Sep 142024
 


Vincent van Gogh Autumn landscape 1885

 

No More Debates – Trump (RT)
No More Debates, No More Mistakes (Quoth the Raven)
What You Don’t Know Might Surprise You (Kunstler)
The Trump-Kamala “Debate” Left Untouched What Is Really At Stake (PCR)
Russia Warns NATO of ‘Direct War’ Over Ukraine (RT)
Putin’s Warning Heard Loud And Clear – Kremlin (RT)
War Is Upon Us or Will Putin Blink Again (Paul Craig Roberts)
Musk Channels Star Wars Over WWIII Threat (RT)
Ukraine a Non-Sovereign State Ruled by ‘Political Frankenstein’ Zelensky (Sp.)
NATO Plans to Send Troops to Ukraine to Force Russia Into Talks – Moscow (Sp.)
‘Negotiation’ Only Way To End Ukraine, Gaza Conflicts – Beijing (RT)
The Big Collapse Awaits (Paul Craig Roberts)
Brazil Seizes Musk’s Money (RT)
The Folly of Criminalizing “Hate” (Njoya)

 

 

 

 

He wants them all to see
https://twitter.com/i/status/1834372286184570982

 

 

Hat

 

 

Overtime

 

 

Bongino
https://twitter.com/i/status/1834350085909741738

 

 

Blumenthal
https://twitter.com/i/status/1834436362046472646

 

 

Jesse

 

 

Girdusky

 

 

 

 

She/they sort of seemed to have a lead there for a fleeting second, but handed the baton right back to him. Now it’s his call, not theirs.

NOTE: They should have a debate on X.

No More Debates – Trump (RT)

Former US President Donald Trump has ruled out another debate with Kamala Harris, comparing the vice president to a boxer who lost a fight and wants a rematch. Harris, who rejected two earlier debate offers from Trump, said the two candidates “owe it to the voters” to face off again. Harris was widely regarded as winning Tuesday night’s ABC News debate against Trump, although subsequent polls have shown little change in voter attitudes and several informal surveys found undecided voters backing Trump after the primetime showdown. The vice president’s campaign immediately called for a second debate, and Trump appeared open to the idea, telling Fox News on Wednesday that he would take part, but only if the debate was hosted by “a fair network.” In a post to his Truth Social platform on Thursday, however, the Republican announced that he wouldn’t debate his Democratic rival again.

“When a prizefighter loses a fight, the first words out of his mouth are, ‘I WANT A REMATCH’,” Trump wrote.“Polls clearly show that I won the debate against Comrade Kamala Harris, the Democrats’ radical left candidate, on Tuesday night, and she immediately called for a second debate.” “She was a no-show at the Fox Debate, and refused to do NBC and CBS,” Trump continued, concluding: “KAMALA SHOULD FOCUS ON WHAT SHE SHOULD HAVE DONE DURING THE LAST ALMOST FOUR YEAR PERIOD. “We owe it to the voters to have another debate,” Harris’ campaign wrote on X on Thursday. Trump initially asked Harris to agree to three debates: one hosted by Fox News on September 4, another hosted by ABC on September 10, and a third hosted by NBC News on an unconfirmed date.

Harris’ campaign only agreed to the ABC debate, although Trump wavered about committing to this showdown, accusing the network of “ridiculous and biased” coverage of him. Throughout the debate, Trump was repeatedly interrupted and fact-checked by ABC hosts David Muir and Linsey Davis, the latter of whom was a member of Harris’ sorority in Howard University in Washington. Harris was not subjected to the same fact-checking, despite both candidates making misleading claims. “So many things I said were debunked, like totally debunked,” Trump told Fox News on Wednesday. “But she could say anything she wanted. My stuff was right, but they would correct you,” he continued, calling the debate “totally rigged.”

Fact check

Read more …

“..news networks don’t deserve the ratings of another debate or the trust of the American people..”

No More Debates, No More Mistakes (Quoth the Raven)

Strategically, I think the Trump campaign is making the right decision by saying there will not be a third debate. It could be strategy to get terms he wants for another debate, but I’m hoping it is what it appears to be on its face, closing the book on further debates. Trump didn’t “win” the first debate, but I don’t think that’s why he’s not agreeing to another debate. And I know a lot of people are going to write this off as Trump being scared to debate Kamala Harris again, but I think we all know that’s not the case. I believe this is the right move, likely being made for multiple strategic reasons which I want to explain. First, let’s not forget that Kamala Harris has had ample opportunity to agree to another debate already but has chosen not to do so. She declined offers from networks like NBC and Fox in advance of the first debate and only brought up the idea of another debate after the last one. Her lack of courage and indecision in not agreeing to another debate should rightfully come back to bite her in the ass. Harris wants another bite at the apple because she didn’t do as badly as everybody thought she would, and now she can’t have it because she didn’t believe in herself enough to agree to terms ahead of time. Tough rocks for her.

Second, not doing a debate pigeonholes Harris to the poor policy explanations and reasoning she put forth in the last debate. The entire world watched both candidates this week, and though Harris may have performed better artistically, she came up light on policy prescriptions and details on her plans are for crucial issues like the economy and immigration. This was reflected in several post-debate interviews, including ones from Reuters and CNN, where independent voters were not swayed to her side. She was given a chance to talk policy and thought it would be far more useful to take jabs at Donald Trump instead. As I noted the night of the debate, this may have been a short-term success, but as the hours turn to days after the last debate and independent-minded critical thinkers start looking for more substance, it’s going to backfire.

Third, Harris’s team was asking for provisions and rule changes up to the very last minute of the debate. Putting aside the fact that Trump already did another debate with an entirely different candidate before knocking him out of the race after agreeing to the rules set by the Democratic Party, Harris tried to change the rules of the ABC debate all the way up until the last minute, asking for mics to be live on the day of. As I’ve commented before, Democrats are obsessed with micromanaging every last detail of these debates and their candidate because they lack significant substance on policy. Harris’ appearance was more of a successful public relations event than it was an opportunity to explain her policy positions to the American people. Trump, so far, has done two debates on enemy territory, CNN and ABC, and has not been shy about taking interviews or holding press conferences throughout his entire campaign. Putting policy aside in favor of nitpicky tactics of trying to modify every last detail so the opposing airhead candidate has her best chance to deliver some type of catchphrase or polish on her flip flops is simply not something Republicans need to put up with again.

Fourth, the next debate will be the vice presidential debate, and JD Vance is far more articulate in explaining policy positions than Donald Trump is. If policy is going to rule the day, I’m certain Vance will out-joust Tim Walz. I’m basing this on watching both of their media appearances over the last month or so and common-sense policy prescriptions that I think most Americans in the middle are looking for. Not having another presidential debate shows the Republicans’ confidence in JD Vance, and frankly, I think he’s going to do a significantly better job than Trump did. It’ll make the vice presidential debate the official sendoff for both sides heading into the general election. Tim Walz can brush up on how best to spin his way through sounding like his administration actually has policy ideas, but I’m not sure there’s anything he can do to keep pace with Vance in a debate.

Finally, news networks don’t deserve the ratings of another debate or the trust of the American people, whether Democrats know it or not. The previous debate was so blindingly biased towards Harris, both in the lines of questioning and in how the moderators interjected on her behalf, that network news in general doesn’t deserve to be trusted with another debate. Megyn Kelly said it best in her post-debate analysis when she stated that Republicans should never agree to another debate after what took place this week. As I’ve noted, I think the American public will see the objective truth that this was an ambush on Donald Trump and not an objective forum for two candidates to debate each other on the merits.

Read more …

“Prepare to duck-and-cover, or possibly to put your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye.”

What You Don’t Know Might Surprise You (Kunstler)

Now, as for the Harris-Trump debate, otherwise, and given the rigged features of the exercise, it’s obvious that Mr. Trump muffed several major scoring opportunities. When Ms. Harris dredged up the notorious hoax about “very fine people on both sides” in Charlottesville, Mr. Trump could have addressed the moderators, David Muir and Linsey Davis and asked them why they did not “fact-check” the utterance, which had been thoroughly debunked by the Left-wing site Snopes.com, advertising itself as “the definitive Internet reference source for researching urban legends, folklore, myths, rumors, and misinformation.” Nor did they fact check the likewise debunked “suckers and losers” hoax about US soldiers supposedly uttered by Mr. Trump at the Normandy D-Day cemetery. Actually, Muir and Davis “fact-checked” Mr. Trump over thirty times and Ms. Harris hardly at all.

In any case, Mr. Trump blew many other chances to pin Ms. Harris with her own lies and hypocrisies — like, failing to state plainly that in nearly four years she never actually visited the Mexican border (whatever her designated title was: “Border Czar,” “Root Causes Detective”) . . . failing to clarify that the president has been removed from the abortion debate altogether and has no role in telling women what to do with their own bodies under current law. . . that Ms. Harris’s voteless selection as nominee was a paradigmatic affront to “our democracy” that even her own fellow party members ought to recognize . . . that the War in Ukraine was actually started in early 2014 by Barack Obama, Victoria Nuland, and the CIA, not by Mr. Putin . . . and omitting to state that all — every last one — of the 2020 election lawsuits across the nation were dismissed on procedural grounds and not on the merits of their arguments, which were never heard in court.

That’s just a short list. It is also rumored that Ms. Harris got the debate questions beforehand, since her husband, Hollywood lawyer Doug Emhoff, is a close friend of Dana Walden, Co-chair of the Disney Corporation board of directors (Disney owns ABC-News.) Anyway, that much-awaited event is over now and we are into the homestretch of this election. Kamala Harris has still shown no disposition to meet the press, to answer any questions impromptu and unscripted. The voting public seems to be losing patience with that. Her poll numbers are sinking, despite her admirable ability to speak in declarative sentences and lead joyful laugh-fests.

What remains for our sore-beset country beyond that vortex of nefarious blobbery and balloting lawfare is the interesting development that our government is now pressing to commence World War Three before the election can happen. “Joe Biden,” of course, is lately as absent from the public consciousness as Rutherford B. Hayes, but whoever acts in the president’s name these days just gave permission for Ukraine to strike targets inside Russia with long-range missiles. So far, the UK and the Netherlands have officially jumped in on that decision. Note that the Ukrainians have no ability to actually do the targeting of said missile themselves, which involves satellite technology, meaning whatever missiles happen to get fired into Russia will be done by NATO personnel. Mr. Putin has made it clear that such action will have consequences. We might infer that means Russia will strike back at some NATO targets. I must imagine his primary target will be NATO headquarters in Brussels. Other targets would probably follow, perhaps even in the USA. Prepare to duck-and-cover, or possibly to put your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye.

Read more …

“It is about who controls the US government–the people or the ruling elites.”

The Trump-Kamala “Debate” Left Untouched What Is Really At Stake (PCR)

What we need to understand about American presidential elections is that normally the candidates of both parties are chosen by the ruling elites. Therefore, it matters not to them who is elected. Trump is hated by the ruling elites because he took the nomination away from their list of approved Republican candidates in 2016, and they have been trying to get rid of him ever since. Trump is dangerous to the ruling establishment because he says he stands with the people against them. In other words, this is not an election contest between Republicans and Democrats. It is about who controls the US government–the people or the ruling elites.

I can say with complete confidence that for many decades the universities and law schools have undermined Americans’ beliefs in the US Constitution and in the belief system that is the basis of the United States. This undermining has had an effect on the American population. Democrat members of the population are convinced that white Americans, especially if they are southerners, are racists who have oppressed black Americans. They are also convinced that men oppress women. They are also convinced that the concept of sexual perversion is bigotry. The Democrats project all these alleged faults of white people not on their own white selves but onto Republican voters–“Trump deplorables” in Hillary Clinton’s words. So, Trump has two targets on his back. The ideological one of being a white male who oppresses blacks and women and the upstart who challenges the rule of the military/security complex, Wall Street, Big Pharma, and the other interest groups including the Israel Lobby whose money elects the members of the House and Senate.

Very few, including Trump, dare to admit the Israel Lobby’s control of the US government. That control is manifest in Netanyahu, a war criminal with a policy of genocide, being invited to address the House and Senate and being received with 53 standing ovations. The members of the House and Senate understand that they are in office due to the campaign contributions of their donors. Therefore, they are responsive to the donors whose money elects them, not to the people who vote. They understand that if they take issue with official narratives, they will lost office. As Kamala has not challenged the ruling establishment and as she is female and part black, she is immune to the ideological denunciation. Trump is at the disadvantage, because accused of being a racist and a misogynist, he proves the point when he attacks Kamala, who is free to sit there and gaslight the American public.

CNN’s “instant poll” following the Trump-Kamala “debate” assigns victory to Kamala by a 63% to 37% margin. In actual fact, there is no debate. There is a carefully constructed list of questions prepared by a partisan media that representatives of the presstitute media ask the candidates. The questions are artfully constructed to aid the preferred candidate. Sometimes the questioners even jump in and aid the favored candidate in “correcting” the unfavored candidate. It is likely that the favored candidate is provided with the questions in advance. The entire purpose of the “debate” is to aid the theft by boosting the image of the preferred candidate. The reason RINO Republicans such as Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell are opposed to Trump is that they prefer a candidate that is as acceptable to the ruling elites as the Democrat candidate. Be sure to understand that what you are seeing in the Trump-Kamala contest is the ruling elite’s determination to have its candidate in office, not the people’s candidate.

Of course, many American voters are too insouciant to understand the process and the stakes, and enough of them vote for the candidate of the ruling elite to keep the ruling elite in power and the people out of power. This is what Trump is up against. Possibly, Trump has gained more realization than voters of how elections are rigged whether or not votes are stolen. What is at stake is not a political party’s platform. What is at stake is who rules–the people or the elites. The answer is seldom the people. Even when the elite’s candidate loses, they continue to rule by filling up the winning candidate’s administration with their people, as they did Trump, and they continue to control majorities in the House and Senate, irrespective of party. Trump is not perfect. My view is that if the people do not support him, never again will a candidate of either party dare speak for the people. If Trump is again denied office, what has been done to Trump for the last eight years will be a lesson for all future political candidates: Get on the wrong side of the elite, and you will be crucified–and the people will not come to your aid.

Read more …

“If such a decision is made, that means NATO countries are starting an open war against Russia..”

Russia Warns NATO of ‘Direct War’ Over Ukraine (RT)

Granting Kiev permission to use Western-supplied weapons would constitute direct involvement in the Ukraine conflict by NATO, Russia’s envoy to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia, has said. Moscow will treat any such attack as coming from the US and its allies directly, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday, explaining that long-range weapons rely on Western intelligence and targeting solutions, neither of which Ukraine is capable of. NATO countries would “start an open war” with Russia if they allow Ukraine to use long-range weapons, Nebenzia told the UN Security Council on Friday.

“If such a decision is made, that means NATO countries are starting an open war against Russia,” Moscow’s envoy said. “In that case, we will obviously be forced to make certain decisions, with all the attendant consequences for Western aggressors.” “Our Western colleagues will not be able to dodge responsibility and blame Kiev for everything,” Nebenzia added. “Only NATO troops can program the flight solutions for those missile systems. Ukraine doesn’t have that capability. This is not about allowing Kiev to strike Russia with long-range weapons, but about the West making the targeting decisions.”

Russia considers it irrelevant that Ukrainian nationalists would technically be the ones pulling the trigger, Nebenzia explained. “NATO would become directly involved in military action against a nuclear power. I don’t think I have to explain what consequences that would have,” he said. The US and its allies placed some restrictions on the use of their weapons, so they could claim not to be directly involved in the conflict with Russia, while arming Ukraine to the tune of $200 billion. Multiple Western outlets have reported that the limitations might be lifted this week, as US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and British Foreign Secretary David Lammy visited Kiev. Russia has repeatedly warned the West against such a course of action.

Read more …

“..if the West allows Kiev to hit targets deep inside Russia, “this will mean that NATO countries, the US, European countries are fighting against Russia..”

Putin’s Warning Heard Loud And Clear – Kremlin (RT)

The West has received and understood the latest warning by Russian President Vladimir Putin, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said on Friday. Putin stated earlier that allowing Ukraine to use Western-supplied weapons to hit targets deep inside Russia would make these countries directly involved in the conflict. The UK was the first country to announce the shipment of its own long-range missiles to Ukraine in May 2023, followed by France several months later. Washington revealed that it had supplied Kiev with ATACMS missiles this spring. However, Kiev’s backers have publicly prohibited Ukraine from using the weapons against targets located deep inside internationally recognized Russian territory. Kiev has been demanding that these limitations be lifted since at least May. Several media outlets have suggested that Washington and London will soon do so, or secretly have already.

Speaking to reporters on Friday, Peskov described Putin’s latest warning as “very important.” The Russian president’s statement was “clear, unequivocal, and doesn’t lend itself to multiple interpretations,” the spokesman said. He added that “we have no doubt that this statement has reached its recipients.” On Thursday, Putin explained that the Ukrainian military lacks the capabilities to use Western long-range systems and requires intelligence from NATO satellites and Western military personnel to operate them. In light of this, if the West allows Kiev to hit targets deep inside Russia, “this will mean that NATO countries, the US, European countries are fighting against Russia,” he said.

“Their direct participation [in the Ukraine conflict], of course, significantly changes the very essence, the very nature” of the hostilities, the president stressed. Putin added that Russia will “make the appropriate decisions based on the threats facing us.” Ahead of their visit to Kiev earlier this week, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy hinted that their countries could give Ukraine the green light for long-range strikes on Russian territory with British and American missiles.

Putin

Read more …

“The insane recklessness of Collective Biden..”

https://gilbertdoctorow.substack.com/p/the-insane-recklessness-of-collective

War Is Upon Us or Will Putin Blink Again (Paul Craig Roberts)

Gilbert Doctorow, a cautious commentator, has arrived at a position similar to my own. On September 10, Doctorow wrote in his article, “The insane recklessness of Collective Biden,” that “I cannot say how close we are to midnight on the nuclear war watch. But a Third World War fought at least initially with conventional weapons is now just days, at most weeks away.” What has pushed the cautious Dr. Doctorow to my position “is the near certainty that the United States and Britain have just agreed to give the Zelensky regime permission to use the long-range missiles which have been delivered to Ukraine, certainly including Storm Shadow and likely also the 1500 km range stealth missile known as JASSM to strike deep into the Russian heartland, and so ‘to bring the war to Russia’ as the Zelensky gang put it.” Doctorow reasons that Russia’s destruction of Ukraine’s army has prompted the neoconned Biden regime into one last desperate and reckless act of trying to deprive Russia of its victory “by escalating the conflict to a world war.”

Simultaneously with this US idiocy of underwriting missile attacks deep into Russia, Doctorow believes that “the United States has given Israel the go-ahead to launch a full-blown war on Lebanon.” This despite the fact that Lebanon has Iran’s protection, and Iran has Russia’s protection. So, we have at hand two prospects for the outbreak of major wars that will go nuclear. Extraordinary, isn’t it, that there is no discussion whatsoever of this duel crisis in the Western media or in the “debate” between Trump and Kamala. It is as if the US has no foreign policy experts and no Russian experts, but only supporters of the official narrative. The controlled narrative world in which we live makes us blind to reality. Indeed, it does seem that we do live in The Matrix in which there are no explanations other than the fraudulent ones protected by “fact checkers” in the official narratives.

Doctorow concludes that “a presently localized conflict in the Middle East can in a flash become a regional war that in a further flash becomes a second front to the war between the United States and Russia which I foretold above when speaking about Ukraine.” Doctorow is a person with whom I can agree. But I have a doubt. Just as for eight years Putin was lost in his delusion about the Minsk Agreement and failed to prepare for the coming conflict, and just as Putin seems yet to realize that he is at war with NATO, not conducting a “limited military operation in Donbas,” and just as Putin has refused to realize that by conducting a never-ending war he has permitted the West to become totally involved, thus changing the character of the conflict and vastly expanding it, can it be that Putin is still in denial of reality and does not see the war that is unfolding, partly because of his own inaction?

With the Russian media itself reporting that the Chinese are cooperating with Washington’s sanctions against Russia and refusing to handle Russian/Chinese financial transactions, thus accepting Washington’s wedge into the purported Chinese-Russian alliance, perhaps Washington will prevail over those who challenged the American hegemonic order but were unwilling to move forward with their challenge. Putin’s problem is that he is a mid-20th century American liberal who believes in good will. His Western opponent is operating on the Marxist principle that violence is the only effective force in history.

Read more …

“..X account Wall Street Silver, which warned that the US is “expected to launch WW3 this weekend and authorize attacks deep in Russian territory.”

Musk Channels Star Wars Over WWIII Threat (RT)

US entrepreneur Elon Musk has reacted with foreboding to President Vladimir Putin’s warning to NATO about the consequences of potential long-range strikes against Russia with weapons provided by the US-led military bloc. Putin said on Thursday that Ukraine would depend on satellite intelligence and programming by NATO specialists to enable long-range strikes deep into Russia. Any such attacks “will mean that NATO nations, the US and European countries, are at war with Russia,” he stated. Musk shared a video of Putin’s remarks posted by the popular X account Wall Street Silver, which warned that the US is “expected to launch WW3 this weekend and authorize attacks deep in Russian territory.”

“I have a bad feeling about this,” the billionaire commented, using a catchphrase popularized by the Star Wars character Han Solo upon seeing the Death Star space station. Ukraine has been asking for the capability to strike targets deep inside Russia with Western weapons for months, claiming that the lack of permission to do so has undermined its positions on the front line. UK Prime Minister Kier Starmer is meeting with US President Joe Biden in Washington on Friday, where they will discuss relaxing restrictions on Ukraine’s use of long-range Western weapons.

The meeting comes after US Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited Kiev with his British counterpart, David Lammy. Both NATO members have provided long-range weapons to Ukraine, which have been used against targets inside territories that Kiev claims, but not inside internationally-recognized Russian territory. The original post with Putin’s remarks attribute personal responsibility for a possible outbreak of a world war to Biden and US Vice President Kamala Harris, who is also the Democratic Party’s nominee in the upcoming presidential election. Musk is a supporter of Republican candidate Donald Trump. The former president has accused his opponents of putting the world at risk of a nuclear war during his campaign.

Read more …

The opposition. What’s left of it.

Ukraine a Non-Sovereign State Ruled by ‘Political Frankenstein’ Zelensky (Sp.)

Chairman of the Council of the Other Ukraine movement Viktor Medvedchuk gave an interview to EADaily on September 12 about the causes of the Ukrainian crisis, Russia’s mission and the destructive influence of the collective West. “For a long time an independent Ukraine has not been existing politically, economically, or legally,” Ukrainian opposition politician and Chairman of the Council of the Other Ukraine movement Viktor Medvedchuk told EA Daily. “The country is ruled by an illegitimate president who has usurped power, becoming a dictator.” The Western-backed Euromaidan coup d’etat of 2014 dealt a heavy blow to Ukrainian sovereignty and legitimate power. For 30 years the West has fuelled anti-Russian sentiment, distorted history and facilitated the rise of Nazism in Ukraine.

The Minsk agreements of 2015 corresponded to EU interests, but the UK and US, who sought to start a war, deliberately disrupted the settlement process. Washington’s plan was “to destabilize the situation on Russia’s borders, and then inside Russia. The first step succeeded, the second did not. The US managed to break Ukraine and Europe, but not Russia.” In 2020 Ukraine got a chance to nullify the adverse consequences of the 2014 regime change through democratic means. “Our party ‘Opposition Platform – For Life’ won local elections in 2020, after we were ranked second in the 2019 parliamentary elections, and began to lead in polls across the country,” Medvedchuk said.

But in February 2021 the Zelensky regime illegally blocked broadcasting of opposition channels, slapped sanctions on Medvedchuk and his wife, groundlessly accused him of treason and arrested him in May 2021. Other Ukrainian opposition politicians were also subjected to persecution. The special military operation in Ukraine would not have begun if Zelensky had abandoned the idea of joining NATO.The situation in Ukraine and in the world will improve after the West stops pouring billions into propping up Zelensky, who is a “political Frankenstein”.

Read more …

They mean talks on Zelensky’s “peace plan.” Not going to happen.

But you just wait till the first German and French troops come home in body bags. That’ll change the mood at home.

NATO Plans to Send Troops to Ukraine to Force Russia Into Talks – Moscow (Sp.)

NATO countries are making plans to send their troops to Ukraine in order to ensure conditions to force Russia to hold talks in line with Kiev’s formulas, Russian Deputy Defense Minister Alexander Fomin said at the opening of the 11th Xiangshan Security Forum in Beijing. “In order to ensure conditions for forcibly coercing Russia into negotiations in line with Kiev’s formulas, NATO countries are making plans to send their troops to Ukraine. This is a dangerous game that could lead to a direct military clash between nuclear powers,” Fomin said.

Russian weapons have proven their effectiveness in combat conditions, Alexander Fomin said. “Russian weapons have fully proven their effectiveness in combat conditions, while Western weapons systems, which allegedly have high tactical and technical characteristics… burn perfectly on the battlefield with no chance of recovery,” Fomin said. The United States is actively working on a new version of its nuclear doctrine, in which the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons can be significantly lowered, Fomin said.

Read more …

“..nations should “never interfere in other countries’ internal affairs, never violate other countries’ rights and interests.”

‘Negotiation’ Only Way To End Ukraine, Gaza Conflicts – Beijing (RT)

Negotiating is the only solution to the Ukraine and Gaza conflicts, Chinese Defense Minister Dong Jun said at the opening ceremony of the Beijing Xiangshan Forum on defense and security. The annual event is hosting around 20 defense ministers and 700 delegates from around 100 countries this year, including representatives from Moscow and Kiev. The senior official called on world powers to promote peace through facilitating political settlements of conflicts. “To resolve hotspot issues such as the crisis in Ukraine and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, promoting peace and negotiation is the only way out. There is no winner in war and conflict, and confrontation leads nowhere,” Dong said, calling on all countries to promote “peaceful development and inclusive governance.”

The more acute the conflict, the more we cannot give up dialogue and consultation. The end of any conflict is reconciliation. According to Dong, in order to solve regional tensions, neighboring countries should “seek strength through unity,” and on the global scale, nations should “never interfere in other countries’ internal affairs, never violate other countries’ rights and interests.” “Major countries must take the lead in safeguarding global security, abandon a zero-sum mindset, and refrain from bullying the small and the weak,” he stated. China has repeatedly said that the conflict between Russia and Ukraine must be resolved through negotiations.

This May, along with BRICS partner Brazil, it presented a six-point proposal on a diplomatic settlement to the crisis. The plan highlighted diplomacy as the sole means to bring about peace and advocated for an international summit that both Russia and Ukraine would attend. A previous conference in Switzerland this summer was held without Russia and focused solely on Kiev’s demands, which Moscow has outright rejected. Russia, which has often expressed eagerness to resolve the Ukraine conflict diplomatically, had previously signaled that it would welcome the Chinese-Brazilian plan as a foundation for a potential peace settlement. Kiev, however, refused to consider the initiative. Speaking to Metropoles news outlet earlier this week, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky called the proposal “destructive,” and accused Beijing and Brasilia of “colluding” with Russia.

Read more …

“..the Federal Reserve, where there has never been any intelligence. Today there is no sign of intelligence anywhere in the US government..”

The Big Collapse Awaits (Paul Craig Roberts)

In the 1970s when I served in the congressional staff and in the 1980s when I served in the executive branch, there was still some intelligence in the US government, with the exception of the Federal Reserve, where there has never been any intelligence. Today there is no sign of intelligence anywhere in the US government. That fact is documented every day on my website. As I recently reported, about 900,000 new jobs that had been claimed over the preceding year have just disappeared in a revision. A further downward revision could follow. These non-existent jobs were the Federal Reserve’s evidence for a hot inflation-prone economy justifying high interest rates. All the time the Fed was preaching inflation, the Fed was contracting the money supply, a contraction that has been underway for 2.5 years. This in itself is proof that the “inflation” was really higher prices caused by the shortages the senseless Covid lockdowns caused.

In other words, the higher prices were due to mandated shortages, not to inflation. A central bank too stupid to recognize this is too stupid to justify its existence. Whenever the Fed contracts the money supply recession follows. If the contraction is too large and lasts too long, as it was following the 1929 stock market crash, the result is a decade of depression and high unemployment. A contraction in the money supply means that the same level of economic activity and employment cannot be maintained at the same level of prices. Either economic activity and employment fall or prices fall. Historically, it has been economic activity and employment that fall first, and prices follow. Generally, that means profits fall. Now that it has dawned on the dummies at the Fed that they have set a recession in place, the talk is interest rate reductions. Wall Street is salivating over a possible half of one percent beginning.

For Wall Street, a reduction in interest rates means an increase in money, and it is liquidity increases that drive stock prices higher. What usually happens is that stock prices rise in expectation of the Fed loosening, but by the time the Fed loosens the economy is in a recession. So stock prices rise while profits fall, with the market banking on recovery to bring profits up to the level implied by the stock prices that have jumped the gun. Things, however, can go wrong. Expectations of lower interest rates is a signal to start up home building. But if a recession is in place, who is going to be purchasing homes? If the builders’ loans are due before the houses sell, the builder goes bust. In today’s immigrant-invader overrun America, there is a new consideration. According to even presstitute media reports, in blue cities immigrant invader gangs are seizing homes and apartment buildings, and soon, if not already, newly constructed homes.

If you are sufficiently stupid to live in a blue city, you can go to the grocery store and return to find your home occupied by immigrant-invaders. The police will not remove them. If you are stupid enough to live in a blue city, what this means is that you cannot risk going shopping, or to a medical appointment, or to pick up your kids from the school that indoctrinates them unless you hire a security service to occupy your home in your absence. You cannot possibly risk your home by going on a vacation. Builders will have to provide armed security for nearly finished homes, apartments, or any type of structure. No, I am not delusional. This is what is already happening. Keep in mind also my reports on The Great Dispossession. Federal regulators have taken away your ownership of your investments and bank account and given them, in the event that your depository institution enters financial difficulties, to the creditors of your depository institution.

This is what is meant by a “bail-in.” If you thought you didn’t need to read my articles, you made a mistake. Use the search feature and find them. To be clear, we already own nothing if there is another financial difficulty. Given the Federal Reserve’s record, such a difficulty is certain. Will it be this time, or the next time, or the one after?

Read more …

Theft.

“..He also froze Starlink’s assets, calling it part of a “de facto economic group” with X..”

Brazil Seizes Musk’s Money (RT)

The Brazilian Supreme Court has unblocked the bank accounts of X and Starlink, only to withdraw $3.3 million from them in order to enforce a fine levied against Elon Musk’s social media platform. Judge Alexandre de Moraes banned X’s operations in Brazil at the end of August. He also froze Starlink’s assets, calling it part of a “de facto economic group” with X. “With the full payment of the amount due, [de Moraes] considered that there was no longer any need to keep the bank accounts blocked and ordered the immediate unblocking of the bank accounts/financial assets, motor vehicles and real estate of the aforementioned companies,” the court said in a statement on Friday. According to the court, a total of 18.35 million Brazilian reals (around $3.3 million) was withdrawn from both accounts, of which 11 million was from Starlink and the rest from X.

The companies were fined “for not removing content after an order from the [court] in ongoing investigations, in addition to having removed its legal representatives from Brazil,” the court said. Musk has not yet commented on the seizure of the funds. Earlier this month, he said the blocking of Starlink’s accounts was “absolutely illegal” since it was a separate company with different shareholders. The tech magnate also threatened to go after Brazilian state assets in retaliation. “Unless the Brazilian government returns the illegally seized property of X and SpaceX, we will seek reciprocal seizure of government assets too,” Musk wrote at the time. “Hope Lula enjoys flying commercial,” he added, referring to Brazilian President Luis Ignacio Lula da Silva. De Moraes has also threatened a fine of 50,000 Brazilian reals ($8,874) per day against anyone who used a virtual private network (VPN) to access X.

There have been no reports of the fine being enforced, however, and multiple prominent Brazilians – including several political parties – have continued posting on the platform. The dispute between the US entrepreneur and Brazilian authorities began in April, when de Moraes ordered X to delete the accounts of several supporters of former President Jair Bolsonaro, accusing them of spreading “disinformation” about himself and the court. Musk refused, saying this would violate Brazilian laws. X’s Global Government Affairs team has said that de Moraes had threatened their Brazilian legal representative with imprisonment and froze all of her bank accounts even after she resigned. The judge then cited lack of counsel as the reason for the fine and the ban on the platform’s operations. “Unlike other social media and technology platforms, we will not comply in secret with illegal orders,” X said in a statement at the time.

Read more …

“..the only goal of these types of “hate” laws is to create a special category of crime based entirely on the identity of the victim. Identity politics is now part of criminal law…”

The Folly of Criminalizing “Hate” (Njoya)

Many people were shocked when over 1,000 protesters were arrested in the UK and jailed for various offenses including “violent disorder” and stirring up racial hatred. Most shocking were the cases of those arrested for posting social media comments on the riots, despite not being present at the scene and there being no evidence that anybody who joined in the riots had read any of their comments.

In societies which uphold the value of individual liberty, the only purpose of the criminal law should be to restrain and punish those who commit acts of aggression against other people or their property. The criminal law should not be used to prevent people from “hating” others or to force them to “love” each other. In announcing yet another raft of laws “to expand the list of charges eligible to be prosecuted as hate crimes,” New York Governor Kathy Hochul said that “During these challenging times, we will continue to show up for each other. We are making it clear: love will always have the last word in New York.” To that end, she introduced “legislation to significantly expand eligibility for hate crime prosecution.”

Attempts to promote love between different racial or religious groups in society, for example, by charging people with stirring up “hate” when they protest against immigration, misunderstands the role of the criminal law. Threats to public order entail violating the person or property of others—as happens in a violent riot—not merely the exhibition of “hate” towards others. Yet increasingly, public order offenses are linked to hate speech or hate crimes.

Laws prohibiting hate speech and hate crimes typically define “hate” as hostility based on race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion. Often, hostility is understood simply as words that offend others. For example, in the UK, the Communications Act 2003 prohibits sending “a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.” The Online Safety Act 2023 targets illegal content online including both “inciting violence” and the publication of “racially or religiously aggravated public order offenses.” Conduct online includes writing posts or publishing blogs or articles on websites.

Given that inciting violence is already a crime—“conduct, words, or other means that urge or naturally lead others to riot, violence, or insurrection”—there seems to be no discernible purpose in adding the concept of “hate” to such crimes. To give an example, writing “burn down the store” on social media might be seen as inciting violence, but writing “burn down the Muslim store” in the same circumstances would be categorized as a hate crime. Arson (actually burning down the store) is a crime, but based on the racial or religious identity of the store owner arson is deemed to be a “worse” crime—a hate crime—even though the harm in both cases and the loss suffered by store owners who are victims of arson does not vary based purely on their race or religion.

Therefore, no “hateful conduct” laws are needed to further “criminalize” what is already a crime. The conclusion is inescapable that the only goal of these types of “hate” laws is to create a special category of crime based entirely on the identity of the victim. Identity politics is now part of criminal law. “Hate” based on race or religion is now a priority in criminal law enforcement with resources increasingly diverted towards it. For example, New York has devoted a budget of $60 million to “fight hate.”

Events in the UK over the past week chillingly illustrate the consequences of an identity-based approach to law enforcement. In the ongoing police purge of rioters, those who wrote “hate speech” posts on social media platforms were charged with “inciting racial hatred” and sentenced to prison terms of up to two to three years. Far from fighting against “hate,” this is likely only to further fuel resentment and racial antagonism.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

RFK Gates

 

 

RFK portal

 

 

Top gear

 

 

Hug
https://twitter.com/i/status/1834471936270762494

 

 

Friday
https://twitter.com/i/status/1834466374594241022

 

 

Cub and pup

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Sep 122024
 
 September 12, 2024  Posted by at 8:43 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,  47 Responses »


M. C. Escher Meeting (Encounter) 1940

 

Debate ‘Was Rigged’ – Trump (RT)
The Debate Will Backfire Horribly For Both Kamala Harris And ABC (QTR)
CNN Poll: More Than 60% Think Harris Beat Trump in Debate (Sp.)
Harris Won – Biden (RT)
Harris and Trump Debating on Titanic – Zakharova (RT)
Trump-Harris ‘Kabuki Theater’ Debate Crystalized Candidates’ Position (Sp.)
We’ll Never Reach Mars If Kamala Wins – Musk (RT)
Biden Leading US To ‘Nuclear Immolation’ – RFK Jr. (RT)
Biden Mulls Stepping on Ukraine Long-Range Missile Tripwire (Sp.)
Ukraine Races To Peace Talks With No Driver, No Breaks And a Dead Satnav (Jay)
Ukraine Will Join NATO – Blinken (RT)
Enemies Must Be Sure Russia Is Ready To Use Nuclear Weapons – Karaganov (RT)
The 23rd Anniversary of September 11, 2001 (Paul Craig Roberts)
Durov’s Case Is ‘Exemplary’ – Paris Prosecutor (RT)
Elon Musk ‘Proposes’ To Taylor Swift (RT)

 

 

 

 

Megyn Kelly

 

 

RFK debate
https://twitter.com/i/status/1833707252751995181

 

 

WWIII

 

 

Hoaxes

 

 

Taliban

 

 

Pets

 

 

Greenwald

 

 

Willie Brown

 

 

 

 

He walked into a trap -not smart- and got out somewhat OK. Turn the page and move on.

Debate ‘Was Rigged’ – Trump (RT)

Former US President Donald Trump has criticized the “dishonest” moderation of his debate with Vice President Kamala Harris by ABC News, saying he would only consider a rematch if it were hosted by “a fair network.” Speaking to Fox’s Sean Hannity immediately after Tuesday night’s debate, Trump claimed that he emerged from the encounter as the victor. Informed by Hannity that Harris reportedly wants a second debate, Trump seemed dismissive of the idea. “She wants it because she lost,” Trump told Hannity. “You know what happens when you’re a prizefighter and you lose, you immediately want a new fight… maybe if it was on a fair network I would do that.”

Harris is widely considered to have won the debate, with Trump struggling to fend off attacks from the vice president, as well as moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis. According to a flash poll conducted by CNN on Tuesday night, 63% of viewers felt that Harris had outperformed Trump. Speaking to Fox News on Wednesday morning, Trump slammed the debate as “totally rigged,” and called ABC the “most dishonest news organization.” “So many things I said were debunked, like totally debunked,” he told Fox. “But she could say anything she wanted. My stuff was right, but they would correct you.”

Trump was repeatedly interrupted and fact-checked by Muir and Davis throughout the debate, for instance when he claimed that Haitian migrants are “eating the pets” of people in Ohio. While multiple locals have testified that pet cats and wild birds are being eaten by the migrants, local police say they have received no reports of such incidents. Harris was not fact-checked when she repeatedly tied Trump to ‘Project 2025’, a conservative manifesto explicitly disavowed by the former president. Nor was she corrected when she claimed that Trump once referred to neo-Nazis as “fine people.” In reality, Trump said there were “very fine people on both sides” of a right-wing rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017, but that he was “not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally.”

“I’d be less inclined to [debate again] because we had a great night,” Trump told Fox on Wednesday, adding again: “We won the debate.” Trump initially asked Harris to agree to three debates: one hosted by Fox News on September 4, another hosted by ABC on September 10, and a third hosted by NBC News on an unconfirmed date. Harris’ campaign only agreed to the ABC debate, although Trump wavered about committing to this showdown, accusing the network of “ridiculous and biased” coverage of him.

Read more …

“I reaffirmed to myself my trust in the American people to think for themselves and to see tonight for what it was in hindsight: a set up..”

The Debate Will Backfire Horribly For Both Kamala Harris And ABC (QTR)

The initial reaction to tonight’s debate is that Kamala Harris held her own, albeit with the help of two ABC moderators, and that Trump was “rattled” and on the defense more than he needed to be. Generally, the debate is being cast as anything but the overwhelming victory for Trump that many predicted. But my guess is that both the dejection from the right and the perceived victory from the left will fade almost immediately as people have a chance to take in everything that really took place tonight. For starters, the times when Trump looked “the worst,” like when moderators tried to debunk him on the Springfield, Ohio, animal/pet killings that were confirmed by 911 calls minutes before the debate, will once again be proven to be factual and on point. The delivery wasn’t fantastic, but over the last three years, the country’s tolerance for being lied to by the media has shrunk significantly, so it won’t take as long as it normally would for people to see past Trump’s delivery.

People are thinking critically now more than ever and doing their own independent fact-checking more than ever. In short, people will quickly realize that Trump’s comments sounded justified. And if Americans need a reminder as to why doing their own fact checking is so important, they only need to look at Kamala Harris’s near admission that COVID came out of a lab in China early in the debate. 3 years ago her side of the aisle would have called you a conspiracy theorist and banned you from social media for saying so. I’ve already written extensively about how the media has lost significant credibility with independent and moderate voters due to their covering for Joe Biden in the midst of his obvious mental decline. I wrote about it in an article a couple of months ago simply called “We Can Be Lied To About Anything”.

After tonight, when the average critically thinking, independent or moderate voter begins to emerge from the visceral reaction of who “won” the debate, the picture will start to come into focus. And it’ll be a picture of a news network that constantly tried to fact-check Donald Trump, despite Kamala Harris repeating multiple debunked conspiracy theories, like Trump’s Charlottesville comments, which were already debunked by Snopes, and his “bloodbath” comment, which was used in the context of talking about the auto industry. When the average critically thinking American looks at the veracity of the lies that Kamala Harris put forth tonight – including lies about Trump’s stance on in vitro fertilization, lies about Trump being associated with Project 2025, and lies about Trump not wanting to secure the border – it’s going to be very difficult to look back on this debate as a victory for her.

And God forbid these same moderate voters were looking for an actual policy stance from Kamala Harris. Despite being well-seasoned in her narrative and her answers and obviously prepared to answer questions she may or may not have received in advance, while benefiting from two friendly moderators and a question format that constantly pinned Trump as the antagonist before David Muir would lead Harris to her answer to reaffirm what the moderators had already decided, she was noticeably devoid of an explanation on her flip-flopping policies. She offered little to no detail on her flip-flops about fracking and her poor performance as border czar, and she failed to take accountability for what happened in Afghanistan, while simultaneously admitting that she approved of how it took place.

Not unlike when she was first crowned the “joy” candidate of the Left, there was a luster to her performance at the debate tonight that is going to wear off very quickly. And in my opinion, tonight will just be another example of a constantly evolving populace seeing the left-wing media for exactly what it is: an arm of the Democratic Party. Despite some mumbles and grumbles from the Republican side of the aisle tonight, as soon as the debate ended, I reaffirmed to myself my trust in the American people to think for themselves and to see tonight for what it was in hindsight: a set up. I honestly believe that the rise of alternative media in this country, and the legacy media’s track record of horrific embarrassments, like covering up the Hunter Biden laptop story and lying to the American people about the mental acuity of President Joe Biden, have built up a bullshit tolerance for media spin in the average American.

More people know today that the left-leaning media has a narrative and lies to them than ever before. This debate will be different from other ones because it’ll eventually be looked at in that context. And when people go back and watch how the moderators constantly argued the merits with Trump while leading Harris in her answers to multiple questions, this debate will be revealed for the biased farce that it was. And then — mark my words — it will do more harm than good for Kamala Harris. Harris has already come out and asked for a second debate with Trump, ostensibly indicating that she thinks tonight was a success. When the debate ended, the scrutinization of ABC’s dirty tricks began — and they will be off the table in any future debates. If I were Kamala, I’d be careful what I wish for in asking to step in the ring for a second debate. Just because the judges saw one round with Trump as a draw doesn’t mean you can go the distance and win by decision.

Read more …

Why do a poll when you know beforehand what it will say? Yeah, let’s poll CNN viewers… And it’s still just 63%..

CNN Poll: More Than 60% Think Harris Beat Trump in Debate (Sp.)

More than half of registered US voters said Democratic candidate Kamala Harris outperformed her Republican rival, Donald Trump, in their first presidential debate, a CNN poll out on Wednesday showed. The survey conducted by SSRS Research found that 63% of 605 debate watchers polled said Harris had turned in a better performance onstage in Philadelphia, versus 37% who said Trump did a better job. Prior to the debate, the voters were evenly split, with 50% saying Harris would perform more strongly and 50% believing that Trump would. On August 23-27, ABC News and Ipsos conducted a poll among 2,496 respondents. According to the poll results, 43% thought that Harris would beat Trump in the debate, and 37% said that Trump would succeed. Donald Trump and Kamala Harris faced off on ABC News on Tuesday night for the first time since Harris entered the race. The US presidential election will be held on November 5.

Rematch

Read more …

He thought he did fine in his own debate too.

Harris Won – Biden (RT)

US President Joe Biden has claimed that Vice President Kamala Harris clearly won the debate against her Republican rival, Donald Trump, and expressed pride in working alongside her for three and a half years. Biden dropped out of the race against Trump shortly after his own disastrous performance in June. The president, who reportedly couldn’t even remember if he re-watched his own debate, followed Harris closely from a hotel in New York City with family and staff, according to a CNN source. “America got to see tonight the leader I’ve been proud to work alongside for three and a half years. It wasn’t even close. VP Harris proved she’s the best choice to lead our nation forward. We’re not going back,” a message posted on Biden’s X account said late Tuesday.

During the debate with Harris, Trump repeatedly attacked her boss for being an embarrassment to the country and the world. “They respect me; they don’t respect Biden. Why would you respect him, for what reason?” Trump asked. “We are playing with WWIII, and we have a president that… Where is our president?” “They threw him out of the campaign like a dog… We have a president that doesn’t even know he’s alive.” Harris countered that Trump is now running against her, not Biden. However, Trump sought to frame a potential Harris presidency as nothing more than a second term for Biden.

“Remember this: She is Biden,” Trump said. “She copied Biden’s plan. It’s like four sentences long: ‘Run, Spot, Run’ – just oh, we’ll try to lower taxes… She doesn’t have a plan.” In his closing statement, the former president questioned Harris’ track record and the new promises she made during the debate. “She just started by saying she’s gonna do this, she’s gonna do that, she’s gonna do all these wonderful things… Why hasn’t she done it? She’s been there for three and a half years,” Trump said. “What these people have done to our country… they’re destroying our country. The worst president, the worst vice president in the history of our country,” he added.

Read more …

”Who do you think won? Why would that matter? The iceberg is 15 minutes away..”

Harris and Trump Debating on Titanic – Zakharova (RT)

The US presidential debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris lacked substance and was largely irrelevant considering that their country is going full speed ahead towards disaster, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has argued. Speaking on Radio Sputnik on Wednesday, she said she did not consider it a high-profile event. It mattered as much as the outcome of a hypothetical wrestling match on board the ill-fated Titanic during its trip across the Atlantic Ocean, she claimed. ”Who do you think won? Why would that matter? The iceberg is 15 minutes away,” she said. Extending the metaphor, she said neither Trump nor Harris intended to get to the wheel to change the course of the ship. America is on its way to a “total, global disaster” and the rest of the world is trying to prepare for it, she suggested.

The debate itself, according to Zakharova, was a mixture of “fantasizing about the future” and citing some facts about the past, with the candidates failing to agree on what those facts were. ”We were given the latest show by people who apparently never ever take any responsibility for what they say,” the Russian official said. International audiences paid attention to what happened in Philadelphia on Tuesday night because they want to know which nations “will get punished and how much” during the next US presidential term, Zakharova stated. According to the media, neither candidate had a decisive advantage over the other in the debate, which could be the only one between Trump and Harris before the November election. In a CNN focus group of 13 undecided voters from Pennsylvania, eight said the Democratic candidate won. Meanwhile six out of 10 undecided voters interviewed by Reuters said they were siding with the Republican after the face off.

Read more …

“It’s going to perhaps create the perception or help build support for declaring that Kamala won the presidency, because I think there are active measures underway to try to steal the election..”

Trump-Harris ‘Kabuki Theater’ Debate Crystalized Candidates’ Position (Sp.)

Former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris held their first (and potentially only) presidential debate on Tuesday ahead of the November election. Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson explains how the debate crystalized the candidates’ radically different views on the defining issue of our times: the conflict in Ukraine. From Ukraine and Gaza to China, North Korea and Iran, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris touched on an array of foreign policy matters alongside domestic concerns ranging from the economy and inflation to the energy and migration crises. Trump, who thrashed President Biden at a debate in June so badly that the latter dropped out of the race after showing signs of mental decline, focused much of his ire against Harris on national security matters and what he characterized as the threat of a nuclear third world war.

“With respect to this talk about Ukraine and Russia, the Kamala Harris approach is the Hillary Clinton approach from 2016, that Donald Trump ‘is a tool of Russia’, [that] ‘he’s a surrender monkey’, [that] ‘he’s going to give Vladimir Putin whatever he wants’. And Kamala Harris and the Democrats are ‘going to fight the Russians tooth and nail.’ It just underscores that there is no room in the United States right now for an opposition politician to make the case that we need to talk to Russia, that we need to deal with Russia as adults and have mutual respect,” Johnson said. “The only possible change in policy is if Trump is elected and there will be an effort to stop the war. If it’s the Democrats, then the war will continue. It continues for one good reason – it’s making people a lot of money. If you look at the stock prices of Raytheon, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, they’ve doubled and tripled in some cases since the start of the special military operation.

So we’re talking literally billions, tens of billions of dollars that are being made,” the observer stressed. Commenting on his impressions of the debate overall, Johnson suggested that it was mostly “meaningless,” in the sense that it igno[..] red changes in how people get their information on presidential candidates. “The old debate style, when it started out back in the 19th century with Lincoln-Douglas – the only way people could really get information was by having to hear people talk out in public or maybe read a newspaper. And that was basically the system until 20 years ago. What has emerged over the last eight years is this dramatic spread of social media. So the notion, number one, that there’s an undecided voter out there who was unaware of the positions of Donald Trump or the positions of Kamala Harris is just I think ridiculous. Most people’s minds are made up,” Johnson said.

The former intelligence analyst agreed with other commentators who have suggested that the debate was stacked against Trump, saying the ex-president’s performance was less about debating Harris, and more about debating “biased” media “fact-checking” him while serving Harris “softball questions.” “I don’t think this is going to have a lot to do with shaping people’s votes. It’s going to perhaps create the perception or help build support for declaring that Kamala won the presidency, because I think there are active measures underway to try to steal the election. For example, registering literally millions of illegal migrants that have come into the United States who are not citizens but nonetheless are being signed up to vote. If those votes end up counting in any form or fashion, it could affect the outcome of the election,” Johnson summed up.

Read more …

“Biden rarely shows up for work, so she’s basically in charge already.”

We’ll Never Reach Mars If Kamala Wins – Musk (RT)

Former President Donald Trump would “do a better job” as the next US leader than current Vice President Kamala Harris, according to tech billionaire Elon Musk. The businessman’s comments follow a contentious first debate between the two candidates on Tuesday night, hosted by US outlet ABC. In a post on X, Musk said that while Harris “exceeded most people’s expectations” in the face-off with Trump, she still lacks his ability to produce real results. “When it comes to getting things done, not just saying nice-sounding words, I strongly believe that Trump will do a far better job,” Musk stated. He said that if Harris had the ability to “do great things,” she would have demonstrated it during her tenure as President Joe Biden’s right hand, as “Biden rarely shows up for work, so she’s basically in charge already.”

In a separate post, he explained that the US needs significant government reforms to move forward and “allow great things to be done,” which he said would not come from Harris. “We will never reach Mars if Kamala wins,” concluded Musk, who is well known for his investments in space travel and technology. Tuesday’s debate was widely seen as crucial to the outcome of the election, as polls currently indicate a tight race. Throughout the event, which ran past its scheduled 90 minutes, Trump and Harris clashed with each other on both domestic and foreign policy, including abortion rights, immigration, and trade wars. The two candidates often interrupted one another, and traded accusations over problems with the US economy and the Ukraine conflict.

Musk joined other netizens in observing that the debate hosts, ABC anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis, seemed unfair to Trump. One X user mocked the anchors for paying too much attention to fact-checking Trump and too little with regard to Kamala, while another slammed the entire face-off as “a gang up of 3 against Trump.” Meanwhile, the Harris campaign challenged Trump to another debate in an email immediately after the showdown on Tuesday, reportedly painting the event as a win for the Democrat. Trump told the press he would “think about” the challenge, claiming that Harris wants a rematch because “she didn’t do well” on Tuesday. It is currently unclear whether another debate will take place before voting day on November 5. However, according to Reuters, Fox News has already proposed hosting a second face off in October.

Read more …

“Trump makes a point that I hope everyone hears: Russia has nuclear weapons.”

Biden Leading US To ‘Nuclear Immolation’ – RFK Jr. (RT)

The aggressive policy of the administration of US President Joe Biden towards Russia and its continued attempts to inflict a defeat on Moscow in Ukraine could result in a nuclear conflict, former independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has said. The comments were made following a debate between Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and his Democratic rival, Kamala Harris, which took place in Philadelphia on Tuesday night. During a discussion of the Ukraine conflict, Trump noted that Russian President Vladimir Putin “has got a thing that other people do not have. He has got nuclear weapons. They do not ever talk about that. And eventually maybe he will use them. Maybe he has not been that threatening. But he does have that.” Kennedy took to X to say, “Trump makes a point that I hope everyone hears: Russia has nuclear weapons.”

“The Biden administration’s policy of maximum confrontation, seeking Russia’s humiliating defeat and regime change, is a recipe for nuclear immolation,” he warned. Kennedy suspended his presidential campaign last month and endorsed Trump. A pinned message on his X page which he published on Tuesday reads: “Bottom line: No matter what state you live in, vote Trump. A Trump victory is a Kennedy victory.” During the debate, Trump reiterated that he would settle the conflict between Russia and Ukraine “in 24 hours” if reelected this November, even before being sworn in. “It is in the US’ best interest to get this war finished and just get it done. We need to negotiate a deal because we have to stop all these human lives from being destroyed,” he said.

The conflict between Moscow and Kiev began in February 2022 because Biden and Vice President Harris had “no idea” how to talk with Putin, Trump said. “And it is only getting worse; it could lead to World War III.” In June, Putin announced that Russia will update its nuclear arsenal, given that it is the primary guarantor of national security. He warned that the country would use all means available to defend itself should the nation’s existence ever be at stake. He added, however, that any conflict involving the use of nuclear weapons would have dire consequences for humanity. According to Putin, Moscow is not “brandishing” its arsenal, but instead hopes that “it will never come to” an actual nuclear exchange.

Read more …

“..the West, instead of seeking a peaceful way out and talking to Russia, is preferring confrontation..”

Biden Mulls Stepping on Ukraine Long-Range Missile Tripwire (Sp.)

“Biden has shifted every single position that he said was a red line, so I don’t see why he’s not going to violate this one as well,” retired CIA analyst and counterterrorism expert-turned whistleblower Larry Johnson told Sputnik, commenting on Washington’s threats to lift its missile restrictions. The Biden administration “can’t afford a defeat” in Ukraine before the November vote, and thinks that if it takes the “incredibly dangerous and foolish” step of just okaying the missiles’ delivery and use, that will somehow help Ukraine, Johnson believes. “I appreciate President Putin’s desire to show restraint and keep this as a special military operation. But the West is at war with Russia, and I don’t think people are getting their brains around that.

We keep dancing around the edges pretending that this is not going to happen. It’s going to happen. And it’s not going to change the military situation as far as what Ukraine is facing. Ukraine is facing defeat. They will be defeated. But it gets more to the point that the West, instead of seeking a peaceful way out and talking to Russia, is preferring confrontation,” Johnson warned. Another question is whether Ukraine even has the relevant long-range missiles left, and whether the US is in a state to supply them, according to the observer.

“Because if the United States moves to supply a missile that’s frankly bigger than the ATACMS or if they offer up an ATACMS or a JASSM that has an extended range capability, then I think it’s going to raise the real possibility that the logistics hubs that are outside of Ukraine that are being used to provide these missiles could become targets. Which then is this is going to expand the war,” Johnson warned. In that sense, while the Biden administration may believe the move to free Kiev’s hand on the use of NATO missiles to attack the Russian interior could stave off the Zelensky regime’s defeat, “it may actually have the opposite effect of causing this war to expand and expand in a way that will get the United States involved. And then we’re into some very new and dangerous territory,” Johnson summed up.

Macgregor

Read more …

“.. during peacetime he must call presidential elections which he will certainly lose. Trump also knows this. The war itself is Zelensky’s oldest friend and greatest supporter.”

Ukraine Races To Peace Talks With No Driver, No Breaks And a Dead Satnav (Jay)

The admission was shocking. In an interview with an American journalist Victoria Nuland more or less admitted plainly that the reason why Boris Johnson was flown into Istanbul at the end of the peace talks between Ukraine and Russia was to scupper the deal, so that U.S. arms manufacturers could go ahead with their intended mega deals supplying the country, aligning it to NATO standards. She tells Ryan Grim of DropSiteNews that the peace deal – which gave Ukrainians land back which the Russians held – would have effectively neutered Ukraine blocking massive deals in the pipeline which would have reaped scores of billions of dollars for U.S. arms makers. The admission is important for two main reasons. First it shows just how disingenuous everything that western politicians tell their voters about Ukraine is.

Yes, there is an ideological rationale there of America and its allies wanting to hit Putin but it is not very convincing and at best looks increasingly lame as the months and years pass. Do senators in the U.S. like Lyndsey Graham really hate Russians so much? Or is it that they love money so much more and profit themselves from those megadeals coming together? The second point about the Nuland admission is that it casts a long shadow over western governments and their relationships with the military industrial complex and leaves the observer feeling that we have reached a new peak now with that sector and the ruling elites. The former no longer lobbies or informs the latter but controls it. Completely.

A third point which is possibly a parenthesis to the whole story is that slowly we are seeing the truth emerge, like repugnant liquid excrement oozing out of an old sack. And it stinks. Biden is just one more U.S. president who allowed the military industrial complex to control him and his erroneous so-called foreign policies which can really be summed up in a few words: wherever possible, go to war. We need wars. But we in the West bit off far too much more than we could chew. In the early days of the Russian invasion the euphoria and confidence of Biden and Boris, not to mention Macron, was palpable. They genuinely believed that the war would be over in a matter of weeks. And that Russian sanctions would grind the economy down over a longer period of time bringing Putin to his knees.

Today, nobody acknowledges privately how futile and stupid these notions were more than the Ukrainian president. And nobody appreciates how shallow and self-serving this initial policy to go to war with Russia in the first place is, more than President Zelensky himself. Put yourself in his shoes. He is counting the days now to the U.S. presidential election, wondering if Trump gets in, how many days will pass in January 2025 before the Donald falls out with him? If Trump does get in, the future is unclear as we know from history that Trump is capricious, unpredictable and driven by ideas and values which few can understand but usually relate to him on a personal level. It is likely though after he pulls off a ceasefire in his first week of office – which both sides want but can’t admit it openly – it will be very hard indeed to thrash out a deal that both can agree on, particularly knowing that the martial law, which keeps Zelensky is in office, is over, during peacetime he must call presidential elections which he will certainly lose. Trump also knows this. The war itself is Zelensky’s oldest friend and greatest supporter.

Read more …

It would have to beat Russia first. That won’t happen. But the profits will be huge.

Ukraine Will Join NATO – Blinken (RT)

Washington wants to see Kiev win the conflict against Moscow and join NATO, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has said. Blinken is visiting Kiev with his British counterpart David Lammy to reiterate Anglo-American support for Vladimir Zelensky’s government. “At the July summit, we declared that Ukraine’s path to NATO membership is irreversible,” Blinken said on Wednesday, reminding his hosts that the US-led bloc has “established a command dedicated to support Ukraine’s membership.” Blinken has made the case for Kiev’s membership in NATO before. However, the bloc has officially declared, both in Washington this summer and last year in Lithuania, that this could only happen “when allies agree and conditions are met.” Hungary and Slovakia have already said they will not agree under any circumstances, as bringing Ukraine into NATO would mean war with Russia.

During the same speech in Kiev, Blinken painted a rosy picture of Ukraine’s military industry, claiming it had expanded six-fold over the last year. “In the coming years, that’s going to give Ukraine one of the most advanced defense industries in the world, and it will be able to take that to the global market and take global market share away from other countries like Russia, and also supply NATO allies,” he added. Kiev is presently entirely dependent on the West for weapons, equipment, ammunition and even cash infusions to keep its government going. Ukraine is also facing widespread electricity shortages, as Russian missile strikes have degraded power production capacity. Blinken himself announced on Wednesday that the US will send $325 million to help repair the Ukrainian power grid and provide emergency backup generators for critical infrastructure.

Another $290 million has been earmarked for “food, water, shelter, health care and education programs for Ukrainians” both in the country and abroad, with the remaining $102 million designated for landmine removal. “The bottom line is this: We want Ukraine to win,” Blinken declared at another point during his visit, according to AP. This, too, was stated by Western officials before, as a prerequisite for Kiev’s membership in NATO. This effectively means that Ukraine will never join the bloc, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said in June. NATO’s 2008 announcement about Ukraine’s possible membership “became the trigger for much of the entire crisis that we are observing today,” Ryabkov said at the time. “If NATO members are ready to fall into the same trap again and history teaches them nothing, then they will get hit again and their bruises will get worse,” he added.

Read more …

“It’s high time we stated that any massive strikes against our territory give us a right to respond with a nuclear strike..”

Enemies Must Be Sure Russia Is Ready To Use Nuclear Weapons – Karaganov (RT)

Russia’s nuclear doctrine urgently needs to be revised to allow a nuclear response to any major military aggression against the country, former Kremlin adviser Sergey Karaganov stated on Wednesday. The former foreign policy adviser to the deputy head of the Russian presidential administration told the Kommersant daily that the existing document is “woefully outdated” and no longer serves as an effective deterrent. Adopted in 2020, Russia’s nuclear doctrine does not provide for pre-emptive nuclear strikes and envisages the use of nuclear weapons only in “exceptional cases” in the face of a “threat to the sovereignty and territorial integrity” of the country. According to Karaganov, this approach has rendered it nearly useless and has effectively “excluded” the nuclear deterrence factor from Russia’s military and foreign policy arsenal.

“We have allowed the situation to deteriorate to a point when our adversaries believe we will not use nuclear weapons under any circumstances,” the political scientist said. “Having nuclear weapons without being able to convince your enemies that you are ready to use them is suicide.” A failure to have an effective nuclear deterrent policy “would plunge the world into a series of wars that would inevitably turn nuclear and end up with the World War III,” Karaganov believes, adding that this could happen “within the span of several years.” “The main goal of a doctrine should be in convincing all current and future enemies that Russia is ready to use nuclear weapons.” His words came amid the continued Ukrainian incursion into Russia’s Kursk Region and Kiev’s attempts to receive permission for the use of Western long-range missiles to strike deep inside the country. “It’s high time we stated that any massive strikes against our territory give us a right to respond with a nuclear strike,” Karaganov insists.

He also called on Moscow to clearly define the “nuclear escalation” steps in the next doctrine to leave Russia’s adversaries no room for doubt about whether it is ready to use its nuclear arsenal and when. President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly demonstrated a more reserved position on the issue. Talking to Karaganov at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum in June, the president said that Russia was “not brandishing” nuclear weapons and expressed hope that “it will never come” to a nuclear exchange between Moscow and the West. Moscow “has no reasons to even think about” using nuclear weapons, he said at the time, calling on Russian officials to not even “touch upon” the subject of nuclear weapons unless absolutely necessary. Later in June, Putin also said that Russia did not “need a preventive strike yet, because the enemy is guaranteed to be destroyed in a retaliatory strike.” He did not rule out changes to the doctrine, though.

Read more …

“You can’t pull a building unless it is wired, a time-consuming complex job.”

The 23rd Anniversary of September 11, 2001 (Paul Craig Roberts)

Time passes. An entire generation has grown up since that day when a few Saudi Arabians armed only with box cutters caused airport safety to fail four times on the same morning, caused the entire US/NATO/Mossad security system to fail, caused the WTC towers constructed to withstand airliner collisions to collapse into dust by flying hijacked airliners into them, and attack the Pentagon using maneuvers of which airliners and pilots are incapable and destroying the section of the Pentagon where the documents were that explained where the Pentagon’s missing billions or was it trillions of dollars had gone. During these hours of activity the US Air Force was unable to get interceptors off the ground, and no evidence has ever been found of the passengers on the four hijacked airliners. But an undamaged passport of one of the alleged hijackers were found in the ruins of two hundred-storied skyscrapers. And Americans fell for this totally unbelievable story. What hope is there for Americans?

It took a year of pressure on the Bush/Cheney regime to get a commission established that instead of an investigation wrote down the official narrative as dictated to them. Later the commission co-chairmen and legal counsel wrote books saying that the government withheld information and set the commission up to fail. It only took 10 minutes for a high school physics professor to demolish NIST’s multi-year computer simulation of the collapse of Building 7, the 47 story WTC building that a BBC reporter stood in front of announcing its collapse 30 minutes ahead of the collapse. They knew the building was slated for destruction, but the word got out prior to the event. Silverstein, who owned or had the leases to the World Trade Center said on live TV that the decision was made to pull building 7. You can’t pull a building unless it is wired, a time-consuming complex job.

It is totally obvious that all 3 buildings were wired for demolition. Building 7 collapsed at free fall acceleration, and the two towers at essentially the same speed. This can only be achieved by controlled demolition. If the alleged Muslim hijackers wired the buildings–an impossibility–what is the point of flying airliners into them? The orchestrated event was used by Washington to launch wars in the Middle East against Israel’s opponents. Norman Podhoretz at Commentary had called for these wars, and US four star general Wesley Clark, NATO’s commander in chief, later confirmed that Pentagon generals showed him war plans calling for the US to overthrow “Seven countries in five years.”Little of this extraordinary evidence had any impression on insouciant Americans who swallowed the false narrative hook, line, and sinker.

Consequently, Washington destroyed Iraq and Libya and was about to destroy Syria, but the Russians intervened. Israel has kept the American gun aimed at Iran, but Putin has said Russia will not tolerate an attack on Iran. You can easily understand why Zionist Jews hate Putin and Russia and why America is at risk from serving the Zionist agenda. But it is difficult to understand Putin’s patience with Israel. Does Netanyahu own the Kremlin like he owns Washington? We don’t yet know how the events unleashed by 9/11 will finish unfolding. They may bring death to all of us. What I have never been able to understand is why Dick Cheney, the neoconservatives, the military/security complex, and the whore media were so determined to turn a few Saudi Arabians into superheroes who were more than a match for the American National Security State. How can Washington possibly deal with Russia, China, and Iran when a few Muslims can deliver the worst humiliation ever delivered to an alleged superpower?

The total humiliation that the official narrative delivered to America on 9/11 is without parallel in history. One would have thought that such a system wide failure would have destroyed Americans’ confidence in Washington. Why explains American fists rising not against Washington but against Muslim countries that had nothing to do with it? If the American population is incapable of paying attention, how does it expect to remain free?

Read more …

Paris rules the world.

Durov’s Case Is ‘Exemplary’ – Paris Prosecutor (RT)

The case against the CEO of Telegram messaging app, Pavel Durov, is “exemplary” with regard to the battle against cybercrime waged by the French authorities, Paris prosecutor Laure Beccuau has said. Durov was arrested after landing in Paris in late August and charged with multiple offenses ranging from refusal to cooperate with the authorities to administering an online platform allegedly used by organized crime for illegal conduct, such as trafficking and child sexual abuse. The Russian tech entrepreneur, who also has French, UAE, and Saint Kitts and Nevis citizenship, was later released on €5 million ($5.55 million) bail. The 39-year-old billionaire is banned from leaving the country while the case is ongoing. Asked about the investigation into Durov and Telegram in an interview with RTL Radio on Wednesday, Beccuau said, “this case is exemplary in terms of the actions taken by the cybercrime unit of the Paris Prosecutor’s Office.”

She added that her agency previously had issues with the Coco chat website and Sky ECC encrypted messenger, which were both shut down. “Organized crime is spreading in a world that we consider to be virtual,” the prosecutor said. According to the Beccuau, France is reacting to this by amending its legislation and introducing a new criminal offense for administering an online platform that allows illegal transactions – one of the charges Durov faces. Telegram attracted the attention of the Paris Prosecutor’s Office because its cybercrime unit “contacted the platform several times asking it to identify cybercriminals, especially in the area of child pornography. But the platform did not respond to these requests. It did not react,” she explained. Beccuau noted that Durov is fulfilling the terms of his bail, which require him to report to the police twice a week.

Last week, Durov issued a lengthy statement on Telegram, insisting that the claims by some media outlets that his platform “is some sort of anarchic paradise are absolutely untrue.” Telegram takes down “millions of harmful posts and channels every day,” and publishes “daily transparency reports” about actions taken against the dissemination of illegal content, including child abuse and terrorism, he said. Durov claimed that he has cooperated with French law enforcement in the past and “personally helped them establish a hotline with Telegram to deal with the threat of terrorism in France.” He added that the platform remains open to working with state regulators to establish “the right balance between privacy and security.”

Read more …

“But if she agrees to have Elon’s baby, she could break even..”

Elon Musk ‘Proposes’ To Taylor Swift (RT)

Tech mogul Elon Musk has offered to father a child with Taylor Swift and protect her cats, after the songstress announced her endorsement in the US presidential race. In a post to her 280 million Instagram followers, the 34-year-old pop star backed Democrat Kamala Harris, used a photo of herself holding a cat, and signed it “Childless Cat Lady.” That appeared to be a dig at a statement by J.D. Vance, Republican candidate Donald Trump’s running mate, who once said the Democrats are run “by a bunch of childless cat ladies.” “Fine Taylor… you win… I will give you a child and guard your cats with my life,” Musk posted on X on Wednesday. Musk has fathered at least 12 children with three different women since 2000. One died in infancy and another became transgender, after which the tech billionaire famously vowed to “destroy the woke mind virus.”

He has also openly endorsed Trump and signaled he would take the job of “government efficiency czar” in his administration. Swift publicly backed Harris after Tuesday evening’s presidential debate with Trump, calling her “a steady-handed, gifted leader” and arguing that the US could achieve more “if we are led by calm and not chaos.” The endorsement did not exactly come as a surprise, since Swift had backed the Joe Biden-Kamala Harris ticket in 2020.

Her catty post on Tuesday resulted in losing followers on social media, suggesting that there might be some substance to rumors about many ‘Swifties’ now favoring Trump. “Swift’s endorsement of Harris could end up costing her several-hundred-million dollars,” cartoonist and commentator Scott Adams said on Wednesday. He calculated about a 20% cut to her $92 million annual income from losing pro-Trump fans, paying higher taxes if the Democrats win, and facing “insane” unrealized gains taxes on the value of her music catalog, currently estimated at “around $500-600 million” “But if she agrees to have Elon’s baby, she could break even,” Adams quipped.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Remigration

 

 

Paul Newman
https://twitter.com/i/status/1833615164890911146

 

 

Ohio cats

 

 

Noses

 

 

Red wolf
https://twitter.com/i/status/1833674414208012666

 

 

Perspective
https://twitter.com/i/status/1833875646390370790

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Sep 112024
 
 September 11, 2024  Posted by at 8:40 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,  61 Responses »


Pablo Picasso Bather 1908

 

Trump Says Debate Performance Against Harris His Best Ever (Sp.)
Harris Tried to ‘Hide Her Imposter Syndrome’ in Debate – Psychiatrist (Sp.)
The Votes and Who Counts Them (Jim Kunstler)
Melania Trump Demands ‘Truth’ About Shooting of Husband (RT)
Michigan Supreme Court Blocks RFK Jr.’s Bid to Remove Name From Ballot (ET)
More Ukrainians Want Talks With Russia – WSJ (RT)
Ukraine Conflict ‘Much Worse’ Than Americans Are Being Told – Trump (RT)
Slovakia PM Fico Accuses World Of Ignoring Ukraine’s ‘Nazi Troops’ (RT)
Modi’s Peace Plan: How India Is Navigating The Ukraine Conflict (RT)
Durov Still Does Not Get It (Karganovic)
Russian Security Chief Explains West’s Key ‘Mistake’ (RT)
Kremlin Explains Putin’s Decision on UN General Assembly (RT)
Elon Musk May Be Summoned to UK Parliament for Questioning on X Activities (Sp.)
US ‘Going Bankrupt Extremely Quickly’ – Musk (RT)

 

 

 

 

 

 

RFK Trump

 

 

Numbers

 

 

RFK unify

 

 

Mail-in

 

 

judge Joe Brown

 

 

Lara

 

 

Elon SNL

 

 

 

 

Don’t see much commentary on the debate yet. But predictably, both sides will have seen their candidate win.

What’s remarkable is that the Dems all of a sudden want another debate, something they strongly opposed before. That would seem to indicate that they don’t think Kamala won this one.

Trump Says Debate Performance Against Harris His Best Ever (Sp.)

Former US President Donald Trump said following his debate with Vice President Kamala Harris that he had his best debate performance ever, despite Trump believing that the moderators were aiding Harris. “I thought that was my best Debate, EVER, especially since it was THREE ON ONE,” Trump said on Tuesday via Truth Social. People are calling Trump’s performance a “big win,” the former president also said. The Harris campaign likewise praised her debate performance and suggested a second debate in October. Donald Trump criticized President Joe Biden for not making an effort to talk to Russian President Vladimir Putin in two years to try to resolve the conflict in Ukraine. “He [Biden] hasn’t even made a phone call in two years to Putin, hasn’t spoken to anybody. They don’t even try and get it. That is a war that’s dying to be settled,” Trump said on Tuesday night in his debate against his Democratic rival Kamala Harris.

Trump said in a presidential debate that he wants the Ukraine conflict to come to an end immediately and claims he will be able to immediately broker a peace plan if reelected. “I want the war to stop, I want to save lives,” Trump said on Tuesday night in the debate against Democratic nominee Kamala Harris. Trump said he would speak with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky, adding that he would also be able to get both leaders to negotiate and end the conflict. It is in the United States’ best interest to get the Ukraine conflict resolved quickly, Trump added. The campaign of Democratic nominee Kamala Harris said that the second debate with Republican nominee Donald Trump should take place next month, Harris-Walz campaign Chair Jen O’Malley Dillon said in a statement.

“Under the bright lights, the American people got to see the choice they will face this fall at the ballot box: between moving forward with Kamala Harris or going backwards with Trump,” O’Malley said after the first presidential debate concluded on Tuesday night. “That’s what they saw tonight and what they should see at a second debate in October. O’Malley also said that Harris is ready for a second debate but questioned whether Trump is ready. Kamala Harris said during a debate with former US President Donald Trump that the United States does not have troops in any conflict zone around the world.

“As of today, there is not one member of the US military who is in active duty in a combat zone, in any war zone around the world – the first time this century,” Harris said on Tuesday evening. The US military has had forces deployed in countries around the world under the Biden administration, including Syria, Iraq and Jordan. During the June debate between Trump and US President Joe Biden, Biden falsely claimed that he was the only president to not have any troops die anywhere in the world. In August 2021, 13 US military servicemembers died during the withdrawal from Afghanistan, due to a suicide bombing at the airport in Kabul. Moreover, in January 2024, three US troops were killed by a drone attack in Jordan.

Read more …

“Trump also claimed Harris wants to do a second debate because she “got beaten.”

Harris Tried to ‘Hide Her Imposter Syndrome’ in Debate – Psychiatrist (Sp.)

Less than two months away from the US presidential election, former POTUS Donald Trump faced off against current Vice President Kamala Harris in a highly anticipated debate on Tuesday night. Donald Trump “made some good points” during the presidential debate, while vice president Kamala Harris got through by “skirting the issues,” board-certified psychiatrist Dr. Carole Lieberman told Sputnik. Overall, the face-off was described as “extremely disturbing” by the best-selling author based in Beverly Hills, California. She noted that former California Attorney General Kamala Harris had prepared for the debate “more than for anything else in her life. Even the law boards.”
“In order to hide her imposter syndrome, she memorized lines that she hoped would derail Trump. Imposter syndrome is where someone knows they don’t have the qualifications for the position they are in, so they feel like an imposter.

Kamala doesn’t have the qualifications to be vice president, no less president. She has to know Biden picked her to be vice president because she is a ‘woman of color.’ He picked her to get votes from these demographics, not because she was the most qualified,” the pundit remarked. As for Trump, he was “overly concerned with not wanting to seem out of control” if he took Harris’ bait, the psychiatrist said. She remarked that one of Trump’s “best lines” was when he called out the VP over her father, Donald J. Harris, “for being a Marxist, which we all know is true.” “He knew where the bones were buried and he should have exposed more of them. At times, Kamala exposed her weakness by grimacing and trying to get at Trump more strongly, such as when she resorted to accusing him of being a criminal. His retorts to that were to call it what it was – lawfare,” noted the writer.

Looking ahead, Dr. Lieberman voiced hope that there would be a second debate between Trump and Harris and the former president would have a chance “to expose more of her sinister plans for America.” VP Kamala Harris and former POTUS Donald Trump faced off on Tuesday for their first presidential debate in Philadelphia on Tuesday. After the 90-minute event, hosted by ABC News, Trump told the media that he believed it was his “best debate ever.” Trump also claimed Harris wants to do a second debate because she “got beaten.” The Republican presidential contender has not yet committed to another one-on-one later this month.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1833450191552451008

Read more …

jim tells me his host server is/was down, but his articles are also on Substack…

The Votes and Who Counts Them (Jim Kunstler)

“The world is a dangerous place to live — not because of the people who are evil but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.” —Albert Einstein. When The New York Times tells you that the United States Constitution is a threat to democracy — As it did on the front page of its August 31 edition — you know that you are in thrall to exceedingly subtle minds. The Times only employs persons, both birthing and other, of the subtlest minds. You can tell because they are credentialed by our country’s finest institutions of educational credentialing. They come to The Times fully equipped with the armamentarium of advanced, progressive, innovative, nuanced, cutting-edge modes of understanding our world — which, you’ll agree, is a pretty goshdurned complex place, and rather niggardly in yielding its secret workings. Hence, The Times has concluded that the Constitution is flawed, perhaps fatally, because it allowed for the election of Donald Trump once, and now, possibly, a second time:

“It’s no surprise, then, that liberals charge Trump with being a menace to the Constitution. But his presidency and the prospect of his re-election have also generated another, very different, argument: that Trump owes his political ascent to the Constitution, making him a beneficiary of a document that is essentially antidemocratic and, in this day and age, increasingly dysfunctional.” The Constitution does not stipulate a particular election day, but subsequent US law established the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as the day for federal elections (the states can establish their own election dates for state and local offices). This changed beginning in the year 2000, when Oregon legislated to conduct all elections by mail-in ballot and other states followed with alterations to voting methods beyond a single election day.

The Covid-19 pandemic prompted states to permanently relax rules on absentee ballots and expand mail-in voting, under guidance from the federal agencies such as the CDC, while the CARES Act of 2020 provided emergency funding to implement procedures for mail-in voting in order to reduce in-person voting that might enable the spread of Covid-19. All of that followed orderly legislative procedure. The result was widespread ballot fraud, especially in crucial swing voting districts, much of it arrant. Contrary to official narratives out of the “Joe Biden” administration and the salient organs of corporate news, the allegations of widespread fraud were not “baseless” nor were they “conspiracy theories.” Subtle minds schooled in nuanced, cutting-age modes of analysis agreed to ignore documentary evidence of ballot fraud because it disfavored their preferred candidate, “Joe Biden.” Subtler judicial minds subsequently dismissed challenges to official tallies.

Other shenanigans such as the $400-million that Mark Zuckerberg (Meta and Facebook) injected into swing districts for “election administration and voter turn-out,” via his Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), was not adjudicated in any court. The upshot of the “Zuckerbucks” prank was that polling offiicials in many precincts were replaced by Democratic Party activists who ended up counting the votes. The Federal Election Commission (after “Joe Biden” became president) decided that under federal campaign finance law, the contributions were not seen as illegal — though the “Zuckerbucks” scandal did lead to legislative reform in several states.

You might suppose in the years since the 2020 election that opportunity would be seized to materially correct the weaknesses of mail-in ballots, early voting, ballot “harvesting” practices, giant “balloting centers,” and the use of vote-tallying machines (Dominion, etc.) with modems allowing for Internet hackery. The best and simplest reform would be a return to paper ballots cast only on one election day, with voter ID and proof of citizenship (accomplished prior in voter registration), conducted in smaller, distributed precinct polling places that make hand-counting of ballots practical. Alas, this was too difficult for Congress, while the subtle, nuanced, cutting-edge minds working in news media were not interested in such straightforward reform and did not advocate for it.

Read more …

”There is definitely more to this story, and we need to uncover the truth..”

Melania Trump Demands ‘Truth’ About Shooting of Husband (RT)

Former First Lady Melania Trump has called for answers to “uncover the truth” behind the attempted assassination of her husband, former President Donald Trump, nearly two months ago. Trump narrowly escaped death when Thomas Matthew Crooks, 20, opened fire on him during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania on July 13. The incident was a “horrible, distressing experience” for the family, Melania said in a video posted on X on Tuesday. ”Now, the silence around it feels heavy. I can’t help but wonder: Why didn’t law enforcement officials arrest the shooter before the speech?” The would-be assassin positioned himself on a nearby rooftop that provided an unobstructed view of the Republican candidate. One bullet grazed the former president’s right ear, resulting in one attendee’s death and injuries to two others. The shooter was subsequently killed by Secret Service agents.

The House of Representatives unanimously voted to create a bipartisan task force to investigate the attempted assassination. Comprised of seven Republicans and six Democrats, the task force aims to examine potential security lapses at the federal, state, and local levels of law enforcement that preceded the incident. In an interview last month, Trump accused President Joe Biden and his Democratic rival, Kamala Harris, of being partly responsible for the assassination attempt. “I think to a certain extent it’s Biden’s fault and Harris’ fault,” he said, claiming they “were making it very difficult to have proper staffing in terms of Secret Service” and “weren’t too interested in my health and safety,” while promoting rhetoric that could have encouraged the shooter. ”There is definitely more to this story, and we need to uncover the truth,” Melania said in the video, which appears to promote her upcoming memoir.

Read more …

“..a significant cost to the integrity of the election: the voters will be improperly denied a choice between persons who are actually candidates, and who are willing to serve if elected..”

Michigan Supreme Court Blocks RFK Jr.’s Bid to Remove Name From Ballot (ET)

The Michigan Supreme Court has denied Robert F. Kennedy’s request to have his name removed from the state’s general election ballot, reversing a lower court ruling and closing the last legal avenue available to Kennedy in the case. In a split 5–2 ruling issued on Sept. 9, the Michigan Supreme Court reinstated the original ruling by the Michigan Court of Claims, which denied Kennedy’s motion for mandamus relief, an extraordinary legal remedy that requires a plaintiff to demonstrate a clear legal right and that the defendant, in this case the Michigan Secretary of State, has a clear duty to act. The high court ruled that Kennedy did not provide a clear legal basis requiring the removal of his name from the November ballot and failed to identify a law that would leave no room for discretion in this matter on the part of election officials.

“Plaintiff has neither pointed to any source of law that prescribes and defines a duty to withdraw a candidate’s name from the ballot nor demonstrated his clear legal right to performance of this specific duty, let alone identified a source of law written with ‘such precision and certainty as to leave nothing to the exercise of discretion or judgment,’” reads the majority opinion, which reversed an appeals court’s decision that sided with Kennedy and reinstated the lower court’s decision that dismissed his request with prejudice. Michigan Supreme Court Justices Brian K. Zahra and David F. Viviano dissented. They argued that there was no statute prohibiting Kennedy from withdrawing from the election and no practical reason to deny Kennedy’s request to remove his name from the ballot before ballots were printed. Their dissent focused on harm to voters, contending that keeping Kennedy on the ballot would confuse voters and distort the true electoral choice.

“There is, however, a significant cost to the integrity of the election: the voters will be improperly denied a choice between persons who are actually candidates, and who are willing to serve if elected,” the dissenting justices wrote. “The ballots printed as a result of the Court’s decision will have the potential to confuse the voters, distort their choices, and pervert the true popular will and affect the outcome of the election.” Days before the Supreme Court decision, the Michigan Court of Appeals argued that Kennedy had a “clear legal right” to withdraw, emphasizing that no specific statute prevented a presidential candidate from stepping down, even one nominated by a minor party. Kennedy, who had been nominated by the Natural Law Party, withdrew from the presidential race on Aug. 23 and endorsed former President Donald Trump. At the time, Kennedy said he wanted his name removed in key swing states so as not to draw votes away from the former president.

Read more …

“..57% of the public wanted dialogue with Russia to begin..”

More Ukrainians Want Talks With Russia – WSJ (RT)

An increasing number of Ukrainians want Kiev to find a diplomatic solution to the conflict with Moscow, the Wall Street Journal has reported. In its article on Tuesday, the US outlet acknowledged that “some Ukrainians are asking a question that had until recently been taboo: Is it time to try to negotiate?” According to the article, opinion polls show that support for talks with Russia has been “creeping upward” in Ukraine since the failure of Kiev’s much-hyped counteroffensive last year. While it contended that a majority of Ukrainians still want their country to keep fighting to retake all territories captured by Russia, it did not provide exact figures. Another poll, published by the Kiev International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) in early August, suggested that 57% of the public wanted dialogue with Russia to begin.

The outlet cited a 33-year-old school teacher from the southeastern city of Zaporozhye, who said that she is willing to give up any part of territory in exchange for peace so that her husband could return home from the front line. “Where can we go with this war?” she wondered. The group that is most skeptical about a peace deal with Russia is the Ukrainian military, with one recent survey showing that only 18% of active-duty troops and veterans are in favor of the talks, the article read. According to the same poll, 15% of soldiers and veterans said they would join an armed protest if Kiev signs an unfavorable agreement with Moscow. The members of the military who spoke to the WSJ said that they were concerned that Russia could use a pause in the fighting to prepare for a new attack on Ukraine and that seeking peace with concessions would mean that the sacrifice of their fallen comrades had been in vain.

During his meeting with US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin at Ramstein Air Base in Germany on Friday, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky suggested that the conflict between Russia and Ukraine should end “this fall.” According to Zelensky, in order for this happen, NATO must keep arming Kiev and increase pressure on Moscow to agree to the Ukrainian peace plan, which calls for the withdrawal of Russian forces from all territories that Kiev considers its own, including Crimea, and for Moscow to pay reparations and submit its officials to war tribunals.

Last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin reiterated that Moscow had “never refused” negotiations with Kiev, but stressed that they should take place “not on the basis of some ephemeral demands but on the basis of the documents that were agreed to and actually initialized in Istanbul” in late March 2022, when the sides last sat at the negotiating table. During the talks in Türkiye, Ukraine was willing to declare military neutrality, limit its armed forces, and vow not to discriminate against ethnic Russians. In return, Moscow would have joined other leading powers in offering Ukraine security guarantees, Putin said.

Read more …

“Don’t kid yourself… We are playing with WWIII, and we have a president that… Where is our president?”

Ukraine Conflict ‘Much Worse’ Than Americans Are Being Told – Trump (RT)

Donald Trump has claimed that President Joe Biden’s Ukraine policy – now fully adopted by his Democratic rival Kamala Harris – is dragging the US into a third world war. He reiterated that he would settle the conflict “in 24 hours” if elected president this November, even before being sworn in. During a debate with Harris on Tuesday, Trump asserted that the conflict would never have occurred had he still been in the White House in early 2022. When asked if he wanted Kiev to win, the Republican replied that he wanted “the war to stop.” “I want the war to stop. I want to save lives that are being wasted… People are being killed by the millions…. It’s so much worse than the numbers you’re getting, which are fake,” he claimed, without clarifying the source of those estimates.

The moderator pressed for a direct answer, inquiring whether Trump believes “it’s in the US’s best interest for Ukraine to win this war.” “I think it’s in the US’s best interest to get this war finished and just get it done. We need to negotiate a deal because we have to stop all these human lives from being destroyed,” Trump insisted. The former president then claimed he had a “good relationship” with Russian President Vladimir Putin and that everything has “gone to hell” since he left office. “When I saw Putin building up soldiers on Ukraine’s border, I thought: ‘Oh, he must be negotiating; it must be a strong point of negotiation,’” Trump stated. ”Well, it wasn’t, because Biden had no idea how to talk to him. He had no idea how to stop it… And it is only getting worse; it could lead to World War III,” he added. “Don’t kid yourself… We are playing with WWIII, and we have a president that… Where is our president?”

“They threw him out of the campaign like a dog… We have a president that doesn’t even know he’s alive.” “I will get it settled before I even become president,” Trump promised. “If I win, when I’m president-elect… I’ll get them together.” Harris countered by claiming that the only reason Trump says “this war would be over within 24 hours” is that he would simply give it up. “And that’s not who we are as Americans,” she added. The Vice President went on to tout her role in consolidating Western support for Ukraine, claiming that because of “the work that I and others did,” along with the provision of “air defense, ammunition, artillery, javelins, and Abrams tanks,” Ukraine remains an “independent and free” country.

Read more …

“The international community should recognize that troops using Nazi insignia, who often appear to act as such, cannot fight in Ukraine.”

Slovakia PM Fico Accuses World Of Ignoring Ukraine’s ‘Nazi Troops’ (RT)

People eager to condemn the atrocities committed by the Third Reich are at the same time turning a blind eye to Ukrainian troops wearing Nazi symbols today, Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico has lamented. The head of the government gave a speech at the holocaust museum located at the former site of the Sered concentration camp on Monday in western Slovakia, in which he highlighted the need to educate new generations about the crimes committed by Nazis during World War II before bringing up the Ukraine conflict. “We all talk about fascism, Nazism, while silently tolerating units moving across Ukraine that have a very clear label and are connected to movements that we consider dangerous and forbidden today. Since it is a geopolitical fight, nobody cares,” Fico said.

“I want to pay tribute to the victims, not with pathetic speech, but I want to call for action,” he added. “The international community should recognize that troops using Nazi insignia, who often appear to act as such, cannot fight in Ukraine.” Kiev has embraced as heroes Ukrainian nationalists who collaborated with Nazi Germany while the symbols and ideology of the Third Reich have been popular among growing right-wing forces in the country for decades. The Azov battalion, accused of war crimes and atrocities, is infamous for its open embrace of bigotry and white supremacism, although its successor unit claims to have mostly eradicated such people from its ranks. Ukrainian troops have repeatedly been filmed brandishing Nazi iconography on their uniforms and weapons, including during the ongoing incursion into Russia’s Kursk Region.

In a widely publicized incident, two Ukrainian soldiers filmed themselves imitating invading Wehrmacht troops while harassing an elderly Russian civilian. The man went missing after the encounter. Thousands of Ukrainian Nazi collaborators made their way to Western nations, such as Canada, when the Axis powers were defeated in 1945. Some of them were later used by the CIA in attempts to destabilize the USSR during the Cold War. Just last week, Library and Archives Canada in Ottawa expressed reservations against releasing the list of some 900 alleged Nazi criminals who fled to the country after the war. Making the names public may embarrass the country’s Ukrainian community, officials told the media. The Slovakian prime minister is a vocal critic of Western support for Kiev against Moscow. The Ukrainian Nazi link is one of the reasons he has cited in explaining his position.

Read more …

“India refused, stating publicly that Zelensky’s plan was not the only one to be considered, as other peace plans were also on the table..”

Modi’s Peace Plan: How India Is Navigating The Ukraine Conflict (RT)

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has sought to play a role in promoting a negotiated resolution of the conflict in Ukraine. He has India’s national interest in mind, as the nation of 1.4 billion people needs a peaceful international environment in which to grow, especially when it is at a critical stage in its development process and aims to become the third largest economy before the end of the decade. India has historical ties of friendship and trust with Russia; its defense ties with Moscow are crucial for its security. It is also strengthening its ties with the US and EU, which are its major economic and technology partners, and with whom people-to-people ties are very strong. While Russia does not interfere in New Delhi’s ties with its Western partners, the US and the EU have wanted India to dilute its ties with Moscow. American sanctions, especially on its financial sector, are, in any case, interfering in India’s ties with Russia.

India has a philosophy of ‘vishwabandhu’- “friendship with all in the world”- which cannot be practiced in a revived Cold War-type global situation that has seen the virtual collapse of multilateralism. It would want to preserve its ties with Russia and build them further, even as it seeks to expand its ties with the US and Europe. This presents an increasingly difficult diplomatic challenge. India is not unaware of the complexities of the Ukraine conflict and the challenge of finding common ground between the diametrically opposed Ukrainian and Russian positions on issues of territory, Ukraine’s NATO membership, etc. The Ukrainian position has the support of the US, NATO and the EU, who continue to arm and fund Kiev. They remain determined that Russia must not be allowed to win the war as that would threaten the security of Europe. The issue goes well beyond Ukraine; it is one of a future security architecture of Europe that rejects Russia as a partner.

India is party to several UN resolutions, and formally subscribes to the rhetoric that sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as international law and the UN Charter, should be respected; however, this does not offer a pathway to a resolution of the conflict in Ukraine. In any eventual resolution, some territorial adjustments will be inevitable, as will the security-related aspects inherent in the issue of Ukrainian membership in NATO. A security formula will have to be found outside the NATO framework. Modi has made it known on more than one occasion that he is ready to contribute to a peace process in Ukraine in whatever possible way. He reiterated that message at his summit meeting with Putin in July this year. In August, he visited Kiev with a view to closing the circle and pressing for the peace option.

That visit ended in some controversy. Zelensky pushed his 10 point peace plan,(add comma) and for establishing its peace credentials(remove semi-colon) Ukraine pressed India to join the communiqué issued at the end of the Peace Summit in Switzerland in June. India refused, stating publicly that Zelensky’s plan was not the only one to be considered, as other peace plans were also on the table, that all stakeholders had to be involved, and innovative solutions needed to be explored. India’s readiness to promote peace on consensual terms was reiterated. Be that as it may, by making a most uncomfortable trip to Ukraine, Modi created more diplomatic space for India, allowing it to manage Western pressures and shift from a perceived pro-Russian stance to a position of greater neutrality.

Modi has spoken to Biden about his Ukraine visit and has also briefed Putin. Talk of some form of Indian mediatory role in Ukraine gained attention after Putin said at the Eastern Economic Forum at Vladivostok last week that he and Modi had exchanged perspectives on the Ukraine conflict and insights from his visit to Kiev. Contrary to some commentary in India suggesting that Modi’s visit to Ukraine signaled a shift in India’s ties with Russia, Putin acknowledged these peace initiatives. He stated that he respected Russia’s friends and partners — especially China, Brazil, and India —which have genuinely sought to resolve the conflict and that he was in constant communication with them on this issue.

Read more …

“..the premise that a person cannot be held criminally liable for third-party acts, is a naïve and utterly misguided approach.”

“..on another level he is just a computer nerd and his incoherent actions and statements are proof of that..”

Durov Still Does Not Get It (Karganovic)

After being released on bail from a French prison, Russian entrepreneur Pavel Durov made several statements which indicate that he is labouring under grave illusions about the nature of his predicament. He described the action of the French authorities, which resulted in his arrest and detention on French territory, as “surprising and misguided.” He then went on to question the legal premise of his detention and subsequent indictment, which is that he could be held “personally responsible for other people’s illegal use of Telegram.”) It is disappointing to see a thirty-nine years old sophisticated cosmopolitan adult, traumatised as he must be by his recent experiences, reasoning like a child. One should have expected a person of Durov’s wealth to secure competent legal assistance to help him understand the legal “facts of life” pertaining to his case.

There are two basic facts that the lawyer selected by Durov to represent him should have explained to his client. Incidentally, that lawyer is extremely well wired into the French establishment and the judicial system which is persecuting his bewildered protégé. It would not be uncharitable to say that his loyalties are dubious. The first and most fundamental of these facts is the political nature of the case. Durov’s predicament cannot be properly understood apart from that reality. Recognition of that fact does not exclude entirely the effective use of legal arguments and remedies but it marginalises their practical impact. The second important fact that a conscientious legal professional already in the first interview would have made clear to his client is that in the real world in which Durov is facing grave criminal charges, indulging intuitive notions of justice, including the premise that a person cannot be held criminally liable for third-party acts, is a naïve and utterly misguided approach.

Pavel Durov is a highly intelligent and, in his field, very accomplished individual. But on another level he is just a computer nerd and his incoherent actions and statements are proof of that. Contrary to what he seems to think possible, and as incompatible as that may appear to be with the concept of natural justice, under specific circumstances an individual can be criminally charged for the acts of third parties. Mechanisms that make that possible already are firmly in place. We would not necessarily be wrong to characterise those mechanisms as repugnant to the natural sense of justice, or even as quasi-legal. But formally they are well established and are integral components of criminal law. Tyrannical political systems are free to invoke those instruments whenever they decide to target a bothersome non-conformist such as Pavel Durov.

Whilst on the one track relentless pressure is undoubtedly being applied to the conditionally released but still closely supervised Durov to accede to the demands of deep state structures and turn Telegram’s encryption keys over to security agencies, on a parallel track the legal case against him is being constructed. It will be based on some variant or derivative of the theory of strict liability. The exact contours of that variant are yet to be defined as the case proceeds, and everything will depend on how the defendant responds to the combination of carrots and sticks that are now being put in front of him.

Since no evidence is being offered to prove that acting personally in his capacity as Telegram CEO Durov was complicit in any of the incriminating activities listed in the charge sheet, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that some version of strict liability will be the vehicle of choice to make the accusations stick. Unless he capitulates, the objective is to put him away for a long time, or at least to threaten him credibly with such an outcome in order to exact his cooperation. Strict liability is a convenient tool because it offers many shortcuts to the Prosecution. It achieves the desired effect in the absence of proof of specific intent and regardless of the defendant’s mental state, thus eliminating for the prosecution major evidentiary hurdles.

Read more …

“..in 1994 then-President Boris Yeltsin told his US counterpart, Bill Clinton, that “Russia has to be the first country to join NATO.”

Russian Security Chief Explains West’s Key ‘Mistake’ (RT)

The US and its allies missed an opportunity to neutralize Russia by fully embracing it in the 1990s, Security Council Secretary Sergey Shoigu believes. In an interview with Rossiya-24 channel aired on Tuesday, the former defense minister recalled how in 1994 then-President Boris Yeltsin told his US counterpart, Bill Clinton, that “Russia has to be the first country to join NATO.” “If at that point they fast-tracked us into the European Union… I believe we would have lost our sovereignty by today. The resources and natural deposits that our country has would have been largely redistributed and snatched,” Shoigu said. Russia was in a deep financial hole in the mid 1990s and relied on foreign aid to remain afloat, so it would have willingly gone into the Western fold, if offered, the official argued.


Clinton Yeltsin 1996

Shoigu recalled that, at the time, he was monitoring the arrival of tranches of foreign subsidies to rush to the government and get some funding to pay salaries to workers at the Emergencies Ministry, which he headed. ”They’ve made a mistake. They should have gotten us into the EU as soon as possible. And we would be like the EU members: just a command from across the ocean, we would be folding our paws and getting ready to jump through a hoop,” Shoigu mused in this week’s interview. As an example of European compliance with US whims, Shoigu cited the scandal involving French helicopter carriers of the Mistral class, which Russia ordered in 2011 for its Navy.

The deal was called off after the 2014 armed coup in Kiev, an attempt to punish Moscow for accepting breakaway Crimea as a new Russian region. Washington pressured Paris into tearing up the contract with Russia by leveraging the size of a pending fine on a French bank, Shoigu claimed. He was apparently referring to the Paris-listed BNP Paribas, which in June 2014 agreed to enter a guilty plea with the Americans in a case of sanctions avoidance and to pay a $9 billion penalty to close the case. According to the French authorities, scrapping the Mistral deal at the last minute and selling the ships to Egypt instead came at a net loss of €409 million ($450 mn).

Read more …

“The US is a country that doesn’t fulfill its obligations as a host country of the UN headquarters in the best way. So, it’s probably not the best place to travel right now..”

Kremlin Explains Putin’s Decision on UN General Assembly (RT)

Russian President Vladimir Putin will not attend this year’s high-level session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York because the US is not a suitable host for such events, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said. The UN General Assembly opens on Tuesday and will end on September 30. It will culminate with a week of high-level events between September 23 and 27, which will feature speeches by numerous world leaders, including US President Joe Biden, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and French President Emmanuel Macron. Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky is also expected to attend and deliver a speech on September 25. Commenting on Moscow’s participation, Peskov signaled that Putin has no plans to fly to New York.

“He hasn’t gone there in recent years. The US is a country that doesn’t fulfill its obligations as a host country of the UN headquarters in the best way. So, it’s probably not the best place to travel right now,” the spokesman said. The last time Putin personally addressed a UN General Assembly session was in 2015, while in 2020 he delivered a pre-recorded speech at the event. After the start of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022, the US imposed sanctions on numerous top Russian officials, including Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. However, under the 1947 Headquarters Agreement between the US and the UN, Washington is obliged to grant diplomats and representatives of member states immunity and unimpeded access to UN headquarters.

Against this background, the Russian delegation to the UN General Assembly will be headed by Lavrov. Russian officials have on numerous occasions accused the US of failing in its UN obligations, pointing to long delays in issuing visas to Russian diplomatic personnel. In April 2023, the US also declined to grant entry to Russian journalists accompanying Lavrov to UN headquarters, with officials in Washington accusing them of spreading “propaganda.” Lavrov denounced the decision, claiming that the US “had done something stupid.” Washington, he added, “showed what its sworn assurances about protecting freedom of speech, access to information, and so on are really worth.”

Read more …

“If an official summons is ignored, MPs may consider it a lack of respect for parliament, but this sanction is only symbolic..”

Elon Musk May Be Summoned to UK Parliament for Questioning on X Activities (Sp.)

The British parliament may summon US entrepreneur Elon Musk to testify about the activities of his social network X, in particular on the issue of moderation and the fight against hateful content, Financial Times reported on Monday. Ruling Labour Party parliamentarian Dawn Butler told the newspaper that the American entrepreneur would be invited as a witness. Butler is running to head the parliamentary science and technology committee, the publication said. Such committees examine the activities of ministers, civil servants and leading figures in a particular field within the framework of a certain issue. “It is vital for the committee to formally examine the use of algorithms in pushing hateful material — and the moderation of such content — on X and other social media platforms,” Butler said.

The British lawmakers can summon someone to answer questions from the committee, but they cannot force them to attend. If an official summons is ignored, MPs may consider it a lack of respect for parliament, but this sanction is only symbolic, the publication says. In August, British officials complained that X did not cooperate with the authorities in removing posts that posed a threat to national security during the wave of unrest. Musk himself, against the backdrop of mass protests in Britain, predicted a civil war in the country, a statement that caused discontent in London.

Read more …

“..the US would have to pay over $1.2 trillion in interest on the debt in the coming 12 months, which is reportedly equal to about 25% of government revenue..”

US ‘Going Bankrupt Extremely Quickly’ – Musk (RT)

The cost of servicing the vast US federal debt now outstrips the defense budget, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has claimed in an interview with the All-In podcast. He added that the country is “going bankrupt extremely quickly.” The US Treasury announced in late July that the national debt had surpassed $35 trillion, having soared by a trillion in a six-month period. In June, the US House Of Representatives passed its version of the annual defense policy bill that authorizes a record $895 billion in spending, marking an increase of 1% compared to the previous fiscal year. “Interest payments on the national debt are now higher than the entire Defense Department budget and rising,” Musk said, warning that the US is “going bankrupt extremely quickly.”

The tycoon stressed that every trillion dollars of debt added is money that “our kids and grandkids are going to have to pay somehow.” Earlier this week, the tech billionaire shared a post on his X platform (formerly Twitter) by an account focused on finance and economics, stating that the US would have to pay over $1.2 trillion in interest on the debt in the coming 12 months, which is reportedly equal to about 25% of government revenue. Earlier this month, Musk warned that the current rate of government spending was putting the US in the fast lane to bankruptcy, and that government overspending was stoking inflation. In August, the US Labor Department reported that annual inflation had dipped below 3% in the previous month for the first time since 2021. Prices of goods and services went up by 2.9%, while core inflation, which excludes the food and energy industries, rose by 3.2% over the previous 12 months.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Barry Soetoro

 

 

Vaxx
https://twitter.com/i/status/1833228842967679054

 

 

Swan

 

 

Horse

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Sep 102024
 


Pieter Bruegel the Elder Children’s games 1560

 

Harris Team Drafts Trump Stand-in For Debate Prep – WaPo (RT)
There’s No Debate (Quoth the Raven)
Suggestions for Trump in His Debate with Kamala (Paul Craig Roberts)
Professors Rally Academics Around ‘Less Bad’ Candidate Trump (Caldwell)
Trump Repeats Putin Bribe (Helmer)
Nuland Confirms West Told Zelensky To Abandon Peace Deal (RT)
Democrats Aren’t Creating Disorder; They’re Preserving it (Turley)
The Prosecution of Elon Musk for “Undermining” the Federal Government (Turley)
Enabling a “Brutus” to Slay the Elon Musk “Caesar” (Alastair Crooke)
Russia Remains Hackers’ Top Target for Past 2.5 Years – Kaspersky (Sp.)
Trump Unveils Plan To Stop De-Dollarization (RT)
Boeing Offers Staff 25% Pay Hike In Bid To Avoid Strike (BBC)
Germany Announces Tougher Border Controls (RT)

 

 

 

 

Free speech
https://twitter.com/i/status/1832786512422764937

 

 

Tucker Cheney

 

 

Burgum

 

 

Google

 

 

Judge Joe Brown

 

 

Sen. John Kennedy
https://twitter.com/i/status/1832757264869896389

 

 

Dinesh

 

 

 

 

 

 

He also prepped Hillary in 2016. We know how that went.

They’ll try to trigger Trump. It’s all they got.

Harris Team Drafts Trump Stand-in For Debate Prep – WaPo (RT)

US Vice President Kamala Harris has spent several days intensively preparing for the upcoming presidential debate against Republican Party presidential nominee Donald Trump, the Washington Post wrote on Monday. Harris’ team has brought in a longtime Democratic operative to ‘play’ Trump during the sessions, the report said. Harris and Trump are set for their first face-off on Tuesday night, an event held at Philadelphia’s National Constitution Center and hosted by ABC News. According to the Post, Harris has made few public appearances in recent days, instead spending most of them instead at an intensive “debate camp” in Pittsburgh’s Omni William Penn Hotel. Her aides have reportedly created a mock set-up to mimic the layout of the debate studio.

They also “cast a veteran Donald Trump stand-in to unleash harsh attacks and offensive comments; and put the vice president through hours of rehearsed questions,” the paper wrote. That stand-in is Philippe Reines, a longtime Hillary Clinton aide. Reines had initially been enlisted to play Senator J.D. Vance when Harris was set to face him in the vice-presidential debate before President Joe Biden dropped out of the race. “Now that Harris has ascended to the top of the ticket and will face Trump, Reines has stayed on to play the former president, reprising the role he played for Clinton during her 2016 debate preparations,” the paper wrote. Trump, who on Tuesday will participate in his seventh general election debate since 2016, appears to have taken a different approach to debate prep.

According to the Post, the former president spent much of the weekend at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, opting for “policy sessions” with aides. The Republican nominee does not like the public perception that he is practicing at all, according to his advisers, the Post said. Those aides said Trump views rallies and interviews as the best preparation for the debate. Trump’s debate with the 81-year-old Biden in June ended the latter’s campaign on July 21 amid widespread concern about his age and fitness for office. The stumbling debate performance against Trump and numerous gaffes led to Biden’s withdrawal from the race and his endorsement of Harris. She formally accepted the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination at its national convention in Chicago last month. The vice president has this week suffered a fall in the polls for the first time since becoming her party’s presidential candidate. A New York Times/Siena poll released on Sunday showed Trump edging out Harris 48% to 47% among likely voters nationally.

Read more …

“I believe strongly in everybody’s right to prioritize whatever they like in their lives. We used to call that freedom and, in this country, it’s supposed to be sacrosanct…”

There’s No Debate (Quoth the Raven)

As the news trucks and security details begin lining the streets of my neighborhood in Philadelphia, obstructing traffic and causing general chaos over the next few days leading into tomorrow’s debate, part of me wonders if I’m being crass and partisan when I shrug and wonder what there is to actually debate. As I wrote about last week, the substance of what Kamala Harris is going to bring to the debate stage tomorrow night will have very little to do with policy and will instead likely rely on jabs about Trump’s personality, mistruths about media hoaxes like Charlottesville, and statements ascribing to Trump things he has publicly disavowed, like Project 2025. This gaslighting campaign will likely be combined with strategic flip-flopping to acquiesce to policy positions that were Trump’s to begin with. We’ve already seen this leading into the debate.

First, it was stealing the “no tax on tips” policy, then it was reversing her stance on fracking, then it was claiming she’s not for an electric vehicle mandate, and then it was using photographs of Trump’s border wall in advertisements, claiming she is tough on immigration. It would be hilarious, if it wasn’t instead deeply, deeply sad for our country. The cold, hard facts are that when it comes to policy, there is no debate – and so tomorrow turns mostly into an exercise on how to run a crisis public relations campaign by Kamala Harris while Trump does what he always does: bludgeons his way forward ruthlessly. Trump will say what he’s been saying for the better part of a decade, with little change, and Harris will attempt to present a $2,500/hour McKinsey consulting, focus group approved, slide deck book report on a book she clearly hasn’t read.

As I said to Andy Schectman on our podcast this weekend, I can understand voting for a Democrat if your number one priority is abortion. If the right to be able to get an abortion in all 50 states at any time, for any reason, is the most important thing in your life, it makes sense to me that you would vote Democrat. Even though Trump reportedly won’t push for a national abortion ban and has taken the stand that he only wants to move the decision back to the states, there is still a significant amount of “my body, my choice” fear after the Roe vs. Wade repeal, ironically, from many people on the left who were perfectly fine with trampling on people’s rights to travel, work and otherwise live their lives due to vaccine mandates. I don’t pretend to understand how that could outweigh all the numerous other issues that would heavily impact our quality of life for some people.

I believe strongly in everybody’s right to prioritize whatever they like in their lives. We used to call that freedom and, in this country, it’s supposed to be sacrosanct. And so there’s my one concession for the left side of the aisle: abortion. When it comes to almost every other major key issue, when understood properly, to me there really is no debate. There’s no doubt that the country experienced an incredible surge in illegal immigration over the last four years under the Biden-Harris regime. If you are pro-undocumented, illegal immigrants, who rely on taxpayer cash to get by and who take jobs and opportunities from both existing citizens and legal immigrants, then I argue that you don’t understand the problem well enough. Emotionally, it’s a lovely gesture to say something like “no human being is illegal,” but when Haitians start taking over your small town, cutting the heads off of park geese to eat them, while sleeping on mattresses on your front lawn or living in 5-star hotels on taxpayer cash, the reality of a country bloated with illegal immigrants becomes clearer.

On the issue, there really is no comparison: Kamala Harris was not tough on the border and, on the contrary, actively fought against Texas when they tried to secure their own border. Though his rhetoric may be uncomfortable to some emotional amoebae who have little understanding of how the real world works, Donald Trump kept the country secure and made the border a top priority to his presidency. To me, there’s no debate on who handled this issue better.

Read more …

“..in America law is a shield of the people, but that the Democrats have turned it into a weapon in the hands of the state..”

Suggestions for Trump in His Debate with Kamala (Paul Craig Roberts)

Now that a debate is back on schedule for Tuesday September 10, I have these suggestions for Trump: Trump must leave Kamala alone and address issues whether or not she does. If he attacks Kamala, certainly a target, American women will vote against him. Trump should stress the open border problem with immigrant-invader gangs now seizing apartment houses and homes in blue jurisdictions, and with hotels, motels, school gyms, and bus and airport terminals full of immigrant-invaders who have no where to go except to the existing housing stock where illegal occupancy in blue jurisdictions is merely a “landlord-tenant issue.” You go pick up your kid from school and on your return your home is occupied by armed immigrant-invaders. The police tell you that it is not a police matter. Trump should have the news reports at hand.

Trump should stress that pushing against Russia and China invites nuclear war that threatens the entire world and has to stop. The power of nuclear weapons leaves no room for cultivating hostility between countries. Trump should say that Israel has hurt its reputation by its unrestrained assault on Gaza and the West bank and is making it difficult for America to continue its unconditional support of its ally. Israel needs to understand that there are limits on what Washington can support. Trump should emphasize that in America law is a shield of the people, but that the Democrats have turned it into a weapon in the hands of the state, a weapon unjustly used against the many who are in prison for attending a Trump rally. He should stress that a rule of law cannot be partisan.

Trump should say that the US economy needs more balance than it has between Wall Street’s and billionaire’s gains and the incomes of the rest of the people. Trump should ignore, not respond to, the “moderator” and questioners and speak directly to Americans without acknowledging hostile questioners. When it is his turn to speak, he should say what needs to be said and ignore loaded questions designed to paint a target on him. Trump must contain his aggressive and combative style, address the issues that threaten us and not make the usual political promises that indicate just another pandering politician buying votes. He should say that if elected, what he can do also depends on who voters put in the House and Senate. If he is hamstrung with a Democrat Congress, he will be deterred by another four years of false accusations and impeachments.

The Democrats and the media have been studying Trump’s personality and know how to provoke him into a rage that the presstitutes can then use to portray him as angry, intolerant, unstable. Trump must not play into their hands. If Trump follows these suggestions, it will be difficult for the Democrats to again steal the election as most Americans will know that there is nothing in a candidate with these positions not to like.

Read more …

If you’re an academic, you may actually think you matter..

Professors Rally Academics Around ‘Less Bad’ Candidate Trump (Caldwell)

University professors have started a petition for academics to rally behind Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election. The petition statement, a project of Professor Daniel Klein of George Mason University and Daniel Mahoney, professor emeritus of political science at Assumption University, encourages scholars to support the Republican candidate. As of Thursday, 51 professors had signed it. The list so far represents a mix of emeritus and current scholars from both private and public universities, including well known institutions and state schools. Titled “Lesser Evil,” it emphasizes the founding principle of individual liberty while decrying big government, and affirms the Declaration of Independence’s exaltation of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as the “chief aims of good governance.”

According to Klein, Republicans are more predisposed to oppose stark centralization, hence his support for what he deems the “lesser evil”: the Republican presidential candidate. “Except for a few odd places and a very few odd units on a few campuses, academia is a leftist apparatus. Academia continues to get worse,” Klein told The College Fix in a recent email. In his estimation, “it is less than 10 percent of professors who think R > D.” The petition comes amid concerns over ideological diversity on college campuses. Reports by The Fix and others have found university faculty lean heavily Democrat. Since The Fix’s first contact with Klein in late August, the number of signatures has doubled. The list will continue to be updated with new signatures through the November election. “The initiative might help the Republicans to win, and certainly can’t hurt,” Klein said.

To emphasize the crux of their message, the professors included a graphic on the petition website, “Democrats bad, Republicans less bad,” that breaks down where the two parties stand on various issues, including taxes, religious liberty, censorship, asset forfeiture, and energy policy. Continuing, Klein told The Fix other reasons for the project are “(1) To normalize the voicing of the R > D opinion within academia. (2) To get my fellow classical liberals to face up to their responsibility to decide whether R > D or D > R, as well as their responsibilities, to come to that decision virtuously and to be frank and open about holding their opinion.” If the petition succeeds in getting professors to re-think their political leanings, it could cultivate a more amicable atmosphere for right-leaning students and professors. Klein, however, said conservatives shouldn’t hold their breath.

Read more …

“..US sanctions “don’t need to be lifted, they need to be bypassed.”

Trump Repeats Putin Bribe (Helmer)

Presidential candidate Donald Trump has repeated his promise to end the Ukraine war the day after his re-election with a bribe for President Vladimir Putin and his two pro-American constituencies, the Central Bank of Russia and the Russian oligarchs. Applauded by an audience of New York lawyers and businessmen on Thursday afternoon, September 5, Trump answered a question from a Sullivan & Cromwell lawyer, Rodgin Cohen, who asked if Trump “would strengthen or modify any of these economic sanctions, particularly Russia.” Trump replied that sanctions “ultimately kill the dollar and kill everything the dollar represents. We have to continue to have that be the world currency…I think that if we lose the dollar as the world currency, I think that would be the equivalent of losing a war. That would make us a third world country…you’re losing Iran; you’re losing Russia.China is out there trying to get their currency to be the dominant one…I want to use sanctions as little as possible.”

Instead, Trump proposed penalty tariffs on hostile-country trade with the US. “I stopped wars with the threat of tariffs…The biggest threat you have is that you lose that [dominant] currency, and we have lost something we can never get back…. If we win [on November 5], I believe I can settle that war while I am president-elect, before I ever get into office… Sanctions have to be used very judiciously. We have things much more powerful, actually, than sanctions – we have trade [tariffs] but we cannot lose our dollar standard. Very important.”. The mainstream US media have not reported what Trump said. The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and New York Post – all supporting Vice President Kamala Harris in their campaign coverage – ignored the Economic Club meeting entirely. The Hill, a Washington-based publication for political specialists, headlined its report, “5 takeaways from Trump’s economic address in New York”, but the report didn’t include the sanctions proposal.

The next day, September 6, the New York Times reported Trump at a rally in Wisconsin: “though American spy agencies have assessed that the Kremlin favors Mr. Trump, the former president made light of President Vladimir V. Putin’s apparently sarcastic [sic] statement recently that he supported Ms. Harris. ‘He endorsed Kamala,’ Mr. Trump said. ‘I was very offended by that. I wonder why he endorsed Kamala. No, he’s a chess player.’” RT, the Russian state propaganda organ, did not notice Trump’s remarks on sanctions. But it reported his next-day attack on Putin for endorsing Harris, emphasizing, like the Times about Putin, that Trump was speaking tongue in cheek. Last week in New York Trump was rehearsing presentation of his economic policies ahead of the television debate with Harris scheduled for Tuesday.

He was also repeating the “limited sanctions relief” proposal recommended to Trump in April by his former staffers, US Army Lieutenant-General (retired) Keith Kellogg and Frederick Fleitz, a 19-year CIA official and race war fighter. In Moscow there have been several signals of Putin’s readiness to negotiate on Trump’s terms. The president’s deputy chief of staff, Sergei Kirienko, told a group of Kremlin officials and consultants working on US election propaganda in 2022 that the US sanctions “don’t need to be lifted, they need to be bypassed.”

Read more …

“..started asking questions about whether this was a good deal and it was at that point that it fell apart..”

Nuland Confirms West Told Zelensky To Abandon Peace Deal (RT)

Kiev consulted with the US, UK and other allies during the 2022 Istanbul peace talks with Russia and was told that the deal on the table was not a good one, former US under secretary of state Victoria Nuland has said. In an interview with Russian journalist Mikhail Zygar, former editor-in-chief of the opposition news channel Dozhd, which aired on Thursday, Nuland was asked to comment on reports that the peace process between Moscow and Kiev in late March and early April 2022 collapsed after then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson traveled to Ukraine and told Vladimir Zelensky to keep fighting.

“Relatively late in the game the Ukrainians began asking for advice on where this thing was going and it became clear to us, clear to the Brits, clear to others that [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s main condition was buried in an annex to this document that they were working on,” she said of the deal being discussed by the Russian and Ukrainian delegations in Türkiye’s largest city. The proposed agreement included limits on the kinds of weapons that Kiev could possess, as a result of which Ukraine “would basically be neutered as a military force,” while there were no similar constraints on Russia, the former diplomat explained. “People inside Ukraine and people outside Ukraine started asking questions about whether this was a good deal and it was at that point that it fell apart,” Nuland said.

Read more …

“Somewhere in that double negative, journalism perished.”

Democrats Aren’t Creating Disorder; They’re Preserving it (Turley)

In 1968, in the midst of Democratic convention riots, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley famously declared, “The policeman isn’t there to create disorder; the policeman is there to preserve disorder.” Democratic state election officials appear to have adopted a similar approach to the upcoming election. In states such as North Carolina and Michigan, Democrats are fighting to keep the name of Robert Kennedy, Jr. on the ballot even though he withdrew from the race and endorsed former president Donald Trump. These are key states where the misplacement of even 1 percent of votes could turn the outcome of not just the state but the entire election. In Michigan, Democratic Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson recently fought to keep third-party candidate Cornel West off the ballot. Unlike Kennedy, who is viewed as likely to drain votes from Trump, West is viewed as pulling votes from Vice President Kamala Harris, particularly among those opposed to her policies toward Israel.

A court ruled against Benson and said that she was adopting an artificially narrow interpretation to keep Kennedy on the ballot. In North Carolina, where Trump and Harris are in a statistical tie, Democrats also refused to remove Kennedy’s name. An appellate court this week ordered them to do so to avoid the obvious confusion for voters. Recently, the same Democratic officials sought to block West from the ballot due to his campaign causing “partisan mischief.” These efforts are being pursued in other states such as Wisconsin (another key state), where Democrats on the election board blocked a Republican effort to remove Kennedy’s name. In Michigan and North Carolina, officials have the distinction of fighting to keep a popular candidate from the ballot while fighting to retain a non-existent candidate. It is all in the name of protecting democracy from itself.

Previously, Democrats in Florida and North Carolina fought to block other Democrats from appearing on primary ballots. Candidates like Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.), author Marianne Williamson and commentator Cenk Uygur faced concerted campaigns by election officials and advocates to prevent voters from having a choice in the primary. After preventing a meaningful primary and securing the nomination for President Biden, Democrats later handed the nomination to Harris without a single vote from a single primary voter. Democratic activists are now calling it an election by “acclamation,” like a political version of the immaculate conception in which a candidate is simply conceived by the party elite. It is enough to make the Chinese Central Committee blush.

Harris was then walled off from the media to avoid any unscripted interactions, including by putting earbuds in her ears in what many called a clearly fake call to avoid press questions. At the same time, Democratic supporters are now arguing that it is not necessary for Harris to offer detailed plans or agree to interviews in a campaign that is selling “joy” and “good vibes” like political valium. Others appear to believe that saving democracy means holding Harris to a different, more deferential standard. New York Times editorial board member Mara Gay appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” to defend treating Harris differently: “I think the challenge, not just for journalists, but really for the country, is that not only is Donald Trump a threat, but, you know, it lowers the bar. So, I don’t think it’s unacceptable,” she said. Somewhere in that double negative, journalism perished.

Read more …

“Musk has proven the single greatest barrier to the global anti-free speech movement.”

The Prosecution of Elon Musk for “Undermining” the Federal Government (Turley)

Silicon Valley investor Roger McNamee this weekend went on MSNBC’s “Last Word” and called for the arrest of Elon Musk for “undermining” the federal government by sharing his opinions on X. McNamee is the latest denizen of the global elite to call for criminalizing speech to silence those with opposing views.McNamee is the founding partner of Elevation Partners and has a colorful history as a band member, a volunteer for Eugene McCarthy and a protester against Vietnam. As discussed in my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage”, he is like many liberal baby boomers now joining the anti-free speech movement. They have decided that free speech, once the defining right for the left, is now an existential threat.

McNamee’s rationale for criminalizing speech is chillingly shallow and irrational. He declared that somehow Musk’s political views made him a danger as the head of companies of major importance to the United States. It does not bother him when CEOs adopt far left views, just Musk opposing some of those views: “You have somebody who runs a really strategic defense and aerospace projects for the federal government who’s actively undermining the government that’s paying him. And somewhere in that is a legal case that needs to be prosecuted.” Perish the thought that a CEO might undermine the government. McNamee is using the government contracts with SpaceX as a reason to censor Musk’s political and social views.

“The critical element in thinking about Elon Musk is that, like any American, he has a right to his own opinion, and he has a right to express his opinion. However, that right is not unlimited. He is under some special limitations that would not apply to normal people because his company, specifically Starlink and SpaceX are government contractors and, as such, he has obligations to the government that would, for any normal person, and should for him, require him to moderate his speech in the interest of national security.” So, according to McNamee, if your company makes something that the government wants (including rescuing the currently stranded astronauts in space), he must give up his right to express political views, including against censorship. McNamee embraces the power of the government to dictate viewpoints or at least silence certain views as a matter of national security. It is no accident that the overriding objective is to “get Musk.” Musk has proven the single greatest barrier to the global anti-free speech movement.

Trump Elon
https://twitter.com/i/status/1832818848485011566

Read more …

“A witty woman of the time commented: “If we weighed the votes, Monsieur Hugo would be elected; but we’re counting them.”

Enabling a “Brutus” to Slay the Elon Musk “Caesar” (Alastair Crooke)

In the Washington Post on Monday, the headlines read: Musk and Durov are facing the revenge of the regulators. Former U.S. Labor Secretary, Robert Reich, in the British Guardian newspaper, published a piece on how to ‘rein-in’ Elon Musk, suggesting that “regulators around the world should threaten Musk with arrest” on lines of that which befell Pavel Durov recently in Paris. As should be clear to all now, ‘war’ has broken out. There is no need for further pretence about it. Rather, there is evident glee at the prospect of a crackdown on the ‘Far-Right’ and its internet users: i.e. those who spread ‘disinformation’ or mal-information that ‘threatens’ the broad ‘cognitive infrastructure’ (which is to say, what the people think!). Make no mistake, the Ruling Strata are angry; they are angry that their technical expertise and consensus about ‘just about everything’ is being spurned by the ‘deplorables’.

There will be prosecutions, convictions and fines for cyber ‘actors’ who disrupt the digital ‘literacy’, the ‘leaders’ warn. Professor Frank Furedi observes: “There is an unholy alliance of western leaders – Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emanuel Macron, German Chancellor Olaf Scholtz – whose hatred of what they call populism is undisguised. In his recent visits to Berlin and Paris, Starmer constantly referred to the threat posed by populism. During his meeting with Scholz in Berlin on 28 August, Starmer spoke about the importance of defeating “the snake oil of populism and nationalism”. Furedi explained that as far as Starmer was concerned, populism was a threat to the power of the technocratic élites throughout Europe:

“Speaking in Paris, a day later, Starmer pointed to the far Right as a ‘very real threat’ and again used the term ‘snake oil’ of populism. Starmer has never stopped talking about the ‘snake oil of populism’. These days virtually every political problem is blamed on populism … The coupling of the term snake-oil with populism is constantly used in the propaganda of the technocratic political elite. Indeed, tackling and discrediting snake oil populists is its number one priority”. So, what is the source of the élite’s anti-populist hysteria? The answer is that the latter know that they have become severed from the values and respect of their own people and that it is only a matter of time before they are seriously challenged, in one form or another. This reality was very much on view in Germany this last weekend, where the ‘non-Establishment (i.e. non Staatsparteien) parties – when added together – secured 60% of the vote in Thüringen and 46% in Saxony.

The Staatsparteien (the nominated establishment parties) choose to describe themselves as ‘democratic’, and to label the ‘others’ as ‘populist’ or ‘extremist’. State media even hinted that what counted more were ‘democratic’ votes; and not non-Staatsparteien votes, so the party with the most Staatsparteien votes should form the government in Thüringen. These have co-operated to exclude AfD (Alternative für Deutschland) and other non-Establishment parties from parliamentary business as far as legally possible – for instance by keeping them out of key parliamentary committees and the imposition of various forms of social ostracism. It reminds of the story of the great poet Victor Hugo’s membership rejection – no less than 22 times – by the Académie Française. The first time he applied, he received 2 votes (out of 39) from Lamartine and Chateaubriand, the two greatest men of letters of their time. A witty woman of the time commented: “If we weighed the votes, Monsieur Hugo would be elected; but we’re counting them.”

Why war? Because, after the 2016 U.S. election, the U.S. political backroom élites blamed democracy and populism for producing bad election outcomes. Anti-establishment Trump had actually won in the U.S.; Bolsonaro won too, Farage surged, Modi won again, and Brexit etc., etc. Elections were soon proclaimed to be out of control, throwing out bizarre ‘winners’. Such unwelcome outcomes threatened the deep-seated structures that both projected and safeguarded long-seated U.S. oligarchic interests around the globe, by subjecting them (oh the horror!) to voter scrutiny. By 2023, the New York Times was running essays headlined: “Elections Are Bad for Democracy”.

Read more …

The narrative on its head.

Russia Remains Hackers’ Top Target for Past 2.5 Years – Kaspersky (Sp.)

Hackers continue cyberattacks on Russia, the country has been the most attacked country in the world for the past 2.5 years, Anna Kulashova, Kaspersky Lab’s Managing Director for Russia and the CIS, told Sputnik.
“Russia remains the most attacked country in cyberspace for more than two and a half years,” Kulashova said. In the first eight months of 2024, more than half of Russians who use Kaspersky Lab products were attacked. The financial and public sectors, telecommunications, media and industry are attracting the most attention from attackers. According to her, the problem of “hacktivism” remains relevant, when attackers can damage a company’s operations to draw attention to social or political problems. However, cyberattacks are still often committed for financial gain and espionage.

“The compromise of organizations can begin with the use of vulnerabilities in publicly available applications, user credentials obtained, including as a result of brute-force attacks, as well as attacks through small companies — contractors of larger businesses,” Kulashova explained.

She recalled that in early July, the company recorded two waves of targeted mailings to domestic businesses with malicious archives or links inside. The recipients were about a thousand employees of organizations from the manufacturing, finance and energy sectors, as well as government agencies. In the event of a successful attack, the attackers could gain remote access to the organizations’ computers, download files and confidential documents from them. Fortunately, all attacks were blocked. Also this summer, the company identified a series of complex targeted attacks on Russian IT companies and government organizations. The attackers carefully disguised their malicious activity, using popular websites such as Dropbox. The malicious campaign was aimed at stealing official information, Kulashova noted.

Read more …

No, Donald, de-dollarization is not about payments involving the US. It’s between other countries, not in dollars, out of American reach. You’re not getting that back.

Trump Unveils Plan To Stop De-Dollarization (RT)

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has claimed that dumping the US dollar will be extremely costly for foreign countries which pursue the policy, adding that they will face unprecedented import taxes for pursuing non-dollar trade. Speaking to his supporters during a campaign rally in Wisconsin on Saturday, the former US president pledged to maintain the status of the greenback as the world’s reserve currency, emphasizing that it is “under major siege” as a growing number of states have been turning to other ways of settling trades. “You leave the dollar and you’re not doing business with the US, because we are going to put a 100% tariff on your goods” Trump said.

A broad trend towards using national currencies instead of the greenback has gained momentum following the massive economic restrictions introduced against Russia by the US and its allies in the wake of the escalation of the Ukrainian conflict in February 2022. After being cut off from the Western financial system, Moscow has turned to alternative options for settlement, with some of Russia’s foreign partners following suit. Last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Russia hadn’t been pursuing a de-dollarization policy, but was forced to look for other options after a series of unprecedented measures, including Russia’s central bank being cut off from dollar transactions, a ban on the transfer of US banknotes to the country, and the freezing of the country’s forex reserves.

According to Putin, Moscow and its BRICS partners are now using national currencies in 65% of mutual trade settlements. Members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have been planning to discuss a shift to settlements in local currencies instead of the US dollar, euro, yen and pound sterling. The combined GDP of the economic bloc, which includes Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam, reportedly amounts to $4 trillion. Last week, the presidential candidate pledged to substantially reduce the use of sanctions by Washington if he is reelected in November. Speaking at the Economic Club of New York, Trump acknowledged that the curbs imposed by the US on other states are damaging for the dollar.

Read more …

No way Boeing can afford this; they’re broke. And share prices rise…

Boeing Offers Staff 25% Pay Hike In Bid To Avoid Strike (BBC)

Boeing is offering its staff a 25% pay rise over four years in a bid to avoid a strike that could potentially shut down its assembly lines as early as Friday. Union leaders representing more than 30,000 employees have urged the workers to support the proposal, describing it as the best contract they had ever negotiated. If approved, the agreement would be an important achievement for Boeing’s new chief executive, Kelly Ortberg, who faces pressure to fix the company’s quality and reputational issues. Boeing workers in the Seattle and Portland region are set to vote on the deal on Thursday. If the deal is rejected, however, a second ballot will need to be approved by two-thirds of union members for a strike to go ahead. In a video message to Boeing workers, the aerospace giant’s chief operating officer, Stephanie Pope, described the proposal as a “historic offer”.

If ratified by members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) union, it would be the first full labour agreement between the firm and the unions in 16 years. The current contract between Boeing and the unions was first reached in 2008 following an eight-week strike. The two sides agreed to extend it in 2014 and it is now due to expire later this week. Although the preliminary deal did not match the union’s initial target of a 40% pay rise, negotiators still praised it and advised members to accept it. “We can honestly say that this proposal is the best contract we’ve negotiated in our history,” the IAM said in a statement. Aside from the pay rise, the deal offers workers improved healthcare and retirement benefits, and 12 weeks of paid parental leave.

It also includes a commitment from Boeing to build its next commercial plane in the Seattle area if the project is started during the lifetime of the contract. It is not clear when the company will announce its next jet. The deal also gives the union members more say on safety and quality issues. “Financially, the company finds itself in a tough position due to many self-inflicted missteps. It is IAM members who will bring this company back on track,” the union negotiators said, referring to the crises faced by Boeing in recent years. Mr Ortberg, an aerospace industry veteran and engineer, took over as Boeing’s new chief executive last month. His appointment came as the firm reported deepening financial losses and continued to struggle to repair its reputation following recent in-flight incidents and two fatal accidents five years ago.

Read more …

The end of the EU’s open borders system. They did this themselves.

Germany Announces Tougher Border Controls (RT)

Germany will reimpose passport controls on its land borders for at least the next six months, in order to curb “irregular migration,” the government in Berlin has said. Germany has a 3,700km long land border with Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Switzerland, Austria, the Czech Republic and Poland. All are members of the EU Schengen Zone. “We are strengthening our internal security through concrete action and we are continuing our tough stance against irregular migration,” Interior Minister Nancy Faeser said on Monday, announcing the measure. “We are doing everything we can to protect the people in our country against this,” Faeser added.

Passport controls are scheduled to begin next Monday and last for six months, unless renewed by Berlin. According to Faeser, they are intended to crack down on people entering Germany without visas and address threats from “Islamist terror groups” and transnational organized crime. Germany ramped up controls on the borders with Poland, the Czech Republic, Austria and Switzerland last year, in response to “a sharp increase in first-time asylum requests,” according to the state broadcaster DW. Those controls were also billed as temporary, but have been repeatedly extended. Last month’s stabbing spree at a diversity festival in Solingen, when three people were killed and eight wounded, has triggered renewed debate among Germans about the mass migration from outside the EU. The suspect, a 26-year-old Syrian, had reportedly sought asylum in 2022.

The anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD) and Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) parties made significant gains in the state elections in Thuringia and Saxony last week. The ruling coalition – which includes Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s Social Democrats – is facing another tough vote in Brandenburg later this month. The government has reportedly been in discussions about tackling migration with the mainstream opposition parties, the Christian Democrats (CDU) and the Christian Social Union (CSU). Immigrants make up an estimated 18% of Germany’s population, by official estimates. Of those, almost 40% have lived in the country for less than 10 years.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

RFK cellphone


 

RFK

Elton John

 

 

Lioness

 

 

Snow

 

 

Fasting
https://twitter.com/i/status/1833098667785392336

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Sep 082024
 


Pieter Bruegel the Elder The Triumph of Death 1562

 

No Foreign Attempts To Interfere In Presidential Election Detected – US Intel (RT)
Tuesday’s Debate Looms Large for Both Candidates (RCW)
Dick Cheney Endorses Kamala Over ‘Depraved’ Trump (ZH)
The Impact of RFK Jr. Remaining on the Ballot in Swing States (ET)
Trump Pledges To Scale Back Use of Sanctions (RT)
Russia Sanctions Will Stay… Until US Collapses – Medvedev (RT)
Sanctions Against Russian Media Aimed at Discrediting Trump Victory (Sp.)
Britain ‘Thinking Head of Western Hydra That Helps Zelensky Regime’ (Sp.)
@Naval Ravikant (Kanekoa)
Hunter Biden Discovers There is No “Nicer” Way to Say “I’m Guilty” (Turley)
Poland Aims at ‘World Record’ for Military Spending in 2025 (Sp.)
Top German MP Threatens X and Telegram With Bans (RT)
Massive Free Speech Protest In Brazil After Supreme Court Bans X (ZH)
Social Security Facing $63 Trillion in Unfunded Liabilities (ET)
Tesla Announces Full Self-Driving Coming To China, Europe In Early 2025 (ZH)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Beck&Bret

 

 

RFK


https://twitter.com/i/status/1832147230960316928

 

 

Kamala Ad

 

 

Bidenomics

 

 

Sachs

 

 

Biase

 

 

BBee

 

 

 

 

Well, that won’t stop them. They go seamlessly from “directly interfering” to “indirectly interfering” in 2 seconds flat. Without playing off Russia, Iran and China, the US wouldn’t know its own identity. It would be lost.

No Foreign Attempts To Interfere In Presidential Election Detected – US Intel (RT)

US authorities have not detected any attempts by foreign actors to directly interfere in the upcoming presidential election, representatives of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and the Federal Bureau of Intelligence (FBI) have stated. Intelligence officials did, however, claim that Russia, Iran and China are trying to sway public opinion and sow discord in American society.During the 2016 and 2020 elections, US intelligence agencies repeatedly alleged that Moscow was deploying hackers and using “information warfare” to swing the vote in favor of Donald Trump.None of these claims have been proven true; a report released by Special Counsel Robert Mueller in 2019 found them to be baseless.

During a multi-agency press briefing in Washington DC on Friday, an unnamed representative of the ODNI said: “We have not observed any foreign actors seeking to interfere in the conduct of the 2024 elections.” “Instead of interference, the IC assesses adversaries so far are focused on using information operations and propaganda to try to shape voter preferences or undermine confidence in the election,” the official added. When making similar claims in the past, US authorities have rarely bothered to define what they meant by disinformation when leveling accusations at Russia, Iran and China. These were the top three nations supposedly attempting to “exacerbate divisions in US society for their own benefit.” The ODNI official added that there are several other countries that “are considering activities that at minimum test the boundaries of election influence,” while stopping short of naming them.

The official singled out Moscow as the “pre-eminent and most active foreign influence threat to this year’s US elections.”As for Iran, the US intelligence agency believes the country is “making a greater effort than in the past to influence this year’s elections,” looking to “stoke discord and undermine confidence in our electoral process.”China, by contrast, is more “focused on influencing down-ballot races” at the state and local levels, according to US authorities. Beijing is allegedly seeking to “counter US politicians viewed as anti-China and to support others viewed as pro-China.”

Earlier this week, the US government imposed sanctions on two RT employees over their alleged role in disseminating video clips that sowed “discord and division” in the country. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova insisted at around the same time that Russia is not in the habit of meddling in the internal affairs of sovereign countries. China and Iran have similarly denied previous American claims.

Read more …

Trump should simply be himself. And be wary of trickery.

Tuesday’s Debate Looms Large for Both Candidates (RCW)

For six weeks, Kamala Harris’ campaign has been running circles around Donald Trump’s efforts. Democrats have raised tons of money, energized their base, and protected Harris from unscripted interviews and political risks. All the while, Trump’s campaigning has been lackluster.True, Trump has been through a lot over this past year – indictments, trials, contested primaries, and an attempted assassination; the strain is showing. But the time has come for him to make the sale. Despite Trump’s lack of focus and Harris’ early momentum, polls continue to show a close race. This is why Tuesday’s presidential debate is so important. It could make or break either campaign. As we’ve learned over the years, debates are more often lost than won. The Biden-Trump showdown in June proved it.

For Trump, the debate is an opportunity to recharge, a chance to unveil a strong, disciplined message. For Harris, it’s an opportunity to broaden her base and reassure skeptical voters. Pundits tell us, incorrectly, that voters have already made up their minds, but the truth is otherwise. Recent polling finds that a sizable part of the electorate (18%) could still swing either way.Right out of the box, each candidate should lay the predicate for the entire night. Starting aggressively is the best way to take the offense, regardless of questions asked or time limits. Debate messaging should reflect the campaign’s central theme – assuming a campaign has one. Trump’s central theme has yet to be honed, so the debate is an opportunity for him to do so. Harris’ messaging has been working well, but it’s hollow, mostly a collection of slogans. This debate is a chance for her to tie her themes together.

The first words out of Trump’s mouth should frame the election as a choice between his record and the Biden-Harris record. Polls tell us that most voters prefer the Trump record, especially on the economy, immigration, and national security. This could be Trump’s version of Ronald Reagan’s famous debate line, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” Trump also needs to make the case that Harris is too far left by citing specific policies she’s supported. He should end a line of rapid-fire attacks with a pithy summation, something like: “Biden went along with the progressive left, but Harris will be their champion.” Harris’ first words should focus on the future, reinforcing her message that “we’re not going back” to the Trump era. From the start, she needs to inoculate herself against likely attacks; that will make it easier to respond when they arise.

She should be ready to defend her own views – from Gaza to Ukraine, taxes to fracking, grocery prices to deficit spending. Harris needs to show a depth of knowledge she rarely displays.At times, the most important thing Trump should do is shut up. Time limits and microphone mute buttons may help him do that. He needs to avoid distractions, such as relitigating the 2020 election. There is no reason for him to bring up his criminal cases. These are potential traps; Harris will have ready-made retorts for all of them. Unpredictability is Trump’s strength. Harris expects him to be rambling and disruptive. But if, instead, he’s rational and concise, and his attacks are coherent and focused – not his usual word salad of overstatements and distractions – he could force Harris off her game.

Harris should employ two techniques that could throw Trump off stride. One is humor. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Joe Biden effectively used wit against Trump in previous debates, and it was a missed opportunity. The second is for Harris to make her points in the form of questions. As a lawyer and senator, she knows how to do this. Even though debate rules don’t allow cross-questioning, nothing prohibits candidates from posing questions to the audience in the form of statements. After the endless ads and unremitting smears that often cancel out one another, debates serve as tiebreakers for undecided voters. This may be the only presidential debate left in this election. A bad night for either candidate could be fatal. Tune in on Tuesday and decide for yourself.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1832150412096368769

Read more …

No better endorsement than having Cheney endorse your opponent.

Dick Cheney Endorses Kamala Over ‘Depraved’ Trump (ZH)

Look who slithered out of his neocon lair of no regrets to publicly endorse Democrat Kamala Harris for president. Former Vice President and “lifelong Republican” Dick Cheney announced Friday that he will vote for Biden’s VP over Republican candidate Donald Trump, issuing a stern warning to the public that the former president “can never be trusted with power again.” The blood-curdling pot meet kettle irony of that statement coming from Dick-shock-and awe-Cheny aside… it’s entirely to be expected in a post-“Global War on Terror” world (apparently everyone conveniently forgot) where GW Bush regularly pals around with the likes of Ellen DeGeneres. 83-year old Cheney said in his statement: “In our nation’s 248-year history, there has never been an individual who is a greater threat to our republic than Donald Trump.”

“He tried to steal the last election using lies and violence to keep himself in power after the voters had rejected him,” old man Dick continued. “He can never be trusted with power again.””As citizens, we each have a duty to put country above partisanship to defend our Constitution. That is why I will be casting my vote for Vice President Kamala Harris,” he concluded.And of course, the Harris campaign stated in response that she is “proud” to receive Republican Cheney’s support and “deeply respects his courage to put country over party.” Earlier in the day Liz Cheney, the daughter of Mr. Deep State and former Wyoming Rep., also endorsed Harris at the Texas Tribune Festival in Austin.Her remarks were even more colorful, as she described Trump as a “a depraved human being” and called him along with his running mate Ohio Sen. JD Vance, “misogynistic pigs”.

Here’s what she said:”Every Republican, anybody who’s contemplating casting a vote for that ticket, you know, really needs to think about what they are enabling, what they’re embracing and the danger of electing people who will only honor election results if they agree with the outcome, and who are willing to set aside the Constitution,” she said in Austin.”And you know in the case of Donald Trump, promote, provoke, exploit violence in order to seize power.” The Cheney family has long been on record as vowing to do everything possible to prevent Trump from entering the Oval Office again…As for Trump, he responded briefly and fairly quickly on his Trump Social platform, dismissing both: “Dick Cheney is an irrelevant RINO, along with his daughter.”Meanwhile…

https://twitter.com/i/status/1555268168473460741

Read more …

“A Vote For Trump is a Vote For Kennedy..”

The Impact of RFK Jr. Remaining on the Ballot in Swing States (ET)

Veteran Democrat strategist Lis Smith was hired to spearhead an aggressive communication plan to combat Kennedy, independent Cornel West, and Green Party nominee Jill Stein. In the weeks preceding Kennedy’s decision to suspend his campaign in battleground states and endorse Trump, he found himself in courtrooms across the country testifying in DNC-backed lawsuits that were filed to keep him off the ballot. The Aug. 23 press conference, in which he announced he would back Trump, was held on a Friday. Earlier that week, he appeared in Pennsylvania and New York regarding ballot access hearings. Kennedy criticized the Democrats for aligning with Biden and then nominating Harris without a primary during his Aug. 23 address. He also chastised the DNC for backing lawsuits in multiple states aimed at blocking him from the ballot.

On Aug. 26, Kennedy told The Epoch Times that Trump would make a series of announcements that other Democrats are joining his campaign. The next day, Trump’s campaign confirmed that Kennedy and former Democratic Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard accepted the former president’s offer to join his transition team if he wins in November. Kennedy told The Epoch Times on Aug. 26 that he would actively campaign for Trump and that there is no defined role he would have in a Trump administration. He says fighting chronic disease, improving children’s health, and addressing corporate capture of government agencies are his top priorities. Kennedy joined Trump on stage at a rally in Glendale, Arizona, on Aug. 23 when the former president announced he would appoint Kennedy to a panel investigating the rise in chronic disease in children if he won his White House bid.

While Kennedy said on Aug. 23 that he still encouraged supporters to vote for him in non-battleground states, he said in an email on Sept. 6, “No matter what state you live in, I urge you to vote for Donald Trump. The reason is that is the only way we can get me and everything I stand for into Washington DC and fulfill the mission that motivated my campaign.” Kennedy added that it will be a “close election” and “a disputed election result would be a disaster for our divided nation.” Kennedy’s online messaging has shifted messaging away from “Declare Your Independence,” even though he will appear on the ballot in many states.His website now centers around the “Make America Healthy Again” campaign and reiterates his belief on how to accomplish that objective. “A Vote For Trump is a Vote For Kennedy,” a banner atop the home page reads.

Read more …

“..Putin insisted earlier this week that “no other [US] president has ever imposed so many restrictions and sanctions against Russia” as Trump.”

Trump Pledges To Scale Back Use of Sanctions (RT)

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has promised to drastically reduce the use of sanctions by the US if he wins the election in November. During an appearance at the Economic Club of New York on Thursday, Trump was asked if he plans to “strengthen or modify” Washington’s economic restrictions on Russia and other countries. “I want to use sanctions as little as possible,” he replied, explaining that there is “a problem” with the extensive reliance on such penalties by the US, because “ultimately it kills your dollar and it kills everything the dollar represents.” It is “important” for the dollar to remain the international reserve currency, the former president insisted.

“If we lost the dollar as the world currency, I think that would be the equivalent of losing a war, that would make us a third world country. And we cannot let it happen,” he said. Trump, who slapped various restrictions on Russia, Iran and North Korea during his term in office between 2017 and 2021, acknowledged that he himself has been the “user of sanctions.” “I use sanctions very powerfully against countries that deserve it. And then I take them off because, look, you are losing Iran, you are losing Russia. China is out there trying to get their currency to be the dominant currency… all of these things are happening,” he said. Russia’s President Vladimir Putin insisted earlier this week that “no other [US] president has ever imposed so many restrictions and sanctions against Russia” as Trump.

Commenting on Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris, Putin said she has “a very contagious laugh, which shows that everything is fine for her… but if everything is so great for Ms Harris, maybe she would refrain from acting this way [if she wins the election]?” The US and its allies have imposed a record 22,000 sanctions on Moscow since 2014, when Crimea rejoined Russia and a conflict between Ukraine and the Donbass republics broke out following a Western-backed coup in Kiev. The number of curbs skyrocketed after the launch of Moscow’s military operation against Ukraine in February 2022. Russian authorities have condemned the sanctions as illegal, responding with travel bans on Western officials and other moves.

Read more …

“So, it is sanctions forever. Or rather, until the US collapses during an imminent new civil war. After all, Hollywood makes films about this for a reason..”

Russia Sanctions Will Stay… Until US Collapses – Medvedev (RT)

Wide-reaching sanctions on Russia will remain in place no matter who wins the US presidential election in November, former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev has said.Earlier this week, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump pledged to “use sanctions as little as possible” if he makes a return to the White House. In a Telegram post on Saturday, Medvedev insisted that Trump’s comment does not mean he will lift the penalties in force against Moscow. “For all his apparent bravado as an ‘outsider,’ Trump is ultimately an establishment insider. Yes, he is an eccentric narcissist, but he is also a pragmatist,” the official, who now serves as deputy chair of the Russian Security Council, said. The former US president understands that sanctions harm the dollar’s role as the international reserve currency, but for him it is still an “insufficient reason to stage a revolution in the US and go against the anti-Russian line of the notorious Deep State, which is much stronger than any Trump,” Medvedev argued.

As for the Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris, one “should not expect any surprises from her” if she wins the election, Medvedev predicted. “She is inexperienced and, according to her enemies, just plain stupid. Beautiful meaningless speeches and boring ‘correct’ answers to questions will be prepared for her, which she will read off a teleprompter while laughing contagiously,” he said. The former Russian president noted that the Soviet Union was under sanctions for most of the 20th century. Now, Russia is facing similar treatment from the US and its allies, but on a much larger, “unprecedented” scale, he added. “So, it is sanctions forever. Or rather, until the US collapses during an imminent new civil war. After all, Hollywood makes films about this for a reason,” Medevedev wrote.

He appeared to be referencing the recent ‘Civil War’ movie directed by Alex Garland, which tells the story of a team of war reporters traveling across America to interview the president amid fighting between the federal government and a Texas- and California-led secessionist movement. The US and its allies have imposed a record 22,000 sanctions on Moscow since 2014, when Crimea rejoined Russia and a conflict between Ukraine and the Donbass republics broke out following a Western-backed coup in Kiev. The number of curbs spiked after the launch of Moscow’s military operation against Ukraine in February 2022. Russian authorities have condemned the sanctions as illegal, responding with travel bans on Western officials and other moves.

Read more …

‘Russia, Russia, Russia’ is a one trick pony.

Sanctions Against Russian Media Aimed at Discrediting Trump Victory (Sp.)

The recent US sanctions against Russia’s Rossiya Segodnya international media group and the RT broadcaster is an effort by Democrat-leaning federal government to contest a potential win by former President Donald Trump in the upcoming presidential election by rehashing anti-Russia narratives, historian and political analyst Paul Gottfried, told Sputnik. “It is clear why the departments of our federal government, which are now subsidiaries of the Democratic Party, are screaming ‘Russia, Russia, Russia’ for the umpteenth time. They are being mobilized to contest the presidential election if they can’t prevent Trump from winning. Unfortunately [for them], the same actors were involved in the same farce throughout the Trump presidency and may be losing credibility,” Gottfried, who is the editor-in-chief of “Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture” and Raffensperger professor of humanities emeritus at Elizabethtown College, said.

On September 4, the US Department of the Treasury announced sanctions against the editor-in-chief of Russia’s Rossiya Segodnya international media group and the RT broadcaster, Margarita Simonyan, and her deputies Anton Anisimov and Elizaveta Brodskaia. Deputy Director of the RT English-Language Information Broadcasting Andrey Kiyashko, RT’s Digital Media Projects Manager Konstantin Kalashnikov and a number of other employees of the broadcaster were also added to the sanctions list. The US State Department, in a parallel move, tightened the operating conditions for Rossiya Segodnya and its subsidiaries, designating them as “foreign missions.” Under the Foreign Missions Act, they will be required to notify the department of all personnel working in the United States and disclose all real estate they own.

US authorities also announced restrictions on the issuance of visas to individuals they allege are “acting on behalf of Kremlin-supported media organizations.” However, the Department of State refused to disclose the names of those subject to the new visa restrictions. Commenting on the new sanctions, State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller claimed the measures did not target any particular individual Russian journalists, but rather the employees of the targeted companies who were involved in “covert activities.”

Read more …

“For Moscow, Britain is the most hostile NATO country because the UK is involved in all major projects to damage Russian infrastructure, and the civilian population and troops to the maximum..”

Britain ‘Thinking Head of Western Hydra That Helps Zelensky Regime’ (Sp.)

It’s safe to say that London is directly involved in hostilities against Moscow, military journalist, Alexey Borzenko, told Sputnik. He was commenting on Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova’s recent statement that the preliminary adjustment of the flight controllers (of the Ukrainian drones that attacked an oil storage facility in Russia’s Rostov region) was carried out in Salisbury and Newport, UK. “For Moscow, Britain is the most hostile NATO country because the UK is involved in all major projects to damage Russian infrastructure, and the civilian population and troops to the maximum,” Borzenko, who is also deputy chief editor of the Literary Russia newspaper, said. He stressed that it is in the UK where Ukrainian specialists in electronic warfare, missile technology, and strike systems using long-range artillery are trained.

The UK can be called “the thinking head of the entire Western hydra”, which helps the Kiev regime by providing it with military hardware, the journalist pointed out, recalling that Britain was the first to supply grenade launchers to Ukraine, followed by deliveries of tanks, missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles and even poison in ampoules. Borzenko expressed hope that “on a certain stage”, Britain will bear responsibility for its actions. When it comes to Moscow’s retaliatory steps, the journalist subscribed to Zakharova’s stand that “in response to the Zelensky regime’s strikes on Russian territory using UK-made weapons, Russia reserves its right to strike any British military facilities and vehicles in Ukraine and beyond.” Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov earlier said that London is trying to be at the forefront among those who continue to send weapons to Ukraine; he added that the UK’s military aid to the Kiev regime will not change the course of Russia’s special military operation.

Read more …

X thread. Elon Musk:”Accurate analysis by @Naval”

@Naval Ravikant (Kanekoa)

.@Naval Ravikant says the Democrat Party’s lawfare against President Trump is “disgusting behavior” that could “end the Republic” and lead to a “one-party state better known as a dictatorship.” “If you look at the charges brought against Trump, and I actually read them quite carefully. These were really Trumped-up charges. They were really made up. You violate the statute of limitations. You try to drum things up into a felony when there was no evidence of such. It was a miscategorization of business expenses. It’s this selective prosecution.”

“If you want the case against Kamala Harris, it’s the fact that she was the DA of San Francisco, and San Francisco is a mess. And, in fact, after she advocated for George Gascon, the guy who is destroying LA by basically not prosecuting criminals and going after business owners. This selective prosecution thing is a disaster.””The moment you start breaking down this wall, you get into weaponizing justice. You know, Hillary Clinton blew up her email server and then wiped it with bleach bit. There are no consequences for that. Turns out the Hunter Biden laptop is real. Who knew? Even though we were told, it was all misinformation by the intel agencies. This is the scary stuff. This is the stuff that ends the Republic or turns it into a one-party state, better known as a dictatorship.”

“The weaponization of the justice system and the engagement and willingness to engage in lawfare will lead to violence, disillusionment, a breakup, and something worse for the United States. When these guys start playing with going after their political enemies.” “When Alvin Bragg runs on the explicit campaign to take down Trump and then they go hunting through and looking for anything and drumming up any charge to go after him with the most favorable juries in the most favorable part of the country and then just control the evidence and control the narrative that is the beginning of the end. And the people who are in Silicon Valley and the donors who are supporting this lawfare, they’re dead to me. These people are destroying the ground on which they stand.”

Read more …

“From the beginning to the end, it is a series of total failures produced by sheer hubris..”

Hunter Biden Discovers There is No “Nicer” Way to Say “I’m Guilty” (Turley)

“Guilty.” That word repeated nine times by Hunter Biden in a federal courtroom in California represented something that he had evaded for much of his life: accountability. Five years ago, Biden had to explain the rule to ABC News reporter Amy Robach, who had the audacity to ask about his history. Biden instructed the TV journalist to “say it nicer.” The president’s son spent his adult life with his father, his family, political allies, and reporters enabling every corrupt deal and human debauchery. Even at his plea hearing, Biden was closely shadowed by his so-called “sugar brother” Kevin Morris, who bankrolled his lavish lifestyle for years. This week, Biden was still demanding that even prosecutors “say it nicer” on the eve of his criminal trial. He created chaos at the start of jury selection by announcing that he would plead guilty but demanded an “Alford plea.” The Alford plea allows a defendant to accept that there is sufficient evidence to convict while declining to admit guilt.

Roughly 17 percent of state cases and 5 percent of federal cases end in Alford or no contest pleas. However, as a criminal defense attorney, I have never heard of a defendant seeking an Alford plea without previously discussing the option with prosecutors. These pleas ordinarily require the approval of prosecutors and Justice Department rules require the approval of high-ranking officials or the Attorney General himself. Prosecutors were gobsmacked by Biden’s sudden announcement and told the judge that they had not been consulted on the demand. Not surprisingly, they were miffed and quickly opposed any such plea. The result was all too familiar for those of us who have witnessed the chaos of the Hunter Biden defense. After causing a stir, the effort failed and Biden was left standing in the courtroom repeating a standard guilty plea nine times.

It is the continuation of a legal strategy that could be best described as controlled chaos. In 2023, Biden stood with his lawyers in open defiance of a congressional subpoena outside of Congress. He demanded that the House committees meet his demands for appearing as a witness. After all the drama, the effort failed. Facing a criminal contempt sanction, he appeared as demanded by Congress and was later accused of perjury. It was the same pattern that emerged when Biden secured a sweetheart plea deal that avoided any jail time, avoided a host of federal charges, and gave him sweeping immunity for unnamed offenses. It collapsed in court when the judge asked the prosecutor if he had ever seen such a deal offered to any other defendant. He admitted that he had not. The response from the Biden team was the same privileged fit.

One lawyer told prosecutors to “just rip it up.” Later the Justice Department attorneys stated that they still tried to reach a new plea deal but that Biden gave them the stiff arm. The result? An unmitigated failure. Biden was convicted on every gun count before a sympathetic jury in the hometown of the Biden family. This burning train then continued down the track to California where the team insisted that it would make the same addiction defense that failed in Delaware. It then pulled another jump scare with the Alford plea demand. From the beginning to the end, it is a series of total failures produced by sheer hubris. As I wrote in 2023, Biden ultimately was undone by his entitlement and appetite.

He expects everyone from reporters to representatives to prosecutors to “say it nicer.” At every stage, his bravado and defiance led to the worst possible result. Ironically, he had a prosecutor in David Weiss who fought to help him avoid any prosecution or jail time. Weiss allowed major felonies to expire for now explicable reasons and refused to indict Biden for being an unregistered foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Yet, somehow, Biden succeeded in forcing Weiss to prosecute him against every apparent inclination to the contrary.

Read more …

Oh wait, there’s a war going on…

Poland Aims at ‘World Record’ for Military Spending in 2025 (Sp.)

Poland wants to set a “world record” for military spending next year by ramping up procurement of weapons and military equipment, Defense Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz said on Tuesday. “Next year, 4.7% of Polish GDP will be allocated to defense. This will be the absolute record and a world record that Poland will set,” he said on the margins of a defense industry exhibition in the Polish city of Kielce. Poland has already earmarked a record-breaking 4.1% of gross domestic product for the military spending in the 2024 budget. Polish media reported in August that the government intended to hike military expenditure to nearly 5%. Only five allies in 32-member NATO spend more than 3% on their military needs: Poland, Estonia, the United States, Latvia, and Greece. Two-thirds of NATO member states have met the alliance’s requirement of spending at least 2% on defense.

Read more …

This Green Party MP sees an opportunity to go after the AfD, which is winning all the polls.

Top German MP Threatens X and Telegram With Bans (RT)

Germany must act to stop the dissemination of extremist content online and block major social media platforms if necessary, a senior MP from the country’s Green Party has said. MP Anton Hofreiter, the chairman of the Bundestag’s European policy committee, made the remarks on Saturday while speaking to reporters from Funke Media Group. The politician called for tighter control over social media, up to the outright blocking of certain platforms. “One of the biggest problems of extremism is online radicalization,” Hofreiter stated, adding that the dissemination of “anti-constitutional content on the Internet” must be stopped. “We need to tackle the root of the problem and push back radicalization in digital space as well as in society,” he stressed. Those social media platforms that refuse to abide by German laws and remove “extremist content” must be blocked altogether, Hofreiter argued, specifically singling out X, formerly Twitter, among the potential targets.

However, blocking platforms must only be a last resort measure, the MP noted, urging the government not to distance itself from modern technology. Instead, the government should use them for its own benefits, namely deploying “digital agents” to infiltrate private groups on Telegram to identify potential criminals, Hofreiter suggested. The call to toughen Germany’s stance on social media comes after a new series of incidents, including a shooting outside the Israeli consulate in Munich, as well as a knifing rampage in Solingen that left three dead. In recent days, several countries have taken steps to rein in social media platforms. Earlier this week, Brazil slapped a blanket ban on X; the platform had failed to comply with local political misinformation and hate speech laws by refusing to delete certain offending messages.

In late August, the Russian tech entrepreneur and founder of Telegram Pavel Durov was arrested in Paris. The businessman now faces a multitude of charges related to complicity in drug trafficking, money laundering, fraud, and various forms of child abuse, stemming from the actions of Telegram users. While Durov was ultimately released on bail, he has been ordered to stay in France while the investigation is ongoing.

Read more …

“We all know that we are imperfect and do not know everything. We know that we rely on others to discover the truth. Why, then, do so many people want censorship?”

Massive Free Speech Protest In Brazil After Supreme Court Bans X (ZH)

Thousands of Brazilians flooded city streets on Saturday to protest against the government’s censorship crusade against Elon Musk’s ‘free-speech’ X platform. The demonstration, held Saturday on Independence Day, was led by former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro – who said in response to Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes: “I hope that the Federal Senate puts the brakes on Alexandre de Moraes, this dictator who does more harm to Brazil than Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva himself.” Several notable X accounts, including journalist Michael Shellenberger, are reporting from Sao Paulo’s main boulevard, where tens of thousands have gathered today in opposition to far-left Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes that recently blocked X nationwide.

Here’s more from Shellenberger on the situation: “Brazilian President Lula and Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes say they must block X to protect Brazil’s independence. X is a platform for dangerous, false, and hateful words, they say, and many of those words violate Brazil’s laws and Constitution. But their censorship goes far beyond what Brazil’s constitution allows. The government demanded that X and other social media networks censor and ban individual people, including journalists and politicians. Such bans are immoral, illegal, and unconstitutional. They constitute election interference and undermine democracy by preventing candidates from getting the word out. I agree that lying is wrong, hate speech is ugly, and there are limits to freedom of speech. We must not allow people to use words that directly result in physical violence.

But everybody lies, everybody engages in hate speech, and the limits to free speech must never include elections. Imagine what would happen if it were illegal to lie: everyone should go to prison starting with the journalists and politicians. As for hate speech, did Lula express hatred when he praised Adolf Hitler? Does he not express hatred every time he speaks of Elon Musk and Jair Bolsonaro? People blame speech for the chaos of January 6 in the United States and January 8 in Brazil. But the events of those days resulted from inadequate security, not anything anyone said online. And if the government can censor disfavored election information, how would anyone ever know if the government stole an election?

Democracy and secure elections depend on freedom of speech. The idea that we must censor speech to protect democracy ranks with other Orwellian ideas like “War is peace” and “Slavery is freedom.” For thousands of years, democracy and freedom walk hand in hand, as do censorship and dictatorship. Everybody knows in their heart that censorship is wrong. We all know that we are imperfect and do not know everything. We know that we rely on others to discover the truth. Why, then, do so many people want censorship?

Read more …

“It’s like operating on half of the cancer, removing half a cancer, and telling your patient to come back in 10 years, and when they do, it’s twice as big..”

Social Security Facing $63 Trillion in Unfunded Liabilities (ET)

Social Security is facing $63 trillion in long-term unfunded liabilities, according to the 2024 Old-Age, Survivors, Disability Insurance (OASDI) trustees report. The report looked at two things: how much money will be missing indefinitely and how much will be missing in the next 75 years. The report determined that there will be a permanent $62.8 trillion deficit and about a $23 trillion shortage for the next 75 years. Officials explained that these numbers show how much less money they will have after the money saved up in trust funds runs out. “The annual shortfalls after trust fund reserve depletion rise slowly and reflect increases in life expectancy,” the report reads. “The summarized shortfalls over the infinite horizon, as percentages of taxable payroll and GDP, are larger than the shortfalls for the 75-year period.”

OASDI trustees noted that the shortfall could be eliminated if the combined payroll tax rate was raised to “about 17.0 percent” or if there was a “permanent reduction in benefits for all current and future beneficiaries by about 26.5 percent.” Laurence Kotlikoff, professor of economics at Boston University, told The Epoch Times that assessing the current infinite unfunded liability is imperative. “There’s nothing in economics that says you should just look at 75 years and assume everybody’s going to be dead the day after,” Kotlikoff said. “It’s like operating on half of the cancer, removing half a cancer, and telling your patient to come back in 10 years, and when they do, it’s twice as big, and you’re operating out on half. “[That’s] the practice here in our country dealing with Social Security.”

This is not the first report to spotlight the deteriorating fiscal state of the retirement scheme and other federal programs. In February, the Treasury Department released the “Financial Report of the United States Government.” It concluded that U.S. taxpayers face more than $78 trillion in long-term unfunded obligations for Social Security and Medicare. The problem, according to Mark Warshawsky, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, is that these outlooks are based on rosy scenarios, meaning that the United States will not grapple with a financial crisis, a major military conflict, or another pandemic. “To make matters worse, the [Financial Report] is based on optimistic, indeed unrealistic, assumptions,” he wrote, adding that the report suggests that the Trump-era tax cuts will completely lapse, income tax revenues will rise over time, and defense spending will not increase.

Read more …

Will we still be able to drive ourselves? If you get into an accident with an FSD vehicle, who gets the blame? Man or machine?

Tesla Announces Full Self-Driving Coming To China, Europe In Early 2025 (ZH)

Tesla AI said pending FSD rollouts in China and Europe are “due to popular demand,” adding that regulatory approval will first be needed to push the over-the-air update in both regions. The update would enable drivers to activate the advanced driver assistance software.In July, CEO Elon Musk said FSD regulatory approval for both regions was likely achievable by the end of the year. He said on Thursday that FSD could be launched in right-hand drive markets sometime in the first half of next year.In April, Beijing gave Tesla the ‘green light’ to roll out FSD and partner with Chinese tech giant Baidu for mapping and navigation software. Tesla has satisfied multiple data security and privacy requirements to operate in the world’s largest EV market.

The approval in April came just days after Musk unexpectedly visited Beijing and met with Premier Li Qiang, who was previously the Communist Party chief in Shanghai when Tesla was setting up its automobile manufacturing plant there. Also in April, Wedbush Securities senior analyst Dan Ives told Bloomberg TV that Musk’s visit to China was a major “watershed moment.” “This could open up FSD in China, which I view as unlocking what really could be the golden opportunity for them,” Ives said. At the time, Bloomberg reported that Musk’s move to seek FSD approval in China was to stem Tesla’s revenue slump. Tesla AI also provided a roadmap for near-term rollouts:

https://twitter.com/Tesla_AI/status/1831565197108023493

Looking ahead, the long-awaited Tesla robotaxi is set to be unveiled on October 10 at the Warner Bros. Discovery movie studio in Burbank, California.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

RFK Bill Gates

 

 

Micrometer

 

 

Eyes
https://twitter.com/i/status/1832311120402477301

 

 

Lion

 

 

Elephant

 

 

Analemma

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Aug 282024
 


Francisco Collantes The Vision of Ezekiel 1630

 

Durov May Be Banned From Leaving France If Charged (Sp.)
Macron Invited Durov in 2018 to Move Telegram Headquarters to Paris (Sp.)
Pavel Durov: The Quixotic Free Speech Hero of Our Time (Karganovic)
EU to Telegram – We’re Coming to Get You (Pepe Escobar)
Musk Asks Macron To Explain Durov Arrest (RT)
Durov’s Arrest Is ‘Hallmark Of Dictatorship’ – Tucker Carlson to RFK Jr (RT)
Durov’s Arrest Represents A New Level Of Desperation From Western Elites (Jay)
Harris Agrees To Debate Rules – Trump (RT)
Trump Slams Harris ‘Flip Flop’ On Border Wall (ZH)
Will Kennedy Save Trump? (Bridge)
Jack Smith Files Revised Indictment in Trump Federal Election Case (ET)
Trump Lawyers Urge Appeals Court to Disqualify Fani Willis (ET)
The Western Way of War – Owning The Narrative Trumps Reality (Crooke)
Macron Rejects Left-Wing Government (RT)
Poland In ‘State Of Hybrid War’ – Deputy Defense Chief (RT)
US Nuclear Missile Project At Least 5 Years Behind Schedule – WSJ (RT)

 

 

 

 

How on earth can the polls be so close if most people Lemon talks to don’t know who Kamala is? I’m not buying it. It takes time to build name and face recognition. But Kamala just spent her first 40 days hiding from the press. Those polls are lying.

Lemon

 

 

RFK
https://twitter.com/i/status/1828219047407706539
https://twitter.com/i/status/1828245686845927504

 

 

Trump Dr. Phil
https://twitter.com/i/status/1828599617216209031

 

 

Tulsi
https://twitter.com/i/status/1828382219125301584

Biolabs
https://twitter.com/i/status/1828150312265547911

 

 

https://twitter.com/i/status/1828268100040700374

 

 

 

 

“..the arrest warrant was issued by France’s OFMIN, the agency tasked with combating violence against minors..”

But

“..the investigation of his case has been entrusted to the National Anti-Fraud Unit..”

What links violence against minors to fraud?

Durov May Be Banned From Leaving France If Charged (Sp.)

Telegram founder Pavel Durov, who was detained in France, may be banned from leaving the country if charged, the Financial Times newspaper reported, citing an informed Paris-based lawyer. Investigators may try to obtain additional information from Durov for the investigation or put pressure on him by extending his detention, the report said on Tuesday. If Durov is charged “it will be interesting to see what measures a judge imposes, as he lives abroad,” the lawyer was quoted as saying by the newspaper, adding that house arrest or a ban on leaving the country could be imposed. Durov may be in custody at the National Anti-Fraud Unit in the suburbs of Paris, a source told RIA Novosti.

“Considering that the investigation of his case has been entrusted to the National Anti-Fraud Unit, Durov may be there,” the source said. Russian-born Durov, who is a citizen of multiple countries, including France, was detained at an airport north of Paris on Saturday on charges linked to criminal uses of his Telegram app, including terrorism, drug trafficking, money laundering and fraud.

Read more …

Macron detests not having hi tech industry in France.

Macron Invited Durov in 2018 to Move Telegram Headquarters to Paris (Sp.)

French President Emmanuel Macron invited Telegram founder Pavel Durov to move the app’s headquarters from Dubai to Paris in 2018, but he declined, US media reported on Wednesday, citing people familiar with the matter. Macron made the proposal during a lunch, which had not been previously reported, the people said. The French leader also discussed granting French citizenship to Durov at the time, the newspaper reported. Russian-born Durov, who holds citizenship in several countries including France, was detained at a Paris airport on Saturday on charges related to the criminal use of his Telegram app, including terrorism, drug trafficking, money laundering and fraud, which could land the 39-year-old billionaire in prison for up to 20 years. Macron has said that Durov’s arrest was not a political decision and promised that the decision on the businessman’s case will be made by judges.

Read more …

“..enormously gifted, focused, eloquent, engagingly modest, and above all supremely principled..”

Pavel Durov: The Quixotic Free Speech Hero of Our Time (Karganovic)

It seems that over two hundred years after the Revolution, in France the Liberté part of its celebrated slogan has not really stuck. On Saturday 24 August, Russian social media platform entrepreneur Pavel Durov was arrested by the French police at La Bourget airport near Paris on trumped-up charges. The French authorities went about it in a sneaky third-world manner that does them no honour. They waited for Durov’s plane to enter French air space before issuing the arrest warrant. In it Durov was charged with a slew of “ham sandwich” offences, including such absurdities as “promotion of terrorism, paedophilia, fraud, drug trafficking, organised crime, and cyberbullying”. As soon as Durov departed the plane, he was surrounded and led off by police agents. The actual reasons for this arrest have nothing to do with the allegation in the charge sheet and they are bound to resonate with partisans of freedom everywhere.

Firstly, it is Durov’s resolute and principled refusal to share on demand with security agencies information that would compromise the privacy of Telegram users. Durov’s firm position in this regard collided directly with legislation which obligates social platforms operating on European Union territory to do precisely that. Secondly, the same legislation requires social media platforms to institute a humiliating system of what euphemistically is called “monitoring.” This amounts to directed censorship of opinions expressed by users in their Telegram posts. Durov wanted none of it. But in the EU, platform management is under orders to engage in this odious practice on behalf of and according to the directives of the totalitarian EU political elite. The firm rejection by Durov of that invasive demand, as we just saw, had dire consequences for his personal liberty.

All collective West based social platforms have willingly succumbed to these unethical demands and have more or less meekly agreed to act as extensions for their countries’ security services, to the detriment of users’ privacy. Attentive readers will easily connect the dots and recall that far from being an isolated occurrence this arrest follows a pattern of repression targeting non-systemic public figures in all major collective West “democracies.” Tucker Carlson a few months ago performed a huge public service by broadcasting an immensely informative interview with the thirty nine year-old Russian Wunderkind, recorded at Durov’s office in the United Arab Emirates.

The fascinating interview unveils the portrait of an enormously gifted, focused, eloquent, engagingly modest, and above all supremely principled person. Durov and his equally accomplished brother were the driving force behind VK, the Russian version of Facebook characterised by a much greater degree of sophistication, and later on of the Telegram social media platform which, at last count, had a global following of over nine hundred million users. But the key takeaway that emerged from Tucker Carlson’s interview, and it was with providential timing to counteract the deluge of media calumnies that is sure to follow Durov’s arrest, is something entirely different. It is the glaring contrast between the Russian genius, unmoved by the temptations of wealth and fame, and the avarice, vanity and emptiness of his Western counterparts who have been trying to compete with him in the same line of work.

With all that being said, like many members of the Russian intelligentsia, from A. Herzen in the 19th century on to the present day, Pavel Durov fell pray to his compatriots’ standard infantile misperception of where the grass is greener. At an earlier stage of his career he sadly failed to strike a reasonable balance between his passionate and laudable commitment to freedom and privacy and the conscientious fulfilment of his patriotic duties which, in their broad sweep, override fidelity to narrower principles, no matter how fundamental in their significance. Had he acted more flexibly then, and in the interview with Tucker Carlson the circumstances of that episode are fully revealed, he would not have turned into a stateless global nomad and most likely would not have fallen into the trap so treacherously sprung on him in Paris.

The legal situation arising from the detention of Pavel Durov, with the preposterous charges concocted against him and the harrowing possibility of twenty years’ imprisonment, is tailor made for maître Jacques Vergès but, unfortunately, he is no longer with us. One hopes that Durov will secure competent and uncorrupted representation and that his legal counsel shall grasp the self-evident fact that the case against him in its entirety is political, with criminal elements maliciously contrived and grafted on for propaganda effect.

The Assange case now having been settled, Pavel Durov is certain to become the new global privacy and freedom of expression icon. Freedom loving people world-wide will mobilise to show support in order to extract him from the clutches of the pathetic Macron regime and its overseas “partners” who, from the background, are undoubtedly pulling the strings. That is well and good. But one simply wishes that once and for all liberty would triumph. Icons are uplifting, but we could easily do with one fewer if that were the price that we should have to pay in order to secure the freedom to which Pavel so admirably dedicated his passionate idealism and irrepressible creativity.

Read more …

“Durov though got drunk on NATOstan’s “freedom and democracy” propaganda, rebuffed Russia, and left.”

“There’s one thing that Putin never tolerates: betrayal of Russia. And that applies to the letter to Durov.”

NOTE: he was free to leave.

EU to Telegram – We’re Coming to Get You (Pepe Escobar)

The Pavel Durov saga is a gift that will keep on giving for a long time to come. This is what hot information war is all about. So let’s attempt to connect several loose ends. A high-level Russian analyst makes the case that Durov’s arrest is connected with “anti-French protests in its former colonies, withdrawal from its traditional ‘sphere of influence’ where Telegram infrastructure was used to push anti-colonial and anti-Macronist narratives”. Add to it an “attempt to influence narratives on Ukraine both in Russian and the international media field, which is highly dependent on Telegram infrastructure.” Paris is indeed desperate to make itself relevant when it comes to psy ops and influencing/special warfare in Ukraine. However, as the analyst notes, the French don’t have the tech means to accomplish it.

So this may have led to Macron deciding to “exercise a personal pressure campaign against Durov himself. French authorities must be rather desperate in trying to keep their heads in the game of global politics. And Telegram today is global politics.” Paris was just waiting for a big break. When the pilot of Durov’s Embraer private jet submitted his flight plan, there was no warrant for his arrest in France. Only when the jet was on its way to Le Bourget, Paris filed the warrant in haste. Durov was clueless all along. In a nutshell: Paris got a fateful heads up he was flying into France – could have been via Durov’s Dubai-based, post-obsessive, social climbing girlfriend – and laid out the trap in a flash. There’s a myth that the FSB in the past asked Durov for Telegram’s encryption keys. False. The FSB wanted Telegram to provide top access on investigations of serious crimes, on a case-by-case basis.

That’s an enormous difference compared to what the US Government does with Meta or Twitter/X via their totally open backdoors. Durov though got drunk on NATOstan’s “freedom and democracy” propaganda, rebuffed Russia, and left. And that brings us to President Putin. Putin had better things to do than to meet Durov in Baku, and the Kremlin has gone on the record to deny the meeting. Durov was doing a tour of Central Asia and the Caucasus, they happened to cross their paths in Azerbaijan. There’s one thing that Putin never tolerates: betrayal of Russia. And that applies to the letter to Durov. When Durov went to the US, the Americans, predictably, demanded Telegram’s backdoors to surveil everybody. So he set up shop in Dubai and later applied for French citizenship.

Read more …

“The Paris Public Prosecutor’s Office has stated that he was arrested as part of a broad criminal inquiry against an unnamed person.”

Musk Asks Macron To Explain Durov Arrest (RT)

US tech mogul Elon Musk has asked French President Emmanuel Macron to shed light on the reasons behind the arrest of Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov. The Russian entrepreneur was detained last week upon arriving at Paris-Le Bourget Airport. The French judicial authorities have twice extended Durov’s detention. The Paris Public Prosecutor’s Office has stated that he was arrested as part of a broad criminal inquiry against an unnamed person. “It would be helpful to the global public to understand more details about why he was arrested,” Musk wrote in a comment under Macron’s post on X (formerly Twitter). On Sunday, the French leader took to X to deny having any political motive for detaining Durov. He insisted that the arrest is part of “an ongoing judicial investigation” in which the courts will decide the entrepreneur’s fate.

Durov has said he has faced pressure from the US. In an interview with American journalist Tucker Carlson in April, he claimed that he received “too much attention” from the FBI and other law enforcement agencies while on US soil. According to the prosecutors, Durov could face charges ranging from complicity in drug dealing and money laundering, to facilitating the distribution of child pornography. French media had previously reported that the arrest of the 39-year-old Russian citizen, who also holds French, UAE, and St. Kitts and Nevis citizenship, was related to alleged offenses regarding Telegram. Reports suggest that the authorities believe Durov is complicit in a range of crimes allegedly committed via the social media app due to insufficient moderation.

Born in Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) in 1984, Durov left Russia in the mid-2010s and has since mainly lived in the UAE. In 2021, he was granted French citizenship. In July, Durov wrote on his Telegram channel that the number of active monthly users of the messaging platform had grown to 950 million. Durov’s arrest has been denounced as an infringement upon rights enjoyed in both the EU and the US. Carlson, Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic, former CIA and NSA contractor Edward Snowden, and Silicon Valley investor David Sacks have spoken out in support of the entrepreneur. Shortly after the arrest, Musk, who launched the hashtag #FreePavel, suggested that the pressure on freedom of speech could worsen.

Read more …

“We’ve lost Europe,” Kennedy replied. “Europe now does not have free speech.”

Durov’s Arrest Is ‘Hallmark Of Dictatorship’ – Tucker Carlson to RFK Jr (RT)

Telegram CEO Pavel Durov’s arrest in France, along with the US administration’s encouragement of it, bear “the hallmark of dictatorship,” American journalist Tucker Carlson has said. The comments were made during an interview with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has recently announced the suspension of his campaign as an independent candidate for US president. Durov was arrested in Paris last week, and is being held for questioning in connection to a broader cybercrime probe into illicit activities on the billionaire’s end-to-end encrypted social media platform, the French authorities have said. Telegram generally refuses to share user data and chat logs with law enforcement, and Durov has claimed that this privacy-first approach has drawn attention from intelligence agencies around the world.

In the interview on Monday, Kennedy said the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which protects the right to freedom of expression from government interference, should also protect “misinformation,” as well as information that “no one wants to hear.” Carlson replied that the administration of US President Joe Biden currently views anything that criticizes the “job that they’re doing” as misinformation. “With that in mind, you see the Biden administration encouraging France, [French President Emmanuel] Macron to arrest the owner and founder of Telegram, Pavel Durov, who is, as of now, in a French prison,” Carlson said, adding: “that’s the hallmark of dictatorship.” “We’ve lost Europe,” Kennedy replied. “Europe now does not have free speech.”

He went on to draw a comparison between Durov and X (formerly Twitter) owner Elon Musk, blasting the Democratic Party for its lack of actual democratic values. “Elon Musk should be the hero of the Democratic Party,” Kennedy said. “He was actually the only one that would allow free speech on his platform, and he’s now become a villain because of it.” Russia’s top human rights official, Tatyana Moskalkova, said Durov’s arrest is a blow against free speech, claiming it is “an attempt to shut down Telegram, the platform where you can find the truth about world affairs.” Telegram’s official statement on the arrest of its CEO noted that the platform complies with EU laws, and that its content-moderation policies are in line with industry standards.

Read more …

“..while Musk himself shuts down Egyptian comedian Bassem Youseff who had 10m followers on X..”

Durov’s Arrest Represents A New Level Of Desperation From Western Elites (Jay)

The arrest of Pavel Durov marks a new low point on the scumline of the side of the bath – the tub being western democracies and the line being their desperation to stay in power at the costs of controlling social media. Durov, who owns Telegram and lives in Dubai, could be in jail for months and possibly years on the trumped-up charges which the French state has conjured up simply because he refuses to allow any government to have a back door into Telegram. He has fought this tooth and nail for years with the west, in particular the U.S., playing every dirty trick in the book to get access to the platform for its own nefarious purposes – to destroy opposition figures, their strategies etc. – rather than what it is dressed up to be, identifying terrorists and international criminals.

As the UK ponders how its own state has sunk to a new totalitarian level in recent days with the arrest of its citizens who merely like a posting on a social media platform, the West has arrested this French Russian dual national genius who is charged with the crimes of those criminals active on Telegram. And so charges of terrorism and trafficking in minors, drugs and whatever else they can find on the platform will be made against him as someone abetting in the crimes. Of course, the same rules will not be levelled against Elon Musk who surely has criminals on his platform or for that matter any of the other social media platforms.

But how many of these platforms are also taking the same stand as Durov? We are led to believe that most of them aren’t but in light of his arrest we should assume that many of them have already allowed some sort of access to them for the deep state. Elon Musk likes to brag about his refusal to comply with the EU’s demands that he “moderates” who he allows onto X, adding that other social media platforms accepted the deal offered to him by Brussels: comply with our requests and we grant you some leniency on future antitrust fines. This offer, which he claims was happily accepted by other platforms is a close as you can get to the EU offering a brown envelope stuffed full of cash to a man in a pub. It’s a bribe and gives a clue as to how anti-democratic the EU is and how it operates in the shadows.

The French arrest however goes deeper in that we can assume that it was not France operating alone to nab Durov. We can assume that the FBI and CIA had probably pushed Macron to do this appalling dirty work but perhaps also Israel had a hand in it. Just recently, Netanyahu complained that data which was stolen from the government was being exchanged on Telegram and asked Durov to step in and retrieve it. He got not reply. Did Mossad have a hand in the arrest of Telegram’s boss? It seems credible given that it is hard to believe the Durov would fly into French airspace eyes wide open. Was it a kidnapping operation to get his plane and his pilot to land in Paris? French TV channel TF1 said Dubai-based Durov had been travelling from Azerbaijan and was arrested at around 8 p.m. (1800 GMT) on Saturday 24th of August but did not state whether the plane’s ultimate destination had been France.

The details around the arrest are very sketchy, but according to Reuters, Durov, whose fortune was estimated by Forbes at $15.5 billion, said some governments had sought to pressure him but the app should remain a “neutral platform” and not a “player in geopolitics”. Another question which arises from the arrest is whether it is an international effort by western countries led by the U.S. – with Israel very much part of it – to test the waters for other arrests. Pundits have been dismissed as conspiracy theorists for weeks now suggesting Elon Musk will be arrested at some point, or charged in his absence, by UK authorities for some of the more controversial posts he has made about the political situation in the UK, or even by the EU which appears to have started a legal battle with him after he refused to respond to two letters sent to him by a French European Commissioner.

Perhaps even the Democrats in the U.S. might play the same card given that Musk has lost all credibility as this neutral player in U.S. politics after he has so openly supported Trump who has promised him a position in a new government if he were to enter the Oval Office. There is no such thing really as free speech. It comes at a very high price for those who want to protect and cherish it and now France will test the political landscape to see how the arrest of Durov will affect Macron’s ratings. The French president has made outstandingly poor judgment in the past in calling for parliamentary elections immediately after EU ones which gave so much power to far-right groups, so he seems to be good at falling on his own sword. He may well have factored that Durov does not have the popularity of say Assange who didn’t stir so much political anger when he was banged up for years in a filthy, dank cell in the UK on trumped up charges from the U.S.

What is especially worrying is that locking up powerful people who have huge followings on the internet is becoming a trend which people are getting used to. The war between those who want to control the perceived truth and those who hold the actual one is hotting up. Scott Ritter, Andrew Tate, Richard Medhurst all arrested within days of one another, while Musk himself shuts down Egyptian comedian Bassem Youseff who had 10m followers on X. What we are witnessing is a new level of desperation that western elites are more afraid than ever that after wasting hundreds of billions of dollars in Ukraine and starting a world war in the Middle East that voters have no confidence any more in their decision-making, as they, the public, struggle more and more to pay for groceries or even heat their houses. It’s a new milestone in the blind dogma of elites to resort to tactics which we would have scorned China or North Korea for using just a few years ago. It’s a new level of panic which we haven’t seen before.

Read more …

“..neither side will be given the questions in advance,” he continued, adding “no Donna Brazile!”

Harris Agrees To Debate Rules – Trump (RT)

Former US President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris have agreed to a set of rules for their upcoming presidential debate, Trump announced on Tuesday. Harris allegedly wanted to use a “cheat sheet” during the ABC-hosted showdown, but was apparently denied. The debate will take place on September 10 in Philadelphia, and will be hosted by ABC News anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis. “The rules will be the same as the last CNN debate, which seemed to work out well for everyone except, perhaps, Crooked Joe Biden” Trump wrote in a post to his Truth Social platform. “The debate will be ‘stand up’, and candidates cannot bring notes, or ‘cheat sheets’. We have also been given assurance by ABC that this will be a ‘fair and equitable’ debate, and that neither side will be given the questions in advance,” he continued, adding “no Donna Brazile!”

Before the 2016 presidential election, CNN contributor and Democratic National Committee (DNC) vice-chair Donna Brazile gave Hillary Clinton a list of questions ahead of her town hall event with the network. Trump has long maintained that CNN and other mainstream media outlets openly favor Democrats. However, he praised the objectivity of CNN hosts Jake Tapper and Dana Bash after they moderated a debate between him and President Joe Biden in June. The debate was an unmitigated disaster for Biden, who appeared frail and confused throughout, and ended his reelection campaign three weeks later.

Trump pulled out of the September 10 debate after Biden withdrew from the race, calling on Harris to face him in a September 4 head-to-head on Fox News instead. However, Harris insisted on September 10, and Trump agreed, before calling on the vice president to accept a total of three debates, including the Fox News date and a third showdown hosted by NBC News. Harris has only agreed to the ABC News debate. The Trump and Harris campaigns argued this week over rules and technical details governing the debate, with Trump’s team pushing for each candidate’s microphone to be muted while the other speaks, and Harris’ staff lobbying for open mics.

Harris “is ready to deal with Trump’s constant lies and interruptions in real time. Trump should stop hiding behind the mute button,” a spokesman for the vice president said on Monday. Trump campaign spokesman Jason Miller replied that the Republican candidate had “accepted the ABC debate under the exact same terms as the CNN debate,” before claiming that Harris asked for “a seated debate, with notes, and opening statements.” Before announcing that he had reached an agreement with Harris’ team, Trump said on Sunday that he was considering backing out of the debate entirely due to ABC’s “ridiculous and biased” coverage of him. “Why would I do the Debate against Kamala Harris on that network?” he wrote on Truth Social, adding that ABC’s journalists “have a lot to answer for.”

O’Leary

Read more …

That’s one whopper of a flip flop.

Trump Slams Harris ‘Flip Flop’ On Border Wall (ZH)

After presiding over the worst illegal immigration crisis in US history, failed ‘border czar’ Kamala Harris has now pledged to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build a wall at the southern US border – a plan she called “un-American” during the Trump administration. According to Axios, which calls it the “latest example of Harris flip-flopping on her past liberal positions,” Harris is now embracing a ‘more hawkish’ immigration policy while the Trump campaign spends tens of millions of dollars on attack ads over the Biden-Harris administration’s failed border policies. Last week, Harris told the Democratic National Convention that she would sign a recent bipartisan border security bill negotiated by Sens. James Lankford (R-OK) and Chris Murphy (D-CT), which calls for hundreds of millions of dollars of unspent funds to be used to continue Trump’s wall.

“It requires the Trump border wall,” Lankford told Axios. “It is in the bill itself that it sets the standards that were set during the Trump administration: Here’s where it will be built. Here’s how it has to be built, the height, the type, everything during the Trump construction.” In 2017, then-Senator Harris called Trump’s border wall project a “stupid use of money,” and committed to blocking funding for it. Then, under her watch as the so-called “Border Czar,” illegal crossings on the southern border spiked (at least) 140% compared to numbers seen during the Trump administration, according to the House Committee on Homeland Security.

After Democrats gained control of the House in 2019, they opposed the large-scale funding Trump requested for the wall – leading to a government shutdown. Eventually, some funding was approved – but was far less than what Trump had requested. In response, Trump declared a national emergency in February 2019 to divert funds from other federal projects to the wall’s construction, which led to various legal challenges. Last week Harris came under fire for a campaign video which prominently featured images of Trump’s partially built US-Mexico border wall, boasting that her credentials as a “border-state prosecutor” would allow her to get the job done.

Update (1153ET): The Trump campaign has responded to Axios reporting that Kamala Harris now supports a border wall. “How much longer will the mainstream media allow Kamala Harris to hide and use staff to speak on her behalf? It’s DAY 37 of ZERO interviews and Kamala’s anonymous campaign sources are now claiming she supports President Trump’s border wall – this is a preposterous and false claim.” “Kamala’s ACTIONS speak much louder than the WORDS of the anonymous staff she is cowering behind.”

Read more …

Trump doesn’t need saving. The polls are lying.

Will Kennedy Save Trump? (Bridge)

Donald Trump’s presidential campaign got the boost it desperately needed when Robert F. Kennedy Jr. joined forces with the former president in an effort to ensure the defeat of Kamala Harris. It was undoubtedly a painful sight for millions of diehard Democrats to behold: On Friday, the estranged Democrat Robert F. Kennedy Jr. shared the stage with former President Donald Trump at a sprawling rally in Arizona, hours after he’d suspended his independent presidential campaign and announced that he was endorsing the rabble-rousing Republican. The 70-year-old independent, showing that he has not completely lost his presidential ambitions, emphasized that he is suspending his campaign — “not ending it.” “I am not terminating my campaign, I am simply suspending it and not ending it. My name will remain on the ballot in most states,” he said.

Importantly for Trump in his grueling showdown with Kamala Harris, Kennedy said he would drop his name from the ballot in 10 battleground states where his presence could have stolen electoral college votes from the former president. Will the entrance of Kennedy into the equation make a profound difference for the Trump campaign come November? It’s difficult to say. When the campaign was down to a contest between two elderly white men, many voters seemed happy to consider a third voice, as reflected in Kennedy’s relatively high poll numbers earlier in the year. However, once Joe Biden was sent back to the basement and Kamala Harris was catapulted to the political forefront amid heavily scripted, media-generated enthusiasm (the same media, by the way, which Harris stubbornly refuses to talk to), Kennedy’s popularity began to wane.

While Kennedy’s performance in the polls has been steadily declining – a recent CBS News poll measured his support at just 2% – even this limited number could spell the difference between victory and defeat in a race that promises to be razor-close. However, with regard to the critical swing states, the picture improves dramatically for Kennedy. A recent New York Times/Siena College poll showed him with 6% support in Arizona and Nevada and 5% in Michigan, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. And let’s not forget that Arizona and Georgia were decided by fewer than 12,000 votes each in 2020. Wisconsin has been decided by fewer than 23,000 votes in the last two presidential elections.

So now the question for the Republicans is: how best to utilize a scion from one of the most famous political dynasties of modern American history? How about as the future CIA Director or District Attorney? Trump tossed out juicy bait to the conspiracy theorists when he said Kennedy could be granted access to “all of the remaining documents pertaining to the assassination of John F. Kennedy,” as part of a proposed executive commission on presidential assassination attempts, including the one that nearly killed him last month in Butler, Pennsylvania. RFK Jr. has made it clear that he believes that the CIA and associated actors of the ‘deep state’ were directly involved in the assassination of his uncle, former President John F. Kennedy. A recent poll by Gallup showed that over 60 percent of Americans believe that JFK was killed as the result of a well-planned government conspiracy. The CIA has repeatedly denied that it had any involvement in the murder.

Another Kennedy talking point that could help herd voters into the Republican camp is his extreme skepticism of Covid vaccines, mask mandates, lockdowns and the individuals who pushed these controversial measures on the public in the first place, namely Anthony Fauci and company. Trump teaming up with the anti-vaxxer Kennedy seems to fly in the face of conventional wisdom. After all, it was Donald J. Trump who was initially responsible for delivering – right or wrong, the jury is still out on the matter – the Covid-19 vaccine to an unsuspecting public through “Operation Warp Speed.” However, Trump’s unbridled enthusiasm for the Covid vaccine failed to trickle down to his army of conservative constituents, who are intrinsically wary of any government overreach in their lives. In other words, Trump drastically misread his base, which is loaded with vaccine skeptics.

On one memorable occasion at the height of the Covid pandemic, Republicans admonished Trump during a rally with rare boos and heckling when he encouraged members of the audience to get their shots. So here is another area – government enforced medical interventions – where Kennedy’s presence on Team Trump could lend some much-needed balance to the worn-out narrative, although it does have the potential to attract more “weird” accusations from the left.At the same time, Kennedy, much like Trump, has spoken out fiercely against the “media organs” that have severely throttled his message on the campaign trail, while engineering the rise of Kamala Harris based upon “nothing.” “No policies, no interviews, no debates, only smoke and mirrors and balloons in a highly produced Chicago circus.”

This is a concern that will resonate with those voters who remember how intensely unpopular Harris was before pulling out of the 2020 presidential race with her opinion poll numbers in the lower single digits. And here is the crux of the matter: do they remember Harris’ intense unlikability and lack of presidential qualities, or has the media successfully brainwashed the entire Democratic camp into believing that the vice president is the ‘second coming of Abraham Lincoln,’ as JD Vance feared? While we may never know to what degree RFK Jr. will influence the outcome of the election, it seems undeniable that he will attract many disaffected voters from across the political spectrum who now understand what a controlled and pathetic sham the entire US political process has become, largely due to overwhelming leftist control of the media machinery. That may give Donald Trump just enough of a grudge vote to enter the White House a second time.

Read more …

Exercise in futility. If Trump wins the election, he’ll throw out these lawfare cases. If he loses, they’ve beaten him, no more need for lawfare.

Jack Smith Files Revised Indictment in Trump Federal Election Case (ET)

Special counsel Jack Smith filed an updated indictment against former President Donald Trump in Washington on Aug. 27 following the Supreme Court’s ruling that he enjoyed some presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. “Today, a federal grand jury in the District of Columbia returned a superseding indictment, charging the defendant with the same criminal offenses that were charged in the original indictment,” an Aug. 27 filing from the special counsel’s office reads. “The superseding indictment, which was presented to a new grand jury that had not previously heard evidence in this case, reflects the government’s efforts to respect and implement the Supreme Court’s holdings and remand instructions in Trump v. United States.” The new indictment narrows the allegations against the former president by removing allegations involving his interactions with the Justice Department.

It no longer lists as a co-conspirator former DOJ official Jeffrey Clark. Trump’s co-conspirators were not named in either indictment, but they have been identified through public records and other means. Smith’s superseding indictment still contains four charges against the former president, including those from the financial reform law the Supreme Court addressed in Fischer v. United States. In Trump v. United States, a majority of the Supreme Court held that presidents enjoyed several tiers of immunity from prosecution: absolute immunity for acts that fall within their “conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority,” a presumption of immunity for their official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts. Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority opinion grouped the allegations into three categories: those surrounding Trump’s work with the Department of Justice (DOJ); those involving his communication with state electors and his communications on Jan. 6, 2021; and his urging Vice President Mike Pence to not certify the election results in the Senate.

Trump received absolute immunity from prosecution of the first category. For the second, the Court remanded the issue to the district court to determine whether his actions were official. His communications with Pence are “presumptively immune,” but the DOJ can rebut that presumption in court. It’s unclear how much of the superseding indictment will survive. D.C. Judge Tanya Chutkan will likely receive briefings from both the special counsel and former Trump’s legal team advocating their view of which charges should be dropped or maintained in the indictment. The Supreme Court has left her with the task of parsing former Trump’s actions and determining which were official and which were unofficial. Judge Chutkan has scheduled a status conference for Sept. 5.

Experts have told The Epoch Times that the prosecution will extend past the election. If Trump wins the presidency, he’s expected to withdraw the case. Even if he loses, however, the case could face additional appeal and potentially make its way back to the Supreme Court. Last year, Trump’s legal team filed a motion to dismiss on statutory grounds and alleging that the initial indictment failed to “state an offense.” More specifically, it alleged the indictment failed to allege the type of deceit or trickery needed for the first count, which focused in both indictments on an alleged conspiracy to defraud the United States. On Aug. 3, Judge Chutkan denied the motion without prejudice and stated that Trump “may file a renewed motion once all issues of immunity have been resolved.”

The superseding indictment came just a day after Smith asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit to affirm the legitimacy of his office. Florida Judge Aileen Cannon had dismissed his classified documents case against Trump on the grounds that Smith’s appointment violated the constitution. That case too could reach the Supreme Court where at least one justice — Justice Clarence Thomas — expressed concern about Smith’s office. That came in his concurrence for Trump v. United States. None of the other justices joined that opinion, but Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed concern about the special counsel’s power during oral argument on April 25. Cannon limited her decision to the documents case, although it raised questions about the legitimacy of his other prosecutions.

Read more …

“The Georgia appeals court will hear an appeal by Trump and several co-defendants on Dec. 5..”

Trump Lawyers Urge Appeals Court to Disqualify Fani Willis (ET)

Former President Donald Trump’s lawyers on Monday submitted a court filing against Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis in the Georgia Court of Appeals, arguing that she should be removed from the case for committing a “severe violation” of the state’s legal guidelines. In a reply brief, the former president’s team wrote that Trump was “aggrieved by Willis’ church speech,” referring to comments she made in January that suggested there was a racial animus at play when a co-defendant filed a motion to have her disqualified over a relationship she had with her then-special prosecutor. The legal team said that her speech was “a severe violation of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct,” claiming that her comments at the church were allegedly designed to increase public condemnation of Trump and the other co-defendants in the eyes of potential jurors. On those grounds, according to the lawyers, Willis should be removed from the case.

“Pretermitting fairness, President Trump was injured by Willis’ … speech because national and local media outlets broadcast and reported Willis’ claim as an attack against the defense,” the filing said. Willis, it added, also asserted that “allegations against her stemmed from racism,” which his legal team said were unfounded. The Georgia appeals court will hear an appeal by Trump and several co-defendants on Dec. 5, it previously ruled, over whether Willis should be disqualified from the case due to her relationship with former special prosecutor Nathan Wade. Earlier this year, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee ruled that either Wade or Willis must leave the case, prompting Wade to leave and allowing Willis to stay on board. Trump and the other defendants quickly sought to appeal the case.

In his March ruling, McAfee chided Willis for her church speech but said it is not grounds for her disqualification. He also said there wasn’t enough evidence to remove her based on the Wade relationship, although he signaled that an “odor of mendacity” was permeating the case. Fulton County prosecutors had said that her speech at the church was vague, and she was not speaking about anyone in particular. “Isn’t it them who’s playing the race card when they only question one?” Willis said during her speech, in part. “Isn’t it them playing the race card when they constantly think I need someone from some other jurisdiction in some other state to tell me how to do a job I’ve been doing almost 30 years?”

Her office filed a motion to dismiss the appeal in August, arguing there wasn’t enough evidence to back up their claims that she had a conflict of interest due to her prior relationship with Wade. “Unsatisfied, the Appellants now seize upon the trial court’s criticisms of the District Attorney to distort its actual findings and overstate their case,” the district attorney’s office wrote. “They ask this Court to second guess the trial court’s factual conclusions and apply standards of disqualification that no Georgia court has ever authorized or employed.” The conflict started in January when co-defendant Michael Roman, a former Trump campaign aide, alleged in court papers that the pair were in a relationship, a claim that the two later confirmed during a contentious hearing before McAfee in February.

However, they disputed key allegations made by lawyers for Roman and his co-defendants, including that they improperly benefitted financially from their arrangement. They also refuted claims made by a witness that their relationship started much earlier than they had said. The case was brought by Willis against Trump and more than a dozen other co-defendants, accusing them of conspiring to overturn the election results in the county after the 2020 election. In part, her office’s indictment focused on a Trump phone call in January 2021 with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in which the president asked him about votes and ballots. Trump and the majority of the other co-defendants, including former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, have pleaded not guilty, although several have entered guilty pleas as part of deals with the prosecution. Due to the appeals process, the case likely will not proceed to trial before the November election.

Read more …

“Reading the runes of Bill Burns message says prepare for war with NATO.”

The Western Way of War – Owning The Narrative Trumps Reality (Crooke)

War propaganda and feint are as old as the hills. Nothing new. But what is new is that infowar is no longer the adjunct to wider war objectives – but has become an end in and of itself. The West has come to view ‘owning’ the winning narrative – and presenting the Other’s as clunky, dissonant, and extremist – as being more important than facing facts-on-the ground. Owning the winning narrative is to win, in this view. Virtual ‘victory’ thus trumps ‘real’ reality. So, war becomes rather the setting for imposing ideological alignment across a wide global alliance and enforcing it via compliant media. This objective enjoys a higher priority than, say, ensuring a manufacturing capacity sufficient to sustain military objectives. Crafting an imagined ‘reality’ has taken precedence over shaping the ground reality. The point here is that this approach – being a function of whole of society alignment (both at home and abroad) – creates entrapments into false realities, false expectations, from which an exit (when such becomes necessary), turns near impossible, precisely because imposed alignment has ossified public sentiment.

The possibility for a State to change course as events unfold becomes curtailed or lost, and the accurate reading of facts on the ground veers toward the politically correct and away from reality. The cumulative effect of ‘a winning virtual narrative’ holds the risk nonetheless, of sliding incrementally toward inadvertent ‘real war’. Take, for example, the NATO-orchestrated and equipped incursion into the symbolically significant Kursk Oblast. In terms of a ‘winning narrative’, its appeal to the West is obvious: Ukraine ‘takes the war into Russia’. Had the Ukrainian forces succeeded in capturing the Kursk Nuclear Power Station, they then would have had a significant bargaining chip, and might well have syphoned away Russian forces from the steadily collapsing Ukrainian ‘Line’ in Donbas. And to top it off, (in infowar terms), the western media was prepped and aligned to show President Putin as “frozen” by the surprise incursion, and “wobbling” with anxiety that the Russian public would turn against him in their anger at the humiliation.

Bill Burns, head of CIA, opined that “Russia would offer no concessions on Ukraine, until Putin’s over-confidence was challenged, and Ukraine could show strength”. Other U.S. officials added that the Kursk incursion – in itself – would not bring Russia to the negotiating table; It would be necessary to build on the Kursk operation with other daring operations (to shake Moscow’s sang froid). Of course, the overall aim was to show Russia as fragile and vulnerable, in line with the narrative that, at any moment Russia, could crack apart and scatter to the wind, in fragments. Leaving the West as winner, of course. In fact, the Kursk incursion was a huge NATO gamble: It involved mortgaging Ukraine’s military reserves and armour, as chips on the roulette table, as a bet that an ephemeral success in Kursk would upend the strategic balance. The bet was lost, and the chips forfeit.

Plainly put, this Kursk affair exemplifies the West’s problem with ‘winning narratives’: Their inherent flaw is that they are grounded in emotivism and eschew argumentation. Inevitably, they are simplistic. They are simply intended to fuel a ‘whole of society’ common alignment. Which is to say that across MSM; business, federal agencies, NGOs and the security sector, all should adhere to opposing all ‘extremisms’ threatening ‘our democracy’. This aim, of itself, dictates that the narrative be undemanding and relatively uncontentious: ‘Our Democracy, Our Values and Our Consensus’. The Democratic National Convention, for example, embraces ‘Joy’ (repeated endlessly), ‘moving Forward’ and ‘opposing weirdness’ as key statements. They are banal, however, these memes are given their energy and momentum, not by content so much, as by the deliberate Hollywood setting lending them razzamatazz and glamour. It is not hard to see how this one-dimensional zeitgeist may have contributed to the U.S. and its allies’ misreading the impact of today’s Kursk ‘daring adventure’ on ordinary Russians.

‘Kursk’ has history. In 1943, Germany invaded Russia in Kursk to divert from its own losses, with Germany ultimately defeated at the Battle of Kursk. The return of German military equipment to the environs of Kursk must have left many gaping; the current battlefield around the town of Sudzha is precisely the spot where, in 1943, the Soviet 38th and 40th armies coiled for a counteroffensive against the German 4th Army. Over the centuries, Russia has been variously attacked on its vulnerable flank from the West. And more recently by Napoleon and Hitler. Unsurprisingly, Russians are acutely sensitive to this bloody history. Did Bill Burns et al think this through? Did they imagine that NATO invading Russia itself would make Putin feel ‘challenged’, and that with one further shove, he would fold, and agree to a ‘frozen’ outcome in Ukraine – with the latter entering NATO? Maybe they did. Ultimately the message that western services sent was that the West (NATO) is coming for Russia. This is the meaning of deliberately choosing Kursk. Reading the runes of Bill Burns message says prepare for war with NATO.

Read more …

Macron lost the parliamentary election in July. But he’s still president.

Macron Rejects Left-Wing Government (RT)

French President Emmanuel Macron has refused to accept the left-wing New Popular Front’s candidate for prime minister, saying it would be a threat to “institutional stability,” according to a communique released by the Elysee Palace on Monday. The parliamentary election in July gave the left-wing alliance more seats in the National Assembly than the competitors, but not enough to govern, forcing the president to conduct successive rounds of talks to appoint a new prime minister and form a new government. As president, Macron is responsible for confirming the new head of the government. However, he dismissed the idea of allowing the left-wing coalition to hold the office of prime minister, leaving the nation in a political deadlock.

“My responsibility is that the country is not blocked nor weakened,” Macron said in a statement, claiming that a left-wing government “would be immediately censored by all the other groups represented in the National Assembly” and “the institutional stability of our country therefore requires us not to choose this option.” The parliamentary election in July left 577 seats in the National Assembly divided between the left-wing New Popular Front (NFP) alliance with over 188 seats, followed by Macron’s centrist alliance at around 161, and Marine Le Pen’s National Rally at 142. The Republicans received 48 seats, while the remaining 38 were divided between minor parties.

Launched in June as a broad left-wing alliance, the NPF comprises France Unbowed (LFI), the Socialist Party, the Greens, the French Communist Party, and other political parties, composing the majority of the left wing in France. The alliance has put forward Lucie Castets, a 37-year-old economist and director of financial affairs at Paris City Hall, as its candidate for prime minister. After Macron’s announcement, Jean-Luc Melenchon, the LFI leader, accused the president of creating an “exceptionally serious situation.” Commenting on the move, the secretary-general of the Greens, Marine Tondelier, said the decision is “a disgrace” and “dangerous democratic irresponsibility,” adding that Macron is ignoring the election results. LFI also called for protests to urge Macron to “respect democracy,” and said it would present a motion of impeachment of the president.

Read more …

A nation hell-bent on war.

Poland In ‘State Of Hybrid War’ – Deputy Defense Chief (RT)

Poland has slipped into a state of “hybrid war” amid soaring tensions with Russia and its key ally Belarus, Polish Deputy Defense Minister Cezary Tomczyk has said. Tomczyk made the remarks on Monday while speaking at a high-level panel on Poland’s security situation, suggesting that his country had already entered a state just below the level of actual war. “What we are facing in Poland today is de facto hybrid warfare. And we can say directly that Poland is in a state of war today, but in a state of hybrid warfare,” he stated, as quoted by PAP news agency. He pointed to the situation on the border with Belarus, as well as incidents where weather balloons appeared in Polish airspace. Warsaw has for years accused Minsk of trying to pressure it by sending illegal migrants across the border.

Belarus has denied the allegations while accusing Polish authorities of brutal treatment of the migrants. In recent months, Polish authorities also reported several cases of Russian balloons straying into national airspace. Officials in Warsaw investigated the incidents, but concluded that the craft posed no threat to national security. One of the most recent cases occurred in late June, when Poland reported that they had been warned by their Russian counterparts that they had lost control of one of their balloons protecting airspace in the exclave of Kaliningrad. The aircraft strayed into Polish airspace for four and a half hours. Polish authorities said they deliberately did not shoot it down because of “possible negative consequences.”

Tomczyk, however, suggested that the balloon incidents are still intended to promote Russia’s political agenda. “It is de facto a tool for a few hundred dollars, which can be used to influence all of us in a very simple way… It is enough to put a few words in Cyrillic on them, and all portals in Poland will write about it.” He added that the purpose of such tactics is to trigger discussions in Polish society and undermine public trust in the government. The deputy minister said cyberattacks are another facet of the hybrid warfare, which he estimated at about 5,000 a year.

Read more …

“It could be “five years or more before work starts”.

If you can’t get Elon to do it, just close it down.

US Nuclear Missile Project At Least 5 Years Behind Schedule – WSJ (RT)

Refurbishing the decades-old missile silos will cost billions of dollars more than originally thought and may not start for five years, the Wall Street Journal has reported, citing Pentagon officials. The US Department of Defense decided last month to press on with the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) program, even though its estimated cost has almost doubled from the original $78 billion. Replacing the aging Minuteman III missiles has no alternative, the Pentagon said. It could be “five years or more before work starts” on modernizing some 450 existing silos for the new missiles, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday, citing a recent town meeting in Kimball, Nebraska. The community of less than 3,000 residents is surrounded by “one of the biggest missile fields” in the world. “There are a lot of unknowns here, and I understand the frustration,” Brigadier-General Colin Connor told residents earlier this month.

Minuteman III missiles entered service in the early 1970s and were supposed to be replaced after a decade. Washington finally greenlit the Sentinel program in 2020, awarding the initial $13.3 billion contract to Northrop Grumman, after Boeing dropped out. The Sentinel project manager, Colonel Charles Clegg, was sacked in June for unspecified reasons. Along with the new missiles, which are still on the drawing board, the project envisions modernizing the 50-year-old silos and command centers. Construction involves, among other things, laying down thousands of kilometers of fiber-optic cables. However, shutting down the silos or the command facilities is impossible, because the nuclear doctrine requires them to be available at a moment’s notice. Some silos may also need to be rebuilt from scratch.

The scale, scope and complexity of the Sentinel project is “something we haven’t attempted as a nation for over 60 years,” Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Bill LaPlante told reporters last month, insisting that it had to be done nonetheless. The US Air Force is looking for ways to reduce the project’s complexity, but it might take up to 18 months to decide on the changes, LaPlante said, hoping for sometime in early 2025. Such delays may cause problems of another kind for the Pentagon, according to the WSJ. The US government has already negotiated about a third of the real-estate deals needed for laying down thousands of kilometers of fiber-optic cables. But some of them may need to be redone in light of the new timeline. Meanwhile, the rising costs of construction and raw materials have made early cost estimates “be unreliable and unrealistic,” Pentagon officials have said.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Nut splitter

 

 

Happy
https://twitter.com/i/status/1828308193467855004

 

 

Attack
https://twitter.com/i/status/1828563078113362089

 

 

Baby bat

 

 

First toy

 

 

Heroes

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Jun 292024
 
 June 29, 2024  Posted by at 9:08 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  87 Responses »


Ivan Aivazovsky The Galata tower by moonlight 1845

 

Biden Won’t Drop Out Of Presidential Race – Campaign Official (RT)
Robert Hur Emerges as the Clear Winner in the Presidential Debate (Turley)
Biden’s Team Offers Excuse For Debate Performance – Axios (RT)
The New York Times Editorial Board Urges Biden To Quit The 2024 Race (RT)
Kamala to Be ‘Leapfrogged’ in Quest to Find Biden Replacement (Sp.)
Debate Debacle: Democrats Need to Find New Candidate ASAP (Sp.)
Joe Biden Catches Cold (Kunstler)
Ukraine: US Starts Conflict And Tasks Europe With Fueling It (Dionísio)
Zelensky Preparing ‘Plan To End War’ (RT)
Putin – Behind the Shoji (Patrick Lawrence)
SCOTUS Overturns ‘Chevron Deference’ In Massive Blow To ‘Administrative State’ (ZH)
Supreme Court Casts Doubt On Hundreds Of Jan 6 Cases (BBC)
Supreme Court Rejects Bannon Bid To Avoid Monday Prison Deadline (ZH)
Assange Agreed to Destroy Unpublished Classified Material (Lauria)
Inquisition Redux at the Vatican (Karganovic)

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/i/status/1806525328036073626

 

 

 

 

Macgregor

 

 

 

 

“..he is “the only person who has ever beaten Donald Trump. He will do it again.”

Biden Won’t Drop Out Of Presidential Race – Campaign Official (RT)

US President Joe Biden will not drop out of the 2024 election race despite his poor performance during Thursday’s first presidential debate with Donald Trump, campaign spokesperson Seth Schuster has announced. Following the debate, in which Biden was largely panned, even by fellow Democrats, many in the party suggested that the president should be replaced on the November 5 ballot. In a text message seen by The Hill, Schuster is apparently attempting to reassure the president’s supporters that he will continue his efforts to be reelected. “Of course he’s not dropping out,” the campaign spokesperson wrote. Another member of the president’s team told Politico that Biden will stay in the race because he is “the only person who has ever beaten Donald Trump. He will do it again.”

Biden himself has also dismissed the notion that he should bow out of the race, explaining to reporters at a Waffle House following Thursday’s event that “it’s hard to debate a liar.”Meanwhile, according to Politico, the Democratic Party is reportedly “panicked” by Biden’s “faltering” display against Trump and is actively discussing the possibility of replacing him with another candidate. “No one expected this nosedive,” one senior Democratic adviser told the outlet. Biden “was bad on message, bad on substance, bad on counter-punching, bad on presentation, bad on non-verbals. There was no bright spot in this debate for him.” Concerns over Biden’s performance have also been expressed by a number of major Democratic donors, with one telling Politico that the president had delivered “the worst performance in history” during the debate and “needs to drop out.”

Biden’s team, however, has been scrambling to explain the president’s poor display. One person close to his election campaign claimed that the 81-year-old was “over-prepared and relying on minutiae when all that mattered was vigor and energy.” They prepared him for the wrong debate. He was over-prepared when what he needed was rest. It’s confounding,” the person said. US media outlets have also suggested that Biden’s shaky performance was due to a cold, which they claim has been confirmed by a doctor who examined the president ahead of the debate.

Read more …

“..the question is whether a man who was too diminished to be a criminal defendant can still be a president for four more years..”

Robert Hur Emerges as the Clear Winner in the Presidential Debate (Turley)

The presidential debate last night was chilling to watch as President Joe Biden clearly struggled to retain his focus and, at points, seemed hopelessly confused. The winner was clear: Special Counsel Robert Hur. For months, Democrats in Congress and the media have attacked Hur for his report that the president came across as an “elderly man with a poor memory.” Hur concluded that prosecuting Biden would be difficult because a jury would view him as a sympathetic figure of a man with declining mental capabilities. That was evident last night and the question is whether a man who was too diminished to be a criminal defendant can still be a president for four more years.

Hur laid out evidence that President Biden had unlawfully retained and mishandled classified evidence for decades. However, he also concluded that “at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” He found that “it would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him—by then a former president well into his eighties—of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.” What has followed is the usual pile-on in the media with legal analysts, press, and pundits denouncing Hur for his findings. Hur likely does not anticipate any apologies even as commentators on CNN and MSNBC admit that there are now unavoidable questions of Biden’s ability to be the nominee. Democrats have repeatedly insisted that Hur did not find Biden diminished and that he actually was impressed by his memory and mental acuity. Hur contradicted that in his own testimony before Congress.

Indeed, the denial campaign took on a bizarre character, particularly when Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D., Wash.) insisted that Hur “exonerated” Biden. Hur pushed back: “I need to go back and make sure that I take note of a word that you used, ‘exoneration.’ That is not a word that is used in my report and that is not a part of my task as a prosecutor.” Jayapal shot back, “You exonerated him.” Hur responded, “I did not exonerate him. That word does not appear in the report.” The debate also further undermines the ridiculous effort of the Biden Administration to continue to withhold the audiotape of the Hur interview as privileged (despite saying that the transcript is not privileged). The debate showed not only what Hur saw but why the Justice Department is making a clearly laughable privilege claim to delay any release of the audiotape until after the election.

Read more …

“They prepared him for the wrong debate. He was over-prepared..”

Biden’s Team Offers Excuse For Debate Performance – Axios (RT)

Joe Biden’s team claims the US president’s poor performance during Thursday’s debate with Donald Trump was the result of him being “over-prepared” for the event and not getting enough rest, according to Axios news outlet. The first presidential debate ahead of November’s election, which was held in Atlanta, Georgia, has overwhelmingly been described as a low point in Biden’s bid for a second term. The 81-year-old sounded hoarse, lost his train of thought several times, and struggled to get his points across. According to Axios, which claims to have spoken to a person close to Biden, the president’s poor performance was due to him being prepared for “the wrong debate.” “He was over-prepared and relying on minutiae when all that mattered was vigor and energy,” the source said. “They prepared him for the wrong debate. He was over-prepared when what he needed was rest. It’s confounding.”

The outlet also spoke to a former White House official, who argued that people on Biden’s team needed to be fired for the blunder. He noted, however, that this probably wouldn’t happen because “Biden rarely dismisses people.” Meanwhile, Politico has reported that the Democratic Party is now actively discussing the possibility of replacing Joe Biden on the November 5 ballot following his “faltering” display on Thursday. “No one expected this nosedive,” a senior Democratic adviser told the outlet, noting that Biden “was bad on message, bad on substance, bad on counter punching, bad on presentation, bad on non-verbals. There was no bright spot in this debate for him.” A number of major Democratic donors have also expressed bewilderment at Biden’s performance, with some insisting that the president needs to drop out of the race.

“Our only hope is that he bows out, we have a brokered convention, or dies. Otherwise we are f**king dead,” an adviser to Democratic donors told Politico. Despite the blunder, Biden’s team has indicated that the US president does not plan to drop out of the race, with one campaign official telling Politico that he is “the only person who has ever beaten Donald Trump” and will “do it again.” According to a CNN flash poll after the debate, 67% of registered voters who watched the contest felt that Trump had outperformed Biden.

Read more …

“I know how to get things done. And I know, like millions of Americans know, when you get knocked down, you get back [up],” Biden said.

The New York Times Editorial Board Urges Biden To Quit The 2024 Race (RT)

Democrats must admit that US President Joe Biden is no longer capable of resoundingly defeating Donald Trump on Election Day in November and that is why they must find a more suitable candidate to replace him, The New York Times editorial board wrote on Friday. The appeal came a day after Biden delivered what many described as a disastrous performance against Trump during the live presidential debate in Atlanta, Georgia. Observers noted that Biden appeared frail and confused, struggling to finish his sentences and mixing up words when speaking. In a piece published on Friday, the Times cast doubt on the certainty that Biden would repeat his 2020 win over Trump. “That is no longer a sufficient rationale for why Mr. Biden should be the Democratic nominee this year,” the editorial board wrote. “Voters… cannot be expected to ignore what was instead plain to see: Mr. Biden is not the man he was four years ago.”

The board further argued that Biden appeared on the debate stage “as the shadow of a great public,” who “struggled” to articulate his own policy position and ultimately failed to adequately counter Trump. “There are Democratic leaders better equipped to present clear, compelling and energetic alternatives to a second Trump presidency,” the board wrote. “It’s too big a bet to simply hope Americans will overlook or discount Mr. Biden’s age and infirmity that they see with their own eyes.” The editorial board concluded that Democrats have a better chance of defeating Trump if they “acknowledge that Mr. Biden can’t continue his race, and create a process to select someone more capable to stand in his place.” While the board did not propose any alternatives, the US media and pundits have suggested that several prominent Democrats could potentially replace Biden as candidate, including Vice President Kamala Harris, California Governor Gavin Newsom, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, and Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker.

Multiple leading liberal journalists and public figures have acknowledged that Biden performed badly on Thursday night. A flash poll conducted by CNN revealed that 67% of registered voters who watched the debate felt that Trump had won. Several outlets cited unnamed Biden staffers who tried to justify the president’s performance by saying that he has been suffering from a cold and was “over-prepared and relying on minutiae.” Biden appeared to acknowledge his flaws shortly after the debate. “I know I’m not a young man, to state the obvious,” he told a crowd of supporters during a rally in Raleigh, North Carolina on Friday. “I don’t speak as smoothly as I used to. I don’t debate as well as I used to.” Nevertheless, he vowed to continue the campaign and insisted that he is best qualified for the presidency. “I know how to get things done. And I know, like millions of Americans know, when you get knocked down, you get back [up],” Biden said.

Read more …

“You need someone who is a known commodity that is already recognized by every single person, whether good, bad or ugly, and who has the ability to fundraise, you know, the half billion dollars they’re going to need to fundraise for the course of the next several months. And the only person who fits that bill will be Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama, and Michelle ain’t doing it.”

Kamala to Be ‘Leapfrogged’ in Quest to Find Biden Replacement (Sp.)

US Vice President Kamala Harris will be skipped over if her running mate President Joe Biden decides to drop out of the race, attorney and civil rights organizer Robert Patillo II speculated on Sputnik’s Fault Lines on Friday. “President Biden had a very bad night. The worst part was that he reinforced the narrative about him, of being kind of this doddering old man who didn’t know where he was, couldn’t complete a sentence, kind of got lost midway through sentences, those sorts of things.” The post-debate analysis, even on left-leaning MSNBC, focused heavily on finding a potential replacement for Biden, with the choices of Harris and California Governor Gavin Newsom being floated on the air. Patillo described Biden’s performance as “Just an old man dying in front of us,” saying that “It got uncomfortable for people watching.” In what appeared to be an attempt at damage control, Harris appeared on both MSNBC and CNN defending Biden’s performance and vehemently declining to call for him to step down. She may have been the only one.

CNN analyst Van Jones called Biden’s performance “personally painful for a lot of people,” and openly noted that the Democrats could make a switch before the convention. NBC analyst Chuck Todd said Democratic leaders are in “a full-on panic about this performance.” Almost 48 million viewers watched the debate, many more likely saw clips of Biden’s worst moments after they were posted online. However, the Democrats may have difficulty finding a replacement for Biden because they all but shut down the party’s primary this cycle, making Harris the only potential candidate with a reasonable claim to the nomination as Biden’s running mate. Unfortunately for Democrats, Harris is unpopular with the voting public, According to poll aggregator 538, only 39% of Americans view her favorably, leading commentators to speculate that another candidate may be chosen by party leadership. That causes its own set of problems, however, because Harris is the first woman vice president and the first Black vice president. Whoever is the eventual Democratic nominee will need support from both voting blocs if they hope to defeat Donald Trump in November.

“The problem then becomes you can’t hop over the first Black female vice president and put Gavin Newsom, let’s say, in the catbird seat,” explained Patillo. “Every once and a while the Democratic Black folks know exactly what their place is in the party and it’s pretty clear that the white feminists don’t hold Kamala Harris in the same regard that they held Hillary Clinton, for example,” he added later. According to Sportsbook Review, Biden’s odds went from +137 on May 31, to +400 after the debate. That means a $100 bet placed on May 31 would have returned $237 ($137 profit) if Biden won the presidency. Now, a $100 bet will net you $500 ($400 profit) if Biden wins. By comparison, Trump’s odds are -185, which means a $100 bet will net you $185 ($85 profit). Even more interesting is how the odds of the other candidates not named Trump or Biden fared following the debate. Nearly every potential candidate– except Biden and Independent candidate Robert F Kennedy Jr.– saw their odds improve, indicating that betters and sportsbooks are expecting a change at the top of the Democratic ticket.

The biggest jump was for Gavin Newsom, who saw his odds go from +5000 to as low as +500 on some sites. By comparison, Harris’ odds went from +6600 to +1400, a large jump but not nearly as large as Newsom’s. The Democratic nominee for the 2016 Presidential election also jumped up the boards: Hillary Clinton’s odds are now +4000, in May, a bet on Clinton would have gotten gamblers +15000. Patillo thinks she may be a dark horse candidate for the nomination. “The reason is you have, what? Four months that you have to get 100% name recognition around the country. You don’t have time to introduce the country to Gavin Newsom. You don’t have time to introduce the country to Kamala Harris, quite frankly,” he explained. “You need someone who is a known commodity that is already recognized by every single person, whether good, bad or ugly, and who has the ability to fundraise, you know, the half billion dollars they’re going to need to fundraise for the course of the next several months. And the only person who fits that bill will be Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama, and Michelle ain’t doing it.”

While Clinton lost to Trump in 2016 and has polled unfavorably with the American public, she can at least appear competent on the debate stage, unlike Biden’s performance on Thursday. “[Biden] was barely able to form a sentence last night and that is why it’s a situation that’s apocalyptic for Democrats because regardless of how much money you raise, regardless of how you try to paint Trump, if people think you’re running essentially against ‘Weekend at Bernie’s’ it’s not going to really matter,” argued Patillo. “And that is why that Hillary train is going to be picking up over the course of the next several weeks.” “How many times have you heard people say this is no time to panic?” constitutional historian Dan Lazare asked while speaking to Sputnik. “Well, if ever there was a time for Democrats to panic, this is it.”

Read more …

“..turned out to be worse for the Democratic Party than the botched Afghanistan withdrawal..”

Debate Debacle: Democrats Need to Find New Candidate ASAP (Sp.)

The first debate between incumbent President Joe Biden and Republican front-runner Donald Trump turned out to be worse for the Democratic Party than the botched Afghanistan withdrawal, according to Wall Street analyst Charles Ortel. “Debate night was a fiasco for Team Biden and for the conspirators in media and elsewhere who have ceaselessly sold Biden disasters on many fronts as ‘successes’,” Wall Street analyst and investigative journalist Charles Ortel told Sputnik. With just a few months until Election Day, the Democratic leadership must now “push Biden and Harris both out and try to find a more credible team to fight the already well-funded and fiercely energized Trump juggernaut,” the analyst said. “This is a very heavy lift as the Democrat bench is light and marginalized by primary cycles of 2020 and 2024 that installed a serial liar and diminished clod into the White House where he fails on all fronts,” Ortel said.

“Whether it is the demolished pier in Gaza, the wreckage across the Middle East and Afghanistan, the horrific meat grinder in Ukraine, or the lawlessness and failures in Democrat run states and cities, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris stand revealed as incompetent losers.” A week ago, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh called attention to growing concerns among top Democrats and their wealthy donors about Biden’s ability to overcome Trump in the November election. After saying that Biden’s debate performance would be “a major touchstone,” Hersh quoted political insiders as suggesting that if the first showdown with Trump goes badly for the incumbent president, the Democratic convention in Chicago would replace Joe with another, more dynamic candidate in August.

That scenario seems likely after the debate, according to Ortel. “One theoretical approach might be to field an all-female historic ticket, seeking to exploit perceived weaknesses for Republicans over stances on abortion and gender insensitivity. Here, a Michelle Obama ticket with, perhaps, Hillary Clinton might gel. But who gets the top billing and who is second?” the Wall Street analyst remarked. “Thursday’s nightmare will look even worse on Friday morning for Democrats. The Biden and Harris ‘brands’ are unsaleable,” Ortel concluded.

Read more …

“All Mr. Trump would have to do is broadcast the scene from a San Francisco street-cam on “X” (Twitter) 24/7.”

Joe Biden Catches Cold (Kunstler)

It’s obvious that the ruling blob now has to deep-six “Joe Biden.” The problem is they must induce him to renounce the nomination of his own will. The party’s nominating process is so bizarrely complex that it would very difficult to just shove him out. Another problem is that the party had to peremptorily declare “JB” their legal nominee before the August convention in order to keep him on the ballot in Ohio with its 17 electoral votes (due to some arcane machinery in the state’s election laws). As per above, the debate fiasco calls into serious question whether “Joe Biden” is competent to even serve out this term. He (or shadowy figures pulling strings behind him) are making profoundly hazardous decisions right now, such as last week’s missile attack that killed and wounded civilians on the beach in Crimea. Are you seeing how easily “Joe Biden” might start World War Three?

All of which is to say that pressure will soon rise to use the 25th amendment to relieve him of duty, leaving you-know-who in the oval office. If Joe Biden actually has to resign as president, he also loses the ability to pardon his son, Hunter, and peremptorily his other family members who shared bribery money received from China, Ukraine, and elsewhere. If he won’t resign, and the party can’t force him off the ticket, the blob could have no choice except to bump him off. I imagine they would get it done humanely, say late at night sometime, in bed, using the same method as for putting down an old dog who has peed on the carpet one too many times. Or, if that can’t be managed and he clings to his position, maybe the party could cobble up some new nominating rules impromptu. And then, who could they slot in from the bench?

The usual suspects are like the cast of a freak show, each one displaying one grotesque deformity after another. Gavin Newsom we understand: the party’s base of batshit-crazy women may all want to bear his child, but that limbic instinct to mate with a six-foot-three haircut-in-search-of-a-brain might not work with any other voter demographic — and Newsom has the failed state of California hanging around his neck. All Mr. Trump would have to do is broadcast the scene from a San Francisco street-cam on “X” (Twitter) 24/7.

Hillary has been stealthily flapping her leathery wings overhead for weeks as this debacle approached. She may still own the actual machinery of the Democratic Party — having purchased it through the Clinton Foundation some years back when the party was broke and needed a bailout. She could just command the nomination by screeching “Caw Caw” from the convention rostrum. Whatever happens, it will look terrible. Governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan? An inveterate and notorious intel blob tool, Whitmer has allowed herself to be used repeatedly by the FBI to frame and persecute conservatives in her state as well as using her state AG Dana Nessel to go after political enemies there, especially poll workers who cried fraud in the sketchiest Michigan voting districts.

Illinois Governor JB Pritzker. Like Dreamboat Newsom in California, Mr. Pritzker is busily running Illinois (and especially Chicago) into bankruptcy and chaos. Looks aren’t everything, but if Dreamboat gives the vapors to Karens across the land, the Illinois governor will get them shrieking in terror as from the sight of King Kong on Skull Island. Who else is there? Michelle O, of course, who will be instantly branded as a catspaw for her husband seeking a fifth term — as Barack himself has averred in so many words: just hanging out in the background, managing things in his jogging suit. That would be the ultimate Banana Republic set-up for us and I don’t think the voters will go for it. It all boils down to the Party of Chaos being thrust into chaos. Can it even survive “Joe Biden?”

Read more …

EU will pay.

Ukraine: US Starts Conflict And Tasks Europe With Fueling It (Dionísio)

The USA, in Europe, behaved like true arsonists. Like any arsonist, they studied the terrain, identifying the main points conducive to propagation and combustion, finally, they caused the ignition and, today, like a painter, in the perspective and security that only distance can provide, they enjoy their destructive work. Satiated with their incendiary thirst, they turn away and leave the victims in charge of fueling the fire they so calculatedly created. The last approval process for the 61 billion dollars, with its difficulties, advances and setbacks, was already the result of this internal tension. The anxiety of exploiting another hotbed of tension in the Pacific that “contains China”, as well as the need to turn to Israel and its pyromaniac on duty, Netanyahu, led to an internal struggle that was responsible for a sharp drop in supplies to Kiev.

If between April 2022 and September 2023, every quarter, the USA sent at least 7.8 billion dollars in “aid”, even reaching 14.7 billion between July and September 2022, already in the period October 2023 As of March 2024, Kiev has only received $1.7 billion. Data from Kiel Institute, Ukraine Support Tracker. Although the amounts have, in the meantime, risen again, at least until we see it, the truth is that, contrary to what has been said so much in the mainstream media, it is the European Union and its member states that owes the largest share of “help”. Until April 2024, the European Union and its member states have committed 177.8 billion euros, while the USA only contributes 98.7 billion euros.

But this number alone tells us a lot about who is really paying the cost of fueling the fire spreading across the USA. While the USA and the EU member states, bilaterally, essentially send weapons, equipment that must be paid for, in the case of EU institutions, what is sent is essentially money. Either outright or in the form of loans in which Ukraine receives the money and the European Commission pays the interest and provides guarantees that future payments are made. The path things take tells us who will bear this payment. Furthermore, these figures do not include expenditure on refugees which, between Germany and Poland alone, exceeds 50 billion euros in subsidies, housing and other types of support.

Even in terms of armament, although the USA, when it comes to some types (howitzers and MLRS) takes the largest share, when we go to tanks, air defense and infantry vehicles, it is the Europeans who send the most, many of these systems supplied despite the lack of protection of its own defenses, which, as we know, does not happen with the USA. Europe helps to defend Ukraine, without needing to defend itself. This is the level of commitment reached. If these data alone already show us who is bearing the Ukrainian burden on their shoulders, the numerous statements by government officials in Washington, who urge Europe (read the European Union) to take greater responsibility on the issue Ukrainian, there are other signs that point to the fact that the U.S. is about to assume a commanding stance, entering when necessary and only if, strategically, this is justified.

Read more …

“These are two parallel things – to be strong on the battlefield and to develop a plan, a clear plan, a detailed plan. And it will be ready this year..”

Zelensky Preparing ‘Plan To End War’ (RT)

Ukraine is preparing a “comprehensive plan” for ending the conflict with Russia that should be ready by the end of the year, Vladimir Zelensky has said. Zelensky made the comments at a press conference in Kiev, after meeting Slovenian President Natasa Pirc Musar on Friday. “We will also work out all other points of the Peace Formula and prepare a comprehensive plan that will be on the table before our partners,” Zelensky said. “It is very important for us to show a plan to end the war that will be supported by the majority of the world. This is the diplomatic path we are working on.” The so-called peace formula is a ten-point document Zelensky unveiled in November 2022, which envisions Russia ceding all formerly Ukrainian territory, withdrawing all of its troops, paying reparations and submitting to war crimes tribunals, among other things.

Moscow has dismissed it as unrealistic and “detached from reality”. Ukraine “must be strong on the battlefield,” Zelensky added, because Russia only respects strength. “These are two parallel things – to be strong on the battlefield and to develop a plan, a clear plan, a detailed plan. And it will be ready this year,” he told reporters. Zelensky’s comment came after he signed a long-term security pact with the EU on Thursday, obligating the bloc to years of military and financial aid. The US and several of its allies have signed separate aid pacts with Kiev, also pledging to prop up Kiev “for the long haul.” Western diplomats have openly said that the purpose of such treaties was to protect the Ukraine policy in case Donald Trump wins the November US presidential election.

Speaking in Brussels, Zelensky had argued that Ukraine “does not want to prolong the war” and does not want the conflict to last “for years.” “We have many wounded and killed on the battlefield. We must put a settlement plan on the table within a few months,” he said, without offering details. Kiev has been coy about Ukrainian casualty figures, insisting instead that it has inflicted massive losses on Russian forces. According to the Russian Defense Ministry, Ukraine lost 35,000 troops in May alone and has lost close to 500,000 since the start of the conflict.

Read more …

“It is translucent, so one can see the movements of those on the other side, but there is no making out what they are doing.”

Putin – Behind the Shoji (Patrick Lawrence)

It is never a good idea to turn to corporate media for an understanding of Vladimir Putin — his thoughts, his intentions, what he does and the outcome of what he does. Whenever the Russian president is the topic, you are always going to get reports so distorted as to obscure vastly more than they reveal. This pervasively Western–centric work makes it impossible, for anyone who relies solely on it, to see either the Russian leader or the nation he represents with any clarity, just as they are. One is invited to think Putin never acts but for the damage his chosen course will inflict on the U.S., the rest of the Atlantic world, and by extension the non–Western allies of this world. The net effect of this unceasing exercise in misrepresentation is to place a nation of 144 million people, and most of all its leader, behind a screen similar to a Japanese shoji: It is translucent, so one can see the movements of those on the other side, but there is no making out what they are doing.

They are reduced to shadows. The consequence of this induced blindness is easily legible in the dangerous shambles the policy cliques in Washington and most of the European capitals have made of their relations with Moscow since, I would say, the winter of 2007. It was in February of that year Putin gave his famously frank speech at the Munich Security Conference, wherein he attacked the West’s “almost uncontained hyper use of force — military force, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts.” Too honest. It was inevitable that the shoji would immediately be put in place such that the man and all he did and said could thereafter be rendered illegible — grist for the propagandists. Last week the Russian leader spent two days in Pyongyang, his first visit to North Korea since he assumed the presidency two dozen years ago. Putin then proceeded to Hanoi for his fifth journey to the Republic of Vietnam.

Both visits involved nations with relations of long duration — histories dating to the decades when they stood on the same side, the anti-imperialist side, during the Cold War. These were consequential occasions of state, let there be no question. But there is simply no way to understand what Putin and his counterparts got done, and why, via the West’s corporate and state-supported media. To them Putin’s intent was all about overcoming the isolation Russia suffers except that it doesn’t, destabilizing East Asia, and — a curious phrase from The New York Times coverage — “leaving behind a redrawn map of risk in Asia.” I would ask where corporate journalists get this stuff, but the answer is perfectly clear when one considers the lockstep uniformity of the coverage: This is what reporters in Washington and correspondents abroad are fed by unnamed briefers from Langley, embassies in East Asia, and elsewhere in the national-security state’s sprawling propaganda apparatus.

Putin’s talks with Kim Jong-un in Pyongyang resulted in all sorts of agreements covering the economic, technology, trade, investment and cultural spheres. But the main event was the conclusion of a “comprehensive partnership agreement” — Putin’s description — that amounts to a mutual defense treaty. Curiously, the formal name of this document is the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty. Unclear why Putin omitted so significant a term, as a strategic partnership is a half-step shy of an alliance. Accords of this kind between Moscow and Pyongyang have a long history, true. But to mark this down as a reflexive Cold War revival, as Western media have done, is a misreading one must mark down as intentional. The immediate antecedent is the Treaty of Friendship Putin signed with Jong-un’s pop, Jong-il, in 2000, just as he, Putin, was replacing Boris Yeltsin in in the Kremlin.

Read more …

“..judges previously had to defer to agencies in cases where the law is ambiguous. Now, judges will substitute their own best interpretation of the law, instead of deferring to the agencies..”

SCOTUS Overturns ‘Chevron Deference’ In Massive Blow To ‘Administrative State’ (ZH)

The Supreme Court has ruled to overturn the so-called ‘Chevron Deference’ dealing a huge blow to the so-called ‘administrative state’ that have enjoyed In an 6-3 decision along ideological lines, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority upended the 40-year administrative law precedent that gave agencies across the federal government leeway to interpret ambiguous laws through rulemaking. Conservatives and Republican policymakers have long been critical of the doctrine, saying it has contributed to the dramatic growth of government and gives unelected regulators far too much power to make policy by going beyond what Congress intended when it approved various laws. The authority of regulatory agencies has been increasingly questioned by the Supreme Court in recent years. Those on the other side say the Chevron doctrine empowers an activist federal government to serve the public interest in an increasingly complicated world without having to seek specific congressional authorization for everything that needs to be done.

As The Hill report, judges previously had to defer to agencies in cases where the law is ambiguous. Now, judges will substitute their own best interpretation of the law, instead of deferring to the agencies – effectively making it easier to overturn regulations that govern wide-ranging aspects of American life. This includes rules governing toxic chemicals, drugs and medicine, climate change, artificial intelligence, cryptocurrency and more. The move hands a major victory to conservative and anti-regulatory interests that have looked to eliminate the precedent as part of a broader attack on the growing size of the “administrative state.” The Biden administration defended the precedent before the high court. As Mark Joseph Stern writes on X: “Today’s ruling is a massive blow to the ‘administrative state’, the collection of federal agencies that enforce laws involving the environment, food and drug safety, workers’ rights, education, civil liberties, energy policy—the list is nearly endless.”

“The Supreme Court’s reversal of Chevron constitutes a major transfer of power from the executive branch to the judiciary, stripping federal agencies of significant discretion to interpret and enforce ambiguous regulations.” Chief Justice Roberts, writing the opinion of the court, argued Chevron “defies the command of” the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs federal administrative agencies. He said it “requires a court to ignore, not follow, ‘the reading the court would have reached had it exercised its independent judgment as required by the APA.'” Further, he said it “is misguided” because “agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do.”The liberals on the court are not happy: “In dissent, Justice Kagan says the conservative supermajority “disdains restraint, and grasps for power,” making “a laughingstock” of stare decisis and producing “large-scale disruption” throughout the entire government. She is both furious and terrified.”

As Stern concludes: “Hard to overstate the impact of this seismic shift.”
Simply put, a massive win for the constitution…

“Wow, this is a big deal for addressing overreaching regulation!” — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 28, 2024

Read more …

“..in a 6-3 opinion which cut across the Supreme Court’s usual ideological lines, the court ruled that the law should be interpreted relatively narrowly – and used only against defendants who tampered with documents..”

Supreme Court Casts Doubt On Hundreds Of Jan 6 Cases (BBC)

Federal prosecutors overreached when using an obstruction law to charge hundreds of January 6 rioters, the Supreme Court has ruled in an opinion that could also affect a case against Donald Trump. The justices ruled that obstruction charges must include proof that defendants tried to tamper with or destroy documents. More than 350 people have been charged with obstructing Congress’ business – the certification of the 2020 presidential election. The law that prosecutors used was passed in 2002, after the Enron scandal, to stop corporate misconduct. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act outlines criminal penalties for anyone who “alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object”, and another clause includes anyone who “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding”.

Justice department prosecutors argued for a broad interpretation of the law to include those who broke into the Capitol on 6 January 2021 in an attempt to keep Trump in the White House. But in a 6-3 opinion which cut across the Supreme Court’s usual ideological lines, the court ruled that the law should be interpreted relatively narrowly – and used only against defendants who tampered with documents. The ruling has cheered supporters of Donald Trump. While the court introduced another wrinkle into the special prosecution of the former president – and the Supreme Court could rule in a separate case expected next week that he has immunity for his actions – it is unclear whether the decision will halt one of the charges against him.

“For Trump, I think there will be litigation,” said Aziz Huq, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. “But the charges against him involve falsifying or altering ‘records, documents, or objects’. So I think it likely doesn’t undermine those charges.” In addition, Special Counsel Jack Smith has also charged Trump with other crimes in connection with his attempts to overturn the 2020 result: Conspiring to defraud the US and conspiring against the rights of citizens. Those charges will go ahead regardless of the outcome of the obstruction case. The special prosecutor faces an obvious deadline. If Trump wins the November election, he will be able to remove Mr Smith from his post and end the federal legal case.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was one of a number of laws used against those who stormed the Capitol in January 2021. About 25% of Capitol riot defendants were prosecuted under the law, and according to Attorney General Merrick Garland, all of those faced additional charges. “The vast majority of the more than 1,400 defendants charged for their illegal actions on January 6 will not be affected by this decision,” Mr Garland said in a statement issued after the decision in which he also noted he was disappointed with the ruling. The case was brought to the Supreme Court by Joseph Fischer, a former police officer from Pennsylvania who attended Trump’s rally in Washington on 6 January 2021, then briefly went inside the Capitol. He was seen arguing with police on video before leaving the building.

Lower courts will now decide whether the obstruction charge against him can continue. However, Mr Fischer also faces trial on a number of other charges including civil disorder, disorderly conduct and assaulting, resisting or impeding a police officer. More than 1,400 people have been charged with crimes related to the riot. According to justice department figures, more than 500 defendants have been charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers, including more than 130 who have been charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to a police officer. And more than 1,300 people have been charged with entering or remaining in a restricted federal building or grounds. More than 100 of those have been charged with entering a restricted area with a dangerous or deadly weapon.

Read more …

As such, this court should conclude that the entire prosecutorial process against the applicant was tainted and must be dismissed as a matter of law.”

Supreme Court Rejects Bannon Bid To Avoid Monday Prison Deadline (ZH)

Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon has until Monday to report to prison after the Supreme Court rejected his 11th hour bid to remain free while he pursues an appeal of his conviction for two counts of contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena from the Jan. 6 committee. US District Judge Carl Nichols had previously put Bannon’s sentence on hold as he pursued his appeal, saying that Bannon had presented a “substantial question of law or fact likely to result in reversal” of the conviction. That, however, was rejected by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in May – leaving him only the Supreme Court to help him avoid time behind bars. Bannon has argued that he was acting on the advice of counsel when he refused to comply with the subpoenas. He must report to prison on July 1.

As the Epoch Times notes further, Bannon through his lawyers asked the Supreme Court to intervene. In the application, lawyers said it would be unfair for Mr. Bannon to start serving his sentence before the full appeals court and justices consider overturning the recent appeal rejection. “If Mr. Bannon is denied release, he will be forced to serve his prison sentence before this court has a chance to consider a petition for a writ of certiorari, given the court’s upcoming summer recess,” the lawyers wrote. Department of Justice attorneys, on the other hand, urged the Supreme Court to reject the application. They said Mr. Bannon “cannot make the demanding showing necessary to override the normal requirement that a convicted defendant begin serving his sentence.”

Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), chairman of the House Administration Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight, told the court in a brief that the panel that subpoenaed Mr. Bannon produced flawed subpoenas because it failed to comply with House regulations, as it did not have a ranking member appointed by the Republican minority. “Notwithstanding the applicant’s indictment and sentencing, the select committee’s enforcement of the subpoena and the prosecution of Mr. Bannon for failing to participate in a deposition was factually and procedurally invalid,” Mr. Loudermilk wrote. “As such, this court should conclude that the entire prosecutorial process against the applicant was tainted and must be dismissed as a matter of law.” Peter Navarro, another former adviser to President Trump, is already serving a sentence after being convicted of contempt of Congress after also declining to cooperate with subpoenas from the same committee.

Read more …

“..the United States court in Saipan yesterday conceded, and the judge found that there is no evidence that any harm has befallen any individual anywhere in the world as a result of Mr. Assange’s publications..”

Assange Agreed to Destroy Unpublished Classified Material (Lauria)

The 23-page plea deal between Julian Assange and the United States government that freed Assange this week contains a provision that he agree to return or destroy all unpublished U.S. material still in WikiLeaks‘ possession. The agreement says on Page 29: “Before his plea is entered in Court, the Defendant shall take all action within his control to cause the return to the United States or the destruction of any such unpublished information in his possession, custody, or control, or that of WikiLeaks or any affiliate of WikiLeaks. The Defendant further agrees that, if the forgoing obligation requires him to instruct the editor(s) of WikiLeaks to destroy any such information or otherwise cause it to be destroyed, he shall provide the United States (or cause to be provided to the United States) a sworn affidavit confirming the instruction he provided and that, he will, in good faith, seek to facilitate compliance with that instruction prior to sentencing.”

Asked about it at a press conference in Parliament House in Canberra on Thursday, Barry Pollack, Assange’s U.S. lawyer who negotiated the plea deal, dismissed the significance of the agreement to destroy the materials. He said: “You’d have to ask the United States government why they insisted on including that clause. The materials we are talking about are now more than a decade old. I don’t know to what extent any still existed or what possible value they might have, certainly no national security value. In fact, the United States court in Saipan yesterday conceded, and the judge found that there is no evidence that any harm has befallen any individual anywhere in the world as a result of Mr. Assange’s publications. That being said, they did insist that he issue an instruction to the editor of WikiLeaks to destroy any materials they might have that were not published and Julian has complied with that provision and issued that instruction.”

Having had most of this material for more than a decade, and the time to review its enormous archive of documents, it unlikely, but not certain, that what remained unpublished is of great significance to the public. This part of the plea deal had only been vaguely referred to in a handful of press reports leading to speculation that it could mean the deletion of parts or all of WikiLeaks already published material, which the agreement makes clear, remains safe.

Read more …

“He has mandated the use of experimental gene serums, which caused very serious damage, death and sterility, calling them ‘an act of love,’ in exchange for funding from pharmaceutical companies and philanthropic foundations. His total alignment with the Davos religion is scandalous”.

Inquisition Redux at the Vatican (Karganovic)

The initiation by the Vatican of canonical proceedings against gadfly Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano marks a significant new development in the deepening crisis within the Roman Catholic church. Archbishop Vigano was recently summoned to answer accusations of committing three canonical offences: fomenting schism, questioning the legitimacy of the current Pope, and rejecting the second Vatican council of the Roman Catholic church which was held sixty years ago and whose controversial reforms have been agitating traditionalist Catholics ever since. It is a delicious irony which will not be lost upon the students of Vatican affairs that the church organ now prosecuting Vigano, the innocuous sounding Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, historically is the direct successor to the Holy Office, the very agency that used to direct the Inquisition.

The Archbishop has declined to present himself before his accusers at the initial hearing held on 20 June. He has also refused to dignify the proceedings with, as he put it, “a predetermined outcome,” by sending an advocate to plead his cause. Since retiring as apostolic nuncio in the United States in 2016, Vigano has become a powerful voice denouncing moral lapses in the ranks of the Roman Catholic clergy. With increasing stridency, he has been taking the Vatican to task for failure to adequately address its in-house scandals. Over time, the scope of Vigano’s public denunciations has continued to expand. Besides calling attention to the sordid moral atmosphere pervading the Roman Catholic church, Vigano has also been a persistent personal critic of current Pope Jorge Mario Bergoglio, specifically his failure to discipline the wrongdoers. Vigano’s contrarian stance concerning the Covid emergency enlisted him even more enemies.

Whilst Bergoglio publicly urged strict adherence to the Covid regime as practically a religious duty, Vigano used his bully pulpit to massively disseminate evidence to the contrary, echoing assertions by Prof. M. Chossudovsky that the “official ‘corona narrative’ is predicated on a ‘Big Lie’ endorsed by corrupt politicians”. Does Vigano have a case to answer with regard to the Roman Curia’s vaguely formulated accusations against him? We should perhaps delay our response to that question until the trial, when presumably the evidence in support of the Vatican’s charges shall be made public. There is little doubt, however, that Vigano and those who adhere to the traditional teaching of the Roman Catholic faith do have a coherent case for the current Pope and his entourage to answer. Without mincing words, in his response to the Curia’s indictment Vigano has charged that it is the current pontiff who in his preaching and actions appears to be guided by quite another doctrine:

“Globalism calls for ethnic substitution: Bergoglio (Pope Francis) promotes uncontrolled immigration and calls for the integration of cultures and religions. Globalism supports LGBTQ+ ideology: Bergoglio authorizes the blessing of same-sex couples and imposes on the faithful the acceptance of homosexualism, while covering up the scandals of his protégés and promoting them to the highest positions of responsibility. Globalism imposes the green agenda: Bergoglio worships the idol of the Pachamama, writes delirious encyclicals about the environment, supports the Agenda 2030, and attacks those who question the theory of man-made global warming. He goes beyond his role in matters that strictly pertain to science, but always and only in one direction: a direction that is diametrically opposed to what the Church has always taught. He has mandated the use of experimental gene serums, which caused very serious damage, death and sterility, calling them ‘an act of love,’ in exchange for funding from pharmaceutical companies and philanthropic foundations. His total alignment with the Davos religion is scandalous”.

Compared to the gravity of those objections, the best indictment that the Curia was able to muster against Vigano does appear rather contrived and frivolous.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Reagan

 

 

Garland

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Jun 282024
 
 June 28, 2024  Posted by at 9:00 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , ,  63 Responses »


Ivan Aivazovsky Lake Maggiore 1892

 

US Rep. Gosar: Biden Debate Performance Shows He’s Unfit to Be President (Sp.)
Biden Campaign Refuses To Commit To Drug Test Before Debate (MN)
Justice Alito Dissent Says Majority ‘Shirks’ Duty in Free Speech Case (ET)
Want to Defeat Joe Biden? Make Free Speech the Key Issue in 2024 (Turley)
Australian Politician Blames Assange For Years Of Captivity (RT)
What The Assange Saga Says About The State Of The American Empire (Hryce)
US Uses National Security ‘As A Veil To Hide War Crimes’ – Assange Lawyer (RT)
Russia Considers Downgrading Diplomatic Relations With The West (RT)
Putin: The Protector of Ukraine (Paul Craig Roberts)
EU Nominates Hawk For Next Top Diplomat (RT)
EU To Put Brakes On Kiev’s Exports – FT (RT)
Zelensky Regime Willing to Sacrifice Own People for Anti-Russia Crusade (Sp.)
Israeli Plan To Prevent A Palestinian State (Sahiounie)
Fulton County Georgia Seeks to Destroy 2020 Ballots To Halt Lawsuits (GP)
Jim Rogers Warns of Economic Decline Post-Election (Sp.)

 

 

 

 

BBee

 

 

There are many takes on the debate. Jon is one. But in June 2024 you still use “Trump’s Blatant Lies” in your headline? As Biden said the border is more secure under him than Trump?

Jon Stewart – Trump’s Blatant Lies and Biden’s Senior Moments

 

 

Debate

 

 

Tucker Julian
https://twitter.com/i/status/1806048853885325769

 

 

Macron Zelensky
https://twitter.com/i/status/1806316098058326163

 

 

Sausage
https://twitter.com/i/status/1806052953804960012

 

 

 

 

Zelensky
https://twitter.com/i/status/1806343426243236022

 

 

Eva
https://twitter.com/i/status/1806191478265233454

 

 

 

 

Gosar says what many/most are thinking. Biden’s problem is, the Dems think it too. He’s a very big risk.

US Rep. Gosar: Biden Debate Performance Shows He’s Unfit to Be President (Sp.)

Numerous Democrats have expressed concerns about Biden’s poor performance and its implications for the future of his candidacy, according to CNN, which hosted the debate. Trump and Biden are set to debate again on September 10 in an ABC-moderated event. US Congressman Paul Gosar in a statement to Sputnik said US President Joe Biden’s debate performance demonstrated he was mentally unfit to be US president. “With tonight’s debate, Joe Biden stammered the quiet part out loud: he is mentally unfit to be President of the United States,” Gosar said. President Joe Biden’s claim that the US southern border is more secure under his administration compared to former President Donald Trump’s is nonsense, former acting US Customs and Border Protection Deputy Commissioner Ronald Vitiello told Sputnik.

Biden during the first presidential debate in Atlanta falsely claimed that the National Border Patrol Council endorsed him and that his border policy currently has the southern border in better condition than when former President Donald Trump was in office. “Nonsense,” Vitiello said Thursday night. “Media reports have a 40% reduction in encounters since the executive order was signed. That still keeps us at over 1 million [illegal crossings on the southern border] per year.” Vitiello added that even at a lower flow rate thousands of illegal migrants are being released after being encountered on the US southern border and present a threat to US security. National Border Patrol Council Vice President Art Del Cueto told Sputnik that the group will never endorse Biden and that the US southern border has been in shambles since he took office in 2021. “Our borders have been in shambles since day one of the Biden administration,” Del Cueto said Thursday night. “The Border Patrol union never has nor never will endorse President Biden. We are fully behind Donald J. Trump.”

Read more …

And how did that work out?

Biden Campaign Refuses To Commit To Drug Test Before Debate (MN)

The Biden campaign has refused to agree to a drug test ahead of his debate with Donald Trump later today. While Trump has offered to submit to a drug test if his opponent also does so, the Biden campaign is having none of it. In an appearance on CNN Wednesday, Biden campaign spokesperson Adrienne Elrod stated “I mean, I don’t even really know what to say about that.” She then claimed that Biden twice beat Trump in previous debates (don’t remember that). “This is what [Trump] does because he doesn’t have anything else to run on,” Elrod further charged, adding “He doesn’t have a plan. He doesn’t have a record for fighting for the American people. He doesn’t know why he’s running, except for to seek political retribution on his enemies.”

Really? Trump is the one who doesn’t have a plan? She continued, “So he has to resort to these types of tactics which are, frankly, just silly. Turns off a lot of voters, especially voters who want to see their president fight for them.” Have you asked the voters lately? Biden’s campaign also posted this pathetic attempt to project problems with their own candidate onto Trump:

They don’t know how to meme, and they can’t do this either.

As we noted yesterday, the Trump campaign suggested that Biden will “probably be filled with Adderall” on Thursday, with senior adviser Jason Miller noting “We know that when it comes to the big events, when it comes to debates, when it comes to State of the Union, things of that nature, that they’re going to have Joe Biden completely super-soldiered up. He is going to be ready to go.” The Trump campaign also wants to know why Biden needs an entire week to prepare for a 90 minute debate, and exactly who is running the country in the meantime.

Read more …

“..one of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years.”

And yeah, they dropped that ball. Kudos Alito.

Justice Alito Dissent Says Majority ‘Shirks’ Duty in Free Speech Case (ET)

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito said the high court shirked its duty by rejecting a challenge brought over the White House’s communications with social media companies over political content, a case he described as “one of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years.” Justices Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas dissented from the majority in the June 26 decision that the state and individual plaintiffs involved lacked standing to bring speech-related claims to the court. The plaintiffs in Murthy v. Missouri had claimed, among other things, that the Biden administration illegally coerced social media platforms to moderate certain election-related content and posts related to COVID-19. Justice Alito’s dissent disputed the majority’s arguments about standing while detailing communications between the Biden administration and Facebook. He said administration officials’ actions were “blatantly unconstitutional, and the country may come to regret the Court’s failure to say so.”

Justice Alito wrote that there was “more than sufficient” evidence that Jill Hines, one of the plaintiffs, had standing to sue, so the court is “obligated to tackle the free speech issue that the case presents.” “The Court, however, shirks that duty and thus permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think,” he wrote. The dissent warned that the majority, whose opinion was written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, sent a message to government officials that if a “coercive campaign is carried out with enough sophistication, it may get by.” He suggested the outcome should have been the same as in National Rifle Association v. Vullo, which was heard on the same day as Murthy and ultimately held that New York state’s government plausibly violated the First Amendment by pressuring companies to cut ties with the gun rights group.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Court ruled last year that the administration’s communications constituted the type of coercion of social media companies that betrayed its duty not to violate the First Amendment.Three judges signed onto the September 2023 opinion that cited communications in detail. For example, it stated that a White House official “responded to a moderation report by flagging a user’s account and saying it is ‘[h]ard to take any of this seriously when you’re actively promoting anti-vaccine pages.’”It continued: “The platform subsequently ’removed‘ the account ’entirely‘ from its site, detailed new changes to the company’s moderation policies, and told the official that ’[w]e clearly still have work to do.’”“The official responded that ’removing bad information‘ is ’one of the easy, low-bar things you guys [can] do to make people like me think you’re taking action.‘ The official emphasized that other platforms had ’done pretty well‘ at demoting non-sanctioned information, and said ’I don’t know why you guys can’t figure this out.’”

In his June 26 opinion, Justice Alito described tech platforms as “critically dependent on the protection provided by [Section] 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 … which shields them from civil liability for content they spread.” He added that Facebook faced a regulatory environment that incentivized the company to “please important federal officials and the record in this case shows that high-ranking officials skillfully exploited Facebook’s vulnerability.” The administration, he said, “continuously and persistently hectored Facebook” while the platform’s “reactions to these efforts were not what one would expect from an independent news source or a journalistic entity dedicated to holding the Government accountable for its actions.”

“Instead,” he added, “Facebook’s responses resembled that of a subservient entity determined to stay in the good graces of a powerful taskmaster.”He later wrote, “Internal Facebook emails paint a clear picture of subservience.” The dissent also considered a variety of communications between White House officials Andy Slavitt and Rob Flaherty. For example, it noted that Mr. Flaherty, who served as White House director of digital strategy, accused Facebook of “hiding the ball” and suggested the company was “playing a shell game.”Justice Alito also pointed to Facebook’s changing policy amid White House criticism. Facebook representatives, he said, “pleaded to know how they could ‘get back to a good place’ with the White House.”

Tulsi
https://twitter.com/i/status/1806115658469704011

Read more …

“We are now seeing what is arguably the most dangerous anti-free speech movement in our history.”

Want to Defeat Joe Biden? Make Free Speech the Key Issue in 2024 (Turley)

Since his dystopian speech outside of Independence Hall in 2022, President Joe Biden has made “democracy is on the ballot” his campaign theme. Pundits have repeated the mantra, claiming that if Biden is not elected, American democracy will perish. While some of us have challenged these predictions, the other presidential candidates are missing a far more compelling argument going into this election. While democracy is not on the ballot this election, free speech is. The 2024 election is looking strikingly similar to the election of 1800 and, if so, it does not bode well for Biden. In my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” released last week, I discuss our long struggle with free speech as a nation. It is an unvarnished history with powerful stories of our heroes and villains in the struggle to define what Justice Louis Brandeis called our “indispensable right.”

One of the greatest villains in that history was President John Adams, who used the Alien and Sedition Acts to arrest his political opponents – including journalists, members of Congress and others. Many of those prosecuted by the Adams administration were Jeffersonians. In the election of 1800, Thomas Jefferson ran on the issue and defeated Adams. We are now seeing what is arguably the most dangerous anti-free speech movement in our history. President Joe Biden is, in my view, the most anti-free speech president since Adams. Under his administration, we have seen a massive censorship system funded and directed by the government. A federal judge described the system as “Orwellian” in its scope and impact. Biden has repeatedly called for greater censorship and accused social media companies of “killing people” by not silencing more dissenting voices. Other Democrats such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts have pushed for restrictions on “unacceptable” speech.

The Biden administration seeks to censor even true statements as disinformation. For example, I testified before Congress last year on how Jen Easterly, who heads the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, extended her agency’s mandate over critical infrastructure to include “our cognitive infrastructure.” The resulting censorship efforts included combating “malinformation” – described as information “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.” The left has picked up the cudgels of censorship and blacklisting once used against them. During the McCarthy period, liberals were called “communist sympathizers.” Now, conservative justices are called “insurrectionist sympathizers.” In this election, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Jill Stein, Donald Trump and Cornel West should talk about the threats against free speech at every debate and stump speech. They will have to overcome a news media that has been complicit in the attacks on free speech, but these candidates can break through by raising it as a key issue dividing Biden from the rest of the field.

Democrats and the news media have hammered away at cracking down on those accused of “disinformation.” The public, however, has not been won over by those seeking to limit their right of free speech or the push to amend the First Amendment because it’s too “aggressively individualistic.” So far, the anti-free speech movement has flourished largely in the echo chambers of academia and the media. It is time for the public to render its judgment. As discussed in my book, we are hardwired for free speech. It is in our DNA. Despite these periods of crackdowns on free speech, we have always rejected those who wanted to regulate the views of others. Jefferson called the Federalists “the reign of the witches.” (Ironically, Jefferson would himself prosecute critics, though not to the same extent as Adams). Attacks on free speech have returned with a vengeance before another presidential election. After fighting in the courts and in the public to expand censorship, Biden should now have to defend it with the voters. Let’s have at it, as we did in 1800. Free speech is again on the ballot. It is time for the public to decide.

Read more …

Sure, he should have volunteered for 175 years of prison time.

Australian Politician Blames Assange For Years Of Captivity (RT)

The opposition leader in the Australian Senate, Simon Birmingham, has claimed Julian Assange’s years of confinement in the UK were the result of his own actions, as he evaded lawful extradition requests. On Wednesday, the Wikileaks founder walked free from a courtroom in a remote US Pacific territory, after pleading guilty to a single count of conspiracy to obtain and disseminate national defense information – in exchange for a sentence that amounted to the time he spent in UK custody fighting a US extradition request. The Australian government, including Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, had sought his release. In an interview with Sky News Australia on Thursday, Simon Birmingham predicted that “the prime minister’s embrace of Mr. Assange might not age very well, once Mr Assange starts tweeting again.” He insisted that Assange should not be considered an innocent Australian citizen, persecuted by an authoritarian government.

“Mr. Assange evaded lawful extradition requests, first by hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy, then by using his legal rights in the United Kingdom to challenge them over many years,” Birmingham said. “The reason it has taken so long to resolve this is his decision to challenge it in that way.” Ecuador granted Assange political asylum in 2012 due concerns that a Swedish extradition request for the Wikileaks founder was a ruse to have him sent to the US. American espionage charges, which were made public years later, could have landed the Australian up to 175 years of prison time. The Australian Senate opposition leader claimed that the publishing of classified materials by WikiLeaks endangered the sources of US allies, including Australia, which is a member of the Five Eye intelligence-sharing group.

A similar argument was made by US State Department spokesman Matthew Miller, who claimed during a daily briefing on Wednesday that Assange “put the lives of our partners, our allies and our diplomats at risk, especially those who work in dangerous places, like Afghanistan and Iraq.” Some journalists, including Associated Press reporter Matt Lee, challenged him – pointing out that the court verdict specifically said that there were no victims in the case and that the US government never identified to the public any individual put in harm’s way by WikiLeaks. “Just because people were able to mitigate the harm done by your actions, that doesn’t absolve you,” Miller responded, comparing publication of leaked documents to reckless driving.

Read more …

“America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.”

What The Assange Saga Says About The State Of The American Empire (Hryce)

The Assange saga is a salutary tale about the exercise of US power as the American Empire declines, and the continuing willingness of US allies like the UK and Australia to comply with America’s demands – even when they involve persecution of citizens of those allied countries. Assange’s release is understandably being portrayed by some commentators as a victory of sorts – the international Federation of Journalists called it “a significant victory for media freedom” – and insofar as Assange has regained his personal freedom, it is. But it should not be forgotten that for the past 14 years the US has been able to successfully – with the abject complicity of governments and authorities in the UK and Australia – imprison a journalist of international stature for simply engaging in genuine investigative journalism.

Assange is a journalist – not a whistleblower or leaker of classified material. Nor did Assange’s publishing of the classified material in question cause any real harm to the US – other than to embarrass it by disclosing the truth about American conduct during its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. America’s fabled commitment to freedom of speech and the press – embodied in the first amendment to its constitution – has never been absolute, but, as the Assange saga clearly shows, it has probably never been weaker than over the past few decades. That is not surprising – given that pursuing the inherently corrupt aims of the Empire overseas must inevitably result in the curtailment of domestic freedoms. Barrington Moore Jr described this relationship as “aggression abroad and repression at home” during the height of the Vietnam war in the late 1960s, and America’s founding fathers were well aware of how the British had been corrupted by their Empire.

Washington in his farewell speech warned against America becoming involved in “foreign entanglements” – and John Quincy Adams famously said “America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.” And Edmund Burke, the conservative 18th-century British statesman, and stern critic of British policy in America and India, pointed out that “the breakers of the law in India are also the makers of the law in England.” It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the US persecution of Assange should have occurred during a period in which America has engaged in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and promoted and funded proxy wars in Gaza and Ukraine.

And there can be no doubt whatsoever that if Assange had been extradited to the US and had been tried in an American court, that he would have received a very lengthy jail sentence. One prosecutor suggested that a term of 175 years would have been an appropriate punishment for him. Nor should it be forgotten that America’s persecution of Assange was carried out on a bi-partisan basis. Mainstream Democrats and Republicans were equally keen to put Assange in prison. Hillary Clinton was a particularly rabid critic of Assange, as was Biden until very recently. In fact, Donald Trump had a measure of sympathy for Assange because WikiLeaks had published the emails that had damaged Clinton’s reputation in the lead-up to the 2016 election.

America’s internal decline over the past 50 years can be gauged by comparing Assange’s likely fate with what happened to Daniel Ellsberg – who famously leaked the Pentagon Papers to the Washington Post in the early 1970s. When Ellsberg was prosecuted, the US courts threw the case out on the basis the Nixon administration had subjected Ellsberg to unlawful persecution. Equally troubling – especially for the citizens of the UK and Australia – is the fact that, until very recently, governments in both of these countries cravenly capitulated to US demands in relation to Assange.

Read more …

“..this was the only way to end a case that undeniably did not play in favor of the image of the US in the world..”

US Uses National Security ‘As A Veil To Hide War Crimes’ – Assange Lawyer (RT)

The Julian Assange saga has clearly shown that the US has been using its “national security” as a “veil” to hide war crimes, one of the WikiLeaks founder’s attorneys, Aitor Martinez, has said. The years-long persecution of the publisher and the extradition case have also set a very dangerous precedent, which threatens the whole concept of press freedom, the lawyer added. At the same time, the Assange case had become growingly toxic for the US administration, sprouting numerous groups advocating his release and effectively turning into a global movement, Martinez suggested. “The truth is that the US administration had been pushing for the extradition process until recently, and indeed, just a few weeks ago, they had even provided diplomatic assurances seeking the effective handover of Julian Assange.

However, in recent times, a citizen movement has emerged against this extradition, and I believe there is no corner of the world where a ‘Free Assange’ movement has not sprung up,” the lawyer stated. The timing of the abrupt resolution of the years-long affair is likely linked to the looming US presidential elections and the ongoing campaign, where it was bound to emerge one way or another. The case “in some way tarnished the image of the United States before the world” given it “meant the political persecution of a journalist who simply published truthful information that evidenced the commission of serious war crimes,” Martinez noted.

“Therefore, unquestionably, the Assange case would have arisen in the framework of the presidential debates, and this was the only way to end a case that undeniably did not play in favor of the image of the US in the world,” he said. While politicians in Washington have ultimately opted to wrap up the affair, the US intelligence community has regarded it as a personal vendetta of sorts against the journalist, Martinez claimed. “This case was being radically pushed by the US intelligence establishment and mainly by the CIA as a form of revenge against Julian Assange for the material he had published, which in some way had revealed the shame of the US military in operations abroad,” he said.

Read more …

Sad.

Russia Considers Downgrading Diplomatic Relations With The West (RT)

Moscow could be forced to downgrade diplomatic ties with Western countries, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov has warned, citing hostile policies of the US and its allies. “We have not initiated such a step yet, despite all of the things related to the most tumultuous phase in our relations with the West,” the diplomat said in an interview with the Izvestia newspaper, published on Thursday. “Is a decision to downgrade the level of diplomatic ties possible? I can say that we are examining this issue. Such decisions are made on the highest level,” Ryabkov said, adding that it is too early to “speculate.” The West’s “sense of impunity” on the world stage will eventually force Russia to retaliate more decisively, if the situation does not change, the deputy minister warned. Our adversaries must know that, with every step, they are moving closer to the point of no return.

Ryabkov accused Washington of helping Ukrainian forces pick targets when using US-supplied long-range ATACMS missiles to strike Russian territory. Last week, four people were killed when cluster munitions from a missile hit a packed beach in Crimea. The incident prompted Moscow to summon the American ambassador. “It was a flagrant case of a direct [US] involvement in the conflict,” Ryabkov said. “The complicity in a terrorist act committed by the Kiev regime will not go unanswered.” The diplomat said that deliveries of weapons to Ukraine and attempts to confiscate Russian assets abroad undermine potential dialogue in other fields, such as arms control. “They must understand that it would be simply impossible,” he stressed. Earlier in June, Ukraine’s Western backers renewed their pledges to continue support for Kiev in its fight with Moscow. Russia has repeatedly stated that no amount of foreign aid will stop its operation in Ukraine, and that weapons deliveries only lead to further escalation.

Read more …

PCR thinks Putin should kill more Ukrainians. Putin does not.

Putin: The Protector of Ukraine (Paul Craig Roberts)

Has anyone noticed that Putin is conducting his “limited military operation,” by which he means limited to Donbas and the former Russian territories that are again part of Russia, as a response to US/NATO/Ukrainian initiatives? When the Russian military strikes outside the limited combat zone, it is usually a response to a Ukrainian strike into Russia out of the combat zone. After 2.5 years of conflict, Putin has made no effort to win the war. He doesn’t even seem to understand that Russia is at war, not engaged in a limited police action. Putin has left the Ukrainian government in functioning order and has not interfered with Zelensky’s ability to continue the conflict. Kiev is intact. The government in Kiev is intact. Nothing has been done to close Ukraine’s borders from Western armament supplies. The entire initiative of the conflict is with the West. The West acts, and Putin responds. There are no Russian initiatives. Indeed, Russia was forced into the conflict by the West’s initiatives.

This is not the way to fight a war. It is Putin’s refusal to fight and win a war that is causing the enormous expansion–the ever widening–of the war. Notice that the Kremlin’s response to the US missile attack on Crimean civilians and a public beach is to call in the American ambassador and complain, to investigate, to send condolences, not to destroy and occupy Kiev. After all this time haven’t the Russians learned that no one pays any attention to their complaints? Why does Putin think he can shame the shameless West? Why does the Kremlin worry about over-responding to attacks? Washington doesn’t worry about over-provoking Russia. Let me be clear, I am on humanity’s side. I don’t want nuclear war. Putin should never have entered a conflict when he did not intend a quick victory before Washington/NATO could get involved and widen the war.

Now that French troops are in Ukraine, now that US/NATO personnel are conducting the targeting of the US long-range missiles on Russian civilians, and now that Russia is faced with the likelihood of NATO troops entering Ukraine, Putin’s response is to play into Washington’s hands by speaking of bringing North Korean troops into the conflict. Imagine the propaganda damage. North Korea is even more demonized than Russia and Putin. Why does Putin want to widen the conflict instead of quickly winning it? Is the reason that his central bank director convinced him Russia lacked the resources to conduct a real war? Is this why Putin endlessly emphasizes Russian nuclear capability? Does Putin lack the resources to conduct conventional war? With his central bank director’s 16% interest rates hindering the Russian economy, perhaps it is so. Putin’s central bank director left Russian central bank reserves in Western depositories where Washington could seize them.

Was this incompetence or an act of treason? Washington has decided that the interest income earned by the seized Russian central bank reserves will be given to Ukraine to continue the war. So Russia’s own central bank reserves are financing Ukraine’s ability to conduct war against Russia. When the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia, especially the youth, were corrupted for years by Washington’s propaganda. They lost their national consciousness and became “citizens of the West.” Has Russian youth escaped from this delusion, or does it still rule? The question before us is: Does Russia have leadership capable of comprehending that Russia has an enemy intent on her destruction and dismemberment, or will the Kremlin finally realize this at the last minute, too late to avoid nuclear war?

It is extraordinary that the fate of the world rests on Russian misperception and inadequate response to the West’s intent. As a result of Putin’s inability to act decisively, he was drawn into a conflict that has become open-ended, involving, at least in plans, troops from foreign countries. To pretend that such a conflict is a “limited military operation” is an act of irresponsibility, even evidence of reality denial. Russia is at war with the West. She got there because she refused to acknowledge the fact. Grasping reality remains a challenge for the Kremlin which continues to enable the Ukraine conflict to spin out of control rather than use the force to decisively terminate the conflict before it ends in World War III.

PCR

Read more …

The loudest anti-Russia voice as your top diplomat?

EU Nominates Hawk For Next Top Diplomat (RT)

EU leaders have officially nominated Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas to replace Josep Borrell as the bloc’s top diplomat. Kallas is known for her hawkish position on Russia and has been one of the most outpoken proponents of tougher sanctions on Moscow. The leaders also backed Ursula von der Leyen to serve a third five-year term as the president of the European Commission, and named the former foreign minister of Portugal, Antonio Costa, as the new president of the European Council. The nominations for Kallas and Von der Leyen are not final, and require approval by the European Parliament. However, Costa is automatically elected by the national leaders of the 27 nations.

Euronews cited two sources as saying that Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni voted against Kallas’ candidacy, while Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban abstained. In a post on X (formerly Twitter), Kallas wrote that the potential new post would be “an enormous responsibility at this moment of geopolitical tensions.” “The war in Europe, increasing instability in our neighborhood and globally are the main challenges for European foreign policy,” she wrote, promising to “work on achieving EU unity” and “protect the EU’s interests and values in the changed geopolitical context.”

Kallas has repeatedly called for stronger sanctions on Moscow and backed the idea of using frozen Russian assets to fund aid for Kiev. In May, Estonia’s parliament passed a law that allows using seized Russian assets for the reconstruction of Ukraine. She urged the EU to boost the deliveries of weapons to Ukraine and increase the bloc’s own defense capabilities. “Our aim must be to manufacture more munitions than Russia,” Kallas said in March. Russia blacklisted Kallas earlier this year and issued a warrant for her arrest, citing “hostile policies towards Russia.

Read more …

This feels very stupid.

EU To Put Brakes On Kiev’s Exports – FT (RT)

The EU is set to reimpose tariffs on sugar and egg imports from Ukraine on Friday to protect the bloc’s farmers from a flood of cheap goods, the Financial Times (FT) has reported. EU member states decided earlier this year that they would apply an “emergency brake” if Ukrainian imports reached a certain volume. Eggs and sugar imports have now hit that level, the FT said, citing people familiar with the situation. Tariffs amounting to €419 ($448) per ton of white sugar and €339 ($362) per ton of raw sugar will be announced on Friday, the publication reported. Eggs will cost an additional 32 cent per kilogram, it added. Ukraine has become the EU’s leading supplier of eggs after the bloc’s poultry industry suffered from bird flu outbreaks in recent years. Imports from Ukraine jumped by three-quarters in 2023, and continued to rise at the start of this year, according to EU data.

Last week, tariffs were reintroduced on Ukrainian oats as imports also reached the relevant ceiling. The decision to limit Ukrainian imports follows months of protests by farmers. Agricultural workers argue that the EU’s policies are threatening their livelihoods. After the launch of Russia’s military operation in Ukraine, Brussels dropped all tariffs and quotas on Kiev’s farming goods for a period of one year to allow its agricultural products to be shipped to global markets. Farmers in Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, and other neighboring countries staged protests, complaining that they simply could not compete with cheap Ukrainian imports that were not subject to the same tariffs and regulations as EU-produced goods.

In April, EU lawmakers extended Kiev’s duty-free access to member states’ markets but also decided to introduce caps on Ukrainian farm imports such as oats, corn, maize, honey, eggs, poultry, and sugar. Duties would be applied to the listed produce if imports exceed average levels of past years. The expected reintroduction of tariffs comes just days after the EU opened membership talks with Kiev, “an agricultural powerhouse,” the FT said. The move underlines how difficult Ukraine’s accession negotiations will be, it added.

Read more …

“..they know or have identified certain individuals in the Kiev regime and the US’ decision-making process, whom they can hold personally responsible..”

Zelensky Regime Willing to Sacrifice Own People for Anti-Russia Crusade (Sp.)

The number of Ukrainian casualties in the country’s ongoing war against Russia has remained a highly contentious matter throughout the duration of the conflict. Kiev and its Western allies often downplay the number, claiming the death toll is only in the thousands, but Moscow’s defense ministry has estimated the actual figure is close to 500,000. Purportedly leaked US intelligence documents admit Ukraine’s death toll is much higher than publicly acknowledged. Whatever the number, the war is likely the bloodiest the world has seen in decades. But security analyst Mark Sleboda claims the “ideological” Kiev regime is unfazed by the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands, or even a million, of its own citizens in its crusade against the Russian nation. The international relations expert joined Sputnik’s Fault Lines program Wednesday to discuss the latest developments in the conflict as the killing of several Russian civilians, including two children, at a beach in Sevastopol elevates tensions to new heights.

Host Jamarl Thomas began by asking Sleboda what the consequences might be for the United States, which provided Ukraine with the US-made ATACMS missiles used in the attack. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov recently warned the country would be forced to respond to repeated acts of terrorism against Russian civilians. “That’s a good question and I don’t know that anyone rightfully knows the answer to that,” Sleboda responded. “There are some who suggested that the statements by Lavrov and by other officials seem to indicate that they know or have identified certain individuals in the Kiev regime and the US’ decision-making process, whom they can hold personally responsible, and what measures they might take against them either over sanctions, criminal cases or shall we say more direct justice.” “The other possibility is an asymmetric response, as Putin has promised, of providing long-range strike weapons to US adversaries in the world,” he suggested.

Thomas speculated Moscow could implement a no-fly zone over the Black Sea, where drones have gathered targeting information for Ukrainian strikes. Russian officials have also pointed out that advanced Western weaponry, such as the ATACMS missile system, typically require the assistance of highly-trained US military personnel to operate. The high level of coordination in the strikes on Russia represents a level of US involvement in the conflict that goes beyond what the country publicly acknowledges, Russian officials have noted, requiring a response from Moscow in order to protect its people and territory.

“This is not passive intelligence,” Sleboda said of Kiev’s reliance on Western reconnaissance aircraft to help coordinate attacks. “This is active intelligence gathering.” The security analyst also noted the assistance of the United States in programing targeting information into Ukraine’s weapons systems, according to comments by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and generals in the German Bundeswehr. “Not doing something almost guarantees escalation by the West,” said Thomas. “Meaning, they’re acting with impunity. They don’t believe in Russia’s red lines.” The host claimed the United States has not yet faced a great enough cost during the conflict to reconsider its position, with American officials frequently boasting of the potential to undermine one of their perceived global adversaries without sacrificing American lives.

Read more …

All other plans involve 2 states.

Israeli Plan To Prevent A Palestinian State (Sahiounie)

While the world watches the genocide in Gaza, there is another war on the Palestinian people in the Occupied West Bank. On June 9, the New York Times (NYT) reported that Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich outlined, in a speech to Jewish extremists, a plan by the Israeli government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to annex the Occupied Territories of the West Bank. His speech was recorded secretly and leaked to the NYT. Smotrich is part of the more than 600,000 Jewish settlers illegally occupying Palestinian lands. He advocates Israel taking all the Palestinian territories, and preventing the Palestinians from ever having an independent state. The UN, the U.S. and the international community all agree that Gaza and the West Bank should be eventually an independent Palestinian state, which would be the end of a brutal Israeli military occupation and apartheid.

This is not the first secret leaked speech of Smotrich. In October 2022, Smotrich was caught calling Netanyahu “the liar of all liars”, as reported by The Jerusalem Post. According to Smotrich, the plan to steal the West Bank is fully supported by Netanyahu, and forms a basis for the current right-wing Jewish extremist coalition keeping Netanyahu in power, and out of jail. The plan involves supporting the Jewish settler’s expansion in the West Bank, which is illegal under international law, and has been under occupation since 1967. Officially, the Israeli government maintains that the West Bank’s status will be negotiated in the future. The Smotrich-Netanyahu plan would forever deny the almost 3 million Palestinians of the Occupied West Bank their freedom. For Palestinians, the plan would mark the end of any hope to live in freedom and democracy, but for the Jewish Zionists, the plan would be a culmination of their goal to have one land ‘from the river to the sea’ which is occupied only by Jews.

Not every Jew is a Zionist, and not every Zionist is a Jew. For example, after October 7, U.S. President Joe Biden said he was a Zionist, while being a Christian. Zionism is a political movement, hiding behind a religion. Similarly, Al Qaeda and ISIS are political movements, hiding behind a religion. Using the word Zionist as a label of identification is not antisemitic, because Zionism is not limited only to Jews. The modern movement of Zionism began in the late 1800s, and refers to Zion as an acronym for Jerusalem. Jewish settlers in the West Bank see their illegal occupation there as a demonstration of Zionism. Those who oppose Zionism are not being anti-Semitic. They simply oppose a political position of the Israeli government, just as they may oppose a political position of the Japanese government on an issue.

The official name of Israel is “The Jewish State of Israel”. Some have offered that there is the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, and also similarly of Iran. So why do people complain about the religious nature of Israel? Israel denies the human rights and civil rights of non-Jewish people in Israel and Palestine, and has been classified as an Apartheid state by the UN and human rights groups. Tallie Ben Daniel, the managing director of Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), which sees Zionism as a movement whose aim “is to deny the rights of Palestinians and the humanity of Palestinians.” “For us, we want to be clear: the form of Zionism that has survived and has power now is an expansionist, right-wing, genocidal form,” Ben Daniel said. “The people in power in Israel right now … want to annihilate the Palestinians and get all the land for Jews, and there is no thought there could be coexistence,” said Ben Daniel.

Read more …

Nice county. Fani says hi.

Fulton County Georgia Seeks to Destroy 2020 Ballots To Halt Lawsuits (GP)

In an ongoing lawsuit concerning the 2020 election, attorneys for Fulton County, Georgia, made a controversial argument yesterday. They suggested that a temporary injunction preserving the 2020 Fulton election ballots should be lifted, which would allow the ballots to be destroyed before they are unsealed, copied, and revealed to the public. The attorneys also contended that Fulton County should receive attorney fees for the case, despite a Georgia Supreme Court ruling that overturned lower court decisions and confirmed standing for the plaintiffs who seek to copy and inspect the ballots, according to the VoterGA. Representing Fulton Superior Court Clerk Che Alexander, Attorney Laura Moore made the case that there is no longer room in a secure warehouse cage for the ballots, so they may now be destroyed.

Moore conveniently omitted from her argument that Fulton County recently opened a new 60,000 sq. ft. Election Operations warehouse at an initial cost of nearly 30 million and an additional 4 million annual lease for Fulton taxpayers, per VoterGA. More from the VoterGA press release: Attorney Kaye Burwell argued that the county should receive attorney fees for costs incurred so far because Plaintiffs’ claims, which are still yet to be adjudicated, are“meritless”. Burwell ignored all rulings showing Plaintiffs in the case, currently known as Favorito v. Wan, were granted relief eight times thus proving their claims are legitimate. The rulings include:

• A temporary injunction to preserve all ballots on Jan. 7, 2021;
• An order to produce scanned absentee ballot images on April 16, 2021;
• An order upholding two Open Records Request claims on April 20, 2021;
• A motion granted to add the county and clerk as Defendants on April 21, 2021;
• An order to unseal the ballots for inspection and copying on May 21, 2021;
• An order granting Petitioners’ motion to add parties on June 24, 2021;
• A Georgia Supreme Court order confirming Plaintiffs’ standing claim on Dec. 12, 2022;
• An appeals court adoption of the higher order for Fulton plaintiffs on May 11, 2023.

Lead Plaintiff Garland Favorito added, “Watching the attorneys make such ludicrous, dishonest arguments with a straight face while seeking to destroy the ballots and charge us fees for winning arguments in court against them only serves to remind me of the massive Fulton County corruption that threatens the voting rights of every Georgian.” Judge Robert McBurney is expected to rule soon on the motion for fees, the temporary injunction for the ballots and a Plaintiff motion to substitute Defendants with new members of the Fulton County Election Board who the court can compel to act if it grants further relief.

Read more …

“..the markets’ strength won’t last long, as they have been strong for a long time, so regardless of who wins, problems will begin after the elections..”

Jim Rogers Warns of Economic Decline Post-Election (Sp.)

The global economy will face difficult times by the US presidential elections or shortly thereafter, renowned US investor Jim Rogers told Sputnik. Rogers observed that most markets are currently performing well and reaching new highs due to the massive amounts of money printed by nearly every central bank worldwide in recent months and years. “There’s a lot of free money around. It has to go somewhere and it’s been going into the investment world so everybody’s having a good time…,” Rogers said. ” When everybody is making a new high, that’s a risk. Whenever that happened in the past, it usually led to a decline, a bad market, and a bad economy… Soon that will be a problem.” Rogers explained that because the US is the largest economy in the world, whatever happens there affects the rest of the world. According to Rogers, the downturn will begin around the time of the US elections or shortly after.

The US presidential election will be held on November 5. The main rivals in the race are Biden, a Democrat, and his Republican predecessor, Donald Trump. Regardless of the winner in the upcoming US presidential elections, the markets will react positively, but this period of “happiness” will be brief, legendary American investor Jim Rogers told Sputnik “People expect Trump to win. They think that Trump will be good for the market. So if he wins, the markets will stay strong, not too much longer, because the markets have been strong for a long time now,” Rogers said. “Likewise, if Biden wins many people will think ‘we will have the same old good things’. So whichever one wins, the market is going to be happy for a short period of time.” Rogers added that the markets’ strength won’t last long, as they have been strong for a long time, so regardless of who wins, problems will begin after the elections.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Thank you

 

 

Free energy

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Jun 272024
 
 June 27, 2024  Posted by at 9:08 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,  75 Responses »


Paul Gauguin The Vision after the Sermon (Jacob wrestling with the Angel) 1888

 

Julian Assange: Free At Last, But Guilty Of Journalism (Pepe Escobar)
‘No Physical Harm To Anyone By Leaks’ (ZH)
Bitcoin Donor Pays For Julian Assange’s $520,000 Charter Jet (ZH)
You Saved Julian Assange (Chris Hedges)
How The Deal To Free Julian Assange Was Agreed (BBC)
‘Every Citizen on the Planet’ Subject to US Persecution (Miles)
Macron’s Brand ‘Toxic’ – Bloomberg (RT)
France Faces Threat Of ‘Civil War’ – Macron (RT)
West ‘Unable To Negotiate’ – Lavrov (RT)
Farage Tells Zelensky Only Peace Can Save Ukraine (RT)
UK’s Cameron Dashes Ukraine’s NATO Summit Hopes (RT)
How Obama’s Intel Czar Rigged 2016 and 2020 Debates Against Trump (Sperry)
Age of Rage: America’s Anti-Free Speech Movement (Turley)
Supreme Court Tosses Case Over Biden Coercion Of Social Media (ZH)

 

 


Free as a Bird — by Mr. Fish

 

 

https://twitter.com/i/status/1806072950510002264
https://twitter.com/i/status/1806056785469374481

 

 

Debate

 

 

 

 

RFK jr

 

 

Vivek

 

 

Zelaya

 

 

Pool
https://twitter.com/i/status/1806058499282969012

 

 

 

 

Lots of Assange articles again today. Well, he deserves it.

Julian Assange: Free At Last, But Guilty Of Journalism (Pepe Escobar)

The United States Government (USG) – under the “rules-based international order” – has de facto ruled that Julian Assange is guilty of practicing journalism. Edward Snowden had already noted that “when exposing a crime is treated as committing a crime, you are being ruled by criminals.” Criminals such as Mike “We Lie, We Cheat, We Steal” Pompeo, former Trump Secretary of State, who had planned to kidnap and kill Julian when he was head of the CIA. The indomitable Jennifer Robinson and Julian’s U.S. lawyer Barry Pollack sum it all up: the United States has “pursued journalism as a crime”. Julian was forced to suffer an unspeakably vicious Via Crucis because he dared to expose USG war crimes; the inner workings of the U.S. military in their rolling thunder War Of Terror (italics mine) in Afghanistan and Iraq; and – Holy of Holies – he dared to release emails showing the Democratic National Committee (DNC) colluded with the notorious warmongering Harpy Hillary Clinton.

Julian was subjected to relentless psychological torture, and nearly crucified for publishing facts that should always remain invisible to public opinion. That’s what top-notch journalism is all about. The whole drama teaches the whole planet everything one needs to know about the absolute control of the Hegemon over pathetic UK and EU. And that bring us to the kabuki that may – and the operative word is “may” – be closing the case. Title of the twisted morality play: ‘Plead Guilty or Die in Jail’. The final twist in the plot line of the morality play runs like this: the combo behind the cadaver in the White House realized that torturing an Australian journalist and publisher in a maximum security U.S. prison in an electoral year was not exactly good for business. At the same time the British establishment was begging to be excluded from the plot – as its “justice” system was forced by the Hegemon to keep an innocent man and family father hostage for 5 years, in abysmal conditions, in the name of protecting a basket of Anglo-American intel secrets.

In the end, the British establishment quietly applied all the pressure it could muster to run towards the exit – in full knowledge of what the Americans were planning for Julian. Cue to the kabuki this Wednesday in Saipan, the largest of the Northern Mariana Islands, unincorporated Pacific land administered by the Hegemon. Free at last – maybe, but with conditionalities that remain quite murky. Julian was ordered by this U.S. Court in the Pacific to instruct WikiLeaks to destroy information as a condition of the deal. Julian had to tell U.S. judge Ramona Manglona that he was not bribed or coerced to plead guilty to the crucial charge of “conspiring to unlawfully obtain and disseminate classified information relating to the national defense of the United States”. Well, his lawyers told him he had to follow the ‘Plead Guilty or Die in Jail’ script. Otherwise, no deal.

Judge Manglona – in an astonishing brush aside of those 5 years of psychological torture – said, “it appears that your 62 months in prison was fair and reasonable and proportionate.” So now the – oh, so benign and “fair” – USG will take the necessary steps to immediately erase remaining charges against Julian in the notoriously harsh Eastern District of Virginia. Julian was always adamant: he stressed over and over again that he would never plead guilty to an espionage charge. He didn’t; he pleaded guilty to a hazy felony/conspiracy charge; was given time served; was set free; and that’s a wrap. Or is it? Australia is a Hegemon vassal state, intel included, and with less than zero capability to protect its civilian population.

Moving from the UK to Australia may not be exactly an upgrade – even with freedom included. A real upgrade would be a move to a True Sovereign. Like Russia. Yet Julian will need U.S. authorization to travel and leave Australia. Moscow inevitably will be a sanctioned, off-limits destination. There’s hardly any question Julian will be back at the helm of WikiLeaks. Whistleblowers may be even lining up as we speak to tell their stories – supported by official documents. Yet the stark, ominous message remains fully imprinted in the collective unconscious: the ruthless, all-powerful U.S. Intel Apparatus will go no holds barred and take no prisoners to punish anyone, anywhere, who dares to expose imperial crimes. A new global epic starts now: The Fight against Criminalized Journalism.

Read more …

We’ve known this for years.

‘No Physical Harm To Anyone By Leaks’ (ZH)

These are the images the world has been waiting for (with the exception of all Neocons, Liberal interventionists, natsec hawks, and Killary types…). “Free at last,” WikiLeaks said in a post on X, upon Julian Assange emerging rom his plane after landing in the Australian capital of Canberra. Assange raised his fist on the tarmac, and lovingly embraced his wife Stella and his children and family. His guilty plea arrangement with the United States was a success. During the Wednesday morning stopover and court appearance in a US district court in Saipan, the 52-year old Assange formally pleaded guilty to obtaining and publishing US military secrets.

One of Assange’s lawyers, Jennifer Robinson, said after the hearing that the whole ordeal “sets a dangerous precedent that should be a concern to journalists everywhere.”During the hearing he appeared emotional and there were moments of humor and laughter in interaction with the judge and with the court, according to The Guardian. For example, when the judge questioned whether satisfied with the plea conditions, Assange responded: “It might depend on the outcome.” This immediately drew some laughter in the courtroom. Chief Judge Ramona Manglona said at the start: “Not many people recognize we are part of the United States, but that is true.” By the end she pronounced: “It appears this case ends with me” and followed with “I hope there will be some peace restored.”

Crucially, the judge said something which marks a significant blow to Assange’s and WikiLeaks’ detractors, who have long maintained that the leaks – particularly the Iraq and Afghan war logs – put intelligence officers and foreign assets in danger and may have gotten some killed. Manglona explained that key to the deal for his freedom was that he already served years in a notorious and harsh UK prison, but also that no actual physical harm was actually caused due to Assange’s actions. “You stand before me to be sentenced in this criminal action,” the judge said. “I would note the following: Timing matters. If this case was brought before me some time near 2012, without the benefit of what I know now, that you served a period of imprisonment… in apparently one of the harshest facilities in the United Kingdom.”

The Australian parliament had also begun publicly lobbying for Assange’s freedom starting months ago, and this was also essential in building pressure with the Biden administration. “There’s another significant fact – the government has indicated there is no personal victim here. That tells me the dissemination of this information did not result in any known physical injury,” the judge continued. “These two facts are very relevant. I would say if this was still unknown and closer to [2012] I would not be so inclined to accept this plea agreement before me,” Manglona added. “But it’s the year 2024.”

Former intelligence officials and national security pundits have been livid and disappointed over the plea deal, claiming Assange’s leaks got people killed and harmed US operations abroad.

Importantly, as a condition of the plea WikiLeaks is required to destroy information pertaining to US state secrets that was provided to Assange and his team. While the WikiLeaks site is a large repository of world-wide leaks on various governments, it appears that sections devoted to classified US documents have now been removed. Upon Assange’s celebratory landing in Australia, his wife Stella said in a press conference that he “just arrived in Australia after being in a high-security prison for over five years and [on] a 72-hour flight.”

She said it would be “premature” for Julian to address the press and that he “has to recover”. She then declared: “The fact is that Julian will always defend human rights, will always defend victims – that’s just part of who he is.” “I hope journalists and editors and publishers everywhere realize the danger of the US case against Julian that criminalizes, that has secured a conviction for, newsgathering and publishing information that was true, that the public deserved to know,” she continued in the press conference. “That precedent now can and will be used in the future against the rest of the press. So it is in the interest of all of the press to seek for this current state of affairs to change through reform of the Espionage Act,” said Stella Assange. “Through increased press protections, and yes, eventually when the time comes – not today – a pardon.”

Read more …

“..required to pay $520,000 to the Australian government..”

Bitcoin Donor Pays For Julian Assange’s $520,000 Charter Jet (ZH)

In an anonymous effort to help secure Julian Assange’s freedom, an anonymous Bitcoiner donated over 8 Bitcoin, worth around $500,000, to help Assange’s family pay off the debt incurred by his charter jet and settlement expenses, CoinTelegraph reported. On June 24, Assange was released from the high-security Belmarsh prison in the United Kingdom after reaching a plea agreement with U.S. authorities. Shortly after his release, he departed the U.K. on a private plane from a London airport to Saipan in the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. territory. Assange appeared in a district court in Saipan on June 26, where he pleaded guilty to one charge of breaching the U.S. Espionage Act by leaking classified documents. The journey was planned to prevent Assange from touching foot on American soil.

In an interview, Stella Assange, Assange’s wife, stated that “freedom comes at a cost.” Assange is required to pay $520,000 to the Australian government for the “forced” chartering of flight VJ199 to travel to Saipan and Australia. Stella started a crowdfunding page to help the jailed founder with his debts after his return home to Australia. The donation link was posted by Stella Assange on June 25, and within 10 hours, an anonymous Bitcoiner paid over 8 Bitcoin to the fund, almost clearing the goal of $520,000. He has also received over 300,000 British pounds ($380,000) in fiat donations so far. The single Bitcoin donation was the largest donation to the fund, more than all other donations in all currencies combined. As a result, Assange will arrive in Australia debt free.

Read more …

“..to my delight, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser of the Old Bailey court overseeing Julian’s case, complained about the noise protestors were making in the street outside..”

You Saved Julian Assange (Chris Hedges)

The dark machinery of empire, whose mendacity and savagery Julian Assange exposed to the world, spent 14 years trying to destroy him. They cut him off from his funding, canceling his bank accounts and credit cards. They invented bogus allegations of sexual assault to get him extradited to Sweden, where he would then be shipped to the U.S. They trapped him in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London for seven years after he was given political asylum and Ecuadorian citizenship by refusing him safe passage to Heathrow Airport. They orchestrated a change of government in Ecuador that saw him stripped of his asylum, harassed and humiliated by a pliant embassy staff. They contracted the Spanish security firm UC global in the embassy to record all his conversations, including those with his attorneys. The CIA discussed kidnapping or assassinating him. They arranged for London’s Metropolitan Police to raid the embassy – sovereign territory of Ecuador – and seize him.

They held him for five years in the high security HM Prison Belmarsh, often in solitary confinement. And all the while they carried out a judicial farce in the British courts where due process was ignored so an Australian citizen, whose publication was not based in the U.S. and who, like all journalists, received documents from whistleblowers, could be charged under the Espionage Act. They tried over and over and over to destroy him. They failed. But Julian was not released because the courts defended the rule of law and exonerated a man who had not committed a crime. He was not released because the Biden White House and the intelligence community have a conscience. He was not released because the news organizations that published his revelations and then threw him under the bus, carrying out a vicious smear campaign, pressured the U.S. government.

He was released — granted a plea deal with the U.S. Justice Department, according to court documents — in spite of these institutions. He was released because day after day, week after week, year after year, hundreds of thousands of people around the globe mobilized to decry the imprisonment of the most important journalist of our generation. Without this mobilization, Julian would not be free. Mass protests do not always work. The genocide in Gaza continues to exact its gruesome toll on Palestinians. Mumia Abu-Jamal is still locked up in a Pennsylvania prison. The fossil fuel industry ravages the planet. But it is the most potent weapon we have to defend ourselves from tyranny.

This sustained pressure — during a London hearing in 2020, to my delight, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser of the Old Bailey court overseeing Julian’s case, complained about the noise protestors were making in the street outside — shines a continuous light on injustice and exposes the amorality of the ruling class. This is why spaces in the British courts were so limited and blurry eyed activists lined up outside as early as 4 a.m. to secure a seat for journalists they respected, my spot secured by Franco Manzi, a retired policeman. These people are unsung and often unknown. But they are heroes. They move mountains. They surrounded parliament. They stood in the pouring rain outside the courts. They were dogged and steadfast. They made their collective voices heard. They saved Julian. And as this dreadful saga ends, and Julian and his family I hope, find peace and healing in Australia, we must honor them. They shamed the politicians in Australia to stand up for Julian, an Australian citizen, and finally Britain and the U.S. had to give up. I do not say to do the right thing. This was a surrender. We should be proud of it.

Read more …

MSM view. Where was the BBC all that time?

How The Deal To Free Julian Assange Was Agreed (BBC)

In the end, it was a mixture of diplomacy, politics and law that allowed Julian Assange to take off in a private jet from London’s Stansted airport on Monday, bound ultimately for Australia and freedom. The deal that led to his liberty – after seven years of self-imposed confinement and then five years of enforced detention – was months in the making but uncertain to the last. In a statement, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said the possibility of a plea deal “first came to our attention in March”. Since then, it had been advising the United States “on the mechanics” of how to get Mr Assange released and to appear before a US federal judge “in accordance with his wishes and those of the US government”. But the origins of the deal – after so many years of deadlock – probably began with the election of a new Australian government in May 2022 that brought to power an administration determined to bring home one of its citizens detained overseas.

Anthony Albanese, the new Labor prime minister, said he did not support everything Mr Assange had done but “enough was enough” and it was time for him to be released. He made the case a priority, largely behind closed doors. “Not all foreign affairs is best done with the loud hailer,” he said at the time. Mr Albanese had cross-party support in Australia’s parliament too. A delegation of MPs travelled to Washington in September to lobby US Congress directly. The prime minister then raised the issue himself with President Joe Biden at the White House during a state visit in October. This was followed by a parliamentary vote in February when MPs overwhelmingly supported a call to urge the US and the UK to allow Mr Assange back to Australia. They lobbied hard the influential US ambassador to Australia, Caroline Kennedy. A key player was Stephen Smith, who arrived in London as the new Australian High Commissioner in early 2023. Diplomatic sources said he “did a lot of the heavy lifting, making it a personal thing to get this over the line”.

Mr Smith – who paid an early visit to Mr Assange in Belmarsh prison in April 2023 – was also foreign minister in a former Australian government led by Kevin Rudd, the current ambassador in Washington who was also involved in the negotiations. Simon Jackman, Honorary Professor of US Studies at the University of Sydney, told the BBC there was a “natural inclination” for Australian governments to support the US but public and political sentiment had shifted just enough in both countries to give Mr Albanese “cover” to agitate for Mr Assange’s release behind closed doors. Australian ministers even at times compared the detention of Mr Assange to other Australian nationals held as political prisoners by Iran and China. Greg Barns, a barrister and legal adviser to the Australian Assange campaign, said it was the politics that made a difference. “The Albanese government was the first to elevate the matter with the US. And Albanese got support from the opposition. “The treatment [of Assange] stuck in the craw of many Australians. People would ask, ‘where’s the public interest in that?'”

Then came the law. On May 20, the High Court in the UK gave Julian Assange a legal lifeline. It ruled that he could bring a new appeal against attempts to have him extradited to stand trial in the US for obtaining and publishing military secrets. At this point, he faced multiple charges under the US espionage act: 17 of publishing official secrets, each of which carried a maximum 10-year prison term, and one of hacking, which was punishable by up to five years. One key part of the judgement was about whether Mr Assange – as an Australian citizen – would be able to use the US constitutional First Amendment right to free speech as a defence. Nick Vamos, former head of extradition at the CPS and head of business crime at the law firm Peters & Peters, said that the May ruling put pressure on both sides to come to the table and complete the deal. He said the ruling potentially allowed Mr Assange to argue that publishing secret US information was protected by the First Amendment, something that could have led to “months if not further years of delays and pressure”.

“Faced with this uncertainty and further delay, it looks as if the US have dropped the publishing charges in exchange for Mr Assange pleading guilty to hacking and ‘time served’, finally bringing this saga to end,” he said. Mr Vamos added that Mr Assange’s legal team would however have recognised that the First Amendment would have made no difference to the separate charge related to hacking. So even if they eventually saw off the charges relating to the publication of the secret material, there would be no protection against the hacking charges that went alongside them. “Both sides saw the risks and that brought them to the table,” he said. Whitehall sources said the date of the next High Court hearing was fast approaching on July 9 and 10 and both sides knew that if they were to agree a deal, it had to happen now.

Read more …

“On the contrary, Assange worked meticulously with sources and partnered media outlets to redact information that could’ve endangered or exposed anyone referenced within the leaked documents.”

‘Every Citizen on the Planet’ Subject to US Persecution (Miles)

The last decade saw a string of revelations about the inner workings of the US government that shocked the world. Wikileaks founder Julian Assange published a series of leaked documents that implicated the United States in everything from foreign political meddling to surveillance of allies and adversaries. He was aided in his efforts by US Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning, who exposed gross violations of international law in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Edward Snowden, an NSA contractor who revealed the security agency’s sweeping spying capabilities. The international scope of US influence was a common thread among each of the revelations. Various governments throughout history have violated their citizens’ rights, but few global powers have ever possessed the ability to bend the entire planet to their will. By the 2010s the United States had become just such a power, with political, technological, and economic might that could be imposed on any person at any place in the world.

“It sounds like they’re now saying every citizen on the planet is susceptible to being charged under the US Espionage Act,” said independent journalist Steve Poikonen on Sputnik’s The Critical Hour program. Poikonen was among a number of Sputnik contributors who weighed in on news of Assange’s plea deal with the Biden Justice Department Tuesday, questioning the implications of the agreement even as press freedom advocates everywhere celebrate the liberation of the longtime US political prisoner. “The thing that I found most surprising about all of this is the way that the plea deal was written, mostly because it’s a charge that we’ve historically only seen for government contractors or employees,” said Poikonen, the host of the online news program AM Wake Up. “The argument that the US prosecution was making the entire time hinged on ‘Julian Assange isn’t a journalist.’”

“If they’re charging him as a private citizen for mishandling classified information, and that’s something that before this they could only charge an employee or a contractor with, then doesn’t that put the rest of us under even more of a hot seat than we were before?” “He never should have been charged,” insisted cartoonist and syndicated columnist Ted Rall of Assange’s 12-year struggle against the US government. “He never committed a crime. He was never an American citizen and, therefore, not subject to American law. The Espionage Act is disgusting and probably unconstitutional and shouldn’t be on the books, and certainly never should apply to journalists.”

The United States’ pursuit of Assange was frequently justified under the pretense that his activity endangered the lives of American citizens or service members. Similar claims were made decades prior against Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg, who former Secretary of State Henry Kissenger dubbed “the most dangerous man in America.” US Congress passed legislation making it a crime to reveal the identity of CIA employees after the former head of the agency George H.W. Bush blamed whistleblower Philip Agee for the killing of an officer by militants in Greece. But no concrete details ever emerged of anyone targeted, or even placed under threat, by Julian Assange’s journalist. On the contrary, Assange worked meticulously with sources and partnered media outlets to redact information that could’ve endangered or exposed anyone referenced within the leaked documents.

Read more …

“..He has vowed to stay on as president until his five-year term ends in 2027..”s

Macron’s Brand ‘Toxic’ – Bloomberg (RT)

French President Emmanuel Macron’s allies could distance themselves from him ahead of snap elections as the leader has become a “toxic brand” due to his waning popularity, Bloomberg has reported, citing sources. The heads of communication at the Elysee Palace have admitted they have “no polls or data to suggest candidates should publicly align themselves with Macron to retain their seats,” the outlet said on Wednesday, citing attendees at an emergency meeting of top French government officials. Soon after Macron called snap elections earlier this month, dozens of lawmakers who initially supported the French leader now want him to keep a “low profile” as his behavior grows increasingly “erratic,” Bloomberg claimed. Even political heavyweights such as French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire and Prime Minister Gabriel Attal, once Macron’s closest allies, are keeping their distance, the outlet stated.

Most pro-government candidates have not placed the president’s image in their campaign posters or leaflets as the Macron brand is feared to be toxic, Bloomberg added. A person close to the president claimed that it’s normal for candidates not to use his image, arguing that the election is about the parliament, not the presidency. Speaking on Monday on the ‘Generation Do It Yourself’ podcast, Macron claimed that upcoming legislative elections in France could lead to civil war, should the far right or the leftist bloc sweep to power. Only his centrist ruling coalition can prevent such a scenario, Macron insisted, arguing that both the right-wing National Rally party and the left-wing France Unbowed party have espoused divisive policies that stoke tensions. Macron’s popularity has tumbled in recent months, and opinion polls indicate that his party is lagging far behind National Rally.

Macron, who has presented himself as a leading backer of Ukraine in the conflict with Russia, has floated the possibility of sending French – and other Western – troops to the battlefield. Jordan Bardella, the National Rally leader, recently said that if he becomes prime minister, he will not send troops or long-range missiles to Ukraine, describing any such moves as “very clear red lines.” Macon dissolved the country’s parliament and called snap elections earlier this month, after the National Rally party trounced his ruling coalition in the European Parliament elections. He has vowed to stay on as president until his five-year term ends in 2027, but an opposition-controlled legislature and government would dramatically shift the balance of power. The first round of the elections will be held on Sunday, while the second round is scheduled for July 7.

Read more …

You. Lost.

France Faces Threat Of ‘Civil War’ – Macron (RT)

Upcoming legislative elections in France could lead to civil war if political parties on either the far-left or the far-right sweep to power, President Emmanuel Macron has warned. Only his centrist ruling coalition can prevent such a scenario, he added. Speaking on Monday in an interview on the “Generation Do It Yourself” podcast, Macron argued that both the right-wing National Rally party and the left-wing France Unbowed party have espoused divisive policies that stoke tensions. The first round of the elections will be held on Sunday, while the second round is scheduled for July 7. Macron labeled the opposition parties as extremist and claimed that their rhetoric would trigger more conflict. “When you are fed up and daily life is hard, you can be tempted to vote for the extremes that have quicker solutions,” he said. “But the solution will never be to reject others.”

The French president dissolved the country’s parliament and called for snap elections earlier this month, after the National Rally party trounced his ruling coalition in the European Parliament elections. He has vowed to stay on as president until his five-year term ends in 2027, but an opposition-controlled legislature and government would dramatically shift the balance of power in Paris. National Rally’s response to France’s problems would be to “reduce people to their religion or their origin,” Macron said, which “pushes people toward civil war.” Likewise, he added, Jean-Luc Melenchon’s France Unbowed party also promotes civil war “because it reduces people to their religious or ethnic group.” An Ipsos poll conducted last week showed that National Rally is favored by 35.5% of French voters. A leftist coalition that includes France Unbowed was pegged at 29.5%, while Macron’s alliance came in at 19.5%.

Macron has acknowledged that voters made their desire for change clear in the European Parliament election. “Yes, the way we govern must change profoundly,” he noted in announcing the snap elections. However, he added, “The government to come, which will necessarily reflect your vote, will, I hope, bring together republicans of different persuasions who have shown courage in opposing the extremes.” Macron and his allies have portrayed their opposition as dangerous and bigoted. “In our country, some people have hatred, impulses, desires to attack certain communities or certain French people,” Prime Minister Gabriel Attal said on Monday. He added, “Probably the victory of the extremes would release these impulses and could lead to violence.”

Read more …

“Our interest was much broader and more comprehensive, but the West was not ready for mutually beneficial, equal cooperation..”

West ‘Unable To Negotiate’ – Lavrov (RT)

The West has repeatedly displayed its “inability to negotiate,” which has now become evident to everyone, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said. Western “vassals” of the US are willing to breach “any agreements” and violate international law upon receiving “orders” from Washington, Lavrov claimed at the Primakov Readings International Forum in Moscow. Russia had been interested in a mutually beneficial relationship with the collective West, but building one has proven to be effectively impossible, the top diplomat argued. “Our interest was much broader and more comprehensive, but the West was not ready for mutually beneficial, equal cooperation,” Lavrov stated. “When it needs to do something on orders from Washington, it resorts to breaking any agreements, any violations of international law.”

Moscow is now seeking to ensure its security and prevent any threats emanating from the “Western direction,” Lavrov said. The collective West, at the same time, is trying to make an example of Russia to assert its neocolonial policies, the diplomat claimed. “The Westerners are seeking to punish our country, using our example to intimidate everyone who is pursuing or seeks to pursue an independent foreign policy, who puts national interests above all, and not the whims of the former colonial powers,” Lavrov stated. The Western efforts to “punish” Russia, however, are doomed to fail and are “already producing effects opposite to the intended ones,” the minister insisted.

Leading Western officials have repeatedly said they are seeking to inflict a “strategic defeat” on Russia in the Ukraine conflict, or at least ensure that it does not emerge victorious. Moscow perceives the hostilities as a proxy conflict being waged by the collective West. Russia has insisted it will fully achieve its stated military goals, but has nonetheless signaled it is ready to negotiate an end to the hostilities through a diplomatic settlement.

Read more …

The only sane voice in Britain.

Farage Tells Zelensky Only Peace Can Save Ukraine (RT)

Ukraine has no hope against Russia on the battlefield due to a lack of manpower, British politician Nigel Farage stated on Tuesday. The Reform UK leader has been embroiled in a row with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky and former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson after arguing that NATO expansion in Europe contributed to the ongoing hostilities. Farage defended his position on the BBC’s Panorama program last week, prompting Zelensky’s office to claim that the politician is infected with a “virus of Putinism.” Johnson branded Farage’s remarks “nauseating ahistorical drivel” and “Kremlin propaganda,” calling him “morally repugnant.” Speaking to British journalists on Tuesday, Farage took aim at his critics, in particular Johnson, who he accused of pushing Zelensky into rejecting a peace deal with Russia in 2022. The former Tory leader “very clearly did [that] for his own reasons. How many people have died as a result of that, I don’t know,” Farage said.

He estimated that there have been “a million battle casualties” in the conflict. Considering the heavy losses, “there may be no young men left in Ukraine” to achieve Kiev’s stated goal of defeating Russia, Farage pointed out. He said it was Zelensky’s choice whether to cede territory to stop the bloodshed and lamented that “no one is even talking about peace.” “All we are talking about is ‘Ukraine is going to win’. Really? I’m pretty skeptical about that,” Farage added. “I just think some attempt to broker negotiations between these two sides needs to happen,” the politician said, after citing his past opposition to Western military campaigns in Iraq and Libya.

Farage issued a similar rebuke during a campaign rally in Maidstone on Monday, when he suggested that Johnson is the one who is “morally repugnant.” He showed supporters a Daily Mail article from 2016 featuring a pro-Brexit speech by Johnson, a key figure in the campaign. In it, Johnson blamed the EU’s expansionist foreign policy for stoking tensions with Russia in Ukraine. He was accused of being an “apologist” for Russian President Vladimir Putin for the remarks. Farage told the crowd that Johnson was a hypocrite for criticizing him for saying similar things.

Read more …

Vovan and Lexus.

UK’s Cameron Dashes Ukraine’s NATO Summit Hopes (RT)

Ukraine will not receive an invitation to join NATO at the bloc’s summit next month, UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron has said. He added that Kiev can only expect a strong declaration of support regarding its conflict with Moscow. In a phone call with Russian prankster duo Vovan and Lexus – one of whom posed as former Ukrainian President Pyotr Poroshenko – which was made public on Wednesday, Cameron confirmed that Ukraine should not hope to make strides on its path to become a NATO member when the military bloc’s leaders convene in Washington July 9-11. ”There is not going to be an invitation because America won’t support one,” Cameron said, adding that he told Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky that Kiev and the West should come up with the best language possible with regard to NATO’s support for the country and its eventual inclusion in the bloc.

”But we can’t have an argument between NATO and Ukraine before the summit… Let’s make sure we go into the conference united. We can’t afford a sort of public argument about where Ukraine is vis-à-vis NATO in the run-up to the July summit,” the foreign secretary said, adding that he personally supports the country’s accession to the US-led military bloc. “I’m sure it will happen. But we are not going to get there this time.” NATO first announced that Ukraine would become a member of the bloc back in 2008, without giving an exact timeline. In 2019, after the Western-backed coup in Kiev several years prior, Ukraine officially declared NATO membership to be a strategic objective. In 2022, after the conflict with Russia escalated and four of its former regions voted to join the neighboring country, Ukraine formally applied to join the bloc.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that Ukraine will not be able to join the bloc while it is embroiled in the conflict, amid widespread concerns that the move could trigger a direct clash with Russia. Moscow has for years sounded the alarm about NATO’s expansion towards its borders, with President Vladimir Putin citing Ukraine’s aspirations to join the bloc as one of the main reasons for the conflict. Earlier this month, Putin said Russia is ready to begin peace talks with Ukraine once it withdraws from its four former regions and commits to neutrality. Both Kiev and its Western backers have rejected the offer.

Read more …

Excellent Paul Sperry.

How Obama’s Intel Czar Rigged 2016 and 2020 Debates Against Trump (Sperry)

Just before Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton faced off in their second presidential debate, then-National Intelligence Director James Clapper met in the White House with a small group of advisers to President Obama to hatch a plan to put out a first-of-its-kind intelligence report warning the voting public that “the Russian government” was interfering in the election by allegedly breaching the Clinton campaign’s email system. On Oct. 7, 2016 – just two days before the presidential debate between Trump and Clinton – Clapper issued the unprecedented intelligence advisory with Obama’s personal blessing. It seemed to lend credence to what the Clinton camp was telling the media — that Trump was working with Russian President Vladimir Putin through a secret back channel to steal the election. Sure enough, the Democratic nominee pounced on it to smear Trump at the debate.

And that wouldn’t be the only historically consequential maneuver for Clapper, whose role in skewing presidential campaigns might deserve a special place in the annals of nefarious election meddling – by, in this case, a domestic, not foreign, intelligence service.

In 2020, he was the lead signatory on the “intelligence” statement that discredited the New York Post’s October bombshell exposing emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop, which documented how Hunter’s corrupt Burisma paymasters had met with Joe Biden when he was vice president. It was released Oct. 19, just three days before Trump and Biden debated each other in Nashville. Fifty other U.S. “Intelligence Community” officials and experts signed the seven-page document, which claimed “the arrival on the U.S. political scene of emails purportedly belonging to Vice President Biden’s son Hunter, much of it related to his time serving on the board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” In hindsight, Clapper’s well-timed pseudo-intelligence in 2016 and 2020 helped Clinton and Biden make the case against Trump as a potentially Kremlin-compromised figure, charges that crippled his presidency and later arguably denied him reelection.

The phony laptop letter actually helped Biden seal his narrow victory since many of his voters in the close election told pollsters they would have had second thoughts about backing him had they known of the damning materials contradicting his denials he knew anything about his son’s shady foreign dealings. A post-election survey by The Polling Company, for one, found that thanks to the discrediting and suppression of the laptop story, 45% of Biden voters in swing states said they were “unaware of the financial scandal enveloping Biden and his son” and that full awareness of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal would have led more than 9% of these Biden voters to abandon their vote for him – thereby flipping all six of the swing states he won over to Trump and giving Trump the victory.

In effect, Joe Biden was elected president because millions of voters were steered away by Clapper and his intelligence colleagues from learning about the damning contents on Hunter Biden’s laptop. In 2016, Clapper appeared to use his authority as Obama’s chief of intelligence to try to trip up Trump on behalf of Clinton. But not everyone in the administration was on board with releasing his official statement about supposed Kremlin meddling. Then-FBI Director James Comey had also met in the Situation Room in early October to discuss the plan. But Comey balked at accusing “Russia’s senior-most officials” of authorizing the “alleged hack” of the Clinton campaign and trying “to interfere in the U.S. election process,” as the two-page document claimed. Conspicuously, the FBI did not sign on to the intelligence.

Still, Clapper implied in his statement that this was the finding of the entire “U.S. Intelligence Community” and that it was “confident the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of emails.” Aside from Clapper’s Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the only other agency that attached its name to the assessment was the Department of Homeland Security. Also remarkable was the paucity of underlying evidence. The joint ODNI-DHS statement based its conclusion primarily on a report by a cybersecurity contractor hired by the Clinton campaign’s law firm, who later walked back his finding in a sworn congressional deposition, allowing: “We did not have concrete evidence [Russian agents stole campaign emails].” At best, Clapper’s finding was shoddy tradecraft. At worst, it was manufactured, or simply “dreamed up,” as one former FBI counterintelligence official described it to RealClearInvestigations.

Read more …

“The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage”

Age of Rage: America’s Anti-Free Speech Movement (Turley)

Time and again, this country has abandoned our free speech values as political dissidents were met with state rage in the form of mass crackdowns and imprisonments. It is an unvarnished story of free speech in America and for better or worse, it is our story. Yet, we have much to learn from this history as this pattern now repeats itself. The book explains why we are living in the most dangerous anti-free speech period in our history. In the past, free speech has found natural allies in academia and the media. That has changed with a type of triumvirate — the government, corporations, and academia — in a powerful alliance against free speech values.

Ironically, while these groups refer to the unprecedented threat of “fake news” and “disinformation,” those were the very same rationales used first by the Crown and then the U.S. government to crack down on free speech in the early American republic. The difference is the magnitude of the current censorship system from campuses to corporations to Congress. Law professors are even calling for changing the First Amendment as advancing an “excessively individualistic” view of free speech. The amendment would allow the government to curtail speech to achieve “equity” and protect “dignity.” Others, including President Biden, have called for greater censorship while politicians and pundits denounce defenders of free speech as “Putin lovers” and “insurrectionist sympathizers.”

Despite watching the alarming rise of this anti-free speech movement and the rapid loss of protections in the West, there is still reason to be hopeful.For those of us who believe that free speech is a human right, there is an inherent and inescapable optimism. We are wired for free speech as humans. We need to speak freely, to project part of ourselves into the world around us. It is essential to being fully human. In the end, this alliance may reduce our appetite for free speech but we will never truly lose our taste for it. It is in our DNA. That is why this is not our first or our last age of rage. However, it is not the rage that defines us. It is free speech that defines us.

Read more …

“If the allegations made by plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history,” wrote Doughty.”

Supreme Court Tosses Case Over Biden Coercion Of Social Media (ZH)

The Supreme Court on Wednesday tossed a case claiming that the Biden administration unlawfully coerced social media companies into removing content and banning users based on political views. In a 6-3 decision, the Court found that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue – as opposed to tossing the case on merit – just like the vast majority of election fraud cases which didn’t make it past lower courts. Clearly it was easier to punt this one than focus on the mountain of evidence that the Biden administration and US intelligence agencies were directly pressuring social media platforms to censor free speech disfavorable to the regime. GOP attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri, along with five social media users, filed the underlying lawsuit claiming that US government officials exceeded their authority by pressuring social media platforms to moderate content. The individual plaintiffs include Harvard’s Martin Kulldorff and Stanford’s Jay Bhattacharya, as well as Gateway Pundit owner Jim Hoft.

Turley

The laws sought to prevent social media companies from banning users based on their political views, even if users violate platform policies. The lawsuit included various claims relating to activities that occurred in 2020 and before, including efforts to deter the spread of false information about Covid and the presidential election. Donald Trump was president at the time, but the district court ruling focused on actions taken by the government after President Joe Biden took office in January 2021. In July last year, Louisiana-based U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty barred officials from “communication of any kind with social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.” -NBC News. “If the allegations made by plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history,” wrote Doughty.

“The plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the government has used its power to silence the opposition.” Dozens of people and agencies were bound by the injunction including President Biden, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, the Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control, the Treasury Department, State Department, the US Election Assistance Commission, the FBI and entire Justice Department, and the Department of Health and Human Services. Bhattacharya and Kulldorff, who are among the originators of the Great Barrington Declaration that denounced the lockdown regime, have been victims of social media censorship. For example, the pair says their censorship-triggering statements included assertions that “thinking everyone must be vaccinated is scientifically flawed,” questioning the value of masks, and stating that natural immunity is stronger than vaccine immunity.

While the case was dominated by Covid-19 censorship, it also encompasses the Justice Department’s efforts to suppress reporting about Hunter Biden’s “laptop from hell” in the run-up to the 2020 election. Doughty gave credence to that accusation. “The evidence thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario,” wrote Doughty in a 155-page ruling. “During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth’.” “The White House defendants made it very clear to social-media companies what they wanted suppressed and what they wanted amplified,” wrote Doughty. “Faced with unrelenting pressure from the most powerful office in the world, the social-media companies apparently complied.”

Read more …

 

 

 

 

13 dogs
https://twitter.com/i/status/1805852394946712055

 

 

Rematch

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Jun 172024
 


Edward Hopper Cape Cod morning 1950

 

Putin’s Peace Initiative Last Chance To Save Ukrainian State – Medvedchuk (TASS)
Putin’s Peace Proposals on Ukraine Are ‘Golden Opportunity & Lifeline’ (Sp.)
A Proposal, A Last Chance, An Ultimatum (SCF)
Zelensky Set The Trap That Threatens To Destroy Us (Dionísio)
Ukraine ‘Peace Summit’ Is ‘Animal Farm’ – Medvedev (RT)
Polish President Calls For ‘Decolonization’ of Russia (RT)
US Tried to Provoke China Into Attacking Taiwan – Xi (Sp.)
The Changing Nature Of Nuclear Deterrence (Malinen)
Europe’s Elections as a Mirror (Patrick Lawrence)
Musk Says “Eliminate Electronic Voting Machines” (ZH)
Biden-Trump Debate Rules Revealed (RT)
Biden “Losing Focus”, “Worst He’s Ever Been” (MN)
AI is Digital Control, You’ve Been Warned – Catherine Austin Fitts (USAW)
Judges Named for Assange Appeal (Lauria)

 

 

 

 

Elon multiply
https://twitter.com/i/status/1802120341768089711

 

 

 

 

Amnesty

 

 

Wisdom

 

 

Meloni

 

 

 

 

 

 

This may be Putin’s final peace plan. Better consider it.

“This is a concentration camp for the Ukrainian people, with everyone wanting to flee except the gang that is criminally reigning..”

Putin’s Peace Initiative Last Chance To Save Ukrainian State – Medvedchuk (TASS)

The peace initiative of Russian President Vladimir Putin is the last chance to preserve the Ukrainian state, Viktor Medvedchuk, the former leader of the Opposition Platform-For Life party now banned in Ukraine, told TASS in an interview. “The new peace initiative of Vladimir Putin is the last chance to preserve the Ukrainian state. Ukraine at present with its illegitimate president, the regime adversary to the people, legal nihilism and the Nazi state ideology cannot be considered to be the state anymore,” the politician said. “Vladimir Putin suggests returning the state to Ukrainians, making it neutral, sovereign, demilitarized and denazified,” Medvedchuk said.

“The peace proposals returns not only the peace to Ukraine but also rights of Ukrainian citizens criminally overturned by the regime of [Vladimir] Zelensky,” he stressed. Ukraine at present “cannot exist without huge external borrowings. This is actually a bankrupt country, a black hole for the Western economy,” Medvedchuk noted. “This is a concentration camp for the Ukrainian people, with everyone wanting to flee except the gang that is criminally reigning,” he added. On June 14, Russian President Vladimir Putin named conditions for settlement of the situation in Ukraine, including withdrawal of the Ukrainian army from Donbass and Novorossiya and refusal of Kiev to join NATO.

Read more …

“It is to be expected that the West will do everything possible to prevent Ukraine from accepting Russia’s peace initiatives..”

Putin’s Peace Proposals on Ukraine Are ‘Golden Opportunity & Lifeline’ (Sp.)

Kiev should agree to the preconditions for peace talks laid out by Russian President Vladimir Putin, otherwise its position both in the combat zone and at the negotiating table will only get much worse, Persio Gloria de Paula, an expert at the Naval War College in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, told Sputnik. “One should bear in mind that Ukraine is suffering both hardware and personnel losses. For the first, it relies on its patrons in the West, while to replenish the second it will need to push through increasingly stringent mobilization and lower the conscription age,” he remarked. At the same time, the Russian proposal poses a challenge to Kiev and its sponsors on the eve of the so-called peace summit in Switzerland. “This calls into question the goals and effectiveness of a summit which is not attended by all the sides involved,” Persio Gloria de Paula said.

The conditions laid out by President Putin to resolve the Ukraine conflict are “a golden opportunity both for Kiev and the European countries to begin negotiations,” Iranian political scientist Emad Abshenas told Sputnik. “Of course, as expected, Russia insists on its key demands,” he noted, including a neutral, non-nuclear status for Ukraine, “as well as guarantees of independence, rights, freedoms and interests of the Russian-speaking population of the country.” He singled out Putin’s remarks that these fundamental parameters along with Ukraine’s demilitarization and de-Nazification were broadly agreed on during the Istanbul negotiations in 2022. However, on Western countries’ orders, Kiev ultimately rejected these conditions, the expert said. It is to be expected that the West will do everything possible to prevent Ukraine from accepting Russia’s peace initiatives, said Unver Sel, chairman of the Federation of Crimean Tatar Culture Societies of Turkiye.

Once again, settlement of the conflict will be delayed. When asked if the West will claim responsibility for what is currently happening in Ukraine, the pundit said:“It is naive to hope that the West will suddenly acknowledge its responsibility. This did not happen in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Syria… The West will continue to behave like a spoiled child who does not understand the consequences of his actions, and acts solely based on his own selfish goals.”

Read more …

“The Ukrainians will only have to bear the burden of a slow, long and bloody defeat. And NATO, the sponsor of the spectacle of death, will be responsible for every life lost on the battlefield.”

A Proposal, A Last Chance, An Ultimatum (SCF)

While the Kiev regime and its supporters continue to organize the “peace summit” in Switzerland, the Russian Federation is advancing its plans to bring a real end to the conflict. For Moscow, the conditions for peace or war are clear: either Ukraine recognizes the territories already liberated as Russian and promises neutrality, or the responsibility for the bloodshed from now on will lie entirely with NATO. Russia has never been in any kind of “rush” in this conflict. With less and less casualties, an overwhelmingly economic growth, and having the opportunity to destroy NATO military software and neutralize foreign mercenaries, there is no reason for the Russians to want to quickly end hostilities. The Russian initiative to put forward peace terms is due to a sincerely humanitarian concern, since, unlike the Kiev neo-Nazi junta, decision-makers in the Kremlin see the Ukrainian people as a sister nation and a vital part of Russian civilization.

Since February 2022, Russia has constantly offered peace terms in accordance with the update of its strategic interests. Before the referendums for the union of the New Regions with the Russian Federation, Moscow’s demand was limited to the recognition of Donetsk and Lugansk as independent countries – there was not even any interest in reintegrating them into Russia at the time. It was Western interventionism in the peace negotiations and the fascist government’s subservience to NATO that prevented an agreement from being reached in the early stages of the special military operation. The lack of guaranteed recognition for Donetsk and Lugansk led the war to continue and motivated these regions to ask to return to their eternal home (the Russian Federation).

Then Ukrainian insistence on boycotting the normalization of life in Crimea led Russia to also reintegrate Kherson and Zaporozhye. For now, the four New Regions and Crimea (already reintegrated ten years ago) are Russia’s only formal territorial demands. The only thing Russia is asking for in addition to that is a guarantee of neutrality and demilitarization so that its civilian areas are not attacked, which Ukraine can provide simply by promising not to seek NATO membership. Obviously, Zelensky will not be able to accept the agreement proposed by Putin. Firstly, because he is a puppet who only obeys NATO orders. Furthermore, NATO has not yet managed to open another front to maintain its proxy war against Russia. The anti-Russian lobby in Moldova is still not enough to move aggression against Transnistria or Gagauzia, while in Georgia the Parliament said “no” to foreign saboteurs.

Without another flank, NATO will not allow any negotiations in Ukraine. Kiev will have to keep fighting, even if it is very close to reaching the “last Ukrainian”. And from this perspective, Putin’s proposal becomes an ultimatum. The last chance was given to end this war with “only” half a million Ukrainians dead and 25% of the (former) Ukrainian territory liberated. With the obvious Ukrainian rejection, it is clear that there will be an update of these interests. Only the Russians will be able to say how much more territory they will demand from now on. The Ukrainians will only have to bear the burden of a slow, long and bloody defeat. And NATO, the sponsor of the spectacle of death, will be responsible for every life lost on the battlefield.

Read more …

“Now, to finance the war effort, the illegitimate Zelensky [..] is preparing to sell what he still has left..”

Zelensky Set The Trap That Threatens To Destroy Us (Dionísio)

Bandera’s Ukraine, which has been furiously privatizing its remaining state properties left to it by Russia and the USSR, already has a large part of its valuable black lands in the hands of Blackrock, Monsanto and other U.S. interests. These are joined by energy, mining, agro-industrial and real estate ownership. Now, to finance the war effort, the illegitimate Zelensky, who is currently usurping the position of president (I can already see the meaning of that kiss from von der Leyen, the usurpers recognize each other), is preparing to sell what he still has left. The exigencies from the IMF and from financial agreements with the European Union always require privatizations and the businesses in question are, in some cases, important natural monopolies.We all know who will profit most from the purchase of these state assets. The U.S. will get the best share, but the United Kingdom, Germany, France, in that order, will also get their “fair share”.

If the Hotel Ukraine is the most famous asset of all those announced in this new package, here is a list, which the Kiev regime itself says is a “large privatization”. Energy companies, Port of Odessa, mining sector, distilleries, heavy machinery factories, such as a locomotives factory…The most serious thing about all this, the most tragic thing for all of us, is that the sale of the country to the interests of the United States and the West is not innocent and goes far beyond a simple act of corruption or handing over the country to foreign interests. Consciously or unconsciously, the acquisition of large and profitable properties, by large Western corporations, constitutes a very important step towards worsening the conflict and one that I believe goes unnoticed by many good people, normally concentrated in the specifically military aspect. In these cases, the military aspect is nothing more than the peak of the Iceberg, which hides all the complexity of economic relations that, at the base, constitute the reason for everything that is happening.

Recourse to the military happens when relationships at the base become irreconcilable. Zelensky, certainly aware that the war can only be won with the direct entry of the U.S., even if we all have to lose it (in wars everyone loses) for him to win it, as he hands over his country to the oligarchies that support the American political apparatus, will know how important it is, the control of Ukrainian properties, by those powerful interests. What better way to protect access to the Black Sea than by handing over the Port of Odessa to Western interests? History tells us that Western corporate interests, especially the United States, protect their assets, even if, to do so, they have to invade countries and occupy them. Consequently, Zelensky knows that the greater the dominance of American corporations in Ukraine, the greater the likelihood of worsening the conflict and direct U.S. entry.

Read more …

“According to an earlier Bloomberg report, Biden skipped the summit because it overlapped with a campaign fundraiser in California..”

Ukraine ‘Peace Summit’ Is ‘Animal Farm’ – Medvedev (RT)

The Swiss-hosted Ukraine ‘peace summit’ has turned out to be an erratic and dysfunctional event whose participants have no clue what they are doing there, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has said. The June 15-16 conference at the Burgenstock Hotel near Lake Lucerne focuses on three points of Vladimir Zelensky’s ‘peace formula’, including prisoner exchanges and nuclear and food security. The plan calls for Russia to withdraw from all territories claimed by Kiev, but has been dismissed by Moscow as divorced from reality. Russia was not invited to the event. President Vladimir Putin has argued that it is simply an attempt by the West to create the illusion of a global anti-Russian coalition and distract attention away from the root causes of the conflict.

Writing on Telegram on Sunday, Medvedev, who is currently the deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, compared the summit to George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’. The novel, which is considered to be a veiled reference to the Stalin-era Soviet Union, reflects on how ideals of equality and freedom can become distorted and betrayed after a ruthless leader takes over. The ex-Russian president said the Swiss event is “pure surrealism” and that “none of the participants in the ‘peace forum’ know what they are doing there and what their role is.” He went on to say that the Swiss “shepherd boys” invited only “trustworthy animals,” including a “crazy puny swine” and his sidekick, as well as “a flock of slow-witted Western Alpine sheep blithely bleating about peace, as well as a pack of European chained dogs to guard the livestock.” Medvedev did not specify who these remarks were directed at. According to the former president, the ‘dogs’ are “barking and spitting poisonous saliva” to maintain order, which he said is warranted since the “sheep often bleat out of place and confuse the memorized statements.”

In an apparent reference to US President Joe Biden, he said the flock is led by “an elderly, weak-minded owner” suffering from “progressive dementia.” He added that the US, instead of sending Biden, sent “a soft-headed deputy who… said a phrase learned by heart and quickly went home,” referring to Vice President Kamala Harris. ”To sum it up, the grazing of cattle in the Alps is just a sad pile of poop that is burning up taxpayers’ money,” Medvedev said. According to an earlier Bloomberg report, Biden skipped the summit because it overlapped with a campaign fundraiser in California ahead of the presidential election this November. Zelensky criticized the US president’s absence, suggesting it “would only be met with applause by Putin.” A number of Western officials have acknowledged that the Ukraine conflict cannot be resolved without Moscow’s participation in talks.

Read more …

“..over 190 ethnic groups that speak more than 270 languages and dialects..”

Polish President Calls For ‘Decolonization’ of Russia (RT)

Polish President Andrzej Duda has called for the “decolonization” of Russia, claiming that ethnic minorities should break away from Moscow’s rule and form their own states. Russia is one of the most diverse countries in the world and comprises over 190 ethnic groups that speak more than 270 languages and dialects, according to the government. Speaking at the so-called “Peace for Ukraine” conference in Switzerland on Sunday, Duda described Russia as a “prison of nations.” The country is “home to almost 200 ethnic groups,” which “became the residents of Russia as a result of methods used in Ukraine today,” the Polish leader claimed, referring to the conflict between Moscow and Kiev.

“Russia remains the largest colonial empire in the world, which, unlike European powers, has never undergone the process of decolonization and has never been able to deal with demons of its past,” Duda stated. “As a member of the international community, we have to finally say – there is no [space] for colonialism in the modern world.” Poland has been one of the most vocal proponents of aid to Ukraine since Russia launched its military operation in the neighboring state. According to the Polish media, Duda’s main mission in Switzerland was to “highlight the scale of the Russian threat.”

Earlier this year, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk suggested his country’s readiness to potentially host US nuclear weapons, which Moscow called a “provocation” and “deeply hostile policy.” Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stated that Moscow has no intention of attacking NATO members and has dismissed claims to the contrary as scare tactics. In August 2023, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova wrote an op-ed for the Izvestia newspaper, condemning “the crimes of colonialism” committed by the West and arguing that Western overseas possessions, such as France’s New Caledonia, Britain’s Gibraltar, and US’ Guam, are modern-day “colonies.” She insisted that “the free world will undoubtedly win, and the process of decolonization will be completed.”

Duda
https://twitter.com/i/status/1802051162373550439

Read more …

“..continues to pursue the one-China policy and does not support Taiwan’s independence.”

US Tried to Provoke China Into Attacking Taiwan – Xi (Sp.)

Chinese President Xi Jinping has repeatedly underscored that the Taiwan issue in China-US relations is a major red line that must not be crossed. Beijing has also urged Washington to stop sending “erroneous signals” to Taiwanese separatists. Xi Jinping warned Ursula von der Leyen about Washington’s attempts to provoke Beijing into attacking Taiwan, the Financial Times reported. China’s president delivered the cautionary message in April 2023 both to the European Commission president and officials in his own country, according to insiders. The gist of Xi’s warning was reportedly that the Biden administration was trying to goad the People’s Republic of China (PRC) into invading Taiwan, but the Chinese leader would not be taken in that easily.

When delivering the warning last year, Xi purportedly added that a conflict with the US would dismantle many of his country’s impressive achievements and undercut the stated goal of achieving a “great rejuvenation” by 2049. The report laid emphasis on the fact that if true, this would have been the first known case of Xi Jinping making such a claim to a foreign leader. There has been no comment specifically on the report from either the Chinese Embassy in Washington or von der Leyen’s spokesperson.

[..] The FT report comes amid heightened US-China tensions. Beijing has referred to the Taiwan issue as a “red line” that must not be crossed in its relations with Washington. “We will not turn a blind eye to the separatist activities of forces advocating ‘Taiwan’s independence’ and the connivance and support [of these forces] by outside forces,” Xi Jinping was quoted by the Xinhua news agency as telling US President Joe Biden during a phone conversation in April. Biden, in turn, reportedly said that the US does not support Taiwan’s independence and is not planning to enter into a conflict with China. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken echoed these statements, telling Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi that the United States “continues to pursue the one-China policy and does not support Taiwan’s independence.”

Read more …

“According to how history is currently written..”

The Changing Nature Of Nuclear Deterrence (Malinen)

When I was around eight years old, my baby-sitter let me watch a documentary on nuclear war. Unsurprisingly, it shook me to the core. It’s kind of hard to know what went on in her head, but those images of nuclear detonations never left my head. Looking back at it now, this ‘incident’ starts to make sense, kind of. This is because over the decades I’ve read a lot on nuclear deterrence and on nuclear war simulations. I have had this graving to understand nuclear warfare and deterrence basically throughout my adult-life. Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962 became something of a case study on nuclear deterrence to me. This was in no small part because of the magnificent movie, Thirteen Days (published in 2000), documenting the crisis through the eyes of President Kennedy and the White House. I have also had the privilege to grow with a highly objective lecturer of history, my mother, who has always questioned the current knowledge on history.

One of her best quotes is, “According to how history is currently written”. It summarizes all you need to understand about research of history. We simply do not know all the facts and politics plays a major role on how history is being written. In the movie Thirteen Days, there’s a scene where Bobby Kennedy (played memorably by Steven Culp) and Special Advisor Kenneth O. Donnell (always great Kevin Costner) arrive to Russian (Soviet) embassy, where they are burning secret documents in preparation for an evacuation. I vaguely remember that I would have talked with my mom about this scene and that she would have confirmed that such a thing (burning of documents) actually happened, but I cannot vouch for that. In any case, it was a beautiful movie trick, intensifying and underlining the gravity of the situation the world faced. Unfortunately, we are very close of such a situation, again.

During the Cuban crisis, the ‘Doomsday Clock’, kept by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, was set to seven minutes to midnight. Currently, it stands at 90 seconds to midnight, closest to midnight it ever has, and I am expecting that it will be moved to 60 seconds to midnight during the next 12 months. While the Bulletin, quite unnecessarily, recently mixed “climate change” to the setting of the clock, the unprecedented warning on the close proximity of a nuclear holocaust should be taken extremely seriously. I have been pondering the growing nuclear threat since basically the onset of Ukrainian conflict in early 2014. It has become very pervasive in my thinking during the past few weeks mostly due to strikes of Ukraine to Russian early-warning system. During my academic studies, I have taken two courses in game theory. One during graduate and the other during post-graduate studies. During those courses, I read also on game theoretical simulations of nuclear warfare.

I cannot help to think that I did this, because of the misjudgement of my baby-sitter all those years ago. Past week, I started to build game theoretical model on a tactical nuclear first strike to understand the situation better. In this entry, which is likely to start a short series on nuclear deterrence and war, I go through the basic building blocks of modern nuclear deterrence starting from tactical nuclear weapons. Then I explain the foundational principle of nuclear deterrence, mutually asserted destruction, or MAD, and lastly I go through the weak spots of modern nuclear deterrence. All detailed information on nuclear weapons and deterrence is based on recent research by several scholars, only few of which I will detail (link) here. My model describes in more detail, why deterrence is so close of failing, and I return to that later. In the conclusions I also comment the recent steps of escalation, i.e., the Russian flotilla just off the Floridan coast and fresh U.S. sanctions to Russian financial sector.

Read more …

“..the “center” liberal authoritarians speak of as some kind of sacred space..”

Europe’s Elections as a Mirror (Patrick Lawrence)

The E.U. Parliament, to get straight a few basic details, is one strut of the three-legged stool of which the union is made: The unelected technocrats are in Brussels, the unelected central bankers are in Frankfurt, and the elected legislature is in Strasbourg. Belgium, Germany, and France: The distribution of institutional power in this way is meant as a display of the Continent’s hard-won unity. The catch here, and the reason I and many others got off the E.U. bus years ago, is that the lawmakers in Strasbourg are essentially powerless. Yes, you had inspired MEPs such as Claire Daly and her colleague Mick Wallace, both Irish (and you have to love Daly’s lilting brogue). They made use of the legislative chambers in Strasbourg to articulate principled positions on Gaza, Ukraine, and other such questions, but there has never been any question of the E.U. Parliament having the power to legislate the union’s direction.

Parenthetically, Daly and Wallace were voted out of office in last week’s elections. The E.U. is as it has long been—an undemocratic institution atop which sit neoliberal ideologues and austerian central bankers, technocrats who take no interest in the democratic process or the wishes of the E.U.’s citizenry. Readers may recall the brutality with which Brussels and Frankfurt had Athenians eating out of garbage cans nine years ago to protect the interests of bond investors holding Greek sovereign debt. That was the E.U. in action, the E.U. that has perverted the worthy vision of its postwar founders.

When we look at the polls held June 6–9 across the Continent, we must recognize a certain paradox. The MEPs elected will have little power, as European voters know better than anyone, but it was precisely to protest the corruption of European democracy that these voters delivered so severe a blow to mainstream parties and the Brussels technocrats from whom they are virtually inseparable. The outstanding question in the European capitals now is whether the profound animosity evident in last week’s election results will carry over to national polls due in political seasons to come. Figures such as Emmanuel Macron think that in legislative contests that will have actual consequences, unhappy voters will pull back from the brink: The E.U. vote as an acting out, let’s call this reasoning. I am not sure the French president is right about this. The conditions that produced last week’s E.U.–wide results are clearly leading to a substantial migration away from the “center” liberal authoritarians speak of as some kind of sacred space.

Read more …

“The risk of being hacked by humans or AI, while small, is still too high.”

Musk Says “Eliminate Electronic Voting Machines” (ZH)

Elon Musk on Saturday suggested that electronic voting machines should not be used in elections, as “The risk of being hacked by humans or AI, while small, is still too high.” Musk was responding to the recent news that Puerto Rico is ‘reviewing’ their contract with Dominion Voting Systems after a ‘software issue’ caused machines supplied by the company to miscalculate vote totals, according to the country’s elections commission. According to AP, vote counts reported by Dominion machines were lower than paper counts in some cases, and some machines reversed totals or reported zero votes for some candidates. “The concern is that we obviously have elections in November, and we must provide the (island) not only with the assurance that the machine produces a correct result, but also that the result it produces is the same one that is reported,” said Padilla. The island nation used more than 6,000 Dominion voting machines in their June 2 primary.

The company claims that the software issues stemmed from the digital files used to export the results from the primaries. The President of Puerto Rico’s House of Representatives, José Varela, has Dominion’s back – calling for Padilla to appear at a public hearing on Thursday to address the issues. “We cannot allow the public’s confidence in the voting process to continue to be undermined as we approach the general elections,” he said. “The problems called to mind the island’s botched 2020 primaries, when a lack of ballots at some centers forced the government to reschedule voting in a first for the U.S. territory. On June 2, Puerto Rico held primary elections to select gubernatorial candidates for the pro-statehood New Progressive Party and the Popular Democratic Party, which supports the island’s territorial status. In a surprise upset, Jenniffer González, Puerto Rico’s congressional representative, beat Gov. Pedro Pierluisi in the primary held by the New Progressive Party. Meanwhile, Puerto Rico Rep. Jesús Manuel Ortiz defeated Sen. Juan Zaragoza in the primary held by their Popular Democratic Party. Both parties reported hundreds of ballots showing inaccurate results, with the PNP reporting over 700 errors and the PPD pointing to some 350 discrepancies. These inaccuracies affected ballots for positions including governor, mayor and resident commissioner.” -AP

Following the discrepancies, the elections commission conducted a full vote tally and audited paper receipts from hundreds of ballot-counting machines – after which Ombudsman Edwin García Feliciano called the incident a “threat” to the island’s electoral system, and called on the governor and the island’s federal control board that oversees the island’s finances to establish a plan to improve election security. “All planning is based on resolving emergencies, including unlikely ones,” said García Feliciano, adding “But predictable circumstances, which are well known to the public, cannot be addressed by improvisation and in a rush.” The island’s general election will be held in November, where citizens will choose a new governor and local representatives. Meanwhile in Georgia, a federal judge ruled in February that Georgia’s electronic voting machines had issues related to security and transparency – yet she declined to immediately halt the use of said machines.

Despite identifying several problems with the state’s election system, US District Judge Amy Totenberg allowed Georgia to continue using the current electronic voting system while acknowledging the plaintiffs’ concerns about the risks to the integrity of the voting process. Also meanwhile; In March, Headline USA reported that during defamation lawsuit between Dominion Voting Systems and former Overstock.com CEO and Donald Trump supporter Patrick Byrne, one of Byrne’s attorneys, Stephanie Lambert, who was later arrested, leaked evidence that foreign nationals remotely accessed voting machines used in Michigan in the 2020 elections. In February of 2022, top officials at a U.S. federal cybersecurity agency are urging a judge not to authorize at this time the release of a report that analyzes Dominion Voting Systems equipment in Georgia, arguing doing so could assist hackers trying to “undermine election security.”

Read more …

“Let’s see if Joe can make it to the stand-up podium.”

Biden-Trump Debate Rules Revealed (RT)

US President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump will get two breaks when they face off in a CNN debate this month, and will not be allowed to talk to their campaign staff during the event, the network has announced. Biden and Trump agreed last month to a live debate at CNN’s studio in Atlanta, Georgia on June 27. The debate, the first head-to-head showdown of the 2024 election season, will be moderated by CNN hosts Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, with no studio audience present. CNN released a host of further details on Saturday. According to the network, both candidates will stand at podiums chosen by a coin toss, and will not be allowed any props or pre-written notes. Biden and Trump will both be given a pen, a pad of paper, and a bottle of water. Each candidate’s microphone will be muted while the other speaks, and the 90-minute debate will be punctuated by two commercial breaks, during which Biden and Trump are forbidden from interacting with their campaign staff.

The debate was organized after months of challenges from Trump, who said in March that he would face off against Biden “any time, anywhere, any place.” After multiple non-committal responses, Biden released a video message last month calling on Trump to “make my day, pal.” Biden and Trump agreed to the CNN debate on June 27 and an ABC News debate on September 10, while Trump has also called on his opponent to accept two more debates – on Fox News and NBC News – before November’s election. Trump and Biden debated twice before the 2020 election, with both candidates proclaiming victory. In the runup to this year’s debates, Trump has repeatedly ridiculed his 81-year-old opponent’s propensity for verbal gaffes and slip-ups. “Crooked Joe Biden is the worst debater I have ever faced – he can’t put two sentences together,” Trump said in a statement last month. “Let’s see if Joe can make it to the stand-up podium.”

Meanwhile, Biden told ABC News this month that he intends to let Trump “say what he thinks,” betting that the American public will be shocked by the former president’s “off the wall” comments. The CNN debate is open to any candidate who has received at least 15% support in four separate national polls and is registered on ballots in enough states to reach the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidency. Only Trump and Biden satisfy these requirements at present, although independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has received 15% in three polls and is on the ballot in six states worth 89 electoral votes. Earlier this week, Kennedy claimed to have collected enough signatures for ballot access in 22 states, totaling 304 electoral votes.

Read more …

“I hear now we’re sitting at tables. I don’t want to sit at a table.” “I said, ‘No, let’s stand.’ But they want to sit at a table..”

Biden “Losing Focus”, “Worst He’s Ever Been” (MN)

A report quoting insiders at the G7 summit this past week has warned that Joe Biden struggled to focus at the meeting of world leaders in Puglia, Italy. According to one source, Biden is “the worst he’s ever been,” with attendees from other delegations saying it was “embarrassing.” As we highlighted, Biden was seen wandering off like a dementia patient and looking perpetually confused. The footage of Biden prompted mocking headlines.

Biden also skipped the dinner later in the evening, before returning to the US. Of course, the Biden campaign claims it’s all “lies” and the footage of him was “taken out of context.” Biden’s campaign spokesperson Adrienne Elrod described the headlines and reports as “disinformation” and suggested that social media platforms should prevent it from being shared. It has also been reported that the debate between Biden and Trump scheduled for June 27 will see the pair seated at tables at the request of Biden’s campaign. Trump told the hosts of the Cats & Cosby Show last month “I hear now we’re sitting at tables. I don’t want to sit at a table.” “I said, ‘No, let’s stand.’ But they want to sit at a table,” Trump further remarked, adding “So we’ll be sitting at a table as opposed to doing it the way you should be, in my opinion, in a debate.”

Read more …

“..artificial intelligence takes off on its own, and it starts functioning in a way it makes no sense. . . . and it’s just lying. It’s just making stuff up and lying. It’s literally like it’s under demonic possession.”

AI is Digital Control, You’ve Been Warned – Catherine Austin Fitts (USAW)

Catherine Austin Fitts (CAF), Publisher of The Solari Report, financial expert and former Assistant Secretary of Housing (Bush 41 Admin.) is sounding the alarm about Artificial Intelligence (AI) and how it will impact your world in very negative ways. It’s all in a new report called “The AI Revolution: The Final Coup d’Etat.” CAF explains, “This is a very serious look at Artificial Intelligence and how it’s going to be used to implement control. . . . This past week, there was this huge open board meeting at OpenAI. There were board members put there to make sure OpenAI and its products were in alignment with the best interests of the human race. Some of them got booted out. Now, we see the former head of the NSA (National Security Agency) get put on the board. I just realized it today, and I had not realized it before. Edward Snowden just tweeted out and said you should never use any of these products, which include ChatGBT. Snowden also said, ‘You have to understand where this is going. You have been warned.’

“The AI Revolution” also warns that AI “. . . will alter the prospects for a free society, even free will. . . and . . . attempt to seed the idea human-only decision-making will become a rarity and, in time, cease to exist.” Don’t think sophisticated AI is some idea that is far into the future. AI is here now, and CAF points out, “I just see more and more companies using this type of technology to institute financial fraud and make money from financial fraud in their pricing. . . . You also have thousands of companies to track you for their benefit. . . . It is trying to extract data from you to accomplish whatever its goal is. . . . It’s like a swarm of invisible locusts that are all trying to surveil and track, and none of them are trying to optimize your life and give you a free and inspired life. They are just trying to get their piece.”

AI will also be used to ignore and break all laws. After all, it’s robotic and can’t be held accountable. CAF says, “By removing moral obligations and legal and obedient respect for laws, the speed at which you can do evil is extraordinary. . . . One of my concerns, and I have said this for many years, I think this kind of technology allows interdimensional intelligence to act as material reality so that, literally, demonic intelligence can have far more influence and impact in our world. It operates at such high speed, and then you combine that with the payment systems in the financial system. . . the things that can go wrong are phenomenal. One of the main problems that we have seen in the past year is artificial intelligence takes off on its own, and it starts functioning in a way it makes no sense. . . . and it’s just lying. It’s just making stuff up and lying. It’s literally like it’s under demonic possession.”

CAF says, no matter what, “AI can’t beat God.” And instead of worshiping Jehovah and Jesus (like you should), the creators of AI want you to trust whatever this tech tells you to do. CAF says, “They want an AI Religion Revolution.” Don’t buy into this crap because AI is a disaster for humanity and your freedom. CAF thinks the Democrats will be forced to replace Joe Biden come November, and she explains why. Now, more than ever, CAF thinks physical gold and silver are good investments. She encourages people to expand the use of cash. CAF thinks two of the best weapons against this sort of artificial intelligence used for control and tyranny is to enforce the US Constitution and, above all, do not lose your faith in God the Father and Christ Jesus.

Read more …

“the same who granted Assange a rare victory last month..”

Judges Named for Assange Appeal (Lauria)

The judges in Julian Assange’s two-day appeal hearing on July 9-10 are the same who granted Assange a rare victory last month: his right to appeal the Home Office’s extradition order to the United States. Justices Jeremy Johnson and Victoria Sharp granted Assange the right to appeal on only two of nine requested grounds, but they are significant: 1). his extradition was incompatible with his free speech rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights; and 2.) that he might be prejudiced because of his nationality (not being given 1st Amendment protection as a non-American). However the denial of his rights in an American courtroom would go beyond the First Amendment to all of his U.S. constitutional rights, according to the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in USAID v. Alliance for Open Society International Inc., which says that a non-U.S. citizen acting outside the U.S. has no constitutional protections at all.

The United States was unable to provide assurances that the European equivalent of his constitutional rights would be protected, required under British extradition law. That raises hopes for Assange in his appeal. Assange has been imprisoned in London’s notorious Belmarsh Prison for more than five years on remand pending the outcome of his extradition. He has been charged in the United States for publishing classified documents that revealed prima facie evidence of U.S. state crimes. CN has received an award and many accolades for our coverage of the Julian Assange case. We will be inside the courtroom and outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London for both days of the hearing, bringing you the latest news, analysis and commentary.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Hooker

 

 

Hitchens

 

 

King

 

 

Linden

 

 

Swim rabbits

 

 

Dachs

 

 

Dog tree

 

 

Humpback

 

 

 

 

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