May 122025
 


Frank Walton Crows on a beach 1884

 

Bessent Says US, China Made “Substantial Progress” On Tariffs Deal (ZH)
President Trump’s Trade Strategy with China is Crushing Beijing (CTH)
Trump Announces Order To Reduce Prescription Drug Prices By Up To 80% (ZH)
Scott Ritter: Putin’s Peace Talks Force Zelensky to Put Up or Shut Up (Sp.)
Ukraine Should Agree To Putin’s Proposal of Talks ‘Immediately’ – Trump (RT)
Trump Responds Favorably To Putin Peace Talks Proposal (RT)
Putin, Trump, Erdogan Can Steer Ukraine Conflict to Peace – Sachs (Sp.)
Moscow Outlines Basis For Peace Negotiations With Kiev (RT)
Zelensky Wants Ceasefire To Rearm Military – Senior Russian Diplomat (RT)
Zelensky Responds To Putin’s Peace Talks Proposal (RT)
Macron Lukewarm On Putin Peace Talks Offer (RT)
Slovakia’s Fico Torches West’s Peace Hypocrisy: They Want Endless War (Sp.)
US Greenlights Long-Range Missile Transfer To Ukraine – NYT (RT)
US Ceasefire In Yemen: Retreat Masquerading As Restraint (Iskandar)
The Judicial Appointment Train Is Leaving the Station (Jipping)
Dems Aren’t ‘Fighting Oligarchy’, They Are the Oligarchy (Stepman)
French Media Quash Claims Macron, Merz & Starmer Hid Cocaine On Train (ZH)
Trump’s ‘Nuclear’ Deportation Options (Jim Rickards)

 

 

 

 

Watters

https://twitter.com/Megatron_ron/status/1921608285419143354

Biden

Draino

Logan

 

 

 

 

Bessent’s been busy. Just in: US to lower tariffs on China to 30%, China to lower tariffs on US to 10%, for next 90 days.

“..it’s important to understand how quickly we were able to come to agreement which were that perhaps the differences were not so large as maybe thought.”

• Bessent Says US, China Made “Substantial Progress” On Tariffs Deal (ZH)

Just hours after Trump praised China tariff talks, saying that “great progress” had been made and that a “total reset” of relations was on the table, the second day of trade negotiations between the US and China concluded moments ago, and there was more good news: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said that the US and China made “substantial progress” adding that they will share more details on Monday. The announcement followed hours of meetings between Bessent, Greer and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng. The talks were hosted by the Swiss ambassador to the United Nations, whose residence was used as the venue for the two countries’ teams.

[..] Bessent said that “talks were productive” and involved China’s Vice Premier, two Vice Ministers who were integrally involved, Ambassador Jamieson and myself.” Bessent said that he “will be giving details tomorrow.” “I spoke to President Trump, as did Ambassador Jamieson last night, and he is fully informed of what is going on. There will be a complete briefing tomorrow morning.” Separately, USTR Jamieson Greer said that “it’s important to understand how quickly we were able to come to agreement which were that perhaps the differences were not so large as maybe thought.””That being said, there was a lot of groundwork that went into these two days… we’re confident that the deal we struck with our Chinese partners will help us to resolve, work toward resolving that national emergency.”

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1921599107841339899?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1921599107841339899%7Ctwgr%5E7eaffc426428da9e8d12261d96b5526084e8e877%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fbessent-says-us-china-made-substantial-progress-deal-after-very-constructive-2-days

Tensions between the world’s two biggest economies reached a new high point after President Donald Trump steadily increased tariffs on Beijing to 145%. The duties are supposed to address China’s role in the fentanyl trade, its massive trade surplus with the US, and respond to Beijing’s retaliatory measures imposed after Trump’s opening salvo. China in response increased its tariffs on US goods to 125%. Looking forward, however, Goldman expects a substantial drop in tariffs, expecting them to be cut by at least a half.

The tariff tit-for-tat led to a standoff between the world’s two largest economies, with neither side wanting to budge and no off-ramp in sight; however amid the economic slowdown, both sides acknowledged a reduction in tensions and tariffs is necessary and public talks were announced.

Read more …

China is allergic to unemployment. They’d rather keep the production lines open and sell the products, without the high end labels, for 10-20% of the original price.

• President Trump’s Trade Strategy with China is Crushing Beijing (CTH)

President Donald Trump is confronting the dragon behind the panda mask with precision. It’s very obvious the prior reconnaissance, trade probes and tariff tests of ’17, ’18, ’19, are paying dividends. President Trump has cut off the transnational shipping lanes by globalizing the tariffs against China. Beijing is in a forced holding pattern waiting to see the outcome of Southeast Asia and European trade agreements. Having spent some serious time in the field in advance of ‘Liberty Day’ all of my contacts have the same message; China is trying to find position. In a little reported reality, in order to offset the problem, many Chinese manufacturers have actually continued the production of several branded product lines (very well-known and established brands) despite the absence of orders for the finished goods from the companies.

Several shipments of those finished goods have started to arrive at China-partnered ports. This is very interesting, because it may lead to market dumping of a higher quality product than most anticipate. Within the apparel sector, ASEAN consumers cannot afford the fashion branded product at the prices determined by the actual brand owners. However, there is now a strong likelihood -based on what is being reported by the receivers- that the product itself will be marketed -likely dumped- without the brand label. This is actually high-quality apparel distributed for a fraction of the price of the brand. I’ll be getting more details on this soon, however, it looks like the broad outlines are verified by multiple sources. I’ll use some fake names to explain. China is sending finished “branded” goods to the Philippines, without labeling. The receiving company awaits instructions.

Ex. “Lululemon” products arrive finished, but missing labels – the product is identical, but the IP is now stripped. The product, a summer or fall lineup, is then rebranded “Opal” apparel (fake name example) made in Philippines, packaged in a similar high-end fashion and shipped to USA where a new -mostly online- branded and marketed store sells the items. The marketing is done through a massive purchase of digital ad space on social media, with big incentives for fashion influencers. The current holding point (screwing up the works for Beijing) is the unknown future U.S. tariff rate against Philippines; but the manufacturing and subsequent inventory buildup is happening. I am told this same process is happening in small durable goods, albeit at a slower pace. The Chinese delegation currently running through Europe, is prepositioning for a sector-by-sector severely discounted manufacturing operation.

The goal is to secure purchase contracts at prices that simply cannot be ignored given the scale of the increase in profit margin being offered. This is not a black-market operation per se’, this is a dark market strategic play with massive financial incentives for aligning. Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Jamieson Greer have begun meetings in Geneva with a Chinese delegation led by Vice Premier He Lifeng. A motorcade of black cars and vans was seen coming and going from the home of the Swiss ambassador to the United Nations. Talks between the U.S. and China are being moderated/facilitated by the Swiss (think finance sector motive) and taking place in the 18th-century “Villa Saladin” overlooking Lake Geneva. The optics of the discussion are grand; the estate was given to the Swiss in 1973.

Playing the role of Panda, Mrs Sun Yun, director of the China program at the Stimson Center, said it is the first time Lifeng and Bessent have talked. However, given the position of President Trump comfortably willing to wait-out the dragon thrashing, panda Sun doubts the Geneva meeting will produce any substantive results.

BEIJING (Reuters) -“China’s factory-gate prices posted the steepest drop in six months in April while consumer prices fell for a third month, underlining the need for more stimulus as policymakers grapple with the economic toll from a trade war with the United States. A prolonged housing market downturn, high household debt and job insecurity have hampered investment and consumer spending, keeping deflationary pressures alive. Now, the economy is also facing increasing external risks from trade barriers. […] “Even if China and the U.S. can make progress and cut tariffs in trade negotiations, tariffs are unlikely to go back to the level before April,” Zhang added. “More proactive fiscal policy is necessary to boost domestic demand and address the deflation problem.”

[…] The Chinese government is implementing a wide range of measures to stimulate consumption across different sectors and last week announced a raft of stimulus measures, including interest rate cuts and a major injection of liquidity. As the trade war between the world’s two largest economies weighs on exports, China’s retail giants, including JD.com and Alibaba-owned Freshippo, have initiated measures to help exporters pivot to the domestic market. That could further depress prices as business and consumer confidence remain subdued due to the uncertain outlook. (read more)”

Beijing does have a consumption base within China; however, that consumption is dependent on income. If the Chinese factory workers are not working, they do not have income to spend; the proverbial catch-22. Hence, the continued manufacturing, shipping and inventory buildup being described as arriving in ASEAN nations (Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, etc.). I suspect we are about to witness the largest global dumping operation in the history of consumer goods.

https://twitter.com/Jkylebass/status/1921510619410223447

Read more …

As per today.

• Trump Announces Order To Reduce Prescription Drug Prices By Up To 80% (ZH)

President Donald Trump announced late on May 11 that he would sign an executive order which would reduce prescription drug prices in the US by 30% to 80% “almost immediately” while also raising drug prices “rise throughout the World in order to equalize and, for the first time in many years, bring FAIRNESS TO AMERICA!” To achieve that, Trump would institute what he called a most-favored nation policy “whereby the United States will pay the same price as the Nation that pays the lowest price anywhere in the World.” Healthcare costs in the US “will be reduced by numbers never even thought of before,” he said. Trump’s Truth Social post, which was preceded by an earlier one that promised as one of “most important and impactful” statements he has ever issued, didn’t detail how the order would work.

He also didn’t specify potential limits on the policy, such as whether it would apply only to government programs such as Medicare or Medicaid, if it would be limited to certain drugs or categories of drugs or if the White House sees a way to apply this more broadly. Asian pharmaceutical companies fell in early Monday trading. Japanese drugmaker Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. dropped as much as 7.2%, the most in a month, with peers Daiichi Sankyo and Takeda Pharmaceuticals losing around 5%. In South Korea, SK Biopharmaceuticals Co., Celltrion Inc. and Samsung Biologics Co. all fell over 3%. Americans pay the most in the world for medicines, fueling innovation and driving the growth of the pharmaceutical industry. Drugmakers have said revamping the system will slash revenue and stifle the development of breakthrough therapies that have the potential to lengthen and improve lives.

Trump cited the industry’s argument, but said it meant that “the ‘suckers’ of America” ended up bearing those costs “for no reason whatsoever.” As Bloomberg notes, the US government already negotiates prices for some of the highest-cost medicines used in Medicare health insurance under the Inflation Reduction Act, which passed in 2022 under former President Joe Biden, with more slated to be added every year. The first two rounds of drug price negotiations haven’t included physician-administered drugs, but the next round might. Billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman suggested Trump might have been inspired by an idea he floated on X in March, when he said the best way to reduce US drug prices “is to make it illegal for drug companies to sell the same drugs abroad for lower prices than they sell them for here.”

In his first term, Trump proposed a Medicare pilot program for drugs with no low-cost generic competition that are given in doctor’s offices, saying he wanted to bring prices in line with countries like France and Japan where they cost dramatically less. That plan, which would have phased in over three years, aimed to ensure Medicare paid the lowest price offered to a group of 22 nations. The effort was struck down in federal court after drug companies challenged it, claiming the administration hadn’t properly carried out the rulemaking process. The Biden administration didn’t appeal that finding, and instead pursued legislation that led to the Inflation Reduction Act.

Read more …

““The moment Russia agrees to a 30-day ceasefire, thousands of European troops will pour into Ukraine..”

• Scott Ritter: Putin’s Peace Talks Force Zelensky to Put Up or Shut Up (Sp.)

President Putin has announced Russia’s readiness for “direct talks” with Ukraine in Istanbul on May 15, “without preconditions” and aimed at eliminating “the root causes of the conflict.” Sputnik asked prolific military and geopolitical affairs observer Scott Ritter what the proposal means for Zelensky and his Western sponsors. “This is a brilliant act of diplomatic and political strategy by Vladimir Putin,” the former US Marine Corps intelligence officer told Sputnik, commenting on the Russian proposal. “Now Russia has the initiative and Russia has the moral high ground. There will be no more talk about 30-day artificial ceasefires. Ukraine either has to put up or shut up,” Ritter said. The same goes for Ukraine’s Western sponsors, which have up to now been able to define and control the narrative on a diplomatic resolution to the crisis with the 30-day ceasefire demands.

With his proposal, Putin managed to “get inside” the West’s decision-making cycle, forcing them to react, and putting him “in control” of the narrative. “One of the big problems” Zelensky will face is his self-imposed ban on direct negotiations with Russia, which Zelensky cannot and will not change, and which his Western sponsors prefer not to talk about. Should Zelensky reject Russia’s new Istanbul talks offer, it will allow Putin to “expose the hypocrisy of the Ukrainian government, expose the hypocrisy of the West, and expose, frankly speaking, the inefficiency of the United States or lack of seriousness of the United States when it comes to finding a diplomatic outcome,” Ritter said.

Otherwise, Russia’s negotiations olive branch “cannot be undermined,” according to the observer, since they’re a continuation of the spring 2022 talks in Belarus and Istanbul, which successfully hammered out a draft peace deal before it was sabotaged by Boris Johnson and the West. In that sense, Putin is “putting forward a successful model of negotiation, which, had it been acted on back in March of 2022, there would be no special military operation today.” There is no circumstance under which Russia would accept Zelensky and Europe’s ’30-day ceasefire’ demands, Ritter says. “The moment Russia agrees to a 30-day ceasefire, thousands of European troops will pour into Ukraine…It would be suicide for Russia to agree to a 30-day ceasefire without addressing the root causes of the conflict, which is why Russia insists that first there be negotiations. Russia is actually looking at a path of genuine peace to solve the problem so that when this war ends, there won’t be another war in five, ten, twenty years,” he emphasized.

At the same time, Ritter says, it’s important to keep in mind that the “tragic reality” of the Ukrainian crisis is that Ukraine is not a sovereign state, but “a tool being used by NATO, by Europe, by the United States to weaken Russia.” “That’s what this conflict has always been about…Consequently, we need to understand that no one, neither Europe, the US or Ukraine are looking for actual peace,” but rather seek a temporary deal that would allow Ukraine to regroup militarily, economically and politically to continue the conflict,” the observer said.

Read more …

First thing Zelensky does is insult Putin. He thinks Trump will follow.

• Ukraine Should Agree To Putin’s Proposal of Talks ‘Immediately’ – Trump (RT)

US President Donald Trump has urged Ukraine to “immediately” agree to the proposal of direct unconditional talks put forward by Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier on Sunday.Writing on Truth Social, Trump suggested the proposed direct negotiations would, at least, help to clarify the positions of the sides of the conflict and show “whether or not a deal is possible.” “President Putin of Russia doesn’t want to have a Cease Fire Agreement with Ukraine, but rather wants to meet on Thursday, in Turkey, to negotiate a possible end to the BLOODBATH. Ukraine should agree to this, IMMEDIATELY,” the US leader wrote.If it becomes clear that reaching a deal is not possible “European leaders, and the US, will know where everything stands, and can proceed accordingly,” Trump stated. “I’m starting to doubt that Ukraine will make a deal with Putin,” he added.

Earlier in the day, the Russian president proposed that “the Kiev authorities resume the negotiations they interrupted in 2022” without any preconditions on May 15 in Istanbul. The peace settlement process must start with talks, which could ultimately yield “some kind of new truce and a new ceasefire,” Putin added. “We are set on serious negotiations with Ukraine. Their aim is to eliminate the root causes of the conflict and to achieve a long-term lasting peace for a historical perspective,” the president stressed. The Russian offer has been criticized by Kiev and its Western backers, who demand the talks be preceded by the establishment of at least a 30-day truce. This stance was reiterated by Vladimir Zelensky minutes after Trump made his remarks. The Ukrainian leader demanded a truce be announced on Monday.

“We await a full and lasting ceasefire, starting from tomorrow, to provide the necessary basis for diplomacy. There is no point in prolonging the killings. And I will be waiting for Putin in Türkiye on Thursday. Personally. I hope that this time the Russians will not look for excuses,” Zelensky wrote on X. In 2022, Zelensky explicitly prohibited engaging in any negotiations with Russia as long as Putin is in power. While the ban remains in place, Zelensky has somewhat softened his position as of late, claiming it actually applied to everyone in Ukraine except himself.

Read more …

Trump’s advisors, like Vance’s, don’t appear to tell him the whole story. He would need a Putin meeting for that.

• Trump Responds Favorably To Putin Peace Talks Proposal (RT)

US President Donald Trump has expressed support for his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin’s proposal to resume direct peace talks with Ukraine, which have been on hold since 2022. Putin earlier suggested restarting negotiations in Istanbul, Türkiye next week. Trump took to Truth Social on Sunday to praise what he called “a potentially great day for Russia and Ukraine! Think of the hundreds of thousands of lives that will be saved as this never ending ‘bloodbath’ hopefully comes to an end.” The US, he added, “wants to focus, instead, on Rebuilding and Trade. A BIG week upcoming!” Putin previously proposed resuming direct negotiations with Ukraine on May 15 in Istanbul, where talks were last held in 2022.

Moscow said that while the sides were making progress toward peace at the time and had reached a preliminary draft agreement, the process was derailed by then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who advised Kiev to “keep fighting.” Johnson has denied the claim. ”We propose resuming talks without any preconditions,” Putin said, stressing that Russia has never refused dialogue. He added that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has expressed his readiness to facilitate the meeting. Responding to the Russian leader’s new proposal, French President Emmanuel Macron called it “a first step, but not enough” to ensure a path to peace. Putin’s remarks came after the leaders of Ukraine, France, Germany, Poland, the UK, and the EU floated a proposal for a 30-day “full and unconditional” ceasefire, which they claimed would “create room for diplomacy,” adding that the US supports the initiative.

Several European leaders also threatened to impose new sanctions on Russia if it rejects the ceasefire. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said Russia needs to “think about” the ceasefire proposal. He added that while Putin supports the idea of a ceasefire “in general,” “there are lots of questions” yet to be resolved. Moscow previously expressed concern that Ukraine could use a pause in the fighting to regroup its battered and exhausted troops while continuing forced mobilization. Russia has also insisted that Western arms shipments must be halted during a ceasefire. Regarding the threat of new sanctions from EU nations, Peskov said Russia is “resistant to any kind of pressure.”

Read more …

What can I say? I’m a sucker for optimism and peace. But this peace thing is only possible if they keep Ukraine and Europe away from the table.

• Putin, Trump, Erdogan Can Steer Ukraine Conflict to Peace – Sachs (Sp.)

The leaders of the United States, Turkiye, and Russia will be able to navigate Ukraine into a peace settlement, renowned American economist and Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs told RIA Novosti. “These are very positive developments … I believe that Presidents Putin, Trump, and Erdogan can steer the conflict to a peace agreement,” Sachs replied when asked for his view of the latest announcements on the issue of Ukraine. “I very much hope for this outcome.” On Sunday, Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky agreed to meet President Putin in Turkiye on May 15, an hour after US President Donald Trump urged Ukraine to immediately accept Russian President Vladimir Putin for talks in Istanbul.

Professor Sachs also noted that President Trump had a ‘far more accurate’ understanding of the Ukrainian conflict than his predecessor Joe Biden did, noting that the conflict could have ended in April 2022, but Biden had told Ukraine to “fight on.” The economist said he was, therefore, “cautiously optimistic,” adding that Trump wanted the war to stop the conflict, which would be in the best interest of the US, Europe, Russia, and Ukraine. Putin suggested overnight that Kiev and Moscow resume direct talks without any preconditions in Istanbul on May 15 to address the root causes of the conflict in Ukraine.

Read more …

Ukraine and Europe will label this “pre-conditions.”

• Moscow Outlines Basis For Peace Negotiations With Kiev (RT)

Peace negotiations with Ukraine should consider both the current realities on the ground and the groundwork laid during the 2022 Istanbul talks, an aide to the Russian president, Yury Ushakov, has said. He made the remarks after Russian President Vladimir Putin offered Kiev the opportunity to resume direct talks “without any preconditions.” Speaking in the early hours of Sunday, Putin proposed a new round of talks that would take place on May 15 in Istanbul. Ushakov told Russia’s Channel 1 that any peace talks with Ukraine should take into account the points that were worked out by the sides during the 2022 negotiations, which Kiev unilaterally walked away from. “The real situation” on the ground should “obviously” be considered as well, he added.

Also on Sunday, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters that the “objectives of negotiations are clear – to eliminate the root causes of the conflict” and to protect Russian interests. He went on to suggest that Ukraine is not really independent, and much would depend on the decisions of its Western backers. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has confirmed that his country is ready to host talks between Moscow and Kiev. In a televised address, Putin stressed that Moscow is “set on serious negotiations with Ukraine,” and is seeking a “long-term, sustainable peace” that addresses the root causes of the conflict. He did not rule out that the talks, if resumed, could yield “a new ceasefire” honored by both sides, which could pave the way to a comprehensive peace settlement.

”The decision is now up to the Ukrainian authorities and their supervisors,” the Russian president said. In 2022, Moscow and Kiev reached a draft peace deal in Istanbul, in which Ukraine reportedly agreed to neutrality and limitations on its armed forces, while Russia offered the withdrawal of its troops and security guarantees. However, Kiev abruptly walked away from the talks – a move which Russian officials claim was encouraged by then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who is said to have urged Kiev to “just continue fighting.” In November 2023, David Arakhamia, an MP allied with Vladimir Zelensky and who led the Ukrainian delegation, confirmed that this was the case. Johnson, however, has denied the allegations.

Read more …

Russia will not agree to a ceasefire without negotiations first.

• Zelensky Wants Ceasefire To Rearm Military – Senior Russian Diplomat (RT)

Kiev’s response to Russia’s offer of unconditional peace talks shows that Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky wants to use it to rearm and regroup the country’s military, Rodion Miroshnik, the Russian Foreign Ministry’s ambassador-at-large, has said. On Saturday night, Russian President Vladimir Putin offered Kiev the opportunity to restart direct negotiations in Istanbul, which it unilaterally walked away from in 2022. Russia is ready to return to the negotiating table without any preconditions, he said. Zelensky responded by demanding that Russia first agree to a 30-day ceasefire starting on May 12. “Is this what agreeing to start negotiations without conditions looks like?!” Miroshnik, who is tasked with investigating the Ukrainian military’s alleged war crimes, wrote in a post on Telegram on Sunday. Zelensky is essentially “setting preconditions” for unconditional peace talks, he added.

Earlier on Sunday, Zelensky wrote on Telegram: “We expect Russia to confirm a ceasefire – full, lasting, and reliable – starting tomorrow, May 12, and Ukraine is ready to meet.”After meeting with European leaders in Kiev on Saturday, Zelensky demanded that Russia agree to a 30-day ceasefire. The Kremlin rejected what it described as external pressure surrounding the proposed truce. Moscow has also warned that a temporary pause in the fighting could be used by Kiev to regroup and strengthen its military.

Russia has said it is ready for peace talks at any time, and seeks a lasting resolution to the conflict that addresses the root causes. On Saturday night, Putin stated that Kiev has violated three ceasefires offered by Moscow: A 30-day US-brokered moratorium on strikes against energy infrastructure which expired last month, an Easter ceasefire, and a 72-hour Victory Day ceasefire. He added that Ukraine tried to intimidate foreign leaders who attended the May 9 Victory Day celebrations in Moscow.

Read more …

Get Zelensky out of the picture. All he wants is to make peace impossible. There’s always another demand.

• Zelensky Responds To Putin’s Peace Talks Proposal (RT)

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has responded to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s proposal for direct peace talks by reiterating his demand that any engagement must be preceded by a comprehensive ceasefire. Moscow, however, has said the settlement process must begin with talks, possibly followed by a ceasefire – not the other way around. On Sunday, Putin proposed resuming direct negotiations with Ukraine on May 15 in Istanbul, Türkiye “without any preconditions.” He noted that Russia has never refused dialogue and expressed hope that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan would facilitate the meeting. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov described Putin’s proposal as “a serious offer” aimed at achieving a lasting peace through meaningful negotiations.

Responding to the offer, Zelensky took to Telegram, saying: “It is a good sign that the Russians are finally thinking about ending the war. Everyone in the world has been waiting for this for a long time. And the very first step in actually ending any war is a ceasefire.” “We expect Russia to confirm a ceasefire – full, lasting, and reliable – starting tomorrow, May 12, and Ukraine is ready to meet,” he added. Andrey Yermak, the head of Zelensky’s office, echoed his remarks, stating, “First, a 30-day ceasefire, then everything else. Russia must not mask the desire to continue the war under verbal constructions.” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova slammed Kiev’s response, saying: “Judging by the reaction… they didn’t read the transcript of the Russian president’s statement very carefully, nor the hundreds of comments from global political figures and media publications supporting it.”

Putin’s proposal is “absolutely clear,” Zakharova stressed. “First, negotiations about the root causes [of the conflict], and then we can talk about a ceasefire.” This came after leaders from France, Germany, Poland, the UK, and EU proposed a “full and unconditional” 30-day ceasefire, arguing that this would “create room for diplomacy,” while noting that the US has expressed support for the initiative. According to Peskov, Putin supports the idea of a ceasefire “in general,” but “there are lots of questions” that remain unresolved. Moscow previously expressed concern that a halt in the fighting would allow Kiev to regroup its battered troops. It has also insisted that all Western arms shipments to Ukraine must be suspended for the duration of the ceasefire.

Read more …

Weird thing to say:

“It is a first step, but it is not enough… It’s a way of not responding. We must not give up,” Macron stated, claiming that Putin’s offer is a delaying tactic. “It shows that he is looking for a way out, but he still wants to buy time.”

• Macron Lukewarm On Putin Peace Talks Offer (RT)

French President Emmanuel Macron has downplayed Russia’s proposal to restart direct peace talks with Ukraine, saying it is “a first step,” but not enough. He made the remarks to reporters on Sunday, while returning from a trip to Ukraine. Earlier in the day, Russian President Vladimir Putin offered Kiev the opportunity to restart direct negotiations, which have been on hold since 2022, “without any preconditions.” Putin stressed that Moscow is ready to start “without delay,” and suggested meeting on May 15 in Istanbul, Türkiye. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has confirmed that his country is ready to host the talks, telling Macron in a phone call that this could be “a historic turning point.” Macron, however, insisted that the process should start with a “full and unconditional” 30-day ceasefire, referring to a proposal made by the leaders of Ukraine, the UK, and EU the day before, and which is reportedly supported by the US.

“It is a first step, but it is not enough… It’s a way of not responding. We must not give up,” Macron stated, claiming that Putin’s offer is a delaying tactic. “It shows that he is looking for a way out, but he still wants to buy time.”

Macron also claimed that “an unconditional ceasefire is not preceded by negotiations, by definition.” “We must stand firm with the Americans to say that the ceasefire is unconditional and then we can discuss the rest,” he said. US President Donald Trump has welcomed Putin’s proposal, writing on Truth Social hours after the announcement that this is “a potentially great day for Russia and Ukraine,” with “a BIG week upcoming!” Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky said Putin’s proposal is a “positive sign” and that he is “ready to meet” for talks. He insisted, however, that the first step should be a ceasefire, which he suggested should begin on May 12.

Moscow previously warned that Ukraine could use a prolonged pause in the fighting without a formal agreement to regroup and rearm. In his address, Putin said Kiev has violated three ceasefires proposed by Moscow: A 30-day US-brokered halt on strikes against energy infrastructure that expired last month, an unconditional Easter truce, and a 72-hour Victory Day ceasefire. Istanbul hosted the last direct Russia-Ukraine peace talks in 2022, shortly after the escalation of the conflict. Moscow said that while the sides were making progress at the time and had worked out a preliminary peace treaty, the process was derailed by Kiev’s Western backers. The agreement eventually fell through, and Zelensky later issued a decree banning peace talks with Putin.

Read more …

From inside the EU. He must be popular.

• Slovakia’s Fico Torches West’s Peace Hypocrisy: They Want Endless War (Sp.)

President Vladimir Putin suggested on Saturday night that Russia and Ukraine resume direct talks without any preconditions in Istanbul on May 15. Robert Fico has blasted the West’s pushback against direct peace talks between Russia and Ukraine. “It is extremely important for many Western countries to keep this war going,” the Slovak prime minister said at a press conference upon completing his visit to Russia. Still, he remained cautiously optimistic, saying: “I believe that this point of view will change, I will remind you again that this is a matter for Ukraine and Russia, if they are interested in negotiating, let them do so.” But don’t forget who sabotaged such talks back in 2022, he noted, in an apparent reference to Ukraine and its handlers.

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin proposed peace talks with Ukraine on May 15 without any preconditions. He did not rule out the possibility of reaching a ceasefire during such talks, adding that it was up to Ukraine and its Western backers to respond. While US President Donald Trump called Putin’s offer “potentially great day for Russia and Ukraine,” and promised to continue working with both sides, Emmanuel Macron was not at all enthusiastic. Vladimir Putin’s proposal is “a first step, but not enough,” Macron said on Sunday. “An unconditional ceasefire is not preceded by negotiations,” the French president told reporters on his return from Ukraine.

Read more …

“Since returning to office in January, US President Donald Trump has not authorized new military aid for Ukraine. Shipments previously approved under former President Joe Biden have been nearly exhausted..”

• US Greenlights Long-Range Missile Transfer To Ukraine – NYT (RT)

The US has approved the transfer of 100 Patriot air-defense missiles and 125 long-range artillery rockets from German stockpiles to Ukraine, the New York Times reported on Friday, citing a congressional official. Under US export rules, American-made systems cannot be re-exported without prior approval from Washington. The move follows Russia’s declaration of a 72-hour unilateral ceasefire from the start of May 8 to the end of May 10 to mark Victory Day, as well as President Vladimir Putin’s proposal to hold direct peace talks in Istanbul on May 15. Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has long advocated for long-range missiles and Patriot systems. He recently stated that Kiev is prepared to spend $30-50 billion on US weapons or obtain production licenses, and has instructed his government to pursue a Patriot deal. Each unit costs over $1 billion and requires around 90 personnel to operate.

Since returning to office in January, US President Donald Trump has not authorized new military aid for Ukraine. Shipments previously approved under former President Joe Biden have been nearly exhausted. According to the New York Times, the Trump administration has shown little interest in pursuing further assistance, instead urging European NATO allies to take on a greater share of the burden in supporting Ukraine. On Thursday, the Ukrainian parliament ratified a landmark agreement with the US that grants Washington preferential access to critical natural resources, including rare-earth elements. Originally signed in April, the deal outlines the creation of a joint investment fund to support Ukraine’s economic recovery. While it does not include formal security assurances, Kiev views the agreement as a pathway to deeper cooperation with the US and potential future military support.

“This gives us hope,” Egor Chernev, the deputy chair of Ukraine’s parliamentary defense committee, said, as quoted by the New York Times. He noted that Ukrainian forces are running low on long-range missiles, artillery, and ballistic air defense systems, the majority of which are produced in the US. In April, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said Berlin could not immediately send more Patriot systems due to supply issues. However, he confirmed plans to deliver four German-made IRIS-T SLM systems and 30 additional missiles. Germany has also sent 60 mine-resistant vehicles, 50,000 artillery shells, and one IRIS-T interceptor. Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s government has decided to stop publishing shipment details, aiming to establish “strategic ambiguity.”

Russia says it remains open to dialogue but insists that halting Western arms shipments is a prerequisite for any lasting ceasefire. Kiev has repeatedly called for a 30-day truce in recent months, describing it as critical to launching diplomatic efforts. Moscow has pushed back against the proposal, arguing that a pause would largely benefit Ukraine by giving its forces time to regroup and replenish their stockpiles.

Read more …

“Washington’s failure to contain the Yemeni threat in the Red Sea, Bab al-Mandab Strait, and the Gulf of Aden stands as a stark indictment of its military planning..”

• US Ceasefire In Yemen: Retreat Masquerading As Restraint (Iskandar)

In a major recalibration of its year-long Red Sea military campaign, the US has agreed to a ceasefire with Yemen’s Ansarallah-aligned armed forces, brokered by Oman. After months of escalating attacks under the guise of “protecting international shipping,” Washington now finds itself calling time on a conflict it launched – but failed to control. While Yemen’s leaders stress that operations in support of Gaza will persist, the US pivot signals more than de-escalation: It is a tacit admission that its campaign has collapsed under pressure, unable to achieve even its most basic strategic goals. With over a thousand airstrikes launched since March 2024, Washington’s failure to contain the Yemeni threat in the Red Sea, Bab al-Mandab Strait, and the Gulf of Aden stands as a stark indictment of its military planning. The war devolved into a costly, high-stakes exercise in attrition – one Yemen emerged from stronger, not weaker.

From its inception, the US-led campaign ‘Prosperity Guardian’ lacked clarity. The mission to “protect shipping lanes” quickly became an open-ended confrontation with no political roadmap. American officials misread both the battlefield and Yemen’s resilience. Despite the might of its airpower, Washington failed to dent Sanaa’s capacity or will to fight. Instead, the bombardment accelerated Yemen’s military innovation, forcing Washington into a deterrence game it could not win. Yemen’s unconventional warfare style, grounded in its topography and culture, posed immense challenges. Leaders operated from mountainous terrain fortified by tunnel systems, well beyond the reach of satellite surveillance. The US had little intelligence penetration into Yemen’s military hierarchy and no functioning target bank. Sanaa’s leadership, experienced from years of prior war against the Saudi and UAE-led coalition and its proxies, held the advantage.

Speaking to The Cradle, Colonel Rashad al-Wutayri lists five key reasons for the campaign’s failure. First, Yemen’s use of low-cost, high-impact weapons – ballistic missiles and drones – pierced even US carrier strike groups. Second, the campaign failed to protect Israeli or allied shipping. Third, Ansarallah exposed Israeli-American spy networks and clung to its demands: Namely, an end to the war on Gaza. Fourth, apart from Bahrain, Washington’s Arab allies declined to join the US-led coalition. Fifth, the financial cost spiraled, with the US spending millions on interceptors to counter drones built for mere thousands. Washington’s diplomatic push to build a regional anti-Yemen coalition fell flat. Persian Gulf states, still stung from their own failures in Yemen, wisely kept their distance. Saudi Arabia refused to be drawn back into a war it has been trying to exit since 2022. The UAE, meanwhile, limited its support to logistics. Egypt stayed silent, unwilling to be sucked into another regional escalation.

This reticence was not without reason. Ansarallah leader Abdul Malik al-Houthi issued direct warnings to neighboring countries: Any cooperation with the US – via bases or troops – would bring immediate retaliation. The threat worked. When Washington explored the idea of a ground assault using US special forces and Persian Gulf-backed militias, the plan quickly collapsed. Yemen’s terrain, its entrenched resistance, and the bitter legacy of previous Saudi-Emirati attempts made such a venture untenable. Political analyst Abdulaziz Abu Talib tells The Cradle that Riyadh and Abu Dhabi have internalized the cost of further escalation. While both continue to bankroll proxy militias, they are steering clear of overt military entanglement. Yemen’s ability to withstand this trilateral aggression – and to land blows on US and Israeli interests – further eroded faith in Washington’s protective umbrella.

Bombs, billions, and blunders Between March 2024 and April 2025, the US launched over 1,000 airstrikes on Yemen. Yet, rather than break its adversary, the campaign emboldened it. In retaliation, Yemen escalated steadily – from targeting Israeli vessels in November 2023, to US and UK ships by January, the Indian Ocean by March, and the Mediterranean by May. By July, Ansarallah struck Tel Aviv with hypersonic missiles. A direct hit on Ben Gurion Airport followed, redrawing the region’s military balance. The costs piled up. In the first three weeks alone, the US burned through $1 billion. Weapons like Tomahawk and JASSM missiles – costing millions apiece – were deployed against drones worth a few thousand dollars. Yemen’s own achievements mounted: 17 MQ-9 Reaper drones shot down, two $60 million F-18 fighters lost in just over a week, and a declared aerial blockade of Israel. Wutayri highlights that Yemen developed its arsenal domestically, without foreign technical assistance. That included the hypersonic missiles that bypassed Israeli and US air defenses, and drones capable of striking both military and commercial ships. Even as Washington intensified its bombardment, Yemen’s operational tempo and range only grew.

Back in Washington, the cracks were showing. The Pentagon quietly expanded military commanders’ autonomy to strike targets without White House clearance – an effort to shield the administration from political fallout. But the costs, both financial and reputational, were impossible to ignore. US media outlets began questioning the purpose and direction of the campaign. Public patience waned. There were calls for countries benefiting from Red Sea trade – namely Persian Gulf monarchies – to shoulder the burden of maritime security. Wutayri says the US suffered further humiliation: a destroyer and three supply ships were sunk, and both the USS Abraham Lincoln and Harry S. Truman aircraft carriers were targeted.

Despite spending another $500 million on interceptors, the results were negligible. The image of US warplanes crashing into the sea, and of exhausted troops – some 7,000 deployed – unable to break Yemen’s resolve, dented American prestige. More than just a response to Red Sea attacks, the campaign was part of Washington’s broader effort to counter China’s regional influence, particularly Yemen’s emerging Belt and Road links. But the military track backfired, hardening local resistance and undermining US credibility. Abu Talib notes that even stealth aircraft and strategic bombers failed to achieve deterrence. The Trump administration faced two options: retreat under the weight of defeat, or engage in talks under Ansarallah’s terms – chief among them an end to the Gaza war.

Read more …

“If that pattern continues for the next four years, and Trump appoints the average number of judges (as measured by the past several presidencies), he will have appointed more than 400 judges during his two terms, more than any president in history.”

• The Judicial Appointment Train Is Leaving the Station (Jipping)

President Donald Trump has announced his intention to nominate Whitney Hermandorfer to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. She will be Trump’s first judicial nomination of his second term and will replace Judge Jane Branstetter Stranch, appointed in September 2010 by President Barack Obama. Congress can use its legislative authority under Article I of the Constitution to create “Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court.” These include the U.S. Tax Court, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, and U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Judges on these courts serve for specific terms. In Article III, the Constitution itself created the Supreme Court and gave Congress authority to establish “inferior Courts.” These are the U.S. District Court, U.S. Court of Appeals, and U.S. Court of International Trade.

Together, these Article III courts exercise the “judicial Power of the United States.” Article III judges serve during “good Behaviour,” or until they are removed by impeachment. The Heritage Foundation’s Judicial Appointment Tracker follows the appointment process for Article III judges under Trump and under the previous seven presidents. The judicial appointment situation is different from when Trump first took office, in 2017. Republicans had controlled the Senate during Obama’s last two years in office and confirmed 22 judges in two years, less than one-fourth the average. Those 22 judges constituted just 2.6% of the judiciary, the lowest percentage appointed in a two-year Congress since 1789. As a result, 106 positions on federal district and appeals courts were vacant when Trump took office and began making nominations in March 2017.

The opposite scenario exists today. Democrats controlled the Senate during President Joe Biden’s last two years and confirmed 139 judges, the third-highest total in American history. As a result, just 5.3% of the judiciary is currently vacant, the lowest percentage during a new presidency in more than 40 years. Since 1980, an average of 45 judicial positions become vacant each year, three-fourths of which resulted from the incumbents’ taking “senior status,” remaining a federal judge with a reduced caseload but vacating his or her seat for a new appointment. If that pattern continues for the next four years, and Trump appoints the average number of judges (as measured by the past several presidencies), he will have appointed more than 400 judges during his two terms, more than any president in history.

If Hermandorfer’s nomination is any indication, Trump will take the same approach, and use the same priorities and criteria, to judicial appointments as he did in his first term. She received her law degree from George Washington University Law School, where she was editor in chief of the law review, and has clerked for judges at all three levels of the federal judiciary: Richard Leon on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; Brett Kavanaugh on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court; and Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett. During her stint in private practice at Williams & Connelly, the Legal 500 named her a “rising star” in the appellate category. She is now the director of the Strategic Litigation Unit in the Office of the Tennessee Attorney General.

As expected, liberal groups immediately attacked Hermandorfer’s nomination as “appalling” and as a signal of a “dangerous direction for the judiciary.” As they no doubt will regarding each of Trump’s judicial nominations, they claim that the president “seeks to stack the judiciary with those who will do his bidding.” These are the same groups that urged incoming President Biden to appoint judges who would further his political agenda and supported “packing” the Supreme Court with justices who would do the same. Expect more of this mantra, with the name of the current nominee cut and pasted, in the months ahead.

Read more …

They now changed the headline to “Bernie Sanders Is a Fraud”.

• Dems Aren’t ‘Fighting Oligarchy’, They Are the Oligarchy (Stepman)

Some people are more equal than others it seems according to the Senate’s most prominent avowed socialist. Sorry for using an overused “Animal Farm” reference, but in this case it was too on point to pass up. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., has been widely and rightly mocked for his hilariously hypocritical response to Fox News’ Bret Baier on Wednesday night. Baier asked Sanders why he chartered private jets to travel the country on his “Fighting Oligarchy” tour with fellow socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, D-NY. According to The Washington Free Beacon, Sanders spent $221,000 on chartered private jets in the first quarter of 2025. Sanders refused to apologize for the lavish—and not incidentally, carbon-spewing—travel, snapping back at Baier, “You think I’m gonna be sitting on a waiting line at United … while 30,000 people are waiting?”

Sanders pointed out that President Donald Trump flies in private jets, but since when did Trump call himself a democratic socialist? This revealing moment shouldn’t be a surprise. Sanders has moved his targets in the past to conform to his own personal circumstances. He used to rail against the “millionaires and the billionaires,” but it’s mostly just billionaires these days now that he’s a millionaire himself. Being a socialist politician who has never held a real job sure pays off, right? Yes, the “Fighting Oligarchy” rallies are drawing good-sized crowds. But besides the rank hypocrisy, there is something more deeply fraudulent about Sanders’ tour with AOC. It’s all a sham. I don’t doubt Sanders is a true-believing socialist. He spent his honeymoon in the Soviet Union after all. What’s a sham is the idea that Democrats are suddenly going to go all in for economic leveling or become the party of the “working man.”

That version of the Democratic Party fully died in the age of Obama. The New Deal coalition is dead. What Democrats represent now are elite institutions, Ivy League schools, law firms, government bureaucracies, and powerful NGOs. What animates their party is cultural issues, LGBTQ, DEI, open borders, and the intolerant cult of “tolerance.” That and resistance to all things Trump. It couldn’t be clearer to me that this was the direction of the Left when I attended a socialism conference back in 2019. Yes, they went through the rote message of economic leveling that they’ve always been at least nominally for. But all the fire and passion was for transgenderism and the breakdown of “oppressive” family structures. Sanders may try to portray himself as an outsider, an independent, but he’s always ultimately been a party man. Years ago, believe it or not, he said that open borders was a right-wing idea.

That version of Bernie Sanders is long gone. Now, he toes the line. Whatever sideshow Sanders puts on to rally the masses, it has nothing to do with the direction of the Democratic Party or the broader Left. Despite the fact that Democrats have hit their lowest poll numbers since polling on party popularity began, they’ve shown few signs of willingness to change on substance at all. Some cleverer Democrat politicians have rhetorically tacked Right or to the center. Others have tried to recapture their disintegrating working-class base with socialist rhetoric. But it’s all a mirage. The party is just as woke as ever. They are simply adjusting to a world in which their immense institutional advantage is crumbling, and they actually have to make their case to an American people who’ve become fatigued by the post 2020 insanity.

Read more …

And so a meme was born. “..perhaps it really was just a ‘handkerchief’ and a ‘toothpick.’

• French Media Quash Claims Macron, Merz & Starmer Hid Cocaine On Train (ZH)

French media are on the defensive after journalists unexpectedly entered a train carriage carrying French President Emmanuel Macron, along with the German and British Prime Ministers, en route to Kyiv on Friday, which sparked a firestorm on social media with allegations of cocaine use by the top leaders. “They [social media users] cite videos that allegedly show Emmanuel Macron discreetly hiding a strange white bag on the table,” the French daily newspaper Libération said, adding, “And according to these accounts, Friedrich Merz even had a straw to use to take drugs. These conspiracy accusations fit with the narrative that Western elites are depraved and approach war unconsciously.” When reporters entered the room, Macron was meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer on a train ride from Poland to Ukraine.

Libération rushed to the defense of Macron and the Western leaders: “Several internet users, sharing posts favorable to Vladimir Putin, have claimed that the three men had used cocaine together. “Coke will decide World War III,” one of them feigned concern.” Libération even suggested: “High-quality photographs and videos, such as those taken by the AFP or AP news agencies , show that the mysterious bag of white powder is actually a handkerchief rolled into a ball that was placed on the table before Keir Starmer arrived and the cameras entered the booth, where Macron and Merz were already seated. The straw looks more like a stirrer or a toothpick, which the German chancellor is said to have been fiddling with. This explains why the two leaders do not want these objects immortalized in the images of the meeting.”

Maybe Libération’s defense of Macron and the other Western leaders is accurate — perhaps it really was just a ‘handkerchief’ and a ‘toothpick.’ But the real red flag is the leaders’ abrupt and suspicious behavior as they scrambled to cover up whatever was on the table when journalists unexpectedly entered the train carriage. Cocaine allegations come as no surprise, considering the leaders were inbound to visit this guy… [..] Coaine or no cocaine. The optics here are not good.

Read more …

The Goal Is Not Justice – It’s Delay.

• Trump’s ‘Nuclear’ Deportation Options (Jim Rickards)

The battle between the Trump administration and the federal courts on the topic of deportation is intensifying. The outlines are clear. Biden and his corrupt cronies left the U.S. southern border wide open for four years. Estimates vary but it’s likely 8 million illegal aliens crossed the border. But the actual number could be 10 million or higher. Of course, some just came for a better opportunity, but many were murderers, terrorists, rapists, sex traffickers, Chinese spies and every sort of violent low life you can imagine.It’s nearly impossible to find and deport 8 million people. Biden made sure of that by ignoring the procedures for tracking and documenting the alien invasion. Trump’s policy of “remain in Mexico” while immigration cases were pending was abandoned by Biden. Many of the illegals got court dates, but those were scheduled years in advance. The expectation was that the court notices would be thrown in the trash, the illegals would not show up in court, and no enforcement action would be conducted.

Trump has launched a major deportation effort despite these handicaps. In any situation where you can accomplish part of the task but not all, the first move is to prioritize elements so you can devote resources to the best effect. Trump has done that also. He has prioritized the worst of the worst – criminals and terrorists – for early deportation. That reduces crime and violence in the U.S. and gives Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) a chance to hone their techniques for the larger task ahead. Now, Trump has encountered a new obstacle. It’s not the illegals, the Democrats or the media. It’s the federal court system, especially rogue district court judges appointed by Biden and Obama. To be clear, the rogue judges don’t work in a vacuum. The plaintiffs are hand selected to create sympathy in the media (although there’s little sympathetic about a rapist) and are represented in court by lawyers backed by well-funded NGOs and activist organizations.

It’s not as if the illegals have the resources to appeal cases to the Supreme Court on their own. They don’t need them. From Soros on down, the fight against deportation is well-funded and skillfully lawyered. The lawyers present everything the judges need to tear down Trump’s agenda. There are hundreds of cases involving thousands and potentially millions of illegal aliens now pending in the courts. Trump has been losing most of these cases at the district court level, but it’s reasonable to expect some success at the circuit court and Supreme Court levels. But that takes time. Rather than review the docket case-by-case and issue-by-issue, it may be useful to step back and look at the forest instead of the individual trees. The radical neo-Marxist lawyers don’t care about the individual defendants. They don’t care about blocking individual deportations. They don’t even care about the law. What’s going on is far more pernicious and damaging to Trump and the country.

There’s a lot of talk about the Constitution, but a pure illegal does not have full constitutional rights. The courts have afforded them some limited rights such as freedom from torture and freedom of religion. The difficulty with the pending Trump deportation cases is that radical lawyers are concocting status arguments that allow the illegals to upgrade their status. This legal upgrade can be based on asylum claims, pending immigration court dates, and some blanket grants for temporary residence. Some illegals are married to legals, etc. Once you’re in one or more of those categories as a plaintiff, you receive more rights including due process and habeas corpus, even if not full constitutional rights. Alexjandro Mayorkas knew what he was doing when he opened the border under Biden. He wanted the illegals to have a one-way ticket and made it extremely difficult to deport any.

Here’s the point. What the left is trying to do is to create a set of rulings that will force Trump to litigate every single case. No mass deportations. No deals with foreign countries to take plane loads of illegals for incarceration in local prisons. Instead, each case will be heard individually. Each claim will be raised in a separate proceeding. Each due process argument will be heard in a separate trial. This approach will do more than delay deportations. It will jam the court dockets. It will overwhelm the judicial branch. It will prevent the smooth functioning of a range of government functions. Now imagine this technique expanded beyond deportation. You can apply this court-jamming massive litigation approach to the closing of government agencies, the termination of government employees, the cuts in government spending and the entire Trump agenda. Don’t just litigate. Grind the entire system to a halt. That’s the plan.

Do individual legal victories in certain cases help Trump? Not necessarily. The activist lawyers and their armies of illegals just file a new lawsuit in a different jurisdiction with slightly varied facts and start the process all over again. Is there any end to it? One is for the Supreme Court to issue a definitive ruling that district courts cannot issue nationwide injunctions, can only issue orders for the plaintiffs in the case and not the entire class of illegals, and that the courts have almost no jurisdiction over the conduct of foreign policy. Those rulings would empower Trump’s deportation programs. The second way is for Trump to ignore the courts and proceed as planned. Critics will scream this is “unconstitutional”, but it’s just as unconstitutional for courts to ignore their limitations and intrude on the power of the executive branch. It’s an outcome the courts will have brought upon themselves.

The third way is to abolish the district courts, or at least some of them. That’s not as radical as it sounds. The Constitution clearly gives Congress the power to structure the court system any way it likes with the exception of the Supreme Court. Congress created the district courts and Congress can abolish them as well. If one of those three paths is not taken, then the left wins. In that case, the country loses. We already have four Supreme Court votes to support Trump’s program (Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh). It only takes one more vote to win. Roberts and Barrett are the two swing votes. Let’s hope they lean the right way when the crucial case arrives.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/NicHulscher/status/1921562436353618315

Kirsch

https://twitter.com/theepicmap/status/1921627284886245513

TSLA https://twitter.com/ICannot_Enough/status/1921618218780708964

Tiger

Guitar

Family https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1921666652086694330

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

May 092025
 


Samuel Peploe Paris-plage 1907

 

Berlin Bans Soviet Flags On 80th Anniversary Of Nazi Defeat (RT)
Vance Outlines Changed US Strategy On Ukraine (RT)
Trump Calls For ‘Unconditional Ceasefire’ In Ukraine (RT)
Ukraine Ready For Immediate Ceasefire – Zelensky (RT)
Ukraine’s Debt Doubles In Three Years – Finance Minister (RT)
Russia and China Will Never Forget WWII Victims – Putin (RT)
Russia-China Ties Most Important Stabilizing Factor – Putin (Sp.)
The West Is Dismantling The Foundations of 1945 (Lukyanov)
Von der Leyen Has No Business Telling Vucic And Fico Where They Can Go (Borges)
Kennedy Defends Casey Means’ Nomination For Surgeon General Amid Backlash (JTN)
Some of Hegseth’s Passwords Exposed in Cyberattacks, Shown on Internet (Sp.)
Western Canada Puts the Rest of Canada on Notice (David Solway)
Trump’s Ultimate Troll Move Would Send DC Leftists Into Meltdown (Margolis)
How Pollsters Rig the Numbers Against Trump (Victor Davis Hanson)
Trump Urges GOP To Raise Taxes On The Wealthy To Fund Economic Agenda (ZH)
Trump’s Unprecedented Trade Deal With Britain (Victoria Taft)

 

 

Leo

https://twitter.com/RussiaIsntEnemy/status/1920170584094486686

https://twitter.com/simpatico771/status/1920377564096254257

Casey Means

Patel

Alex

 

 

 

 

Deadly symbolic.

“..degrading to human dignity..” indeed.

• Berlin Bans Soviet Flags On 80th Anniversary Of Nazi Defeat (RT)

A Berlin court has upheld a ban on displaying Soviet flags and symbols at World War II memorials during the city’s events marking the defeat of Nazi Germany, citing concerns over public peace and the Ukraine conflict. Moscow, has decried the “degrading” and “discriminatory” prohibition. Earlier this week, Berlin police issued a ban on the demonstration of numerous Soviet-linked symbols during the May 8-9 events in the capital, including singing Soviet songs in public. An unidentified local association filed an appeal against the ban, arguing that it unfairly restricted freedom of assembly for their planned commemoration at a Soviet Memorial in Treptow. Berlin’s Administrative Court ruled on Wednesday that the police prohibition, which applies to Soviet flags, the Victory Banner, St. George’s ribbons, historical military uniforms, and even wartime songs, stands.

The symbols, according to the court, could be “interpreted as an expression of sympathy for the [Russian] war effort” against Ukraine and “endanger public peace”. The Russian embassy in Berlin strongly criticized the ban, saying it violated the rights of descendants of Soviet soldiers and concerned residents to honor the 80th anniversary of the defeat of Nazism. Up to 27 million Soviet citizens died in their efforts to defeat Nazism. “We deem the ban unjustified, discriminatory, and degrading to human dignity and view it as clear manifestations of historical revisionism and political opportunism,” the embassy statement read.

”We are convinced that on these significant days, everyone… should have the opportunity, regardless of the current political context, to honor the memory and pay tribute to the fallen Red Army soldiers and victims of Nazism in accordance with established long-standing traditions. Any attempts to prevent this deserve condemnation. We urgently demand that the relevant decision be repealed,” it stressed. In 2023, Berlin police prohibited both Russian and Soviet flags during Victory Day commemorations, and in 2024 authorities outlawed Russian and Soviet symbols, including the red Victory Banner and the letters “Z” and “V,” associated with the Russian campaign against Ukraine. In both cases, some people defied the ban by wearing Soviet military attire and displaying the prohibited flags.

Read more …

I’m still not sure that Vance did his homework. He says here: “We’ve tried to move beyond the obsession with the 30-day ceasefire..” But whose obsession is that? We know it’s not Russia’s, it took them all of 5 seconds to say Njet. So it’s probably just US and Ukraine. But since Russia must be part of any deal here, that is useless to think about, let alone obsess.

Russia doesn’t want that 30-day ceasefire because all sorts of things must be agreed first. ‘Demilitarization’ is a big one. But while Vance obsesses over the 30 days, Trump signs a minerals deal that promises Ukraine more weaponry.

“Certainly, the first peace offer that the Russians put on the table, our reaction to it was you’re asking for too much..” We don’t know the exact offer, but we do know that when Russia says ”no preconditions”, they mean the status of Crimea is not a (pre)condition, it is a fact. Sort of like ‘Demilitarization’. And Putin doesn’t care what Zelensky or Trump or Vance think. Some things are open to negotiation, others are not.

• Vance Outlines Changed US Strategy On Ukraine (RT)

Washington wants to move away from the “obsession” with a 30-day ceasefire proposed by Ukraine, US Vice President J.D. Vance has said. The US is more interested in shaping a durable peace agreement with Moscow, he told a Munich Leaders Meeting on Wednesday. Ukraine had floated a one-month ceasefire as a counter to Russia’s 72-hour truce proposal to mark the 80th anniversary of the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany. However, Moscow has rejected Kiev’s plan, arguing that Ukrainian troops, which have been on the backfoot for months, would use it to regroup and strengthen their military posture. Vance stressed that the US remains interested in a “long-term settlement” of the conflict rather than a short-term one.

“We’ve tried to move beyond the obsession with the 30-day ceasefire and more on the what would the long-term settlement look like? And we’ve tried to consistently advance the ball,” the vice president said. Vance also noted that the US has deemed Moscow’s initial negotiation proposals as excessive. “Certainly, the first peace offer that the Russians put on the table, our reaction to it was you’re asking for too much,” he said. “But this is how negotiations unfold.” Vance added that US President Donald Trump is prepared to abandon negotiations if there is no progress, urging Moscow and Kiev to engage in diplomacy. “We would like both the Russians and the Ukrainians to actually agree on some basic guidelines for sitting down and talking to one another.” Russia has repeatedly said it is open to talks with Kiev but noted that Ukraine has low credibility, especially when it comes to honoring ceasefire commitments.

Moscow’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has accused Ukraine of sabotaging earlier efforts on this front, including a US-brokered 30-day moratorium on strikes on energy infrastructure and a Moscow-backed Easter truce. In light of this, she noted that Russia would view Ukraine’s conduct during the 72-hour Victory Day ceasefire, which went into effect on Thursday, as a test of good faith. Moscow earlier described the initiative as a humanitarian gesture and a move to pave the way for direct peace talks with Ukraine without preconditions. Meanwhile, Trump appeared to support the three-day ceasefire, noting that it “doesn’t sound like much, but it’s a lot, if you know where we started from.”

Read more …

As long as he doesn’t confuse facts with conditions, no problem.

• Trump Calls For ‘Unconditional Ceasefire’ In Ukraine (RT)

US President Donald Trump expressed hope that Moscow and Kiev would soon agree on a month-long truce following his Thursday call with Vladimir Zelensky, amid a 72-hour Victory Day ceasefire that was unilaterally declared by Russia Starting at midnight on Thursday, Russian forces ceased hostilities and remained at previously occupied positions, only providing a “tit-for-tat reaction” to violations by Ukraine, according to the Defense Ministry in Moscow. Ukrainian troops reportedly carried out at least 488 attacks and attempted two incursions into Russia’s Kursk Region, according to the ministry. Zelensky, who had previously dismissed the Russian peace initiative as “manipulation” while Kiev intensified drone strikes on Russian territory, held a phone call with Trump later in the day.

After the call, he claimed that “Ukraine is ready for a complete ceasefire today, right from this moment,” but insisted that the truce should last for at least 30 days. “Talks with Russia/Ukraine continue,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social after the call. The US calls for, ideally, a 30-day unconditional ceasefire. Hopefully, an acceptable ceasefire will be observed, and both countries will be held accountable for respecting the sanctity of these direct negotiations. Trump warned that if a ceasefire is reached but “is not respected, the US and its partners will impose further sanctions.” Moscow has repeatedly stated its readiness to begin negotiations with Ukraine without any preconditions. In March, it agreed to a US-brokered 30-day partial ceasefire focused on halting strikes on energy infrastructure. However, according to the Russian military, Kiev violated the truce on numerous occasions.

When announcing the ceasefire last week, President Vladimir Putin described it as a humanitarian gesture to mark the 80th anniversary of the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany – and one that could also serve as a catalyst for “the start of direct negotiations with Kiev without preconditions.” While calling for a longer “unconditional ceasefire” on Thursday, Trump stressed that the truce “must ultimately build toward a Peace Agreement,” reiterating his commitment to secure a “lasting” peace between Russia and Ukraine. “It can all be done very quickly, and I will be available on a moment’s notice if my services are needed,” he added.

Read more …

Just not on Russia’s conditions. Who won that war again?

• Ukraine Ready For Immediate Ceasefire – Zelensky (RT)

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky has announced that Kiev is ready for a “complete ceasefire” without any preconditions. A truce could be implemented “from this very minute,” he stated in a message published on his official Telegram channel following talks with US President Donald Trump on Thursday. According to Zelensky, the discussions focused on ways to “bring a real and lasting ceasefire closer,” as well as the “situation on the front lines” and ongoing “diplomatic efforts.” He maintained that the truce should last for at least 30 days, claiming it would “create many opportunities for diplomacy.” “Ukraine is ready for a complete ceasefire today, right from this moment,” he said, adding that it should include “no missile strikes, drone attacks, or hundreds of assaults along the frontline.”

He called on Russia to give an “adequate” response to the offer and to “demonstrate their willingness to end the war.” Zelensky also urged Washington to support this initiative. His statement came amid a 72-hour Victory Day ceasefire unilaterally declared by Russia. President Vladimir Putin announced the truce last week, describing it as a humanitarian gesture to mark the 80th anniversary of the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany that could also serve as a catalyst for “the start of direct negotiations with Kiev without preconditions.” Zelensky dismissed the Russian initiative at the time as “a manipulation,” while Kiev intensified drone strikes on Russian territory ahead of the ceasefire’s scheduled start. On Thursday, the Russian Defense Ministry reported that Ukrainian forces had launched nearly 500 attacks since the ceasefire took effect.

The Russian military also repelled two attempted cross-border incursions by Ukrainian troops during the truce, according to data from the ministry. Kiev has repeatedly demanded an immediate 30-day ceasefire over the past few months. Moscow has opposed the initiative, arguing that Ukraine would use the time to regroup its troops and restock weapons inventories. Russia recently said that it is ready for direct talks with Ukraine “without preconditions,” and has advocated for a permanent resolution to the conflict that addresses the root causes. In March, it agreed to a US-brokered 30-day partial ceasefire focused on halting strikes on energy infrastructure. However, according to the Russian military, Kiev violated the truce on numerous occasions.

Read more …

“..we are talking about the fact that in the next 30 years… we will not pay these debts..”

• Ukraine’s Debt Doubles In Three Years – Finance Minister (RT)

Ukraine will be unable to repay its foreign creditors in the next 30 years, with public debt nearing 100% of GDP, Finance Minister Sergey Marchenko said on Thursday. He added, however, that Kiev intends to continue borrowing. Since the escalation of the conflict with Russia in 2022, Ukraine has received billions in military, financial, and humanitarian aid and loans from the US, the EU and other donors. Kiev’s mounting state debt, which is approaching 7.1 trillion hryvnas ($171 billion), has raised concerns about the country’s fiscal stability and its capacity to meet future obligations. According to Marchenko, before 2022, Ukraine’s debt-to-GDP ratio “was quite safe” at 55%, however, the country is now approaching 100%. The minister downplayed the situation, stating that the public debt was “not a problem” as the funds that Kiev received from foreign creditors came on preferential terms.

“That is, we are talking about the fact that in the next 30 years… we will not pay these debts,” Marchenko said. “In any scenario… we need additional sources of funding…we will not be able to hold the situation together on our own, whether there is war… or peace,” he added. The minister went on to suggest that Kiev’s western backers could decide to service Ukraine’s external debts from their own budgets. For the time being, interest generated by Russian central bank assets frozen in the West due to sanctions has been used to service Kiev’s debt. In April, Japan agreed to issue a loan of about $3 billion, to be repaid from Moscow’s money. Also last month, Ukraine received the third tranche of €1 billion from the EU, secured by proceeds from the frozen funds.

Russia has vehemently opposed the move, labeling it “theft” and threatening retaliation. The US, Ukraine’s largest donor, has moved to recoup its financial aid to Ukraine by signing a natural resources deal with Kiev. The agreement grants the US preferential access to Ukrainian mineral resources without providing security guarantees. The deputy head of the Russian Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev, has commented that the US essentially “forced the Kiev regime to pay for American aid,” with “the national wealth of a vanishing country.” Ukraine also faces a potential default on nearly $600 million in payments due in May for GDP-linked securities. Negotiations with hedge funds for restructuring the debt have so far been unsuccessful.

Read more …

“..a “no limits” partnership where there are “no forbidden zones.”

• Russia and China Will Never Forget WWII Victims – Putin (RT)

Moscow and Beijing remain staunch defenders of the historic truth and remember the countless people their countries lost during World War II, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said during talks with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping. Xi is among the more than two dozen world leaders who are expected to attend the events in Moscow commemorating the 80th anniversary of the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany. The Chinese president is also poised to hold negotiations with Russian officials. During a meeting on Thursday, Putin thanked his “dear friend” Xi for the visit and for joining him in celebrating a “sacred holiday for Russia.” “The sacrifices that both our nations made should never be forgotten. The Soviet Union gave 27 million lives, laid them on the altar of the Fatherland and on the altar of Victory.

And 37 million lives were lost in China’s war for its freedom and independence. Under the leadership of the Communist Party, this victory was achieved,” he said. Putin highlighted the significance of the triumph over fascism, adding that Russia and China “defend historical truth and the memory of the war and fight against current manifestations of neo-Nazism and militarism.” The Russian leader also thanked Xi for inviting him to his country’s celebrations of its victory over Imperial Japan in WWII. “I will be glad to come back to friendly China on an official visit,” he said.

In echoing remarks, Xi emphasized shared historical memory and the strategic alignment between Beijing and Moscow. “The Chinese and Russian peoples, at the cost of heavy losses, achieved a great victory” and made an “indelible historic contribution to global peace and the progress of humanity,” he noted.Russia and China have long enjoyed close ties, with the two countries describing their relations as a “no limits” partnership where there are “no forbidden zones.” Beijing has also consistently refused to support Western sanctions against Moscow over the Ukraine conflict.

Read more …

Hard to beat.

• Russia-China Ties Most Important Stabilizing Factor – Putin (Sp.)

Ties between Russia and China are the most important stabilizing factor in the international arena, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday. “In the context of a difficult geopolitical situation and global uncertainty, the Russian-Chinese foreign policy nexus is the most important stabilizing factor in the international arena,” Putin said at the expanded-format talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping in the Kremlin. The cooperation of the two nations will continue to develop for the benefit of the Chinese and Russian peoples, he added. Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the conclusion of agreements on the promotion and mutual protection of investments between Russia and China.

“Today we will sign updated intergovernmental agreements on the promotion and mutual protection of investments, which, I am sure, will have a positive impact on the formation of a more favorable business environment and will give a serious impetus to the development of our economic cooperation,” Putin said. Russia has become the world’s top importer of Chinese cars, the president said, adding that Russia is also ready to expand the range of Russian agricultural products to China. “For our part, we intend to continue to create comfortable conditions for the activities of companies from China in Russia,” the president said. Additionally, Putin said that Russia and China intend to further modernize the transport infrastructure. Putin also proposed to review in detail practical aspects of China-Russia cooperation.

“Mr. Xi Jinping, dear friend, distinguished colleagues, today at the expanded talks with the participation of delegations, we will review in detail the practical aspects of our cooperation in various areas. Traditionally, the chairmen of the five intergovernmental commissions from both sides will report on the work of the five intergovernmental commissions, and our foreign ministers will discuss cooperation in the global arena,” Putin said at the beginning of the expanded talks. The Russian leader also said that he and Xi Jinping held an in-depth, meaningful exchange of views and outlined plans for future work during the narrow-format talks earlier in the day. “The governments of our countries are working effectively. Systematic measures are being taken that will increase the level of financial and technical independence of our cooperation,” Putin added.

Read more …

“This isn’t about nostalgia – it’s about remembering what was at stake and why that memory mattered. Without a renewed commitment to these principles, no amount of military hardware or technical measures will ensure lasting global stability.”

• The West Is Dismantling The Foundations of 1945 (Lukyanov)

Eighty years is a long time. Over such a span, the world changes almost beyond recognition, and events that once felt close fade into legend. Yet while history may become distant, its imprint remains. The Second World War created a political order that shaped global affairs for decades – an order many assumed was permanent. But today, the world is shifting rapidly and irreversibly. The events of the first half of the 20th century are no less significant, but their role in contemporary politics is no longer the same. The war’s outcome, culminating in the defeat of Nazism, defined the modern world order. In many ways, it was seen as a near-perfect struggle: a battle against an unquestionably aggressive and criminal regime that forced nations with deep-seated ideological differences to set aside their disputes.

The Allied powers – divided by political systems and long-standing mistrust – found themselves united by necessity. None of them entered this alliance out of pure goodwill; pre-war diplomacy was focused on self-preservation and maneuvering to deflect the worst consequences elsewhere. Yet when the existential threat became clear, those ideological rifts were temporarily bridged. It was precisely because of this that the post-war order proved so resilient. This framework weathered the storms of the Cold War and even lingered into the early 21st century, despite major shifts in the global balance of power. What helped hold it together was a shared moral and ideological narrative: the war was seen as a fight against absolute evil, a rare moment when the divisions between the Allies seemed secondary to their common cause. This consensus – centered around the defeat of Nazism and symbolized by milestones like the Nuremberg Trials – gave moral legitimacy to the post-war order.

But in the 21st century, that shared narrative has started to fray. As it weakens, so too does the stability of the world order it helped create. One key reason lies in Europe’s own internal transformations. In the post-Cold War era, Eastern European countries – long vocal about their dual suffering under both Nazi and Soviet regimes – have pushed a revisionist interpretation of the war. These nations increasingly define themselves as victims of “two totalitarianisms,” seeking to place the Soviet Union alongside Nazi Germany as a perpetrator of wartime crimes. This framing undermines the established consensus, which had placed the Holocaust at the moral center of the conflict and recognized European nations’ own complicity in allowing it to happen.

The growing influence of Eastern European perspectives has had a ripple effect. It has allowed Western Europe to quietly dilute its own wartime guilt, redistributing blame and reshaping collective memory. The result? An erosion of the political and moral foundations established in 1945. Ironically, this revisionism – while often framed as a push for greater historical “balance” – weakens the very liberal world order that Western powers claim to uphold. After all, institutions like the United Nations, a pillar of that order, were built on the moral and legal framework forged by the Allies’ victory. The Soviet Union’s enormous wartime contribution, and its political weight, were integral to this architecture. As the consensus around these truths crumbles, so too do the norms and structures that arose from them.

A second, subtler factor has also contributed to the unraveling. Over eight decades, the global political map has been redrawn. The end of colonialism brought dozens of new states into existence, and today’s United Nations has nearly double the membership it did at its founding. While the Second World War undeniably affected nearly every corner of humanity, many of the soldiers from the so-called Global South fought under the banners of their colonial rulers. For them, the war’s meaning was often less about defeating fascism and more about the contradictions of fighting for freedom abroad while being denied it at home.

This perspective reshapes historical memory. For example, movements seeking independence from Britain or France sometimes viewed the Axis powers not as allies, but as leverage points – symbols of the cracks in the colonial system. Thus, while the war remains significant globally, its interpretation varies. In Asia, Africa, and parts of Latin America, the milestones of the 20th century look different from those commonly accepted in the Northern Hemisphere. Unlike Europe, these regions aren’t pushing outright historical revisionism, but their priorities and narratives diverge from the Euro-Atlantic view. None of this erases the war’s importance. The Second World War remains a foundational event in international politics.

The decades of relative peace that followed were built on a clear understanding: such devastation must never be repeated. A combination of legal norms, diplomatic frameworks, and nuclear deterrence worked to uphold that principle. The Cold War, while dangerous, was defined by its avoidance of direct superpower conflict. Its success in averting World War III was no small achievement. But today, that post-war toolkit is in crisis. The institutions and agreements that once guaranteed stability are fraying. To prevent a complete breakdown, we must look back to the ideological and moral consensus that once united the world’s major powers. This isn’t about nostalgia – it’s about remembering what was at stake and why that memory mattered. Without a renewed commitment to these principles, no amount of military hardware or technical measures will ensure lasting global stability.

Read more …

“..that day when Nigel Farage, in the European Parliament, looked then Commission President Herman van Rompuy in the eye and asked him: “Who the hell do you think you are?”

• Von der Leyen Has No Business Telling Vucic And Fico Where They Can Go (Borges)

Come May 9th, Serbian president Aleksandar Vucic and Slovak prime minister Robert Fico will stride into Moscow’s Red Square for the Victory Day parade, marking 80 years since the defeat of Hitler’s Germany and of the final destruction of the odious creed of Nazism. Their decision, a bold assertion of sovereign prerogative, has drawn the EU’s wrath. Threats of sanctions, diplomatic ostracism, and new obstacles for Serbia’s future membership of the Union have predictably followed; as always, the EU mandarinate has no qualms about showing just how hostile to national democracy it is. The episode really brings to mind that day when Nigel Farage, in the European Parliament, looked then Commission President Herman van Rompuy in the eye and asked him: “Who the hell do you think you are?”

The EU’s reaction to Vucic and Fico’s sovereign decision is a study in arrogance. Kaja Kallas, the bloc’s foreign policy czar, warned that attending Moscow’s parade would carry “consequences”, threatening to stall Serbia’s EU membership and scolding Slovakia, a member state, for daring to chart its own course. Estonian diplomat Jonatan Vseviov called the event a “test of alignment,” as if sovereign nations must genuflect to Brussels’ edicts or face punishment. This is not partnership; it is diktat. The EU, which in 2022 urged members to boycott Russian-hosted events, now brandishes that stance as a whip. Fico, defiant, declared that “No one dictates my travel,” while Vucic stressed that he would “proudly represent Serbia” in the event. Their resolve is a rebuke to a bloc that persistently—and intolerably—mistakes coercion for unity.

Brussels’ threats only bolster the argument for Vucic and Fico’s presence. You don’t need to be a Russophile to remember that, whatever their faults and despite the crimes of the post-1945 division of Europe, the Russians were ultimately on the good side of World War Two. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact notwithstanding, they did storm the Berlin Reichstag. It is morally repugnant that, 80 years after the liberation of Auschwitz and so many other death camps, Brussels is trying to prevent European leaders from paying their fair tribute to the more than 20 million Russians who, alongside millions of British, Commonwealth, and American servicemen, fought and fell in the battle against Nazism. For Serbia and Slovakia, attending is an act of historical gratitude to those who saved both nations from genocidal occupation, not a statement on contemporary geopolitics. The EU’s attempt to paint participation as a betrayal ignores this context, weaponising history to enforce conformity. It is also an act of arrogance wholly out of touch with the spirit of the times, even more absurd at a time when the Russian and American presidents are sharing envoys in an effort to return peace to a much bloodied Ukraine.

The EU’s conduct reveals its true face: that of a prison of nations, stifling the autonomy of members and aspirants alike. Slovakia, despite its EU membership, is lectured to as if foreign policy were Brussels’ domain, not the inalienable right of the Slovak people. Serbia, a candidate for over a decade, faces ultimatums to abandon its independent stance, with accession talks hostage to compliance. This is no union of equals but a bureaucratic empire, demanding ideological lockstep over sovereignty. The bloc’s pressure on Serbia mirrors its treatment of Hungary’s Viktor Orban, whose pragmatic diplomacy has been studiously vilified by the Commission’s propaganda machine. The EU’s “solidarity” is a sham, a one-way demand that silences dissent and belittles smaller states’ histories, preferences, and aspirations. Indeed, after this, why would Serbia want to join at all? Why would anyone?

It is no different for the other European nations still exposed to Brussels’ whims. Consider the consequences if Fico had not stood his ground. What nation worthy of the name could accept the institutionalisation of the principle that it is not their national, elected representatives, but a class of foreign, unelected imperial functionaries, who is to decide on our foreign policy, where our leaders go or don’t, or how to vote at the United Nations Security Council? Could anyone accept an EU in which, say, Meloni is bullied for daring to visit Washington against the desires of Mrs. Kallas? What believer in national sovereignty could accept that Mr. Orbán, for instance, is prevented from flying to Israel—or from inviting the Israeli Prime Minister to Budapest—simply because of the EU mandarinate’s known hostility for that country?

Fico

https://twitter.com/MyLordBebo/status/1920434001728164184

Read more …

Not everyone agrees.

• Kennedy Defends Casey Means’ Nomination For Surgeon General Amid Backlash (JTN)

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Thursday defended Casey Means’ nomination for surgeon general on social media, after the nomination faced serious backlash. President Donald Trump nominated Means for the post after withdrawing Janette Nesheiwat’s nomination over allegations she inflated her credentials by claiming she had a degree from the University of Arkansas School of Medicine, when she actually graduated from a medical school in the Caribbean instead and did her residency in Arkansas. Means has largely been criticized over her reputation as a “wellness influencer” and her lack of experience in public health administration. Means graduated from Stanford medical school, but dropped out of her surgical residency as a head and neck surgeon in her fifth year to practice functional medicine instead.

Kennedy claimed that the backlash over Means’ nomination “reveal[s] just how far off course our healthcare conversations have veered,” and that she was the perfect replacement because she left the traditional medical system, not in spite of it. “Casey has excelled in every endeavor she has undertaken,” Kennedy wrote on X. “She had the courage to leave traditional medicine because she realized her patients weren’t getting better. The attacks that Casey is unqualified because she left the medical system completely miss the point of what we are trying to accomplish with [Make America Healthy Again]. “Her leadership has inspired many doctors to reform the system and forge a new path away from sick care, which fills corporate coffers, and toward health care, which enriches all of us,” he added.

Kennedy also applauded Means’ background as a “stand out” at Stanford, her achievement of creating a business and writing a New York Times best-selling book, which he credits as helping to inspire his Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement. “This ability of Casey’s to inspire Americans to rethink our healthcare system is also an existential threat to the status quo interests, which profit from sickness,” he said. “Every day, I wake up emboldened to drive change because I know the support of MAHA moms has my back. Casey has played an integral role in galvanizing these moms. “Casey will help me ensure American children will be less medicated and better-fed — and significantly healthier — during the next four years. She will be the best Surgeon General in American history,” he concluded. Means will still need to be confirmed by the United States Senate.

Latypova

Read more …

it’s piling up. What’s behind that?

• Some of Hegseth’s Passwords Exposed in Cyberattacks, Shown on Internet (Sp.)

A number of passwords that Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth used to register for various websites have been compromised in cyberattacks and are available online, the New York Times reported. The report said this raises new questions about Hegseth’s use of personal devices to share military information. According to the report, the US secretary of defense probably did not use the exposed passwords for sensitive accounts, but did use at least one password multiple times for personal email accounts. It said at least one of the passwords was a simple combination of letters followed by numbers, possibly representing initials and a date. The same password was exposed in two separate personal email account breaches in 2017 and 2018.

According to cybersecurity experts, as Hegseth’s phone number is easily found online, it could be a potential target for hackers and foreign intelligence agencies. On March 24, Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic editor-in-chief, revealed in an article that he was accidentally added by then-National Security Advisor Mike Waltz to a private chat on the Signal app regarding impending strikes on the Houthis in Yemen. According to Goldberg, the chat included senior officials such as Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance. Goldberg presented screenshots of the correspondence, in which the Pentagon chief, several hours before the start of the operation, reports on the types of aircraft and targets, which, according to the journalist, could threaten servicemen if leaked.

Read more …

“..a vote for the Carney Liberals is a vote for Western secession—a vote for the breakup of Canada as we know it.”

• Western Canada Puts the Rest of Canada on Notice (David Solway)

Though diehard loyalists will disagree, it is now time for Western Canada, in particular Alberta, to get its revolutionary act together. There is no longer any doubt that Canada is a broken, dysfunctional country, a disjointed collection of ten semi-independent provinces and three sparsely populated northern territories, superposed upon a chasm-wide divide between the East-Central “Laurentian” elite of bankers, Crown corporations, government agencies, media Jacobins and powerful political families on one side and the agricultural and energy-producing, partially rural-based, Texan-like, hardworking and self-reliant prairie West on the other. The West was never fully integrated into the Confederation as an equal partner, being consistently exploited by the Upper Canadian Anglo-Presbyterians, Québécois grandees, and their descendants who still rule the upper tier of Canadian politics.

In his 1954 book “Social Credit and Federal Power in Canada,” political scientist James Mallory described the Prairie additions to the nation as “provinces in the Roman sense.” The Prairie provinces were regions dominated by the administrative center in the East to whom they owed fealty and paid tribute. Similarly, in his recent C2C essay on Alberta’s future, University of Calgary professor Barry Cooper explains: “Ottawa acted as a new Rome on the Rideau.” The Western provinces “existed to strengthen and benefit Laurentian Canada by analogy with Roman Italy, and to enrich its leading citizens.” It is appropriate in this connection to recall the policy recommendations of Clifford Sifton, a cabinet member in Wilfrid Laurier’s Liberal government from 1896 to 1905.

As J.W. Dafoe writes in his biography, “CLIFFORD SIFTON in Relation to HIS TIMES,” Sifton was responsible for immigration to the Prairie, what he called the Last Best West, and defended the “stalwart peasants in sheep-skin coats” who were turning some of the most difficult areas of the West into productive farms. Yet he plainly had a change of heart, unless his real intentions were covert. In a speech to Parliament, quoted by the Alberta Prosperity Project, Sifton said: “We desire, and all Canadian Patriots desire, that the great trade of the prairies shall go to enrich our people to the East, to build up our factories and our places of work.” The fact is not in dispute. In the immortal words of the late, Liberal “rainmaker” Keith Davey, “Screw the West. We’ll take the rest,”—which makes neither economic nor practical sense.

In any event, Alberta and the Prairie West, Canada’s food and energy breadbasket, have gotten a raw deal from the central establishment since their inception as part of the Dominion. Tensions are now about to reach a boiling point. No demon that was ever foaled is or was as perilous for Canadian unity as Mark Carney, except perhaps for Pierre Elliott Trudeau, whose 1980 National Energy Program (NEP), as noted, critically depressed Alberta’s economy. Carney is demonstrably bad news for the prairie West, and the spirit of independence is now circulating in Alberta and Saskatchewan. As Preston Manning, one of Canada’s most influential public figures and a force for good, wrote, “Voters, particularly in central and Atlantic Canada, need to recognize that a vote for the Carney Liberals is a vote for Western secession—a vote for the breakup of Canada as we know it.” Unfortunately, it’s rather too late now. The people have misspoken.

Carney’s plans are well known, as touched on above: caps on oil and gas emissions, a phased-in fossil fuel ban, a hidden tax on heavy industry, no more pipelines (Bill C-69), increased investment in failed renewables, a continued Tanker Ban, and more. He makes this clear in his 500-page globalist manual for national destruction, “Values.” A meme making the rounds these days has to do with Justin Trudeau rhetorically asking the country: “Miss me now?” Of course, Trudeau was merely Carney’s stooge, a wavy-haired soyboy the country took to its bosom. His non-telegenic master is now in full control, his aura as a cosmopolitan banker proving irresistible to the average Canadian voter. As things now stand, and as they have stood since the incorporation of Alberta and Saskatchewan into the Confederation in 1905, the federal state will persist in feeding parasitically off the West while paradoxically hampering the very infrastructure that supports it.

Read more …

Let’s bring back Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. He knows a thing or two.

• Trump’s Ultimate Troll Move Would Send DC Leftists Into Meltdown (Margolis)

Last week, I wrote about how Trump’s pick of Mike Waltz for UN ambassador was the ultimate trolling of the left. I even suggested that Trump could up the ante by nominating Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn to replace Waltz. Flynn, a seasoned intel veteran, was one of the earliest and most high-profile victims of the Democrats’ Russia hoax. Whether Trump goes that route remains to be seen, but it would be a power play.And it looks like Flynn is on board. During an interview on “The Benny Show,” with Benny Johnson, Flynn declared he’s prepared to return to the role of national security advisor under President Trump—if called upon. Flynn, who briefly held the post at the start of Trump’s first term before being railroaded by the Deep State, left little doubt about his willingness to serve again.

“I am ready to serve,” Flynn said, referencing a post he made on social media that stirred speculation about his return. “The first question—yes. The second question—no,” he added, confirming that while he hasn’t been contacted yet by Trump directly, his hat is firmly in the ring. “I’ve been watching everything, listening, and observing intensely,” Flynn explained. “We are in a place where we cannot afford to have, as Trump likes to say, unforced errors. We cannot afford to drop a glass ball right now.” Flynn emphasized that despite not being in government anymore, he has never stopped serving the country. “I’m serving now, Benny. I serve in just a different way… I’ve been engaging people in government. I’m still out doing stuff,” he said. “That’s my message to every American: How are you serving this country?”

With his extensive military and intelligence background, Flynn made clear he hasn’t retreated from public life. “I didn’t go off into the sunset and go, ‘Woe is me,’” he said. “I know we have great leaders out there… There are a lot of people who have reached out to me to help get their name put forward for some position in the government, and I’ve done that.” Flynn also didn’t mince words about the fear he believes his return would generate among entrenched bureaucrats and the media. “Yeah, is there a group of people in the Deep State that fear me? You’re dam* right they do. They fear me for a good reason,” he said. “The mainstream media—they would blow a gasket.”

When asked directly if he had any breaking news to share, Flynn reiterated his commitment to rejoin the fight: “I would say to you, Benny, that I am ready. I am ready to come out of that glass, that is for sure.” Flynn noted that while President Trump is already doing “wonderful things,” the ideological battle in America is far from over. “We are still in a massive, massive ideological war going on in this country,” he warned. “There aren’t going to be any friendlies if we get to another election and we lose the majority in the House of Representatives—never mind the next presidential election.”

Flynn https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1920196536555782325

Read more …

“..they were deliberately not counting people who surveyed that they were Trump voters in 2024. That was half the country.”

• How Pollsters Rig the Numbers Against Trump (Victor Davis Hanson)

We’ve touched on polls before, but I don’t think I’ve seen anything quite as egregious in pollsters’ bias as recently when they apparently or supposedly or purportedly surveyed the first 100 days of President Donald Trump and the public reaction. Almost immediately headlines blared, “Worst First 100 Days in History.” “Trump Drops From 52 to 42.”Everybody was confounded because the economic news was pretty good. Job growth was just spectacular. Over 170,000 jobs. Inflation was down. Energy prices were down. Corporate profits were up. There was a movement on the trade question. Ukraine still—there was no bad news except the controversy and chaos of a counterrevolution. So, what were the pollsters trying to tell us? Or were they trying to manipulate us? And I think it’s the latter.

Larry Kudlow, for example, the Fox, former Fox Business—I think he still is at Fox. He pointed out that when he examined The New York Times and The Washington Post polls, they were deliberately not counting people who surveyed that they were Trump voters in 2024. That was half the country. They were only polling about a third. Think of that. A third of the people that said they voted for Trump they polled. Not half. So, of course, their results were going to be disputed or suspect. But here’s another thing. There were analyses after each of the 2016, the 2020, and the 2024 elections about the accuracy of polls, post facto, of the election. And we learned that they were way off in 2016. They said they had learned their lessons. They were way off in 2020. They said they learned their lesson. And they were way off in 2024.

And why are they way off? Because liberal pollsters—and that’s the majority of people who do these surveys—believe that if they create artificial leads for their Democratic candidates, it creates greater fundraising and momentum. Kind of the herd mentality. “Oh, Trump is down by six. I don’t wanna vote for him. Then he won’t win.” That’s the type of thing that they want to create. I’ll give you one example. The most egregious. The most egregious of all these polls was the NPR/PBS/Marist poll. They have Donald Trump just very unpopular after 100 days. Very unpopular. This is the now-defunded Corporation for Public Broadcasting, that umbrella organization from which this poll was funded and conducted.

Do we remember that poll? It was the one poll that came out the night before the 2024 election. They said that then-Vice President Kamala Harris would win by four points. And they said it was beyond the margin of error. And one of the pollsters said, “It’s her race to lose.” She lost by a point and a half. They were five and a half points. Did they apologize? No. Here they are again. And David Plouffe, one of the directors of the Harris campaign, just recently came out and said, “Well, we had all these inside polls we never disclosed. But not one of them—not one of them—had Harris ever ahead of Trump.” Inside polls don’t lie because you pay somebody to tell you the truth. Nothing will get you fired and lose income quicker than to lie about a poll so that your candidate will be happy and rely on your false information. People don’t pay for that kind of stuff.

So, in other words, they knew the whole time—the Harris campaign—that 15 of those 20 polls, 19 polls that all had Harris winning the election, they were all false. Of course, they never said anything. And so, here’s my point. If you look at the polls that were the most accurate—Mark Penn was very accurate. He’s a Democratic pollster. But especially, the Rasmussen poll and the Insider Advantage and the Trafalgar poll. They joined together and they had a 100-day survey. Rasmussen—each day of the 100-day period that he’s issued a poll. And guess what? They have Trump ahead by anywhere from two to three points after 100 days. And they were the most accurate.

And yet, what do these news outlets say that Trump—it’s a disaster. That he’s polling—no. He’s polling very well. Things are going very well. The pollsters that indicate that people support him are the only pollsters that have any reputation after this decade-long polling disaster in which their prejudices, their biases, and their hatred of Donald Trump affected their results. And they were effectively in league with the Democratic candidate to create momentum rather than to adhere to a spirit of professionalism and honor.

Read more …

According to some, Trump and Musk run a government for billionaires.

• Trump Urges GOP To Raise Taxes On The Wealthy To Fund Economic Agenda (ZH)

President Donald Trump is urging Republican lawmakers to raise taxes on some of the wealthiest Americans as part of his sweeping new economic package – a move that US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick says he’s ‘in favor’ of doing. According to individuals familiar with the discussions, Trump is pushing for the creation of a new 39.6 percent tax bracket for individuals earning at least $2.5 million annually or couples making $5 million. The current top rate stands at 37 percent. If enacted, the measure would restore the top marginal rate to its pre-2017 level, effectively rolling back a key piece of President Trump’s own first-term tax cuts. According to Bloomberg, Trump made his case in a phone call Wednesday with House Speaker Mike Johnson, where he also reiterated support for ending the carried interest tax break – a longstanding benefit claimed by private equity and venture capital managers, one source said.

Representative Jason Smith, the Missouri Republican who chairs the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, is expected to meet with President Trump on Friday. A congressional aide said Smith plans to assure the president that the forthcoming tax bill ‘will deliver on the president’s priorities,’ according to the aide. While the proposal’s full contours remain under negotiation, it is not yet clear whether it would include an expansion of the existing small business income exemption under the individual tax code. The push to raise the top rate comes as House Republicans face mounting fiscal pressure in drafting what President Trump has labeled the “one big beautiful bill” — a multi-trillion-dollar package aimed at extending the 2017 tax cuts while enacting a range of new promises, including eliminating taxes on tips and overtime pay.

To finance the plan, GOP leaders have struggled to find consensus on cuts to entitlement programs such as Medicaid, prompting President Trump to float alternatives. Despite concerns that taxing high earners could harm Republicans politically or drive wealth abroad, President Trump has increasingly suggested such a move might be necessary. Raising taxes goes against long-standing Republican orthodoxy. Trump’s willingness to propose a tax hike for millionaires demonstrates how much he has remade the GOP in his own populist image. Top Republicans have balked at other proposals that would raise levies on affluent households. -Bloomberg “Anytime the president asks for something, we will consider it,” said Representative Kevin Hern of Oklahoma, a member of the House tax-writing committee. He confirmed that both the new top rate and carried interest repeal are “under discussion” but emphasized that “there is no agreement yet.”

In the Senate, the reaction has been more measured. Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, told conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt on Thursday that he’s “not excited” about the tax hike but acknowledged that “there are a number of people in both the House and the Senate who are.” “If the president weighs in in favor of it,” Crapo added, “then that’s going to be a big factor that we have to take into consideration.” As Republicans weigh how to advance President Trump’s second-term tax ambitions, the question of who pays — and how much — is shaping up to be a defining test of the president’s enduring sway over the party’s economic direction.

Read more …

US carmakers are complaining about conditions for the “first 100,000 U.K. made cars coming to America”. As for US beef, let RFK tell us what’s in it.

• Trump’s Unprecedented Trade Deal With Britain (Victoria Taft)

The first of the cascade of trade and tariff deals expected under the new Trump administration was announced in the Oval Office on Thursday. The “unprecedented” deal was the first time in decades that American producers will have freer and “streamlined customs” access to the U.K. markets. The announcement allows the sale of U.S. beef into the U.K. for the first time in decades and ensures an increase in the purchase of Boeing commercial jetliners. Flanked by Vice President J.D. Vance and on a conference call with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, President Donald Trump announced an agreement “worth billions of dollars” with the U.K. that reconfigures tariff prices on goods, expands the market for American farmers and ranchers, and added a phalanx of Boeing jetliners to that nation’s commercial fleet. The Trump White House called it “a breakthrough” and “a good deal.”

The “unprecedented” deal not only includes U.S. tariffs but also a reduction in tariffs by the U.K. The deal introduces a reset of the baseline framework for trade, which will create a $5 billion in exports opportunities for American farmers, ranchers, and other producers can sell into the U.K. That includes beef. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said that the beef deal with “exponentially” increase the amount of beef that ranchers sell. The U.K. has effectively cut off U.S. beef supply for nearly 40 years due to added hormones and completely cut off U.S.-produced beef 20 years ago due to BSE or mad cow disease concerns. In another win for farmers, Rollins announced that ethanol tariffs were brought to zero percent from an initial 19% announced. In a statement, the president said, “The U.K. will reduce or eliminate numerous non-tariff barriers that unfairly discriminated against American products.”

Remarkably, the two countries also announced the creation of a “trading zone” between them. The initial deal also raises about $6 billion in revenue from the 10% tariffs imposed by the U.S. on U.K. imported products and creates a supply chain between the two countries for pharmaceuticals and plane parts. Trump initially announced a 25% tariff on many British products, and under this deal he reduced some of those to 10%, including adjustments to tariffs on steel and aluminum. He also reduced tariffs from 25% to 10% on the first 100,000 U.K. made cars coming to America. Some of America’s most beloved luxury cars come from the U.K., including Rolls-Royce, Aston Martin, Rover, McLaren, Bentley, Lotus, MG, and Jaguar. In addition to opening markets for American farmers and ranchers, Trump announced an increase in the number of jetliners that would be purchased by British companies, without naming them.

British airlines already had 18 Boeing planes on order before the announced deal. The new deal alludes to a $10 billion order, but doesn’t specify which U.K. airlines would be taking delivery. Simple Flying reports that “there are only two UK airlines that could be in the running for placing such a big Boeing order.” “In October 2023, frequent flyer site Head For Points wrote that IAG, the parent company of British Airways, Iberia, and others, had been in contact with both Airbus and Boeing about further wide-body purchases to replace its older Boeing 777s,” the publication reported. It should be noted that the U.K. companies previously had a stake in Airbus, which is the rival to Boeing’s commercial business, but divested from the airline in 2006. Airbus is owned by several other European countries. Trump noted that the announcement of the deal on Thursday fell on the 80th anniversary of Victory Day for World War II.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has recently said that Trump has done an extraordinary job of creating leverage where there was none before. “President Trump creates what I would call strategic uncertainty in the negotiations,” he told Fox Business. “Nobody’s better at creating this leverage than President Trump,” he said. There’s no one better “at giving himself maximum leverage.” The United States has had near-zero tariffs with the United Kingdom before Trump came along, and now Britain has opened up its markets to American farmers, ranchers, and airplanes more than ever before. As Trump put it Thursday at the announcement in the Oval Office, “It can’t be understated… how important this deal is and what this means to American farmers and ranchers.”

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Shavo https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1920341642009096680

99

Mama bear

Underground

https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1920159970655391818

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Apr 292025
 


Piet Mondriaan Trees by the Gein at Moonrise 1908

 

Stop the Digital Control Grid – Catherine Austin Fitts (USAW)
David Sacks Warns DOGE Will All Be For Nothing, Unless… (ZH)
Russians ‘Are Not Our Enemy’ – Trump Adviser David Sacks (RT)
Ukraine Won’t Win – J.D. Vance (RT)
Ukraine Eyes Teens And Women As Cannon Fodder (RT)
Forget Land – This Is Russia’s Main Demand From The West (Lukyanov)
Putin Announces 72-hour Victory Day Ceasefire (RT)
Ukraine Issues Ceasefire Demand To Russia (RT)
Ukraine Shows No Sign It Is Ready To Talk – Kremlin (RT)
Canadians Should Expect Disaster With Carney In Charge (ZH)
Federal District Courts Piling on Injunctions to Stop Trump (Turley)
Now You Know (James Howard Kunstler)
America Funded China’s Rise (Morrison)
Liberals Loathe Arrival of ‘MAGA Media’ Inside the White House (DS)
Make America Healthy Again Movement Extends Beyond RFK Jr (ET)
A HUGE Win for the Make America Healthy Again Movement (Margolis)
Robots Will Outperform Human Surgeons In Five Years – Musk (RT)

 

 

 

 

Don’t miss

Homan

Bessent https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1916879751240630535

Zel

19

 

 

 

 

She lost me a few years ago when she was endlessly talking about HUD. But this is good.

Two video’s. She was on Tucker Carlson too.

“Stop with the control grid, and we can do this. . . . If we can face it, God can fix it all.”

• Stop the Digital Control Grid – Catherine Austin Fitts (USAW)

Catherine Austin Fitts (CAF), publisher of “The Solari Report,” is back to update us about the “Fast-Approaching Digital Control Grid.” (CAF) told us last time here on USAW, “There is no bigger ongoing battle for lovers of freedom than the battle taking place over the freedom killing idea of digital ID.” But it’s more that just ID, it’s an entire control grid that is being quietly built that is like a frog being put into pot and the water being brought to a boil. CAF explains, “You know our goal at Solari is each person has a free and inspired life. So, we have been working for several years to stop financial transaction control. If you get the ability to track each person and control their transactions, so if they don’t do what you say, they can turn off your money.

That is game over for the Constitution and for human liberty. If you look at how the control grid is coming together, there are many different pieces. There is digital ID, all digital currency or transaction system to a social credit system to the management to certain kinds of data and back-up energy. There are many different pieces. We look at the pieces, and we look at them as one-off things such as, oh, I don’t mind having a ‘Real ID’ because I can see why they might want a federal ID, or a passport or whatever. Each one of these things looks nonthreatening and even convenient, but when they snap together, they are in a control grid, and it’s completely something else. When Trump was elected, I was shocked to see, almost immediately, the President announce the Stargate AI initiative with the mRNA vaccines, which to me is the internet of bodies.”

CAF put together a long list of Trump Administration actions that are speeding up what looks like a control grid. It’s called “The Fast-Approaching Digital Control Grid.” It lists things such as crypto friendly currency actions, private Central Bank Digital Currency, shrinking banking sector, DOGE, undisclosed Epstein files and many more red flag items that could be used to allow crime to continue and build a digital prison for “We the People.” While the Trump Administration brings change at a record pace, not a single thing has been done to find out about the “$21 Trillion Missing Money” that has been well documented by CAF and Michigan State Professor Dr. Mark Skidmore. The money has been stolen from America, and the silence about this is deafening.

CAF says, “We know there has been tremendous fraud in the financials of the US government. We know that has happened. If you look at all the things that you or I would do to figure out what had happened, where the money went and how do we get it back, that’s not what they are doing. . . . If you look at how we would do a successful operation to reengineer government and identify the real fraud and stop it, I don’t see any indication that they are doing that. I do see some selected efforts that are probably sincere. . . . They are shutting things down lots of us would like to see shut down. . . . We know how to stop the death and disabilities that come from the Covid 19 vax injection, but you go the CDC website, and they are still recommending the Covid injections.”

The massive crime going on with government accounting makes it necessary for the control grid. CAF explains, “What happened in the last Trump Administration is they adopted FASAB 56. FASAB 56 basically said they could take the books of the US government dark. A secret group of people, by a secret process, could remove operations from the financial statement, and they don’t have to tell people what they removed. So, we have no idea what is in the financials. . . . This includes the big banks and contractors who do business with the government. So, looking at the US stock market and bond market, I have no idea what is true or not. . . . We are flying blind.”

CAF still likes gold for an investment. She is also very bullish on silver as it takes about 100 ounces of silver to buy a single ounce of gold. The gold/silver ratio is at record spreads. CAF says, “At some point, the gold/silver ratio will revert to something more sensible.” In closing, CAF says, “Everyone tell your Senator and Congressman and President Trump on X or Truth Social stop the control grid. Stop with the control grid, and we can do this. . . . If we can face it, God can fix it all.”

Tucker CAF

Read more …

Time for Congress to step up.

• David Sacks Warns DOGE Will All Be For Nothing, Unless… (ZH)

AI & Crypto Czar David Sacks warns that Elon Musk’s efforts to expose waste and abuse at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) may be futile unless Congress significantly reduces federal spending. “What we really need is for Congress to now embrace all of the corruption that Elon has found and eliminate it from the budget, because at the end of the day, in order to capture the savings here, we do need those appropriations eliminated from the budget,” Sacks said on the All-In podcast. Sacks warned that the real danger isn’t Musk backing down, but Congress slipping back into its entrenched pattern of reckless spending. “These old bulls in Congress who control the appropriations process—are they going to basically backslide and just put the spending back in because it’s easier to engage in this logrolling, or do we take advantage of this?” he asked.

Sacks emphasized the immense personal cost Musk has borne to reveal systemic corruption, citing the widespread protests targeting Tesla properties. “This has cost him enormously. One of the reasons why Tesla is down is because you’ve had crazy leftists engaging in terrorism, firebombing Tesla dealerships,” the Trump official said. “We’ve basically learned that this whole NGO thing is a giant scam where the people in government give enormous amounts of money to their friends, probably with the expectation that when they leave government, they’re going to be next in line at the trough.” Since Musk took the helm at DOGE, Tesla has been under siege from a wave of protests and brazen acts of vandalism across the U.S. and beyond, with far-left activists resorting to arson, gunfire, and defacing dealerships, vehicles, and charging stations with hateful graffiti.

The so-called “Tesla Takedown” movement has orchestrated demonstrations at hundreds of Tesla locations, pushing an anti-DOGE agenda to tank Musk’s company by calling for mass sell-offs of Tesla stock and boycotts of the brand. Sacks then stressed that while Musk has laid bare the government’s dysfunction, without decisive action from Congress to slash spending, his efforts risk being squandered. “Elon’s done an enormous service exposing this. But it’s not entirely up to him. In order for us to realize the benefit, we need Congress now to act on that. I’m afraid that’s not going to happen,” he warned.

In March, President Donald Trump threw his support behind a rescission package to implement major spending cuts spearheaded by DOGE. “It would be great. I think we’re going to do that,” Trump told reporters. According to a memo from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) obtained by the New York Post, the administration is pushing two proposals to slash $9.3 billion. “The first includes a rescission of $8.3 billion in wasteful foreign aid spending (out of $22 billion) that does not expire in Fiscal Year (FY) 2025. The second is a separate rescission of all Federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) — which funds the politically biased public radio and public television system,” the Post said.

Read more …

“Russians are not our enemy. We shouldn’t be helping to kill them..”

• Russians ‘Are Not Our Enemy’ – Trump Adviser David Sacks (RT)

The White House crypto csar has rejected the notion that Ukraine is aiding the United States against its enemies by fighting Russia. Kiev has consistently asserted that it is “defending” Western nations from Russia. Vladimir Zelensky reiterated the point in a recent interview with conservative journalist Ben Shapiro, where he urged the US to act as an arms supplier rather than a diplomatic mediator and stating that Ukrainians “are fighting against your enemies, the Russians.” “Russians are not our enemy. We shouldn’t be helping to kill them,” countered David Sacks, a venture entrepreneur and White House advisor on crypto and artificial intelligence, who responded on social media on Sunday to a clip from the interview.

Sacks has long criticized US support for Kiev, characterizing it as an attempt to transform the Ukraine conflict into a “forever war.” Zelensky has argued that modern Russia shares the same agenda as the former USSR and considers the US its “main enemy.” He accused Moscow of collaborating with Tehran and Pyongyang to undermine American interests. Conversely, he stated that Kiev views the US as a “strategic partner” and “friend.” However, he cautioned that any attempts to pressure Ukrainians could “turn them around very quickly.”

US President Donald Trump has claimed that Zelensky has undermined his efforts to negotiate a peace deal between Kiev and Moscow by publicly dismissing his proposals. In their latest meeting, held on the sidelines of Pope Francis’ funeral last Saturday, the Ukrainian leader requested more weapons, the US president told the media, adding that “he has been saying that for three years.” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told CBS last week that Moscow is interested in a relationship with the US which is based on “an equal, mutually respectful dialogue heading to finding a balance of interest.” With that approach, “everything is possible,” he added.

Read more …

“You could have millions of more people killed if this thing goes on for another few years, and it could risk escalating into a nuclear war. It has to stop…”

• Ukraine Won’t Win – J.D. Vance (RT)

Ukraine is not poised to win the conflict with Russia, US Vice President J.D. Vance has said. He added that it was naive to expect Russia’s collapse if the fighting continues for several more years. “If this doesn’t stop, the Ukrainians aren’t winning the war,” Vance said during an interview on conservative organizer Charlie Kirk’s podcast on Monday. “I think there’s this weird idea among the mainstream media that if this thing goes on for just another few years, the Russians will collapse, the Ukrainians will take their territory back, and everything will go back to the way that it was before the war. That is not the reality that we live in,” the vice president said.

“You could have millions of more people killed if this thing goes on for another few years, and it could risk escalating into a nuclear war. It has to stop,” Vance added. He also said that, despite the challenges of dealing with both sides, American negotiators were “making progress.” “Sometimes you’re incredibly frustrated with Ukrainians. Sometimes you’re incredibly frustrated with the Russians,” Vance said. “And sometimes you just want to throw your hands up, but that’s what President Trump doesn’t let us do.”

Vance’s remarks came as Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Russian troops would observe a three-day ceasefire starting on May 8, marking the celebrations of victory in World War II. Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky responded by accusing Moscow of “manipulation” and called for an immediate 30-day ceasefire. According to Russia, Ukraine violated both the 30-day ‘energy truce’ brokered by the US last month and the 30-hour Easter truce, despite having promised to respect both arrangements. Putin has argued that, for a comprehensive ceasefire to succeed, Ukraine must halt its mobilization campaign and the West must stop delivering weapons to Kiev.

Read more …

This is what it’s come to. This is what we support. Since at least 2014. Trump can say it’s Obama/Biden’s war, but he’s not exactly fully innocent. Repair it now.

• Ukraine Eyes Teens And Women As Cannon Fodder (RT)

As Ukraine’s manpower crisis deepens, Kiev is resorting to increasingly desperate measures to fill the thinning ranks of its army. With conscription drives failing and volunteer numbers dwindling, authorities are now preparing to force ever-broader sections of the population – including women and barely adult men – into the front lines. Despite brutal mobilization efforts, Ukraine’s Armed Forces (AFU) remain critically understaffed. Even aggressive recruitment campaigns and tightening draft laws have failed to produce the needed surge in enlistments. Now the government is moving toward slashing the minimum conscription age from 25 to just 18 – sending teenagers straight into a bloody and grinding conflict. At the same time, serious discussions are underway about mobilizing women en masse, a step that would mark a historic escalation in Kiev’s attempts to prolong the war.

Interest in military service is declining sharply, especially among the youth. In mid-April, Pavel Palisa, deputy head of Vladimir Zelensky’s office, revealed that fewer than 500 volunteers between the ages of 18 and 24 had enlisted – and currently, those under 25 are not subject to mandatory mobilization. Two months earlier, Ukraine had launched a new initiative offering 18 to 24-year-olds the option of contract service. Rolled out on February 11, this program offered recruits a contract bonus of one million hryvnias (around $24,000), monthly salaries up to 120,000 hryvnias, and other perks in a desperate bid to bolster AFU numbers. Since then, other military branches – including the navy, airborne forces, National Guard, and border troops – have opened their ranks to young contractors. Yet even with financial incentives on the table, recruitment remains sluggish.

Palisa admitted that the current conscription system is outdated and hinders mobilization efforts. He stressed that Ukraine has “a huge mobilization resource” but that the system in place prevents it from being effectively tapped. “In my opinion, we have more people available than we need for specific tasks at the front. The mechanism simply isn’t efficient,” he said, calling for sweeping reforms in recruitment and organization. However, as Vladimir Zharikhin, deputy director of the Institute of CIS Countries, pointed out in a conversation with RT, such optimistic estimates are little more than wishful thinking. In reality, Ukraine’s main mobilization base has long since fled the country. Official figures show over six million Ukrainian refugees registered across the European Union and more than two million in Russia. But according to Zharikhin, the true numbers are likely even higher.

“Roughly eight million have gone to Europe, about three million to Russia – that’s close to a quarter of Ukraine’s prewar population,” he explained. “In other words, Kiev isn’t drafting from the 50-plus million people who lived in Ukraine around the time of the Soviet collapse. It’s choosing from the 20-odd million who remain today. That’s why we’re seeing serious discussions about mobilizing yesterday’s schoolboys, women, and anyone else they can find.” Speaking about the dismal turnout among 18 to 25-year-olds, Palisa said that while many initially expressed interest, very few ultimately signed contracts. “People agreed in principle, but when it came to signing, they backed out,” he said. “Sometimes it was their parents’ influence; sometimes they believed peace was just around the corner. There are a lot of reasons.”

Former Ukrainian MP Vladimir Oleinik told RT that aggressive recruitment campaigns painted an overly rosy picture, falsely suggesting that enlistees would quickly become millionaires. Reality, however, tells a different story. Recruits receive 200,000 hryvnias, upfront, another 300,000 after completing training, and the remaining 500,000 only after their contracts end. “Parents would often take their sons to cemeteries, showing them the flags on soldiers’ graves,” Oleinik said. “Under these contracts, recruits must serve at least six months on the front lines – and everyone knows what the survival rate is.”

Nuland

Read more …

Military security. Leave us alone.

• Forget Land – This Is Russia’s Main Demand From The West (Lukyanov)

Everyone is expecting news on a Ukrainian settlement this week. The diplomatic activity is real and intense, and the visible signs suggest something significant is underway. There is little point in trying to guess which of the leaked plans are genuine and which are misinformation. What is clear is that Russia is being offered a choice between “a bird in the hand and two in the bush.” The trouble is, the elements necessary for any sustainable agreement are still scattered among the various birds. Currently, discussions naturally revolve around territory. This is a sensitive subject, particularly since the territories under consideration are already under Russian control. The bird’s wings are clipped, however: legal recognition of Russia’s sovereignty over these lands seems unrealistic, at least in the near term. De facto recognition, with a pledge not to attempt to return them by force, could be the achievable result. In today’s global atmosphere, it is naive to view any legal agreement as genuinely final.

Yet territory was not the true cause of this conflict. The deeper issue was decades of unresolved security contradictions. ‘Demilitarization’ – so prominently featured in Russia’s original demands – encompasses both Ukraine’s neutral status and the broader limitation of its military capabilities, whether through curtailing domestic production, cutting off external supplies, or reducing existing forces. This demand is far from cosmetic. Fulfillment would overturn the international order that has reigned since the end of the Cold War – an order based on NATO’s unchecked expansion across Europe and Eurasia, without regard for Moscow’s objections. The military campaign thus became a way of exercising a “veto” that the West had long denied Russia. True demilitarization of Ukraine would, in effect, force international recognition of that veto. But many in the West remain unwilling to accept such a precedent.

As discussions have moved toward territorial issues, the central problem of military security seems to have been relegated to the background. Perhaps US President DonaldTrump’s administration – more skeptical of NATO itself – views it as less fundamental. Or perhaps it simply finds it easier to force Ukraine to cede territory than to make Western Europe recognize Russia’s security rights. Nevertheless, for Moscow, military security remains a matter of principle. Even if Washington offers major concessions – lifting sanctions, formalizing territorial changes – Russia cannot abandon this core demand. This creates a divergence in diplomatic tempo. Washington wants a quick deal; the Kremlin believes that haste will not produce a reliable settlement. Yet Moscow also knows that the political stars – especially in Washington – have aligned in a uniquely favorable way, and it does not want to miss the moment.

The outcome will be known soon enough. However, some important lessons from history should be remembered. First, achieving political goals often takes more than one campaign. A pause in fighting is not necessarily a resolution.Second, there is no such thing as an open-ended, unchangeable agreement. If a deal does not truly satisfy all parties, it will eventually collapse. The struggle will resume – though not necessarily through military means.Third, Ukraine is only one piece of a much larger process of global transformation in which Russia intends to play a central role. These changes are already underway, and will continue to deepen. Reaching some degree of understanding with the United States is important. Interestingly, the NATO issue might resolve itself over time, not because of Russian pressure but due to the alliance’s own growing irrelevance. But for now, that remains a matter for the future. In the immediate term, Russia faces a choice between the imperfect birds on offer – and must weigh carefully which to catch and which to let fly.

Read more …

Maybe the West should recognize what Victory Day means to Russia. Instead of erasing 26 million dead from history.

• Putin Announces 72-hour Victory Day Ceasefire (RT)

Russian President Vladimir Putin has declared a ceasefire in the Ukraine conflict for three days in honor of the 80th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II. The truce will last from May 8 to May 10th, the Kremlin has said. Putin is said to have announced the ceasefire based on “humanitarian considerations” and has ordered the suspension of all military action against Ukraine’s forces from midnight on May 7-8 to midnight on May 10-11. The Kremlin noted that Moscow expects the Ukrainian side to abide by the truce and warned that if Kiev’s forces violate it, the Russian military will give an “adequate and effective response.” “The Russian side once again declares its readiness for peace talks without preconditions, aimed at eliminating the root causes of the Ukrainian crisis, and for constructive interaction with international partners,” the Kremlin’s message concluded.

Putin previously declared a truce for Easter that started at 6pm on April 19 and lasted throughout April 20. The Russian Defense Ministry later said that while the Ukrainian side had violated the ceasefire several thousand times, the general level of military activity had significantly decreased across the front line. During a meeting with US special envoy Steve Witkoff last week, the Russian president also reaffirmed that Moscow is ready to hold unconditional peace talks with Kiev. Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump has reportedly promised not to walk away from the Ukraine peace process. He had previously warned that Washington could abandon its efforts to mediate if it did not see progress in negotiations.

Read more …

The western press claims Russia violated its own last ceasefire. The Russian press does not. “Oh, that’s just propaganda!” Really? Which one?

• Ukraine Issues Ceasefire Demand To Russia (RT)

Ukraine has criticized Russia’s announcement of a three-day ceasefire in May timed to coincide with the celebration of the 80th anniversary of victory over Nazism. Earlier on Monday, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a 72-hour ceasefire which will last from midnight on May 7-8 to midnight on May 10-11. It follows a similar unilateral pause during the Easter weekend. “If Russia truly wants peace, it must cease fire immediately,” Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga responded on X. He claimed that the Russian move was not “real” but rather “just for a parade.” “Ukraine is ready to support a lasting, durable, and full ceasefire. And this is what we are constantly proposing, for at least 30 days,” he added. The Russian military previously observed a 30-day moratorium on strikes against Ukrainian energy infrastructure, which US President Donald Trump had proposed to Putin. According to Moscow, Kiev did not reciprocate despite publicly claiming support for the initiative.

The Easter ceasefire announced by Moscow was only partially successful, according to the Russian Defense Ministry, which said there was a decrease in the intensity of Ukrainian attacks but not a full lull. When Putin ordered the measure, he instructed Russian forces only to engage Ukrainian troops in retaliation. Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has claimed that Russia’s failure to meet his demand for an unconditional 30-day truce proves that it does not want peace. Putin has pointed out that Kiev could use such a pause for rearmament and reinforcement rather than to engage in serious negotiations. Earlier on Monday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov noted that direct talks between Moscow and Kiev currently remain impossible due to a legal ban on such engagements issued by Zelensky in 2022.

Read more …

By their law, Zelensky still can’t talk to Putin.

• Ukraine Shows No Sign It Is Ready To Talk – Kremlin (RT)

Ukraine is failing to take the necessary steps to initiate direct negotiations with Russia, while Moscow remains ready to engage at any time, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said. Vladimir Zelensky prohibited direct bilateral talks in October 2022 for as long as Russian President Vladimir Putin remains in office, asserting that the moratorium was necessary to “stop separatism” purportedly stemming from backchannel communications with Moscow not controlled by his administration. ”At the very least, Kiev needs to act, given its judicial ban” on talks, Peskov reminded journalists during a briefing on Monday.

Putin has repeatedly stated that Russia is prepared to commence negotiations with Ukraine “without any preconditions, aiming to pave the way for peace,” the official added. Indirect contacts between Kiev and Moscow have continued on some issues, such as prisoner exchanges and the repatriation of fallen soldiers. US President Donald Trump has criticized Zelensky for undermining his mediation efforts by publicly opposing ideas, reportedly included in a Washington-proposed peace plan. The two leaders had a face-to-face meeting on the sidelines of Pope Francis’ funeral in the Vatican on Saturday.

“He told me that he needs more weapons, but he has been saying that for three years,” Trump said, recounting the engagement. “I want them to stop shooting, sit down and sign a deal.” While Moscow has questioned Zelensky’s legitimacy since the conclusion of his presidential term last year, it does not view his removal from power as a goal in the conflict. However, Russia has concerns that “if an agreement were signed with Zelensky today, people could come forward later in Ukraine and legally challenge,” Peskov told the French media last week. Zelensky claims presidential powers, citing martial law that he first imposed in 2022.

Read more …

Mere weeks ago, the liberals polled just 10-20%. Then Canadian politics and media hit on Trump. Carney is a WEF globalist., worse than Trudy.

• Canadians Should Expect Disaster With Carney In Charge (ZH)

Justin Trudeau’s far-left regime in Canada has finally come to an end as the politician exits leadership in disgrace. His legacy includes authoritarian governance during the pandemic, whereby he threw Christian church goers and pastors in prison for refusing to stop congregations. He called for mass forced vaccinations, and he locked the bank accounts of protesters speaking out against the covid mandates. His admin compared people donating to the cause to “terrorists”. His socialist economic policies helped to exacerbate Canada’s inflation crisis and his open immigration policies greatly expanded the the flood of third-world foreigners, driving up housing prices, crushing the labor market and straining social services. By most accounts, the majority of Canadians were ecstatic to see Trudeau exit the stage. But what if they still haven’t learned their lesson? How is that even possible?

According to recent polls for the 2025 election set for April 28th, it is likely that Canadians have very short memories or they’re gluttons for punishment. Why? Because Mark Carney and the Liberal Party are projected to make considerable gains. Carney has rebranded himself as a “centrist” in order to win public favor, but nothing could be further from the truth. Mark Carney is, in fact, worse than Trudeau on every level. What should Canadians expect under a Carney regime? More mass immigration, not less. Higher inflation and a suffocating housing market. Increasing political and economic tensions with the US, which Canada is dependent on for 75% of its export market (and there is no replacement). Policies pressuring Canadians into a cashless system. The detrimental institution of carbon controls and climate change rules for industry and energy. And, even less national sovereignty as Canada is made more beholden to the EU.

Lets start with immigration… While Carney claims he wants caps on immigration, his advisor choices suggest Canadians will get more of the same. The central banker has tapped Mark Wiseman, co-founder of the Century Initiative lobby group as part of his policy council. The Century Initiative under the former BlackRock executive publicly endorsed the Trudeau government’s moves to take in 500,000 new immigrants per year by 2025. It should be noted that as Canada increased immigration their economy suffered exponential decline. Between 2015 and 2024, Canada’s ranking in the Human Development Index plummeted from 9th to 18th, while the country fell behind Italy in the average growth of real GDP per capita. Canada’s housing market and social services are essentially broken. And how about individual freedom?

It’s no secret that the Liberal Party widely supported the lockdowns and mandatory vaccinations. However, where did Carney stand on the issue? Carney acted as an “informal adviser” to Trudeau throughout the covid event and supported the mandates wholeheartedly. In an opinion article for The Globe And Mail titled ‘It’s Time To End The Sedition In Ottawa By Enforcing The Law And Following The Money’, Carney wrote in reference to the Trucker Protests against the mandates: “No one should have any doubt…This is sedition. That’s a word I never thought I’d use in Canada. It means incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.” “The constant blaring of horns at all hours, the harassment of people, the culture of fear have been making residents’ lives hell, will bankrupt our businesses and if left unchecked would help achieve the Convoy’s goal of undermining our democracy…Anyone sending money to the Convoy should be in no doubt: you are funding sedition. Foreign funders of an insurrection interfered in our domestic affairs.”

These are the words of an authoritarian, using “democracy” as a cover to institute a sweeping crackdown on public freedoms. Where does Carney stand on the economy? Mark Carney is a long time Davo elitist, and as such he is an adherent of Klaus Schwab’s “4th Industrial Revolution” theory and the concept of the “Great Reset”. Specifically, Carney is an avid champion of the WEF’s climate change agenda and their efforts to make “climate consciousness” inseparable from business culture. Meaning, Carney will undoubtedly bury Canada in climate controls and carbon taxes, snuffing out their industry and energy base just as the globalists have been doing in Europe. Furthermore, Carney is deeply involved in the push for national and global Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs).

In his 2021 book ‘Values”, Carney calls for revolutionary centralization of the global monetary system and the launch of CBDCs as the new standard. He has actively campaigned against cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and any form of decentralized money, claiming instead that the future requires a global digital currency to replace the dollar system (NOTE: Carney did not come up with this idea, this has been a ongoing plan within the BIS and IMF for decades). “If properly designed, a CBDC could serve all the functions to which private cryptocurrencies and stablecoins aspire while addressing the fundamental legal and governance issues that will, in time, undermine those alternatives…” At bottom, Carney is calling for a cashless society controlled by the banking oligarchy. Without cash or an independent form of trade, all personal economic freedom dies. Carney licks his chops over this prospect when he states (in reference to the covid crisis):

“With fear on the march, people were willing to surrender to Hobbes’ ‘Leviathan’ such basic rights as the freedom to leave their homes. And so it is with money. People will support the delegation to independent central banks of the tough decisions that are necessary to maintain the value of money provided the authorities deliver monetary and financial stability…” This is not the man Canadians should be voting for if they have any interest in changing the current Orwellian path their country is on. Critics claim that it’s Donald Trump’s tariffs that are to blame for the shift in the polls in Carney’s favor. Yet, if Carney is elected he would be the most disastrous choice in negotiating a settlement with the US. The situation will only become more ugly for Canada in every way. This is not a “new boss, same as the old boss” scenario. Carney is far higher up on the totem pole of degradation than Trudeau and much more devious.

Read more …

Turley no longer states that the system is working so great.

• Federal District Courts Piling on Injunctions to Stop Trump (Turley)

“Here we are again.” Those words of Senior U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick may be the only uncontested line in his opinion this week, enjoining the Trump Administration from withholding federal funds to “sanctuary jurisdictions.” In President Trump’s first term, efforts to implement sweeping changes on immigration and other issues were met by a slew of injunctions. In 2017, one of those orders was from Judge Orrick, an Obama appointee in San Francisco. Trump has already faced a record number of national injunctions by district courts. His administration has objected to forum- and judge-shopping by political opponents by bringing the majority of such challenges in overwhelmingly Democratic states like California. Such injunctions did not exist at the founding, and only relatively recently became the rage among district court judges.

Under President George W. Bush, there were only six such injunctions, which increased to 12 under Obama. Both Democratic and Republican presidents have complained about district judges tying down presidents like so many judicial Lilliputians. However, when Trump came to office, the taste for national injunctions became a full-fledged addiction. Trump faced 64 such orders in his first term. When Biden and the Democrats returned to office, it fell back to 14. That was not due to more modest measures. Biden did precisely what Trump did in seeking to negate virtually all of his predecessors’ orders and then seek sweeping new legal reforms. He was repeatedly found to have violated the Constitution, but there was no torrent of preliminary injunctions at the start of his term. Now, however, with less than 100 days in office, Trump 2.0 has already surpassed that number for the entirety of Biden’s term.

The Supreme Court bears some of the blame for this. Although a majority of justices, including liberal Justice Elena Kagan, have complained about district courts’ issuance of national injunctions, the high court has done little to rein in district court judges. On May 15, the justices are poised to consider the issue in a case involving birthright citizenship. Many hope that the justices will bring what they have consistently failed to supply to lower courts: clarity and finality. Some judges have already seen their stays lifted by appellate courts. However, in just one day this week, three more major injunctions were issued on sanctuary cities, voter registration, and deportations. Some of these orders appear premature and overbroad. Take Judge Orrick’s order. Again, Trump is targeting cities offering sanctuary to unlawful immigrants as imposing high costs on the country, including increasing burdens for federal programs and grants to these cities.

Orrick previously stopped that effort in the first Trump term, and he was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. However, the orders are not identical, and so far no action has been taken against these cities. Under one of the orders, titled “Protecting the American People against Invasion,” Trump has ordered the attorney general and the secretary of Homeland Security to “evaluate and undertake any lawful actions to ensure that so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions, which seek to interfere with the lawful exercise of Federal law enforcement operations, do not receive access to Federal funds.” Orrick noted that the term “sanctuary jurisdiction” was not defined and dismissed the express reservation that such actions can only proceed to the extent that they are allowed under law.

The irony is that the opinion itself is overly broad and imprecise. There are indeed cases limiting the ability of the federal government to “commandeer” states and cities into carrying out federal functions. However, there are also cases upholding the right to withhold federal funds that contravene federal laws and policies. The operative language in the order is the focus on sanctuary policies that “interfere” or prevent federal enforcement. There must be some accommodation for the federal government in refusing to pay for the rope that it will hang by.

Read more …

“Being mean or telling the truth is indistinguishable to far too many people.” —Mike Thompson on X

• Now You Know (James Howard Kunstler)

Woke liberalism is exactly what Christopher Lasch predicted in The Revolt of the Elites, published in 1995 the year after his early death at 61. Lasch saw how the juvenile idealism of Boomer hippiedom would slide into the narcissistic, sado-masochistic degeneracy of open borders, drag queen story hours, Covid-19 despotism, DEI racism, showbiz Satanism, censorship, forever wars, and now, the legal insurrection of lawfare. In doing so, Lasch also predicted the “mass formation psychosis” described by Belgian psychologist Mattias Desmet, spawned by a crisis of meaning and purpose in the thinking classes of Western Civ. And now you know exactly how come a place like Boston, with its concentration of “elites” in universities, computer tech, and medical research displays a batshit-crazy dedication to ideas bent on destroying our political culture: the American republic.

The word republic derives from the Latin, res publica: the public thing, the idea of a state dedicated to the common good. By “state” you can infer both a group of people in a certain place, but also the set of conditions they dwell in. You can’t have a common good without a common culture, which means a general agreement among citizens on values in that certain place — which is our country, the USA. You can’t overstate the importance of shared ideas and values in that enterprise of being a nation, we-the-people in our particular place. The juvenile idealism of Boomer hippiedom wrecked the crucial idea of a common culture, and I will tell you exactly how that happened. Two crusades: first, the civil rights campaign, and second, stopping the War in Vietnam, defined the era.

The first of these climaxed in twin landmark legislative acts designed to abolish Jim Crow racism: the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibiting discrimination in public places, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibited unfair obstacles to voting. The idealism in that moment of history was extreme. The dominant old-school Liberal ethos displayed a sense of triumph. Its cardinal belief in human progress was validated in the new law-of-the-land. We were supposedly entering a utopia of racial harmony. It proved to be a huge disappointment, a failure. In some fundamental ways, black and white America could not agree on certain values, especially language and behavior. These matters were so hypersensitive that discussing them became taboo, and when someone dared to — such as the rogue journalist Tom Wolfe in his book Radical Chic, which made fun of the cultural elites trying to socialize with the Black Panthers — he was buried in the most extreme censorious opprobrium by the elite good-thinkers of politics, academia, and the cultural media. They couldn’t believe old Tom dove clear through the Overton Window the way he did, head first.

In fact, a big segment of black America after 1965 became much more overtly separatist and oppositional, while white America became more frantically confounded and depressed by it. The result was the elite’s solution to that quandary: multiculturalism! Which basically meant: we don’t need a common culture in the USA. (We don’t need an agreement about values, language, and behavior.) Each group in America can have its own menu of these things. This accomplished two ends: it allowed criminal behavior to explode; and it allowed the elites to excuse themselves from any serious further attempts to manage the res publica. The people of the ghettos were free to do their thing; while the elites turned their full attention to Boomer careerism and Gordon Gecko style financial moneygrubbing.

Read more …

“..If we use the low estimate and do not adjust for inflation, the value of stolen technology would be at least $5.4 trillion.”

• America Funded China’s Rise (Morrison)

The free trade brigade obsesses over economic minutiae—they cry that tariffs will raise the cost of plastic spatulas by 50 cents! What a disaster! Who cares? The reality is that trade with China is not in America’s interests because it funds our greatest rival. Here’s how America funded China’s rise, and why tariffs will help keep America safe and free. A Dragon Fed: How America Funded China’s Rise. Economists say freer trade benefits everyone—even trade with China. America gets cheap goods and China gets money. Win-win. Even if we assume America benefits, which is a false assumption as proven in my book Reshore, China has clearly benefited more. For example, China’s economy has grown by an average of 8.12% since joining the World Trade Organization in 2001—about four times greater than America’s. China and America benefited asymmetrically from trade.

Asymmetry may not be a problem economically, but it is a problem politically. Why? Power is zero-sum. The stronger China grows, the weaker America becomes relative to China. As such, trade with China is also a political issue. The question we should be asking ourselves is whether cheap goods are worth surrendering America’s political dominance. To be clear, trade is not the only way that America has funded China’s rise. There are three primary ways that America enriches and empowers China: investment, trade, and theft. First, America invested directly in China by building factories—offshoring 60,000 factories does not come cheap. The total value of American investment in China is unknown. According to China’s Ministry of Commerce, cumulative foreign direct investment (“FDI”) totalled $2.7 trillion in 2023. Just 2.1% of this investment was categorized as American.

The reason that this amount is so low is because American investment is usually routed through intermediaries, mostly Hong Kong, Singapore, and the British Virgin Islands. This is why Hong Kong—a city smaller than Shanghai—owns 68% of FDI in China. Not coincidentally, Hong Kong is a major recipient of FDI from the U.S. and from the British Virgin Islands—a tiny banking archipelago that is itself capitalized by the U.S. and the City of London. Because of this shell game, we cannot know the actual amount American companies have invested in China, but if we assume that FDI correlates with the relative size of China’s trade surpluses, then America’s investments total $972 billion. This estimate is probably low. Why? China runs trade surpluses with countries that clearly contributed no investment, such as most countries in Africa and the Middle East. Given the level of economic integration, I would hazard an estimate that most FDI ultimately originated in America or the City of London, funneled through their banking havens.

Second, America indirectly funded China’s rise through the trade deficit, buying more Chinese goods than we sold. The cumulative trade deficit with China since 2001 is roughly $6 trillion, after accounting for inflation. Not only were the Chinese able to spend these profits, but they were also able to borrow against the revenue, greatly multiplying their access to capital. Third, China has stolen an almost unquantifiable amount of American technology. In 2017, the Office of the United States Trade Representative estimated that China steals intellectual property worth between $225 and $600 billion per year, more than the value of the annual trade deficit. If we use the low estimate and do not adjust for inflation, the value of stolen technology would be at least $5.4 trillion.

Interestingly, the above numbers actually undervalue the quantity of this theft. Why? Because most of the technological and IP outflows are not stolen in a traditional sense. For example, the main vector of technological transfer is via Chinese companies using their profits from the trade deficit to buy shares in American companies, at which point they own the technology. Currently, foreigners own 17% of American equities, and the number is growing. The other vector is through Sino-American corporate partnerships. Basically, American companies that build factories in China are forced to partner with a local Chinese company, a corporate clone. The plant is staffed by Chinese workers, who are taught America’s industrial processes and how to replicate American technology.

Providing China access to American technology is actually the price to enter China’s market—American companies cannot operate in China without giving up their technological and industrial secrets. Yet they do it anyways because the Chinese make it worth their while. In my view, the value of America’s stolen technology was priceless. Remember, mainland China’s economy was largely preindustrial—about as productive and technologically advanced as the Thirteen Colonies during the American Revolution. Now, China has reached technological parity with the U.S. Theft allowed China to skip 200 years of technological and economic development. America funded China’s rise. This has not only impoverished America, but it has also ended America’s superpower era. We now live in a multipolar world, bought and paid for by America’s corrupt politicians and Wall Street.

Read more …

“..the divide between the MAGA-friendly media and their more mainstream counterparts.” The extreme hatred of Trump is “more mainstream.”

• Liberals Loathe Arrival of ‘MAGA Media’ Inside the White House (DS)

The New York Times recently published a hissy fit about the White House allowing reporters into the Briefing Room who didn’t vote for Kamala Harris. Here was the amazing protest sentence: “Longtime White House reporters say the result has been an erosion of their independence.” The presence of a reporter who didn’t vote Democrat doesn’t “erode” the anti-Trump animus (“independence”) of liberal activist journalists. It might balance it, suggesting journalism and liberalism are not exactly the same thing. This spurred a trend. Politico’s Ian Ward profiled these invaders under the headline “Meet the 8 MAGA Outlets Disrupting the White House Briefing Room.” It carried the usual labeling about “the divide between the MAGA-friendly media and their more mainstream counterparts.” The extreme hatred of Trump is “more mainstream.”

Then came CNN’s Donie O’Sullivan, who loves to wade into MAGA crowds, trying to find the dumbest-sounding Trump supporter he can find. In this case, he went looking for the dumbest-sounding White House reporter. The headline over the video was “‘Do you consider yourself a journalist?’ CNN meets MAGA media at White House.” O’Sullivan showed clips of these pro-Trump reporters admitting their bias, and he proclaimed, “These are White House correspondents like you’ve never seen before.” Really? He spotlighted Cara Castronuova of Lindell TV asking if they’ll release Trump’s fitness routine, since he “actually looks healthier than ever before.” In 2009, a Washington Post reporter touted Barack Obama’s “chiseled pectorals.” Then O’Sullivan replayed Real America’s Voice reporter Brian Glenn asking Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, “Why don’t you wear a suit?” He suggested to Glenn he was “trolling,” but it’s a question lots of Americans would ask.

Natalie Winters from Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast said, “If it were up to me, I’d kick a lot of these outlets out.” In other words, she has the same opinion as CNN, only reversed. O’Sullivan asked Winters, “Do you consider yourself a journalist?” He said many say, “You don’t deserve to be here because you’re not a real journalist.” She attacked the pro-Joe Biden media: “I’m pretty sure the people in there spent four years covering for someone who was essentially dead, and that’s being charitable. … You guys failed, and that’s why we’re here.” CNN exemplified the point last year when anchor Dana Bash was deeply troubled over bumbling-Biden videos. They were “amplified on conservative media that in some cases are just not right and in other cases are highly, highly misleading of President Biden.”

O’Sullivan lectured about the “new media” people: “A lot of them are more cheerleading President Trump than challenging him.” He ended by quoting White House Correspondents’ Association leader Eugene Daniels: The public “needs news produced by experienced, professional journalists who ask tough questions and produce fair coverage.” Under Biden, Daniels wasn’t known for asking “tough questions.” At the 2024 Kamala cuddlefest before the National Association of Black Journalists, Daniels began by gently asking if the American people were better off after four years. Daniels went on shows such as “Washington Week” on PBS and denied Kamala was ever “border czar” and insisted she was a victim: “We’ve already seen a lot of racism and sexism, and that’s going to be a huge part of this campaign.”

Then there’s CNN itself. One of the most memorable tongue-bath questions came in 2009, when then-New York Times reporter Jeff Zeleny asked Obama what “enchanted” him about being president. Then-CNN anchor John Roberts praised the softball and Obama’s “thoughtful” answer. Zeleny was later hired by CNN. Reporters asking softballs at the White House is nothing new. It’s OK when the “mainstream” does it for Democrats.

Read more …

It’s nice that people start growing their own food. But the real big impact is in the supermarkets. The artificial dyes are just the start.

• Make America Healthy Again Movement Extends Beyond RFK Jr (ET)

For avid supporters, the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement itself is not new. It began long before Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s presidential campaign and subsequent confirmation as health secretary. “The principles of the MAHA movement were once a way of life all over the country decades ago,” Samantha Rayburn, a 40-year-old mother of two teenage sons, told The Epoch Times. “It’s encouraging to see more people adopting those beliefs and understanding that God gave us what we need to feed our bodies and heal our bodies. With how sick and unhealthy we are as a society, this return to the basics is needed.” Rayburn developed an interest in foraging for herbs and plants when she was a little girl and was inspired to make her first tincture when her oldest son caught whooping cough when he was 2. She describes the MAHA movement as “a return to the basics.”

“It’s getting back to when we knew what was in our food because we grew it and got what we didn’t have from local farmers,” said Rayburn, who lives in southern Ohio. “RFK Jr. and MAHA have made what many of us believe in more mainstream. People are now contacting me and wanting to learn more about herbs. I don’t seem so crazy anymore.” She was referring to her business, Hadassah’s Herbs for Health and Healing. When Kennedy delivered a speech in August 2024 announcing that he was suspending his campaign and backing then-former President Donald Trump, he said that Trump was giving him the opportunity to help make America healthy again. What followed was a social media frenzy with “Make America Healthy Again” and “MAHA” hashtags. MAHA the acronym was born. Samantha Rayburn has treated her sons, Holden and Wyatt, with herbal remedies since they were infants and believes in Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again platform.

She now heads the Victory Garden Alliance, which encourages people, communities, and organizations to grow their own food. “There is a revival in growing our own food, supporting local farms, and knowing what’s in our food. Bobby and the MAHA movement have catapulted that interest,” Capriotti told The Epoch Times. “We need this. Our kids need this. It’s important they understand how food is grown and where it comes from. That will inspire healthier new generations because they will become smarter consumers.” She calls what is happening with the MAHA movement a “health revolution.” She is working to educate elected officials and political candidates. “Many of us who worked on the presidential campaign didn’t stop our objectives when it ended. That’s an example of how MAHA is a movement not tied to one person,” Capriotti said.

As health secretary, Kennedy has a mandate to fight chronic disease, improve children’s health, and address corporate influence on government agencies. He has pledged to remove toxic chemicals from the nation’s food supply, increase transparency, improve vaccine safety, and make significant changes to the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—operating divisions within Health and Human Services. These plans, along with encouraging Americans to grow their own food and buy meat and produce from farmers who do not use pesticides and toxins, are among the initiatives of the MAHA movement.

Read more …

PepsiCo cares only about the bottom line.

• A HUGE Win for the Make America Healthy Again Movement (Margolis)

Score one for the Make America Healthy Again movement. After Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. called for a crackdown on artificial ingredients, PepsiCo wasted no time getting the message. On an April 24 conference call, PepsiCo Chairman and CEO Ramon Laguarta announced that the company has already begun reducing artificial ingredients across its products. “We’ve been leading the transformation of the industry now for a long time on sodium reduction, sugar reduction, and better fats,” Laguarta said. Now, under pressure from a public fed up with chemicals in their food, PepsiCo is finally moving faster toward cleaning up its act — a clear sign that the Make America Healthy Again movement is already having a powerful impact. “Sixty percent-plus of our (portfolio) today doesn’t have any artificial colors,” Laguarta added, indicating that the company is “undergoing that transition.”

Fox News Digital has more. “Laguarta cited examples such as Lay’s and Tostitos, which “will be out of artificial colors by the end of this year.” He added, “So, we’re well underway.” RFK Jr. and Dr. Martin Makary, U.S. Food and Drug Administration commissioner, announced a ban on petroleum-based synthetic dyes from America’s food supply last Tuesday. As the HHS noted in its news release, among the steps to be taken are “establishing a national standard and timeline for the food industry to transition from petrochemical-based dyes to natural alternatives.” “Initiating the process to revoke authorization for two synthetic food colorings — Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B — within the coming months; and working with industry to eliminate six remaining synthetic dyes — FD&C Green No. 3, FD&C Red No. 40, FD&C Yellow No. 5, FD&C Yellow No. 6, FD&C Blue No. 1, and FD&C Blue No. 2 — from the food supply by the end of next year.”

Certified nutritionist and Make America Healthy Again supporter Liana Werner-Gray celebrated PepsiCo’s move as a major step forward. “This is a huge win for public health and long overdue,” she told Fox News Digital. Werner-Gray, author of “The Earth Diet,” explained her philosophy as “all about going back to nature and eating foods from nature, eating real nutrition, eating foods that God provides us with naturally.” She also shared that she has long avoided artificial dyes, saying, “I’ve personally eliminated artificial dyes like Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6, Blue 1 and others from my diet over 16 years ago when I started The Earth Diet, living a natural lifestyle.” She added, “Once I removed these dyes and switched to natural, whole-food-based alternatives, those symptoms [frequent major mood swings, anxiety, skin breakouts, and energy crashes] went away, too.”

Werner-Gray believes the manipulation of food has gone unchecked for far too long, and it’s finally time for a course correction. “This move by the FDA under Secretary Kennedy and Commissioner Makary’s leadership is a pivotal step toward restoring integrity in our food system,” she told Fox News Digital. “It’s time we raise the standard. Clean, natural and nourishing food should be the norm, not a luxury.” During the April 24 conference call, PepsiCo’s CEO emphasized that the company’s chips, puffs, and other snacks are still considered safe to consume and reaffirmed that PepsiCo stands by the existing science, according to reports. Still, there’s no denying the impact President Trump is already having in his second term. With leaders like RFK Jr. at the helm, the Make America Healthy Again movement isn’t just a slogan; it’s delivering real results and forcing even major corporations to change course.

Read more …

“.. in just a “few years,” robots will surpass “good human surgeons” and will beat the best doctors within about five years..”

“..the required speed and precision is “impossible for a human to achieve.”

• Robots Will Outperform Human Surgeons In Five Years – Musk (RT)

Robots will soon replace human surgeons and are already capable of carrying out operations that are considered impossible for ordinary people to perform, Elon Musk has predicted. In a post on X on Saturday, the billionaire tech entrepreneur suggested that in just a “few years,” robots will surpass “good human surgeons” and will beat the best doctors within about five years. He noted that his Neuralink biotech company has already had to rely on robot surgeons to carry out the brain-computer electrode insertion of brain chips because the required speed and precision is “impossible for a human to achieve.” Musk’s comments came in response to a post by popular X influencer Mario Nawfal, who quoted an article about the rising success of robot surgeons such as the Medtronic ‘Hugo’.

It is reported that the robot has already been tested in 137 real surgeries such as fixing prostates, kidneys, and bladders. “The results were better than doctors expected,” Nawfal said, noting that the complication rates were 3.7% for prostate surgeries, 1.9% for kidney operations, and 17.9% for bladder procedures. “The robots got a 98.5% success rate, way above the 85% goal,” the post claimed, adding that out of the 137 surgeries, only two needed to be taken back over by real doctors due to a glitch and because of a “tricky patient case.” Previously, Musk suggested that brain-computer interfaces like those being developed by Neuralink would replace technologies such as cell phones.

Neuralink has already successfully implanted its brain chip – about the size of a coin – in three patients. After the procedure, they were able to control a computer cursor and play video games like chess and Counter-Strike using only their thoughts. One of the patients, who is non-verbal, was also able to use the device to communicate through an AI-generated voice clone. Musk has since announced plans to expand Neuralink’s clinical trials with the goal of implanting the brain chip in 20 to 30 more patients in 2025.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Dim sun https://twitter.com/BGatesIsaPyscho/status/1916602036361056379

Baby

Eyes

https://twitter.com/amzingnature1/status/1916669281288311066

Imagine

Gong https://twitter.com/XPHOENIXDRAGON/status/1916504825019130021

13 years ago

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Apr 192025
 
 April 19, 2025  Posted by at 9:30 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,  39 Responses »


Claude Monet Impression, sunrise 1872

 

West Lost Proxy War To Russia – Orban (RT)
US Proposes Leaving Former Ukrainian Territories Under Russian Control (RT)
Trump Ready To Recognize Crimea As Russian After Warning He May Walk Away (ZH)
Ukraine Ceasefire ‘Unrealistic’ For Now – Moscow (RT)
Europe, You Can’t Sit on the Sidelines Anymore (Victor Davis Hanson)
Trump Takes ‘Art Of The Deal’ To World Stage (Stepman)
Tulsi Exposes a Terrifying Biden-Era Program Meant To Be Secret (Margolis)
NATO To Abandon ‘Woke Language’ – Politico (RT)
Kilmar for President! (James Howard Kunstler)
IRS Hunter Biden Whistleblower Gary Shapley Ousted As Acting Commissioner (NYP)
Indian PM Modi Dials Musk Ahead of Vance’s Visit (RT)
Soros-Funded Groups Go To War Against DOGE (Tyler O’Neil)
Trump Axes A Stricken World Order (Alastair Crooke)
Trump’s Counterrevolution: Flood the Zone, Drain the Swamp (Victor Davis Hanson)
There’s Real Evidence for Easter (Joecks)

 

 

 

 

MacGregor

Tucker

Meloni https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1912952813023297538

NGOs

Miiller

Bondi

VDH

Dowd Basel III full implementation — June 30, 2025 Gold is being hardwired into global banking.

 

 

 

 

Much today about Trump leaving the ceasefire talks. Orban is the only voice who’s both right and willing to say it.

“..the West has lost but “European leaders are hesitant to admit” failure. He argued that this outcome will have a big impact on the entire West, as “losing a war is a serious thing.”

“..Trump “saved the US from a serious defeat.”

• West Lost Proxy War To Russia – Orban (RT)

The West has waged a “proxy war” against Russia via Ukraine and lost it, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has said. Hungary, a member of the EU, has repeatedly criticized the bloc’s policies on the Ukraine conflict, particularly its sanctions on Moscow and weapons deliveries to Kiev. In an interview with OT YouTube channel published on Thursday, Orban said the whole “Western world” has thrown its weight behind Ukraine in its conflict with Russia, which he described as a “proxy war.” His assessment echoed that of Moscow, which has long characterized the hostilities as a de facto conflict with the West. According to the Hungarian prime minister, the West has lost but “European leaders are hesitant to admit” failure. He argued that this outcome will have a big impact on the entire West, as “losing a war is a serious thing.”

Orban went on to say that European leaders are “offering Ukraine to continue the war and in return receive European Union membership.” He argued that this would be problematic as Ukraine is no longer sovereign and cannot support itself. Regarding the US, the Hungarian prime minister said Washington is in a better position thanks to President Donald Trump’s approach, having broken with the Ukraine policies pursued by his predecessor, Joe Biden. According to Orban, Trump “saved the US from a serious defeat.” Speaking to Hungary’s Kossuth Radio last month, Orban described the EU’s policies on Ukraine as “rudderless.” He warned that Brussels, with its hardline position, risks becoming irrelevant as Trump actively works toward securing a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

Earlier in March, Orban told the YouTube channel Patriota that the EU was feeding Kiev “empty promises” as it “doesn’t have a single penny left… [to] continue arming Ukraine, maintaining the Ukrainian army, and funding the functioning of the Ukrainian state.” His comments came after Budapest refused to endorse a joint EU communique calling for an increase in military aid to Kiev.

Read more …

A start to the only viable solution. Which EU and Kiev will fight as long as you let them.

• US Proposes Leaving Former Ukrainian Territories Under Russian Control (RT)

The US has presented its allies with the details of its peace plan to bring the conflict between Russia and Ukraine to an end, Bloomberg reported on Friday, citing European officials familiar with the matter. The contours of the plan were outlined during a meeting in Paris on Thursday. The proposal reportedly includes easing sanctions on Russia, as well as terminating Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO. The roadmap would effectively freeze the war, with the formerly Ukrainian territories held by Russia remaining under Moscow’s control, the sources suggested. One of the officials told Bloomberg that the proposal still had to be discussed with Kiev, adding that the plan would not actually amount to a definitive settlement of the conflict. Moreover, Kiev’s European backers would not recognize the territories as Russian, the source suggested.

The Paris meetings involved senior officials from several countries. The US delegation was led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and White House special envoy Steve Witkoff. They met with French President Emmanuel Macron and also held discussions with top officials and negotiators from France, Germany, the UK, and Ukraine. Earlier on Friday, Rubio signaled Washington was ready to “move on” if a way to end the hostilities between Moscow and Kiev could not be found shortly. “We need to figure out here now, within a matter of days, whether this is doable in the short term. Because if it’s not, then I think we’re just going to move on,” Rubio told reporters before departing from France.

Moscow has signaled a full ceasefire with Ukraine was highly unlikely, citing Kiev’s violations of previous deals. Speaking to reporters at the UN headquarters on Thursday, Russian envoy Vassily Nebenzia said there are “big issues with the comprehensive ceasefire,” recalling the fate of the now-defunct Minsk agreements, which were “misused and abused to prepare Ukraine for the confrontation.” The diplomat also cited repeated Ukrainian violations of a US-brokered 30-day moratorium on energy infrastructure strikes, implemented on March 18. “How close we are to the ceasefire is a big question to me personally, because, as I said, we had an attempt at a limited ceasefire on energy infrastructure, which was not observed by the Ukrainian side. So, in these circumstances, to speak about a ceasefire is simply unrealistic at this stage,” Nebenzia said.

Read more …

“The war in Ukraine “has no military solution to it” as “neither side has some strategic capability to end this war quickly”, Rubio said.”

He’s wrong.

• Trump Ready To Recognize Crimea As Russian After Warning He May Walk Away (ZH)

President Trump warned he could walk way from efforts to end the war in Ukraine if a deal can’t be found soon, as Russia said a one-month pause on targeting Ukrainian energy infrastructure had ended. “If for some reason, one of the two parties makes it very difficult, we’re just going to say, you’re foolish,” Trump told reporters Friday in the Oval Office. “You’re fools, you’re horrible people, and we’re going to just take a pass. But hopefully we won’t have to do that.” While Trump did not say he has a “specific number of days” in mind by which he wanted to see an agreement before walking away, he needed to see quick progress. “I know when people are playing us, and I know when they’re not,” Trump said. “And I have to see an enthusiasm to want to end it. And I think I see that enthusiasm. I think I see it from both sides.”

His comments followed a meeting of US officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US special envoy Steve Witkoff, with representatives from France, Germany and the UK in Paris on Thursday, where the US indicated its aim was to secure a full ceasefire in Ukraine within weeks, according to people familiar. Following the meeting, Rubio said the US needed to see in “a matter of days” whether a deal was “doable in the short term…. because if it’s not, then I think we’re just going to move on,” Rubio told reporters at Le Bourget airport outside of Paris on Friday morning, according to a transcript provided by the State Department. Rubio also said the European nations could help “move the ball” to get a resolution and that their ideas had been “very helpful and constructive.” “We had a good meeting yesterday,” he added. “But this isn’t going to go on forever.” The war in Ukraine “has no military solution to it” as “neither side has some strategic capability to end this war quickly”, Rubio said.

Trump, who predicted on the campaign trail that he could quickly secure a ceasefire, hits the 100-day mark of his second stint in the White House on April 30. Trump “has dedicated a lot of time and energy to this, and there are a lot of things going on in the world right now that we need to be focused on,” Rubio told reporters. “There are a lot of other really important things going on that deserve just as much if not more attention.” Bloomberg reports that Thursday’s talks in Paris also included a meeting between Witkoff and French president Emmanuel Macron and were attended by Ukrainian officials. US officials indicated they expected to make significant progress soon, and the participants agreed to work toward that. National security advisers and negotiators from Germany, France, the US and the UK plan to gather again in London next week to follow up on their discussions.

More importantly, Bloomberg also reported that the US presented its allies with details of its peace plan to bring the conflict between Russia and Ukraine to an end. The proposal, outlined during a meeting in Paris on Thursday, includes easing sanctions on Russia, as well as terminating Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO. The roadmap would effectively freeze the conflict and leave former Ukrainian territories that are part of Russia under Moscow’s control. An official told Bloomberg that the proposal still had to be discussed with Kiev, which will certainly balk, adding that the plan would not actually amount to a definitive conflict settlement as Kiev’s European backers would not recognize the territories as Russian.

The meetings came almost a week after Witkoff traveled to St. Petersburg, where he spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin for almost five hours. He described the conversation as “compelling,” saying they discussed steps that could end the war and perhaps lead to business opportunities for Russia as well, including dropping sanctions. The US has presented its allies with details of its peace plan to bring the conflict between Russia and Ukraine to an end, Bloomberg reported on Friday, citing European officials familiar with the matter. The proposal, outlined during a meeting in Paris on Thursday, reportedly includes easing sanctions on Russia, as well as terminating Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO. The roadmap would effectively freeze the conflict and leave former Ukrainian territories that are part of Russia under Moscow’s control, the sources suggested.

European officials have attempted to influence the outcome of peace efforts kicked off by the Trump administration, especially after being sidelined during recent bilateral talks between Russia and the US. So far they are failing: a follow up report from Bloomberg on Friday afternoon confirmed that the US is prepared to recognize Russian control of the Ukrainian region of Crimea as part of a broader peace agreement between Moscow and Kyiv. The concession is the latest signal that Trump is eager to rush through a ceasefire deal, and comes as he and Marco Rubio suggested on Friday that the administration is prepared to move on from its peace-brokering efforts unless progress is made quickly.

Read more …

“We need to determine very quickly now, and I’m talking about a matter of days, whether or not this is doable,” Rubio said..”

• Ukraine Ceasefire ‘Unrealistic’ For Now – Moscow (RT)

Russia and Ukraine are highly unlikely to agree to a full ceasefire at present, Vassily Nebenzia, Moscow’s envoy to the United Nations, has said. He cited Ukrainian violations of a US-brokered truce on energy infrastructure strikes as among the reasons. Speaking to reporters at the UN headquarters on Thursday, Nebenzia addressed comments by US President Donald Trump, who said he expects a response from Russia on a ceasefire proposal as early as “this week.” “How close we are to the ceasefire is a big question to me personally, because, as I said, we had an attempt on a limited ceasefire on energy infrastructure, which was not observed by the Ukrainian side. So, in these circumstances, to speak about a ceasefire is simply unrealistic at this stage,” Nebenzia said.

Moscow and Kiev agreed a 30-day moratorium on strikes on energy facilities following a phone call between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin last month. Russia, however, has accused Ukraine of repeatedly violating the ceasefire. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Friday that the moratorium had expired, but that Putin had not yet announced a decision on further steps. Nebenzia noted that there are “big issues with the comprehensive ceasefire,” recalling the fate of the now-defunct Minsk agreements, which were designed to give the regions of Donetsk and Lugansk special status within the Ukrainian state. According to Nebenzia, the deal was “misused and abused to prepare Ukraine for the confrontation [with Russia].” The envoy added that another concern is the feasibility of monitoring any potential ceasefire, as it is unclear who could take on this task.

His comments come amid diplomatic efforts between the US and Russia to resolve the Ukraine conflict. Earlier this month, US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff met with Putin in St. Petersburg, stating after the talks that a potential peace deal hinges on “these so-called five territories,” referring to former Ukrainian regions which overwhelmingly voted to join Russia. However, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has indicated that Washington could withdraw from peace negotiations if no progress is made soon. “We need to determine very quickly now, and I’m talking about a matter of days, whether or not this is doable,” Rubio said on Friday.

Read more …

It’s the only place where it can stay alive.

• Europe, You Can’t Sit on the Sidelines Anymore (Victor Davis Hanson)

Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. I’d like to talk today about the role of China, the United States, and the European Union, or just Europe in general, in the context of these tariffs and the so-called trade wars. Right now, President Donald Trump has given a 90-day reprieve from high tariffs. I think that 10% tariffs are still in existence. And they are negotiating with a number of European countries and particularly, Asian dynamic economies, such as South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. In addition to that, they are targeting China with tit-for-tat tariffs. And we are maybe on the brink—nobody wants it, but we might be on the brink of a trade war, which we’ve addressed in earlier videos.

But here’s my point. What is the attitude of Europe? Roughly, China has a $1 trillion deficit with the world. We have about a $1 trillion deficit in trade with the world. But here’s the ratios. About a third of our deficit is with China, which makes up a third of their surplus. In addition to that, Europe makes up about a third of their surplus. So, China has called on Europe to join forces with it to prevent all of the retaliatory tariffs that the United States has threatened Europe, which has a $200 billion surplus with us, and China, which has a nearly high $300 billion, maybe even $400 billion, who knows? It’s kind of crazy, isn’t it, that these illiberal apparatchiks in China would think that a Western democracy would want to join them against the United States? I don’t think that’s gonna happen. But the European Left is very angry at the Trump administration.

So, Choice One might be, “Well, we don’t like the Chinese and we are an ally of the Americans, who subsidize our defense, but we detest the Trump administration. So maybe, (wink and nod) we’ll either be quiet or hope China wins that trade war and the United States, under the Trump administration, backs off all tariffs.” That would be a big mistake given their vulnerabilities they have with the United States vis-a-vis security. The second attitude might be the Europeans will just say, “We’ll lay low. We won’t say much at all. We’ll kind of drag out our tariff negotiations with the Trump administration. And we’ll let the Chinese and the United States battle it out. And if Trump should win and he lowers the amount of trade with China, maybe that will be an opening for us to replace China as the United States chief importer.” That is something that I don’t think will happen.

The third scenario is what I would suggest for the Europeans. They should say the following: “Despite our disagreements with the Trump administration, the United States is an ally. And we know that we have been as victimized by Chinese mercantilism, high tariffs, cheating on patents, copyrights, dumping, financial money manipulation—all the things the United States complains about, we do too. In fact, we as Europeans in a whole have about the same deficit with China as the United States does. So, we are kindred spirits. So, what we will do is, even though we have disagreements on our surplus with the United States and their efforts to reduce it, we will ally with the United States.” And that would represent about two-thirds of China’s total trade action or monetary value. And especially, if Japan and our allies in South Korea, Taiwan would join, then China would find out that about 85% of its trade is in a block. That is, they are united. And they have common complaints against China.

And China would not be able to say to the United States, “We’re going to cut deals with Vietnam and Japan and Taiwan and South Korea and the EU and leave you out in the cold.” Instead, the Europeans and, to a lesser extent, the Asian powerhouses would join the United States and say, “You know what? We’ve been quiet. We’re afraid of China. They’re bullies. But now that you’ve stood up, we’re embolden ourselves to air the same complaints as you are and hope that you win. And maybe a byproduct of reduced trade with China from the United States will open a door. So, even though we might have to lower our tariffs, there will be more opportunity in the American market with a less prominent Chinese trade profile that we can then be welcomed in as a kindred ally.” So, Europe has two or three choices in this proposed Chinese-American trade standoff. Nobody wants a trade war with anybody. No one wants it with China. But this is long overdue. And Europe has to decide what course they’re going to take. And for everybody’s sake, let’s hope they choose wisely.

Read more …

“Start with a big ask, create a sense of urgency, use leverage, don’t back down, make things happen. That’s how Trump is getting this all done.”

• Trump Takes ‘Art Of The Deal’ To World Stage (Stepman)

President Donald Trump, like one of his heroes Andrew Jackson, was born for a storm. Trump is disrupting national and international systems that no longer work for the American people. In the domestic realm, he’s launched a political counterrevolution on a scale of change not seen since the New Deal. But it isn’t just on the home front that Trump is making the greatest pivot.He’s dramatically shifting the global chess board. Instead of coasting on the “postwar order” that long ago morphed into the failing and incoherent post-Cold War order, Trump is using America’s still-considerable position in the world to reorient the focus of our national security. He’s doing this by using the skill that he long ago became famous for and that so many of his critics misunderstand. Start with a big ask, create a sense of urgency, use leverage, don’t back down, make things happen. That’s how Trump is getting this all done.

It’s the art of the deal, and it’s funny that so many commentators miss this given that Trump wrote a famous book about it and has been pulling off deals in the public eye for decades. What the 47th president is doing is renegotiating America’s position vis-à-vis both our international rivals and our allies. Whether it be on tariffs, or acquiring Greenland, or securing the Panama Canal, or peace with Russia and Iran, Trump is clearly aiming to reset America’s international situation. He’s doing this, I believe, to ensure that the United States and not Communist China will remain the most dominant country globally going forward. Let’s take the Greenland issue for instance. Greenland may seem irrelevant, but its position on the globe and considerable natural resources vital to a modern economy make it extremely important for U.S. security. Acquiring it would send a message to Americans that we are thinking big once again and a message to Russia and China that the U.S. means to prevent them from dominating the Arctic and threatening the U.S. mainland.

The U.S. has sought to acquire the massive Arctic island since at least the 1860s. When William H. Seward bought Alaska, he really wanted Greenland too. The U.S. became close to buying Greenland a few other times, but ultimately Denmark held onto it. Trump’s aggressive words may have unsettled U.S. relations with Denmark in the short term, but maybe that’s what’s needed to create pressure and a sense of urgency to get a deal done. Trump knows that the U.S. can offer Greenland more than any other nation, he can make the territory rich and provide long-term defense. It’s now more likely than ever that Greenland will go independent and fall under U.S. sway in one way or another. Now consider Panama. The Panama Canal has long been critical for American national security. Perhaps we should have never given it to Panama after building it in the first place, but here we are.

It’s clear that China has made major inroads into subtly influencing Panama. A Hong Kong-based company controls ports on both sides of the canal. What would happen if they even just delayed U.S. ships during a sudden military conflict in the Pacific? Not good. Trump’s strong rhetoric about retaking the canal and putting immediate pressure on the country has forced them to act. The Hong Kong company sold those ports (and over 40 others around the globe) to an American-led group of companies. China has blocked the sale, but there is a good chance that a deal will go through at some point. Panama has abandoned China’s Belt and Road investments and even recently agreed to allow some U.S. troops to be stationed in the country. The Panamanian government would clearly rather remain in the good graces of the U.S. rather than kowtow to China. The Monroe Doctrine is back and it should have never gone away.

Now consider Panama. The Panama Canal has long been critical for American national security. Perhaps we should have never given it to Panama after building it in the first place, but here we are. It’s clear that China has made major inroads into subtly influencing Panama. A Hong Kong-based company controls ports on both sides of the canal. What would happen if they even just delayed U.S. ships during a sudden military conflict in the Pacific? Not good. Trump’s strong rhetoric about retaking the canal and putting immediate pressure on the country has forced them to act. The Hong Kong company sold those ports (and over 40 others around the globe) to an American-led group of companies. China has blocked the sale, but there is a good chance that a deal will go through at some point.

Panama has abandoned China’s Belt and Road investments and even recently agreed to allow some U.S. troops to be stationed in the country. The Panamanian government would clearly rather remain in the good graces of the U.S. rather than kowtow to China. The Monroe Doctrine is back and it should have never gone away. Of course, where Trump has operated most dramatically and has taken the greatest risk is on trade. Trump threatened to put significant tariffs on virtually every nation on earth. This sent markets and countless political commentators into a panic. But at seemingly the last minute, Trump adjusted and froze the highest tariffs. He kept an enormous 145% tariff on China.

The turbulent tariff talk has resulted in China being economically singled out. U.S. trade partners around the globe are offering to reduce their tariffs on U.S. goods out of concern about losing access to the American domestic market. Countries are now being pushed into the position of doing business with China or America. And they can’t go back to being pass-throughs for Chinese goods.

Read more …

“While Biden was preaching “unity” from his teleprompter, his administration was quietly crafting plans to turn Big Tech into their personal censorship machine.”

• Tulsi Exposes a Terrifying Biden-Era Program Meant To Be Secret (Margolis)

They thought they could keep it hidden forever. Buried under layers of classification and bureaucratic doublespeak, the Biden administration’s masterplan for undermining American liberty was supposed to stay safely locked away from public scrutiny. But they didn’t count on Tulsi Gabbard. In a stunning move that has the DC establishment scrambling, Director of National Intelligence Gabbard just declassified what might be the most disturbing government document of the Biden era: their deceptively-named “Strategic Implementation Plan for Countering Domestic Terrorism.” Let’s cut through the bureaucratic noise and call this what it really is: a systematic blueprint for targeting and silencing conservative Americans. While Biden was preaching “unity” from his teleprompter, his administration was quietly crafting plans to turn Big Tech into their personal censorship machine.

The scheme reads like a progressive wish list: monitoring “suspicious” online speech (translation: conservative viewpoints), expanding federal watchlists to include Americans with the “wrong” political beliefs, and – you guessed it – finding new ways to chip away at Second Amendment rights. Don’t be fooled by their carefully crafted language about “protecting democracy.” The Government Accountability Office has confirmed these weren’t just ideas on paper—they were actively being implemented. How many Americans have already been labeled “suspicious” for nothing more than expressing conservative views? Heck, Tulsi Gabbard ended up on the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) terrorist watchlist under Joe Biden. Enough said.

The plan’s centerpiece? A comprehensive strategy to leverage federal power for pushing red flag laws and restricting access to firearms, all under the guise of preventing “lethal means.” Because apparently, in Biden’s America, exercising your Constitutional rights made you a potential threat under the guise of combating domestic terrorism. The strategic implementation plan (SIP) pushed agencies to crack down on what it labels “DT (domestic terrorism)-related content” online, encouraging collaboration with Big Tech to monitor, report, and censor speech—raising serious First Amendment concerns about free speech and assembly. You may remember that this practice was exposed after Elon Musk acquired Twitter, when the Twitter Files showed “extensive government efforts to silence dissenting views” on everything from COVID-19 to elections.

The report further reveals that agencies were told to “Share with relevant technology and other private-industry companies… relevant information on DT-related and associated transnational terrorist online content.” This wasn’t just government overreach, it was a calculated assault on the fundamental rights that make America exceptional. While the left was hyperventilating about “threats to democracy,” they were building the infrastructure for genuine governmental tyranny. Thanks to Gabbard’s courage in bringing this to light, we can finally see what Biden’s “moderate” administration was really planning behind closed doors. The question now isn’t just who approved this un-American scheme—it’s how many other similar programs are still hiding in classified files, waiting to be exposed.

The founding fathers would be rolling in their graves. But perhaps this revelation is exactly what America needs right now – a wake-up call about what happens when we let power-hungry bureaucrats operate in the shadows, far from public scrutiny and accountability. Remember this the next time you hear Democrats pontificating about “defending democracy.” They’ve shown us exactly what they mean by “democracy,” and it looks nothing like the Constitutional Republic our founders envisioned.

Read more …

”Everyone sees on the news where the Trump admin stands; you don’t want to do anything that shoots yourself in the foot..”

• NATO To Abandon ‘Woke Language’ – Politico (RT)

NATO staff are softening language related to climate, gender, and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) to avoid a potential backlash from the administration of US President Donald Trump, Politico has reported, citing sources familiar with the situation. Phrases concerning climate, as well as gender diversity and security, have been reworded in new NATO legislation drafted by its committees and working groups, using language deemed more palatable to Washington, the outlet said on Thursday. The Trump administration took sweeping action aimed at dismantling gender and DEI programs shortly after Trump assumed office in January. The new administration is working to cut funding for universities and dismantle federal programs that include DEI practices. It is also carrying out a purge within the Pentagon to eliminate these programs.

”Everyone sees on the news where the Trump admin stands; you don’t want to do anything that shoots yourself in the foot,” one NATO official told Politico. ”Green technologies” have reportedly been replaced with “innovative technologies,” while “climate” has been described as an “operational environment,” another official said. NATO officials are steering clear of any language referencing “gender” or “women, peace, and security” in an effort to secure approval from all 32 member countries, including the US, the outlet said. ”Everyone knows that the worst thing you can do is present it as a diversity issue,” one of the officials said. “It’s not a woke agenda, it’s part of a military agenda, and now more people are pricking up their ears to make sure it is spoken about in military terms.” The fight against “woke policies,” such as the promotion of gender reassignment treatment among minors, was a key part of Trump’s presidential campaign. He has signed multiple executive orders rolling back DEI initiatives since taking office.

Trump has also consistently criticized NATO countries, accusing them of “freeloading” on US military support. He has pushed for members to increase their defense spending target from the current 2% of GDP to 5%. On Tuesday, the Trump administration unveiled a plan to slash the State Department’s budget by nearly 50%, a reduction that would deeply affect contributions to NATO’s internal operations, the UN, and roughly 20 other international bodies. The proposal, put forward by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, seeks to reduce combined funding for the State Department and USAID from $54.4 billion to $28.4 billion for the next fiscal year. Among the most significant changes is the proposed elimination of financial support for nearly all international organizations, including the UN and NATO headquarters.

Read more …

“Autistic people contribute every day to our nation’s greatness.” —Senator Elizabeth Warren

• Kilmar for President! (James Howard Kunstler)

So, you wonder why Democrats are so anxious to bring Kilmar Abrego Garcia back to the USA. Is it to lead the national ticket in 2028? Who else have they got? Pete Buttigieg doesn’t have half of Kilmar’s charisma. AOC is just pretending to be Sandy-from-the-block — and everybody knows it. Who else best represents the party’s newest constituency: the undocumented (people unfairly deprived of documents by a cruel and careless bureaucracy)? Who best represents the Democratic Party’s number one policy goal: diversity fosterization! Kilmar, of course! Viva Kilmar!

It’s also pretty obvious by his recent actions, that Judge “Jeb” Boasberg is angling to be Kilmar’s running mate in ‘28. Perfect! He could fulfil the traditional role of vice-president by doing nothing for four years, which is exactly what people of non-color should do in the Democratic Party’s new national order. (Haven’t they already done enough?) Boasberg could set an example for the rest of America’s dwindling color-deficient population: quit hogging all the action, stop collecting all those dividends and annuities, step aside and give the other a chance at the American Dream!

Did you happen to notice how enterprising Kilmar Abrego Garcia has been since he boldly breached the border in 2011, fleeing persecution from the vicious gangs of his native El Salvador? Running a one-man jobs program, he crossed the country countless times indefatigably from Maryland to California in his mobile office — the legendary KAG SUV — seeking employment opportunities for young women of color otherwise condemned to clean hotel rooms and labor in senior care facilities filled with abusive people of non-color clinging pointlessly to life only to oppress their caretakers with never-ending demands for medication and extra portions of Jello.

Kilmar’s gritty organization, Mara Salvatrucha-13, has been among the Democratic Party’s most effective NGOs in a greater galaxy of justice-seeking ventures marshaled under the USAID umbrella — recently vandalized by Elon Musk’s DOGE band of pillaging oligarchs. MS-13, for short, was beloved among the undocumented for its fund-raising abilities, its networking expertise, and its relentless search for the missing documents the undocumented have been looking high-and-low for lo these many decades — rumored to be concealed in a vast underground complex in the Catoctin Mountains of Frederick County, MD. (More white peoples’ mischief!)

Thus, it came to pass that Kilmar Abrego Garcia, Maryland Dad-of-the-Year, was cruelly snatched from an MS-13 board meeting last month and transported without benefit of due process to the Salvadorean hell-hole known as CECOT (Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo). And so, his Senator, Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) traveled this week to Central America on his one-man rescue mission. The Senator claimed he was detained miles from the gate of CECOT, and yet we have this photograph of Mr. Van Hollen meeting with Kilmar (and an unidentified aide) over Margaritas and pupusas at a cantina in the nearby town of Tecoluca. Asked to comment on the photo, El Savador’s Presidente, Nayib Bukele, declared: “Kilmar Abrego Garcia, miraculously risen from the ‘death camp’ & ‘torture!’ Now that he’s been confirmed healthy, he gets the honor of staying in El Salvador’s custody,” Mr. Bukele added.

Oh, so you say Señor Presidente! But not if “Jeb” Boasberg can help it. The dauntless super-judge has ordered Kilmar to be returned the USA pronto expressimo, or else he, the judge, is laying criminal contempt charges on the entire West Wing staff of Donald Trump’s White House. They will go to jail just like Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro, two capos regime of Trump’s MAGA gang, did last year for the insolence of refusing to testify in Congress. Only, they will get life-without-parole! Lessons to be learned, ye miserable color-deficient, oppressors!

Alas, the DC federal district court is a bit short of enforcement officers, so Judge “Jeb” has enlisted the Harvard rowing crew to bring Kilmar back home. Kilmar will take the coxswain’s place in the racing shell as the crew rows up the Pacific Coast to their planned landing spot at Las Olas, CA, just south of San Diego. Joy will reign in Wokeville.

Having displayed such pluck at diplomacy, unnamed sources say Senator Van Hollen is under consideration for Secretary of State when Kilmar wins the 2028 election. Up until now, we’d been hoping for Senator Adam Schiff to fill that spot, but he has his hands full fighting the influence of the Soviet Union on the Trump cabinet. Looking forward, though, to the bold prosecutor, New York AG Letitia ‘Tish” James, moving into the top spot at DOJ, if her term for mortgage fraud ends before Jan-20, 2029. The Democratic Party — such bright prospects! Forward together, with Kilmar and company! Documents for all, at long last!

Read more …

That was fast! Trouble in the ranks?!

• IRS Hunter Biden Whistleblower Gary Shapley Ousted As Acting Commissioner (NYP)

Gary Shapley, who became a folk hero to conservatives when he revealed the Justice Department played favorites in its investigation of former first son Hunter Biden, was ousted from his role as acting IRS commissioner just days after being elevated to the position, sources familiar with the shake-up told The Post Friday. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has replaced Shapley with deputy treasury secretary Michael Faulkender following a power struggle with key Trump adviser Elon Musk over the appointment. The reorganization was first reported by the New York Times. Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) had pressed the White House for Shapley to take over the IRS. But Bessent felt left out of the decision-making — and asked President Trump if he could install Faulkender instead.

The acting commissioner will only be in place until former GOP congressman Billy Long can be vetted and confirmed by the Senate to lead the tax collection agency. “It’s no secret President Trump has put together a team of people who are incredibly passionate about the issues impacting our country,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement. “Disagreements are a normal part of any healthy policy process, and ultimately everyone knows they serve at the pleasure of President Trump.” Shapley, who last month was tapped as a senior adviser to Bessent, was named acting IRS head after the departure of Melanie Krause, who resigned due to disagreements with the treasury secretary over the sharing of tax information on illegal immigrants with the Department of Homeland Security. While Krause left the IRS on Tuesday, Shapley remains in a senior position in the commissioner’s office despite being removed from the top interim role.

Musk had been lashing out at Bessent publicly before Shapley’s apparent demotion. On Thursday evening, the Tesla and SpaceX CEO posted on X in response to right-wing provocateur Laura Loomer that Bessent’s meetings with a purported “Trump hater” earlier this month were “troubling.” The line of attack came after Loomer had a White House meeting that precipitated the mass firing of several National Security Council staffers due to a lack of perceived loyalty to the president’s agenda. Musk had backed current Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick for the Treasury role, criticizing Bessent as a “business-as-usual choice.” Lutnick, by contrast, would “actually enact change,” Musk wrote on X before Bessent’s nomination.

Shapley and fellow IRS whistleblower Joseph Ziegler had testified before Congress in July 2023 that former President Joe Biden’s Justice Department had slow-walked a criminal probe of his son Hunter and blocked their tax team from taking certain investigatory steps. Among the damning claims were that Biden-appointed US attorneys based in Washington DC and Los Angeles had declined to bring charges against the then-first son, while then-Assistant Delaware US Attorney Lesley Wolf discouraged investigators from pursuing lines of questioning related to Joe Biden, saying at one point that there was “no specific criminality.”

Read more …

“Following the February meeting between Modi and Musk in Washington, the company started hiring in India..”

• Indian PM Modi Dials Musk Ahead of Vance’s Visit (RT)

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said on Friday that he has had a phone call with Elon Musk during which they discussed several issues, including collaboration on technology and innovation. The call comes ahead of a visit to New Delhi next week by US Vice President J.D. Vance as the two nations aim to resolve trade issues. “India remains committed to advancing our partnerships with the US in these domains,” Modi said on X. During a two-day visit to the US in February, Modi met with Musk, whose business empire includes Tesla and SpaceX. India’s Ministry of External Affairs stated at the time that Modi and Musk discussed enhancing collaboration between Indian and US entities in areas such as innovation, space exploration, artificial intelligence, and sustainable development. They also explored opportunities for increased cooperation in emerging technologies, entrepreneurship, and good governance, the ministry said.

Musk’s SpaceX has already signed agreements with the top two telecom operators in India – Reliance Jio and Airtel to start Starlink internet services to India. Tesla has also made a move toward entering the Indian market. Following the February meeting between Modi and Musk in Washington, the company started hiring in India, advertising 13 job openings on LinkedIn for various positions, including back-end and customer-facing roles, according to local media reports. Meanwhile, India is one of the first countries to have initiated formal discussions with Washington on a trade deal that would allow it to avoid being charged a higher reciprocal tariff. The two countries have agreed on a deadline for completing an agreement, according to a government official cited by Reuters.

Read more …

They should use their money and clout for something positive.

• Soros-Funded Groups Go To War Against DOGE (Tyler O’Neil)

The far-left groups that staffed and advised the Biden administration—a network that I call the Woketopus—are going to war against DOGE’s efforts to root out waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government. Activist groups like the Center for American Progress and the ACLU are working alongside unions like the AFL-CIO and the American Federation of Teachers to block DOGE through lawsuits or public campaigns. My book, “The Woketopus: The Dark Money Cabal Manipulating the Federal Government,” exposes how these activist groups—bankrolled through the Left’s dark money network by big donors like Hungarian American billionaire George Soros and his son, Alex—used the administrative state to force their woke agendas on the American people. The Trump administration is rooting woke ideology out of the federal government, so the Woketopus’ opposition comes as no surprise. Yet the campaign against DOGE seems particularly noteworthy, since DOGE represents an effort to tighten the government’s belt and make it more accountable to the people.

The Dark Money Playbook A little-known and once secretive nonprofit called Governing for Impact appears to have orchestrated the Left’s campaigns against DOGE. As I document in the book, Governing for Impact began as a project of New Venture Fund, one of the nonprofit entities created by the for-profit company Arabella Advisors. Governing for Impact’s website did not even appear on Google in 2022, but the nonprofit bragged about hosting a “listening tour” that involved some of the most influential regulators in the Biden administration. The Open Society Foundations, which George Soros founded and which his son Alex now runs, funneled $9.98 million into Governing for Impact through New Venture Fund between 2019 and 2021. Rachel Klarman, Governing for Impact’s executive director, previously worked as a legal policy analyst at Democracy Forward, identifying and developing litigation challenging the first Trump administration’s actions on health care, labor, and education.

Perhaps it should be no surprise, then, that Governing for Impact published a series of memos laying out legal strategies to sue the second Trump administration, particularly on DOGE. The memo titled “Challenging DOGE,” published in February, lays out a strategy to claim that DOGE “lacks lawful authority to act as an agency.” “One potential legal claim would assert that DOGE, as embodied in [the U.S. Digital Service, the department Trump re-tasked to house DOGE], lacks any statutory authority,” since Congress did not pass a law explicitly creating DOGE. The memo admits that Trump has an alternate explanation for DOGE’s involvement, but it insists that the effort is unlawful. It goes on to state that since DOGE “lacks lawful authority to act as an agency,” it “cannot enter Economy Act agreements.” The Economy Act, signed in 1932, allows federal agencies to share resources.

The AFL-CIO, America’s largest union, filed a lawsuit against DOGE that same month, arguing that DOGE lacks the authority to place orders with other federal agencies under the Economy Act, The Washington Examiner reported. Not only did the AFL-CIO—one of the unions with influence in the Biden administration—bring this lawsuit, but its legal representation comes from none other than the Democracy Forward Foundation, Klarman’s former employer. Democratic lawyer Marc Elias, who recently challenged the U.S. Senate election results in Pennsylvania and who helped orchestrate the Trump-Russia hoax, chairs Democracy Forward’s board. Democracy Forward is representing many of the lawsuits against the Trump administration.

Other Woketopus Lawsuits Against DOGE The American Federation of Government Employees—the largest public-sector union in the federal government and a member of the AFL-CIO—has filed multiple lawsuits against DOGE. In the first anti-DOGE lawsuit filed on Trump’s first day in office, AFGE joined Public Citizen and State Democracy Defenders Fund (a group led by Democratic lawyer Norm Eisen) in suing to make sure DOGE complies with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. AFGE teamed up with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees to sue Acting DOGE Administrator Charles Ezell to block the Trump administration’s offer for federal employees to resign in a buyout.

Read more …

“The ‘tariff solution’ had been pre-prepared by his team over recent years, and formed an integral part to a more complex framework..”

• Trump Axes A Stricken World Order (Alastair Crooke)

The Trump ‘shock’ – his ‘de-centring’ of America from serving as pivot to the post-war ‘order’ via the dollar – has triggered a deep cleavage between those who gained huge benefit from the status quo, on the one hand; and on the other, the MAGA faction who have come to regard the status quo as inimical – even an existential threat – to U.S. interests. The sides have descended into bitter, accusatory polarisation. It is one of the ironies of the moment that President Trump and right-wing Republicans have insisted on decrying – as a “resource curse” – the benefits of the Reserve Currency status that precisely brought the U.S. the wave of inward global savings that has permitted the U.S. to enjoy the unique privilege of printing money, without adverse consequence: Until now that is! Debt levels finally matter, it seems, even for the Leviathan.

Vice-President Vance now likens the Reserve Currency to a “parasite” that has eaten away the substance of its ‘host’ – the U.S. economy – by forcing an overvalued dollar. Just to be clear, President Trump believed there was no choice: Either he could upend the existing paradigm, at the cost of considerable pain for many of those dependent on the financialised system, or he could allow events to wend their way towards an inevitable U.S. economic collapse. Even those who understood the dilemma the U.S. faces, nonetheless have been somewhat shocked by the self-serving brazenness of him simply ‘tariffing the world’. Trump’s actions, (as many claim), were neither ‘spur of the moment’, nor whimsical. The ‘tariff solution’ had been pre-prepared by his team over recent years, and formed an integral part to a more complex framework – one that complemented the debt-reduction and revenue effects of tariffs, by a programme to coerce the repatriation of vanished manufacturing industry back to America.

Trump’s is a gamble that may, or may not, succeed: It risks a bigger financial crisis, as financial markets are over-leveraged and fragile. But what is clear is that the de-centring of America that will follow from his crude threats and humiliation of world leaders ultimately will cause a counter-reaction both for relations with the U.S., and also in global willingness to continue to hold U.S. assets (such as U.S. Treasuries). China’s defiance of Trump will set a ‘tone’, even for those who lack China’s ‘heft’. Why then should Trump take such a risk? Because, behind Trump’s boldfaced actions, notes Simplicius, lies a harsh reality facing many MAGA supporters:

“it remains inarguable that the American workforce has been gutted by the triple threat of mass migration; general worker anomie as consequence of cultural decay – and in particular, by the mass alienation and disenfranchisement of conservatively-minded men. These have been strongly contributing factors to the current crisis of doubt about the ability of ‘American manufacturing’ to ever return to a semblance of its previous glory, no matter how big an axe Trump takes to the stricken ‘World Order’”. Trump is mounting a Revolution in order to invert this reality – an end to the American anomie – by (Trump hopes) bringing back U.S. industry.

There is a current of western public opinion – “by no means limited to intellectuals”, nor to Americans alone – that despairs of their own country’s ‘lack of will’, or its inability to do what needs to be done – its fecklessness and its ‘crisis of competence’. These people hanker for a leadership believed to be tougher and more decisive – a longing for unconstrained power and ruthlessness.

One highly-placed Trump supporter puts it quite brutally: “We are now at a very important inflection point. If we are going to face ‘The Big Ugly’ with China, we cannot afford divided loyalties … It’s time to get mean, brutally, harshly mean. Delicate sensibilities must be dispatched like a feather in a hurricane”. It is no surprise that, against the general context of western nihilism, a mindset that admires power and ruthless technocratic solutions – almost ruthlessness for its own sake – could take hold. Take note – we are all in for a turbulent future.

Read more …

“..then the Left will say, “Well, how can we appeal to the public and get them all angry and frenzy and hysterical when some of our major celebrities, our political figures are in Mar-a-Lago?”

• Trump’s Counterrevolution: Flood the Zone, Drain the Swamp (Victor Davis Hanson)

We’re about—getting close to 90 days and even coming up close, in a week, 10 days, to the first 100 days of the Trump administration and this counterrevolution that he’s waging. I thought it might be wise just to see where we are as far as the political landscape and the dynamics of the progress of this counterrevolution. What is President Donald Trump trying to do? I think I would sum it up as flooding the zone. And that is, he’s going to try to propose and enact so many radical corrections or revolutions or reforms or recalibrations that his opposition doesn’t know where to start. So, abroad, he is looking at the Iran deal and he got rid of it. He put sanctions. He’s got maximum pressure. And now, the Iranian economy is about defunct. And they want to negotiate about this nuclear weapon. I don’t think they’re going to negotiate it away, but we’ll see.

And then, he’s dealing with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Russian President Vladimir Putin and trying to get a ceasefire. He’s basically dealt with the Houthis.On the domestic front, there is no more illegal immigration. He’s basically stopped it. Now, the task is what to do with the 12 million illegal aliens that came under former President Joe Biden. And what do you do with the 20 million-plus, maybe 30 million that were here already illegally but for a longer period of time? At the same time, he’s had a blanket mandate that in every Cabinet they will eliminate diversity, equity, inclusion and, by association, things like transsexual, biological males competing in women’s sports. Women—lowering the physical standards so women could compete and pass these very rigorous endurance physical tests so that they would be in combat units on an equal level. No problem that they can’t. But they have to have the same physical requirements as men.

I could go on, but you see what he is doing. He’s doing so many radical corrections in a way that a Romney or a McCain or the Bushes, even Ronald Reagan would not have dreamed of that he feels the opposition will say, “Well, what do we do? Should we reply here? Do we put our interest here? Should we do this?” And so, what is the strategy that the Left is using? They’re flooding the zone, too. But they’re doing it not with counterproposals. They don’t say, “This is what’s wrong with closing the border and we wanna reopen it. This is what’s wrong with the Houthis policy. This is what’s wrong with the trade deficit. This is what’s wrong”—no specific proposal. They’re just flooding it with hysteria, the Spartacus talk, late-night comedy trashing him, another person arrested saying that he wants to kill Donald Trump, keying Teslas, firebombing Tesla agencies, outrageous things from Hollywood stars, videos from Congress. All of a sudden—we didn’t even know who Rep. Jasmine Crockett was. She’s filled that void.

But what I’m saying is they want to be so rambunctious, so crazy, so 360 degrees unhinged that they’ll create an image or a malu—where everybody wants to get almost in a fetal position: “Please, please make it all go away. I don’t know what Trump is doing but it’s so disturbing. Everybody’s so angry.” That is their strategy. Now, what is Trump’s counterstrategy? His counterstrategy is to actually get people on the other side of the aisle in Congress or in the country at large or in the popular culture and try to at least be friendly to them so then they can say, “I don’t agree with Trump but what he’s doing might be needed.” So, we have Bill Maher going to Mar-a-Lago and actually saying very nice things about Donald Trump.

On the one hand, we have Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fighting with a bulwark of the Left at one time, fighting with left-wing people who were calling him all sorts of names and saying that he is illiberal. We had Gretchen Whitmer, the governor of Michigan. She was in the White House. Can you believe it? She was so embarrassed about a photo-op. She had to almost cover her face.But you can see what Trump is doing. He’s trying to get people from all sides of the Democratic and liberal progressive movement and not compromise them, but get in the picture, so then the Left will say, “Well, how can we appeal to the public and get them all angry and frenzy and hysterical when some of our major celebrities, our political figures are in Mar-a-Lago?”

Read more …

‘Tis the season.

• There’s Real Evidence for Easter (Joecks)

If you think politicians make outlandish claims, consider what Christians celebrate at Easter. They believe a man named Jesus was brutally tortured, murdered, and buried for three days before rising from the dead. Furthermore, they assert this man was also fully God and that your belief or lack of belief in him determines your eternal destiny. Christians have no video evidence or DNA tests to prove this. That’s understandable since Christians say the event Easter celebrates took place almost 2,000 years ago. Americans can’t even agree on things that happened two weeks ago. Isn’t Easter an ancient example of “fake news,” a myth propagated by people putting faith over historical realities? It’s a valid question. The answer starts with looking at the books of the New Testament. How can you determine if what you read today is what the author wrote 2,000 years ago?

That question isn’t unique to the Bible. There are no original copies of any ancient work. Historians use a twofold test to determine how accurately copyists transmitted a manuscript throughout the ages. Scholars look at how many copies exist and the number of years between the original and the earliest surviving copy. For example, Julius Caesar fought and won a series of battles against the Gauls from 58 to 50 B.C. He chronicled his conquests in “On the Gallic War.” Historians have 251 manuscripts of this book, and the earliest is from the ninth century, a gap of over 850 years. Plato was one of the most important ancient philosophers. He wrote a series of dialogues before he died in 348/347 B.C. Scholars have 210 manuscripts of those writings. The oldest is from 895 A.D., a gap of over 1,200 years.

Aside from the Bible, the ancient work with the greatest number of copies is Homer’s “Iliad,” created around 800 B.C. There are over 1,800 copies of it, and the earliest is from around 400 B.C., a gap of just 400 years. The books of the New Testament were written between 50 and 100 A.D. There are over 5,800 New Testament manuscripts in Greek and over 18,500 New Testament manuscripts in other languages. The time gap between authorship and the earliest manuscript is just 50 years. All statistics are from a 2014 review by Josh McDowell and Clay Jones. Try telling a history professor that there isn’t enough historical evidence to confirm Julius Caesar conquered the Gaels or that Plato wrote philosophy. Yet there is a much greater track record for the accurate transmittal of the books depicting the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

An accurate transmission doesn’t mean what is written is true. “The Iliad” is, after all, a work of fiction. A key group, however, did believe the events recorded in the writings that became the New Testament—its authors. Some even explicitly emphasized that their writings were trustworthy and accurate recordings. It wasn’t just idle talk. Their actions changed too.Jesus’ disciples abandoned him when he was arrested. Within weeks, however, those cowards became bold preachers of a gospel message that would transform the world. They didn’t preach to get rich. Rather their preaching led to imprisonments and executions. Faith doesn’t have to mean turning off your brain. Rather, having faith can be the step one takes based on the evidence, including the historical documentation of an empty tomb.

Happy Easter.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Vax

 

 

Makary https://twitter.com/TheChiefNerd/status/1912947217473626610

 

 

Solari https://twitter.com/ChildrensHD/status/1913019646862643353

 

 

Stem cells https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1913200483205800187

 

 

Pelican https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1913080045389697360

 

 

Aeroponic https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1913149496256614820

 

 

Retriever https://twitter.com/catshealdeprsn/status/1912891302414287214

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Apr 032025
 


Pablo Picasso The rescue 1936

 

Trump Rolls Out Sweeping New Tariffs (RT)
Trump’s ‘Sledgehammer’ Approach May Cause Trade Wars –Analyst (RT)
“This ‘Scoop’ Is Garbage’: White House Spox Denies Musk Is Stepping Back (ZH)
Trump: “Very Bad Things are Going to Happen.” (Dennis Kucinich)
DNC, Schumer Sue Trump Over Order Targeting Illegal Immigrant Voting (ET)
Ukraine Conflict ‘On Precipice Of Ceasefire’ – Trump Envoy (RT)
US Not Ready To Fight China – Trump’s Pick For Top General (RT)
Unconquerable Yemen (Pepe Escobar)
Who Pays For Whom In The European Union (SCF)
France Launches New Probe Linked To Le Pen trial – AFP (RT)
Le Pen’s 2027 Presidential Bid Derailed By von der Leyen and Macron (Jay)
Von der Leyen Is Afraid Of The European Parliament (Pacini)
Trump White House Bets on Outbidding Denmark for Greenland (Sp.)
US ‘Seriously Considering’ Iran’s Indirect Nuclear Talks Idea (Sp.)
Zakharova Skewers Baerbock’s ‘Nightmare’ Bid for UNGA Chair (Sp.)
World Leaders Secretly Talking To Putin – Vucic (RT)
Unearthed FBI Chat Logs Reveal ‘Gag Order’ On Biden Laptop Exposé (HUSA)
Elon Musk Calls For Arrest Of ‘Fake NGO’ Leaders (NYP)
Democrats Attack Musk and Everything that They Once Believed in (Turley)

 

 

 

 

Crooke https://twitter.com/apocalypseos/status/1907188204530475152

Tesla https://twitter.com/MAGAVoice/status/1907185675067367865

Karaganov

USAID

RFK

https://twitter.com/Holden_Culotta/status/1907090380811620641

Kyiv 2014

Unfettered

RFK SV40

Newt Gingrich Warns Of ‘Constitutional Crisis’ Due To Judges Blocking Trump Actions

 

 

 

 

Food for conversation. Lotsa. Go make the deal.

• Trump Rolls Out Sweeping New Tariffs (RT)

US President Donald Trump announced a sweeping new round of tariffs on Wednesday, as part of what he has branded his ‘Liberation Day’ plan, raising concerns about a potential global trade war. Washington is introducing customs duties on all countries based on the principle of reciprocity, Trump has announced, calling it a day of economic independence for the United States. The president confirmed that the 25% global tariffs on cars and trucks will take effect as scheduled on Thursday, while duties on imported automotive parts are set to take effect on May 3.

In his speech at the White House Rose Garden, Trump complained that “none of our companies are allowed to go into other countries.” “That’s why, effective at midnight, we will impose a 25% tariff on all foreign-made automobiles,” he declared.Trump claimed the reciprocal tariffs would usher in a “golden age” for the country, adding that “jobs and factories will come roaring back.” According to a chart presented by Trump during his speech, the new tariffs will range from 10% to 50%, depending on the country. Washington will impose a 20% tariff on the EU, 34% levies on China, and 24% duties on Japan, among others.

Trump said Washington would implement “kind” reciprocal tariffs on all countries amounting to “approximately half” of what those nations charge the US. “We will supercharge our domestic industrial base” and “break down” trade barriers abroad, he vowed, noting that ultimately this would entail lower prices for consumers. “Our country and its taxpayers have been ripped off for more than 50 years, but it is NOT going to happen anymore,” Trump concluded, adding “We are finally putting America first.”

Read more …

Possible. Let’s see.

• Trump’s ‘Sledgehammer’ Approach May Cause Trade Wars –Analyst (RT)

US President Donald Trump’s tactics in both political and economic matters are very similar and are tantamount to using a sledgehammer for a problem that requires nuance, financial analyst Henry Johnston has told RT. On Wednesday, Trump announced a new round of sweeping tariffs on scores of trading partners, part of what he has branded his ‘Liberation Day’ plan. “I think there’s a very interesting parallel between Trump’s approach to the Ukraine conflict and what he is doing economically. And that is that he is attempting to address very deep-seated, longstanding problems with rapid unilateral and aggressive measures,” the analyst told RT.

“And in both cases, I think he’s going to encounter more of what we’re already seeing: his very primitive tactics are not getting to the root of the issue. The economic problems that he’s attempting to address are very deep-seated. They’ve been in play for half a century and they will not be addressed by a bludgeoning with tariffs.” In his speech, Trump presented a detailed chart highlighting the reciprocal tariffs he is applying to different nations. “We will charge them approximately half of what they are and have been charging us,” Trump said of his reciprocal tariff plan. “So, the tariffs will be not a full reciprocal,” he added.

According to Johnston, there’s a perception in the White House that other nations take advantage of the US because American goods are not as welcome elsewhere, whereas the US has kept a relatively open market. “The trade balance certainly speaks for itself, but I think what’s important to understand here is that the US was a willing participant in this system. By using the dollar as the reserve currency and encouraging other countries to build up surpluses of dollars and then reinvest those in the US, in US Treasuries, it essentially allowed the US to finance domestic consumption without creating inflation,” the analyst explained to RT.

“I think it’s not entirely in good faith to claim that the US is being abused, even where US goods don’t have the same access to other markets, because the system itself has been very beneficial to the United States.” The plan has drawn swift backlash from US trading partners. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said on Tuesday that the EU has “a strong plan” in response. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said on Tuesday, as cited by CCTV, that Beijing would “counterattack” if the US continues to engage in “blackmail.”

“And I think there’ll certainly be a lot of scrambling among American trade partners to respond to this,” Johnston told RT. “I think the European Union will see this as a hostile move, without question, I think it will be fairly painful for the EU. We could be seeing trade wars among allies.” Since returning to office in January, Trump has imposed a series of tariffs targeting a wide range of imports – from sweeping duties on Chinese goods to non-compliant products from the EU, Canada, and Mexico, and also steel, aluminum, and most recently, foreign cars and critical auto parts. Trump has particularly singled out the EU for what he calls unfair trade practices, including high tariffs on American goods and restrictive regulatory barriers that disadvantage US companies.

Read more …

They can’t wait.

• “This ‘Scoop’ Is Garbage’: White House Spox Denies Musk Is Stepping Back (ZH)

Shares of Tesla rose on Wednesday following an anonymously sourced Politico report (keeping in mind Musk just yanked millions in government ‘subscriptions’ from them) that President Trump has told his inner circle that Musk would be stepping back from his advisory role in the coming weeks. Musk, who Politico describes as “governing partner, ubiquitous cheerleader and Washington hatchet man” (totally not salty), claims that Trump “remains pleased with Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency initiative but both men have decided in recent days that it will soon be time for Musk to return to his businesses and take on a supporting role.”

Then Politico gets extra nasty – writing that “Musk’s looming retreat comes as some Trump administration insiders and many outside allies have become frustrated with his unpredictability and increasingly view the billionaire as a political liability, a dynamic that was thrown into stark relief Tuesday when a conservative judge Musk vocally supported lost his bid for a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat by 10 points.” One anonymous official allegedly told Politico that Musk is likely to retain an informal advisory role and continue to be an occasional face around the White House, while another said that anyone who thinks Musk is going to disappear entirely from Trump’s orbit is “fooling themselves.” [..] shares of Musk-owned Tesla rose more than 5% on the report.

*** Aaand here’s the denial. White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt has called Politico’s scoop “garbage,” adding “lon Musk and President Trump have both *publicly* stated that Elon will depart from public service as a special government employee when his incredible work at DOGE is complete.” Though we would note that ‘stepping back’ (Politico) does not equal ‘departing’ (WH).

Read more …

“The U.S. Intelligence community, in its annual Global Threat Assessment, refuted Netanyahu’s oft-repeated claim about Iran building a nuclear weapon stating, “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon.”

• Trump: “Very Bad Things are Going to Happen.” (Dennis Kucinich)

In my article, “The High Price of War with Iran: $10 Gas and the Collapse of the U.S. Economy,” I reminded readers of how Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been behind the push for America to destroy Iraq, Libya, Syria and now Iran. I reviewed the severe economic consequences for the U.S. if it attacks Iran. Today, I cite the human health and atmospheric effects of a U.S. attack on Iran’s nuclear research facilities. The resulting nuclear fallout would bring a catastrophe unprecedented in human history. Last week, President Trump said “very bad things are going to happen” to Iran, if that nation’s leaders do not sign a new nuclear deal. The President is right. He can make very bad things can happen to Iran.

But Iran is not the only country to which “bad things” are going to happen if Iran’s nuclear research infrastructure is destroyed by the U.S., as is revealed by a careful study of the spread of radiation created by the promised bombings. America has been Netanyahu’s pawn for decades. Will the wealth, lives and security of our nation be sacrificed yet further to an agenda which brings only debt to our nation and death to innocents abroad? The return of Donald Trump to the White House for a second term has enabled Netanyahu’s right-wing party to accelerate the pulverization of Gaza, expand settlements and to repel the Houthis pro-Gaza attacks on Red Sea shipping. Netanyahu viewed Trump’s first election in 2016 as a new opportunity to topple Iran’s leadership. Trump, in partnership with Netanyahu, withdrew the U.S. from a multi-lateral agreement which limited Iran’s nuclear development in exchange for sanctions relief.

An attack by B-2 bombers on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would destroy the targeted sites, and unleash radioactivity endangering the lives of tens of millions in Iran and hundreds of millions beyond. Due to radioactive drift, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE, Bahrain, eastern Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan also would be severely impacted. In practical terms, given proximity to Iran, and the direction of the wind, high levels of radiation-induced illness, some fatal, and sharp increases in cancer and birth defects would occur. Radiation would contaminate and ruin food supplies, agricultural land, farm animals, and water resources hundreds and even thousands of miles from Iran.

The eastern regions of Turkey, northwestern India, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan would be exposed to moderate contamination. Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine and Egypt’s Sinai could be affected, depending on the wind. Israel has long fanned existential fears by conjuring the threat of a nuclear attack by Iran, while being indemnified by the U.S. for its self-styled “defensive” aggression in Gaza, where at least 50,000 Gazans have been killed and over a million Palestinians driven from their homes. While the widely publicized intent of President Trump to bomb Iran imperils Iran and neighboring countries, it also makes Israel vulnerable to a massive counterstrike from Iran and puts in the bullseye all U.S. troops in the region within 2,500 miles of Iran.

Read more …

”The Trump administration is standing up for free, fair, and honest elections and asking this basic question is essential to our Constitutional Republic.”

• DNC, Schumer Sue Trump Over Order Targeting Illegal Immigrant Voting (ET)

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) and two top U.S. lawmakers on March 31 sued President Donald Trump over a recent executive order that aims to enforce the law against illegal immigrant voting and election dates. “The Executive Order seeks to impose radical changes on how Americans register to vote, cast a ballot, and participate in our democracy—all of which threaten to disenfranchise lawful voters and none of which is legal,” says the lawsuit, filed by Democratic Party attorney Marc Elias in federal court in Washington. Trump’s March 25 order has multiple sections. Several deal with laws that bar foreigners from registering to vote or from voting in federal elections. Trump directed the independent Election Assistance Commission to require proof of U.S. citizenship in its mail voter registration form, ordered U.S. officials to work with the Department of Government Efficiency to review voter rolls to identify noncitizens who are already registered, and told the U.S. attorney general to prosecute individuals who have illegally registered or voted.

Another prong takes aim at how some states in recent years have begun counting mailed ballots that arrive after Election Day, which the order says contravenes federal law. A third portion says the Election Assistance Commission shall stop providing federal funds to states that don’t comply with the laws on election dates and noncitizen voting and voter registration. The U.S. Constitution’s election clause says that states can set election dates, although Congress can alter them. “Outside of the Elections Clause, other provisions in the Constitution place certain requirements and limitations on the regulation of elections—but none allows the President to override the will of the States or Congress in this space,” the new suit states.

The legal challenge also says that the Election Assistance Commission is an independent agency over which the president, who appoints commissioners, has no control, and that federal law lets applicants who vote in federal elections attest to citizenship with a signature as opposed to requiring proof from documents such as a passport. In addition to the DNC, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat in the U.S. Senate, and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives, are plaintiffs in the suit.

The Democrats are asking the court to declare that the order violates the Constitution and federal law and block U.S. officials, such as the attorney general, from implementing it. “The Democrats continue to show their disdain for the Constitution and it continues to show in their insane objections to the President’s commonsense executive actions to require proof of U.S. citizenship in an effort to protect the integrity of American elections,“ Harrison Fields, a White House spokesman, told The Epoch Times in an email. ”The Trump administration is standing up for free, fair, and honest elections and asking this basic question is essential to our Constitutional Republic.”

Ahead of the 2016 election, Elias helped compile a dossier against Trump. He was named in a different order by Trump that directed officials to take action against lawyers who are violating laws and regulations. Earlier Monday, several organizations filed a separate suit in the same court over the election order, outlining similar arguments. “The president’s executive order is an unlawful action that threatens to uproot our tried-and-tested election systems and silence potentially millions of Americans,“ Danielle Lang, senior director of voting rights at the Campaign Legal Center, which is representing the groups, said in a statement. ”It is simply not within the president’s authority to set election rules by executive decree, especially when they would restrict access to voting in this way.”

Read more …

“Once you get there, it’s going to be really hard to restart the war,”

• Ukraine Conflict ‘On Precipice Of Ceasefire’ – Trump Envoy (RT)

The conflict between Kiev and Moscow is close to a ceasefire, US President Donald Trump’s Ukraine envoy, Keith Kellogg, has said. He stressed that both sides would need to make concessions. Speaking to Fox Business on Wednesday, Kellogg said that Trump has been “frustrated” with both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky. The diplomat, nevertheless, said that he remained optimistic that Trump’s team would negotiate an end to the conflict. “I really believe we are on the precipice of getting to a ceasefire,” he said. “Neither side is going to get everything they want.” “What we want to have is a comprehensive 30-day ceasefire. Once you get there, it’s going to be really hard to restart the war,” Kellogg said. “What we need is what I would call term sheets – this is what the Russians want, this is what the Ukrainians want – and bring them together.”

The Russian Defense Ministry said on Wednesday that Kiev has been violating the US-brokered moratorium on strikes on energy infrastructure on a daily basis. According to the MOD, Ukrainian troops have launched drone and missile attacks on fuel depots, gas facilities, and elements of Russia’s power grid. During his phone call with Trump on March 18, Putin said that in order for a comprehensive ceasefire to succeed, Ukraine must stop mobilization, while Western countries must stop providing military aid to Kiev. Moscow has stressed that any future settlement must address the “root causes” of the conflict, including the expansion of NATO eastward. Russia has demanded that Ukraine officially drop its plans to join the US-led alliance and renounce its claim to Crimea and four other regions that became part of Russia in 2022.

Read more …

Just don’t.

• US Not Ready To Fight China – Trump’s Pick For Top General (RT)

The US military would be unprepared for a protracted war with China due to shortcomings in the defense industrial base, President Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Joint Chiefs of Staff has said. In his written testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday – part of the confirmation process – retired Lieutenant General John Caine stressed that rivalry with China remains one of the most pressing issues facing the US. ”The threat posed by China to American interests in the Indo-Pacific is real and growing. The US needs to work with allies and partners to deter China’s aggression in this region,” he claimed. He warned, however, that the US is not currently in a position to respond to the perceived threat.

“Unfortunately, at this critical moment, the Joint Force is contending with an acquisition process and defense industrial base that are not optimized for protracted conflict. The US does not have the throughput, responsiveness, or agility needed to deter our adversaries,” Caine said. Identifying the Indo-Pacific as a key theater for the US, the general remarked that the Chinese military “has made significant military improvements to include adjusting its military structures, fielding modern indigenous systems,” adding that “numerically, China has the largest navy in the world.” He added, however, that Beijing “still has deficiencies in commander proficiency, long-distance logistics, urban warfare, and… modern warfare experience writ large.”

Caine also addressed the broader geopolitical landscape, arguing that while China, Russia, and North Korea are engaged in limited cooperation, “these countries are not acting as a bloc, nor are they trending toward a NATO-style alliance.” The US and China are at odds over a number of issues, with tensions especially high over the self-governed island of Taiwan. Chinese leader Xi Jinping has said that while Beijing would prefer “a peaceful reunification” with what it considers a breakaway province, it has not ruled out the use of force to accomplish this. Beijing has accused Washington of being “obsessed with suppressing China,” warning that this will only hurt the US.

China

Read more …

“..under the cloak of the most powerful imperialist country in an unsacred coalition against the poorest country in the Arabian Peninsula”

• Unconquerable Yemen (Pepe Escobar)

SANA’A, Yemen – No wonder the Roman Empire called it Arabia Felix.

It’s 3 pm in Al-Sabeen square in the Haddah neighborhood of Sana’a on Friday, March 28, Al Quds Day, at Ramadan, only two days before Eid al-Fikr, and the crowd of over one million Yemenis stretches to the horizon, gently surrounded by naked hills in the distance and with the grand Al-Saleh mosque framing the foreground. The foreign pilgrim climbs to a small stage and after all his pilgrimages across the world and the lands of Islam, he knows that in one fleeting minute he must essentially thank the crowd – and this nation – for being so noble, so upright, so fearless, bearers of so much moral clarity and purpose. They should know that the whole Global Majority instinctively gets it – and stands with them. This is not so much about support for Palestine, which they have been showcasing in this same vast square for 17 months, non-stop – as shown all over global social media – but most of all about the inner strength of Arabia Felix. Free Palestine rhymes – and echoes – in eternity with Freedom of Yemen. They can be heroes not just for one day – as Bowie the Western Chameleon immortalized it: they are heroes for posterity.

One week immersed in deep Yemen is untranslatable in mere words. I was privileged to be part of a small group – from East to West – that actually broke the blockade on Yemen, as our gracious hosts never ceased to remind us. We were primarily guests in a wide-ranging conference on Palestine titled, most appropriately, “You Are Not Alone”. What strikes us like lightning, right away, is the unbounded Yemeni generosity and their naturally aristocratic-cum-debonair allure. They are the epitome of chic not only sartorially but spiritually. Nearly every night last week I was trying to convey this magic across several podcasts. As much as the conversations with towering academics, diplomats and top members of the High Political Council, the real delight in Yemen is the famous – Xi Jinping-style – “people to people’s exchanges”, particularly at night time in the mesmerizing souks of Saada in the northwest and the Old City in Sana’a.

This is the true soul of Arabia, its secrets perfuming the air like the incense a Purifier dressed in white spreads around the al-Kabir mosque in the Old City, blind men crouching at the entrance chewing qat and absorbed in meditation. This magic is what Allah himself characterizes in the Holy Book in several verses and chapters – a generosity only bestowed to Yemenis. Amidst a cornucopia of meetings and cups of the best coffee on the planet, a convoy of decoy SUVs slicing the raw landscape from Sana’a to Saada, non-stop pledges of solidary with Palestine and instances of cowardly CENTCOM bombing – from several civilian, residential buildings to an in-progress cancer hospital in Saada – soon it becomes clear that Yemen is fighting yet another lethal chapter, now against the Trump 2.0-led CENTCOM, of what is a 10-year war, initiated in March 26, 2015.

That was the first war in History, as defined by the masterful Undeterred: Yemen In The Face of Decisive Storm, by Prof. Dr. Abdulaziz Saleh bin Habtoor – which I had the honor to meet in Sana’a – “in which all the rich Arab countries” (with the exception of Oman) stood “under the cloak of the most powerful imperialist country in an unsacred coalition against the poorest country in the Arabian Peninsula”. A trademark “coalition” of willing vassals, led by Saudi Arabia and for a stretch also the UAE, with the U.S. under the Obama-Biden racket “leading from behind” and providing the weapons alongside the British, not only bombed Yemen indiscriminately but also imposed a devastating blockade of air, land and sea, preventing the arrival of medicine, fuel and food, and generating at least 2.4 million displaced people and a cholera epidemic.

It’s hardly an accident that the upstart, tawdry, bling bling Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia hate Yemen with a vengeance. War on Yemen, virtually for decades, as Prof. bin Habtoor noted in our meeting, has been the Enterprise Weapon of Choice for a family scam set up by the British Empire in the 1920s to extract the wealth of Arabia Obviously no one across the – now fractured – collective West remembers that Yemen later became “Crown Prince” MbS’s war. The existence of his regime – now a darling of Trump 2.0 – was leveraged from the start on winning this war, until MbS was forced to realize he could never make it: only in 2017 the war was costing him more than $300 billion. He had to accept an armistice.

No “victory”: not against these unconquerable heroes. The memory-impaired, fractured collective West also has no recollection that Britannia Rules the Waves was forced to surrender its self-imagined global dominatrix role to the Americans after it could not subdue extremely fierce resistance in – where else – South Yemen in the 1960s. That opened the way to Saudi-led dementia – even as the pattern remained the same: Yemenis simply won’t surrender their homeland’s fabulous natural wealth to subsidize the Empire of Chaos, Lies and Plunder’s chronic need for liquidity, collateral for new cash manipulations, and most of all the commodities that lie under Yemen’s rich soil.

Read more …

IOU

• Who Pays For Whom In The European Union (SCF)

Only nine out of twenty-seven EU member states are net contributors to the EU budget. This infographic shows how many euros on average an inhabitant of individual EU countries “pays” to, or “receives” from, the EU budget. This is quite a vague metric but still it is more informative than absolute figures on individual countries’ contributions and subsidies. Luxembourg and Belgium are two special cases as most of the subsidies they receive are used to cover the administrative costs of EU institutions based there.

Read more …

Threats against the judge.

• France Launches New Probe Linked To Le Pen trial – AFP (RT)

French prosecutors have launched an investigation into threats against the judge who presided over a case in which right-wing presidential hopeful Marine Le Pen was sentenced to prison and barred from running for office, AFP has reported, citing sources. On Monday, Le Pen, the former leader of the conservative National Rally party (RN), was sentenced to four years in prison – two of them suspended and two more to be served under electronic monitoring, a hefty fine, and a five-year ban on holding public office. The court found her guilty of embezzling European Parliament funds by allegedly diverting them from official duties to party activities in France. The verdict prevents her from running in the 2027 presidential election. Le Pen has denied wrongdoing and said she would appeal.

The conviction prompted outrage from supporters, with many expressing anger online. According to French media, Judge Benedicte de Perthuis, who presided over her case in Paris, received “a large number of messages containing clearly expressed personal threats.” The judge was placed under police protection shortly after the ruling, with patrols reportedly stationed outside her home. AFP reported on Tuesday that the Paris Public Prosecutor’s Office launched an investigation into the threats, citing a source close to the case. The probe has been handed over to the Brigade for Repression of Crimes Against the Person, a special French police unit responsible for handling serious crimes. This is the second investigation concerning threats tied to Le Pen’s trial. An earlier case opened in January was over death threats posted to the far-right website Riposte Laique.

The posts, which have since been deleted, targeted Judge de Perthuis and prosecutors Louise Neyton and Nicolas Barret. Le Pen, a critic of NATO’s presence in Europe and EU sanctions on Russia, has run for president three times, finishing second in 2017 and 2022. Her party currently holds the most seats in the National Assembly, while her approval rating tops that of her nearest potential rival in the presidential race – former Prime Minister Edouard Philippe – by over ten points, according to a recent Ifop poll. She claims her conviction was politically motivated and has pledged to fight it. The Paris Court of Appeal said on Tuesday that it expects to rule on Le Pen’s case by summer 2026, which could allow her to run in 2027 if the verdict is overturned.

Read more …

“The one against @MLP_officiel is a declaration of war by Brussels, at a time when the warlike impulses of von der Leyen and Macron are frightening”

• Le Pen’s 2027 Presidential Bid Derailed By von der Leyen and Macron (Jay)

It’s been called Marine Le Pen’s ‘Trump’ moment but the court case which has condemned the far-right leader, excluding her from running for President in the republic’s next elections in 2027, might turn out to be the EU’s greatest existential error in its entire history. Nothing compares to it when we calibrate it against other anti-democratic stunts like getting France and Ireland to hold referendums for the second time as the first time round didn’t get the desired result, or even more recently cancelling Romania’s presidential elections when it transpired that an anti-establishment candidate was going to win at the ballot. The Le Pen stunt is almost certainly going to backfire and produce an outcome which was not at all what was intended for both by the elite in Paris and top officials in Brussels.

Le Pen is going to gain even more supporters bringing the political establishment to its knees when the Trumpian momentum in the U.S. which led to the Donald winning convincingly repeats itself in France. The case against her is a farce on many levels, but largely because of the hypocrisy of the EU. The European Parliament is a concentrated mass of corrupt MEPs who operate outside of the rules and in many cases abuse the expense system. However, the over ruling anti-fraud authority in Brussels called OLAF historically has a habit of investigating only far-right MEPs for expense irregularities but spectacularly fails to extend its probe into those who represent the establishment. Le Pen’s father fell victim to the same stunt and so history is repeating itself.

The ruling almost certainly ends her bid to replace Emmanuel Macron as France’s president at the 2027 election where she may well have been the victor given how close she came in the past presidential elections. According to report, the judge said Le Pen was “at the heart” of a scheme to embezzle EU funds to pay party staff. She’s likely to appeal the sentence, meaning the four-year jail term and fine will be put on hold, but the ban has been put into place immediately and it obviously raises a number of questions as to whether there is time for her to win an appeal and run for president. However, she may simply profit from the decision to promote herself even further politically, leading probably to civil strife in France.

The ruling is a massive own goal for Europe’s ruling elite as it will certainly boost Le Pen’s popularity even further which will present the establishment with more problems to resolve if they are to block her taking the political demographic. Almost immediately after the sentence was announced, a number of populist leaders in Europe saw through it and gave her their full support, notably Hungary and Italy. Matteo Salvini, Italy’s Deputy PM, has said the decision was a “declaration of war by Brussels” and “those who fear the judgement of the voters often find reassurance in the judgement of the courts”. “In Paris, they condemned Marine Le Pen and would like to exclude her from political life. A bad film that we are also seeing in other countries such as Romania” he added.

And the deputy Italian PM didn’t pull any punches against those who he believed were behind the ruse both in Paris and in Brussels. “The one against @MLP_officiel is a declaration of war by Brussels, at a time when the warlike impulses of von der Leyen and Macron are frightening”. Brussels once again shoots itself in the foot and advances as a totalitarian superpower determined to stay in power even at the expense of destroying itself and EU member states economy. Le Pen was angry on the day of the hearing and stormed out of court before the judge finished reading out the sentence but will be happier to see the reaction of French people when they trump the ruling.

Read more …

“Re-armament Ursula, a plan costing almost a thousand billion euros, will be Europe’s economic grave.”

• Von der Leyen Is Afraid Of The European Parliament (Pacini)

A snake-like gaze about to kill and a flawless perm. This is Ursula, the most hated woman in Europe, who knows all the devil’s tricks. The obsession of the month is that Russia is supposedly ready to invade Europe, therefore we must rearm, as already announced with ReArm Europe, to launch a pre-emptive attack. All this will take a few years, but the Russians will be patient and fair, waiting to have worthy opponents. A report by the German secret service (sic!) claims that the Russian Federation is preparing a large-scale invasion for 2030 and the Lithuanian secret service answers that the conflict in Ukraine must be prolonged to keep Russia busy. After the meeting in London on Ukraine, the war industry sector has seen a sharp rise. On the Milan Stock Exchange, the shares of Leonardo, an Italian company specializing in defense, aerospace and security, rose by 15%, reaching a new record of 45.50 euros.

In Germany, Rheinmetall – the largest German defense group – saw an increase of 18%, while in London the British giant BAE Systems, Europe’s largest arms manufacturer, gained 14%. The agreement among European leaders to strengthen military spending and defense capabilities has boosted war industry stocks on the continent. As of December 31, 2024, Leonardo had recorded a 16.2% increase in revenues, reaching 17.8 billion euros, with expansion in almost all its areas of activity. In short, European industrialists in the strategic sector are very interested in war. But there’s more. As Prof. Alessandro Volpi brilliantly observed, behind the maneuver are ETFs, financial products that replicate an index and are, to a large extent, created by large funds. Volpi writes that “In recent months, ETFs that have as their object indices directly linked to the arms industry have been having great success.

The mechanism is simple: the large fund – for example BlackRock – creates an ETF that is linked to an index created by the same fund and, now, the big trend is to create indexes with the stocks of the main arms manufacturers, from American to European ones, which are expected to benefit from the Von der Leyen mega Plan against any invasion”. It is no coincidence that this type of ETF is increasingly attracting the savings of Europeans, who are offered them by their managers after they have been purchased by large funds. The climate of war made the financing of rearmament “indispensable” and, to meet this need, financial instruments were created to channel collective savings, transforming everyone, more or less consciously, into financiers of the arms race. It should also be emphasized that these armaments are not exclusively destined for Europe: the main customers of the large European war industries are in fact located outside the continent, including Arab countries, Israel and other nations far from the borders of the Union.

So, European rearmament favors finance more than the European Union itself, considering that of the 457 billion euros already spent annually by the EU and the UK, more than half is used for the purchase of armaments produced in the United States. A significant detail: the Meloni government has proposed tax incentives for companies that decide to convert back to arms production. In practice, rearmament will not only burden the public accounts through increased interest on the debt, but also taxpayers, who will have to cover the costs of a further favor to Stellantis. On the other hand, with Europe under pressure, it seems almost inevitable that the Italians will have to make sacrifices to keep Elkann from getting upset and to prevent the big beneficiaries of the economic bubble from suffering too many losses. Re-armament Ursula, a plan costing almost a thousand billion euros, will be Europe’s economic grave.

There is money for everything, except for what is really needed.

The European plan “ReArm Europe”, presented by the President of the Commission Ursula von der Leyen and widely supported by the Member States, is based on a strongly militaristic vision. The initiative is based on the assumption that Europe is about to face a sort of Third World War against Russia and its allies, without being able to count on the support of the United States. This perspective seems more like a political fantasy that lacks concrete evidence. However, the rearmament strategy requires a narrative centered on defense against a possible Russian invasion, especially after the suspension of American aid to Ukraine. This implies a radical change, according to which Europeans should allocate most of their public spending and private capital to war production.

Peace demonstrations are quickly reinterpreted within a logic in which arming oneself becomes an obligation, almost a moral duty, considered as the only effective deterrent against war. This is a disastrous historical model, which has always led to devastating conflicts. Russia is described as an absolute enemy, with whom there can be no dealings until its final defeat. Consequently, any space for mediation or dialogue is eliminated, replaced by warmongering rhetoric that demonizes the adversary. This pragmatic attitude of the so-called “armed pacifists” ignores the fact that peace is built first and foremost by eliminating the “spirit of war” from international relations.

Read more …

The deal.

• Trump White House Bets on Outbidding Denmark for Greenland (Sp.)

Denmark has vocally rejected Donald Trump’s claims to its autonomous territory, but the US President remains determined to take control of the island. Behind-the-scenes planning suggests US President Donald Trump’s Greenland dream isn’t just talk – it’s creeping into actual government policy, The Washington Post reported. The Trump administration is feverishly number-crunching to figure out the price tag for controlling the autonomous territory of Denmark, insiders told the outlet. The White House is: • Calculating the cost of running the island, along with providing government services for its 58,000 residents. • Trying to figure out the potential windfall from its natural resources.

As for how to obtain Greenland, one option under analysis is to offer a sweeter deal to the government of Greenland than Denmark, which currently pumps about $600 million a year into the island. “The point is, ‘We’ll pay you more than Denmark does,’” one official reportedly said. Donald Trump has said repeatedly that the United States will “get” Greenland. “100 percent,” he told NBC News on Saturday. When asked whether a takeover might involve force, he quipped that there is a “good possibility that we could do it without military force” but that “I don’t take anything off the table.”

Read more …

‘..isn’t ruling out’ okaying the Iranian proposal of having Oman serve as mediator for indirect negotiations..”

• US ‘Seriously Considering’ Iran’s Indirect Nuclear Talks Idea (Sp.)

President Trump threatened to bomb Iran in a manner “the likes of which they have never seen before” over the weekend, with Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei warning Monday that any aggression would be met with a “heavy blow in return.” The Trump administration considers direct talks like those proposed by the president in his letter to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to have ‘a higher chance of success’, but ‘isn’t ruling out’ okaying the Iranian proposal of having Oman serve as mediator for indirect negotiations, US officials informed on the deliberations said. “After the exchange of letters we are now exploring next steps in order to begin conversations and trust building with the Iranians,” an official told Axios.

Read more …

“How could someone with such a limited grasp of reality possibly lead the UN for an entire year?”

• Zakharova Skewers Baerbock’s ‘Nightmare’ Bid for UNGA Chair (Sp.)

The German government plans to nominate Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock as its candidate for the chair of the UN General Assembly during the 2025-26 session, media reports indicated earlier. Just envisioning Annalena Baerbock as chair of the UN General Assembly drew a snap response from Maria Zakharova.

“How could someone with such a limited grasp of reality possibly lead the UN for an entire year? The number of diplomatic disasters she’s provoked – thanks to her own ignorance of history, diplomacy, and well, facts – would be enough to make any sane person cringe,” said the Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman. Amid reports that the German government plans to nominate Baerbock for the job it’s worth recalling that people labelled her the “world’s dumbest foreign minister” for her absurd claims, unprofessionalism expressed in harsh and meaningless statements, and constant mistakes.

Read more …

“After I left [Putin’s] office, I said publicly that I expected very difficult times… Nobody believed me..”

• World Leaders Secretly Talking To Putin – Vucic (RT)

Several global leaders have secretly maintained contact with Russian President Vladimir Putin despite the Western campaign to isolate Moscow, Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic has claimed. In an interview with talk show host Mario Nawfal on Tuesday, Vucic said that he had not personally met his Russian counterpart since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. “When we agreed upon the fact that it was not done in adherence with international public law, I didn’t see Putin for three years,” he noted. However, many leaders maintained behind-the-scenes communication, Vucic alleged. “I know at least two big leaders that were speaking secretly to him – because, of course, I still have my friends in the Kremlin and in some other countries as well.”

While Vucic did not name the leaders who supposedly spoke with Putin behind the scenes, he stressed that it was not Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer, or Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico, all of whom have not concealed their communication with the Russian president. Vucic said that he would meet with Putin on May 9 during his visit to Moscow to attend the Victory Day parade marking the Soviet Union’s triumph over Nazi Germany in World War II. The Serbian leader also reminisced about his last meeting with Putin in late 2021, mere weeks before hostilities erupted between Moscow and Kiev. “After I left [Putin’s] office, I said publicly that I expected very difficult times… Nobody believed me,” Vucic said. He explained that while the Russian leader usually speaks at length about events in the post-Soviet republics, this time the topic was exhausted in 45 seconds. “I knew he had made a decision,” Vucic said.

Nehammer held in-person talks with Putin over the Ukraine conflict in April 2022, later saying it was “not a friendly visit.” Orban came to Russia in July 2024 to further what he referred to as a “peace mission.” Meanwhile, the Putin-Fico talks in December focused on Ukraine’s refusal to extend the gas transit agreement with Russia. The issue had been a major concern for Slovakia, which is highly dependent on Russian energy. US President Donald Trump has also engaged with Putin in an effort to settle the Ukraine conflict. In addition, despite wide-ranging sanctions, Russia has continued to host major diplomatic and economic events, including the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum in July and the BRICS Forum in Kazan in October.

Read more …

“One agent asked if another had “admonished” the colleague who nearly revealed the laptop’s authenticity to Big Tech companies. “yes but he wont [sic] shut up..”

• Unearthed FBI Chat Logs Reveal ‘Gag Order’ On Biden Laptop Exposé (HUSA)

Internal FBI chat logs revealed that the bureau imposed a “gag order” on agents regarding the New York Post bombshell story on the Hunter Biden laptop. Along with showing Hunter’s depravity, the laptop revealed Joe Biden’s involvement in his son’s foreign business dealings. The chat logs, published Tuesday by the House Judiciary Committee on X, show that the gag order extended to an FBI analyst who attempted to alert social media companies that the laptop was authentic—before these companies moved to censor the story’s spread.

https://twitter.com/JudiciaryGOP/status/1907098412652052870?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1907098412652052870%7Ctwgr%5E3918bd76bfed706d44e012991e69f272741cbba0%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Funearthed-fbi-chat-logs-reveal-gag-order-biden-laptop-expose

On Oct. 14, 2020, the New York Post released its first story on the laptop’s content. That same day, FBI officials instructed agents, “please do not discuss Biden matter.” Earlier chats show a group of agents—including Laura Dehmlow, Bradley Benavides and James Dennehy—debating the Post’s story. “You guys are tracking the coverage of the laptop right?” Dehmlow wrote. Both Benavides and Dennehy replied affirmatively. Later, agents whose names remain sealed sent messages stating, “right answer – nobody on call is is [sic] authorized to comment upon NY Post story” and “nobody [is] authorized to comment.” One agent asked if another had “admonished” the colleague who nearly revealed the laptop’s authenticity to Big Tech companies. “yes but he wont [sic] shut up,” one response read.

Hours later, agents reiterated that they were forbidden from commenting on the laptop story, with messages like “official response no commen [sic] and “we cannot comment.” A previous transcribed interview with Dehmlow revealed that during a Zoom meeting with Big Tech, an FBI agent was interrupted before he could confirm the laptop was real and already in the bureau’s possession. The FBI had verified the laptop in 2019 by cross-referencing its serial number with Hunter’s iCloud storage, FBI special agent Erika Jensen stated during Hunter’s criminal trial in 2024. Despite this verification, the bureau remained silent while social media companies debated whether the Post’s story was tied to a Russian disinformation campaign.

https://twitter.com/JudiciaryGOP/status/1907098420164043062?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1907098420164043062%7Ctwgr%5E3918bd76bfed706d44e012991e69f272741cbba0%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Funearthed-fbi-chat-logs-reveal-gag-order-biden-laptop-expose

Notably, the FBI had warned them weeks earlier of an imminent “hack-and-leak” story about the 2020 election, leading many to mistakenly equate that warning with the laptop exposé. The laptop revealed that while Hunter failed to pay millions in taxes, he also consumed drugs, paid for prostitutes and launched what Republicans call an “influence-peddling scheme” aimed at selling access—or at least the appearance of access—to Joe Biden in exchange for payments. According to the laptop, 10% of these payments were earmarked for the “Big Guy,” a term confirmed by former Biden ally Devon Archer to refer to Joe Biden. Biden went on to win the 2020 election, and before leaving office in 2025, he issued sweeping pardons to his siblings and Hunter, covering offenses committed between 2014 and 2025.

Read more …

“NGO” and “money-laundering” are almost synonymous.”

• Elon Musk Calls For Arrest Of ‘Fake NGO’ Leaders (NYP)

Elon Musk on Tuesday called for the arrest of leaders of “fake” organizations that receive federal funds — saying they represent a politically connected “uniparty” that’s engaged in “money laundering” of taxpayer resources. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) chief’s call for legal action comes as he spearheads efforts to trim annual federal spending by $1 trillion to halve the deficit. “With respect to the non-governmental organizations, these sort of fake NGOs, I think there needs to be a number of arrests,” Musk said in an interview on Fox News’ “The Five.” “These are fake charities [run by] mostly Democrats … there’s sometimes a little bit of Republican in there, because they sometimes throw the Republicans a bone to say, ‘Hey, be quiet about this.’ So that’s where you start getting the uniparty thing going on,” Musk said.

“But it is overwhelmingly to Democrats, and they give these billions of dollars to NGOs run by Democrats that then go through a whole network of additional NGOs — it’s a giant money laundering scheme. Really at this point, I think the word NGO and money laundering are almost synonymous.” The term “uniparty” is commonly used by President Trump’s supporters to describe politicians of both major parties who hold similar opinions on government operations, spending and foreign policy — generally in opposition to Trump’s populist agenda. Musk does not have the power to order criminal investigations, but his immense influence could elevate the idea among Trump’s appointees at the Justice Department and in US attorneys’ offices. “The wheels of justice turn slowly, but surely,” Musk said. “I have a maniacal sense of urgency.”

The Tesla and SpaceX CEO and owner of X, who is leading DOGE as an unpaid government employee, did not mention any specific NGO or allegedly corrupt operator. Republicans recently have highlighted a $2 billion environmental grant awarded last year by the Biden administration to a consortium of organizations linked to former Georgia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, who advised on the effort to win the funds. Abrams maintains she did not personally benefit financially, including because the money has not been disbursed and she has left her job at one of the partnering organizations.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin tweeted last week that “[t]he DOJ/FBI are investigating” that award. Musk also said on “The Five” that he believes authorities will arrest a person “hopefully this week” for allegedly stealing 400,000 Social Security numbers. He gave the interview to urge Wisconsin voters to turn out to vote in a state judicial election Tuesday that he says could dictate the fate of the House of Representatives following the midterm elections next year. If Democratic judges redraw congressional districts there and deliver a win for the party, “the House will then immediately take action to stop the president’s agenda,” he said. “There will be non-stop hearings and subpoenas.”

Read more …

“..what do Democrats like Fahy now stand for when everything they are is now defined by those they hate?”

• Democrats Attack Musk and Everything that They Once Believed in (Turley)

In this “Age of Rage, it is common for people to become the very thing that they despise in others, jettisoning their most cherished values to strike out at those they hate. Since the election, Democrats have shown that very self-destructive quality of rage in adopting anti-immigrant, anti-free speech, anti-labor, and even anti-environmental positions to get at Donald Trump or his supporters. It consumes every part of a person. It is addictive, and it is contagious. What these rage addicts will not admit, however, is that they like it; they need it. This time, they are targeting Elon Musk, whose dealerships, charging stations, and customers have been hit by political violence from the left. While other billionaires from George Soros to Mark Zuckerberg have spent big on elections for the left, Musk is somehow uniquely evil because he gives money to Republicans and supports the Trump Administration.

This scorched Earth campaign was evident this week in New York, where democratic legislators are again moving to weaponize state laws for political purposes — just like they did with Trump. New York state Sen. Pat Fahy (D-Albany) is pledging to bar Musk from direct sales in the state. Notably, Fahy has been a longtime advocate of electric vehicles. The move will make it more difficult not just for Musk but other EV dealers to survive, but climate change policies be damned. Fahy and her colleagues want to get at Musk in any way they can. Fahy explained, “No matter what we do, we’ve got to take this from Elon Musk. He’s part of an effort to go backwards.”

The move is not unique: * The left decries political violence like January 6th but is largely silent as Teslas are set on fire and Cybertrucks are covered with graffiti. It promote boycotts and rallies with a wink at the vandals. As the violence increases around the country, the left has held protests featuring signs like “Burn a Tesla, Save Democracy.” * Democrats have made the defense of immigration a core issue and have objected even to the use of the term “illegal” or “unlawful” to refer to those crossing the Southern border. Yet, they have attacked Musk due to his status as a naturalized citizen. He is denounced as a “foreigner” “meddling” in our government. Some questioned Musk’s loyalty because he is a naturalized American. * Those who insist that they believe in free speech are supporting censorship and opposing Musk for restoring free speech protections on X. * In California, labor advocates oppose expanded operations from SpaceX that would benefit workers in the state. California Coastal Commissioner Gretchen Newsom tried to block increased SpaceX launches despite their benefit for both the California economy and national security. Because he “aggressively injected himself into the presidential race,” it does not mater that this would cost money and labor opportunities. Retaliation for “hopping about the country, spewing and tweeting political falsehoods” was more important.

Still, the greatest hypocrisy may be found in the Democrats’ willingness to abandon environmental priorities for political revenge. It is a contest of virtue-signaling. Fighting for Mother Earth is fine on most days, but nothing compares to destroying Elon Musk. Lawmakers and advocates are also pressuring pension funds to divest from Tesla while trying to force Tesla showrooms to close — at the cost of New York jobs. Tesla is an American company making and selling cars in this country. It sells more electric vehicles in the US and New York than any other manufacturer. Yet it must now be destroyed because, unlike a Soros or a Zuckerberg, Musk’s political views are not acceptable to the left. Tesla was allowed to operate five locations to directly sell to consumers under a 2014 deal because it was viewed as good for New York jobs, the New York economy, and, most importantly, the environment.

None of that matters now. Fahy explained, “The bottom line is, Tesla has lost their right to promote these when they’re part of an administration that wants to go backwards. Elon Musk was handed a privilege here.” It also does not matter that companies like Rivian and Lucid (and their employees) will be caught in the crossfire. Nothing matters but revenge. Many Democrats seem to have lost a capacity for shame. They are disgusted only by the refusal of others to yield to their demands, not the use of any means to achieve political ends. The question is, what do Democrats like Fahy now stand for when everything they are is now defined by those they hate?

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Probably nothing

 

 

Happer https://twitter.com/freedom_rsrch/status/1907415754976178577 https://twitter.com/freedom_rsrch/status/1906730657474101531

 

 

Play

 

 

Girls https://twitter.com/TheFigen_/status/1907195411833516248

 

 

Coops https://twitter.com/Farm_With_Art/status/1907394250716705135

 

 

iVM

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Mar 242025
 


Henri Matisse Still Life with Apples on Pink Cloth 1925

Pam Bondi Destroys Judge Boasberg for Meddling in Immigration Policy (Margolis)
The Agony of John Roberts (Kurt Schlichter)
Trump Goes Nuclear Against Activist Lawyers Undermining His Presidency (Margolis)
“The Most Intuitive Man Who Ever Lived” (CTH)
Zelensky Regime Likely to Collapse Soon – Jeffrey Sachs (Sp.)
US Sets Easter Target For Ukraine Ceasefire Deal (RT)
Trump Hails ‘Rational’ Putin Conversations (RT)
Waltz Reveals Topics Of Russia-US Talks in Riyadh (RT)
Trump Is The First Leader Who Is Looking To Rebuild Trust With Putin (Proud)
Putin and Trump Could Have Other Contacts Alongside With Official Ones (TASS)
Europe’s Policy On Ukraine Conflict ‘Paradoxical’ – Kremlin (RT)
EU Afraid Trump Will Cut Off Weapons Support – WaPo (RT)
The Führer of Germany – Friedrich Merz – In A War And Spending Frenzy (Hanseler)
Hungary’s Orban Continues Blocking EU’s ‘Pro-War’ Stance On Ukraine (ZH)
Musk Slams South Africa Over ‘White Genocide’ (RT)
My Time in the Reagan Administration (Paul Craig Roberts)

 

 

 

 

Modi -highly recommend-

Elon https://twitter.com/Girlpatriot1974/status/1903543762783277072

Lutnick

Rescission

 

 

 

 

“He dragged us into court on a Saturday without any notice. And then he’s continuing these hearings. He’s trying to ask us about national security information, which he is absolutely not entitled to.”

• Pam Bondi Destroys Judge Boasberg for Meddling in Immigration Policy (Margolis)

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi unleashed a scathing attack on U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg during a Sunday morning interview on Fox News, accusing him of overstepping his authority and attempting to control U.S. foreign policy from the bench. “This is an out-of-control judge, a federal judge trying to control our entire foreign policy, and he cannot do it,” Bondi told host Maria Bartiromo. “He dragged us into court on a Saturday without any notice. And then he’s continuing these hearings. He’s trying to ask us about national security information, which he is absolutely not entitled to.” The case revolves around the Obama-appointed judge’s attempt to block the Trump administration’s deportation of illegal alien Tren de Aragua gang members, an effort Bondi made clear would not stand.

“We are appealing. We will be in court Monday. Again. We will win. We will prevail,” she stated, showing no hesitation in taking the fight back to court. Boasberg previously ordered a deportation flight for these illegal alien gang members to turn around back to the United States; however, since the ruling was made while the plane was over international waters, he had no jurisdiction, and the deportations continued as planned. According to New York Post columnist Miranda Devine, Boasberg has been “demanding DOJ lawyers provide minute details of the flights—potentially to hold members of the administration in contempt and serve as the basis for a future impeachment of Trump.” Bondi highlighted the administration’s success in swiftly deporting dangerous criminals, arguing that their efforts are already making the country safer.

“There are 261 reasons why Americans are safer today. And that’s because those people are now in an El Salvador prison,” she explained. “We are going to follow the law and we are going to protect Americans.” Slamming the left’s failed border policies, Bondi noted the overwhelming public dissatisfaction with the Biden administration’s handling of immigration, which led to President Trump’s decisive victory in 2024. “There’s a reason why Biden’s approval rating was plummeting because of the border. There is a reason why the current Democrats’ approval rating is at 29%,” she said. She made it clear that the Trump administration’s approach is rooted in basic public safety—something the American people overwhelmingly support. “People want to be safe. This is President Trump’s agenda to keep Americans safe,” she said. “It’s basic public safety. Get these people out of our country as fast as we can.”

Bondi also rejected the left’s attempts to blur the distinction between legal immigration and illegal entry by dangerous criminals. “They’re not immigrants. They’re illegal aliens who are committing the most violent crimes you can imagine on Americans—murder, rapes,” she said. “Ask the parents of all of these young women who have been violently strangled, raped, and murdered.” The Biden administration’s lax immigration policies fueled a surge in crime, making border security a top issue in the 2024 election. Under Trump, Bondi emphasized, those days are over. “We are going to continue to make America safe again because that’s President Trump’s agenda,” she declared.

Despite judicial activism from the left, Bondi reaffirmed the administration’s commitment to upholding immigration laws, deporting violent criminals, and keeping Americans safe. “We are going to follow the law, and we are going to protect Americans,” she reiterated. With the Trump administration refusing to back down and the American people firmly behind stronger border enforcement, it’s clear that Bondi and the White House will not allow activist judges like Boasberg to undermine national security.

Read more …

Schlichter gets it exactly right. Roberts wants things to go “as they should”. Where a court case slowly winds its way up the chain. But there is no time left for that. Moreover, he and the SCOTUS judges also know that Schumer boasts he has 235 judges in his pocket. If they don’t deal with this, soon, Trump will simply ignore them like he ignored Boasberg. Basically, is foreign policy set by the administration or by a dictrict judge?

• The Agony of John Roberts (Kurt Schlichter)

Pity poor John Roberts. No, he’s not corrupt or compromised. He is simply a man who has found himself at a pivotal time and place in a position of great responsibility for which he is utterly unsuited. He’s not a dumb man. He is, in fact, a very smart man – Hugh Hewitt knew him personally in the Reagan administration and testifies to that. I have no doubt it’s true. I know many smart people who have similar flaws. As objectively intelligent as John Roberts is, he is unwise, and he is endangering the institution he wants to preserve because he does not understand human nature or the times he finds himself in. Frankly, I’ll take wisdom over raw intellect any day of the week.

If he had the capacity to lead that he so manifestly lacks, John Roberts could save his institution with decisive and bold action. But that’s not who he is. Understand what John Roberts wants. He is an institutionalist who has always wanted to protect the judiciary branch. He wants it to be a fully co-equal branch that is respected by all. But the very actions he has chosen to take – or not to take – in response to the current crisis of out-of-control subordinate courts are guaranteeing that it will fall. Article III of our Constitution provides for the judicial branch, but it does not expressly provide the judiciary with any powers other than those it earns in the eyes of the other two branches. It cannot self-enforce its decrees.

Article I creates the Congress, and the legislative branch has both the power of the purse and the power to impeach to check the judiciary. Article II establishes the presidency, but the Constitution does not specify its checks and balances over the court. That power is implied, and the implied power is for the executive – who runs the machinery of the federal government, including the cogs and gears that carry guns – to simply say “No” to an out-of-control judiciary. This implied power of defiance is as much a check and balance as any enumerated one, and without it, you would have an unchecked judiciary with hundreds of district court judges presuming to micromanage the legitimate actions of the executive branch. You know, kind of like what’s happening now.

Judge Roberts’s problem is that he wants to return to something like regular order in the judiciary. What we have is highly irregular order. You non-lawyers need to understand that all these temporary restraining orders and injunctions and so forth are insane. This is not how law is done, either procedurally or substantively. I did litigation for 30 years, including in federal courts (up to arguing in front of the Ninth Circuit), and never saw anything remotely like these antics. So, realize that this is abnormal. Abnormal times call for abnormal responses, but that’s not how John Roberts or his ilk work. Remember, he’s a Bushie, the kind of soft Republican who sees his job less as fixing our broken government than managing its gentlemanly decline. We’ve largely booted them out of elective office, but Roberts has his seat for life. His advocation is protecting his institution. He wants the judiciary to be held in respect and obeyed, but he doesn’t want to do the hard, stern work of disciplining his underlings that makes that possible.

John Roberts wants the normal appellate procedures to apply. He’s hoping that if he shuts his eyes and pretends that everything is normal, he’ll open them and it will all be normal again. This was the main takeaway from his unbelievably tone-deaf response to Trump’s, Musk’s, and others’ frustration-driven talk about impeachment. Now, Roberts was right in theory about what he said, but what we’re facing is not theory but practice. Put aside the practical reality that we’re not going to be able to impeach anybody, and don’t fall for the Internet amateur ambulance chasers who think there’s one neat trick where we can somehow get rid of judges by a majority vote because of “bad behavior.” That is a reason to get rid of them, not a means. The means is impeachment, and that takes 67 senators. That’s never going to happen so we should stop talking about it. They would wear a failed impeachment like Tim Walz would have worn his war medals if he had shown up to earn any. Haven’t we learned not to engage in failure theater?

In normal times, the response to a judge over one dumb decision is the appellate process. But these are not normal times. These are not one dumb decision. These are dozens of dumb decisions. And the answer here is not the appellate process because the appellate process is long, drawn out, and deliberate. The goal of this campaign is to use that delay to effectively strip Donald Trump of the ability to govern. To that end, they have sought to wrap him up in a web of orders and injunctions that will prevent him from doing the things he was elected to do. If it was one case or ten cases, you could wait months and months for the appellate process to grind through. Eventually, Trump administration will win most of these cases through the appellate process because they’re procedurally and substantively ridiculous.

But the purpose of these judicial antics is not to fulfill the letter of the law, but to create friction that improperly prevents political actions that the executive has the right to take. In other words, Donald Trump may live in the White House, but he can’t actually be President, thereby disenfranchising the people who elected him. So, we have a system that is not being used normally and that is not being used for a normal purpose. But Chief Justice Roberts, in his lack of wisdom, refuses to see that abnormal actions sometimes require abnormal responses. As I have said before, he will never be able to normal the abnormal back to normality. He thinks he can force normality back onto the judiciary by simply pretending the abnormality doesn’t exist and that everything is hunky-dory. He can’t. He must force normality back on the judiciary by addressing the abnormality directly.

That means he has to take abnormal actions in response. Procedurally, he needs to lead the charge to stop the imposition and use of these bizarre nationwide orders and injunctions by giving the circuit courts of appeal clear guidance to end this nonsense. Substantively, he needs to direct the circuit courts to issue stays on district court orders that far exceed the scope of the judiciary’s proper powers. And if the circuit courts of appeal refuse to do that, then the Supreme Court needs to issue the orders to enforce its will, even if that means issuing dozens and dozens of orders. The Supreme Court only takes 50 or so cases a year. With over 100 lawsuits against the Trump administration as part of this lawfare campaign, that workload no longer works.

What John Roberts is risking by refusing to put an end to these abuses is the Trump administration putting an end to these abuses by exercising its implied power under the Constitution to check an out-of-control judiciary. If an order issues and no one enforces it, is it really an order?

Read more …

“Accountability is especially important when misconduct by lawyers and law firms threatens our national security, homeland security, public safety, or election integrity.”

• Trump Goes Nuclear Against Activist Lawyers Undermining His Presidency (Margolis)

The radical Left’s latest scheme to derail President Trump’s America First agenda has reached a fever pitch, with over 100 frivolous lawsuits filed against his administration since January. But Trump isn’t taking their lawfare lying down. In a bold move that should have Democrats and their army of activist attorneys panicking, Trump directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate anti-Trump lawyers and law firms attempting to hamstring his presidency through baseless litigation. The timing couldn’t be more critical, with an unprecedented 15 injunctions slapped against presidential actions just last month—far more than Obama or Biden ever faced. The Left’s desperation is palpable. After losing the Oval Office, the House, and the Senate in November, they’re resorting to their favorite tactic: shopping for activist judges to block crucial executive actions.

We’ve seen this circus play out with injunctions against Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order and his use of wartime powers to deport Venezuelan gang members terrorizing American communities. “Lawyers and law firms that engage in actions that violate the laws of the United States or rules governing attorney conduct must be efficiently and effectively held accountable,” Trump declared in a memorandum released Saturday. “Accountability is especially important when misconduct by lawyers and law firms threatens our national security, homeland security, public safety, or election integrity.” Trump also named names. Recent examples of grossly unethical misconduct are far too common. For instance, in 2016, Marc Elias, founder and chair of Elias Law Group LLP, was deeply involved in the creation of a false “dossier” by a foreign national designed to provide a fraudulent basis for Federal law enforcement to investigate a Presidential candidate in order to alter the outcome of the Presidential election. Elias also intentionally sought to conceal the role of his client — failed Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton — in the dossier.

Many immigration lawyers, including those from major law firms, are undermining Trump’s power to enforce our nation’s immigration laws. The memorandum notes that these activist lawyers actively coach clients to lie or hide their past to manipulate the asylum process, bypass national security measures, and deceive immigration authorities. The federal government faces a heavy burden in combating this widespread fraud, which not only erodes the rule of law but also fuels mass illegal immigration—leading to tragic crimes against innocent Americans and straining taxpayer-funded resources meant for citizens. Now, Attorney General Bondi has been specifically tasked with recommending additional countermeasures against these frivolous lawsuits, which the administration correctly views as a violation of separation of powers.

“I further direct the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to prioritize enforcement of their respective regulations governing attorney conduct and discipline,” Trump wrote. “I further direct the Attorney General to take all appropriate action to refer for disciplinary action any attorney whose conduct in Federal court or before any component of the Federal Government appears to violate professional conduct rules, including rules governing meritorious claims and contentions, and particularly in cases that implicate national security, homeland security, public safety, or election integrity.”

Trump also directed the attorney general to hold law firms accountable for ethical misconduct, including making senior partners responsible for junior attorneys’ unethical actions when appropriate. If an attorney or firm engaged in litigation against the federal government is found to warrant sanctions or disciplinary action, the attorney general must recommend further steps to the president, such as revoking security clearances or terminating federal contracts. Additionally, the attorney general is ordered to review attorney conduct in cases against the government over the past eight years and, if misconduct is found—such as frivolous lawsuits or fraud—to propose further action, including contract termination or other penalties. It’s about time someone stood up to these legal mercenaries who abuse our court system.

Read more …

Good talker – and thinker.

• “The Most Intuitive Man Who Ever Lived” (CTH)

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick appears for an extensive discussion with the All In podcast. Secretary Lutnick has been a 30-year friend of President Trump and is currently one of the most critical members of the MAGAnomic team who are executing Trump’s agenda to Make America Great Again. Secretary Lutnick outlines the background of what makes President Trump so effective in his position, and within the discussion Lutnick notes at the core of Donald Trump is “the most intuitive person he has ever known.” This is a casual discussion about President Trump and how Lutnick came into the administration.

Read more …

“The government rules by martial law, has failed in its key policies, is reportedly highly corrupt, and lacks public support.”

• Zelensky Regime Likely to Collapse Soon – Jeffrey Sachs (Sp.)

The government of the Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky will probably be replaced soon as it does not have enough public support and is corrupt, renowned American economist and Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs told RIA Novosti. “The Zelenskyy government will likely be out of power sometime soon. The government rules by martial law, has failed in its key policies, is reportedly highly corrupt, and lacks public support. These conditions suggest the likelihood of political change,” Sachs said when asked how did he view the future of Zelensky. The professor noted that his viewpoint was “strongly against regime-change operations” and that the UN doctrine of non-intervention in internal affairs should prevail.

Earlier in March, media reported that senior allies of US President Donald Trump have held talks with possible opponents of Volodymyr Zelensky to assess whether Ukraine could hold a quick presidential election. In February, Trump criticized Zelensky for his unwillingness to hold elections, called him a “dictator,” and also suggested that the Ukrainian leader wanted to keep the “gravy train” going amid the grinding conflict with Russia. Trump also said that Zelensky talked the US into spending $350 billion “to go into a war that couldn’t be won.” Zelensky’s presidential term expired on May 20, 2024. The presidential election in Ukraine was canceled due to martial law and general mobilization

Read more …

4 weeks.

• US Sets Easter Target For Ukraine Ceasefire Deal (RT)

Washington is still hoping to broker a ceasefire in the Ukraine conflict by Easter, Bloomberg wrote on Sunday, citing sources. US President Donald Trump has vowed to bring a swift end to the hostilities in Ukraine, and has moved to restart diplomatic relations with Russia, which were frozen during the term of his predecessor, Joe Biden. Russian and US delegations are set to meet in Riyadh on Monday for the second round of high-level talks since the apparent thaw. Following Tuesday’s phone conversation between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, Moscow agreed to a mutual temporary halt on strikes against energy infrastructure, which it says Kiev immediately violated.

The White House aims to have Russia and Ukraine agree to a full ceasefire by Easter Sunday – April 20 – but realizes that the timeline could be delayed due to significant differences between the sides, Bloomberg wrote, citing anonymous sources familiar with the discussions. Prior to talks with Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, in Moscow last week, Putin stated that while he is open to a 30-day ceasefire, all military supplies to Kiev as well as the Ukrainian draft campaign need to stop to avoid strengthening Ukraine during the pause. Washington, which briefly stopped intelligence sharing and military aid to Kiev earlier this month, has not agreed to any of the demands, US officials told Bloomberg. According to the newspaper’s US sources, Trump wants any potential deal to be acceptable to Kiev, and isn’t prepared to concede too much.

Despite agreeing to the terms of the US-brokered partial truce, Ukraine struck an oil depot in southern Russia the day after the agreement, and blew up a gas metering station in Russia’s Kursk Region on Friday. The violations show that Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky is not trustworthy, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in an interview on Sunday. “The Kiev regime’s words and Zelensky’s word are not worth much,” he said. Ukrainian claims that Russia shelled its own gas metering station in Sudzha are “absurd,” he added. Earlier this week, Putin stressed that Russia needs to hear a concrete plan on how a full ceasefire would be enforced and regulated before Moscow agrees.

Read more …

“I don’t think there’s anybody in the world that [is] going to stop [Putin], except me, and I think I’m going to be able to stop him..”

• Trump Hails ‘Rational’ Putin Conversations (RT)

US President Donald Trump has praised his work relationship with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, describing their conversations as “very rational” and reiterating a desire to end the Ukraine conflict. In an interview aboard Air Force One with the outlet OutKick on Saturday, Trump reflected on his history with Putin and the Ukraine conflict, describing himself as the only person capable of “stopping” the Russian leader. “I don’t think there’s anybody in the world that [is] going to stop [Putin], except me, and I think I’m going to be able to stop him”, he said. “We’ve had some very rational discussions, and I just want to see the people stop getting killed.”

He warned that failure to mediate the conflict could lead to World War III, but noted that “it’s somewhat under control.” “I have a good relationship with President Putin and, actually, a good relationship with President Zelensky too. It’d be a great thing to be able to stop it. And I will say this, nobody else would have been able to.” After his inauguration, Trump actively sought to restore relations with Russia, which were at an all-time low, and to mediate a settlement of the Ukraine conflict. The Russian and US leaders have held at least two phone calls on the matter, while delegations from the two countries have held several rounds of direct talks. During the last phone conversation on Tuesday, which lasted two and a half hours, Putin and Trump discussed the US president’s idea of a 30-day ceasefire.

Putin generally spoke favorably of the initiative but mentioned several major obstacles, including the need to establish a monitoring mechanism and prevent forced mobilization and rearmament in Ukraine during the ceasefire. At the same time, Putin supported the idea of Moscow and Kiev halting strikes on each other’s energy infrastructure facilities for 30 days. Following the talks, Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, suggested that a complete ceasefire in the conflict could be implemented within “a couple of weeks.” He later noted that Kiev had seemingly agreed to stay out of NATO – one of Moscow’s key demands – adding that the key item on the agenda was now the fate of Crimea and the four other former Ukrainian territories that voted to become part of Russia.

Read more …

The Black Sea becomes more important.

• Waltz Reveals Topics Of Russia-US Talks in Riyadh (RT)

A Black Sea maritime truce will be one of the top issues on the agenda of the upcoming US-Russia meeting in Riyadh, US National Security Adviser Mike Waltz told CBS on Sunday. If reached, the ceasefire deal would allow both Moscow and Kiev to “move grain, fuel, and start conducting trade” in the sea again, according to the official.Waltz hailed the US-mediated peace efforts, saying: “we’re closer to peace than we ever have been.” His comments come ahead of a new round of negotiations between Russian and US officials scheduled for Monday.

He described the upcoming event as “proximity talks.” Apart from the Black Sea ceasefire, the sides are also expected to explore options for a wider truce, according to the national security adviser. “We’ll talk the line of control… details of verification mechanisms, peace keeping, you know, freezing the lines where they are.” The issue of a “broader and permanent peace” and “security guarantees” for Kiev will also be on the table, Waltz added. On Wednesday, Waltz said he had a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s foreign policy aide, Yury Ushakov, in which they discussed the details of the upcoming meeting.

Ushakov confirmed that “a conversation did take place,” and said the meeting, which is scheduled to take place in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, will focus on the “safety of navigation in the Black Sea.” The issue of a maritime ceasefire was raised by US President Donald Trump during a phone call with Putin on Tuesday. The Russian president supported the idea and agreed to initiate talks on the details of a potential arrangement.

Read more …

Includes a great story about human trust,

• Trump Is The First Leader Who Is Looking To Rebuild Trust With Putin (Proud)

Western politicians and journalists constantly tell us that President Putin cannot be trusted, and that, under no circumstances should anyone strike a deal with him. But in response to that rhetorical question, I always ask, ‘do you think that he trusts us?’ Trust is a two way thing and it must be built on small gestures and mutual respect. And it is so much more complicated building trust with people of different cultures, languages and worldviews etc. Right back in 2014, a colleague and friend in the Russian Presidential Administration told me that it would take at least a decade to rebuild the trust lost over the Maidan and Yanukovych’s ouster. It will take much longer now, after three years of devastating war. Zelensky, European politicians and the mainstream media scream at us constantly that Putin can’t be trusted. They claim, with no basis in evidence, that Putin has broken 25 (pick any number that you like) ceasefires in Ukraine since 2014.

Yet I wonder when we’ve really trusted Putin to stick to a deal and trusted in ourselves to hold to our end of the bargain? One thing’s for sure; everyone in the Russian state apparatus would say that western leaders have broken every promise that they made in the past, including on NATO expansion, and have acted in shockingly bad faith in other ways, including in orchestrating a coup in Kyiv and in setting up the Minsk 2 agreement to fail. The problem with refusing to talk to President Putin since the war started, and minimising all diplomatic contact with Russia since 2014, is that you reduce opportunities to rebuild trust to almost nought. How do you trust someone you dislike and then refuse ever to talk to again? It’s like schoolkids falling out epically, with 6000 nuclear missiles thrown into the mix. You focus obsessively on owning the media narrative of ‘I’m right and you’re wrong’, as if you are a ten year old using X for the first time in the playground.

You tell all your closest friends and family members about how awful the other person is, and they nod and say, ‘oh, I know’ like Sybil Fawlty. I don’t believe for a minute that Russia can’t ever be trusted or that decision makers in the west are purer than the driven snow. Trust is about making a deal and sticking to it. I often recall taking my family on holiday to Dubai to escape the Moscow winter in early 2015. With the kids still very young, we loaded up the minibus taxi with luggage, pushchairs and car seats etc. and made our way to Sheremetyevo through the morning snow. At the airport, I discovered that I only had a 5000 rouble note for the 2500 rouble fare and the driver, having unloaded our stuff, was clearly in a hurry to get back in his warm cab and drive home. He took one look at the crisp note and said he didn’t have change.

I had absolutely no intention of dashing into the terminal, finding somewhere to break the note, while navigating very young kids, luggage trolleys and a diminutive wife whose saintly patience would only stretch so far. So I looked at the cab driver and he looked at me, wondering how we’d break the deadlock. I could have tried not to pay, but that would have caused an argument and, in any case, that’s not the sort of move I’d ever pull anyway. I could have asked him to check whether, in fact, he did have change, being that he was a taxi driver. But then he may well have been offended, because he’d clearly told me that he didn’t have change, and why shouldn’t I believe him? In the end, I decided that, as it was before 7 in the morning, he probably didn’t have change, and that, as it was minus ten degrees outside on the frosty kerbside, I’d have to trust him. So I said, ‘look, take the 5000 rouble note. Our flight gets back on this date at this time, and if you can come and pick us up and we’ll be even.’

He nodded, shook my hand without much of a smile and disappeared. I had his phone number, but there was practically nothing I could have done had he simply disappeared and left us stranded at the airport upon our return two weeks later. So it was with a certain trepidation that we passed through the diplomatic lane at passport control and I wondered whether he’d be in arrivals. As it happens, he was, just as we’d agreed. I smiled at him, he offered a smile back, we loaded up the minibus, clicked the kids into their car seats, and headed back into the centre of Moscow. Trust is a two-way exchange. Now and then, you have to take a chance on trusting someone, when your instincts raise questions.

Zelensky clearly doesn’t trust Putin, but he also has no interest in peace, from my observation. When he made it illegal to talk to Putin or any Russian official, he was, in my opinion, investing in a continuance of the war, hoping the west would back him come what may. And despite the rapid shift in U.S. policy over the past two months, many decision makers in Europe still do want to back Zelensky come what may, which is a worrying thing.

But peace in Ukraine will only be possible once the grown-ups start talking again. Maybe that’s the difference that Donald Trump is bringing to the war; taking small steps through initial deals towards bridging the vast gulf in trust between Russia and the west and, eventually, ending the death and destruction.In one month, Donald Trump has spoken to Vladimir Putin for four hours, which is probably four times more time that Biden spent in engagement in the preceding four years. There are stark parallels with Reagan and Gorbachev in the Eighties, breaking down barriers to focus on the longer-term good. Right now, Trump and Putin are the only grown ups in the conversation. Let’s hope the small steps towards trust they are taking right now, develop into something lasting. The world needs it. Though I remain sceptical that European leaders are ready to follow Trump’s lead.

Read more …

“Peskov also noted that the meeting between the two presidents must be carefully prepared and requires difficult technical negotiations first. “On Monday, our negotiators will travel to Riyadh to begin this difficult process,” Peskov said.”

• Putin and Trump Could Have Other Contacts Alongside With Official Ones (TASS)

Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov did not rule out that Russian and US Presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump could have other contacts in recent months in addition to those officially announced. “We are informing you about the conversations that we know about, but we cannot rule out everything else,” Peskov said in an interview with VGTRK journalist Pavel Zarubin. The journalist noted that if you listen to Trump’s statements, you can conclude that there were more contacts between the presidents than was officially announced. Talking to the journalist Peskov also noted that the meeting between the two presidents must be carefully prepared and requires difficult technical negotiations first. “On Monday, our negotiators will travel to Riyadh to begin this difficult process,” Peskov said.

Read more …

“This rampant militarist policy of Europe – there is no other way to describe it – is hard to comprehend..”

• Europe’s Policy On Ukraine Conflict ‘Paradoxical’ – Kremlin (RT)

The approach taken by European powers to the Ukraine conflict makes no sense because instead of seeking peace they have decided to engage in reckless militarization, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said. In an interview with Russia 1 TV journalist Pavel Zarubin on Sunday, Peskov also remarked that rather than addressing the root causes of the conflict, European powers “are talking about placing NATO contingents on Ukrainian territory”. “This rampant militarist policy of Europe – there is no other way to describe it – is hard to comprehend,” he added.

At the same time, the Kremlin spokesman acknowledged that the EU has found itself in a tight spot after the return to the White House of US President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly demanded that the bloc pay more for its own defense. “There’s a new sheriff in town… So they are forced to leave their comfort zone — and they’re doing it in an aggressive, militarist way. We hear [French President Emmanuel] Macron talking about a nuclear umbrella for Europe, and that also sounds very dangerous.”

Peskov’s comments come after the UK and France said they are open to sending Western peacekeepers to Ukraine once a ceasefire is reached. Moscow has rejected the idea, saying it does not matter under what disguise NATO troops arrive in the neighboring country. Earlier this month, Macron also signaled that France would discuss the possibility of using its nuclear arsenal to protect its allies in Europe, and urged the EU to ramp up military spending while labelling Russia a “threat.” Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly dismissed speculation that Moscow could attack NATO as “nonsense,” arguing it has no interest whatsoever in doing so.

Read more …

All based on the narrative that Putin plans to overrun Europe. For which there is zero evidence.

• EU Afraid Trump Will Cut Off Weapons Support – WaPo (RT)

Officials from EU member states are worried that the Trump administration could stop supporting US-made weapons systems used by its NATO allies in Europe, the Washington Post reported on Sunday, citing people familiar with the matter. The US has provided nearly two-thirds of Europe’s arms imports in recent years. Many of the systems are maintained and operated by American personnel. Equipment containing US components could also face restrictions if support is withdrawn. According to the Post, officials are afraid that reliance on American missile defense, surveillance aircraft, drones, and fighter jets could become a major vulnerability, given President Donald Trump’s strained relations with the EU. Some are reportedly concerned that US-made platforms could be rendered inoperable if access to parts, software, or data is blocked.

“It’s not as if President Trump could just push a button and all aircraft would fall from the sky,” an EU official told the Post. “But there is an issue of dependency,” particularly in intelligence and communications, the official added. Several member states are reviewing their arsenals to assess how exposed they would be in the event of a support cutoff. French President Emmanuel Macron recently urged the bloc to stop buying American weapons, arguing that European rearmament is pointless if member states remain dependent on US suppliers. German Chancellor-designate Friedrich Merz proposed extending France’s nuclear deterrent to cover its EU neighbors, a move that Macron said could be discussed.

Rasmus Jarlov, the chair of Denmark’s defense committee, said he regrets that Copenhagen purchased US-made F-35 fighter planes. He called them “a security risk that we cannot run,” and warned that the US could deactivate the systems if Denmark refuses its demands, such as handing over Greenland. Portugal has scrapped plans to purchase F-35s, citing the current “geopolitical context.” UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has backed the push for military autonomy, saying Trump “may have a point” about Europe needing to spend more on its own defense.

Read more …

There is a lot of blood thirst in Europe.

• The Führer of Germany – Friedrich Merz – In A War And Spending Frenzy (Hanseler)

After more than 80 years, Germany once again has a Führer who is in no way inferior to the old one in terms of mendacity and megalomania while spending sums that are unimaginable for most people. We do the math while our optimism withers. Peter Hanseler

Introduction Yesterday I read the following lines on the Internet – unfortunately without an author’s reference: This has never happened before: a man who has not even been elected chancellor yet negotiates the biggest borrowing in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany with parties that lost the election, in a Bundestag that has long since been dissolved. If you had described Friedrich Merz’s current behavior to a German 10 years ago, you would have been declared insane and put in a clinic without raising a fuss. Friedrich Merz, who refuses to form a coalition with the AFD because he accuses them of right-wing extremism, is preparing Germany for war against Russia. The AFD wants peace with Russia, Russia seeks peace, the Americans want peace and Merz opposes all those who seek peace. This week the Handelsblatt reported that up to 1.7 trillion could be spent. This article will prove that this plan is madness, simply by putting this astronomical figure into perspective for regular people.

How much is a trillion seconds? I maintain that very few people are able to categorize the size of this number. Let’s give it a try: How much time elapses in one million seconds? – Correct, 11.57 days. How much time elapses in a trillion seconds? – You will be wrong if you say a few years. It is exactly 31,709 years. That is indeed a long time ago. The earth was populated by sabre-toothed tigers and woolly mammoths, the last ice age took place. Rome was only founded a good 28,000 years afterwards. I assume that all readers are somewhat overwhelmed that a trillion is as much as it is. 1.7 trillion in money. Germany’s current debt at federal level. As at June 30, Germany’s federal debt amounted to 1.621 trillion – or 1,621 billion euros. This corresponds to a national debt to GDP ratio of 62.4%.

1.7 trillion is a hundred times more than all DAX companies together earned in 2023. Friedrich Merz will double this debt. This would lead to a debt ratio of 125% – which would put the country in the neighborhood of Greece (158%). The additional interest burden for the 1.7 trillion euros will amount to 47.6 billion euros per year if the current interest rate of the 10-year German government bond of 2.8% is used for the calculation. The cumulative profit of Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz and BMW amounted to 29.2 billion euros in 2024. The German automotive giants would therefore not even be able to pay the interest on this madness if they were to send all their profits to Berlin. In 2024, Germany collected income taxes amounting to 181.95 billion euros at federal level. This means that for nearly 10 years, 100% of total income taxes would have to be spent on the repayment of 1,700 billion euros.

Conclusion Without even mentioning that Friedrich Merz’s actions are more than legally questionable, it is already clear from the figure of 1.7 trillion euros that he has lost his mind. This debt bonanza will drive the former world export champion and the former jewel of industry to the wall financially. For many years, the German political elite has been railing against Russia, the country to which it owed the cheap energy that allowed Germany to become the industrial jewel of the world in the first place. Russia forgave the Germans, who had 27 million Russians on their conscience; the Russians have not forgotten these atrocities, but the Germans, or rather the German leadership, have, because what the German people think, choose or want is once again a thing of the past in Germania. Germany then turned imperiously against China, the current industrial jewel that, unlike the Germans, has not slept through the major trends.

Last but not least, the German leadership is salivating against the US, the colonial master of the Germans, which has made a political U-turn and is now seeking peace with Russia. It is therefore by no means inappropriate to describe Friedrich Merz’s behavior as megalomania. Ms. Baerbock, who made Germany a laughing stock on the international stage during her time as foreign minister, is cuddling up to the new Syrian government, which is made up of terrorists. For about two weeks now, civilians have been slaughtered in Syria, women and children have had their heads cut off, obviously a necessity on the road to democracy. Ms. Baerbock seems to agree with this. Incidentally, I do not recommend our readers to watch videos of these goings-on, thousands of which are posted on social media; they are nightmares that will deprive you of sleep.

Ms. Baerbock is transferring 300 million euros to these very gentlemen. Ms. Baerbock, who will soon no longer have a job, seems to have special talents. She is to become the new President of the UN General Assembly. As a geopolitical analyst, you should always remain an optimist at heart, otherwise you will burn out completely. However, I find it increasingly difficult to carry a spark of hope for Germany: legally, geopolitically, in terms of freedom and emotionally.

Read more …

“There is one way to achieve this: if we get Europe to support the president of the United States in his peace efforts, instead of embarking on war adventures, and then there will be peace.”

• Hungary’s Orban Continues Blocking EU’s ‘Pro-War’ Stance On Ukraine (ZH)

Hungary continued this past week being a lone EU voice blocking the European Union’s collective efforts to ramp up more financial and military aid to Ukraine, at a moment Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has a powerful backer in Washington – the Trump administration. Hungary in a Thursday European Council summit vote refused to endorse a statement reaffirming the bloc’s commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Orbán government slammed the ‘pro-war’ stance of the EU, despite 26 out of 27 EU nations signing off on it. While the statement had only largely symbolic significance, saying Europe backs the “continued and unwavering support for Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity” – Orban described that this only prolongs the war and brings the conflict no closer to peaceful resolution.

“Once again, they wanted to adopt a common position in which we want to give Ukraine even more money and even more weapons, and we are committed to the war,” the Hungarian leader explained after the veto. “Over the past three years, Hungarian families have lost around 2.5 million forints (approximately €6,268) per household as a result of the war. I must stop this, and we must not allow Hungarian families to continue to pay the economic consequences,” Orbán stated. He urged European capitals to get in Trump’s corner, who is seeking a diplomatic solution. But here’s how The Associated Press and other outlets characterized Hungary’s stubborn refusal to go along with Brussels:

“At the same time, Orbán is also emboldened by U.S. President Donald Trump, who is pushing for a ceasefire in Ukraine. Trump has blamed Ukraine for Russia’s unprovoked invasion, all while accusing Kyiv of unnecessarily prolonging the biggest land war in Europe since World War II.” Orban described further in an interview with regional media… “There is one way to achieve this: if we get Europe to support the president of the United States in his peace efforts, instead of embarking on war adventures, and then there will be peace. This debate took place, but we were unable to convince each other.” He continued, “I vetoed the common position, and therefore the European Union has no common position. What will be made public here today is nothing more than the private position of 26 member states, not the common position of the European Union, because without Hungary such a position cannot be accepted.”

“The president of Ukraine is confused about his role, he is behaving as if he were in the European Union and therefore could afford to take a sharper tone when he cannot do so. He is an applicant who wants to join the European Union, about which opinions are divided,” Orbán remarked. Parrel to all of this, NATO is seeking to ‘Trump-proof’ the alliance for the long-term, which reports of closed-door discussions on how to replace United States leadership in the alliance some five to ten years down the road, amid fears that Washington will retreat from leadership, and its majority financial and weapons support to NATO.

Read more …

“Very few people know that there is a major political party in South Africa that is actively promoting white genocide,”

• Musk Slams South Africa Over ‘White Genocide’ (RT)

Elon Musk has once again lashed out at his country of birth, South Africa, over what he claimed was “active promotion” of “white genocide.” In a post on X on Sunday, the tech billionaire wrote that his Starlink satellite internet service cannot operate in the African country because he is “not black.”Musk’s remarks came amid tensions between Pretoria and Washington over a controversial land expropriation law signed in January that allows land seizures without compensation and aims to address longstanding disparities between black South Africans and the Afrikaner minority, who own nearly 75% of the country’s freehold farmland. US President Donald Trump condemned the law as an “egregious action” that unfairly targets white South Africans and signed an executive order directing federal agencies to cut aid to the country in a bid to pressure Pretoria to repeal the policy.

Musk, a close advisor to Trump who was born in Pretoria, has also been vocal in his criticism of the law. In his post on Sunday, he lashed out after sharing footage of a rally led by Julius Malema, head of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) opposition party. The video showed demonstrators chanting an apartheid-era slogan Musk interpreted as calling for the killing of white South Africans. “A whole arena chanting about killing white people,” Musk wrote. “Where is the outrage? Why is there no coverage by the legacy media?” “Very few people know that there is a major political party in South Africa that is actively promoting white genocide,” Musk continued, apparently referring to the EFF. He then alleged for the second time in two weeks that Starlink had been refused a license to operate in the country “simply because I’m not black.”

The rally Musk referred to was held to commemorate the 1960 Sharpeville massacre, where police killed 69 black South African protesters during what is considered the first and most violent demonstration against apartheid in the country. The old chant – “Kill the Boer, kill the farmer” – has been a longstanding point of controversy in South Africa. Malema, whose party advocates for eliminating racial and economic disparities, has been known to sing it at rallies and considers it part of the country’s heritage, despite being found guilty of hate speech over it by the ruling African National Congress (ANC).

Despite criticism from Washington, Pretoria has maintained that its land policy is aimed at correcting historical injustice and does not discriminate against any racial group. South African officials have also called for dialogue with Washington to address what they say is “misinformation” about the new land policy. Foreign Ministry spokesman Clayson Monyela rejected Musk’s claim that Starlink was barred due to his race, saying the entire situation had “nothing to do” with skin color, and that the service could operate in South Africa provided it complied with local laws.

Read more …

“Reagan was considered an outsider, and he was “dangerous” because the Republican establishment could lose its grip on the party to a populist whose basis was in the people and not in the organized interest groups.”

• My Time in the Reagan Administration (Paul Craig Roberts)

Paul Craig Roberts, who played a crucial role in enacting the tax cuts of the 1980s and in forging the political emergence of supply-side economics, reflects on his experience in Washington. He emphasizes that intra-party power struggles, not economics, are the main influence on policy. — Editor, The Independent Review. Paul Craig Roberts is chairman of the Institute for Political Economy. He had academic careers as senior research fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University; journalism careers as associate editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal and columnist for Business Week; government careers as a member of the U.S. congressional staff and as assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration; and business careers as a director of industrial and financial companies.

***** When I was an economics professor, I often wondered if what my faculty colleagues and I were teaching students about economic policy had any validity. I left Stanford University, went to Washington, D.C., and joined the congressional staff in order to experience how policy is made. In the House, I helped Rep. Jack Kemp introduce supply-side economics to his colleagues. I became chief economist of the House Budget Committee on the Republican side, and then staff associate for Senator Orrin Hatch on the Joint Economic Committee. My success in explaining to Congress that there was an alternative to Keynesian demand management, which had no solution for stagflation, led to President Reagan appointing me assistant secretary of the Treasury for economic policy.

Having learned how policy is made (and unmade), I now had the assignment to implement a new one. The story of my experience is useful to economists. As one of my graduate professors, Ronald Coase, used to tell his class, “It would help economists to occasionally look outside the window of the box they keep themselves in.” The conflict between merit and redistribution that is characteristic of the American political system and the influence of established explanations are not the only problems confronting a policymaker, especially if he is introducing a new approach. As Niccolò Machiavelli wrote in The Prince, “There is nothing more difficult, more perilous or more uncertain of success than to take the lead in introducing a new order of things.”

One of the many problems a policymaker faces is that policies affect different interest groups in different ways. Some benefit, some don’t, and I don’t mean just in a material or economic way. Most of the things that influence economic policy have nothing to do with economics. They have to do with power. The party establishments that control the parties intend to stay in control. The organized interest groups that control the party establishments intend to continue in control. Few Americans understand that the main political fight is not between the two parties but within the administration of the party in power. Within the parties the fight is over who controls the party. When the fight is between the establishment and a populist rival like Ronald Reagan or Donald Trump, it can get very nasty.

During the first year of the Reagan administration, much of the battle was between President Reagan and his Treasury allies (primarily me and Secretary Don Regan) on one side and Reagan’s chief of staff, Jim Baker, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Murray Weidenbaum, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director David Stockman on the other. The fight within the Reagan administration had its origin in Reagan taking the Republican nomination for president away from the establishment’s candidate, George H. W. Bush, former CIA director. Reagan was considered an outsider, and he was “dangerous” because the Republican establishment could lose its grip on the party to a populist whose basis was in the people and not in the organized interest groups.

Reagan was advised that he must take the defeated George H. W. Bush Republican establishment into his administration or suffer the fate of Barry Goldwater, who rejected Nelson Rockefeller after he defeated him in the Republican presidential nomination. Consequently, the Republican establishment helped the Democrats defeat Goldwater, the Republican populist candidate. Nancy Reagan judged by appearances, and Bush’s man, Jim Baker, a polished dresser, presented to Nancy a better image than Reagan’s laidback California crew to be standing by her husband. Baker was appointed chief of staff. So, from the start Reagan and his supporters in the administration were handicapped by an establishment operative being chief of staff of the Reagan Revolution. Only Reagan had offered a solution to the problem of “stagflation.” It was called supply-side economics. Lacking a solution to offer during the campaign for the nomination, Bush termed Reagan’s policy “voodoo economics.” This, of course, played into the hands of the Democrat opposition and the liberal media determined to undermine President Reagan as a Grade B movie actor who believed in fairy tales about tax cuts paying for themselves.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Self harm

 

 

 

 

Job loss https://twitter.com/its_The_Dr/status/1903631330321052141

Hand https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1903821746605609121

 

 

Moose

 

 

Plank

 

 

Dogsbabies

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Mar 162025
 
 March 16, 2025  Posted by at 10:22 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,  20 Responses »


Peter Paul Rubens Daniel in the lions’ den c1615

 

Everybody Believes Ukraine Won – Zelensky (RT)
Time Runs Out For Ukraine Forces In Kursk Region To Surrender – Kremlin (RT)
Russia ‘Must’ Accept Ceasefire Deal – Macron (RT)
Russia Needs Permanent End to Ukraine Crisis, Not Minsk 3.0-Style Pause (Sp.)
Merkel Slams ‘Putinversteher’ Witch Hunts (RT)
Trump Clarifies Ukraine Envoy’s Duties (RT)
Putin Aide Compares EU Leaders To ‘Affectionate Puppies’ (RT)
Viktor Orban vs. the Modern-Day Habsburgs in Brussels (Sp.)
With Starlink, Musk Has Similar Effect On Europe As He Does In US (JTN)
Moscow Invites Musk To Collaborate On Mars Exploration (RT)
Trump’s Overtures Toward Greenland Are Paying Off (DS)
The 4th Circuit Reverses Nationwide Injunction on Ending DEI Funding (Turley)
Trump Has Something To Say About the Biden Autopen Scandal (Margolis)
Trump Orders Cutbacks At State-Run Media (RT)
The Swamp Can Scream But DOGE Is on a Lawful Path to Success (DS)
Federal Judge Tells Trump He Can’t Use the Law to Deport Illegals (Margolis)
Federal Judge Appoints Himself President (BBee)

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/cb_doge/status/1900681542353236349

https://twitter.com/DefiyantlyFree/status/1900669533935071519

Candace https://twitter.com/KarluskaP/status/1900646060827062695

O’Leary

Macgregor https://twitter.com/DD_Geopolitics/status/1900960935638167986

 

 

 

 

I got nothing.

• Everybody Believes Ukraine Won – Zelensky (RT)

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has claimed that Kiev has received widespread applause from its Western backers over its handling of the recent talks with the US in Saudi Arabia. The diplomatic success, he stated, puts Russia in a difficult situation that could be hard to “wiggle out of.” During a meeting in Jeddah on Tuesday, the Ukrainian delegation agreed to a US-proposed 30-day ceasefire. “Everyone congratulated Ukraine on a real victory in Jeddah, the victory of diplomacy,” Zelensky stated on Saturday, without specifying who exactly reached out to Kiev. “Everyone believes that this is a serious progress,” he claimed. At the time of the meeting, the Ukrainian military was facing a sustained Russian offensive along the entire front line, while Kiev’s troops suffered a major defeat in Russia’s Kursk Region.

A surprise attack allowed the Russian military to reclaim hundreds of square kilometers of territory within days and liberate Sudzha, the largest town in the area previously occupied by Ukrainian forces. The head of the Russian General Staff, General Valery Gerasimov, reported on Wednesday that the Ukrainian troops in the area were largely “isolated” or “encircled.” On Friday, US President Donald Trump called on Moscow to spare the lives of the “thousands” of Ukrainian soldiers trapped in the area. In response, Russian President Vladimir Putin has guaranteed merciful treatment to the surrounded fighters if they surrender. The Ukrainian General Staff swiftly branded all the reports about an encirclement a “manipulation” by Russia. Talking to journalists on Saturday, Zelensky denied that the Ukrainian troops had been surrounded in the Kursk Region.

The Ukrainian leader also demanded “unconditional” agreement from Moscow to the US-backed ceasefire proposal. “If Ukraine takes such a step, it has to be unconditional,” he stated. Putin welcomed the US ceasefire initiative by calling it “the right idea” and one that Moscow “certainly supports.” However, he maintained that certain issues, including the fate of the Ukrainian troops in Kursk Region, as well as mechanisms for monitoring the ceasefire, need to be addressed before any agreement could be reached. France and the UK have also demanded that Russia agree to an unconditional temporary truce, which prompted a sharp rebuke from former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who said the UK can stick such ideas back where they came from.

Read more …

“If they lay down their arms and surrender, we will guarantee them their lives and dignified treatment..”

• Time Runs Out For Ukraine Forces In Kursk Region To Surrender – Kremlin (RT)

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s offer to Ukrainian forces in Kursk Region to surrender is still valid, but time is running out, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said. “It is still in effect,” he stated on Saturday in response to a question from TASS news agency. “Their time is shrinking like the Shagreen skin,” he added, in reference to Honoré de Balzac’s novel ‘The Magic Skin’. On Friday, Putin guaranteed merciful treatment to Ukrainian fighters encircled in Kursk Region if they surrender. “If they lay down their arms and surrender, we will guarantee them their lives and dignified treatment in accordance with international law and Russian legal norms,” the president said. He indicated, however, that Kiev should order them to do so.

Putin’s statement was a response to US President Donald Trump’s call to spare the lives of the “thousands of Ukrainian troops” who are “completely surrounded by the Russian military.” “This would be a horrible massacre, one not seen since World War II,” he commented on Truth Social. Kiev launched a major offensive into Kursk Region in August 2024, successfully capturing the town of Sudzha along with numerous villages. Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky stated that the incursion across the internationally recognized border aimed to secure leverage for future peace negotiations.

However, the Russian military quickly halted the Ukrainian advance and has since been regaining territory. As of Wednesday, 86% of the land occupied by Ukraine was reclaimed, according to General Valery Gerasimov, the head of the Russian General Staff. He noted that the remaining Ukrainian units in the area are largely “encircled” and “isolated.”

Read more …

NATO and Kiev are stuck. Not Russia.

• Russia ‘Must’ Accept Ceasefire Deal – Macron (RT)

Moscow must accept the US-proposed 30-day ceasefire deal and stop making “delaying statements,” French President Emmanuel Macron has stated. Kiev agreed to a month-long truce in the Ukraine conflict following talks with the US in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday. Washington subsequently resumed intelligence sharing with Ukraine and arms shipments to the country. No EU member states were represented at the negotiations. Speaking on Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin confirmed that Russia is ready to discuss a ceasefire but that the terms need to be clarified to ensure it leads to a stable and permanent peace. On Friday, following talks with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky, Macron demanded that Moscow accept the proposed deal.

“Russia must now accept the US-Ukrainian proposal for a 30-day ceasefire,” he wrote on X, adding that he will continue working to drum up support for Kiev going forward. The UK has also demanded an unconditional armistice from Moscow. “Now is the time for a ceasefire with no conditions. Ukraine has set their position out. It is now for Russia to accept it,” UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy said in a comment to the press on Friday. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev dismissed the demand. “Britain and its minister can shove their idea back up the sh*thole it came from, diplomatically speaking,” Medvedev, who serves as deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council, wrote on X.

Russia has condemned the increasingly hostile statements coming from European leaders about boosting their militarization, as the tide on the battlefield turns increasingly in favor of Moscow. Western states’ continued provision of military supplies to Ukraine makes the conflict a NATO-led proxy war against Russia, according to Moscow. Replying to British and French initiatives to deploy peacekeeping contingents to Ukraine, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called such ideas “outright hostile” to Russia. Any troops of the US-led military bloc in the conflict, even under the guise of peacekeepers, will amount to the “direct, official, undisguised involvement of NATO countries in the war against Russia,” the top diplomat has said.

Read more …

“..issues ranging from the fate of Ukrainian troops trapped in Kursk, to Ukraine’s ongoing forced mobilization, to monitoring for violations, and arms supplies to Kiev must be dealt with before Russia agrees to a ceasefire..”

• Russia Needs Permanent End to Ukraine Crisis, Not Minsk 3.0-Style Pause (Sp.)

Shortly after the US rolled out its 30-day Ukraine ceasefire proposal, President Trump appealed to President Putin to spare the lives of “thousands” of Ukrainian troops trapped in Kursk region. Sputnik asked a pair of veteran international affairs analysts about the risks and opportunities hidden in the US proposals. Donald Trump’s call on Russia to spare Ukrainian troops trapped in Kursk reminds veteran geopolitical analyst Brian Berletic of the Minsk peace agreements, the second iteration of which was signed in February 2015, “when Ukrainian forces were encircled and facing capture or annihilation at the hands of Donbass fighters.”

Back then, “US and European leaders eagerly urged a temporary ceasefire and the creation of conditions under which Ukrainian forces could recover, reorganize, rearm, and restart hostilities at a future date with factors leaning better in their and their Western sponsors’ favor,” the former US Marine recalled. “Now, Russian forces have delivered a significant defeat to Ukraine and its Western backers – including the United States – and once again there are urgent attempts to pause the fighting to buy time for the Ukrainians and ultimately buy time for Washington’s proxy war,” the observer said. The US’s 30-day ceasefire proposal “sidesteps” the “root causes of this conflict (US-led NATO expansion),” with the alliance’s European members being called on to more than double their defense spending, Berletic pointed out.

Accordingly, rather than a mere “freeze” of the conflict, Russia, which has “expanded its own combat power faster than Ukraine with Western backing can negate it” to achieve victories in Kursk and the incremental collapse of Ukrainian positions along the rest of the front, needs a “permanent conclusion to this conflict,” not a temporary freeze which would ensure its continuation “well into the foreseeable future,” Berletic emphasized. President Putin confirmed as much in his press conference Thursday. “We agree with the proposals to cease hostilities, but proceed from the assumption that this cessation should lead to long-term peace and eliminate the root causes of this crisis,” he said. Furthermore, issues ranging from the fate of Ukrainian troops trapped in Kursk, to Ukraine’s ongoing forced mobilization, to monitoring for violations, and arms supplies to Kiev must be dealt with before Russia agrees to a ceasefire, Putin added.

Veteran independent Argentine journalist Tadeo Castiglione argues that the US president’s appeal to Russia can be interpreted as a signal to speed up peace talks, and a message to Volodymyr Zelensky to call on his troops to surrender to avoid a massacre.“Throughout the three years of the Special Military Operation, Russia has respected international law, and ensured respect for all Ukrainian servicemen who surrendered,” something that could not be said about the other side, the veteran international affairs observer pointed out.

Kursk is outside the Special Operation Zone, Castiglione stressed, and for the Russian side, fighting on this front is considered an anti-terrorist operation, since Ukrainian forces invaded and attacked civilians beyond the NATO-Russia proxy war’s boundaries. “This is a crime on the part of the Ukrainian government. That is why Putin has emphasized that despite breaking the law on Russian territory, they will still be treated as prisoners of war,” Castiglione explained. Therefore, “if both sides really want peace, the first step must be the capitulation of Ukrainian units in Kursk,” the observer summed up.

Read more …

Her successors are far worse than she is, but she started the decline.

• Merkel Slams ‘Putinversteher’ Witch Hunts (RT)

Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel has criticized the use of the term ‘Putinversteher’ (Putin understander) to silence those who discuss Russia’s perspective, arguing that it prevents meaningful dialogue and complicates diplomacy. In an interview with Berliner Zeitung on Friday, Merkel was asked how she felt about the term, which is often used to label people who address Russian President Vladimir Putin’s concerns over NATO expansion. “Not good, because there has to be a discussion about it. You have to plan ahead for diplomatic initiatives so that they are available at the right moment,” she said.

She also rejected the idea that seeking to understand Moscow’s position amounts to supporting it. “I find the accusation of being a Putinversteher inappropriate. It is used as a conversation-stopper, a way to shut down debate.” Asked if she has ever been called one, Merkel replied: “No one has ever called me that – it’s a strange word. Understanding what Putin does and putting oneself in his position is not wrong. It is a fundamental task of diplomacy and something entirely different from supporting him.” Her remarks come amid an ongoing debate in Germany over its policy toward Russia. The term ‘Putinversteher’ is frequently used to criticize those who advocate for diplomatic engagement with Moscow, portraying them as sympathetic to the Kremlin.

Speaking on European security concerns, Merkel warned that failing to address Russia’s interests could increase the risk of future conflicts. “There is no justification for him [Putin] invading another country, but the discussion about Russia’s interests must be allowed.” Merkel was a key mediator in the Minsk agreements, a 2015 road map negotiated along with then-French President Francois Hollande, which was officially intended to reintegrate the Donbass region into Ukraine. However, after the 2022 escalation, both Merkel and Hollande admitted that the accords were never meant to bring peace, but rather to buy time for Kiev to strengthen its military with NATO’s help.

Read more …

Kellogg speaks only to Zelensky. Trump doesn’t care what he says anyway. This way Zelensky thinks he still matters.

• Trump Clarifies Ukraine Envoy’s Duties (RT)

US President Donald Trump has appointed Keith Kellogg to lead talks with Kiev. Earlier, media reports suggested that the retired lieutenant general was ousted from peace talks with Russia at Moscow’s request. “I am pleased to inform you that General Keith Kellogg has been appointed Special Envoy to Ukraine,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Saturday. He added that Kellogg will lead direct talks with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky and senior officials. “He [Kellogg] knows them well, and they have a very good working relationship together,” Trump said.

NBC News and Reuters reported on Thursday, citing sources, that Russian officials demanded that Kellogg be excluded from peace talks due to his pro-Kiev position. The retired US Army lieutenant general was absent from last month’s Russia-US talks in Saudi Arabia and this week’s US-Ukraine talks in Jeddah, where the delegations proposed a 30-day ceasefire. On Thursday, US special envoy Steve Witkoff traveled to Moscow to formally present the details of the initiative to Russian officials. Witkoff’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin was hailed as “very good and productive” by Trump.

Putin expressed support for a potential 30-day ceasefire in the Ukraine conflict, but has raised concerns regarding how it can be implemented. He also offered the Ukrainian forces encircled in Russia’s Kursk Region time to surrender, guaranteeing them their lives and dignified treatment. Regarding ties between Moscow and Washington, the Russian president acknowledged the Trump administration’s efforts to rebuild them, but said the process remains challenging. “We know the new administration, headed by President Trump, is doing everything to restore at least part of what was practically reduced to zero, destroyed by the previous American administration,” Putin said.

Read more …

“..Medvedev dismissed the ultimatum, telling Britain and Lammy personally to “shove their idea back up the sh*thole it came from, diplomatically speaking.”

• Putin Aide Compares EU Leaders To ‘Affectionate Puppies’ (RT)

President Vladimir Putin’s foreign policy aide, Yury Ushakov, has echoed the Russian leader’s comparison of European leaders to puppies, commenting on how quickly they shifted to supporting the US push for a ceasefire in the Ukraine conflict. Last month, Putin predicted that European politicians, who “happily carried out any order from the president in Washington” under President Donald Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden, would soon fall in line with changing US policy. Given Trump’s “character and persistence,” all of them would soon “stand at the master’s feet and gently wag their tails,” the Russian president said. In an interview on Friday with Russia 1 TV journalist Pavel Zarubin, Ushakov was asked to comment on European leaders’ recent shift to supporting the US-proposed 30-day ceasefire after years of steady military assistance to Kiev.

Everything is turning out as Putin “vividly” portrayed, the presidential aide said. “He described it as if they would be like affectionate dogs at the feet of their master. This is approximately what is happening now,” Ushakov stated. Following a virtual meeting of European leaders on Friday, France and the UK both demanded that Russia accept the 30-day ceasefire agreed upon by Ukraine and the US during bilateral talks in Saudi Arabia earlier in the week. “Russia must now accept” the truce deal, French President Emmanuel Macron wrote on X. UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy told the press that Moscow must accept the ceasefire without conditions. “Ukraine has set their position out. It is now for Russia to accept it,” he said. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev dismissed the ultimatum, telling Britain and Lammy personally to “shove their idea back up the sh*thole it came from, diplomatically speaking.”

The US and its allies in Europe severed diplomatic ties with Russia soon after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, pledging to support Kiev with financial and military aid “as long as it takes.” Moscow has long characterized the conflict as a Western proxy war against Russia. Trump has repeatedly signaled his intention to diplomatically wind down the conflict during his reelection campaign. Relations between Washington and Moscow began to thaw following a phone call between Putin and Trump, which was followed by high-level talks in Riyadh last month. European leaders who severed ties with Moscow can reestablish diplomatic contact whenever they choose, Putin said last month, though he noted they are “deeply entangled with the Kiev regime” and that it would be “very difficult or almost impossible for them to backtrack without losing face.”

Read more …

“For Orban, the War Against Soros Is Personal.”

Where do you think this weekend’s big anti-Orban protests come from?

• Viktor Orban vs. the Modern-Day Habsburgs in Brussels (Sp.)

Hungary’s prime minister has released a 12-point ultimatum to the European Union, demanding peace, sovereign equality, the protection of Europe’s Christian heritage, the expulsion of “Soros agents” in the European Commission, and an EU “without Ukraine.” Sputnik asked two renowned experts of Hungarian politics what’s really at stake. Orban’s appeal, coinciding with the anniversary of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848, signals recognition that Brussels bureaucrats have become the modern-day oppressors of Hungary, imposing an “ongoing tyranny” amid Budapest’s efforts to “pursue its own national, historical, cultural policies,” renowned international affairs commentator Dr. George Szamuely explained. It’s very much about “national autonomy, national self-determination [and] national identity” versus the universalist, globalist vision of the likes of Ursula von der Leyen, according to the observer.

The timing of Orban’s statement has to do with the rise of Trump, Szamuely says, with the Hungarian leader already serving “kind of ‘Trump before Trump’” anyway, opposed to mass illegal immigration, promoting a “Hungary First” vision, and consistently advocating for “immediate peace in Ukraine.” “Russia raised objections about Ukraine in NATO, but never in the EU. So it’s very interesting that Orban has done this,” Szamuely said, commenting on the Ukraine-related aspect of Orban’s 12-point demands. “He sees Ukraine in the EU as being a serious economic threat to countries such as Hungary and others in Central Europe, particularly with its cheap agricultural products that will be used to wipe out agriculture,” Szamuely explained.

“He probably sees that this is part of the plan on the part of the EU leaders Ursula von der Leyen, Kaja Kallas and the rest to destroy the economies of Central European states such as Hungary and Slovakia,” the observer added. Veteran Hungarian journalist Gabor Stier agrees. “Orban is saying we have suffered from the war, and now will suffer from Ukraine’s membership in the EU, because the EU will collapse if Ukraine becomes a member…I agree with this 100%,” Stier, a senior foreign policy analyst at Hungary’s conservative daily newspaper Magyar Nemzet, explained. In this regard, Orban and Hungarians recognize a reality that EU elites and most ordinary Europeans don’t, according to the observer.

The Hungarian leader has “been very much the victim of George Soros’ infrastructure in Europe, which has been targeting him for 15 years, really, ever since he first came to power in 2010,” Szamuely said, commenting on the anti-Soros portion of Orban’s 12-point appeal. Up for reelection next year, Orban “sees Soros money behind the candidacy of Peter Magyar, who is going to be the leader of the opposition, the leader of the Tisza Party,” Dr. Szamuely explained. Besides this, Soros’ arsenal includes his NGOs, think tanks, newspapers, legal and lobbying groups, who target “nationalist populists” across the EU. “Whether it’s Fico and Slovakia, we’ve also seen what happened to Georgescu in Romania, and without question, if they can get Orban, that’ll be a huge victory for the color revolution,” Szamuely stressed.

Stier notes that Orban’s mission today is about “squeezing out everyone tied to Western networks, the so-called Soros structures.” “This is a part of the war that Trump is waging against the globalists. And [in Hungary] one of Trump’s European supporters is making great efforts to do the same,” Stier explained. Today’s global political landscape in the middle of an “ideological war between globalists and the sovereigntists, between ‘Sorosists’ and ‘Trumpists’,” Stier says. “It’s very important that Orban now feels Trump’s support and strength behind him, and this expands his room for maneuver. At the same time, in domestic politics, he must somehow mobilize his supporters, because while there is still a year before the elections, he will need to work very hard to win,” the observer summed up.

Read more …

There is no alternative.

“Ukraine is estimated to be already using nearly 50,000 proprietary Starlink terminals..”

• With Starlink, Musk Has Similar Effect On Europe As He Does In US (JTN)

Since returning to the White House nearly two months ago, Donald Trump has tested the willingness of the U.S.’s European allies to deal with uncertainty regarding trade and security. On a smaller, but important, Trump ally and billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk has charted a similar path with his groundbreaking Starlink telecommunications systems. Using a vast network of low-orbit satellites, Starlink – a subsidiary of Musk’s SpaceX – can provide users with high-speed Internet access essentially anywhere in the world, even when users are on the move. The technology plays a key role in the high-tech war in Ukraine, and it’s also of use in remote parts of the world and can even be used for limited periods during power outages. There are downsides, of course. Though Starlink’s services have come down in price, they are still expensive compared to faster, traditional Internet alternatives. And they require a clear line of sight to the sky order to work correctly, making them ineffective in some urban contexts, mountainous areas, or dense forests.

Scientists also worry about filling up low orbits with “space junk” that could crash into spacecraft or other satellites, obscure astronomers’ views of the heavens, and increase the amount of space debris that falls to earth. But the biggest obstacle to the company’s spread may be Musk himself. Since taking a role in the Trump administration and weighing in on an array of hot button global issues, Musk has become a controversial figure. That is having an impact across Musk’s business empire, leading to plummeting sales of Tesla cars and a growing exodus of users from his X social media platform. Late last year, Italy began talks about signing a $1.6 billion deal to provide Starlink services to its diplomatic corps and military personnel stationed abroad. But the deal has run into trouble amid allegations that it is the fruit of the cozy relationship between Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and both Trump and Musk.

Musk also threatened to turn off access to Starlink in Ukraine (“Their entire front line would collapse if I turned it off,” Musk tweeted a week ago). He has since backtracked off the threat, but it has helped turn public opinion against him in Italy and elsewhere. In addition, Musk’s threat also cause s riff with Poland, when the country’s prime minister, Poland’s foreign minister over the use of the tech billionaire’s Starlink satellite internet system in Ukraine. Musk said on X that Ukraine’s “entire front line” would collapse if he turned the system off, Radoslaw Sikorski,responded to Musk by saying his country pay for Starlink’s use in Ukraine and a threat to shut it down would result in a search for another network. “Starlinks for Ukraine are paid for by the Polish Digitization Ministry at the cost of about $50 million per year,” he said. “The ethics of threatening the victim of aggression apart, if SpaceX proves to be an unreliable provider we will be forced to look for other suppliers.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio dismissed Sikorski’s claims and told him to be grateful, while Musk called him a “little man.” Musk has also drawn fire from leaders in the U.K., Germany, and France. Additionally, the Trump administration’s hardline criticisms of Europe are having an impact, according to Hashem Alkhaldi, founder of ReshapeRisks, a London-based geopolitical risk consultancy. “European political considerations are an increasingly important factor for Starlink,” Alkhaldi told Just the News. “U.S. companies, including Starlink, are now likely to be viewed as strategic threats rather than market partners.” Alkhaldi said the change has ramped up efforts in Europe to improve its “strategic autonomy” from the U.S. “Recent developments have only heightened this sensitivity,” he said, likely referring, at least in part, to Trump’s tariffs on the EU and threats to stop U.S. funding to Ukraine in its effort to fend off Russia’s invasion, leaving the task up to European countries.

The problem is, there isn’t a viable global alternative – at least not for the time being. European leaders said earlier this month that they’d step in to help Ukraine replace Starlink’s networks if access to Starlink was blocked. But it’s not clear how they could do that. A spokesman for the European Commission said the entity was looking into helping Ukraine by using Govsatcom – a pooled constellation of satellites from European Union member states – combined with the Iris2 sovereign satellite network that is at least five years from being fully operational. But that would only answer a small fraction of Kyiv’s operational needs. Shares in French satellite operator Eutelsat – for now, Starlink’s most direct competitor – shot up more than 500% in a week as tensions with Starlink escalated. But by most counts, Eutelsat operates just one satellite for around every 12 Starlink has deployed. In a similar circumstance in the U.S., Musk’s top two Teslas cars – Model Y and Model 3 – account for roughly 43% of the country’s electric vehicle sales.

“The Eutelsat network would be pushed to its limits to meaningfully fill the gap Starlink could leave in Ukraine,” Alkhaldi said. “Starlink has technological advantages over European companies, which haven’t had big incentives to grow since there aren’t that many service gaps in Europe. Add to that the fact that Ukraine has relied excessively on Starlink.” Even if it could work, a switch to a new technology would be slow and expensive. Ukraine is estimated to be already using nearly 50,000 proprietary Starlink terminals. Starlink terminals have also proved unusually resistant to Russian electronic interference. There’s no way to know whether the same would be true for Eutelsat and others. What may be more likely than a viable European alternative in the Ukraine war would be one from the other side of the world: China. China’s global communications satellite presence is still modest, but it is ramping up fast. And even as things stand, Ukraine leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy warns China is already wading into the fray on the Russian side.

Read more …

“..for the glory of humanity.”

• Moscow Invites Musk To Collaborate On Mars Exploration (RT)

Russian sovereign wealth fund head Kirill Dmitriev has pitched a US-Russia partnership for Mars exploration to Elon Musk. In a post on X on Saturday, Dmitriev, who has also taken on the role of chief economic envoy in the US-Russia talks, noted the importance of space collaboration between the two countries “for the glory of humanity.” Dmitriev’s remarks came in response to Musk’s announcement of a planned 2026 Mars mission. The SpaceX founder stated that the company’s Starship spacecraft is set to depart for Mars next year and will be carrying a Tesla humanoid bot called Optimus. Musk also suggested that human landings on Mars could begin as early as 2029.

“Shall 2029 be the year of a joint US-Russia mission to Mars, @elonmusk? Our minds & technology should serve the glory of humanity, not its destruction,” Dmitriev wrote. He also noted that 2025 marks the 50th anniversary of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, the first crewed international space mission carried out jointly by then-spaceflight rivals, the US and the Soviet Union, in July 1975. Musk has not yet publicly responded to Dmitriev’s proposal, but the idea has garnered a slew of positive reactions from X users.

Read more …

“The message is that America wants Greenland, but that Greenland will ultimately need the U.S…”

• Trump’s Overtures Toward Greenland Are Paying Off (DS)

Acquiring Greenland remains a priority for the Trump administration, and there are signs that a deal may be inching closer to happening.You may have missed it, but President Donald Trump referred to Greenland in his joint address to Congress in early March. Trump said to the people of Greenland, “We strongly support your right to determine your own future, and if you choose, we welcome you into the United States of America.” That short line, “and if you choose,” is significant because it undermines the silly conjecture that Trump is going to take the United States to war with Greenland and NATO or some such nonsense. Sumantra Maitra at The American Conservative wrote that the U.S. purchasing and integrating lands peacefully is very much in line with the country’s traditions.

“The idea that the U.S. would just simply annex Greenland, even by force if needed, is unappealing to a lot of Americans and worse for Europeans,” Maitra wrote. “Peaceful integration and mutually beneficial trade with foreign lands, on the other hand, is as American as, well, apfelstrudel” (the German phrase for apple pie). Gentle, but forceful coaxing is the way to go here to entice the people of Greenland without provoking anti-American backlash. Trump affirmed his commitment to this path on Thursday, too, saying how important he thinks Greenland is for security around the Arctic, through which Russian and Chinese ships frequently pass. The message is that America wants Greenland, but that Greenland will ultimately need the U.S. It will be a mutually beneficial relationship for all. Greenland’s recent elections were a mixed bag but they showed that the potential for a long-term deal is increasing.

The victorious Demokraatit party is considered center right. It’s generally pro-Europe and not currently in favor of U.S. acquisition but leans toward long-term independence. Notably, the second-highest vote-getting Naleraq party—that only trailed Demokraatit by a few points—is the one most strongly amenable to independence (from Denmark) and partnership with the U.S. They will almost certainly be part of the ruling coalition of the country, since the two parties’ combined vote percentage was over 50%. And most importantly of all, the left-wing parties hostile to Trump and the U.S. were soundly defeated. [..] Even NBC News admitted in an analysis of the election that while the pro-U.S. party didn’t win outright, the results are likely good for the White House. It should be noted that Greenland’s voters are typically very much to the Left of Americans. The rightward shift after Trump’s overtures is significant.

Greenland is almost certainly willing to “play ball,” so to speak. And for a good reason. The United States offers huge investment possibilities far beyond the capacity of any European country or collection of countries, and certainly of Greenland alone. Right now, both Denmark and Greenland are trapped in a suboptimal economic situation. Denmark can’t quite invest in Greenland to the degree necessary to make the partnership really pay off and it remains an underdeveloped financial burden as a result. Greenland is rich in natural resources, but the island has a tiny number of people and only a few marginal industries. A great power like the United States could step in and make things happen like never before. The key phrase here is “great power.” Greenland is of more importance now than it has been in decades because there’s been an unmistakable return to international great power competition.

A look at any map of the globe from the top should explain why Greenland is important. It’s straddled by Russia on one side, and China is highly interested in the region, especially its resources. Starting the long-term process of acquiring Greenland signals that the U.S. is not going to let another great power encroach on the territory. It will help build upon the U.S. presence and influence over the Arctic. And it will provide significant investment and job opportunities to Americans and Greenland residents. Trump said to the people of Greenland in his address, “We will keep you safe. We will make you rich. And together we will take Greenland to heights like you have never thought possible before.” The Trump administration’s focus on Greenland demonstrates that the U.S. is not content to be a fading power or an economic zone in a global, woke empire. Instead, it will act as a great nation, willing to defend its interests at home and abroad and unwilling to allow other powers to force their way into the Western Hemisphere.

Read more …

“Ending Radical and Wasteful DEI Programs and Preferencing;” “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government;” and “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.”

• The 4th Circuit Reverses Nationwide Injunction on Ending DEI Funding (Turley)

On Friday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the much-covered nationwide injunction imposed by U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson in Baltimore regarding ending federal support for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. The three-judge panel ruled that Judge Abelson had gone “too far” in seeking to enjoin the federal government across the country. The Fourth Circuit recognized that the executive orders “could raise concerns” about First Amendment rights that might have to be addressed down the road. However, it found Abelson’s “sweeping block went too far.” It also pointed out that the orders were not nearly as unlimited and sweeping as suggested by the district court or the media.

Trump’s orders directed federal agencies to terminate all “equity-related” grants or contracts, and further required federal contractors to certify that they implement DEI programs which the Administration believes are discriminatory and violated federal civil rights laws. Those orders are also being challenged in other cases and include “Ending Radical and Wasteful DEI Programs and Preferencing;” “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government;” and “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” The district court found the orders in the Maryland case to be unconstitutionally “vague” and chilled free speech. That was a victory for the litigants, including the City of Baltimore, the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors and the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United.

In their order, the panel explained that the orders were misrepresented in their scope. Judge Pamela Harris, a Biden appointee, wrote that: “The challenged Executive Orders, on their face, are of distinctly limited scope. The Executive Orders do not purport to establish the illegality of all efforts to advance diversity, equity or inclusion, and they should not be so understood.” Judge Harris also noted that the orders “do not authorize the termination of grants based on a grantee’s speech or activities outside the scope of the funded activities.” Likewise, she noted that the certifications only require pledges not to violate existing federal anti-discrimination laws. Nevertheless, Judge Harris noted that the officials could enforce these orders in unconstitutional ways: “Agency enforcement actions that go beyond the Orders’ narrow scope may well raise serious First Amendment and Due Process concerns,” the judge added.

Chief Judge Albert Diaz, an Obama appointee, agreed with Harris but wanted to emphasize that the enforcement of these orders should not stray from their narrow framing: “I too reserve judgment on how the administration enforces these executive orders.”Judge Diaz, however, went beyond that scope and engaged in a degree of editorialization on the value of DEI programs. “Despite the vitriol now being heaped on DEI, people of good faith who work to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion deserve praise, not opprobrium,” the judge wrote. “When this country embraces true diversity, it acknowledges and respects the social identity of its people. When it fosters true equity, it opens opportunities and ensures a level playing field for all. And when its policies are truly inclusive, it creates an environment and culture where everyone is respected and valued. What could be more American than that?… A country does itself no favors by scrubbing the shameful moments of its past.”

The only Trump appointee pushed back on the rhetoric of her colleagues in their defense of DEI policies. Judge Allison Rushing correctly, in my view, objected to the political dimension of such dicta. “Any individual judge’s view on whether certain Executive action is good policy is not only irrelevant to fulfilling our duty to adjudicate cases and controversies according to the law, it is an impermissible consideration. A judge’s opinion that DEI programs ‘deserve praise, not opprobrium’ should play absolutely no part in deciding this case.” I also found the tenor of the opinion of Chief Judge Diaz to be concerning. The review of an injunction is not an invitation or license to express one’s personal view of the moral or social value of government programs. I share the concern of all three judges with how these orders will be enforced to protect free speech rights. However, we have a court system to address any such abuses if they were to arise. If there are “as applied” violations, they can be raised in the context of a specific case with the courts. In the meantime, the Supreme Court has signaled that it is losing patience with nationwide injunctions from district court judges.

Read more …

“..unelected bureaucrats were running the country while Biden struggled to remember what day it was..”

• Trump Has Something To Say About the Biden Autopen Scandal (Margolis)

The Biden administration has been caught in what could be one of the most jaw-dropping scandals in presidential history. As PJ Media previously reported, virtually every document during Biden’s presidency was signed by autopen. While the presidential autopen isn’t new—Barack Obama first used it to sign legislation in 2013—the scale of its use under Biden and the circumstances surrounding it are raising serious red flags. Legitimate questions have been raised as to whether use of the autopen was always authorized by Joe Biden, or even if he was aware it was being used to sign documents. The situation has become so alarming that President Trump addressed it directly during his Friday speech at the Department of Justice.

“Crooked Joe Biden got us into a real mess with Russia and everything else he did, frankly,” Trump begain. “But he didn’t know about it and he, generally speaking, signed it with autopen. So how would he know? That autopen is a big deal? I don’t know.” Trump continued, “You know, they’re having, who’s, who’s doing this? When my people come up, Will and all of the people, Steve, they come up and, ‘Sir, this is an executive order.’ They explain it to me and you know, 90% of the time I sign it, 99% of the time I say, ‘Do it,’ but they come up and I sign it. But you don’t use autopen. Number one, it’s disrespectful to the office. Number two, maybe it’s not even valid because you know who’s getting him to sign? He had no idea what the hell he was doing. If he did, all of these bad things wouldn’t be happening right now.”

Even more alarming are the revelations from former Biden White House insiders. One source told the New York Post that they suspect a key aide to Joe Biden may have unilaterally decided what documents to auto-sign. The plot thickens, with anonymous White House sources painting a picture of potential abuse of power. The source explained that “everyone” was worried that a particular aide was exceeding his or her authority, “But no one would actually say it.” “I think [the aide] was using the autopen as standard and past protocol,” the source said. “There is no clarity on who actually approved what — POTUS or [the aide].” Speaker Mike Johnson previously highlighted Biden’s inability to recall signing an LNG (liquified natural gas) exports executive order. Let that sink in—the “president” couldn’t remember signing a major executive order affecting our energy security. But was he even involved in the decision at all?

The left-wing media will try to sweep this under the rug, but the evidence is mounting. We’re potentially looking at a situation where unelected bureaucrats were running the country while Biden struggled to remember what day it was. Former White House staffers can dispute these allegations all they want, but the American people aren’t stupid—we could see what’s happening. This isn’t just about an autopen anymore—it’s about who was really calling the shots in the Biden White House. And the answer to that question should terrify every American who believes in democratic governance. With President Trump speaking of the scandal, you can bet this won’t go away anytime soon. Will we find out that Joe Biden hadn’t authorized and maybe wasn’t even aware that official documents were being signed on his behalf? What happens if we do?

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1900579758162788741

Read more …

“..Under the order, the agencies must reduce their operations and staff to the bare minimum required by law..”

• Trump Orders Cutbacks At State-Run Media (RT)

US President Donald Trump has signed an executive order aimed at significantly reducing operations at the agency that funds state-sponsored news outlets such as Voice of America and Radio Liberty. The move is part of Trump’s drive to root out wasteful spending, bureaucracy, and corruption in the US government, which has already resulted in the cancelation of programs and significant job cuts within the federal workforce. Signed on Friday, the executive order targets seven federal agencies, including one that provides funding for museums and one that deals with homelessness. It also targets the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM), which oversees the state-owned Voice of America (VOA), along with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) and Radio Free Asia, which are separate not-for-profit entities that are also fully funded from the US budget. All three claim to provide unbiased news to audiences in around 100 countries, but are widely seen as propaganda outlets.

Under the order, the agencies must reduce their operations and staff to the bare minimum required by law. Agency heads have seven days to submit compliance plans outlining which functions are legally mandated. Trump has frequently criticized US-funded media outlets, including VOA, accusing them of being biased. In a speech at the Department of Justice on Friday, he blasted the US media as “corrupt and illegal,” calling them “political arms of the Democrat party.” He singled out CNN and MSNBC, claiming they “literally write 97.6% bad about me,” and vowed to continue eliminating “rogue actors and corrupt forces” within the federal government.

Elon Musk, who leads Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has pushed for a complete shutdown of RFE/RL and VOA. In a post on X last month, the tech billionaire labeled them “radical left crazy people talking to themselves while torching $1B/year of US taxpayer money.” Since then, the Trump administration has reportedly taken nearly full control of the USAGM, imposed a 30-day freeze on its funding, and initiated layoffs, particularly among probationary employees at VOA. Kari Lake, Trump’s newly appointed head of VOA, has supported the cost-cutting measures, but suggested that the agency could still be salvaged. On Thursday, she announced plans to end costly contracts with major wire services such as AP, AFP, and Reuters. In a social media post, Lake said she was “finding a lot of nonsense that the American taxpayer should not be paying for.”

Read more …

“Trump can authorize Musk and DOGE to do what he simply cannot because of time and resource constraints on him. To argue otherwise is to suggest either that the president can be barred from ensuring that the laws be faithfully executed or that the chief executive must be omniscient..”

• The Swamp Can Scream But DOGE Is on a Lawful Path to Success (DS)

Despite a smattering of preliminary injunctions and administrative stay orders from rogue federal judges, President Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency is well on its way to accomplishing its worthy goals. And despite what some out-of-control judges are saying, it is acting well within the boundaries of the law. Already, DOGE has exposed wasteful, potentially fraudulent, and truly bizarre spending of taxpayer funds to the tune of $105 billion. For comparison, that’s equivalent to about half the gross domestic product of Kansas and more than twice that of Vermont. Unsurprisingly, DOGE’s work has elicited vehement howls from the parasites of government largess, particularly so-called nongovernmental organizations that have received billions of dollars. They have flooded the courts—engaging in very selective venue shopping to find “their” judges—with multiple lawsuits all alleging that Elon Musk and his team are acting outside of the law.

“NGO” is really a misnomer when you consider that these organizations who call themselves “nongovernmental” are sucking so much money out of the federal government—like Planned Parenthood, which received over half a billion taxpayer dollars in just one year. No way are they “nongovernmental.” But contrary to what it might seem if you read the headlines of The New York Times or watch hysterical outbursts at MSNBC, so far the Trump administration has been relatively successful in defeating those trying to prevent DOGE from finding and stopping the waste of federal funds. To date, about 23 lawsuits have been filed to halt DOGE’s work. Only three have obtained orders adverse to DOGE—and none has successfully stopped DOGE from doing its much-needed work.

For instance, 19 states led by New York asked U.S. District Court Judge Jeannette Vargas to stop DOGE from changing how the Treasury Department performs its work, which included actually recording who payments were going to and what specific congressional appropriation authorized the payment. Gosh, what a radical concept—applying standard business accounting standards to the government! What did Vargas say to this wild request from New York? A resounding “no” to such “broad and sweeping” restraints on the executive branch. Instead, she issued a much narrower injunction limiting who could access personally identifiable information. A Maryland judge also entered a temporary restraining order barring “unauthorized” government employees—i.e., DOGE—from accessing personally identifiable information possessed by the Treasury Department on similar grounds.

Those injunctions presume that Congress can limit the president from reviewing information held by executive branch agencies or authorizing someone to do it for him. That’s a dubious idea when it comes to the president’s inherent executive authority under the Constitution to oversee federal agencies and make sure they are following the law—if necessary, by checking in on their day-to-day operations. And then on March 10, District of Columbia Judge Christopher Cooper ruled that DOGE must respond to a Freedom of Information Act request. In his view, DOGE’s actual structure and work didn’t matter as much as rhetoric around DOGE for determining whether DOGE is an agency that is subject to FOIA. Otherwise, however, DOGE’s challengers are striking out.

When unions sued to block DOGE’s access to data at the Labor Department and two other agencies, Judge John Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, denied their request for a temporary restraining order. Judge Randolph Moss, an Obama appointee, also refused to issue a temporary restraining order in another lawsuit challenging DOGE’s access to student loan data. And when the Electronic Privacy Information Center broadly challenged DOGE’s access to agency-held information, Judge Rossie Alston, a Trump appointee, also denied an injunction. Even Judge Tanya Chutkan, who presided over special counsel Jack Smith’s criminal prosecution of Trump and demonstrated on numerous occasions that she is no friend of Trump’s, could not find sufficient legal grounds to issue an injunction when 14 states claimed that Musk’s position and role were unconstitutional. As she explained, the states were only speculating that they would be harmed. But as a consolation prize, she did expedite the discovery process in their lawsuit.

That’s not to say that the judges hearing these challenges are not sympathetic to claims that DOGE’s structure or operations somehow raise constitutional flaws. Chutkan, for instance, speculated that Musk might need to be Senate-confirmed and pontificated that DOGE represents an unconstitutional power grab by the president. At the end of the day, however, such speculation—which lies at the heart of many of these lawsuits—is just wrong. Speculations by a judge are totally inappropriate unless the issue has been raised and briefed by the parties, and the judge has examined all the facts, thoroughly researched the law, and come to a conclusion on the merits—or lack thereof—of the claims being made. Keep in mind that it was President Barack Obama who launched the U.S. Digital Service, DOGE’s predecessor, in 2014 and appointed a tech engineer who formerly worked for Google to head the team. Even Obama had an Elon Musk—and no one cried foul then.

Trump’s executive order simply renamed the U.S. Digital Service as DOGE and reorganized it within the Executive Office of the President—and a president has complete control over the structure, organization, and staff of his Executive Office. Neither Congress nor any court can tell him what to do within that office. Aside from that realpolitik observation, Musk isn’t an officer requiring Senate confirmation. Obfuscating rhetoric aside, Musk has no actual power to change or cancel contracts, terminate or halt spending, or create any regulation. He is simply an unofficial adviser to the president with no executive authority of any kind. All he can do is make recommendations—which, as Trump reminded his Cabinet during their first meeting, agency officials can reject.

It is Trump who is vested with the authority under Article II of the Constitution to carry out Congress’ legislative mandates. Thus, he has a constitutional obligation to ensure that bureaucrats inside the executive branch are complying with statutory requirements and that taxpayers are getting the most bang for their buck.

On top of that, the president has inherent constitutional authority to instruct executive officials to gather whatever information is needed to carry out those duties, unless there is a specific statute that limits the president’s authority, is within the constitutional bounds of congressional authority, and does not violate the president’s constitutional position as the head of the executive branch. The notion that federal agencies should police themselves and that the president has no authority to do that (or to receive advice on how to do that from anyone he wants) is nonsense. It is fundamentally contrary to the constitutional mandate that the buck stops with the president. That’s why Trump doesn’t need Congress to pass a law authorizing DOGE to do its work. He has inherent constitutional authority as the chief executive to ensure that federal agencies are following the law.

At bottom, Trump can authorize Musk and DOGE to do what he simply cannot because of time and resource constraints on him. To argue otherwise is to suggest either that the president can be barred from ensuring that the laws be faithfully executed or that the chief executive must be omniscient. Neither is tenable—and the former is unconstitutional. Opponents of reform have retreated to the citadel of judicial activism in a last-ditch attempt to cripple the now-underway restoration of America’s political institutions. But contrary to their claims, DOGE is bringing much-needed sunlight to the swamp of bureaucracy that is the federal government today. And it is doing so well within the legal boundaries set by the Constitution. We can only hope that more unelected judges recognize that fact and stop acting like an imperial judiciary that can override the elected leader of the country.

Read more …

Wrong chair, dude.

• Federal Judge Tells Trump He Can’t Use the Law to Deport Illegals (Margolis)

Judicial activism was hard at work again on Saturday when a federal judge blocked President Donald Trump from using the Alien Enemies Act to swiftly deport members of the notorious Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. The ruling not only halted deportations but also ordered any flights already in progress under Trump’s directive to turn back and return to the United States, effectively forcing the administration to keep these dangerous criminals on American soil. USA Today has more:

“The order came after Trump on Saturday issued a proclamation, which he signed the day before, that relies on the 18th-century law to deport members of the Tren de Aragua gang, which he said “continues to engage in mass illegal migration to the United States to further its objectives of harming United States citizens.” The Alien Enemies allows the deportation without a hearing of anyone from the designated enemy country who is not a naturalized citizen. The law has only been invoked three times while the country was at war, to hasten the removal of citizens of enemy countries. Hours before the proclamation’s release, Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in Washington, D.C., granted a temporary restraining order Saturday and ordered the government not to deport five Venezuelan nationals cited in a lawsuit brought by two nonprofits, Democracy Forward and the American Civil Liberties Union.”

So, yeah, we have a federal judge telling a U.S. president he literally can’t use the law to deport criminal illegals. The judge converted a lawsuit into a class action during a hearing Saturday evening, extending the temporary restraining order to all non-citizens in the U.S. covered by Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. The order will remain in place for at least 14 days while litigation proceeds. Trump’s proclamation, which invoked the Act, accused Tren de Aragua, a group designated as a foreign terrorist organization, of conducting hostile actions and irregular warfare against the U.S. at the direction of Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro. Another hearing is scheduled for Monday.

Boasberg claims the Alien Enemies Act does not “provide a basis for the president’s proclamation given that the terms invasion, predatory incursion really relate to hostile acts perpetrated by any nation and commensurate to war.” But, that’s not exactly true. “Congress approved the Alien Enemies Act in anticipation of another war against the United Kingdom,” explains USA Today. “It has been invoked three times: during the War of 1812, World War I and World War II, according to Katherine Yon Ebright, a counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.” However, there is ample precedent for using the law even when not during times of war.

Despite being invoked during wars, former Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman each continued to enforce the law after the end of hostilities, Ebright said. Wilson used it to detain German and Austro-Hungarian immigrants for two years after the end of World War I in 1918. Truman used it for detentions and deportations for six years after the end of World War II in 1945. The Supreme Court upheld Truman’s extension in 1948 by reasoning the end of wartime authorities is a “political” matter. The Trump administration plans to appeal, of course.

Read more …

“Last night, the Constitution appeared to me in a dream and told me to do this..”

“At publishing time, Judge Dithers had been unseated as President by a higher court judge who declared himself President instead..”

• Federal Judge Appoints Himself President (BBee)

The Trump Administration agenda was stopped in its tracks this week after a federal judge appointed himself the new President of the United States. “There’s nothing we can do,” said legal experts. “He’s a federal judge.” Sources confirmed that Judge Mortimer Dithers of the Northern District of California granted himself all the powers of the executive branch in an emergency move to stop Trump. “Last night, the Constitution appeared to me in a dream and told me to do this,” said Judge Dithers. “You can’t argue with that. Also, my word on this is law because I’m a federal judge.”

President Judge Dithers has already issued several executive actions, including orders for Tesla to stop making cars, Elon Musk to punch himself in the face, and Trump to not move his head next time someone shoots at him. “This is the bidding of your new leader,” said Judge Dithers. “So let it be done, by the order of your new Federal Judge President.” Trump later responded to the ruling on Truth Social by accusing the judge of “looking like a potato.” At publishing time, Judge Dithers had been unseated as President by a higher court judge who declared himself President instead.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Clots https://twitter.com/SenseReceptor/status/1900741265651581263

 

 

Elephant

 

 

Mother and https://twitter.com/TheFigen_/status/1900323166557528133

 

 

Jurassic

 

 

Boji

 

 

Pizza https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1900989010492760340

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Mar 142025
 
 March 14, 2025  Posted by at 10:12 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , ,  52 Responses »


Pablo Picasso Rest (Marie-Thérèse Walter) 1932

 

Trump ‘Would Like To Meet’ Putin (RT)
Putin Lists Guarantees Moscow Wants For 30-Day Ceasefire (RT)
Putin’s Statement On Trump’s Ukraine Ceasefire Proposal (RT)
Moscow Banned Trump’s Ukraine Envoy From Peace Talks – NBC (RT)
Zelensky’s Last Stand? Trump’s Push For A Ukraine Settlement (Kortunov)
Zelensky In Political ‘Final Act’ — FT (RT)
‘A Ceasefire Only Benefits Those Who Are Retreating’ (RT)
Is Putin Being Boxed In by Trump and Zelensky? (Paul Craig Roberts)
US Deficit Sets Record With $1.1 Trillion In First 5 Months Of FY 2025 (JTN)
Trump Demands ‘Military Options’ To Control Panama Canal (RT)
Schumer Throws Contrived Tantrum After Caving To GOP (ZH)
MTG-Led DOGE House Panel Urges DOJ To Investigate Recent Attacks On Tesla (JTN)
EPA to Begin the ‘Biggest Deregulatory Action in US History’ (Moran)
Investors Betting On Russian Return To Western Markets – Bloomberg (RT)
EU Seeks To Intensify Immigrant Deportations (RT)
Tariffs are Theft (Ron Paul)
Clinton-Appointed Judge Slams Trump “Sham” (ZH)
America and the EU Are Drifting Apart – Moscow Is Watching (Bordachev)
A Conversation with Foreign Minister Lavrov (Larry Johnson)

 

 

 

 

Lutnick is impressive https://twitter.com/MJTruthUltra/status/1899925243189170457

White House Automall https://twitter.com/AutismCapital/status/1900027336676041126

Elon

Fox Elon https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1900061762788974949

Bondi Patel https://twitter.com/1776Diva/status/1900069765340656088

Artemis

Rogan DOGE

 

 

 

 

 

 

“They discussed NATO and being in NATO, and everybody knows what the answer to that is. They’ve known that answer for 40 years..”

• Trump ‘Would Like To Meet’ Putin (RT)

President Donald Trump has expressed his readiness to meet and speak with his Russian counterpart after President Vladimir Putin said Moscow was open to a US-proposed ceasefire in Ukraine but raised numerous questions about its practical implementation. The Russian president voiced support for a potential 30-day ceasefire in the Ukraine conflict on Thursday, but warned of loopholes and strategic disadvantages, outlining Moscow’s concerns over how such a truce could be enforced. “[Putin] put out a very promising statement, but it wasn’t complete. And, yeah, I’d love to meet with him or talk to him,” Trump told journalists during a bilateral press conference with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte later in the day. Trump said the US has already discussed many details of a potential “final agreement” with Kiev and is now waiting to see “whether or not Russia is there.”

“We’ve been discussing land with Ukraine… pieces of land that would be kept and lost and all of the other elements of a final agreement. You know, we’ve been discussing concepts of land because you don’t want to waste time with a ceasefire if it’s not going to mean anything,” Trump said. “They discussed NATO and being in NATO, and everybody knows what the answer to that is. They’ve known that answer for 40 years, in all fairness.” Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, visited the Russian capital on Thursday to discuss the results of US-Ukraine talks in Saudi Arabia earlier this week and to relay Moscow’s position back to Washington. Witkoff was also expected to meet with the Russian president behind closed doors in the evening, but officials have yet to confirm whether the meeting took place or to provide details of his other interactions during the brief visit.

Earlier in the day, Putin stated that Russian troops were advancing along nearly 2,000 kilometers of the front line and warned that halting military actions would disrupt their momentum and give Ukrainian forces time to regroup. “These 30 days – how will they be used? To continue forced mobilization in Ukraine? To receive more arms supplies? To train newly mobilized units?” Putin asked. Enforcing a ceasefire over such a vast battlefield would be difficult, he added, and violations could easily lead to a blame game between both sides. Putin also mentioned that Ukrainian troops who invaded Russia’s Kursk Region in August 2024 are now cut off. “Are we supposed to let them out after they committed mass war crimes against civilians?” he said. The Russian leader suggested that further direct discussions with his American counterpart would be necessary to find a viable solution, but officials have yet to confirm any specific timeline for such talks.

Read more …

Russia delivers main ceasefire demands to US - Reuters • No NATO membership for Ukraine • No NATO ”peacekeepers” in Ukraine • Ukraine is denazified/demilitarised • The 4 Donbass regions are recognised as Russian territories plus Crimea In exchange: • Cease of all hostilities • Peace and stability for Ukraine

• Putin Lists Guarantees Moscow Wants For 30-Day Ceasefire (RT)

Russian President Vladimir Putin has expressed support for a potential 30-day ceasefire in the Ukraine conflict but has raised concerns regarding how such a truce be implemented. Speaking on Thursday, Putin warned of potential loopholes and strategic disadvantages. “We also want guarantees that during the 30-day ceasefire, Ukraine will not conduct mobilization, will not train soldiers, and will not receive weapons,” Putin said during a press briefing with his Belarusian counterpart Alexander Lukashenko in Moscow. The president pointed out that Russian troops are advancing along nearly 2,000 kilometers of frontline, and halting military actions could disrupt ongoing operations. Ukrainian forces could use a ceasefire period to regroup, receive more weapons, and train fresh recruits, he warned.

“These 30 days — how will they be used? To continue forced mobilization in Ukraine? To receive more arms supplies? To train newly mobilized units? Or will none of this happen?” Putin asked. Enforcing a ceasefire over such a vast battlefield would be difficult, he added, violations could be easily disputed, leading to a blame game between both sides. Systems of “control and verification” to monitor a ceasefire are not in place but should be agreed. Putin also mentioned that Ukrainian troops who invaded Russia’s Kursk Region in August 2024 are now cut off. What is to be done with them in the event of a truce is unclear, he noted.

“Are we supposed to let them out, after they committed mass war crimes against civilians? Will the Ukrainian leadership tell them to lay down their arms, and just surrender?” Putin said. As of Wednesday evening, Moscow’s forces have regained control of 86% of the territory that was occupied by Ukrainian forces in August 2024, according to the head of the Russian General Staff, General Valery Gerasimov. Kiev’s remaining units in the area have been largely “encircled” and “isolated,” he claimed. Putin suggested that discussions with his American counterpart Donald Trump will be necessary to find a viable solution. “The idea of ending the conflict through peaceful means is something we support,” he stressed.

Read more …

It’s simply not that simple..

“Who will give orders to stop hostilities? And what is the price of these orders? Can you imagine? Almost 2,000 kilometers. Who will determine where and who broke the potential ceasefire? Who will be blamed?”

• Putin’s Statement On Trump’s Ukraine Ceasefire Proposal (RT)

Russian President Vladimir Putin confirmed on Thursday that Russia is ready to discuss a ceasefire but that the terms of such an arrangement should be clarified. Putin has said as far back as July 2024 that Moscow is not interested in short-term pauses but is ready to engage on addressing the causes of the conflict. Washington and Kiev both endorsed a 30-day temporary truce following a meeting between their respective delegations in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday. Here’s a full transcript of the Russian president’s response:

“Before I assess how I view Ukraine’s readiness for a ceasefire, I would first like to begin by thanking the President of the United States, Mr. Trump, for paying so much attention to resolving the conflict in Ukraine. We all have enough issues to deal with. But many heads of state, the president of the People’s Republic of China, the Prime Minister of India, the presidents of Brazil and South African Republic are spending a lot of time dealing with this issue. We are thankful to all of them, because this is aimed at achieving a noble mission, a mission to stop hostilities and the loss of human lives. Secondly, we agree with the proposals to stop hostilities. But our position is that this ceasefire should lead to a long-term peace and eliminate the initial causes of this crisis. Now, about Ukraine’s readiness to cease hostilities. On the surface it may look like a decision made by Ukraine under US pressure.

In reality, I am absolutely convinced that the Ukrainian side should have insisted on this (ceasefire) from the Americans based on how the situation (on the front line) is unfolding, the realities on the ground. And how is it unfolding? I’m sure many of you know that yesterday I was in Kursk Region and listened to the reports of the head of the General Staff, the commander of the group of forces ‘North’ and his deputy about the situation at the border, specifically in the incursion area of Kursk Region. What is going on there? The situation there is completely under our control, and the group of forces that invaded our territory is completely isolated and under our complete fire control. Command over Ukrainian troops in this zone is lost. And if in the first stages, literally a week or two ago, Ukrainian servicemen tried to get out of there in large groups, now it is impossible.

They are trying to get out of there in very small groups, two or three people, because everything is under our full fire control. The equipment is completely abandoned. It is impossible to evacuate it. It will remain there. This is already guaranteed. And if in the coming days there will be a physical blockade, then no one will be able to leave at all. There will be only two ways. To surrender or die. And in these conditions, I think it would be very good for the Ukrainian side to achieve a truce for at least 30 days. And we are for it. But there are nuances. What are they? First, what are we going to do with this incursion force in Kursk Region? If we stop fighting for 30 days, what does it mean? That everyone who is there will leave without a fight? We should let them go after they committed mass crimes against civilians? Or will the Ukrainian leadership order them to lay down their arms. Simply surrender. How will this work? It is not clear.

How will other issues be resolved on all the lines of contact? This is almost 2,000 kilometers. As you know, Russian troops are advancing almost along the entire front. And there are ongoing military operations to surround rather large groups of enemy forces. These 30 days — how will they be used? To continue forced mobilization in Ukraine? To receive more arms supplies? To train newly mobilized units? Or will none of this happen? How will the issues of control and verification be resolved? How can we be guaranteed that nothing like this will happen? How will the control be organized? I hope that everyone understands this at the level of common sense. These are all serious issues.

Who will give orders to stop hostilities? And what is the price of these orders? Can you imagine? Almost 2,000 kilometers. Who will determine where and who broke the potential ceasefire? Who will be blamed? These are all questions that demand a thorough examination from both sides. Therefore, the idea itself is the right one, and we certainly support it. But there are questions that we have to discuss. I think we need to work with our American partners. Maybe I will speak to President Trump. But we support the idea of ending this conflict with peaceful means.

Read more …

Kellogg is an ex-army guy, who comes in with pre-conceived ideas. “Not our kind of person, not of the caliber we are looking for.”

Witkoff is a business man.

• Moscow Banned Trump’s Ukraine Envoy From Peace Talks – NBC (RT)

Keith Kellogg, US President Donald Trump’s special envoy to Russia and Ukraine, has been barred from taking part in peace talks at Moscow’s request, NBC News reported on Thursday, citing sources. According to the report, Russian officials view Kellogg as too hawkish and “too close to Ukraine.” The retired US Army lieutenant general was absent from both last month’s Russia-US talks in Saudi Arabia and this week’s US-Ukraine talks in Jeddah. The White House also confirmed that Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, will attend the next round of negotiations with Russia instead of Kellogg. Witkoff arrived in Moscow late Thursday. “Kellogg is a former American general, too close to Ukraine,” an unnamed Russian official reportedly told NBC. “Not our kind of person, not of the caliber we are looking for.”

An official in the Trump administration reportedly confirmed that Moscow did not want Kellogg involved in the peace process. Another source claimed that Kellogg’s exclusion “stung” him. Neither Kellogg’s office nor Moscow have commented on the report. While Kellogg has supported Trump’s calls to end the Ukraine conflict, his views on achieving peace have not aligned with Moscow’s. He has backed continued US aid to Kiev, which Russia argues only prolongs the conflict, and advocated for freezing the conflict along the current front lines, which Moscow has rejected in favor of a lasting settlement. Kellogg has also pushed for using frozen Russian sovereign assets to rebuild and rearm Ukraine – an idea that Moscow has called theft.

In an interview with RT Russian on Wednesday, political analyst Malek Dudakov suggested that Kellogg could be permanently removed from negotiations following last month’s tense meeting between Trump and Vladimir Zelensky, which devolved into a shouting match after the Ukrainian leader pushed back against Trump’s demand for peace talks with Russia. This prompted Trump to accuse him of “gambling with World War III” before cutting the meeting short. The fallout reportedly delayed a key US-Ukraine rare-earth minerals deal and led to a temporary suspension of US military aid and intelligence-sharing with Kiev. “Basically, Kellogg was responsible for communication with the Ukrainian side, he instructed the Ukrainians, and we see that all this led to a grand failure. And now he will no longer participate in any new negotiations,” Dudakov told RT.

Read more …

“The EU establishment has spent years positioning itself as the defender of Kiev, and to be excluded from decisive negotiations would be nothing short of humiliating. However, this is precisely what is happening.”

• Zelensky’s Last Stand? Trump’s Push For A Ukraine Settlement (Kortunov)

As high-stakes diplomacy unfolds between the United States and Ukraine, one thing is clear: President Donald Trump has little personal sympathy for his Ukrainian counterpart, Vladimir Zelensky. Their last meeting at the White House in February only reinforced this reality, with Trump once again treating Zelensky with thinly veiled disdain. There are rational reasons for Trump’s attitude. Zelensky bet too heavily on Joe Biden, tying Ukraine’s fate to the Democratic party. When Biden’s second term never materialized, and Kamala Harris crashed and burned, Kiev was left without a reliable sponsor in Washington. Trump’s instincts – both personal and political – place him in direct opposition to figures like Zelensky, who, despite also being an unconventional political outsider, represents a style of governance fundamentally at odds with the US president’s worldview.

What is particularly striking is Trump’s open criticism of Zelensky, a direct violation of established diplomatic norms. The White House has even floated the idea of his resignation – a notion recently reported by the German media outlet Bild. According to these reports, Trump no longer sees Zelensky as a viable ally and is exerting significant political pressure to force him out. The administration has not denied these claims. However, gaining Trump’s approval is no easy feat. Among today’s political heavyweights, very few leaders have managed to earn his genuine respect. The capricious and ego-driven 47th president of the United States has little patience for the leadership class of the European Union, nor for the leaders of America’s immediate neighbors, Mexico and Canada.

Trump appears far more at ease with strong, authoritative figures who project power – leaders like Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and, most notably, Russian President Vladimir Putin. Yet, in politics – as in business – one does not always get to choose one’s partners. Throughout his career in the highly competitive and often ruthless New York real estate market, Trump had to engage with individuals with questionable reputations. In that sense, his approach to international politics is no different from his business dealings: pragmatism trumps sentimentality. Trump’s interest in Ukraine is not about personal affinity; rather, he views the country as an asset in which the US has made a substantial investment. While he did not personally decide to back Kiev, he now finds himself responsible for managing America’s stake in the conflict, and like any businessman, he wants a return on investment.

This is why Trump’s approach is not one of immediate disengagement. He is looking for ways to extract value – whether through Ukraine’s rare earth minerals, transport and logistics infrastructure, fertile black soil, or other material assets. He does not want to simply write it off as a sunk cost, at least not before attempting to recoup some of America’s losses. Thus, his administration is attempting to force Kiev into a settlement on terms dictated by Washington. This effort culminated in Tuesday’s meeting in Riyadh, where Trump’s negotiators presented Zelensky’s team with a stark choice: accept the US conditions – including a ceasefire or partial cessation of hostilities – or risk complete abandonment.

Before this crucial meeting, Zelensky reportedly sent an apology letter to Trump, attempting to smooth over the tensions which followed their embarrassing White House encounter. According to US special envoy Steve Witkoff, this was an effort to salvage what remains of Ukraine’s negotiating position. Trump remains deeply skeptical of Zelensky’s ability to deliver on any agreement. The Ukrainian president’s credibility has been severely undermined, and his capacity to negotiate on behalf of his country’s political elite is far from certain. After all, Trump has learned from past experience that promises made by Kiev do not always translate into action. Following the Riyadh meeting, Trump’s attention turned to the far more consequential issue: negotiations with Moscow. Unlike Zelensky, Putin is negotiating from a position of strength, which makes any agreement far more complex. The days when the West could dictate terms to Russia are long over, and Trump likely understands that his leverage with Moscow is limited.

If Trump can reach an understanding with Putin, then the next stage of this process will involve forcing Western European nations to accept the new geopolitical reality. For Washington’s European allies, who have invested heavily in Ukraine, this will be a bitter pill to swallow. The EU establishment has spent years positioning itself as the defender of Kiev, and to be excluded from decisive negotiations would be nothing short of humiliating. However, this is precisely what is happening. The bloc’s leaders, including European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, have been reduced to spectators, offering empty declarations of support for Ukraine while having no real influence over the outcome of events. For them, a settlement brokered by Trump without their participation would be the ultimate confirmation of their diminishing role in global affairs. Worse still, much of Western Europe’s investment in Ukraine – both financial and political – will likely be lost. While the Biden administration at least attempted to keep European allies involved in decision-making, Trump has no such inclination.

His goal is to conclude a deal that serves American interests, and he is unlikely to show concern for the reputational damage this will inflict on the EU’s political elite. The situation now presents Trump with one of the biggest diplomatic challenges of his presidency. Unlike in business, where deals can be walked away from, geopolitical agreements have long-lasting consequences. His ability to navigate this complex landscape – balancing pressure on Kiev, negotiating with Moscow, and sidelining Western Europe – will determine whether he can claim victory as a peacemaker. Ultimately, Ukraine’s fate is no longer in its own hands. The decisions made in Washington, Moscow, and – ironically – Riyadh will shape the country’s future. Whether Trump can strike a deal that satisfies all parties remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: Ukraine’s days as the central pillar of the West’s confrontation with Russia are coming to an end.

Read more …

Any paper he signs comes (pre-)loaded with legality questions.

• Zelensky In Political ‘Final Act’ — FT (RT)

Vladimir Zelensky’s leadership is coming to an end, the Financial Times reported on Thursday, citing a senior Kiev’s official. The article comes amid growing concern in Washington over Zelensky’s legitimacy. Zelensky’s presidential term expired in May 2024. However, he has refused to hold a new election, referring to martial law imposed during the conflict with Russia. The current US administration has recently been trying to negotiate a path toward ending hostilities. US President Donald Trump briefly halted military assistance and intelligence sharing with Kiev, but resumed it following a bilateral meeting in Saudi Arabia earlier this week.

“We are in the final act [of Zelensky’s presidency],” a senior Ukrainian official told FT, confirming growing speculation in the country’s political circles over how long he will stay in office. The official also described the conflict with Russia as currently in a “hot phase.” According to Ukrainian soldiers, analysts, and officials cited by the newspaper, Kiev would be able to keep fighting for “at least six months” in case of a complete halt of military assistance from the US. They said, however, that it could be longer if the EU fills the gap and domestic arms production intensifies. Unnamed Western officials told FT that apart from a lack of weapons and ammunition, Zelensky’s leadership could be challenged by a shortage of men in the ranks, which remains Ukraine’s most pressing problem.

In November 2024, the administration of then US President Joe Biden urged Kiev to draft more troops and reduce the minimum conscription age from 25 to 18 to tackle a manpower shortage. The Ukrainian authorities rejected the proposal at the time, claiming that the main problem for the country’s forces was a lack of weapons. FT noted that Zelensky’s political opponents are currently “preparing for elections, forming alliances, and testing public messaging.” Several politicians have reportedly begun outreach to officials in the Trump administration.

Zelensky, whose presidential term expired in May 2024, has refused to hold new presidential and parliamentary elections, citing martial law due to the conflict with Moscow. Last month, US President Donald Trump questioned Zelensky’s legitimacy, branding him a “dictator without elections.” Russian President Vladimir Putin has cast doubt on Zelensky’s position as well. Shortly after his official term as the country’s head of state expired nearly a year ago, the Russian president called the Ukrainian parliament the only legitimate authority. Putin recently reiterated that the Ukrainian leader no longer has the right to sign official agreements.

Read more …

“5 of Russia’s top foreign relations experts and actors react to US-Ukraine talks.”

• ‘A Ceasefire Only Benefits Those Who Are Retreating’ (RT)

Political analyst Sergey Markov: Reasons why Russia might refuse a ceasefire:

1. A ceasefire would be exploited by the West and Ukraine to halt the advance of the Russian army, strip it of its initiative, supply the Ukrainian army with more weapons, continue extensive mobilization in Ukraine, and strengthen the repressive and anti-Russian nature of the Ukrainian political regime

2. The experience of the Minsk 1 and Minsk 2 agreements clearly demonstrates this pattern

3. The consistent dishonesty of Western politicians and media regarding the conflict, as well as their refusal to acknowledge their own and Ukraine’s culpability, strongly suggests that history will repeat itself

4. Russian President Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials have repeatedly stated that what Russia needs is lasting peace, not just a temporary ceasefire

5. The West cannot really be trusted

6. Russia is advancing. A ceasefire always benefits those who are retreating.

Read more …

“If Putin doesn’t agree to a cease fire, he risks offending Trump’s ego. Does Trump then become coercive because he is on the line with his promise to end the conflict?”

• Is Putin Being Boxed In by Trump and Zelensky? (Paul Craig Roberts)

Trump and Zelensky have agreed on a cease fire, a pause in the conflict. How does this benefit Russia? It doesn’t. The Ukrainian military is collapsing on all fronts. 86% of the Ukrainian incursion into Kursk has been retaken, and the remaining Ukrainian forces are surrounded. What remains of the Ukrainian military is retreating from the few kilometers of Russian territory still occupied in the Donetsk and Zaporozhye regions that have been reincorporated into Russia. A cease fire is the last thing Russia needs when Russia is on the verge of total victory. Russia should be imposing surrender terms on Zelensky, Trump, and Europe. Russia has won the conflict. Why agree to a negotiation? The victor dictates the surrender terms. If Russia’s surrender terms are not accepted, Russia should proceed with the conquest of the entirety of Ukraine and reincorporate Ukraine into Russia where it historically belongs.

It was Washington taking advantage of the Soviet collapse that cut out Ukraine from its historic multi-century home as part of Russia. Are Putin and Lavrov too besotted with good will toward the West, which has been trying to destroy Russia, to understand the basics? Does Putin understand that Trump should first have come to him, worked out the terms of surrender between them, and imposed them on Zelensky, who in fact is not a legitimate head of government as his term in office has expired? Putin is correct. There needs to be a Ukrainian election that installs a legal government to whom to dictate the terms of surrender. What is the worth of a document signed by an illegal occupant of office? If Putin agrees with the Trump-Zelenzky cease fire, will it obligate Putin to agree to a settlement that is less than victory?

A cease fire would halt the Russian advance, provide Ukraine with time to rebuild with the weapons now again supplied by Trump. Will negotiations be a repeat of Putin’s Minsk mistake which cost Russia so dearly? If Putin denies Russia a victory, could he be removed from office? Peace must be conclusive. Cease fires never are. If memory serves, the Korean War in the 1950s is still governed by a cease fire, and antagonisms still exist between North and South Korea with Washington still adding to the confrontation. From what I know of Russia’s Westernized intellectual class that influences Putin and Lavrov, they are Westernized to the point of treason. Putin needs a Russian government occupied and advised by Russian nationalists. Otherwise Russia will remain a target despite its unrivaled weapons systems. In my column on March 11, I asked, “What should Trump do about Ukraine?” I answered:

“To end the conflict Trump doesn’t need to be holding meetings and talking about meetings with Putin, Zelensky, EU or anyone. It is extremely simple for Trump to end the conflict as far as the US is concerned. All he has to do is to make the hold he has put on delivery of weapons permanent and withdraw all US operatives in the proxy conflict with Russia. Without the US supplying weapons, intelligence, targeting information and money to keep the conflict alive, the conflict will quickly end. This is what Trump needs to tell Putin: “I know Washington is responsible for this conflict. I am withdrawing Washington’s participation. The conflict would not have happened if the Democrats had not stolen the 2020 election. I am cancelling the sanctions. I will be accused by the Democrats and the presstitutes of selling out Ukraine to you. Your job is to be merciful to Ukraine. As the US is responsible for the conflict, the US will help you to rebuild a demilitarized Ukraine in which economic advancement takes precedent over war. You must not fail my good intentions, or the Cold War will resume.”

As I asked later in my column, can Trump’s ego permit him to allow the settlement on Putin’s terms? For three years Putin has been slowly fighting a conflict that a capable war leader would have ended in three weeks. Putin’s failure as a war leader is clear. Putin, being sufficiently Westernized, never realized that his never-ending war would result in negotiations in which he was the last participant included. As Trump and the illegitimate Zelensky have arrived at a cease fire, the pressure is on Putin to join in, or Russia will be reviled for blocking a settlement with intentions of proceeding from the conquest of Ukraine to the conquest of Europe. If Putin joins in the cease fire, he risks Russia’s victory being watered down by the terms of a negotiated settlement.

Russia has been in many ways an easy target for the West. Soviet Communism having bred distrust of Russian government, has left Russian intellectuals easy pickings for Western propaganda. Many Russian intellectuals represent the West, not Russia. This Russian vulnerability has been skillfully exploited by the West. The question remains: How serious are Putin’s mistakes in his dealings with Washington? By permitting a conflict to continue until the initiative for its end passed into Washington’s hands, Putin has lost the initiative. If Putin doesn’t agree to a cease fire, he risks offending Trump’s ego. Does Trump than become coercive because he is on the line with his promise to end the conflict? Does Putin submit to Trump’s coercion? The outlook for this conflict being resolved is not as good as it seemed.

Read more …

Better call Elon.

• US Deficit Sets Record With $1.1 Trillion In First 5 Months Of FY 2025 (jTN)

The United States’ deficit increased by a record-breaking $1.1 trillion during the first five months of the current fiscal year, new data from the Treasury Department showed. The new numbers, released Wednesday, showed the deficit between October 2024 and February 2025. The unadjusted increase saw a surge of $1.147 trillion, while the deficit for the same period in fiscal year 2024 was $828 billion. The deficit for February alone was $307 billion. The deficit is largely driven by spending on interest, military programs, public benefits and security, according to the financial news outlet Barron’s. The largest spending costs came from interest paid on the public debt and higher tax credits.

A Treasury department spokesperson told CNBC that there has been limited impact from Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, which is attempting to reduce wasteful government spending. But the department’s operations have only been active for one month. One exception has been the Education Department, per Barron’s, where expenditures were lower by $5.6 billion in February compared to the year before. President Donald Trump’s tariffs also did not appear to impact February’s deficit, but could impact March’s. The current fiscal year runs from October 2024 through September 2025.

Read more …

“President Jose Raul Mulino stated that the canal is part of Panama’s “inalienable patrimony”..

But Americans built it..

• Trump Demands ‘Military Options’ To Control Panama Canal (RT)

The Panama Canal, a vital maritime route connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, has been under Panamanian control since 1999 following the Torrijos-Carter Treaties, which stipulated that it would remain neutral and open to all nations. Trump has repeatedly threatened to take back control of the waterway, citing the “ridiculous fees” and concerns over China’s increasing presence in the region. Earlier this year, Trump refused to rule out the use of military force to take control of the canal, stating that all options are on the table to protect US economic and national security interests. In an Interim National Defense Strategic Guidance memo obtained by CNN on Thursday, the White House formally asked the Pentagon to “immediately” provide options to ensure unlimited US access to the canal.

“Provide credible military options to ensure fair and unfettered US military and commercial access to the Panama Canal,” one of the directives in the memo reportedly stated. US Southern Command is already developing potential plans, ranging from “partnering” closely with Panamanian security forces to a scenario in which US troops seize the canal by force, unnamed officials told NBC. Sources cited by Reuters also said the Pentagon had been ordered to explore military options to secure US access to the waterway.

Panamanian officials previously rejected Trump’s assertions and threats, while the Panama Canal Authority maintains that the canal is operated solely by Panamanians, with no evidence supporting claims of Chinese control. President Jose Raul Mulino stated that the canal is part of Panama’s “inalienable patrimony” and stressed that Panama maintains full control of its operations. However, after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio personally delivered Trump’s ultimatum to Panama in February, Mulino made a concession to Washington by refusing to renew the country’s 2017 agreements with China under Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative.

Read more …

Chuck is shrinking before our eyes….

• Schumer Throws Contrived Tantrum After Caving To GOP (ZH)

Update (2145ET): After bending the knee to the GOP and agreeing to vote ‘yes’ on the House-passed continuing resolution to fund the government through September, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) offered a contrived outburst on MSNBC, calling Republicans ‘bastards’ before quickly correcting himself. “To have the conflict on the best ground we have, summed up in a sentence, that they’re making the middle class pay for tax cuts for billionaires?” said Schumer. “It’s much, much better not to be in the middle of a shutdown, which should divert people from the number one issue we have against these bastards, sorry, these people, which is not only all these cuts, but they’re ruining democracy.” How many times did he practice that in the mirror? Schumer also raged on X after bending the knee, writing that “a shutdown would be a gift,” and “the best distraction he could ask for from his awful agenda.”

Whatever you say Chuck…

* * * Update (1800ET): And there it is… in a complete reversal following a closed-door lunch, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told fellow Democrats that he would vote for cloture tomorrow morning on the GOP stopgap, according to Punchbowl News’ Jake Sherman – who notes that 6 more Democrats will need to follow their leader after Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) already said he would (see below). “I will vote to keep the government open and not shut it down,” Schumer announced on the Senate floor Thursday, adding that a shutdown “would give Donald Trump and Elon Musk carte blanche.” As we noted below, the most likely scenario looks to be the case; Dems will provide the necessary votes to pass the GOP bill, in exchange for Senate Republican leaders granting them a performative amendment vote on the Democrats’ separate CR proposal (which means absolutely nothing aside from putting their dissent on record).

* * * With tomorrow’s shutdown deadline looming (and the House gone on recess until March 24), Senate Democrats are scrambling to both kill the GOP bill that passed the house, and avoid the optics of a shutdown falling squarely on their shoulders after minority leader Chuck Schumer categorically rejected the bill on Wednesday, and instead floated a 30-day continuing resolution which would allow Democrats to stuff it full of their own pork to include in a revised package (that he doesn’t have the votes for)… As the Senate opened Thursday, Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) – who filed cloture on the House-passed CR on Wednesday – said, “It’s time to fish or cut bait.”

And as the Associated Press notes, debates over funding the federal government routinely erupt in deadline moments but this year it’s showing the political leverage of Republicans, newly in majority control of the White House and Congress, and the shortcomings of Democrats who are finding themselves unable to stop the Trump administration’s march across federal operations. Given that the Senate has 53 Republicans, one of whom is a definite ‘no’ (Rand Paul of Kentucky), at least eight Democrats need to cross party lines to avert a shutdown at midnight on Friday. According to the chaps at Punchbowl News, there’s really two ways this can play out at this point:

Option one: Democrats can fold and take the deal on the table – providing the votes needed to advance the House GOP’s stopgap spending bill in exchange for a symbolic amendment vote on their own 28-day funding extension. This would be pure theater, giving Democrats the chance to go on record opposing a shutdown while letting Republicans push through their own bill anyway. The government stays open, Schumer saves face with progressives, and Republicans get what they wanted all along. But make no mistake – this wouldn’t be a win for Schumer (a “fake BBQ’ing Palestinian”), who floated a 28-day CR that doesn’t have the votes to pass, even with a simple majority. Meanwhile, Republicans can sit back and let the clock force the issue. Time isn’t on the Democrats’ side, and at some point, they’ll have to face reality.

Option two: Schumer and Senate Democrats hold the line, block the House CR, and force a government shutdown. That means federal workers furloughed, services delayed, and chaos come Monday morning when the full effects hit. And here’s the kicker – Trump’s people at the Office of Management and Budget get to decide exactly how painful this shutdown will be. White House sources are already warning that the former president will make sure Democrats feel every bit of the pressure. But here’s where it gets ugly for Schumer: what’s the exit strategy? There isn’t one. The House is gone, meaning there’s no magic fix coming. And at some point, Democrats will have to explain why shutting down the government over a short-term CR that never had a shot at passing was somehow worth it.

So those are the choices: take the loss now and move on, or hold out, take the blame for the shutdown, and likely still take the loss later. Either way, Trump and Musk are watching from the sidelines, ready to make their next move while Washington does what it does best—trip over itself in broad daylight. According to the White House, “They’re totally screwed.”

Read more …

You would hope the FBI is on it.

• MTG-Led DOGE House Panel Urges DOJ To Investigate Recent Attacks On Tesla (JTN)

The House’s Department of Government Efficiency panel, led by GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, is asking the Justice Department to investigate Tesla vehicles being vandalized and destroyed since EV car company’s owner, Elon Musk, became a White House appointee. “These attacks, which seem to involve coordinated acts of vandalism, arson, and other acts of violence, seriously threaten public safety,” the DOGE subcommittee wrote in a letter Wednesday to Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel.

Multiple Tesla cars, charging stations and dealerships have been vandalized since Musk began leading the Trump administration DOGE, according to ABC News. The letter listed examples such as Tesla charging stations being set on fire in Boston and Tesla cyber-trucks being set on fire in Seattle. Greene asked whether non-governmental organizations were involved in the attack. “If NGOs are linked to these attacks, has federal funding been provided to any of them?” the letter reads. “The American public deserves transparency and assurance that their tax dollars are not being used to fund domestic political terrorism.”

Read more …

“The EPA will “reconsider” 31 major environmental actions ranging from emissions standards for automobiles to the legal theory underpinning climate change..”

• EPA to Begin the ‘Biggest Deregulatory Action in US History’ (Moran)

On Wednesday, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Lee Zeldin outlined the most ambitious deregulation scheme in the history of the U.S. government. The EPA will “reconsider” 31 major environmental actions ranging from emissions standards for automobiles to the legal theory underpinning climate change. It’s truly breathtaking. However, announcing the reconsideration is only the first step. Now must come the long, drawn-out rulemaking process that will set guidelines on how the agency can proceed to repeal the regulations. That process alone will take many months, if not years, and green groups will challenge it every step of the way.

“These are all rules and regulations. They can’t just wish them away with a press release. You have to tear a regulation down the same way it was built up. They have to make a proposal for each one of these things and explain the reasoning and show evidence, and they have to have public comment and respond to public comment and then reach a final decision and defend it in court,” said David Doniger, the senior strategist and attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council’s climate and energy department. “We’re going to fight them every step of the way.” Indeed, the work it will take to “reconsider” these regulations and repeal them makes me think this move by Zeldin has more to do with politics than government. Some of these rules have been upheld by the Supreme Court, including the climate change “endangerment finding” that undergirds the bulk of climate law.

Zeldin can’t just wave a magic wand and get rid of it. “This is crazy. This is insane,” said Jason Rylander, the legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute. “There have been attempts to limit the authority of EPA, but the scale and scope and speed with which this administration is attacking environmental safeguards is unprecedented.” It’s not “crazy” by any means. Remember that these environmental advocates think any word ever turned into regulation is holy writ and can’t be changed, or Gaia will strike us down. “Today is the greatest day of deregulation our nation has seen. We are driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion to drive down cost of living for American families, unleash American energy, bring auto jobs back to the U.S., and more,” said EPA Administrator Zeldin.

“Alongside President Trump, we are living up to our promises to unleash American energy, lower costs for Americans, revitalize the American auto industry, and work hand-in-hand with our state partners to advance our shared mission,” he added. As you might expect, some EPA staffers are approaching vapor lock. “Simply put, this is embarrassing,” one EPA worker said. “This is not the EPA we have dedicated our careers to. Instead of highlighting the importance of protecting human health and the environment, this administration is highlighting cutting cost in dollar figures while ignoring the human cost. The air we breathe and water we drink is a collective human right and more valuable than any dollar figure.”

No one is saying that air and water are not more valuable than dollars and cents. But neither are EPA regulations the word of god and can’t be changed. This particular employee actually believes that there’s no agenda attached to any of these regulations, an agenda that has little to do with protecting the environment. Even conservative judges are going to have a hard time with Trump’s EPA getting rid of most of these regulations. That’s why I suspect politics is the driving force in these actions by Zeldin and Trump, giving heart to the faithful and confusion to the enemy.

Read more …

“..(NDFs), a financial derivative that allows investors to bet on a currency’s future value without actual exchange. By not involving physical Russian assets or individuals, they remain outside the scope of current sanctions.”

• Investors Betting On Russian Return To Western Markets – Bloomberg (RT)

Investors are quietly betting that US President Donald Trump’s recent initiatives to negotiate a peace deal in the Ukraine conflict could lead to Russia’s return to Western financial markets, Bloomberg reported on Thursday. The US and its allies have slapped numerous rounds of sanctions on Moscow since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. Russia has been cut off from Western investments and its largest stock exchange has been sanctioned. In recent weeks, traders at a London brokerage have been seeking to buy Russian securities, an asset largely avoided over the past three years, Bloomberg reported. Their focus has been on buying dollar-denominated bonds issued by Russian energy giant Gazprom.

Investors are speculating that heavily discounted Russian securities could surge in value if Ukraine-related sanctions imposed on Moscow are lifted, the outlet stated. Investors “understand that as soon as there’s a thaw, these discounts will collapse,” Iskander Lutsko, Dubai-based head of research and portfolio management at Istar Capital, told Bloomberg. Money managers report that sales teams are assessing interest in staking on the ruble through non-deliverable forwards (NDFs), a financial derivative that allows investors to bet on a currency’s future value without actual exchange. By not involving physical Russian assets or individuals, they remain outside the scope of current sanctions.

Major US investment banks Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase have reportedly been brokering ruble-linked derivative contracts to meet growing investor interest in Russian-related assets. “There’s an aggressive search for securities of Russian issuers around the world,” Evgeny Kogan, a Moscow-based investment banker, told Bloomberg. “Investors in general are asking how quickly they can enter the Russian market.” According to the report, Russia’s potential reintegration into the Western financial system could unlock hundreds of billions of dollars.

Read more …

Uh-oh, there goes Mutti’s promised land..

• EU Seeks To Intensify Immigrant Deportations (RT)

The European Commission has formally proposed to harmonize deportation rules across the EU. The current regulations, which vary by state, allow those who have been denied the right to remain in the bloc lawfully to exploit the system, resulting in a 20% deportation rate. President Ursula von der Leyen has labeled the figure “by far, too low.” The proposed rules “will ensure that those who have no right to stay in the EU are actually returned” to their countries of origin, EU Commissioner for Internal Affairs and Migration, Magnus Brunner, has claimed.

The 87-page document unveiled on Tuesday will require immigrants to cooperate with authorities, permit the extended detention of asylum seekers, and introduce the mutual recognition of deportation orders among member states. The reforms aim to encourage voluntary returns and close loopholes currently exploited by illegal immigrants who evade forced repatriation by moving between EU countries.The plan will establish “return hubs” – deportation centers in third countries willing to accept expelled individuals from the EU. If approved by the European Parliament and the Council of Europe, the new system is set to take effect in mid-2027.

Illegal immigration has remained a hot-button issue in the EU since the 2015 crisis, which saw over a million people arrive in member states. The authorities’ decision to welcome this influx sparked a backlash from several Eastern European nations, citing threats to security and culture. Political guidelines issued by von der Leyen last July pledged to strengthen the EU’s borders and crack down on human trafficking, a significant driver of illegal immigration.

Read more …

Interesting when compared to Paul Craig Roberts yesterday, who said:

“Trump has spoken of substituting tariffs for the income tax. This is a brilliant thought. The income tax taxes labor and capital, factors of production. Thus income tax reduces GDP and living standards.”

• Tariffs are Theft (Ron Paul)

The US and China came closer to a full-fledged trade war last week when China imposed tariffs of up to 15 percent on key US agricultural exports. This was retaliation for President Trump’s increasing of tariffs on Chinese exports to the United States from 10 percent to 20 percent. China’s retaliatory tariffs show how export-dependent industries are harmed by protectionist policies. Even if other countries refrain from imposing retaliatory tariffs, exporters can still suffer from reduced demand for their products in countries targeted by US tariffs. Businesses that rely on imported materials to manufacture their products also suffer from increased production costs thanks to tariffs. President Trump acknowledged how tariffs harm US manufacturers when he granted US automakers’ request for a one-month delay in new tariffs on imports from Mexico and Canada.

Many American consumers who are struggling with high prices are concerned that President Trump’s tariff policy will further increase prices. They are right to be concerned. Contrary to popular belief, foreign businesses do not pay tariffs. Tariffs are paid by US businesses that wish to sell the imported goods. When tariffs are increased, the importing businesses try to recoup their increased costs by increasing their prices. Consumers then must choose whether to pay the higher price, find a cheaper alternative, or do without the product. Whatever they choose, consumers will be worse off because they cannot spend their money the way they prefer.Tariffs may provide a short-term benefit to the protected businesses. However, tariffs could keep businesses alive that should be allowed to fail so the business owners and workers can put their talents to use in other endeavors that would more greatly benefit and the whole economy.

Defenders of tariffs, including President Trump, claim the revenue from tariffs can be used to “offset” the revenue government loses from tax cuts. Some even claim that tariffs can generate enough revenue to allow the government to repeal the income tax. The problem with this is that a tariff brings in more revenue to “pay for” tax cuts only to the extent the tariff does not cause consumers to cease buying imported goods. Thus, the tariffs, to bring revenue to the government, must not be large enough to discourage Americans from buying foreign products. The more tariffs increase government revenue, the more they will tend to fail in bringing about another often promoted tariff goal — an increase in the purchase of domestic goods.

According to the Tax Foundation, if President Trump’s tariff plan for China, Mexico, and Canada were fully implemented, it would increase federal tax revenue by 142 billion dollars this year — an average tax increase of over one thousand dollars per household. The tariffs would also decrease economic output. This does not account for the decline in consumer satisfaction caused by consumers being forced to alter their consumption choices because of government-caused price increases. It also does not account for the new businesses, products, and jobs that could have been created had government not drained resources from the productive economy via tariffs. The economic effects are a good enough reason to oppose raising tariffs. However, the main reason to oppose tariffs is that tariffs, like all taxes (including the inflation tax), are theft.

Read more …

Mr. policy-maker. He should move into the White House. ‘You can only fire people if i say so’..

• Clinton-Appointed Judge Slams Trump “Sham” (ZH)

San Francisco based… check. Clinton appointed… check. So how do you think the case against President Trump firing federal probationary staff went? Bingo… U.S. District Judge William Alsup described the mass firings as a “sham” strategy by the government’s central human resources office to sidestep legal requirements for reducing the federal workforce. Politico reports that Alsup, a San Francisco-based appointee of President Bill Clinton, ordered the Defense, Treasury, Energy, Interior, Agriculture and Veterans Affairs departments to “immediately” offer all fired probationary employees their jobs back. The Office of Personnel Management, the judge said, had made an “unlawful” decision to terminate them. The order is one of the most far-reaching rejections of the Trump administration’s effort to slash the bureaucracy and is almost certain to be appealed.

“You will not bring the people in here to be cross-examined. You’re afraid to do so because you know cross examination would reveal the truth,” the judge said to a DOJ attorney during a hearing Thursday. “I tend to doubt that you’re telling me the truth. … I’m tired of seeing you stonewall on trying to get at the truth.” The judge called the move “a gimmick.” Alsup also said the Office of Personnel Management couldn’t give guidance on who to terminate, according to ABC News. “It is sad, a sad day when our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that’s a lie,” Alsup said. Do those sound like the findings of a non-partisan, legally-trained, judicially-independent member of the bench? And on it goes…

Read more …

“Washington is increasingly making it clear that Western Europe must contribute more while receiving less in return.”

• America and the EU Are Drifting Apart – Moscow Is Watching (Bordachev)

The geopolitical unity of the West, often perceived as a monolithic front against Russia, is showing visible fractures. The question now is whether Moscow should actively encourage the widening rift between the United States and Western Europe – or simply sit back and let history take its course. For now, the EU states are desperate to avoid responsibility for the crisis in Ukraine. This was evident in Brussels’ immediate endorsement of the latest US-Ukraine talks, signaling relief that Washington is still managing the situation. European leaders had feared that the new American administration under Donald Trump might offload the burden onto them, forcing them to take direct responsibility for confronting Russia. That nightmare, at least for now, has been postponed. But the larger strategic question remains: How long can this uneasy balance last?

Is the US-Europe rift temporary or permanent? The unity of the collective West – a term used to describe the US and its European allies acting as a single political and military bloc – was never an absolute certainty. It was always dependent on American leadership, which is now undergoing major internal shifts. Trump’s return has signaled a profound shift in Washington’s strategic thinking. While the US remains the most militarized and economically powerful country in the Western alliance, it is now experiencing an identity crisis. The ruling elite in Washington knows it must redefine its role in a world where its global dominance is being challenged. This raises a critical question: Can the US and Western Europe continue as a united front, or is their strategic divergence inevitable? For Moscow, this is more than just a theoretical debate. If the West’s unity was merely a temporary phenomenon – a product of post-World War II security arrangements and Cold War politics – then it follows that Russia must consider whether and how to encourage this fragmentation.

The US political crisis and its impact on Europe The deepening internal crisis in the US is one of the main reasons the EU is being forced into an uncomfortable position. First, America’s economic model is under strain. For decades, Washington sustained its dominance by attracting cheap labor from Latin America while maintaining global economic hegemony. But the mass migration crisis has turned into a politically explosive issue, with growing resistance to uncontrolled immigration. Second, the old neoliberal model of globalization is breaking down. Many nations no longer accept a US-led order that imposes unequal economic relationships. This has led to an emergence of independent power centers – from China and India to Middle Eastern states – that refuse to play by Washington’s rules. Finally, the conflict in Ukraine has exposed the limits of American power. Russia’s ability to withstand three years of Western pressure – economically, militarily, and diplomatically – has forced Washington to reconsider its strategy. The US has never faced a direct geopolitical confrontation with China, and its approach toward Beijing remains one of cautious engagement. But with Russia, it has now met a determined adversary that refuses to bend.

Western Europe’s dilemma: dependence or independence? For the EU, any major shift in US policy is a cause for alarm. Since World War II, Western European elites have relied on American military protection while enjoying economic prosperity under the US-led global order. In exchange for this security umbrella, these states surrendered much of their foreign policy independence. Despite its economic weight, the EU has largely functioned as a political appendage of Washington. This has come at a cost: Western European leaders have little say in critical global decisions, and their fate remains tied to decisions made in the US. Now, with Washington signaling it wants to shift its focus – both in military and economic terms – the bloc finds itself in a precarious situation.

Western Europe lacks the demographic and financial resources to turn itself into a military superpower. The idea of building an independent EU defense structure is often discussed but remains unrealistic. Without U.S. support, these states cannot sustain a large-scale conflict with Russia. Also, Washington is increasingly making it clear that Western Europe must contribute more while receiving less in return. The US political class knows that economic resources are finite, and American taxpayers are questioning why they should continue subsidizing European security. The rise of populist and nationalist movements across Europe – many of which favor detente with Moscow – adds another layer of complexity. Washington’s support for non-mainstream European politicians, such as the Alternative for Germany (AfD) or Romania’s banned presidential candidate Calin Georgescu, signals an emerging divide.

How should Russia respond? Moscow must recognize that any long-term fracturing of the West works to its strategic advantage. History shows that Russia has been most successful in its geopolitical struggles when the West was divided. During the Northern War, Peter the Great’s Russia exploited divisions within Europe’s anti-Swedish coalition; in the Napoleonic Wars, Russia aligned with Britain – normally a rival – to defeat France. During World War II, the Soviet Union benefited from the split between the US and Nazi Germany’s former allies. Conversely, when the West has acted as a single entity, Russia has faced its most significant challenges – such as during the Cold War, which led to the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union. Given these historical lessons, it would be unwise for Moscow to ignore opportunities to accelerate the split between Washington and its European allies. Russia must continue engaging with Trump’s team while indirectly supporting voices in Europe who favor a more balanced approach to Russia. Moscow should deepen its bilateral economic ties with individual European countries, bypassing Brussels’ restrictive policies wherever possible. Any serious attempt by Western Europe to build an independent military bloc should be closely monitored – though in reality, such plans remain far-fetched.

The future of the West is uncertain While Trump’s arrival has disrupted the status quo, it remains unclear whether this is just a temporary setback for transatlantic unity or the beginning of a permanent shift. If Washington continues down the path of reducing its commitments to Europe, the EU will face an identity crisis – one that may ultimately lead to a loss of American influence over EU politics. For Russia, this presents an opportunity. By carefully navigating these developments, Moscow can ensure that any cracks in the Western alliance become permanent fractures – shaping a world where American and Western European interests no longer align as they once did. Russia does not need to rush or force the split – the US is doing that on its own. But Moscow can and should help accelerate the process where possible. After all, a divided West is a weaker West – and that is something Russia has always understood.

Read more …

What an invitation! Now imagine Marco Rubio, or Macron, von der Leyen, reaching out to new media this way. Trump might…

• A Conversation with Foreign Minister Lavrov (Larry Johnson)

What an honor. I was invited, along with Judge Napolitano and Mario Nawfal, to interview Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov on Monday. Mr. Lavrov is smart, charming, funny and quite approachable. He ain’t a bullshitter. There was no pretense about him. After spending more than 90 minutes conversing with him, I came away with a new appreciation of his skill as the consummate diplomat. Although we each had prepared a couple of questions in advance, those went out the window once the conversation started. There were no constraints on what we could ask. There was an added treat before Mr. Lavrov arrived… we spent thirty minutes chatting with Maria Zakharova in a casual environment. She is equally charming and tough as a rhinoceros hide. I think of her as an iron fist wrapped in a luxurious velvet glove. A formidable diplomat in her own right.

Here is a summary of the key points Mr. Lavrov made during our discussion: • I think what is going on in the United States is a return to normalcy. <…> The fact is that a normal administration without any, you know, unChristian ideas came to power and the reaction was such an explosion in the media, in the politics all over the world is very interesting and very telling. • When we met in Riyadh with Marco Rubio, Mike Waltz and Steve Witkoff they suggested the meeting and they said, look, we want normal relations in the sense that the foundation of the American foreign policy under the Donald Trump administration is the national interest of the United States. But at the same time, we understand that other countries also have their national interest. • It is very well understood that countries like the United States and Russia would never have their national interest the same. They would not coincide maybe even 50 or less percent. But when they do coincide this situation must be used to develop this simultaneous and similar interest. But when the interests do not coincide and contradict each other then the responsible countries must do everything not to allow this contradiction to degenerate into confrontation, especially military confrontation which would be disastrous for many other countries. • The beginning of the special military operation was a decision because all other attempts, all other alternatives to bring things into some positive dimension failed for ten years after the illegal coup in Kiev, in violation of the deal signed the night before and guaranteed by the Germans, French and Poles. • I don’t think the Americans would drop from NATO. At least President Trump never hinted that this might be the case. But what he did bluntly say was that if you want us to protect you, to give you security guarantees, you pay what is necessary. • But President Trump doesn’t want to provide these security guarantees to Ukraine under Zelensky. He has his own view of the situation which he bluntly presents every now and then, that this war should never have started – that pulling Ukraine into NATO in violation of its constitution, in violation of the Declaration of Independence of 1991, on the basis of which we recognized Ukraine as a sovereign state. For several reasons including that this Declaration was saying no NATO, no blocs, neutral status. Another thing which this Declaration also confirmed and solidified – all rights of Russian and all other national minorities are to be respected. • Europe and the UK, they certainly want this to continue. The way they received Zelensky in London after the scandal in Washington, it’s an indication that they want to raise the stakes and they are preparing something to pressure the Donald Trump administration back into some aggressive action against Russia. • It’s not about the territories, it’s about the people who were deprived of their history by law. Territories are important only because people live on these territories. The people who live on the territories are descendants of those who for hundreds of years were building Odessa & other cities on those very lands who were building ports, roads, who were founding those lands and who associated with the history of this land.

! The Americans know that we would not betray our commitments, legal commitments, the political commitments which we develop with China.

Mario Nawfal, the young man seated between the Judge and me, was a delight to be with. At the ripe old age of 30, he treated Judge Nap and me like two respected grandfathers. Being able to spend five days with Judge Napolitano — it was the first time we have been together physically in the entire time that I have known him — was a special treat. The Judge and I met for breakfast every morning in the room pictured above during our time in Moscow. While eating, we were serenaded by a talented harpist, which added a surreal quality to the experience. The staff at the Metropol are superb as well. I will provide a more detailed account of our time in Moscow in a forthcoming post.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Flu shot https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1899889092911129014

 

 

 

 

Happybird https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1900074009003188539

 

 

Table

 

 

Origami https://twitter.com/gunsnrosesgirl3/status/1900239757554442694

 

 

AI Hepburn https://twitter.com/gunsnrosesgirl3/status/1900059437622063208

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Mar 132025
 
 March 13, 2025  Posted by at 10:34 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , ,  35 Responses »


James Ensor The frightful musicians 1891

 

Trump Is the World’s Worst Dictator (Joecks)
Moscow ‘Studying’ 30-day Truce Plan, Makes Steady Battlefield Gains (ZH)
Trump Envoy Witkoff To Present Ceasefire Deal To Russia This Week – White House (RT)
Kremlin Drags Its Feet On Ceasefire Deal As Armies Steamroll Ukraine (JTN)
US Discussed Territorial Concessions With Ukraine – Rubio (RT)
All The Pressure Is Now On Zelensky After Ceasefire Offer (Proud)
Free Trade: Ricardo’s Theory To Dispossess The British Aristocracy (PCR)
Medvedchuk Cautions Trump On Dealing With Kiev (RT)
Why Won’t Europe Step Up and Help Ukraine? (Victor Davis Hanson)
EU Accuses Trump of ‘Blackmailing’ Zelensky! (Pinsker)
800 Billion Euros of Delusional Promises (Dionísio)
This Is Literally The Worst News Democrats Could Get Right Now (Margolis)
Shutdown Schumer, the Shifty Democrats And a Government Standstill (Thorne)
Old Joe’s Fake Oval Office – and Its Fake News Apologists – Exposed (Victoria Taft)
Made in China 2025 – Revisited (Pepe Escobar)

 

 

 

 

One of his people was brutally murdered this week

Inflation

Maloney

 

 

Lavrov and the US new media

 

 

 

 

“Trump is one of the most successful men in the world, but he’s a complete failure at being a dictator.”

• Trump Is the World’s Worst Dictator (Joecks)

Dictators crave power. President Donald Trump is using his power to give Americans more freedom. That’s a massive difference. Desperate to find an effective attack against Trump, some Democrats are recycling an old one. They claim he’s an authoritarian. Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., invited laid-off federal workers to attend Trump’s recent speech to Congress. She said she was standing “shoulder to shoulder with people in defiance to a dictator.” That type of defiance led Democrats to callously withhold applause from a 13-year-old brain-cancer survivor simply because Trump introduced him. Shameful. Former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams recently called Trump a “petty tyrant.” The Associated Press claimed that Trump “has embarked on a dizzying teardown of the federal government and attacks on long-standing institutions in an attempt to increase his own authority.”

These accusations aren’t new. Former President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris frequently labeled Trump a threat to democracy. Last year, historian Jon Meacham called Trump a “tyrant” who would cause the downfall of the American Republic. Trump has fed into this. After he attacked congestion pricing in Manhattan, the White House posted a picture of him wearing a crown. Trump said, “Long live the king.” While that was obviously not a serious claim to monarchical authority, it sent the propaganda press into a tizzy. Many Americans believe the worst about Trump as 41% of Americans say Trump is a dictator, according to a February YouGov poll. Those people aren’t just wrong–they have it backwards. Trump is doing the one thing dictators never do–reduce their own power.

It’d help to define some terms. Merriam-Webster says a dictator is “one holding complete autocratic control.” An autocracy is a “government in which one person possesses unlimited power.” Tyrant has a similar meaning–“an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution.” Therefore, by definition, you can’t be a dictator while increasing freedom and shrinking the size and scope of government. It’s a contradiction. That’s what Trump is doing. He rolled back Biden’s target for electric vehicle sales. He’s unshackled the energy industry. He wants to undo Biden administration restrictions on dishwashers, shower heads and light bulbs. He’s ordered agencies to eliminate 10 previous regulations for every new one they put in place. He’s increasing freedom. He’s also pushing for a significant tax cut. Dictators aren’t known for wanting to let you keep more of your own money.

He’s laid off tens of thousands of federal workers. Another 75,000 federal workers took buyouts. The Department of Government Efficiency is attempting to reduce federal spending by more than $100 billion. He’s shrinking the government he runs. The Trump administration is even gearing up to eliminate the Department of Education. In early March, Education Secretary Linda McMahon laid out “our department’s final mission.” She wants “to send education back to the states and empower all parents to choose an excellent education for their children.” Indoctrinating a nation’s children is a powerful tool for any would-be dictator. Communist dictators wanted kids’ primary loyalty to be to the government. They sought to drive a wedge between children and their parents. Trump wants to give parents more control of their children’s education.

Now, Trump is governing aggressively. The executive orders have been fast and furious. He’s closed the border. He’s clearing out the deep state. He’s rooting out diversity, equity, and inclusion in the government. He’s recognized that men are not women. But an elected official changing government policy isn’t tyranny. That’s the point of having an election. It’d be tyrannical if an unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy could stop a democratically elected president from running the executive branch as he sees fit. Just look at the obstacles Trump faced in his first term. Trump is one of the most successful men in the world, but he’s a complete failure at being a dictator.

Read more …

For now it’s just some statements, they haven’t been given the “plan” yet.

Rubio was doing fine so far, but here he leaves the impression that if Russia doesn’t respond to a “plan” they don’t even know, it means they don’t want peace. Confused comments galore.

• Moscow ‘Studying’ 30-day Truce Plan, Makes Steady Battlefield Gains (ZH)

The Kremlin says it is “studying” statements issued by the US and Ukrainian delegations following yesterday’s talks in Jeddah, and further describes Russian officials are waiting for a fuller briefing from the US on the proposal. The 30-day ceasefire plan calls for a halt to all the fighting on land, sea and in the air – which can be extended by mutual agreement, with a hoped-for path to a permanent truce based on negotiations in the interim. President Zelensky in a Tuesday X post said the ceasefire will apply to missile, drone and bomb attacks “not only in the Black Sea, but also along the entire front line” – though its as yet unclear what mechanism there will be to monitor this. The joint statement issued from Jeddah said the sides “will communicate to Russia that Russian reciprocity is the key to achieving peace.” Thus nothing will happen unless Moscow agrees.

Washington has agreed to lift the Trump ban on arms and intelligence for Kiev, while at the same Kiev and Washington agreed on inking a deal on Ukraine’s critical minerals “as soon as possible”. Russian state media is meanwhile reporting that President Putin is open to holding a telephone conversation with his US counterpart. On the potential for a new Trump call to discuss progress toward setting up negotiations and a truce, spokesman Dimitry Peskov said Wednesday, “We also do not rule out that the topic of a call at the highest level may arise. If such a need emerges, it will be organized very quickly. The existing channels of dialogue with the Americans make it possible to do this in a relatively short time.”

If it happens this would mark the second call since Trump’s inauguration, after the prior February 12 call. Theoretically this could lead to an in-person meeting between the two leaders if all goes well. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is traveling back from the meeting in Saudi Arabia, and gave some remarks to a press conference in Ireland: • Deterrence against future attacks on Ukraine will be a crucial element of future negotiations. • The US-Ukraine minerals deal benefits both nations and deepens Washington’s interest in Ukraine, but “I would not couch it as a security guarantee”. • European sanctions against Russia will be part of the negotiations, making Europe’s involvement in the process essential. • Any truce could be effectively monitored, but “one of the things we’ll have to determine is who both sides trust on the ground” to oversee it.

Ukraine continues to hold little to no leverage, given Russia is fast taking back its territory in Kursk as of mid-week. Over a dozen settlements have been liberated, and by all accounts Ukraine forces are in retreat there, also as Russian troops are currently in the center of Sudzha town. One regional source says that the Russian advance has been swift especially after one particularly daring operation: “Reports over the weekend claimed that 800 Russian special forces had crawled for 15 kilometers through an unused section of pipeline, which once carried Russian gas to Europe via Ukraine, in order to carry out a sneak attack on Ukrainian forces in Sudzha,” writes Moscow Times. These developments mean that Putin is even less likely to agree to any temporary pause in fighting. In January statements he had warned the Kremlin will not sign off on any temporary truces – given Ukraine could just use it to rearm, resupply, and regroup. Moscow has less incentive to sign onto a deal unless territorial concessions are part of it, given that at this rate it can just keep advancing in territory, particularly in the Donbass.

Read more …

“Steve Witkoff, the president’s special envoy, is making his way to Moscow this week again..”

• Trump Envoy Witkoff To Present Ceasefire Deal To Russia This Week – White House (RT)

US President Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff will be traveling to Moscow later this week to deliver the US ceasefire proposal for the Ukraine conflict, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Wednesday. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz met with representatives from Kiev in Jeddah on Tuesday to discuss a diplomatic end to the Ukraine conflict. In a joint statement afterward, Ukraine agreed to a 30-day ceasefire, while the US resumed all military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine. Waltz held a phone conversation with his “Russian counterpart” on Wednesday to discuss the proceedings, Leavitt told journalists in a media stakeout at the White House. Trump’s envoy will be traveling to Russia in person, she added. “Steve Witkoff, the president’s special envoy, is making his way to Moscow this week again to urge the Russians to sign on to this negotiation,” Leavitt told Fox News on Wednesday.

Russia and the US will hold a “big meeting” on Thursday, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. When asked about potential US leverage on Moscow to accept the ceasefire deal, the US president warned of “devastating” financial measures he could impose. Moscow is “carefully studying the statements that were made as a result” of the US-Ukraine talks, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said. He cautioned against making rushed statements, and stressed that Russia first needs to receive “detailed information” on the proposed ceasefire teased by Waltz on Tuesday. Moscow has previously opposed any temporary truce in the Ukraine conflict, saying that it would simply be a repeat of the ill-fated 2014-2015 Minsk agreements, which it claims were used by Kiev’s Western backers to rearm them.

Read more …

How can you “drag your feet” on a “deal” plan you’re not part of or party to?

• Kremlin Drags Its Feet On Ceasefire Deal As Armies Steamroll Ukraine (JTN)

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov on Wednesday indicated that Moscow was in no rush to reply to the American-Ukrainian plan for a 30-day ceasefire, an announcement that came as Russian armies drove battered Ukrainian troops out of a salient in its own Kursk Oblast and appear poised to advance along the front. On Tuesday, Ukrainian diplomats reached an agreement with American officials to restore military aid and intelligence sharing to Kyiv in exchange for agreeing to an immediate, 30-day ceasefire deal that they would present to the Russians. That exchange followed a public squabble at the Oval Office between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and President Donald Trump in which Zelensky was removed from the White House. Zelensky had been in Washington to sign a mineral resources deal that was not executed. Ukraine recommitted to the deal as part of the Wednesday deal.

“Look, you are getting a little ahead of yourself, we don’t want to do that,” Peskov told reporters about the ceasefire, according to Russian outlet RIA Novosti. “Yesterday, when talking to the press, both [Secretary of State Marco] Rubio and [National Security Advisor Mike] Waltz said that they would pass on to us detailed information about the essence of the conversations that took place in Jeddah through various diplomatic channels. First, we need to get that information.” A ceasefire proposal appears to be unpopular with some members of the Russian government, with high-profile politicians condemning the idea. State Duma Deputy Viktor Sobolev, a member of the Duma’s defense committee and notably, an opponent of the pro-Putin coalition, called a temporary ceasefire “absolutely unacceptable,” saying it would allow Ukraine to “regroup and rearm” and “play into the hands of” Kyiv.

Russian troops are currently advancing along the front and posting substantial gains against the Ukrainian military at the moment and a ceasefire would potentially bring that momentum to a halt. Ukrainian forces last year invaded Russia directly, carving out a large swath of territory in the border “oblast,” or region, of Kursk, centered on the city of Sudzha. That location became a cauldron for the Ukrainians as Russia stiffened its defense, and the region became decidedly unstable in recent weeks after the recapture by Russian forces of Sverdlikovo, exposing the Ukrainian flank. A daring operation by Russian special forces, moreover, saw personnel travel through a drained pipeline to attack the Ukrainian rear, which triggered a rout and led to the Russian recapture of Sudzha on Tuesday. Geolocation-based territorial maps show varying degrees of Russian control in the city.

Complicating matters for both sides is their history of dubious and short-lived ceasefires since the outbreak of the Donbas War in 2014. The Minsk I and II Accords both followed a decisive Ukrainian defeat on the battlefields of Ilovaisk and Debaltsevo, respectively. In those battles, Ukraine fought Russian-backed separatists and not the official Russian military. Both sides blame the other for violating both agreements. Explicitly pro-Ukrainian analyst Julian Ropcke, senior editor for security policy at Bild-Zeitung, a German-owned tabloid, highlighted that history and implied a ceasefire deal would lead to a repeat of those incidents. “Amazed to see people thinking a ceasefire deal would stop Russia’s war in Ukraine,” he wrote on X. “After signing Minsk 1 in September 2014, Russia pumped in more troops and kept advancing, capturing Donetsk airport and 20 more towns and villages. After signing Minsk 2 in February 2015, Russia further advanced and captured Debalsteve and five more villages.”

The Russians themselves previously ruled out a ceasefire, with Russian President Vladimir Putin stating last year that he would not accept a temporary agreement and would only allow a ceasefire after a lasting accord had been reached. Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Sergei Lavrov, meanwhile, downplayed the seriousness of a ceasefire proposal ahead of the Ukrainian meeting with the Americans on Tuesday. “Zelensky is saying publicly that he doesn’t want any ceasefire until Americans give him any guarantees that they will destroy Russia with nuclear weapons. It’s not serious,” Lavrov told reporters on a Russia Today webcast. In an interview with bloggers Mario Nawfal, Larry C. Johnson, and Andrew Napolitano published Wednesday, moreover, Lavrov insisted that Trump had no desire to provide Ukraine with security guarantees while Zelensky remained in power.

“He has his own view of the situation, which he bluntly presents every now and then that this war should have never started. That the pulling Ukraine into NATO, is a violation of its constitution, a violation of the declaration of independence of 1991,” Lavrov said. “On the basis of which we recognized Ukraine as a sovereign state for several reasons, including that this declaration was saying no NATO.” The terms of the deal itself remain unclear and the joint statement from the State Department and Ukrainian government did not offer much detail other than a proposal for an immediate 30-day ceasefire, during which they hope to hold negotiations with Moscow. At present, Russia maintains a swath of Ukrainian territory from the Khariv to Kherson Oblasts, providing a land bridge to Crimea, which it annexed in 2014. Russia formally annexed four more regions amid the war but does not fully control any of them. Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested that the Ukrainians would likely have to give up some territory in a peace deal.

“The most important thing that we have to leave here with is a strong sense that Ukraine is prepared to do difficult things, like the Russians are going to have to do difficult things to end this conflict or at least pause it in some way, shape or form,” Rubio told reporters Tuesday. “I think both sides need to come to an understanding that there’s no military solution to this situation.” The state of the Russian economy has also appeared as a contributing factor. Trump previously threatened the Russians with additional sanctions if they refused to come to the table, though the scope of those sanctions and their potential impact remains unclear. “Based on the fact that Russia is absolutely ‘pounding’ Ukraine on the battlefield right now, I am strongly considering large scale Banking Sanctions, Sanctions, and Tariffs on Russia until a Cease Fire and FINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PEACE IS REACHED,” Trump wrote on Truth Social last week.

Conversely, some analysts believe Putin may use the ceasefire offer to drag out negotiations and demand greater concessions for a pause. Bloomberg News, citing an unnamed person “close to the Kremlin,” reported that he may demand an end to arms shipments to Ukraine. “Putin won’t give a hard ‘yes’ or a hard ‘no,’” Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center Senior Fellow Tatiana Stanovaya told the outlet. “Even in a fantastic situation where Putin makes some gestures toward a truce, it would still be a temporary one and with very harsh conditions.”

Read more …

“Moscow has repeatedly stated that the status of these regions is non-negotiable.”

• US Discussed Territorial Concessions With Ukraine – Rubio (RT)

American and Ukrainian delegations discussed the issue of territorial concessions during their meeting in Saudi Arabia, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed on Wednesday. Representatives from Washington and Kiev met in Jeddah on Tuesday to discuss a path toward a peaceful resolution of the Ukraine conflict. Kiev claims sovereignty over Crimea, the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, and the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions. These territories officially became a part of Russia after each of them held referendums in 2014 and 2022. Moscow has repeatedly stated that the status of these regions is non-negotiable. After a nearly 9.5-hour meeting, the two sides released a joint statement in which Kiev agreed to a 30-day ceasefire while the US announced the resumption of military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine.

Speaking to journalists on Wednesday, Rubio, who took part in the meeting, was asked to disclose more details about what had been discussed and whether the issue of territorial concessions had been brought up. The secretary stated that “we had conversations” on the issue but declined to disclose specifics. He emphasized that the key point was figuring out what the negotiation process would look like and what issues would be on the agenda. Rubio called it obvious that the Ukraine conflict cannot be resolved militarily, and that “neither side can militarily achieve their maximalist goals” and that the only way to stop the fighting is through negotiations.

On Monday, ahead of the Jeddah talks, Rubio also indicated that Ukraine would inevitably have to relinquish the goal of regaining all the territory it claims in order to facilitate peace negotiations with Russia. “Obviously, it’ll be very difficult for Ukraine in any reasonable time period to sort of force the Russians back all the way to where they were in 2014,” the secretary told the New York Times. Moscow has not yet commented on the statement released by the US and Ukraine following the talks in Saudi Arabia, nor has it yet reacted to the proposed 30-day ceasefire. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has stated that Moscow first expects to receive the details from the US, which should be sent in the coming days.

Read more …

“..it wants the big questions addressed front and centre. These include Ukraine’s aspiration to join NATO, the status of the four oblasts annexed by Russia since the start of the war and the protection of the Russian language in Ukraine.”

• All The Pressure Is Now On Zelensky After Ceasefire Offer (Proud)

I assess that Russia will agree with the U.S. on a proposed ceasefire in Ukraine. This would put the ball back in Zelensky’s court to sign a peace deal that could destroy him politically and may give President Putin the security assurances he has sought for over seventeen years. In a quite remarkable turn of events, the BBC announced that Britain had helped the U.S. and Ukraine agree on the need for a 30-day ceasefire. This is spin of the most disingenuous kind. The UK has done everything in its power to prevent the possibility of ‘forcing’ Ukraine into negotiations on ending the three-year war. Indeed, just last week, a prominent UK broadsheet reinforced this point in a searing editorial. The British narrative for three years has been that, with sufficient support and strategic patience, Ukraine could impose a defeat on Russia. To use a British military phrase, that plan ‘didn’t survive contact with the enemy’.

Ukraine’s sudden collapse in Kursk, after Russian troops crawled ten kilometres through a gas pipeline that President Zelensky had, with much fanfare, shut down in January, was an astonishing defeat. It was astonishing because it revealed what many western commentators had said since August 2024, that seizing a small patch of land in Russia would turn out to be a strategic blunder for Ukraine. Since the Kursk offensive was launched, Russia has occupied large tracts of land in southern Donetsk, including several important mines and one of Ukraine’s largest power stations. The basic maths show a significant net loss to Zelensky over the past six months. The bigger picture proves that the overall direction of the war has been moving in Russia’s direction since the failed Ukrainian counter-offensive in the summer of 2023. In Ukraine itself, the vultures are already circling in the sky as the body of Zelensky’s now six-year presidential term approaches its final breath.

Arestovich was quick to call for Zelensky to resign after the damaging shoot-out at the Oval Office. Poroshenko has come out to say Ukraine has no choice but to cut a deal. Even Zelensky’s former press spokeswoman has called for peace and implied that the Ukrainian government tries to limit free speech on the subject of a truce. Team Trump is apparently talking to the egregiously corrupt former Prime Minster Yulia Tymoshenko about the future, heaven help us. The domestic political space for Zelensky to keep holding out with meaningless slogans like ‘peace through strength’, and ‘forcing Russia to make peace’ is rapidly closing around him. That Ukraine has come to the negotiating table at all is a sign that it has been given no choice, since America paused the military and intelligence gravy train. There is nothing in the Jeddah meeting that suggests any change in the U.S. position towards Ukraine.

All that the ceasefire does, if Russia agrees to it, is pauses the fighting. Indeed, it goes further than the unworkable Franco-Ukrainian idea to pause the fighting only in the air and sea, allowing Ukraine to keep fighting on the ground. Ironically, the Jeddah formulation favours Russia, as a partial ceasefire would have provided succour to the Ukrainian army which does not enjoy strategic air superiority, despite its mass drone attack on Moscow and other parts of Russia. The joint U.S.-Ukraine statement calls for Ukraine and others to ‘immediately begin negotiations toward an enduring peace that provides for Ukraine’s long-term security’. If Russia agrees to a ceasefire, the clock will start on 30-days of intensive talks aimed at delivering a durable peace. Russia has said consistently that it will not agree to a ceasefire only; it wants the big questions addressed front and centre. These include Ukraine’s aspiration to join NATO, the status of the four oblasts annexed by Russia since the start of the war and the protection of the Russian language in Ukraine.

Read more …

“Trump has spoken of substituting tariffs for the income tax. This is a brilliant thought. The income tax taxes labor and capital, factors of production. Thus income tax reduces GDP and living standards.”

• Free Trade: Ricardo’s Theory To Dispossess The British Aristocracy (PCR)

In their book, Global Trade and Conflicting National Interests published in 2000 by The MIT Press, Ralph E. Gomory and William J. Baumol proved that the free trade theory with which economists today are still indoctrinated is false. Economists have done their best not to notice that a part of their repertory is invalid. A number of years ago I presented Gomory and Baumol’s analysis to libertarian economists at the Mises Institute. They didn’t like it, but they couldn’t confute it. Over the years I have called attention to the defective theory that economists hold close to their breasts, but it is unpleasant information that they don’t want to hear. With Trump’s talk of tariffs, the invalid free trade theory is being used as a weapon against Trump. Those on Wall Street who are indoctrinated with free trade have been driving down the Dow with their panic.

As for Trump’s tariffs, at the present time it seems that often they are threats leveled at specific countries to get them to do what they should be doing or to get them to give their help to Trump’s agenda. For example, the initial tariffs Trump announced against Mexico and Canada were withdrawn once the two countries agreed to police their borders with the US to help halt the flow of immigrant-invaders into America. It remains to be seen whether a full blown tariff system is put in place. The American market is a large one, and although US consumer demand has been weakened by the offshoring of middle class manufacturing jobs, debt expansion has kept the American consumer market going, and the US remains a lucrative market for foreign produced goods.

It is possible that tariffs could recover their historic role in the financing of the US government. The US government was financed over most of its history by tariffs. It was not until 1918 that the income tax passed in 1913 affected the population, so the US government has been dependent on income taxation only for about a century. As I have explained, the introduction of an income tax resurrected a form of slavery as it gave government ownership rights in our labor. The definition of a free person is a person who owns his own labor. Today people subject to an income tax are in the same position as medieval serfs who owed part of their labor to feudal lords.

Trump has spoken of substituting tariffs for the income tax. This is a brilliant thought. The income tax taxes labor and capital, factors of production. Thus income tax reduces GDP and living standards. Classical economists, unlike the present day “junk economists” as Michael Hudson correctly calls them, said, correctly, that consumption, not factors of production, should be taxed. That is what a tariff does. If you don’t consume goods produced in other countries, you pay no taxation. Countries once understood that being dependent on imports of necessities, such as food, was a threat to national existence. A country could be subdued by the cutoff of food.

The British had the Corn Laws (corn was the term for all grains–wheat, barley, oats) that protected English farmers. The Corn Laws protected the incomes of the landed aristocracy, Britain’s leadership class during the years that Britain was the world power. As income is a basis of power, the rising British middle class wanted the power that was in aristocratic hands. David Ricardo, a bourgeois financier, attacked the incomes of the landed aristocracy with his concocted free trade theory. The repeal of the Corn laws shifted power from one class to another. The bourgeois gained and the aristocrats lost, and the British became dependent on food imports. The repeal was followed by Death Duties that appropriated the estates of the aristocrats, thus destroying the leadership class of Great Britain. Look at the post-aristocratic leadership of Britain. What do you see?

Read more …

“What US President Donald Trump does not realize is that as soon as he gets rid of Zelensky… the Ukrainian political system will throw another clown at him..”

• Medvedchuk Cautions Trump On Dealing With Kiev (RT)

US President Donald Trump will not be able to reach any kind of agreement with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky, nor with any other politician from his circle who may eventually replace him, exiled Ukrainian opposition leader Viktor Medvedchuk has cautioned. Zelensky’s presidential term officially expired in May 2024 as he has refused to hold a new election, citing martial law imposed during the conflict with Russia. Trump reportedly insisted earlier this week that the Ukrainian leader should hold elections and possibly step down. Writing in an article for the ‘Other Ukraine’ news outlet on Wednesday, Medvedchuk – who was ousted in 2022 – suggested that removing Zelensky might not help achieve peace, as the country’s political system could produce another leader with similarly obstructive tendencies.

“What US President Donald Trump does not realize is that as soon as he gets rid of Zelensky… the Ukrainian political system will throw another clown at him,” Medvedchuk claimed. Medvedchuk cited the recent talks between Zelensky and Trump in the Oval Office, which escalated into an unprecedented public confrontation, as proof that there is a pervasive culture among Kiev’s pro-Western political factions that prioritizes self-interest. Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance ended up accusing the Ukrainian leader of disrespectful behavior, a lack of gratitude, and an unwillingness to pursue peace. “America’s problem is that it’s not just Zelensky who doesn’t understand how he disrespected Trump, but most of his entourage doesn’t… Ukraine’s pro-Western politicians are not accustomed at all to considering the interests of others,” Medvedchuk argued.

He went on to claim that “Zelensky’s Ukraine is raising citizens to be spoiled, hysterical, illiterate, infantile and irresponsible; they believe that everyone owes them, and that they never owe anything to anybody in return.” Medvedchuk was leader of the Opposition Platform – For Life party, formerly the second-largest group in the Ukrainian parliament, until his arrest in April 2022. The party was subsequently banned, and Medvedchuk was sent to Russia in September of that year in exchange for several POWs. He founded the Other Ukraine movement in 2023 and acts as chairman of its council. In January, Zelensky imposed sanctions against him.

Read more …

“We have 500 million people in Europe and they’re very upset that 330 million people across the ocean will not help 40 million people fighting 140 million people in Russia…”

• Why Won’t Europe Step Up and Help Ukraine? (Victor Davis Hanson)

Europe is greeting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as if he’s a rock hero and giving us all sorts of dramatic, melodramatic, psychodramatic pronouncements that they are going their own way because of the Trump isolationism, and sometimes it’s Trump Jacksonianism. They can’t count on us. And Ukraine was the catalyst. But let’s look at that issue for a moment. We have 500 million people in Europe and they’re very upset that 330 million people across the ocean will not help 40 million people fighting 140 million people in Russia. In other words, of all the players in this drama, it’s Europe who should be in the driver’s seat. They have 500 million people. And yet, when we look at their expenditures, nine countries out of the 32, 11 years later, have not increased their NATO contributions to 2%. What should they be doing? They should be meeting with the Trump administration and telling the American people why countries in Europe still won’t meet their military responsibilities.

They’re also running a $200-plus billion trade surplus with the United States. They need to tell us—instead of just saying, “We don’t want to get in a tariff war; Trump is a protectionist”—just explain to us why we in Europe believe that we deserve a $200 billion surplus each year with the United States. And maybe you could explain why your tariffs are not symmetrical with ours. We just need to know. We need to know that very quickly, in fact. Another thing we need to know from Europe that we’re not getting, besides their surplus and the inability for all the NATO nations to meet their responsibilities and their promises of 11 years ago, is what is the strategy for Ukraine? They’re very angry that President Donald Trump temporarily cut off some aid to Ukraine to urge Mr. Zelenskyy to consider a truce so he can negotiate a more lasting peace and stop the Stalingrad slaughter between Ukraine and Russia.

I don’t even mean between Ukraine and Russia. It’s basically caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and they’re on the defensive, but Ukraine has not been able, strategically, to show a pathway to strategic resolution and victory. Again, my interest and your interest is, what’s the alternative position by Europe? Is it we have 500 million people, we’re going to rearm, we’re going to divide up tasks? Finns have great artillery. They will supply the artillery to Ukraine. The Swedes and the French have good air forces. They will supply the air cover. The Germans have a tradition of great tank-making. They’re not very productive in tank production today. But perhaps they’ll promise to send 500 tanks. And then outline a position or a trajectory or a pathway where they can force, apparently, Russian President Vladimir Putin all the way back to where he was either in February 2022 or maybe even 2014.

But we don’t get any of that. We don’t get anything but rah-rah talk that we’re all Europeans. We’re not Donald Trump. We’re going to stick together. We’re going to put boots on the ground. We have what? Logistical capacity, armor, air force. Why can’t they just get together and get an exact, detailed plan of military wherewithal, coupled with a strategy, coupled with a renewed commitment to meet their NATO promises, coupled with an explanation to the American people why they feel that $200-plus billion trade surplus is essential to Europe’s survival and it is not a result of asymmetrical and unfair trade practices? That’s all we’re asking for.

Read more …

“They want a peace guarantee that’s backed by American blood..”

• EU Accuses Trump of ‘Blackmailing’ Zelensky! (Pinsker)

Yesterday’s pacifists are today’s Rambos, it seems: 442 lawmakers in the 720-seat European Parliament just agreed to a joint declaration that “strongly deplores any attempts at blackmailing Ukraine’s leadership into surrender to the Russian aggressor for the sole purpose of announcing a so-called ‘peace deal.’” It passed via landslide: 61%. Not all EU politicians supported the measure: Melonian Nicola Procaccini, co-chair of the Conservatives (ECR), had tried to delay the vote arguing that a strong stance by the chamber would risk undermining the delicate ongoing discussion between the United States and Russia on the conditions of the ceasefire that were agreed yesterday in Jeddah — on which the Kremlin has yet to officially comment — casting a negative light on the efforts of the star-studded administration.

But the parliament rejected his request, and thus the joint resolution submitted by EPP, S&D, ECR, Renew and Greens (which followed a debate last February) passed with 442 votes in favor, 98 against and 126 abstentions. Which means, less than 14% of our “friends” in the EU had the testicular fortitude to oppose this brazenly anti-American statement. Thanks, guys. But perhaps we’re being unfair. Perhaps the EU genuinely, sincerely opposes browbeating a democratic nation — especially one that was just invaded and attacked! — into accepting a permanent, immediate, and unconditional ceasefire. Perhaps this isn’t another example of our European “friends” acting selfishly and cowardly, but a heartfelt moral position. Nah: Fun Fact: Just one year ago, this is the same European Parliament that demanded Israel commit to a ceasefire in Gaza!

Hypocrisy, thy name is EU: The European Parliament was able to call for a permanent, immediate, and unconditional ceasefire in Gaza only last month, on February 28, over 140 days after the genocidal war began. On that day, at the initiative of the Left, the European Parliament’s plenary in Strasbourg amended the 67th article of the 2023 Report on the ‘Human Rights and Democracy in the World and the European Union’s policy on the matter’ to include the call for an “immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza, allowing uninterrupted access to food and water for its inhabitants.” [emphasis added] It raises the very obvious question: Israel was attacked by invaders, too. Why is it moral and just to impose a ceasefire on Israel, but “blackmail” to do so to Ukraine? As Politico reported today:

“The European Parliament on Wednesday accused the Trump administration of “blackmailing” Ukraine’s leadership into capitulating to Russia with a forced ceasefire, and denounced Washington’s decision to leave the European Union out of negotiations.” It’s unclear why the European Parliament insisted on using the word “blackmailing.” We’re not threatening to disclose harmful information about Zelensky. Besides, how do you blackmail a guy who’s already been videotaped [playing piano with his dick]: Usually, the “victim” of blackmail is the one who lost his money. Not here: The EU is claiming that Zelensky was blackmailed because Trump DIDN’T pay him. It doesn’t make much sense.The Politico article continued: “The statement also condemned as “counterproductive and dangerous” the current attempts by the Trump administration “to negotiate a ceasefire and peace agreement with Russia over the heads of Ukraine and other European states.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin, they added, was being “rewarded” for Moscow’s ongoing three-year invasion of Ukraine. Even after all these years, Europe’s level of entitlement never ceases to astonish. What Ukraine and the EU really want is an American war guarantee. When you strip away the diplomatic niceties and coded language, Zelensky’s tantrum and EU’s fury can all be boiled down to this: They want a peace guarantee that’s backed by American blood. And because Trump doesn’t believe a Ukrainian war guarantee would “Make America Great Again,” he’s trying to find an off-ramp that averts World War III. He’s trying to stop a war between a nuclear superpower and a near-west ally that’s already cost 1.5 million lives.

By any objective standard, that’s a laudable goal. (If this had been Obama doing the negotiating, the Nobel Prize committee would’ve called an emergency meeting and earmarked him the next 10 awards.)Yet the EU not only objected, they actually called it “blackmail!” Sigh. If only they were willing to stand up to Putin like they stand up to Trump. Because the EU will do everything they can to protect Ukraine… just as long as they don’t have to do any of the fighting themselves.

Read more …

“..the EU will discuss proposals to exclude military spending from the limits imposed by the Stability and Growth Pact..”

• 800 Billion Euros of Delusional Promises (Dionísio)

Von der Leyen has accustomed us to her grandstanding nihilism and disconnection from reality. Listening to her, one might sometimes get the impression that she sees herself as a kind of a god of creation, capable of transforming everything into matter with the mere power of her words. But of course, this is not true! The Russian economy has not collapsed in “tatters”; in fact, it has shown remarkable resilience, with wages growing at their highest rate in 16 years (a 21.6% increase compared to March of last year, and an 11.3% real growth after inflation—a dream for any Portuguese citizen), with the average wage expected to reach $1,113 by 2025, while everything remains cheaper than in any EU country.

It is also not true that the Russians have been stripping semiconductors from washing machines, nor is it true that the G7 has blocked Russian oil exports with their oil caps. In fact, Russia has never exported as much oil as it does today. The broker Ursula von der Leyen was also wrong when she claimed that the U.S. had the cheapest LNG—why would Trump want to lower prices now?—urging European countries to buy more shale gas, in violation of the European corporate sustainability directive, which requires suppliers to comply with environmental sustainability rules. As is well known, shale gas is extracted through fracking, a method highly damaging to the environment and banned in the EU. It seems that for the unelected president of the European Commission, directives are applied according to her whims.

But the latest delusion from the European Commission president is the announcement of a “massive boost”—as she loves these Americanized propaganda slogans with supposed creative power—to European military spending, which has already been increasing over time, but now she proposes to raise it by an additional 840 billion euros. It’s worth noting that she was Germany’s Defense Minister, during the scandal involving the sale of Trident submarines to Portugal, a deal that led to the imprisonment of several intermediaries. During that time too, von der Leyen, when investigated about several businesses, said that she lost the cellphone which helped her avoid jail. Similarly, during her time at the European Commission, she was involved in the vaccine procurement scandal. Certain character traits never disappear, and it’s a pity that these are the traits that determine who gets chosen for such positions. To our detriment.

Of course, the European Commission president could have proposed, instead, a massive diplomatic effort, a vigorous and mobilizing movement for world peace, a series of proposals for disarmament and the reduction of military stockpiles. Would it have worked? Maybe not, but as a leader of a vast population and the guardian of the keys that unlock the doors to death, it was her duty, first and foremost, to make every effort to negotiate not just peace, but a relationship of unity and cooperation across Europe, promoting prosperity and improving the living conditions of its people. Wouldn’t this be expected of any leader who claims to be democratic, humanistic, and a lover of freedom? The first step should never be to deepen the war.

She could even blame Vladimir Putin, demonizing him to unimaginable levels, but always keeping her feet on the ground and acknowledging the enormous responsibility she claims to bear: the guardian of the free world. A “guardian of the free world” is expected to make every effort to preserve that freedom. Instead, von der Leyen has done everything to erode and erase it from the map. Instead of setting an example of elevating and exalting our civilizational values, the European Commission and all the actors parading around the European Council have chosen to adopt a rigid, backward, isolationist, and sectarian stance. “I won’t move from here,” “I won’t talk to them,” “I won’t even think about them!” The EU is the only bloc today that behaves this way, except for Israel with the Palestinians. This should give us much to think about.

But this isn’t even the biggest problem with von der Leyen’s proposal. I’m not even talking about the arbitrariness of a commission composed of unelected bureaucrats proposing draconian rearmament plans, which the Council approves almost unanimously, without criticism, except for Orban. It’s more than that. Von der Leyen doesn’t have the authority to approve such a thing, nor can she force member states to spend this money, or compel them to approve eurobonds that would allow such a magnitude of debt. I’ve mentioned in other articles that by 2026, with a military budget exceeding 600 billion euros, the EU and its member states will already be close to spending 3-4% of GDP on armaments, as Trump desires—the same Trump they claim not to align with. With this increase proposed by von der Leyen, 5% of GDP would be guaranteed.

The truth, however, is that when we look at the proposals, we see that what’s on the table is a line of credit, available to member states, worth 150 billion euros, with the remaining amount coming not from the “European Union,” but from the member states themselves. To facilitate this, the EU will discuss proposals to exclude military spending from the limits imposed by the Stability and Growth Pact, allowing increased investment in armaments to not count toward deficit or public debt limits. In other words, if it’s for weapons, states can borrow as much as they want.

Read more …

“..the news of lower inflation..”

• This Is Literally The Worst News Democrats Could Get Right Now (Margolis)

The left’s desperate attempts to paint Donald Trump’s second term as an economic disaster are crumbling faster than Hunter Biden’s art career after his daddy left office. After spending four years gaslighting Americans about “Biden’s amazing economy” while families struggled to put food on the table, Democrats have suddenly discovered that inflation exists — and they’re trying to pin it on Trump. How convenient. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) recently embarrassed himself on ABC News when he claimed, “Donald Trump and Republicans consistently promised that they were going to lower the high cost of living, and they’ve done the exact opposite.” That’s not what the facts say at all. Remember when the left couldn’t stop squawking about egg prices? Well, those same Democrats are mysteriously quiet now that egg prices have plummeted.

After reaching an all-time high of $8.17 per dozen in early March, egg prices have plummeted to $5.51. Democrats will be sad to know that this is below the $7 average price when President Trump took office in January. But that’s not all — gas prices have dropped for three straight weeks. Funny how we’re not seeing wall-to-wall media coverage of these positive developments. The Democrats’ economic fearmongering hasn’t aged well. Their claims that Trump would cause runaway inflation have been proven laughably wrong. For Our VIPs: Sorry Dems, but the Trump Recovery Is Underway. The latest economic data shows inflation cooling to 2.8% year-over-year in February, with monthly inflation at just 0.2% — both numbers came in below expectations.

Even CNN had to swallow their pride and report on these positive developments. CNN’s Matt Egan had to concede that the latest economic report was “good news on the economy,” and he emphasized that inflation is “really the number one issue for many Americans.” He noted that both the annual and monthly increases were “a step in the right direction, and both were better than expected.” “This is definitely very encouraging to see,” Egan continued, adding that it is going to “relieve some fears that inflation was perhaps reaccelerating.” He pointed out that February’s report “actually breaks a streak of four straight months… where the inflation rate was going in the wrong direction, right? It was going higher and higher. Finally, we’re seeing it dip.”

Americans may finally be seeing some relief from Bidenomics. Remember how Democrats were lamenting the recent stock market woes? The market has rallied in the wake of the news of lower inflation. This is exactly why Americans are turning their backs on the Democrats’ economic policies. While Biden and his cronies were telling us to lower our expectations and accept sky-high prices as the “new normal,” Trump has been delivering actual results. The stark difference between Democrat rhetoric and reality couldn’t be clearer. Maybe it’s time for Democrats to admit what the rest of us have known all along: their economic policies failed miserably, and Trump’s America First approach delivers results for working families. But don’t hold your breath waiting for that admission — they’re too busy planning their next round of failed talking points.

Read more …

Smells like lawfare.

• Shutdown Schumer, the Shifty Democrats And a Government Standstill (Thorne)

D.C. Democrats have always ruled the shutdown game. When they are in charge of Congress, they are positively allergic to passing a budget, let alone a balanced one. They prefer to clobber Republicans over the head with shutdown showmanship, ultimately getting their spendthrift way while reaping the fringe benefit of demolished approval ratings for their rival party. Here’s how it works: Democrats sit on their hands and do nothing about spending until the budget deadline looms. Once they are operating in a time-crisis setting, Democrats put forth a grotesque, bloated, and usually immoral omnibus spending bill rife with grift for their friends and economic incontinence. Republicans naturally recoil at this abomination and refuse to vote for it. Democrats and their media allies then bray that Republicans are obstructionists.

If the deadline passes without an agreement, the blame is uniformly heaped upon the Republicans. It is always they, never the blameless Democrats, who shut down the government by refusing to pass the perfectly good spending resolution the Democrats produced. If there is a Democrat president, he does his part by making the shutdown as absurdly public and painful as possible. Who can forget Barack Obama somehow finding employees who were magically exempt from furlough to put up fences around open-air monuments and parks? And to enforce closure of 1,100 square miles of open ocean off the coast of Florida? The compounded applied pressure — generally combined with a greasy offering of pork — is intense enough to shake loose just enough persuadable Republicans to pass everything the Democrats want.

In fact, Republicans were savaged and rolled with this technique enough times that after a while, all the Democrats had to do was threaten to shut down the government to get enough GOP senators to capitulate. But things are different now. Democrats aren’t in power in Congress or the White House, and their media arm has finally lied itself out of relevance. On Tuesday, the Republicans in control of the U.S. House passed a continuing resolution that would keep the government running until this summer — without profligate spending increases — and passed it along to their colleagues in the Senate. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer took to the floor Wednesday, still trying to play the Democrats’ game of blaming the Republicans for his party’s obstructionism. “Funding the government should be a bipartisan effort,” droned Schumer dolorously.

But alas, those dastardly Republicans “chose a partisan path, drafting their continuing resolution without any input — any input! — from congressional Democrats. Because of that, Republicans do not have the votes in the Senate to invoke cloture on the house CR.” Republicans brought this shutdown upon themselves, you see. Meanwhile, said Schumer, the virtuous Democrats were “unified on a clean April 11 CR that will keep the government open and give Congress time to negotiate bipartisan legislation that can pass.” Finally, he expressed his fervent hope that “our Republican colleagues will join us to avoid a shutdown on Friday.” But somehow, the blame does not seem to be falling on the Republicans this time. “With Schumer saying that Democrats are not ready to proceed, the Democrats hold the cards,” explains ABC News Delaware affiliate 6ABC. “If they do not furnish the votes to clear this procedural hurdle and get on to the bill, things could be at a stand still, and a shut down could be on the horizon.”

Meanwhile, House Democrats are urging their Senate colleagues to vote no on the funding bill they almost unanimously opposed when it passed through the House on Tuesday evening. “House Democrats are very clear. We’re asking Senate Democrats to vote ‘no’ on this continuing resolution, which is not clean, and it makes cuts across the board,” said Vice Chair Ted Lieu, flanked by five other members of House leadership at a press conference at the Issues Conference at the Lansdowne Resort. Lieu’s comments came before Schumer pushed for a 30-day clean stopgap bill. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said that conversations are “continuing” with Schumer all the way down to rank-and-file Democratic members about keeping the Democratic caucus united against the bill. “The House Democratic position is crystal clear as evidenced by the strong vote of opposition that we took yesterday on the House floor opposing the Trump-Musk-Johnson reckless Republican spending bill,” Jeffries said.

Read more …

Was anything not fake?

• Old Joe’s Fake Oval Office – and Its Fake News Apologists – Exposed (Victoria Taft)

Joe Biden’s stage set is to the Oval Office what Dylan Mulvaney is to women: completely fake. We know that now, but there was a time when the media said all claims that Joe Biden was working from a virtual or fake Oval Office were considered to be “fake news.” Now, with Trump White House adviser Alina Habba personally finding the fake Oval Office set and showing it to the public in a video, people are discovering the story all over again. From January through September 2021, Joe Biden’s water carriers in the media went out of their way to “debunk” the claims that he was doing appearances from a phony Oval Office, a Hollywood-like set. Here’s a Reuters “fact check” that gives you an idea of how completely in-the-bag the White House media were for the man who ran for president from a set in his basement.

“Social media users have shared photos of President Joe Biden in the Oval Office, claiming they provide proof that the office is fake or a film set. The “evidence” includes a supposed change in wallpaper, allegedly darkened windows and claims that former President Trump is walking in the background outside the office. Reuters has examined each of these photos and found none of the claims to be true.” Reuters’ “debunking” went on to link Facebook posts that are no longer available, probably because Mark Zuckerberg’s social media platform instituted censorship on all posts that were from “right wing” sources that took a verbal shot at the man “saving democracy:”

“As so-called evidence, the post includes a series of photos [it] says show that Trump can be seen in the window behind Biden; the color of the rug has changed from Trump’s Oval Office; there is a tank outside the window; the background in the windows behind Biden does not match that of Trump’s Oval Office (here, here); the windows are darkened; the wallpaper is not the same as Trump’s Oval Office; and the post also includes photos of Oval Office movie sets”. When Politifact was at the center of the censorship industrial complex, it, too, “fact checked” the claim in its usual way; it took the claim, changed it, fact-checked the change, and pronounced the whole thing to be false. Here’s Politifact: “Since President Joe Biden was inaugurated in January 2021, false claims that his presidency is staged have proliferated online. We’ve debunked social media posts that a White House event was filmed at Tyler Perry Studios in Atlanta, and that his administration created a fake set for him to get a booster shot.”

Neither was true. Remember: the original claim was that Biden had a fake Oval Office. Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA took a victory lap when he saw the Biden Administration optics as Joe got a COVID shot on a set: Here’s another Politfact fact check from September 2021 listing a Facebook meme as false. The headline reads, “No, White House didn’t create fake set just for Joe Biden’s booster shot.” The supposed fact-checking outfit was looking into a meme featuring a photo of Joe getting a COVID shot on the Hollywood-style set that said, “[The White House] created a fake set for (President Joe) Biden to get his booster shot. The entire Biden presidency is one giant charade.” You can see what they did there. The claim was that the Oval Office with the COVID shot was fake.

Politifact conflated that claim with the poster’s opinion that the “entire Biden presidency is one giant charade” and then denounced the whole thing as false. (Later, when proven wrong, Politifact went back and changed its fact check to include a revised version of the story it got wrong in a highlighted box with an “If your time is short” prompt to keep eyes off its incorrect story). Have I ever told you about Politi”fact”, as I call it, fact-checking a claim I made on the radio and my website about bike lanes in Portland? I provided photos and everything. The Politi”fact” reporter checked my claim and pronounced me a liar. When I called her out, the fake fact checker admitted that she checked when it was dark so she couldn’t see properly to verify my claim. She never removed her fake “fact check.”

And then, in October 2021, Newsweek tried to paper over Fourth Estate’s fake news about the Hollywood set in a clean-up piece entitled, “Why the White House Built a Fake Oval Office for Joe Biden.” There, the reporter pacified, “But there is a logical explanation as to why the White House has decided to construct a set version of the Oval Office.” This is the back story that Alina Habba referred to when she sent this video from the fake Oval Office this week. The fake Oval Office production set is in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, which is part of the White House complex.

This map is from the White House tour office. Note how close the West Wing is to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.

Since it’s so close to the Oval Office (and probably accessible via tunnel or shortcut, but that’s classified), I propose liberating the rooms used by White House Correspondents in the West Wing and relocating the media to the auditorium in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, where the fake Oval Office is. Move them all, offices and press room — the whole shebang. The West Wing is crammed full as it is, so why not move the fake news to the fake Oval Office?

Read more …

“Made in China 2025” is a plan from 2015.

• Made in China 2025 – Revisited (Pepe Escobar)

Now let’s focus on China’s extremely complex domestic equation. At the opening of the Two Sessions, Premier Li Qiang came up with a rallying call for the whole nation to rise up to a series of “very challenging” goals, including growth of 5% in 2025 (it was 4.9% last year). Essentially, to revitalize the economy, Beijing will issue 1.3 trillion yuan (around US$182 billion) in ultra-long special treasury bonds. The deficit-to-GDP ratio was set at around 4%. The official policy of “opening up” will reach the internet, telecoms, healthcare and education industries – meaning more opportunities for foreign investors and possible partnerships up and down the industrial supply chain. All those moving parts of the ambitious Made in China 2025 tech project will be on overdrive: AI, smart terminals, the Internet of things, 5G, plus a new mechanism set up for “future industries” to support hi-tech domains,including biomaterials manufacturing, quantum technology, embodied intelligence and 6G.

Premier Li enthusiastically praised the role of regional growth drivers such as the Greater Bay Area – the super high-tech cluster in Guangdong province linked to Hong Kong. Predictably, he extolled the “one country, two systems” model and the further economic integration of both Hong Kong and Macau. Arguably this is the best analysis anywhere not only of why Hong Kong-based CK Hutchinson had to get rid of its port operations in the Panama Canal, but also because it offers a crisp Chinese evaluation of the “three powers” behind Trump 2.0: Wall Street, heavy industrial capital (energy, steel, mining) and Silicon Valley. CK Hutchison Holdings, founded in Hong Kong by notorious tycoon Li Ka-shing, essentially had to sell 80% of Hutchison Port Group, a subsidiary that owns 43 container ports in 23 countries, including a 90% stake in the Balboa and Cristobal docks at either end of the Panama Canal, because of hardcore geopolitics. Hutchison will continue to control its ports in China, including Hong Kong.

President Trump made a huge fuss about the BlackRock-led deal. The view in Hong Kong is more pragmatic. Hutchinson was not eager to engage in a furious court battle in US courts – not to mention potential sanctions. So they chose to opt for a “strategic exit”. Premier Li noted how consumption in China now is “sluggish” and, somewhat euphemistically, how there were “pressures on job creation and income growth”. Enter a promised “vigorous boost” to household demand, plus the creation of 12 million new urban jobs, with help focusing on fresh university graduates and migrant workers. In parallel, Beijing will expand its military budget by only 7.2% in 2025, reaching roughly 1.78 trillion yuan (US$ 245 billion). That’s not much compared to the Pentagon budget.

It’s quite enlightening to observe the proposals of the Two Sessions – and the tone-setting by Wang Yi – in relation to the analysis by a certified Asian star such as former Singaporean ambassador to the UN Kishore Mahbubani. Kishore once again resorts to Sun Tzu, explaining how Chinese rulers always privilege the best way to win as not fighting kinetic wars. What matters is to coordinate expansion – epistemologically, educationally, economically, industrially, techno-scientifically, financially, diplomatically, militarily – under the aegis of deterrence. The bottom line is that Beijing will not be trapped by any possible, bombastic provocation coming from Trump 2.0. Once again, it’s all about “coordinated expansion”.

Example. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute, partly funded by the Australian military, and frankly Sinophobic – and Russophobic – at least did something useful by developing a Critical Technology Tracker of 64 current, critical technologies. This is their latest report, from August 2024. It shows that between 2003 and 2007, the US led in 60 of 64 technologies. China led in only 3. Cue to between 2019 and 2023: the US led in only 7, whereas China led in 57 – including semiconductor chipmaking, gravitational sensors, high-performance computing, quantum sensors, and space launch technology.

All that is inextricably linked to the successful planning – and achieved targets – of Made in China 2025. Talk about two five-year plans back to back (Made in China was conceived in 2015). So this is what China 2025 will be all about: serious investments coupled with lots of partnerships with the whole Global South. Once again, in a sort of Sun Tzu framework tweaked by Bruce Lee, China is bound to use Trump 2.0 and the coming mix of confrontation, competition and periodic negotiation as a trampoline to expand its global reach even further. That might be one of the unstated meanings of what Xi Jinping told Putin in Moscow nearly two years ago: “Changes unseen in a century.” Beijing will be sure to find shelter from the storm – any storm. And without having to fight a single kinetic war.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Mother and son

Humming rain https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1899897177243312326

Puli https://twitter.com/gunsnrosesgirl3/status/1899758633291759933

https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1899746630837887170

 

 

Book of Enoch https://twitter.com/JasperUnleashed/status/1899676260550545736

 

 

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