Menu Icon

Debt Rattle July 21 2026

Jul 212026
 
 July 21, 2026  Posted by at 9:31 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  32 Responses »


Wassily Kandinsky Autumn Landscape with Boats 1908


• Trump: Iran Will Pay ‘Many Times Over’ For US Troop Deaths (ZH)
• Border Czar Warns New York City That ‘ICE Surge’ Is Coming (Hyde)
• Trump Insists Netanyahu Will Not Face Arrest In The US (Ben Whedon)
• The 2026 NATO Summit Confirmed A New Transatlantic Bargain (Ruel Domi)
• Come Meet Britain’s Next Worst Prime Minister Ever (Stephen Green)
• The Unelected Monarch Creates the Unelected U.K Prime Minister (CTH)
• About Those Burn Bags President Trump Mentioned in His Address (O’Brien)
• Democrats Dismiss Our Constitutional Traditions as ‘Nostalgia’ (Turley)
• War, Over There, Over Here (James Howard Kunstler)
• Here’s How the Democrats Are Blowing the Midterms (Margolis)
• Why Democrats Can’t Do Better Than Kamala Harris in 2028 (Daniel McCarthy)
• Don Lemon Wants the White House and Thinks MAGA Is the Nazi Party (Manney)
• “I’m Not Living In Communist America”: Bill Maher Blasts DSA Democrats (ZH)
• China’s Fake US Driver’s Licenses Tampered With the 2020 Election (O’Brien)
• Can Elon Musk Really Put ONE MILLION Data Center Satellites in Orbit? (Green)

 


 

 


 


“Air war alone cannot dislodge a large military/regime, hence the dilemma of restraint vs. quagmire and new forever war…”

• Trump: Iran Will Pay ‘Many Times Over’ For US Troop Deaths (ZH)

After at least three more American troops were reported killed in Iranian attacks on Jordan and Iraq, President Trump has newly warned Monday that “Every time Iran kills an American soldier they will pay for that killing many times over!” The Commander-in-Chief says further he’s given “directives” on a presumably impending US military response to Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth, as well as his generals. Trump had on Saturday said the deaths of service members in Jordan are “a very sad thing.” He stated: “We hate to see it happen.” In follow-up he described that the retaliation on Iran would be in ‘honor’ of these fallen ‘patriots’.


Greek Tankers Hit, Also as Iran Targets Bahrain
Iran’s IRGC continues to insist that it along is in control of the Strait of Hormuz, as it continues firing on foreign vessels seeking to traverse the Strait of Hormuz outside of Iran’s ‘approved’ zone and protocol. According to some of the latest developments on this front, via regional media: One of two Greek-owned tankers hit by projectiles in the Strait of Hormuz has been abandoned by its crew after fire was reported on the vessel. The crew was rescued by a tugboat after abandoning the Maltese-flagged Kavomaleas owned by Greece’s Dynacom Tankers.

Earlier, UKMTO reported fire onboard the tanker north of Kuzmar, Oman. It had been stranded in the Arabian Gulf after spending months offshore of Saudi Arabia. It appeared to exit the Strait of Hormuz on July 2 although its AIS tracking was turned off. Various locations across Iran meanwhile continued to get pummeled by US aerial attacks. Iran in turn has been heavily targeting Bahrain on Monday. “The US launched an aerial attack on one of the areas in Shiraz, it resulted in no casualties, and the situation is under control,” IRIB reports. Currently, FM Araghchi is said to be en route to Pakistan, as mediators scramble to contain the war.

Air war alone cannot dislodge a large military/regime, hence the dilemma of restraint vs. quagmire and new forever war…

Bahrain statement: “Bahrain’s Civil Aviation Affairs said Monday that an Iranian drone attack targeted civilian air navigation systems used to manage the country’s Flight Information Region as military escalation continues to rage on between Iran and the US.” Latest from CENTCOM: The US military says it has disabled one ship and redirected seven in its continuing blockade of Iranian ports. “As of July 20, the US military has redirected 7 commercial vessels and disabled 1 to prevent the ships from leaving or entering Iranian ports,” CENTCOM wrote on X.

Read more …

Trump confronting Mamdani.

• Border Czar Warns New York City That ‘ICE Surge’ Is Coming (Hyde)

Federal Border Czar Tom Homan has announced that an unprecedented surge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents is coming to New York City in response to the city’s sanctuary policies. Homan told Fox News on Sunday, “It’s coming,” citing the Trump administration’s refusal to be hampered by Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s vow to champion the city’s sanctuary status and to continue resisting federal immigration enforcement. Homan refused to discuss specifics as to where and when enforcement actions would occur so as to avoid tipping off the various leftist groups who have organized to oppose ICE actions.


Homan told Fox News that “there needs to be a surge” and added, “But I am not going to show our hand because there are… well-funded groups who will try to impede, interfere. We’re not going to give them any upside on this.” The border czar’s comments followed statements Mamdani made during a New York Times interview on Saturday, in which the mayor expressed “pride” regarding the city’s refusal to cooperate with immigration enforcement and vowed to protect immigrant communities.

Mamdani told the Times, “What we are unwilling to do is to participate in civil immigration enforcement with a federal government that has said openly it wants to deport a vast majority of people for crimes that we will never even know.” According to Fox News, Homan fired back at Mamdani’s statement, saying that the mayor can have his stance but he will not prevent ICE from doing its job, noting, “That’s called the rule of law. If he doesn’t like it, call your members of Congress, tell them to change the law.”

The federal surge is also tied to New York state budget legislation signed into law by Governor Kathy Hochul that strictly curbs local law enforcement’s cooperation with federal immigration officials and bans ICE agents from wearing masks during community operations. Homan has also argued that blocking ICE access to municipal jails removes operational efficiencies, forcing federal teams out onto the streets to conduct widespread community arrests. The border czar said that President Trump’s campaign promises to address border security and to impose mass deportations are a large reason why he is the president today.

Read more …

“The International Criminal Court (ICC) previously issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu amid the Gaza conflict.”

• Trump Insists Netanyahu Will Not Face Arrest In The US (Ben Whedon)

President Donald Trump on Monday strongly asserted that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would not face arrest while in the United States as New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani reportedly weighs options to bring him into custody. The International Criminal Court (ICC) previously issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu amid the Gaza conflict. The U.S. is not party to the Rome statute and is under no obligation to arrest Netanyahu. However, Mamdani has mulled doing so amid the Iran war.


“Benjamin Netanyahu will not be arrested, in any way, shape, or form, while in the United States of America,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “He is fighting against the Islamic Republic of Iran, which recently killed 52,000 innocent protestors, and has spent the last 47 years killing American Soldiers, and others,” he added. “The only ones that should be arrested are the people that led Iran into this unprecedented SPIRAL OF DEATH AND DESTRUCTION, something that should have been dealt with years ago, by previous Presidents!”

Mamdani’s authority and ability to arrest Netanyahu without the consent of Washington, D.C., is dubious at best.

Read more …

“President Trump has been clear: As China becomes a rising threat, America cannot single-handedly carry the burden of Europe’s defense.”

• The 2026 NATO Summit Confirmed A New Transatlantic Bargain (Ruel Domi)

For three decades after the end of the Cold War, the transatlantic relationship rested on an implicit bargain: America guaranteed European security while the EU and its satellites concentrated on economic and political integration and drastically expanded their generous welfare states. The latest NATO summit in Ankara demonstrated that this bargain is falling apart. A new one is emerging, one in which Europe is expected to assume far greater responsibility for its own defense while the United States increasingly shifts its strategic focus toward containing China in the Indo-Pacific. Europe appears reluctant to accept it, but eventually, it will need to get used to it. NATO’s latest summit demonstrated such a need.


Firstly, the new bargain rests upon the fundamental assumption that Europe cannot continue to outsource its security indefinitely. During his first campaign for president, stretching for the entirety of his first term, President Trump demanded that America’s allies on the other side of the Atlantic spend more on their defense.

Up until that point, NATO’s 2006 defense minister agreement established a 2% of GDP requirement for all members to spend on defense. And despite that agreement, only Poland and the United States had achieved that goal, leaving behind powerful and wealthy European states such as Germany, France, and even the United Kingdom (at the time, an EU member). Such a discrepancy suggests deep-rooted and structural unfairness, as wealthier and more influential countries must be willing to spend more on defense, which hasn’t happened until this summit.

While the American left idolized European welfare states and the robust social safety nets that came with them, it was clear that those welfare states would have been impossible to finance without the American taxpayer bankrolling European defense. Needless to say, when America needed Europe the most, in the aftermath of Operation Epic Fury, European allies repeatedly refused to join the United States in military activity designed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz from the Iranian blockade—which, ironically enough, would benefit Europe more than it would America—due to Europe importing much of its oil and natural gas through the Strait of Hormuz. When a conflict began with Iran, Europe once again proved reluctant to shoulder a larger share of the burden.

Donald Trump understood that this posture is unsustainable, which is why he asked Europeans to raise their defense spending in his first term, while raising the requirement to a historic 5% of the GDP for all NATO members throughout this ongoing second term. The bargain is clear: Europe must not be allowed to outsource its defense spending to the United States, at least not without increasing defense spending and implementing serious changes to its economic, political, and social model.

The current American administration correctly understands that a weak Europe is a threat to the future of the transatlantic alliance and to the alliance’s security in the face of looming threats from Russia, China, and growing competition from the Global South.

Secondly, as outlined in the 33-page national security strategy of the United States published in early December, the U.S. is diverting its attention away from continental Europe to the Indo-Pacific. There, Chinese control of the South China Sea and a looming invasion of Taiwan are seen not just as geopolitical inconveniences but as real and existential security threats to the United States and its strategic interests in the region.

For that reason alone, Europe must spend more on its defense to deter potential Russian aggression, while the United States deals with China. The notion that the United States should be left dealing with the Sino-Russian axis alone, while the EU goes down the drain of unfettered leftism, at the expense of its civilization and the NATO alliance at large, represents an absurd and unsustainable model of alliance maintenance—and, I should add, grave political malpractice.

If the United States were to continue on the liberal path of relationship building with Europe, it would have to concede the chips race to China, as a successful Chinese invasion of Taiwan would give the CCP control of over 80% of the world’s semiconductors, leading to almost complete Chinese control of global supply chains and a consequent economic disaster for America and Europe alike.

It is clear that the liberal bargain of the US-EU relationship needs to be replaced by a pragmatically realist approach that preserves the alliance while deterring foreign adversaries. The latest NATO summit did exactly that.

Read more …

“As mayor, he promised to end homelessness in Greater Manchester by 2020. He didn’t. But he sure spent a lot of money on it.”

• Come Meet Britain’s Next Worst Prime Minister Ever (Stephen Green)

Following King Charles III’s formal request to form a new government on Monday, new U.K. Labour Leader Andy Burnham takes Keir Starmer’s place as Britain’s next worst prime minister ever. “I now pass the baton to Andy Burnham, I wish him every success. He has my full support,” Starmer said to anyone still listening. It won’t be easy topping — bottoming? — Starmer’s record of increasing Islamification, two-tier justice, and economic decline, but I have faith in Burnham’s ability to do so. At the very least, there’s certainly no doubting his willingness to try.


It seems like just last month [It was just last month, Steve —Editor] I wrote that “The U.K.’s most destructively feckless prime minister (since the last one)” would soon be history, but that Burnham “could prove Britain’s final undoing.” I hate to be so pessimistic when it’s only Monday, but take a look at this guy. Burnham hasn’t worked in the private sector in 30 years — as a writer, yuck! — serving in Parliament for two decades, both in and out of power. He held positions we don’t even have here, like Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Shadow Secretary of State for Health, and Undersecretary for Taxing of Things We Haven’t Yet Taxed.

Then he served as Mayor of Greater Manchester (2017-2026), until returning to Parliament earlier this year following a by-election (kind of like a special election year), seemingly for the sole purpose of taking a run at Starmer. Mission: Accomplished. As of this writing, Burnham is busy sacking various members of Starmer’s cabinet, including Rachel Reeves as Chancellor, Steve Reed as Housing Secretary, Lord Hermer as Attorney General, Peter Kyle as Business Secretary, and the execrable David Lammy from his dual roles as Justice Secretary and Deputy PM.

But as one commenter on X warned: “Many people are loving all Burnham’s sackings because of what they think about the politicians he’s getting rid of. But don’t cheer too enthusiastically because it’s not at all clear that the new appointees will be any better.” The situation remains fluid, as they say, but Burnham has yet to name any replacements to serve in his cabinet. The name to keep an eye on — as I warned you last month — is the woman often called “the brains” behind Burnham’s time as mayor, the Liberian-born daughter of lefty radicals: Miatta Fahnbulleh.

CutMyTaxUK reported last year that Fahnbulleh “was born in Liberia as part of a prominent leftist revolutionary family, has served as a junior energy & housing minister in the Starmer government before resigning to support Burnham.” Previously, as the “former head of the far-left New Economics Foundation,” she proved “adept at churning out socialist policy proposals.” Or as CMT-UK put it, “Keir Starmer has appointed a Housing Minister who hates private housing.” And guess what? Before even naming Fahnbulleh as Permanent Undersecretary for Ending Private Property, Politics UK reported that Burnham is considering introducing rent controls as part of his cost of living announcement on Tuesday. “We are looking at measures that could make a difference this year,” Burnham said.

Tell me if this next item rings any bells, particularly for readers in California. “We ran a [homelessness] scheme every night. 600 beds,” Burnham said Monday. “But we were the only place doing it. It taught me the only way is to do this together.” As mayor, he promised to end homelessness in Greater Manchester by 2020. He didn’t. But he sure spent a lot of money on it. Now he’s taking his program nationwide, presumably. What Britain needs is a national election that might correct Labour’s lopsided majority in Parliament despite the party’s massive unpopularity. What they’ll get is the country’s next worst prime minister. Until the next one, I’m afraid.

Read more …

He’s just the next one.

• The Unelected Monarch Creates the Unelected U.K Prime Minister (CTH)

There is absolutely nothing democratic within the political schemes of the communists, leftists and Nazis’. Just as Ukraine is led by an unelected authoritarian under the guise of the ‘new democratic norms’; just as Kamala Harris was installed as a presidential nominee under those same anti-democracy norms; so too is U.K Prime Minister Andy Burnham now installed without any election by the British citizens. nThe unelected monarch, King Charles, appoints the unelected Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, and the first pledge of the unelected leader is a promise to make life better for the people who are denied a voice in his agenda.


THE BACKGROUND – Former communist Prime Minister Kier Starmer was facing a massive amount of opposition, his policies and party platform had collapsed, and the people of Britain were revolting against him. Starmer’s Labour party lost more than 1,400 seats in the country’s local elections, and the non-communist, nationalistic Reform Party was winning. Something urgent was needed. Polls showed communist Mayor Andy Burnham was popular as his mask still had still not fully dropped, and the illegal immigrants on the streets of Manchester were only raping a few girls each month which was still easy to hide.

However, the problem was that Burnham could not replace Starmer unless he was a Member of Parliament (MP). With urgent payments for future indulgencies quickly afforded, the communist MP for Makerfield, a district within Greater Manchester, resigned from his job so that communist Andy Burnham could run for his MP position. A few days later, exactly at the moment communist Burnham was being sworn in to the MP job, communist Starmer announced his exit. The plan had worked seamlessly.

The Communist Labour Party of the U.K then coalesced quickly to replace Starmer with Burnham, and today Communist King Charles appointed Communist Andy Burnham to lead the country. No election needed; i.e. ‘The New Democratic Norm’ again fulfilled. Great Britain’s Bernie Sanders is now in charge of things. …”I have just come from Buckingham Palace where I have accepted his Majesty the King’s invitation to form a government”…

Read more …

“These bags were supposed to be at a different level, by different people, incinerated…but it never happened. Maybe we got lucky.”

• About Those Burn Bags President Trump Mentioned in His Address (O’Brien)

In addition to its general corruptibility, one thing you can be sure of when it comes to the federal government is that it’s probably not a good idea to trust federal employees to conceal your misdeeds. In the bureaucracy, “good enough” is the standard for quality work And so, when President Donald Trump delivered his address to the nation on July 16, he brought attention to something we should know much more about but don’t yet: the discovery of “burn bags,” which Trump said contained sensitive documents from the Obama administration.


Trump said, “Recently, we found significant numbers of burn bags… and this is a group of bags that were used to destroy information given by President Barack Hussein Obama to be burned….These bags were supposed to be at a different level, by different people, incinerated…but it never happened. Maybe we got lucky.” As the term implies, burn bags contain material that is slated for destruction, sending all of the former administration’s secrets into that big shredder in the sky. But someone “dropped the bag,” and more than a few of them were left to be discovered by the second Trump administration in the FBI building.


Now that Trump is sitting on a political treasure trove of data and information that can be used to expose the left, expect a distraction or two. Whenever the left panics, you start to see ginned-up controversies over allegations of Trump “stealing our democracy,” “climate change,” “Christian nationalism,” or all of the above. Given the seriousness of the potential contents of those burn bags, it wouldn’t surprise me if the left goes even harder with its lies and wrap-up smears to try to take Trump out using the 25th Amendment to the Constitution.

As a result of the Trump administration’s discovery of those burn bags, the president ordered the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the CIA to review the documents, analyze them, and see if any laws were broken. That analysis will focus on the handling of the sensitive information and the chain of custody of the documents themselves, and the contents of the documents that were never destroyed. It must be noted that simply finding some old burn bags doesn’t mean something improper was done. The federal government uses burn bags as a matter of course to destroy sensitive materials that will no longer be kept on file.

The president believes that the bags of documents could unearth critical information that has been concealed from the public eye. He bases this viewpoint on his past experience with both the Obama and Biden administrations and their pattern of not preserving, or not providing access to, certain important intelligence information. In other words, Trump knows what he doesn’t know, and he wants answers. Could those bags contain more proof of the deep state covering up election schemes? Do any contain information that implicates specific members of the Obama or Biden administrations? If Trump knows, he’s not naming names or providing details just yet.

Trump’s mention of those burn bags was in the context of his larger address on election integrity failures and questionable activities on the part of Democrat administrations, their political operatives, and others. As leftists circle the wagons to protect their favorite former Democrat presidents and their people, leftist central messaging is already testing the following key messages:
• “Alleging foreign interference in an election is not proof (evidence) that a foreign government successfully controlled the outcome.” This is like saying, “Sure he had a gun and shot at ya, but he missed ya, so he didn’t do anything wrong.”
• “Criminal charges require more than political accusations.” Of course, this is true, but where do criminal charges themselves come from? They come from accusations that can be supported by evidence.
• “Even if you find some incriminating information in those burn bags, you’re going to need to prove that the person implicated knowingly violated federal law.” Depending on the situation, that would be a matter for the courts to decide, but this key message gets at understanding and intent, which in a PR sense can be a straw man. For example, it doesn’t matter whether you intended to kill someone with your car; if you ran over them, intentionally or not, you likely broke a law or two. In other words, “I did not know there was a law against this” is no excuse.
• “The discovery of documents alone would not establish a criminal conspiracy.” Another straw man. No one is saying “discovery of documents” is all you need. If the documents contain words and sentences that do establish a criminal conspiracy, someone’s goose may be cooked.
• “As for China, investigators must have direct evidence of coordination, communication, or actions that link actual people to the effort to tamper with an election.” Once again, this is just a description of the legal and justice process. All of this is true, but stating it does not get anyone off the hook.

Back in 2020 and 2021, when Trump sought to use the court system to contest the manner in which the 2020 election was conducted, he literally had no time left in his term to go the legal route as president. By the time the courts would consider some of his claims, he was essentially an outsider without access to much of the information that he now has. After election day in 2020, Trump was shut out of the system long enough to ensure that he would live the rest of his life in political exile after one term in office. But in 2024, Trump shocked the world and won. His administration now has access to what it needs to better determine what happened in 2020, to address it, and, hopefully, to tap the justice system to ensure such corruption never happens again.

Read more …

“California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) last week also declared that “nostalgia is not working” and, while refusing to embrace socialism, added that “capitalism as we know it doesn’t work.”

• Democrats Dismiss Our Constitutional Traditions as ‘Nostalgia’ (Turley)

It appears that the Madisonian democracy has joined shackets and combat boots as embarrassingly outdated for many on the left. In calling for radical changes to our constitutional system, leading Democrats are now calling the lingering loyalty to our traditions as mere “nostalgia.” To be nostalgic in today’s parlance is to be a dupe of the oligarchs and an enemy to reform. “Nostalgia” has become the new coded term for reactionaries among Democratic figures, who are trying to convince Americans to accept radical changes to our republic after 250 years.


Kamala Harris recently insisted that opposition to ideas like packing the Supreme Court is mere “nostalgia” for a system that is no longer working. “I would caution us against talking about rebuilding with any sense of nostalgia about how things work, because even before, they weren’t working so well for a lot of folks,” she said. That “nostalgia,” according to Harris, is preventing us from doing things like packing the Supreme Court with an instant liberal majority. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) last week also declared that “nostalgia is not working” and, while refusing to embrace socialism, added that “capitalism as we know it doesn’t work.”

Morris Katz, a political strategist for Zohran Mamdani, spoke to CNN’s Dana Bash about looking beyond the label of democratic socialism and instead simply to accept that “our government does not work.” They are joining socialists who have long promised revolutionary changes without “introspection, nostalgia or regret.” It is an all-too-familiar pitch. Sixty years ago, a call to break free of “old ideas, old culture, old customs, and old habits” revolutionized a nation. That call was heard in a Chinese paper that would help lay the foundation for Mao Zedong’s bloody Cultural Revolution. Marxists had long rejected calls to preserve institutions and citizens’ rights as “nostalgia” and “sentimentality,” standing in the way of needed progress.

For the Democratic Socialist of America organization, nostalgia stands in the way of getting rid of the Senate, presidency, and the Supreme Court to fundamentally change the republic. The effort is to condition Americans to adopt radical changes to our core institutions that professors and pundits say will guarantee Democrats never lose power again. That is not an easy task for a people who have benefited from the oldest and most prosperous democracy for 250 years. They have to be very angry or very afraid to take such a radical course.

The Soviets understood that about the U.S. After Yuri Bezmenov, a KGB agent working in the media, defected in 1970, he revealed the four stages by which the Soviets hoped to bring about revolutionary change in the U.S. It began with undermining our institutions and values, with the help of journalists and academics. With establishment figures lining up behind radical changes, including packing the Supreme Court, the public is hearing a constant drumbeat of how our system is broken. Even Democratic judges are joining the chorus. Indeed, some appear to be auditioning for the slots promised by Democratic leaders to take over the court with a reliable liberal majority.

This week, the Hawaii Supreme Court issued an unhinged diatribe against the U.S. Supreme Court that abandoned any semblance of judicial restraint or decorum. It declared the majority as effectively racists, saying that “The Roberts Court sees only white.” It portrayed the court as a rogue institution that “overrides what Congress passed. It overrides what the people chose. All to serve its own ends.” It is an opinion that would make an MS NOW host blush. But it follows a pattern on the left to get people to turn against our institutions and even against the Constitution itself.

Others are telling the public that they are being repressed by the Constitution, which must be scrapped. In a New York Times op-ed — “The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed” — law professors Ryan Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale called for the nation to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.” In yet another New York Times editorial, Jennifer Szalai denounced “Constitution worship” and claimed that “Americans have long assumed that the Constitution could save us. A growing chorus now wonders whether we need to be saved from it.”

Berkeley Dean Erwin Chemerinsky insists that it is time to trash the Constitution in favor of “radical changes.” These voices are seeking to remove all of the moderating elements of our system —the safety features that have produced the world’s most successful and stable republic. They are the very constitutional elements protecting us from the tyranny of the majority, protecting us from ourselves.

Without those protections, we will unleash the self-destructive forces that have been tearing apart other democratic systems since Athens. It is our constitution that spared us from that fate. As James Madison observed, “Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.” Of course, history has shown that such radical proposals ultimately produce not democracy, but what the Framers called mobocracy. If we let that happen, many Americans will indeed look back at the last 250 years with a tragic sense of nostalgia.

Read more …

“The left’s goal is always to break human reason. . . .” —Elizabeth Nickson

• War, Over There, Over Here (James Howard Kunstler)

You ask: Why did Achilles drag Hector around the city of Troy three times? Answer: He was just that pissed.


So it goes with President DJ Trump and the intransigent jihadi maniacs running Iran down a rat hole. Mr. T is just that pissed, too. “War is Hell,” the savvy Union general WT Sherman observed after he torched Atlanta, setting a precedent for moral clarity in the service of tactical fortitude. And thus, a century-and-a-half later, this is Iran’s hard time. Iran can make it stop at any time by. . . stopping. But the catch is, they really have to stop it, no more head fakes, ruses, jukes, dodges, and ploys. Just stop it.

Don’t doubt that they will have to stop it. We are going to make them stop. In the meantime, there is plenty else to concern those of us who care about our country, and Western Civ more generally, on the home front. Here comes the Insane Clown Posse of the Democratic Socialists. Their platform: abolish the police; no more jail for criminals; open borders; amnesty for all border-jumpers; abolish the Senate; Abolish the electoral college (House of Representatives to elect the president); defund the War Department, voting rights for all non-citizens; “wealth” taxes; free housing, food, medical care for all; green new deal laws; free Palestine (which is more important than any place else on Earth)!

Oh, and they are quite out-front about merely using the Democratic Party as a means to acquire power. Yeah, you noticed that already? Nobody actually had to read the quiet part out-loud. (Well, it wasn’t all that quiet.) Question is: how is all this going to work in practice (or in the praxis, as the Gramscian Marxists like to say — because it sounds like some occult power), as they roll over every institution in the land.

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) are our own jihadistas. They aim to make their program work by jamming it down America’s throat, starting with the throats of the plain old Democratic Party, the party of FDR, JFK, and HRC, currently fronted by Hakeem Jeffries (the House) and Chuck Schumer (the soon-to-be-abolished Senate). These two appear to be totally buffaloed by the DSA’s Insane Clown Posse. It’s their own Frankenstein monster, stitched together in their laboratory from the tatters of the 20th century. And like in the original by Mary Shelley, this monster is fixing to abolish its maker. Hakeem and Chuck are just standing by like a couple of credulous clucks waiting to see how things develop as the calendar marches implacably toward the catastrophic midterm election.

Last week’s Maine Senate primary debate was instructive. A more pitiful conclave of political losers had not been observed on continental US soil since Millard Fillmore led the Know-Nothing party into oblivion in 1856. (And, of course, five years later the American Civil war ignited.) Remember the old maxim: “As Maine goes, so goes the nation.” Well, Gawd help us, then. See for yourself.


The fellow on the right pretending to be a woman is one Ashley Webb (formerly James Charles Webb) who cited “her” reasons for joining the race as: running for office before (unsuccessfully), being a songwriter, writing books, and being an “angry citizen” who would be an “angry senator.” Perfect! You might ask: why wasn’t Punch the Monkey onstage with the rest of this bunch?

Here is your very picture of Progressivism, the larval form of DSA — and, as you read this, there are Progressive larvae yet metamorphosing into full-blown DSAs all over these fifty states. Mamdani in New York. . . Brandon Johnson in Chicago. . . Katie Wilson in Seattle. . . Michelle Wu in Boston. . . Karen Bass in LA, etc. And here come DSAs Claire Valdez, Darializa Avila Chevalier, Brad Lander, taking House seats in New York and Melat Kiros out in Colorado (yes, the lady who likes to wipe her hands on the US flag) who are expected to join The Squad (AOC, Jayapal, Pressley, Tlaib) next January. Plus, over on the soon-to-be-abolished Senate side, one Dr. Abdul El-Sayad running in Michigan. They all promise to keep the punishment coming until American morale improves!


Looming over this Insane Clown Posse of — oh, let’s just say it — feckless communists, is the ancient visage of Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) — like F. Scott Fitzgerald’s Eyes of Dr. TJ Eckleburg — the old war-horse’s long-cherished dreams finally coming true. Remember, in 1988 Bernie took his new wife on a honeymoon to the Soviet Union? Like. . . to witness how well that system was working. . . exactly three years before it collapsed. You can say the Democratic Socialists of America have got exactly the avatar they deserve.

The question is: will the DSA drag the Democratic Party into oblivion? Most assuredly they will. We are going to get election reform one way or another this year. There will be no more mail-in ballot harvesting or voting by non-citizens or vote tabulation machines. It might be that a substantial demographic in our country is insane, say, generously, maybe forty percent. But a firm majority of Americans are not insane and they are going to put a stop to this communist insurrection just as President DJ Trump — who is really pissed — will put end to the forty-seven-year Iranian jihad. What a week it has been!!! More thrills and chills ahead, you can be sure.

Read more …

“In 2018, 90% of Democrats disapproved of him. In 2026, that number sits at 69%.”

• Here’s How the Democrats Are Blowing the Midterms (Margolis)

It can’t be said enough that history is on the Democrats’ side, but they seem determined to blow it. Precedent alone should hand Democrats a comfortable advantage this year. Only three midterms in nearly a century broke the pattern. In 2002, George W. Bush’s Republicans held their ground just over a year after the 9/11 attacks, when national security dominated everything else. In 1998, Bill Clinton’s Democrats benefited when Republicans overplayed their hand chasing impeachment over the Monica Lewinsky scandal. In 1934, Franklin Roosevelt’s Democrats rode the enduring popularity of the New Deal through the depths of the Great Depression. Each exception had a distinct, extraordinary set of circumstances behind it.


On the surface, it looks like Democrats should be able to win easily. Aside from precedent, Donald Trump’s polling gives them even more room to work with. Yet recent surveys suggest Democrats are underperforming badly enough that the wave they were counting on might not materialize. That underperformance could cost them control of the House. If Republicans hold the House this November, the reasons will be obvious: a socialist insurgency reshaping the party from within, and a singular obsession with opposing Trump that has crowded out everything else voters actually care about. The evidence is already sitting in the polling.

On the generic congressional ballot, Republicans are either tied with Democrats or ahead by three to four points, nowhere near the margin Democrats need to flip the House. A recent Washington Post/Ipsos poll put Democrats up just 48% to 45% on that same generic ballot question. Asked which party they agree with more on the issues that matter to them, voters split 41% Republican to 40% Democrat. Asked which party they trust more to handle the economy, the gap widened: 39% for Republicans to 35% for Democrats.Analysts at The Wall Street Journal have said a Democratic edge of anything under four points on election night is good news for Republicans trying to hold the majority. Right now, Democrats aren’t clearing that bar.


Here’s the part that should really worry them. Trump’s disapproval rating among Democrats is far lower than it was during his first term. In 2018, 90% of Democrats disapproved of him. In 2026, that number sits at 69%. Despite those low approval numbers, most surveys still don’t show Democrats building a clear advantage in the races that will actually decide who controls the House. Democrats have assumed that being anti-Trump is enough. But the fact is, they aren’t giving voters a reason to vote Democrat, and the party’s growing tolerance for socialism isn’t helping them. Socialism remains deeply unpopular with the broader electorate, and its visible presence inside the Democrat Party is giving persuadable voters a reason to back Republicans they might not have otherwise supported.

Every historical tailwind is blowing in Democrats’ direction this year, and still, Democrats may fail to capitalize on any of it. Make no mistake about it, if they blow this midterm, they won’t be able to blame the map, the money, or the message alone. They will have blown the most favorable set of conditions a minority party could ask for, and they will have done it to themselves.

Read more …

He may well be right.

• Why Democrats Can’t Do Better Than Kamala Harris in 2028 (Daniel McCarthy)

There are only two lanes to the Democratic presidential nomination two years from now, and one of them is already blocked — by Kamala Harris. Get ready for the Kamala comeback, followed, in all likelihood, by a replay of her crushing defeat by the Republican nominee. Believe it or not, the ex-VP occupies what counts as the “center lane” within the party, and for most of the last three decades that’s the one that’s led to the nomination. Republicans used to be the party of orderly succession, even if the candidate whose turn had come looked like a certain loser: think Bob Dole in ’96.


But recently, it’s been Democrats who’ve tended to pick a party elder as their nominee: Al Gore, as a sitting VP, might not have been remarkable in 2000, but in ’04 it was John Kerry, in ’16 Hillary Clinton, and in 2020 Joe Biden — with only Barack Obama butting ahead of the line in 2008. Democrats like a known quantity, a reliable liberal who isn’t too overtly radical; the radicalism can wait until after Election Day.= So they’re leaning to running Harris again, even if donors aren’t happy about it: They blew nearly $2 billion on her campaign and aligned PACs in 2024, only for Harris to lose every battleground state to Trump.

It won’t be donors who decide the party’s 2028 nominee, though, and ordinary Democrats actually find Harris reassuring. She’s a familiar face, after all, commanding practically universal name recognition. Harris checks the identity-politics boxes that may be as important as winning to Democratic primary voters: Their ticket must have a woman, and it can’t be all white. And after being vetted as a VP and undergoing the trial-by-fire of the ’24 campaign, Harris isn’t likely to surprise voters with any extremist tattoos or sexual-assault allegations — things that can’t be taken for granted among Democrats nowadays.

Then there’s the revenge motive: What better way to repudiate the Trump era and reverse the ’24 humiliation than by making the woman he defeated president? Democratic primary voters are still smarting from Hillary Clinton’s drubbing in 2016: by 2028, the election of America’s first female president will have been postponed 12 long years, and feminists in the party aren’t willing to wait any longer. These are the reasons Harris tops almost all polls of 2028 Democratic hopefuls, with an 11.6-point lead in the RealClearPolitics polling aggregate as of mid-July.

“She comes in with 99 percent name ID and everyone else is going to have to raise money and buy it,” a former Harris aide tells New York’s David Freedlander. The donors might prefer just about anyone else, yet they’d have to pour an enormous amount of cash into another candidate just to make him or her recognizable. This has led one longtime Democratic strategist with donors’ ears to welcome the inevitable: “I hope she runs,” Alex Hoffman told New York, “Because then she will lose and we will never have to hear from her again. She will never win an election at a national scale. Never.” But if Harris is hopeless, why does she seem inevitable?

She has seniority no one else can match, but what about the other lane that leads to the nomination? That’s the left lane — the far left lane. The one Bernie Sanders occupied in 2020 and 2016, and that a candidate like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez might fill in 2028. Young Dems keep moving leftward, with the Democratic Socialists of America making deeper inroads into the party. Harris is not nearly left-wing enough for them — but then, anyone who is would be upsetting to the old guard. It’s not that the old-timers aren’t also well to the left on economics, but they don’t want to be labeled “socialists”— while the insurgent left is proud of the brand. The party’s mainstream wants to have it both ways on the Israel-Palestine conflict — while the young left, increasingly, is explicit about its anti-Zionism.

There are still enough baby boomers and suburbanites in the Democratic Party to make the left lane an unlikely road to the nomination. For now. Harris can expect a challenge from the left, but the party is still probably one more presidential cycle away from nominating someone who openly represents where Democrats are headed. In fact, a Harris defeat in 2028 would be the perfect prelude to the socialist and anti-Zionist left’s takeover, discrediting the old guard for forfeiting the election to Donald Trump’s successor. Insider Democrats know Kamala Harris is a terrible candidate, but the party they built can’t tell her no — even if this is the last nomination they get to make before DSA takes over.

Read more …

For now far left field, but despair works miracles.

• Don Lemon Wants the White House and Thinks MAGA Is the Nazi Party (Manney)

Don Lemon believes America may need him in the White House. Days after saying he might run for president in 2028, the independent “journalist” and podcaster offered a sample of his judgment. “MAGA is the closest thing to the modern version of the Nazi Party.” He softened the smear with “without the Holocaust and all that stuff.” Lemon then claimed MAGA supporters remain loyal because they want white supremacy and power. From the New York Post:


“Lemon – who also revealed he is considering a presidential run in the 2028 election, saying he’d be a “really good” commander-in-chief – argued MAGA supporters have stuck by the movement in an effort to promote white supremacy. “Most intelligent people or logical people, when they get new information and that information is negative or not factual, then they change their minds and go, ‘Oh, well I wish I’d known better, and now that I have this information, then I can readjust,’” Lemon said.

“No matter how many facts and how much information you give them about this presidency, about the policies, they don’t change their minds,” he continued. “Because they’re really not voting for the price of eggs – they’re voting for white supremacy, they’re voting for power, they’re voting to have a preeminent voice.” Speaking as one of the millions of Americans who voted for President Donald Trump, Lemon is a bloody fool! He doesn’t know us, speak for us, or understand why the country rejected the left’s lectures in 2024. The Nazi Party was a racist, antisemitic movement that destroyed German democracy, established a one-party dictatorship, and murdered six million Jews along with millions of other victims.

Lemon’s qualifications empty the comparison of its defining horror while preserving every ounce of the insult. MAGA is a broad American political coalition that won an election. Trump’s 2024 voters were more racially and ethnically diverse than in either of his previous campaigns. He received 48% of the Hispanic vote and 15% of the black vote. From Pew Research: Trump won with a voter coalition that was more racially and ethnically diverse than in 2020 or 2016, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of the 2024 electorate. Among Hispanic voters, Trump battled to near parity in 2024 (51% Harris, 48% Trump) after losing to Joe Biden 61%-36% in 2020. Trump won 15% of Black voters – up from 8% four years earlier.

Trump also did better among Asian voters. While a majority of Asian voters (57%) backed Harris, 40% supported Trump. This was a narrower margin than Biden’s in 2020 (70% to 30%). These shifts were largely the result of differences in which voters turned out in the 2020 and 2024 elections. As in the past, a relatively small share of voters switched which party’s candidate they supported. Lemon can dislike their choice, but branding those voters as supporters of white supremacy strips them of thought, motive, and agency. The insult grows more absurd beside Lemon’s presidential musings. He said people keep asking whether he’ll run and declared he could lead the country better than Trump.

A man seeking presidential stature should be able to describe his political opponents without reaching for Hitler. Lemon treats tens of millions of Americans as morally diseased, then wonders whether they might welcome him as their president. From the New York Post: “Lemon made the eyebrow-raising declaration on “Can’t Be Censored” podcast hosted by Karman Wong and Travis Dhanraj, insisting that everyone wants to know if he has White House aspirations. “Do you have political ambition? Is that true?” Dhanraj asked on Wednesday’s show. “No, but people keep asking me if I’m running for president,” Lemon answered. “And I don’t know. I might. I’m serious. I don’t know. I might, because people keep asking me to do it, or if I’m going to do it.”

Lemon, 60, argued that experience isn’t necessarily a requirement to be commander-in-chief, citing President Trump’s lack of a political background before his election win in 2016. I can already hear many of you who are saying we should ignore Lemon. Silence has its place, but repeated public smears gain power when decent people shrug and move on. Sharing his words exposes the contempt behind them. Lemon wants attention, influence, and perhaps political power. The public should know how he speaks about Americans who vote differently.

Read more …

“Establishment Democrats are freaking out over the Democratic Socialists of America’s attempted hijacking of their party ..”

• “I’m Not Living In Communist America”: Bill Maher Blasts DSA Democrats (ZH)

“I’m not living in Communist America… I’ve read the quotes from the DSA platform, from their own mouths. Don’t tell me I’m not seeing what I am seeing,” Bill Maher told ABC News’ Jonathan Karl in an exclusive interview that aired on Sunday.


Karl asked Maher, “Could you see yourself voting for JD Vance?” Maher responded: “Yes. If this is the Democratic side, yes.” Establishment Democrats are freaking out over the Democratic Socialists of America’s attempted hijacking of their party because this anti-American, far-left Marxist movement, with possible ties to foreign subversion, risks dooming the party in the midterms and beyond.

The problem for Democrats is that years of letting socialists and Marxists into their DEI kingdom have only now produced dire consequences. Status quo Democrats are watching their power evaporate as DSA candidates defeat mainstream Democrats in primaries across New York, Colorado, Pennsylvania, and other states.

Read more …

That’s a lot of licenses.

• China’s Fake US Driver’s Licenses Tampered With the 2020 Election (O’Brien)

When President Donald Trump talked about some of the things China has done to literally steal our democracy by seeing to it that, in 2020, its Manchurian candidate was elected in the form of a semi-comatose Joe Biden, many of the things he mentioned had already been in the news, but they may not have been covered by the legacy media. Case in point: Trump mentioned in his July 16 address to the nation that China stole TikTok data to create fake U.S. driver’s licenses.


If you follow conservative media, you may have known this. If you get your news from the legacy media, you most likely didn’t know it, and if you heard it now, you won’t believe it. That’s the group Trump was targeting in his address. His national address strategy was to speak past the legacy media and to begin the process of planting the seeds of the truth in the minds of those who rely on the CNNs, ABCs, and NBCs of the world. Strategically, Trump is now trying to break through the information barrier that the legacy media and the left have created to keep the majority of Americans in the dark on what’s really happened to corrupt our elections.

A year ago, Brooke Singman published a lengthy piece on the Fox News website that detailed just how the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) executed its TikTok data theft scheme. Her primary source for the story was the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is chaired by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). The Senate Judiciary Committee launched its own investigation into this after the FBI had announced its own investigation in July 2025. As Singman reported, the CCP allegedly worked to get “fake driver’s licenses to Chinese sympathizers in the U.S. who would cast a vote for candidate Biden.” It is not clear how successful the CCP was in getting its ballots for Biden to count.

In July 2025, a Grassley spokesperson told Fox News, “Chairman Grassley is in receipt of an FBI document (response) to a request he made based on legally protected whistleblower disclosures…. The document alleges serious national security concerns that need to be fully investigated by the FBI.” As stated in that document, the intent of the alleged scheme was for the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to produce and export fraudulent U.S. driver’s licenses to Chinese sympathizers in the U.S., so as to create “tens of thousands of fraudulent mail-in votes for US Presidential candidate Joe Biden, in late August 2020.”

According to the document at the center of these investigations, by August 2020, “the Chinese government had produced a large amount of fraudulent United States driver’s licenses that were secretly exported to the United States,” Fox News reported. The fraudulent drivers licenses would allow tens of thousands of Chinese students and immigrants sympathetic to the Chinese Communist Party to vote for US Presidential Candidate USPER Joe ((Biden)), despite not being eligible to vote in the United States… China had collected private US user data from millions of TikTok accounts, to include name, ID and address, which would allow the Chinese government to use real US persons’ information to create the fraudulent driver’s license, the document states.

Reporting on the investigation indicates that the fake IDs included true ID numbers and the true addresses of U.S. citizens, which made the fraud difficult to detect. “China planned to use the fraudulent driver’s licenses to account for tens of thousands of mail-in votes,” according to the document.] What’s not clear is how specifically the PRC accessed the TikTok data and got all the information it needed to create those fake driver’s licenses. TikTok, for example, does not require a physical address when users register for an account. Did the creators of the fake IDs use the physical addresses of those Chinese sympathizers? This is fuzzy.

FBI Director Kash Patel and Grassley had been working closely on this case prior to the president’s speech on July 16.In another uncanny development from around the same time, in July 2020, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents at the International Mail Facility (IMF) at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport announced that in the first half of that year, they had seized 1,513 shipments of fraudulent documents, which included 19,888 fake U.S. driver’s licenses. Most of those shipments originated in China and Hong Kong, as well as Great Britain and South Korea.

According to the CBP statement on the matter from 2020, “The driver’s licenses were for various people in different states with a vast majority destined for neighboring states. Most were for college-age students, and other licenses would share the same picture but have different biographical data. Another concern was the bar code attached to the Michigan licenses worked.” In typical fashion, the Democrats’ propaganda machine known as the Associated Press reported at the time, “There is no evidence to suggest they were linked to voter fraud.” Case closed, I guess.

Maybe leftist newswire Reuters had a different take: “Facebook posts shared thousands of times claim that 19,888 fake driver’s licenses were seized at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport after being ordered by people ‘all registered to vote, all Democrats.’ Suggesting that the licenses were part of a voter fraud conspiracy, this claim is partly false. While it is true that U.S. Customs and Border Protection seized 19,888 counterfeit licenses at O’Hare in late July, they had no apparent connection to Democratic Party registration or the upcoming election.”

Read more …

Will Jamie Dimon finance it?

• Can Elon Musk Really Put ONE MILLION Data Center Satellites in Orbit? (Green)

Now that you’ve read the headline, I’ll show you the numbers, and you’ll probably say, “OH NO WAY!” But indulge me, won’t you. Ars Technica’s senior space guy Eric Berger looked at how much it might cost SpaceX to fulfill Elon Musk’s stated goal of putting ONE MILLION DATA CENTER satellites into Low Earth Orbit (LEO) for the company’s artificial intelligence division, xAI. I don’t want to bother you with all the background math — you can click the link for the full MEGO effect, should you desire — but you do need to see the final totals for putting all those birds in orbit:


ª Optimistic: $350 billion in launch costs; $1 million per satellite; all-in cost of $1.45 trillion • Neutral: $1.85 trillion in launch costs; $1.5 million per satellite; all-in cost of $3.45 trillion • Pessimistic: $7.7 trillion in launch costs; $2.0 million per satellite; all-in cost of $9.8 trillion

The median scenario is $3.45 trillion dollars, or roughly 70% of what the U.S. spent waging World War II. Honestly, I felt the need for a shot of tequila after going through those figures. “Daunting” doesn’t even begin to cover the expense and complexity of such lofty goals. “Unimaginable” perhaps comes closer. But things become less daunting and more imaginable when viewed from the proper perspective.

The question isn’t, “Can Elon Musk really put one million data center satellites in orbit?” The correct question is, “Can he put enough data center satellites in orbit at a low enough cost to generate positive cashflow?” It’s all about the money, honey — because once you’re making more than you spend, the sky’s the limit. Literally, in this case. And while one can say for sure whether Musk can make the economics work, this is an area where SpaceX enjoys hard-won expertise. You might have heard of a little space-based internet service provider called Starlink.


The first operational batch of 60 satellites went up in May 2019, and Starlink beta service went live near the end of 2020 with fewer than 1,000 in orbit. By the end of 2024, with around 6,400 satellites, Starlink turned cash flow positive. That was the key metric, not whether Starlink had achieved its longterm goal of having a constellation of 42,000 operational satellites. “The key takeaway I want everybody to walk away with is, if SpaceX was building the Starlink system to pay for a Mars colony, we’ve got evidence that the company will generate the type of free cash flows from the business that could pay for said endeavor,” Quilty Space president Chris Quilty said at the time.

Today the end goal has changed — the Moon and data centers, not Mars — but the means remain the same: using orbital operations-at-scale to turn a profit doing the previously impossible. It took roughly 6.5 years for SpaceX to launch the 10,000th Starlink bird, and for the division to start raking in serious profits. So I tend to think of roughly 10,000 satellites — an unimaginable number not that many years ago — as the number required for sustained operations at a return worthy of the effort.

And Another Thing: Naysayers were all doom-and-gloom that SpaceX lost money in 2025, entirely on data center buildouts. But now the company leases server space to companies like Google and Anthropic for about $2 billion a month. xAI isn’t quite cash flow positive, but it’s closing in. Assuming SpaceX makes Starship work, the launch economics improve considerably. If the company doesn’t make it work, the entire project falls apart.

Also, Starlink enjoys a built-in audience, as it were, of people in rural or underdeveloped areas who had no other means of getting affordable high-speed internet service. Plus previously unfulfilled demand from airlines, cruise ships, and the Department of Defense. There’s no similar built-in demand for orbital data, so it’s my assumption that xAI will have to compete with terrestrial data centers on price. If Musk can overcome the serious technical and financial challenges to achieve positive cash flow, then SpaceX can continue putting data center satellites into LEO until they’ve hit one million… or 100,000, or 10,000. Or whatever number the market will allow.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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