, “Here is our contract for America on the economy. The economy”? No one is giving any alternatives. No one is talking in any way that they have an antithetical and a better plan than Donald Trump. So, what we’re left with is just naysaying, nihilism, criticism. And the American people are confused. If you don’t believe that what Donald Trump is trying to do on debt, budget, workforce, trade, then come up with a better agenda. And show why it will work and why his will fail. But don’t just scream and yell and cause all hysteria and go to street theater because that’s no answer. It only amplifies the problem.

Read more …

Guess they can try.. But so could anyone.

• US Chamber of Commerce Considers Block on Trump’s New Import Tariffs (Sp.)

The US Chamber of Commerce, the country’s most powerful corporate lobby, is considering filing a lawsuit against the administration of US President Donald Trump to block the entry of new import tariffs into force, the Fortune magazine reported, citing sources familiar with the discussions of the lawsuit. The Chamber of Commerce may claim that Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs was illegal. According to the publication, some of the organization’s largest members are calling for the lawsuit. Sources also say that other organizations might join the lawsuit. The head of the US Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) Elon Musk personally asked US President Donald Trump to reconsider new US tariffs on imports from a number of countries, the Washington Post reported, citing two sources.

According to the publication, over the weekend, when Elon Musk unleashed a stream of messages on social media criticizing one of the White House’s top advisers, trade aide Peter Navarro, for Trump’s aggressive tariff plan, he personally approached the president. The attempt, however, has not yet been successful: Trump on Monday threatened to add new 50% tariffs on imports from China on top of those already announced if Beijing did not abandon its retaliatory measures, the newspaper said. On Sunday, Musk announced his support for the creation of a free trade area with the EU, despite President Trump’s previously imposed trade tariffs against the union. The US President signed an executive order on April 2 introducing “reciprocal” tariffs on imports from other countries, calling it a “liberation.” The basic minimum rate will be 10%, and 20% for goods from the European Union. The US President promised budget revenue from tariffs of $6-$7 trillion.

Read more …

They have no idea what to do, zero consensus.. And all 27 of them will have to agree.

• EU Commission Eyeing 25% Tariffs on US Goods (Sp.)

The European Commission is proposing to impose reciprocal tariffs of up to 25% on a number of goods from the United States, in particular on clothing, yachts, fruit juices, nuts and diamonds, the RMF FM radio reported. Bourbon was excluded from the preliminary list after protests from France and Italy, which feared that the United States would impose 200% duties on wine, prosecco and champagne, the report said on Monday. EU countries are expected to vote on this proposal on Wednesday, the report added. However, the commission is still counting on negotiations with Washington, and it has proposed reciprocal zero tariffs on industrial products, including cars, the report read.

At the same time, French Minister Delegate for Europe Benjamin Haddad said that Paris is in favor of a tough response to the US tariffs and will support the European Commission’s decision to impose 25% tariffs on some US imports. On April 2, US President Donald Trump announced reciprocal tariffs on imports from other countries. For the UK the baseline rate of 10% was set. However for each country the tariff will be calibrated and will be half of what they charge companies importing US goods. Trump said this will be a “declaration of economic independence” for the United States. The EU is subject to 20% tariffs.

Read more …

Ursula von der Leyen is afraid of the White House.

• Von der Leyen Endorses Meloni As Main Tariff Negotiator (Sp.)

As the White House prepares to receive the Italian PM on April 17, Ursula von der Leyen believes Giorgia Meloni is the only EU leader who can facilitate dialogue with Trump, the WP reports, citing Italian officials. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen supports the upcoming visit of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni to Washington and believes that she is the one who is capable of facilitating dialogue between the European Union and US President Donald Trump, The Washington Post newspaper reported, citing an Italian official. On Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said that Trump would receive Meloni in Washington on April 17.

“Von der Leyen is telling [Meloni] that if there’s one leader more in contact with the US, who’s capable of facilitating the conversation between the EU – not just Italy – and Trump, that’s her,” the official was quoted as saying by the newspaper on Tuesday. Von der Leyen was in favor of Meloni’s trip to Washington, the report added.

Read more …

“..returning to tariffs as the source of government revenues and abandoning the income tax. This is consistent with correct economics and with freedom. Such a change would be possibly the most important reform in American history.”

• The Tariff Issue (Paul Craig Roberts)

The tariff controversy is being colored in the most scary ways possible, because the Democrats, media, and ruling establishment want rid of Trump. It is also important to understand that tariffs are not the only way to limit imports. There are other means, such as quotas. Quotas on imports into the US of Japanese cars were part of the US auto producers bailout negotiated in the final year of the Carter administration. I will attempt to put the issue in a correct perspective. It is not Trump’s intention, at least at the present time, to institutionalize a tariff regime. Trump is using tariffs as a threat to secure agreements that he thinks are in America’s interests. So far 50 countries have, according to reports, agreed to remove their tariffs on US goods. The countries responding aggressively seem to be China and our European allies.

I explained yesterday how Trump could better have gone about his task. Nevertheless, as the Commerce Secretary said, Trump’s tariffs are not expected to extend beyond a few weeks or a few months of negotiation. During this time there could be supply disruptions. Apparently, Trump is aware and has released an 11-page appendix that exempts all sorts of imported items that US producers require to continue their operations. Whatever disruption does occur, should be small compared to the Covid lockdown supply disruption, the basic cause of the current inflation. The Covid disruption was pointless and counterproductive. The tariff disruption, if there is one, is the cost of establishing a fair and uniform trading system. So, Trump is not being arbitrary or on a rampage to destroy international trade. Tariff negotiations, especially with so many countries and products can go on for years.

Trump might think that he only has two years to get anything done before the Democrats steal the midterm elections and bring his renewal of America to a halt. President Trump has spoken of tariffs in a wider and much more important context. Over most of American history until the First World War, tariff revenues were the source of government revenues. An income tax was unconstitutional and a violation of freedom. The definition of a free person is a person who owns his own labor. A slave does not own his own labor, and a serf only owns part of his labor. A person required to pay an income tax does not own that part of his labor that he must provide to government in order to avoid imprisonment. The difference between a medieval serf and an American taxpayer is the serf paid the tax in kind as hours worked, and the American pays the tax in money as a percentage of his income.

Classical economists, real economists unlike the faux ones of today, understood that factors of production–labor and capital–should not be taxed, because the supply of both to the economy is reduced by taxation. Supply-side economics is based on this principle. Thus, its emphasis on lowering the marginal rates of taxation. Reducing the supply of factors of production, reduces the economic growth rate and the national income. The century that the US economy has labored under income tax has costs us substantially in lost income. The classical economists said that taxation should fall on consumption not on factors of production. Traditionally, imported items are finished goods–German cars, French wines and perfumes. High priced goods are for the wealthy, so tariffs fall on the rich. The working class does not indulge in Porsche cars and Clicquot champagne. However, for about 30 years much of our imports have consisted of the offshored production of US firms.

When Apple, for example, brings its products made in China to the US to be marketed, they come in as imports and worsen the US trade deficit. Instead of beating up on China, Trump should call the US corporations that offshore their production for US markets to a White House conference and point out to them the consequences of their policy: the shrinkage of the American middle class, the loss of tax base, decaying infrastructure, and loss population of America’s former manufacturing cities, the pressure on city and state pension systems, the pressure of lower ratings on municipal bonds. Trump should ask the executives if they went too far in maximizing profits that benefitted a relatively few at the expense of the many, and what they think they should do about it. Capitalism ceases to serve the general interest when it separates Americans from the incomes associated with the production of the goods and services that they consume.

Trump has spoken of returning to tariffs as the source of government revenues and abandoning the income tax. This is consistent with correct economics and with freedom. Such a change would be possibly the most important reform in American history. It would be a difficult reform to achieve, because ideological, not economic, considerations intervene. Taxing the rich became the agenda of mass democracy. Taxing the rich was not seen as punishing a person for being successful. A successful person was portrayed as having become rich by exploiting labor. As fortunes were “stolen” by exploiting labor or resulted from government preference or legal privilege, income taxation was perceived as an instrument of justice. It is certainly perceived that way today by the liberal/left and the Democrat Party.

As an income tax is emotionally satisfying to the liberal/left, we are stuck with slower economic growth and less national income. It is disturbing that the liberal/left agenda has made American politics so highly partisan. What we see today is literal hatred of Trump, Republicans, conservatives, and white heterosexuals by the liberal/left. Hatred makes democracy dysfunctional. Politics cannot function as each side is intent on destroying any achievement by the other side. As democracy ceases to function, dictatorship becomes the means of governance. The liberal/left’s agenda to remake America by destroying its roots and recasting it into a different kind of society means the death of democracy and the rise of dictatorship. This is our real problem.

Read more …

“Prime Minister Abe knew what President Trump was trying to achieve. In turn, President Trump knew Abe would remain a fierce Japan-first trade competitor to the America-first program..”

• President Trump Bestows Great Honor on Nation of Japan (CTH)

The decades long relationship between former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and President Donald Trump permeates through a recent announcement that Japan will be the first nation to enter the new era of trade negotiations with the United States. Shinzo Abe was assassinated in July 2022, as he traveled throughout Japan gaining support for increased national military development. As businessmen and later politicians Donald Trump and Shinzo Abe (RIP) had a decades long friendship grounded in mutual respect and competition. To understand the dynamic of President Trump giving the nation of Japan the position as the first nation to enter new trade negotiations, a high honor, is to understand the business relationship between the U.S and Japan in the post-World War II (40 yr) period between 1950 and 1990. The formative years for both Japanese industry and President Trump’s business empire.

For Europe the U.S. gave them money through the Marshall Plan, a process of one-way tariffs which helped them rebuild their nations. For Japan we gave them W Edwards Demming, an industrial engineer and extraordinarily brilliant mind in the processes of efficiency and industrial production. In essence, to generate the reindustrialization of both economies, we gave the EU a fish (money), but we taught Japan how to fish; how to be create and build exceptional industry. In the decades that followed, the EU rebuilt their capitalistic industrial base from the trade and tariff money we permitted them to exploit. The EU rebuilt from their historic systems, upgrading to newer industrial technology. Japan, however, learned deeper more technical skills from the Demming process of industrial capacity building, a critically strong excellence in quality manufacturing and attention to specific details in all processes.

It did not take long before the results of quality in design and Japanese manufacturing surfaced in the sector of automobiles, and later consumer electronics. The U.S. auto industry was slow to adapt to the Japanese quality focus and began losing market share to Toyota, Datsun, Nissan and Honda. Throughout this period, President Trump and Shinzo Abe were on opposite sides of the industrial competition. Trump railing about Japan, and later aggregate Asia exploiting our generosity; Abe smiling and joking with his friend that despite Trump’s grievances, tomorrow Eric will be purchasing 1,500 Sony televisions for his next Hotel. And so it went…. The friendship grew, the competition was intense but incredibly respectful, and both Shinzo Abe and Donald Trump became men of great influence whose partnership in competition was always visible.

Prime Minister Abe knew what President Trump was trying to achieve. In turn, President Trump knew Abe would remain a fierce Japan-first trade competitor to the America-first program. Tremendous respect and mutual admiration underpinned their geopolitical efforts. No single picture better exemplified the nature of Trump and Abe as the G7 summit picture taken in Canada as the ripple effects of Trump’s first-term trade and tariff program against China (mostly) started to hit the global economy. As China started to feel the pressure from President Trump forming new ASEAN partnerships, China started pulling back from ordering heavy industrial goods from Europe. The EU, specifically the German economy, felt the lessening of Chinese manufacturing via diminished orders. However, a respectful Japan positioned their trade agreements for benefit, but also for benefit of American workers.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe knew there was nothing to fear from President Trump’s global trade reset. Unless, that is, you were a nation taking unfair advantage of the generosity provided by America. It makes total sense in the big picture for President Trump to honor the legacy of Shinzo Abe, and the respectful connections to Japan by granting them the first position in the schedule of the global trade reset. Total sense.

Read more …

Musk’s private war with Navarro doesn’t define his relationship with Trump.

• Musk Wants Trump To Cancel Tariffs – WaPo (RT)

Elon Musk has made direct appeals to US President Donald Trump, urging him to reconsider his decision to impose steep tariffs on American trade partners, the Washington Post reported on Tuesday. According to the outlet, many business and tech leaders who supported Trump’s candidacy have also criticized the move, calling it overly aggressive. Trump unveiled sweeping new tariffs on global imports last week, including a 34% duty on Chinese goods. In response, Beijing pledged to retaliate with a matching 34% tariff on American exports – prompting Trump to threaten an additional new 50% tariff. Over the weekend, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Musk – who serves as Trump’s government efficiency czar – fired off a series of social media posts criticizing White House trade adviser Peter Navarro, a central architect of the president’s aggressive tariff strategy.

“A PhD in Econ from Harvard is a bad thing, not a good thing,” Musk wrote. Musk also reportedly reached out to Trump personally. The attempted intervention has so far failed to yield results, two people familiar with the matter told the Washington Post. As the head of Tesla, Musk has long viewed tariffs as harmful to the company’s goals, given that both the US and China serve as major manufacturing bases and key markets. Many business leaders who supported Trump’s candidacy were also frustrated by their inability to influence the policy and suggested that a basic 10% rate combined with negotiations with other countries would have been sufficient, according to the Post.

People close to Musk reportedly made direct appeals to allies within the Trump administration, including Vice President J.D. Vance and Musk himself, advocating for what they saw as more rational, pro-free-trade policies. One of Musk’s associates, investor Joe Lonsdale, posted on X that he had recently urged “friends in the administration” to reconsider, warning that tariffs would harm American companies more than Chinese ones. Over the weekend, a group of business leaders began organizing an informal coalition to lobby members of the Trump administration for more moderate trade policies, one person familiar with the effort told the Post. Trump has defended his actions, stating that “sometimes you have to take medicine to fix something,” and promised that jobs and investment would return to the United States, making it “wealthy like never before.”

Read more …

They’re the big losers.

• Billionaires Slam Trump Tariffs (RT)

A host of American financiers and billionaire investors have criticized President Donald Trump over the sweeping tariffs he announced last week, calling the measures “poorly advised” and warning of serious consequences for the US economy. On April 2, Trump imposed a minimum 10% tariff on all imports and introduced “reciprocal” duties ranging from 11% to 50% on dozens of countries he accused of maintaining unfair trade imbalances. China responded with a reciprocal tariff of 34% on US imports, while a number of other nations signaled willingness to negotiate with Washington but threatened countermeasures if talks fail. Global markets have reacted sharply, with major indexes in the US, Europe, and Asia falling for three straight days.

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon slammed the tariffs in his annual letter to shareholders, warning they “will probably increase inflation” and the risk of recession, with the negative effects difficult to reverse. Ken Langone, billionaire co-founder of retailer Home Depot, criticized the tariffs as too high and rushed. In an interview with the Financial Times published on Monday, he described the additional 34% tariff on China – on top of the existing 20% – as “too aggressive, too soon,” and called the 46% levy on Vietnam “bullshit.” “I don’t understand the goddamn formula,” Langone said, urging a more measured approach, such as a 10% across-the-board tariff with waivers negotiated on a case-by-case basis. He added that he expects Trump to eventually pursue talks with trade partners because “right now, what everybody’s terrified of is a tariff war.”

Hedge fund investor Stanley Druckenmiller, a close mentor to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, posted a brief statement on X on Sunday: “I do not support tariffs exceeding 10%.” Billionaire investor Bill Ackman called the tariffs an “economic nuclear war” in a post on X. He called for a 10% flat tariff for “the privilege” of access to the US market but suggested pausing the reciprocal duties for 90 days to allow private negotiations. He lambasted Trump for relying on advisers for economic calculations, which he labeled incompetent. “The global economy is being taken down because of bad math,” he wrote.

Even tech mogul Elon Musk, Trump’s government efficiency czar, joined the criticism. He posted a series of comments on social media targeting White House trade adviser Peter Navarro, a key architect of the tariff plan, saying he “ain’t built sh*t” with the policy. Musk’s brother, Tesla board member Kimbal Musk, also condemned the tariffs, calling them a “structural, permanent tax on the American consumer.” Treasury Secretary Bessent said on Monday that Washington is open to “meaningful negotiations” in the coming weeks with trade partners, but only those who have responded “positively” to Trump’s tariffs. He criticized China for its response levies, accusing Beijing of “choosing to isolate itself by retaliating and doubling down on previous negative behavior.” China, in turn, described the new US tariffs as “economic bullying” and warned they could destabilize the entire global trade system.

Read more …

“..any tax proposals or initiatives Bessent may pursue would be aligned with “his full support for President Trump’s America First Economic Agenda.”

• Officials Quietly Drafting Plan To Cushion Trump Tariff Fallout – Bloomberg (RT)

US officials are exploring ways to mitigate the potentially harmful effects of the sweeping tariffs announced by President Donald Trump, Bloomberg reported on Tuesday, citing sources in Washington. The talks are reportedly being held without Trump’s knowledge and reflect internal unease over his shift in trade policy. Last week, Trump imposed a minimum 10% tariff on all imports and introduced “reciprocal” duties ranging from 11% to 50% on dozens of countries he accused of maintaining unfair trade imbalances. The new measures included an additional 34% duty on imports from China, on top of an existing 20% rate implemented earlier, and a 20% levy on goods from the EU, among others.

On Monday, Trump threatened to slap a further 50% tariff on all Chinese imports unless Beijing reverses the 34% hike it announced in response to the new US levies. A number of other countries have slammed Trump’s tariffs over the past few days and vowed to implement countermeasures. According to Bloomberg, Trump administration officials fear that retaliatory tariffs will damage US exports, hurting American firms trying to sell goods abroad. Sources said discussions are underway about a potential exporter tax credit, which would serve as a subsidy for US firms selling products and services overseas. The credit, which would require congressional approval, could be issued at the end of the year.

Officials are also reportedly weighing a credit for importers to shield US companies from rising costs when sourcing goods from countries affected by Trump’s tariffs. These measures would aim to soften the economic blow to both exporters and importers once the tariffs take full effect. Sources told Bloomberg that neither Trump nor Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has been formally briefed on the deliberations, and the proposals have yet to receive full backing from the administration’s economic team. A Treasury spokesperson confirmed the discussions but stressed that any talk of “specific provisions” are “still early.” The spokesperson added that any tax proposals or initiatives Bessent may pursue would be aligned with “his full support for President Trump’s America First Economic Agenda.” The White House declined to comment on the report.

Trump’s tariffs and the threat of retaliation have raised fears of a global trade war. Several investment banks have raised their recession risk forecasts for both the US and global economies over the past week. Stock markets have been rattled, with major indexes in the US, Europe, and Asia all trading lower the past three days. Despite the criticism, Trump has defended the tariffs as essential to correcting trade imbalances. On Monday, he claimed on social media that the measures were working and delivering significant economic benefits to the US.

Read more …

$3,000 for an iPhone? Make a deal with India.

• Apple Staged Emergency iPhone Airlift From India (RT)

Apple transported five planeloads of iPhones and other devices from India to the US within a three-day period in late March, according to a report by the Times of India, quoting unnamed senior officials. The move was reportedly made to evade a new 10% reciprocal tariff introduced by US President Donald Trump, which came into effect on April 5. The company’s factories in India, China, and other key locations have shipped their products to the US in anticipation of higher tariffs, a source was quoted as saying in the report. The existing stock, which was imported at lower rates, will protect the company from higher costs for a while, until new shipments are made under the new tariffs, a source told the paper.

Although production has been partly shifted to Vietnam and India, the majority of iPhones are still manufactured in China. However, these countries are now facing tariffs as well, with Vietnam and India being hit with tariffs of 46% and 26%, respectively. Chinese products currently face a 34% import tax in the US. Apple is analyzing how different tariff structures across manufacturing locations will affect its supply chain, according to market watchers. Apple sells more than 220 million iPhones a year; its biggest markets include the US, China, and Europe, according to market data.

The cheapest iPhone 16 model was launched in the US at $799. This could now rise by 43% to $1,142. if Apple passes on the burden to consumers, Reuters said, citing calculations based on projections from analysts at Rosenblatt Securities. Apple currently does not plan to increase retail prices anywhere in the world, the Times of India added. Earlier today, a Wall Street Journal report said Apple is ramping up efforts to export more iPhones from India to the US in an attempt to mitigate the effects of the high tariffs on Chinese products imposed by Trump.

Read more …

The welcoming app to facilitate the entry of illegals.

• More Than 900k “Biden-App”Migrants Told to ‘Self-Deport’ (NYP)

The Department of Homeland Security is urging nearly 1 million asylum seekers who entered the US through the CBP One app to “immediately” begin to “self-deport.” “Canceling these paroles is a promise kept to the American people to secure our borders and protect national security,” a DHS spokesperson said, following anecdotal reports from migrants that they had been told to return to their countries of origin. The CBP One smartphone app launched in January 2023 and through December 2024 was used to admit more than 936,500 people claiming persecution in their homelands, according to DHS data. Users were granted permission to live and work for two years in the US as they awaited the outcome of often backlogged local immigration proceedings. “Formal termination notices have been issued, and affected aliens are urged to voluntarily self-deport using the CBP Home App. Those who refuse will be found, removed, and permanently barred from reentry,” the DHS spokesperson said.

President Joe Biden’s administration launched the app to tamp down record-high illegal border crossings, but congressional Republicans accused Biden of illegally exceeding the traditional “parole” authority, which they said could not be granted categorically. The Trump DHS spokesperson said: “The Biden Administration abused the parole authority to allow millions of illegal aliens into the US which further fueled the worst border crisis in US history.” Precise data about the number of people impacted by the move are unclear for a variety of reasons — including the fact that some may have already been granted asylum, while others may be shielded by additional legal protections. The CBP One app was launched with a goal of facilitating the orderly movement of would-be illegal border crossers into the US from northern Mexico. Although geared to nationalities such as Haitians and Venezuelans flocking to the southwest border, Mexicans and citizens of other countries could participate.

Migrants who entered the US as part of programs for Afghan and Ukrainian citizens are not impacted by the latest announcement, according to DHS. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem also is revoking parole for 532,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans who flew to the US at their own expense with a financial sponsor — effective April 24. Additionally, the Trump administration is moving to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 600,000 Venezuelans and about 500,000 Haitians — though that effort is paused by litigation. TPS grants 18-month reprieves for residents of designated countries and can apply to all residents of a particular nationality living within the US at the time of the protection’s declaration.

Illegal US-Mexico border crossings have plummeted since Trump took office in January with pledges to launch the largest mass deportation campaign in American history. That drive initially has focused on migrants accused of committing crimes — with Trump coercing their home countries to accept deportation flights, while sending some to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and others to a mega-prison in El Salvador.

Read more …

If you can keep out the politics, their infrastructure may be useful…

• USAID Operations Rebooted in Several Crisis Zones (Sp.)

US President Donald Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) chief Elon Musk have repeatedly accused USAID of fraud, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the agency had long “strayed from its original mission.” At least 6 previously terminated USAID programs are being revived for emergency food assistance funding in Lebanon, Syria, Somalia, Jordan, Iraq, and Ecuador, Reuters reported. The move reportedly followed pressure from inside the administration and from Congress. US president Donald had previously frozen foreign aid and dismissed hundreds of USAID employees as part of DOGE-led efforts to slash federal programs and departments with little oversight, with Elon Musk calling labelling the agency a “criminal organization.” By bankrolling so-called civil society groups, USAID has long functioned as a covert enabler of American influence, sowing unrest and paving the way for regime change while packaging it all as “promoting democracy.”

Read more …

Turns out, he’s not (more powerful than) the president after all…

• Judge Boasberg Scraps Trump Hearing On Deportations After Scotus Ruling (JTN)

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg on Tuesday canceled a deportation hearing for the Trump administration after the Supreme Court ruled the U.S. could continue to carry out deportations under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. The hearing was to determine whether Boasberg would change the temporary restraining order he issued last month to block those deportations into a longer preliminary injunction, according to ABC News. On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Trump administration could use the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport suspected gang members of Tren de Aragua. The ruling overturns Boasberg’s March 15 order that temporarily blocked deportations under the wartime act, by granting the Trump administration’s request to vacate temporary restraining orders Boasberg placed on the order.

Miller

Read more …

“..his job isn’t to create policy—that duty belongs to the Executive Branch and Congress,” he said. “Instead, Judge Boasberg was charged with applying the relevant law to the facts of the case..”

• Legal Experts Sound Alarm On Judge Blocking Trump’s Deportations (DC)

As U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg continues to be a thorn in the side of the Trump administration’s effort to deport gangbangers, legal experts have begun to raise questions about his handling of the case. The Barack Obama-appointed judge in March blocked President Donald Trump from using wartime authorities to send suspected Tren de Aragua gangbangers to a mega-prison in El Salvador, prompting incredible pushback from the president himself. As the challenge to the deportations play out in court, some legal experts have argued Boasberg should recuse himself from the case entirely, while others say he appears to be “making policy from the bench.” Critics have pointed to the fact that Boasberg’s daughter, Katharine Boasberg, works for an organization whose founder openly celebrated her father’s decision to halt the deportations.

“Under Canon 3 (C) (1) of the ‘Code of Conduct for United States Judges’ it states that judges must disqualify themselves from a case ‘in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned,’” Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said to the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Given that his daughter works directly for an organization that supports illegal aliens, opposes deportation of aliens, and has voiced its support for Boasberg’s action in this very case, the impartiality of his judgment is obviously open to be reasonably questioned.” “He should have recused himself given his immediate family’s involvement in advocacy for illegal immigration,” Spakovsky continued.

The debate began on March 15, when Trump officially invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a seldom-used wartime authority, to expeditiously arrest and deport Tren de Aragua gang members. Boasberg quickly issued a temporary block on the flights and ordered any deportation flights in the air to turn around. However, three planes carrying 238 suspected and confirmed Tren de Aragua gangbangers and 23 MS-13 gang members managed to land at the El Salvador International airport. The Trump administration immediately ripped Boasberg for the decision. “Tonight, a DC trial judge supported Tren de Aragua terrorists over the safety of Americans,” Attorney General Pam Bondi stated after Boasberg’s order. “This order disregards well-established authority regarding President Trump’s power, and it puts the public and law enforcement at risk.”

In a court filing the following Monday, the Justice Department appealed the order and called for Boasberg to be reassigned. The administration further ripped the judge for “highly unusual and improper procedures” and accused the court of a “hasty public inquiry” into sensitive national security matters involving a criminal syndicate. “If a President doesn’t have the right to throw murderers, and other criminals, out of our Country because a Radical Left Lunatic Judge wants to assume the role of President, then our Country is in very big trouble, and destined to fail!” Trump posted on Truth Social. Questions over possible conflicts of interest arose after Boasberg’s family connections to a liberal organization surfaced. His daughter, Katharine, works for Partners in Justice, a nonprofit group based in New York City that provides client advocates to public defenders.

The group removed her biography from its website after Boasberg was assigned to the Alien Enemies Act case, according to the New York Post, but an archive of the page was saved. Before landing at Partners for Justice, Katharine worked at the Center for Justice Innovation, a left-wing organization that advocates for “racial justice” in the court system. Emily Galvin-Almanza, the founder and executive director of Partners in Justice, said Boasberg’s decision to block the wartime deportations was done “rightly” and she previously took to social media to rip the Laken Riley Act, a law mandating federal immigration authorities detain illegal migrants who commit theft-related crimes. The Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges makes clear that judges must recuse themselves from a case “in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” including instances when a child of a judge is “known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.”

However, there is debate over whether Boasberg fits this description. “Generally the employment of an adult child of a judge does not mandate recusal, even if the adult child is employed by a law firm representing a party in the case,” Richard Painter, a law professor for the University of Minnesota, said to the Daily Caller News Foundation. “However, if the adult child is at all involved in the representation of a party, recusal of the judge is generally required.” “Although nonprofits that don’t provide legal representation do not represent parties, I would apply the same rule,” Painter continued. “The involvement of an adult child’s employee in a matter is not sufficient grounds for recusal, but the involvement of the adult child herself is.”

Appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama in 2011, Boasberg has since presided over a number of high-profile court cases over the years, including those involving the Trump administration. In addition to the Alien Enemies Act case, the 62-year-old judge is also ruling over a lawsuit challenging top government officials’ use of Signal to discuss sensitive military operations in Yemen. Boasberg ripped the administration for allowing the deportation flights on March 15 to continue on to their destination in El Salvador, ostensibly in defiance of his order, and has demanded the DOJ answer a litany of questions regarding the flights. The administration has pointed out the judge’s written order didn’t get released until after the flights were already over international waters. While hesitant to declare whether Boasberg has any conflicts of interest in the deportation case, Matt O’Brien, a former immigration judge, questioned the immense scope of his ruling.

“The real problem with Judge Boasberg’s ruling isn’t any kind of bias. Rather, it is that, in this particular case, he rendered a decision which appears to have been intended to effectuate a specific policy outcome,” O’Brien, who now serves as Director of Investigations for the Immigration Reform Law Institute, said to the Daily Caller News Foundation. “However, his job isn’t to create policy—that duty belongs to the Executive Branch and Congress,” he said. “Instead, Judge Boasberg was charged with applying the relevant law to the facts of the case. Rather than doing his job he engaged in judicial activism (making policy from the bench).” Similar to O’Brien, the administration and other Republicans have voiced consternation over the level of authority a single district court judge is able to wield over an entire administrative branch of government.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, a top ally of the president, introduced legislation in March that calls for limiting federal court orders to parties directly before the court. If passed and signed into law, such a move would essentially squash universal injunctions and rein in the scope of judicial activism. The desire to see such reforms in the judiciary appears to be quite high within the GOP. Grassley’s bill, which was very recently introduced, already touts more than 20 co-sponsors in the upper chamber. “And by engaging in such behavior, Judge Boasberg intruded upon powers that the Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act very clearly assigned to the Executive Branch,” O’Brien said. “That upends our system of checks and balances and throws the whole machinery of government off kilter.”

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Jesus

85 million

Cancer
https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1909374230585635102

DMSO

Pasta

3D cube
https://twitter.com/gunsnrosesgirl3/status/1909527032414757129

Capy

Ripley

Puddle

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle April 8 2025

Apr 082025
 
 April 8, 2025  Posted by at 10:14 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,  38 Responses »


Salvador Dali Dream Caused by the Flight of a Bee 1944

 

• Don’t Be Weak, Don’t Be A PANICAN (ZH)
• Trump Shows No Sign Of Backing Away From Sweeping Tariff Plans (NYP)
• China Vows To ‘Fight Till The End’ Against Trump’s Tariffs (RT)
• Trump Threatens China With Extra 50% Tariff (RT)
• EU Offers US a ‘Zero-for-Zero’ Tariff Plan To Avoid A Trade War (JTN)
• The European Union Just Caved on Trump’s Tariffs (Margolis)
• The Art of (No) Deal: Can The EU Stand Up To Trump’s Tariffs? (Marsden)
• Trump’s Tariff Gamble Could Plunge Planet Into New Great Depression (Sp.)
• Bill Ackman: World Is On Brink Of ‘Self-induced Economic Nuclear Winter’ (NYP)
• Trump Impromptu Remarks Discussing Tariffs and Trade Reset with Media (CTH)
• Farewell, Fugazy! (James Howard Kunstler)
• Supreme Court Slapdown of Judge Boasberg Sends Message To Federal Judges (JTN)
• Conservative Legal Scholars Debate Response to Liberal Judges’ Overreach (DS)
• Members of Congress Must Be Present to Represent (Young)
• World Economic Forum Founder Klaus Schwab To Also Step Down As Chairman (JTN)
• EU Looking To Replace Musk’s Starlink In Ukraine – Politico (RT)
• Germany To Prepare Children For War – Handelsblatt (RT)

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1908901393605197976

https://twitter.com/robertdunlap947/status/1908635019653898627

Miller

Bessent

Payne

 

 

 

 

Through all the comments there is one impression that sticks: Trump plays offense. But at least in his view he is not: he plays defense. He tries to correct past mistakes.

• Don’t Be Weak, Don’t Be A PANICAN (ZH)

President Trump on Monday urged Americans not to panic over tariff-driven turmoil in the markets, and said that “Countries from all over the World are talking to us.” “The United States has a chance to do something that should have been done DECADES AGO. Don’t be Weak! Don’t be Stupid! Don’t be a PANICAN (A new party based on Weak and Stupid people!). Be Strong, Courageous, and Patient, and GREATNESS will be the result!” Trump posted Monday morning on Truth Social about 15 minutes before cash open on US exchanges.

Ten minutes later, Trump posted that “Countries from all over the World are talking to us.” “Spoke to the Japanese Prime Minister this morning. He is sending a top team to negotiate! They have treated the U.S. very poorly on Trade. They don’t take our cars, but we take MILLIONS of theirs. Likewise Agriculture, and many other “things.” It all has to change, but especially with CHINA!!!”

Trump has insisted that tariffs are necessary to rebalance global trade and rebuild domestic manufacturing – singling out China as “the biggest abuser of them all,” and has called on the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates. In a Friday conversation, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell didn’t give much of an indication on how the fed would react – suggesting only that the tariffs could increase inflation, and that “there’s a lot of waiting and seeing going on, including by us.” Over the weekend, Trump suggested that the market turmoil was part of the plan – saying “Sometimes you have to take medicine to fix something.”

Read more …

Backing away now would signal weakness. Enough time for that.

• Trump Shows No Sign Of Backing Away From Sweeping Tariff Plans (NYP)

A defiant President Trump showed no sign of backing away from his sweeping tariff plans early Monday — even as stock index futures tumbled. “Oil prices are down, interest rates are down (the slow moving Fed should cut rates!), food prices are down, there is NO INFLATION, and the long time abused USA is bringing in Billions of Dollars a week from the abusing countries on Tariffs that are already in place,” he wrote on Truth Social just before 7 a.m. The commander in chief also ripped China after Beijing struck back against Trump’s far-reaching “Liberation Day” with its own 34% levy last week. “This is despite the fact that the biggest abuser of them all, China, whose markets are crashing, just raised its Tariffs by 34%, on top of its long term ridiculously high Tariffs (Plus!), not acknowledging my warning for abusing countries not to retaliate,” Trump said.

“They’ve made enough, for decades, taking advantage of the Good OL’ USA! Our past “leaders” are to blame for allowing this, and so much else, to happen to our Country. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” It came as S&P 500 and Dow futures plunged more than 20% from their peak on Monday. In the two sessions after Trump’s tariff decision, the S&P 500 has tumbled 10.5%, erasing nearly $5 trillion in market value, marking its most significant two-day loss since March 2020. Meanwhile, Trump told reporters late on Sunday that investors must endure the consequences and that he would refrain from negotiating with China until the US trade deficit is addressed.

Read more …

Chinese industry without American consumers is not a pretty picture.

• China Vows To ‘Fight Till The End’ Against Trump’s Tariffs (RT)

China’s Commerce Ministry has warned Washington against entering a never-ending spiral of tit-for-tat trade restrictions, after US President Donald Trump threatened to impose additional tariffs on Chinese imports. Last week, the US president announced sweeping new tariffs on imports from around the world, including a 34% duty on Chinese goods. In response, Beijing vowed to retaliate with a proportional 34% tariff increase on American exports – prompting Trump to threaten further escalation. Beijing condemned the growing trade war as a form of “economic bullying,” with the Commerce Ministry promising on Tuesday to take firm countermeasures to protect China’s national interests.

“China will fight till the end if the US side is bent on going down the wrong path,” a ministry spokesperson said, as quoted by Xinhua. Trump has defended what he calls “reciprocal tariffs” – which range from 10% to 49% on imports from all countries – as a necessary step to eliminate the US trade deficit. He argues the tariffs will make foreign goods less attractive for American consumers, while pressuring international partners to open their markets to US exports. In a post on Truth Social Monday, Trump warned that not only China, but any country that dares to retaliate “will be immediately met with new and substantially higher tariffs.”

The intensifying global trade war has already rattled financial markets. According to Bloomberg, more than $10 trillion has been wiped off global equities as of Monday. Bitcoin dropped below $75,000 for the first time in five months, while most of the top 100 altcoins fell by 15% or more. Meanwhile, JPMorgan raised the odds of a US and global recession to 60% by year-end, up from a previous estimate of 40%. Trump defended his actions, stating that “sometimes you have to take medicine to fix something,” and promised that jobs and investment would return to the United States, making it “wealthy like never before.”

Read more …

Come to the table! We need to talk.

• Trump Threatens China With Extra 50% Tariff (RT)

President Donald Trump has threatened to slap an additional 50% tariff on all Chinese imports, unless Beijing recalls its proposed retaliatory 34% levy hike in another escalation of the trade war that has wiped trillions of dollars from stock markets. Last week, the US president rolled out sweeping tariffs ranging from 10% to 49% on imports from all countries. These included a further 34% duty on imports from China, on top of the existing 20% enacted in the months prior. Beijing has announced it will retaliate with a 34% levy hike on US goods by Thursday. “If China does not withdraw its 34% increase above their already long term trading abuses by tomorrow, April 8, 2025, the United States will impose ADDITIONAL Tariffs on China of 50%, effective April 9,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Monday.

The US president also threatened to cancel all scheduled talks with China, and instead begin “negotiations with other countries.” Beijing has condemned the tariffs as a “typical move of unilateralism, protectionism and economic bullying.” “It will hurt the US itself as well as others,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said at a press conference on Monday. Washington’s levies will hit developing countries especially hard, and will also disrupt global trade and logistics, he added. China has lodged a complaint with the World Trade Organization in response to the US tariffs.

Additionally, the Chinese Commerce Ministry has imposed new restrictions aimed at American firms, as well as restrictions on the export of domestic rare-earth minerals. Currently, the US obtains some 70% of the rare-earths it imports from China.The escalating trade war between the two superpowers has led to market turbulence and wiped out more than $10 trillion from global equity markets as of Monday, according to Bloomberg.

Read more …

“..for industrial goods..”

• EU Offers US a ‘Zero-for-Zero’ Tariff Plan To Avoid A Trade War (JTN)

The European Union on Monday proposed a ‘zero-for-zero’ tariff plan to the U.S. The offer was made by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, following President Donald Trump last week placing a 20% tariff on the EU. “We have offered zero-for-zero tariffs for industrial goods as we have successfully done with many other trading partners,” Leyen said during a joint press conference with Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store. She said that Europe has always been ready for a good deal regarding tariffs, according to the news outlet Politico.

Meanwhile, the EU’s 27 trade ministers met in Luxembourg to discuss the U.S. measures and to come up with an alternative plan. The plan by the commission, which coordinates EU trade policy, is in specific response to Trump’s earlier steel and aluminum tariffs rather than the broader, more-recently announced reciprocal levies, according to Reuters. But the consensus among the countries appears challenging, considering the leaders each have their own domestic considerations. Among the EU leaders who appear most eager to retaliate are French President Emmanuel Macron, who is calling Trump’s tariffs “brutal and unfounded.”

Read more …

Will Trump split up Europe? Separate deal for Italy first?

• The European Union Just Caved on Trump’s Tariffs (Margolis)

While the left and their media allies urge panic over Trump’s tariffs and the market response, reality is telling a different story — countries are folding fast. Now even the European Union is signaling it’s ready to deal. On Monday, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced that the EU is open to negotiations with the United States and has proposed eliminating tariffs on industrial goods altogether. At a press conference in Brussels, von der Leyen underscored the damaging effects of the current tariffs and made it clear the EU is prepared to negotiate. These tariffs come first and foremost at immense costs for U.S. consumers and businesses, but at the same time, they have a massive impact on the global economy,” she announced. “Especially hard-hit are the developing countries. And this is a major turning point for the United States.”

She continued, “Nonetheless, we stand ready to negotiate with the United States. Indeed, we have offered zero-for-zero tariffs for industrial goods, as we have successfully done with many other trading partners. Because Europe is always ready for a good deal, so we keep it on the table.” This is huge news, and it’s becoming increasingly clear that Trump’s trade strategy is paying off. For years, he’s warned that so-called “free trade” has left the United States at a disadvantage, and now—unlike past presidents—he’s actually doing something about it. And it’s not just the European Union signaling a willingness to negotiate. Just days after President Trump launched sweeping reciprocal tariffs — an effort the administration has dubbed “Liberation Day” — over 50 countries have already stepped forward to open talks and avoid the new penalties.

“We already have 50 — five-zero — countries that have come to the table over the last few days, over the last weeks, that are willing and desperate to talk to us,” Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins told CNN’s Jake Tapper on Sunday. “We are the economic engine of the world, and it’s finally time that someone, President Trump, stood up for America.” As expected, critics on the left are sounding the alarm, but Rollins dismissed the outrage as typical partisan theatrics. She made it clear that the real goal is to restore the American economy by prioritizing U.S. goods and industry.

Rollins defended the tariffs as a necessary course correction after decades of failed trade policy that has hurt American farmers and workers. She pointed to countries like Mexico and Australia, which have blocked key U.S. exports, and argued that these foreign tariffs have gone unchecked for far too long. When pressed about the long-term future of the tariffs, Rollins emphasized they’re part of a broader national security strategy to bring jobs back home and rebuild the country’s industrial base — a vision that goes all the way back to America’s founding. “This is about putting America first,” she said, stressing that the strategy goes beyond tariffs to include deregulation, tax cuts, and energy independence as core pillars of the president’s plan.

Read more …

“The EU’s economic biceps – especially Germany’s – look more like a middle-aged accountant’s than those of a powerlifter.”

• The Art of (No) Deal: Can The EU Stand Up To Trump’s Tariffs? (Marsden)

The EU is putting on its bravest face, with European Commission President – and the bloc’s de facto unelected monarch in all but crown – Ursula von der Leyen declaring the bloc is fully equipped to weather US President Donald Trump’s latest tariff tantrum – a fresh 20% slap on EU imports. Markets were clearly moved by this rousing display of confidence – so much so that the Euro Stoxx 50, the Eurozone’s top blue-chip index, is currently tracing a pattern that closely resembles that of a skydiver who forgot to pack a parachute. “Europe holds a lot of cards. From trade to technology, to the size of our market. But this strength is also built on our readiness to take firm countermeasures,” von der Leyen said. Ah yes, the EU’s strength is so formidable that Brussels had to advise citizens to share showers to conserve energy after decisively cutting off Russian fuel – only to later import it discreetly, like a teenager sneaking in past curfew.

Can the average EU citizen expect more of the same kind of ‘firm countermeasures’ their leaders are famous for? Like the one that mandated twist-off bottle caps to be tethered to the bottle so you get hit in the face with every sip in order to spare the earth from being crushed under the weight of rogue caps that managed to escape their fate en route to the recycling depot. Or the kind of countermeasures that attempt to stick it to Russia by trying to regulate the temperature that Europeans should tolerate to reduce energy use. Because nothing says ‘take that, Putin!’ like sweltering during a summer heatwave inside a 27C office. “Unity is our strength,” Queen Ursula reiterated, throwing down her favorite mantra. Because, apparently, unity is the magical solution to all challenges. And also a euphemism for unquestioningly following the whims of whatever lunacy her reality-detached battalion of bureaucrats concocts.

The resounding success of this approach must be why there totally isn’t stalled GDP growth, an industrial sector limping along, and a sputtering economy even before these tariffs came into play. Tag-teaming Trump alongside Ursula was German Economy Minister Robert Habeck, who seems to think the EU is locked in an intense geopolitical arm-wrestling match with the US president, saying that “pressure now needs to be unfolded” against Trump “from Germany, from Europe in alliance with other countries, and then we will see who is the stronger one in this arm wrestle.” He may as well have just whipped it out and slammed it down on the table while he was at it. His arm, I mean. The hitch? The EU’s economic biceps – especially Germany’s – look more like a middle-aged accountant’s than those of a powerlifter. But sure, flex away. Seems the EU has found itself a new external foe to blame for its economic struggles: America.

They’ve been wringing their hands about Russian influence, worried about China’s rise, and now, surprise! Their latest villain is their self-proclaimed best friend. So what’s their big flex going to be? Well, French President Emmanuel Macron is leading the charge for French and European companies to stop investing in the US. “It is important that future investments, the investments announced over the last few weeks, should be put on hold for some time until we have clarified things with the United States of America,” Macron said. “What message would we send by having major European players investing billions of euros in the American economy at a time when [the US] are hitting us?” What message indeed? That Europe stands for a totally unfettered market economy, free from government interference, meddling, and control? Yeah, that must be it.

The EU’s major economies were already struggling long before Trump’s tariffs came along, as a result of the bloc’s own actions, egged on not by Trump but by the Biden administration, who they considered their best pals. Germany’s industrial sector is contracting. France is seeing massive layoffs. Germany’s DHL Group, the logistics company, is cutting 8,000 jobs alone. But yeah, let’s definitely have European businesses take advice from the same people who led them into this mess, on how to get out of it. It’s like getting fire safety tips from an arsonist right after he tosses a match at your living room curtains. The EU sanctioned itself into this mess with its anti-Russian policies, all while getting a friendly thumbs-up from Washington. And now, Washington under Trump is just dropping the charade and openly prioritizing American interests – except this time, in a way that pulls the rug out from under globalism. So Brussels is left standing in the cold, wondering why Uncle Sam isn’t holding its hand anymore.

Read more …

“We are watching the geopolitical and economic world as we knew it being re-routed in very short order – in days and not decades..”

• Trump’s Tariff Gamble Could Plunge Planet Into New Great Depression (Sp.)

Global markets are in turmoil in the wake of President Trump’s announcement of steep new tariffs against most of the world. Combined with massive debt and rising geopolitical tensions, the tariff wars have left more than a few observers drawing worrying historical parallels. “We are at the top of a huge, great debt and credit bubble. And that’s very, very similar to the situation in the late 1920s,” independent economist Alasdair Macleod told Sputnik. “In 1930, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was signed into law by President Hoover. It was the combination of the credit bubble bursting, plus the effect of the tariffs, which imposed a minimum tariff of 20% on all US imports that led to the collapse of the stock market and the Depression,” Macleod warned.

In some ways, the situation now is “even worse,” according to the observer, “because the bubble is far bigger than we saw in 1929. And not only that, but Trump’s tariffs are far worse than Smoot-Hawley because it’s on top of earlier tariffs.” “Every rally, however sharp (and bear market rallies tend to be very aggressive) gets met with another wave of selling, telling us that the leverage community and indeed others, the more long-term players, are still looking to exit positions,” ADM Investor Services chief economist Marc Ostwald said, commenting on the roller coaster in the markets in the wake of the tariff announcement. The situation is characterized by hopes that one of three power players: big banks, the Fed or the administration will intervene to return stability, Ostwald says, with an infusion of mobilized bank capital, an emergency rate cut by the Fed, or a decision to relent by Trump needed to arrest the volatility.

The problem, Ostwald says, is there are no signs by Trump of readiness to back down, while the Fed is “not sure where the greatest threat lies…inflation or that businesses basically shut up shops, stop hiring people, start laying people off, stop making orders or something else?” “We can expect turmoil to continue even while the markets get used to that turmoil and it becomes the new normal,” veteran financial analyst Paul Goncharoff says, commenting on the Trump tariff salvo. “We will still have inflation, recession will visit us all, hard assets will replace soft money, dedollarization may in fact quicken, and the heightened military tension we see around us will not fully disappear until some understanding between the China and America contingents are reached,” the Goncharoff LCC director says. “There are two players at the high table – China and the United States. The surrounding noisy gaggle of countries are important yet in fact secondary players. We are watching the geopolitical and economic world as we knew it being re-routed in very short order – in days and not decades,” Goncharoff explained.

Read more …

Ackman gets cold feet.

• Bill Ackman: World Is On Brink Of ‘Self-induced Economic Nuclear Winter’ (NYP)

Billionaire fund manager Bill Ackman, a staunch President Trump ally, has warned the world is on the brink of a “self-induced economic nuclear winter” – as he begged the commander in chief to pause his sweeping tariffs. “The President has an opportunity on Monday to call a time out and have the time to execute on fixing an unfair tariff system. Alternatively, we are heading for a self-induced, economic nuclear winter, and we should start hunkering down,” Ackman wrote in a lengthy X post Sunday night. “May cooler heads prevail.” Ackman, who endorsed Trump’s run for President, issued the stark warning as he insisted the US leader’s decision to enforce the 10% tax on imports was quickly losing the confidence of business leaders worldwide.

“The country is 100% behind the president on fixing a global system of tariffs that has disadvantaged the country. But, business is a confidence game and confidence depends on trust,” he wrote. “President [Trump] has elevated the tariff issue to the most important geopolitical issue in the world, and he has gotten everyone’s attention. So far, so good. “And yes, other nations have taken advantage of the U.S. by protecting their home industries at the expense of millions of our jobs and economic growth in our country,” he continued. “But, by placing massive and disproportionate tariffs on our friends and our enemies alike and thereby launching a global economic war against the whole world at once, we are in the process of destroying confidence in our country as a trading partner, as a place to do business, and as a market to invest capital. “

Calling for a 90-day time-out, Ackman urged Trump to renegotiate the “unfair asymmetric tariff deals.” He warned, too, that launching an “economic nuclear war” would only see businesses grind to a halt, as well as consumers closing up their wallets. “What CEO and what board of directors will be comfortable making large, long-term, economic commitments in our country in the middle of an economic nuclear war?” he said. “When markets crash, new investment stops, consumers stop spending money, and businesses have no choice but to curtail investment and fire workers. And it is not just the big companies that will suffer. Small and medium size businesses and entrepreneurs will experience much greater pain. Almost no business can pass through an overnight massive increase in costs to their customers.”

“The consequences for our country and the millions of our citizens who have supported the president — in particular low-income consumers who are already under a huge amount of economic stress — are going to be severely negative. This is not what we voted for,” he added. Trump has previously touted the tariffs as a negotiation ploy to improve US trade and bring in more revenue. But he has also dropped hints that the steep levies may be permanent — sparking fears of an all-out trade war. Ackman’s grim outlook came as Trump’s sweeping tariff plans continued to hammer global financial markets on Monday after he warned foreign governments they would have to pay “a lot of money” to lift the levies that he called “medicine.”

Read more …

sundance: “The remarks were ‘Full force Big Ugly‘ and the winnamins were flying off the shelves for 15 straight minutes. I could not be more proud of our president.”

• Trump Impromptu Remarks Discussing Tariffs and Trade Reset with Media (CTH)

President Trump smartly remained quiet after delivering the economic thunder-shock with his national security tariffs and new global trade expectations. Now President Trump takes questions from the media about the initial reactions to the seismic event he created. “China needs to solve the problem of the trade deficit we have with them,” is codespeak for China needs to open their markets to U.S. companies that have already established a footprint, AND China needs to purchase U.S. goods. Despite the size of China, President Trump knows Beijing will never comply in earnest, so he gives the Panda a few words, but doesn’t give it too much time until the Dragon comes out from behind the mask. President Trump notes he has “spoken to a lot of leaders from Europe and Asia” this weekend.

However, now is that powerful moment in any negotiation when the principal has clearly outlined his position, then remain silent as the opposition responds. The “tariffs are instituted, they are not going away,” Trump said. When questioned about having a “threshold” of “pain he is willing to tolerate,” President Trump notes the “question is stupid.” We are responding to opposition who are playing a zero-sum game, there is no level of pain too intolerable when ultimately your survival as a nation is at stake. Either we do, and win – or, we do not and die, that is our current status. When questioned about having a zero-tariff agreement with Europe, President Trump references the scale of the imbalance. “There’s no talk possible” with the EU unless they acquiesce. Every country wants to make a deal, but “this is not sustainable” President Trump repeats.

When questioned about Tik Tok, President Trump notes there was a likely deal with China, but then Beijing responded to the tariffs and said the deal around the social media platform ownership was no longer possible. Trump doesn’t care, he wants a TikTok deal; but ultimately, the tariffs are more important. President Trump then weaves through the Russia conflict, bombs are still bad, and the Middle east conflict, Gaza is still full of terrorists, and moves directly into domestic national security. President Trump then reaffirms he has not agreed to reduce, soften or smooth any tariffs against any nation. The tariffs are in place, they will remain in place, and the global trade reset will continue until America wins. Period. The remarks were ‘Full force Big Ugly‘ and the winnamins were flying off the shelves for 15 straight minutes. I could not be more proud of our president.

Read more …

“Ah, the delicious smell of peak fear on Sunday/Monday…and max NOISE on X.” —Raoul Pal

• Farewell, Fugazy! (James Howard Kunstler)

That ruckus you hear in the capital markets is the sickening howl of the Fugazy Economy meeting its extinction. Fugazy means fake, unreal, dishonest, misaligned to what societies need to thrive. Fugazy means mis-using the time-value of things that purport to be wealth to multiply fake wealth in the hands of a few at the expense of the many. The pernicious effects of that system are visible all across the ruined landscape of our country, a nation of broken cities, failed towns, and a demoralized populace. Mr. Trump apparently aims to convert the expiring Fugazy economy into a production economy — yikes! — based on making things of value, and perhaps more importantly, of people at all social levels having meaningful roles in the making and moving of things.

The Trump tariffs are the first big step in a process that is already generating a whole lot of friction, heat, and ferment. The aim of the tariffs is straightforward: the end of a trade regime that punishes and cripples American production. The response so far is heartening. Many other countries suddenly seek new trade arrangements with the USA, correctly sensing that Mr. Trump means bidness. (This ain’t no Mud Club. . . this ain’t no foolin’ around. . . .) It’s even possible that these readjustments will happen so swiftly that the tariff differentials will be a wash before summer, and everybody will be, at least, on a firm footing, knowing what the clear new rules say. This new disposition of things required forceful incentives to change entrenched, harmful practices.

Another angle on this process is the dynamic known as import-replacement. It means exactly what it sounds like: where you used to get stuff from other lands, you now make it here. It should be obvious that this can’t be accomplished overnight. But the question is: okay, when are you going to start? Part of the answer is: we can’t afford to put it off any longer. There’s an awful lot of stuff, from machine tools to pharmaceuticals to military equipment that we had better start making again — or else slide into collapse, perhaps even slavery to other powers. That process starts with deploying real capital — as opposed to Fugazy capital — to re-start businesses and industries. That will take money away from hedge funds and other rackets that exist to play games with evermore abstract layers of things that only pretend to represent money. As that occurs, a lot of pretend money will vanish. Don’t be too shocked by this. That’s what happens when a society bends back toward reality: you start sorting out the real money from the fake money. That’s why the price of gold keeps marching up.

I sense that Mr. Trump and his colleagues knew full-well that the tariff play would rattle the markets badly, that these “corrections” are an unavoidable consequence, and are better gotten-over as quickly as possible. What else would you expect in a system that has dedicated itself for decades to mis-pricing the value of just about everything? The snap-back is sure to be harsh. The psychopathocracy that drives the Global Left lost more traction last week in its quest to keep all of its old rackets running. Their foot-soldiers in the USA have been defunded effectively by Mr. Musk’s DOGE, starting with the immense network of rackets that were run around the USAID program. The Woke NGOs are no more and the fat paychecks are no longer going out to the nose-ring-for-lunch-bunch who came to infest the DC Beltway — and their satellite offices in Democratic Party controlled cities.

Hence, the feeble turn-outs in last weekend’s street actions. The Baby Boomers have gone especially psychotic. That’s why there are so many old folks waving those Soros-made placards in the astroturfed crowds of the “Hands-off” protests. After an eighty-year run of the most mind-blowing comfort and convenience enjoyed by any generation in world history, America’s Boomers stare into the abyss of their fading Fugazy fortunes as their stock portfolios tank. Kind of too bad. Maybe you shouldn’t have gone along for the ride. Maybe you should have cared for your country a bit more.

Read more …

They called him back but still want to stick to the “procedure”, separate cases for each individual. There is no space or time for that in the system.

• Supreme Court Slapdown of Judge Boasberg Sends Message To Federal Judges (JTN)

The Supreme Court decision reversing U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s block on President Donald Trump’s deportation of gang members under the Alien Enemies Act sent a stern message to federal judges nationwide that overreach and venue shopping won’t be tolerated. The Trump administration has witnessed a record number of temporary restraining orders (TROs) against its policies, with lower-level federal judges imposing sweeping blocks on executive actions, notably those involving immigration. The Department of Justice has repeatedly urged the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of federal injunctions or to clarify the extent of lower court judges’ authority to interfere in executive branch operations. In a 5-4 decision, the justices opted Monday both to overturn the Boasberg order halting Trump’s enforcement of the AEA, but also declared the D.C. District of Columbia an inappropriate venue for the case in light of the gang member’s detention in Texas.

They did, however, assert that the Venezuelans in custody had the right to challenge their deportations. “Regardless of whether the detainees formally request release from confinement, because their claims for relief ‘necessarily imply the invalidity’ of their confinement and removal under the AEA, their claims fall within the ‘core’ of the writ of habeas corpus and thus must be brought in habeas,” the judges wrote. “The detainees are confined in Texas, so venue is improper in the District of Columbia. As a result, the Government is likely to succeed on the merits of this action.” “For all the rhetoric of the dissents, today’s order and per curiam confirm that the detainees subject to removal orders under the AEA are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal,” they added. “The only question is which court will resolve that challenge. For the reasons set forth, we hold that venue lies in the district of confinement.”

Texas courts are part of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the most conservative courts in the nation. The change of venue represents a partial win for Trump as the courts are far more likely to be receptive to government arguments on immigration authority. The need for due process, however, will slow the deportation process to a degree. Trump had hoped to use the AEA to speedily remove members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, which gained notoriety in 2024 for its takeover of several apartment complexes in Colorado. Trump did notch a bonus win, however, after Chief Justice John Roberts blocked a deadline Boasberg imposed to repatriate an illegal alien from Venezuela whom the administration sent to El Salvador. Trump allies acknowledged that the decision represented a victory, but stopped short of celebrating in light of its limited scope.

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., told Just the News that “this ruling provides only a temporary reprieve in one case among many where partisan Federal District Court judges are throwing up roadblocks to frustrate President Trump’s efforts to honor his campaign promise to secure the border and deport illegal immigrants. “It’s welcome, but the Supreme Court needs to do far more to rein in district judges who are exceeding their constitutional authority,” he added. Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz, moreover, opined that “[i]t looks like SCOTUS will rule that Trump has broad substantive power to deport but he must exercise that power within due process constraints.” The decisions on Monday represent one of the first actions from the nation’s nine justices to chastise lower courts over forum shopping and the excessive issuance of TROs.

Read more …

“..an “unacceptable” instance of judicial overreach that damages “the president’s ability to conduct foreign affairs.” “It’s a red line, and that’s the reason I have called for the impeachment of Judge Boasberg. I have called for the Trump administration to ignore his order. I’ve never done this before..”

• Conservative Legal Scholars Debate Response to Liberal Judges’ Overreach (DS)

Prominent conservative legal scholars on Monday debated the proper legal response to liberal federal judges’ injunctions against actions by the Trump administration. From legislation that would alter the judiciary’s powers to introducing articles of impeachment, the commentators offered varying solutions to the current controversy over the separation of powers in a panel discussion at The Heritage Foundation. Central to the discussion was Washington, D.C.-based U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg’s injunction against deportation flights leaving the United States, which the panelists unanimously criticized. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley was in the camp of urging Congress and the White House to refrain from combating the judiciary too fiercely. “Where I’ve been critical of the administration is often on the rhetoric, and I think it has committed some unforced errors,” said Turley. “They’ve got to really pick the hills to fight on.”

The judicial scholars at a panel discussion Monday were unanimously critical of federal Judge James Boasberg’s injunctions against the Trump administration. Turley added that he does not support impeaching judges, and that he thinks the legal system will sort out judicial overreach. A number of members of the House of Representatives have already introduced articles of impeachment against judges who have issued injunctions against Trump administration actions. “I also don’t agree with limiting jurisdiction or limiting funds. I believe we have the world’s greatest judicial system, and it’s working. Injunctions have been lifted. The Supreme Court just recently again ruled in favor of the Trump administration,” Turley said.

Additionally, the GWU law professor warned against what he sees as a dangerous precedent of ignoring court rulings, which would likely continue in future administrations. However, Mike Davis, the president of the conservative advocacy group Article III Project, disagreed with Turley. Davis argued that the scope of injunctions was so beyond the norm that impeachments were necessary. Davis spoke at length of Boasberg’s order for American deportation flights to be returned to the United States. He described that as an “unacceptable” instance of judicial overreach that damages “the president’s ability to conduct foreign affairs.” “It’s a red line, and that’s the reason I have called for the impeachment of Judge Boasberg. I have called for the Trump administration to ignore his order. I’ve never done this before” he said. “This is a very serious matter for the judiciary’s legitimacy.”

One point of agreement uniting all of the panelists, however, was that the judges were in the wrong for their far-reaching rulings. Turley indicated he was open to supporting legislation that would require more than one judge to sign off on national injunctions against a president’s executive orders. “I would like to see, at a minimum, any class action have to go through a separate three-judge panel with very narrow conditions, under which a national injunction can be held. I would also like to see Congress collapse the time for appeal,” Turley said. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., have introduced legislation that would require that nationwide injunctions be approved by a three-judge panel.

Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, agreed with the case for allowing Congress to limit judges’ authority and requiring multiple rulings for there to be a nationwide injunction. He alluded to laws passed by Congress during the Civil Rights Movement to enforce equal voting laws, arguing that these establish a precedent for the proposed legislation. “When the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965 … they didn’t trust some of the federal judges in the Southern courts who had been put forward by the Democratic Party, that they would rule the right way on certain voting cases, and so they set up a system of a three-judge panel … and so, we’ve done this before. It’s something that could be done again.”

Read more …

Time to tighten the rules.

• Members of Congress Must Be Present to Represent (Young)

President Donald Trump’s win in November was so sweeping of a mandate that Republicans won control of both the House and Senate. Control of Congress is critical to moving Trump’s vast America First agenda forward—and because of the slim majority held by Republicans in the House of Representatives, one would hope they’re working together in lockstep on behalf of the American people. Over the past week, however, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., was forced to delay critical votes in the House over a proposal to let members vote from home. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., led a small group of Republicans and all Democrats, to change House rules to allow proxy voting for members of Congress who are new or expecting mothers. Fortunately, it appears this saga is now over. Johnson and Luna reportedly struck a deal Sunday that won’t trigger her discharge petition. But let this be a lesson for members of Congress, who shouldn’t be tempted to pursue proxy voting anytime soon.

Quite frankly, proxy voting should never be on the table for members of Congress. Their entire job is to show up to work and vote for the people they represent—which they only do on average of around 160 days a year. The first issue anyone should have with this issue is the slippery slope it presents. Once the bell is rung on proxy voting for motherhood, it is clear as day where the expansion of permission to vote from home leads. Pregnancy is a medical issue, and the next step for proxy voting will be any “serious medical issue.” Then it will be any medical issue with a doctor’s note (that will stretch to include emotional issues like depression or anxiety). Eventually, it will accommodate senior citizen status. If by that point there are members still showing up to work, the next landing on the slippery slope will be major issues in a member’s district; then it will be any issues in their district—and at that point, everyone will be able to vote via text message.

The second issue, which should offend all Americans, is that just a few short weeks after Trump required all federal workers to return to office, members of Congress are advocating for themselves to work from home. If Republicans justifiably want workers who are paid by taxpayers to return to their offices, they should be expected do the same. The third issue is that thousands of mothers—in congressional districts across this country—don’t get to work by proxy. Some mothers labor at multiple jobs to raise a family and others don’t get paid time off or maternity leave. Those afforded the privilege of being a member of Congress already receive a generous $174,000 salary and on-site child care center, and most have a spouse able to take care of their children while in Washington. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy’s daughter, Evita Duffy-Alfonso, contrasted congressional proxy voting with her father’s actions while serving as a representative from Wisconsin:

When my baby sister was born with two holes in her heart and needed a very risky surgery, my father, @SecDuffy knew he needed be at home with his newborn daughter, my mother, and my eight siblings. So my dad resigned. What he did not do was demand an unconstitutional exception that would allow him to vote remotely. He viewed his job in Congress as a responsibility and a privilege, not an entitlement. If you are unable to fulfill the duties required of a member of Congress because you are a parent of a small child, feel free to resign. Many have before. My final issue with this proxy voting proposal is that members of Congress need to think about their country before themselves. At the time of the 2024 election, America was at the brink of self-destruction with the Biden administration’s wide-open southern border, illegal aliens potentially voting in our elections, failed energy and economic policies, DEI ruining equality for all—and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Imagine for a second you were elected and given the privilege to help lead the golden age of America with Trump—one of a few hundred entrusted to save this country. The American people expect you to be present, not vote by proxy. Those who support letting new parents vote by proxy are getting caught up in the emotional aspect of it—but that’s not what this is ultimately about. The Democrats who took full advantage of former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s allowing proxy voting during the COVID pandemic would lick their chops at making it permanent. Republicans shouldn’t be tempted to go along with the idea—now or later. Johnson was right to hold the line, and it’s a good thing that the House will now be able to once again move forward to enact Trump’s America First agenda.

Read more …

Does WEF have a future?

• World Economic Forum Founder Klaus Schwab To Also Step Down As Chairman (JTN)

World Economic Forum founder Klaus Schwab told his staff and the company’s board of trustees this week that he will step down as the organization’s chairman after creating and leading it for five decades. His departure comes after the board investigated allegations of racism and gender-bias against women in the Forum’s workplace, which was first reported last year by the Wall Street Journal. Schwab and the Forum have denied the allegations. Schwab, who announced his plans to step down as executive chairman in May of last year, but remained on as non-executive chairman of the board, did not give a reason for his departure, but a spokesperson for the WEF told the Wall Street Journal that the organization is already beginning its search for a new chairperson and expects the full process will be completed by January 2027.

Schwab, author of The Great Reset, is viewed by many conservatives as the ultimate globalist, which made President Donald Trump’s speech at the WEF’s annual gathering in Davos, Switzerland, just days after he was inaugurated to his second term as president this past January, must see TV. The chairman’s departure is not the first change that the WEF has made to its leadership recently. The Wall Street Journal reported that the organization is also losing its chief legal officer Nicola Port, and technology and digital services head Malte Godbersen. The exit comes shortly after World Economic Forum CEO Børge Brende said that he is committed to addressing the leadership issues identified by the workplace investigation, which did not substantiate the allegations against its founder. “Over these past months, we have taken time—time to pause, to listen, and to reflect,” Brende said in the memo announcing the executive changes. “This period of reflection has been grounded in a desire not just to do things differently, but to do them better.”

Read more …

They will fail.

• EU Looking To Replace Musk’s Starlink In Ukraine – Politico (RT)

Kiev’s European backers want to replace Elon Musk’s Starlink in Ukraine but no local provider can take its place, Politico reported on Monday, citing French-British satellite operator Eutelsat. Brussels is concerned that the tech tycoon could shut down the service and disrupt Ukrainian military communications, according to the outlet. Musk, a major ally of US President Donald Trump and CEO of SpaceX, which operates Starlink, has donated more than 40,000 satellite internet terminals to Kiev since 2022. Ukrainian troops have come to depend heavily on the system in combat operations. SpaceX has also provided access to Starshield, a more secure, military-grade version of the network. While Vladimir Zelensky’s government initially viewed Musk as a key supporter, the relationship soured as the tech tycoon grew more critical of Kiev’s war effort.

Tensions deepened after Musk denied Ukraine’s request to activate Starlink over Crimea, Russia, reportedly thwarting a drone attack against Russian ships. Last month, Musk wrote on X that “the Starlink system is the backbone of the Ukrainian army,” warning that “their entire front line would collapse if I turned it off.” Politico reported that EU officials now view Musk’s growing criticism of Ukraine as a threat to Starlink’s reliability. Brussels is reportedly in talks with several companies to find alternatives, including French-British satellite operator Eutelsat. CEO Eva Berneke confirmed to the news outlet discussions over EU funding for shipping user kits to Ukraine and expanding satellite launches to boost capacity. “[Working with Starlink] is a dependence that can be decided in the White House or Mar-a-Lago. It’s good to have multiple options,” Berneke told the outlet.

She acknowledged, however, that no provider is close to matching Starlink’s scale. It operates around 7,000 satellites, compared to Eutelsat’s 600. Depending on the scenario, Starlink offers 23 to 490 times more capacity over Ukraine. “If we were to take over the entire connectivity capacity for Ukraine and all the citizens, we wouldn’t be able to do that,” she said. European Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier confirmed the initiative, telling Politico that “discussions are indeed ongoing at [the] EU level, with the member states and with the industry.” Starlink operates through low-Earth orbit satellites, which offer high-speed, low-latency connections essential for battlefield coordination and drone warfare. Since 2019, Starlink has dominated the satellite internet market, launching more satellites than any competitor. While rivals such as Eutelsat, Amazon’s Project Kuiper, and Canada’s Telesat have recently stepped up investment, they remain far behind, making it unlikely the EU could offer a realistic substitute, the news outlet said.

Read more …

That’s just immensely sad. Would it have been the same if they hadn’t self-immolated their economy?

• Germany To Prepare Children For War – Handelsblatt (RT)

The German Interior Ministry is advising schools to prepare children for crises and war, the Handelsblatt newspaper reported on Monday, citing a ministry spokesperson. A raft of calls for “civic readiness” have been made by Western European governments since US president Donald Trump took office and the beginning of US-brokered Ukraine peace talks, described by German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock as “deadlocked.”. “Given the recent developments in the security situation, a greater focus should be placed on civil defense, including in school education,” an interior ministry spokesperson told Handelsblatt. According to the outlet, a Russian attack on NATO territory “in four to seven years” is considered “a realistic scenario” by German military, the Bundeswehr.

Schoolchildren should be “prepared for the worst,” crisis response training should be introduced into school curricula, and emergency supplies should be stored in every home, the German ministry spokesperson reportedly proposed. Moscow has repeatedly rubbished the claim it could attack a NATO country, since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict three years ago. However such “civic readiness’ calls have been made across the EU and in the UK in the last week. The European Commission has recently recommended that EU citizens stockpile essential supplies, including food and water, to sustain themselves for at least three days in case of emergencies.

Poland and Norway have reinstated Cold-War-era measures such as bomb shelters and bunkers and mass military training. Sweden and Finland already have guides available to citizens on how to respond if they come under attack. On Monday, the Kremlin said Russia was open to discussing a full ceasefire to end the Ukraine conflict, as long as there are guarantees that Kiev will abide by it. Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart Donald Trump held a phone conversation last month, following which Moscow agreed to a 30-day moratorium on strikes targeting energy infrastructure, with Ukraine also signing off on the proposal. Moscow, however, has since accused Kiev of repeatedly violating the agreement while stating it will honor it anyway.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1909281482637508718

 

 

Owls

 

 

Dog&kitten
https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1909274661470285972

 

 

Dire wolf

 

 

Art
https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1908910561447850072

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

 

 

 

 Older Entries