Paul Gauguin Palm trees on Martinique 1887
I have an infection in my left eye (cornea). I see nothing with it. But because anti-biotics eyedrops seem to work (I don’t see the difference), doctors have so far decided against surgery. It will be a long term healing process. In the meantime, i am stuck at home. Can’t drive. The hospital visits have already cost me a fortune in cabs (50 euros each way, 4x a week). If you see typos, now you know why.
BTW: donations to TAE via Paypal and Patreon have fallen off a cliff over the past year. We can’t keep going like this. We should have a serious conversation about that. I’ve said it before: if our 5,000-strong core group of readers would all pay just $1 per month, we would be fine. It is easy.
BANNON: The smear that someone is anti-Muslim or anti-Semitic is done. People are tired of it. We’re Americans. We can talk about this stuff. Call us any name you want. The America First movement doesn’t care. That’s why Trump won in 16, 20, and came back in 24. Now his agenda is… pic.twitter.com/YC2tlxzK0b
— Grace Chong, MBI (@gc22gc) June 28, 2025
RICKARDS: The idea that this had to be within days is not true. Not saying there’s no danger. I’m saying it was not imminent.
BANNON: What our “ally” did was a bald-faced lie. We’re going to shut it all down, bc it’s out of control. We could have gotten sucked into a major war. pic.twitter.com/G8PRrlpul2
— Grace Chong, MBI (@gc22gc) June 27, 2025
BANNON: What Netanyahu said was a bald-faced lie. Just like the weapons of mass destruction lie. No evidence has been presented to support what he said. What our “ally” did was a lie. That’s not what allies do. This almost dragged us into a major war. pic.twitter.com/53iVpY08n8
— Grace Chong, MBI (@gc22gc) June 27, 2025
BANNON: We don’t have the luxury of being distracted from America’s real crises.
Radicals are taking over New York, LA, and Chicago while sanctuary policies cripple law enforcement.
If we don’t act now, we lose this republic. Full stop. pic.twitter.com/kHrRGBKEEh
— Bannon’s WarRoom (@Bannons_WarRoom) June 27, 2025
Thiel
https://twitter.com/upholdreality/status/1938609364274729106
https://twitter.com/RussiaIsntEnemy/status/1938622902808563915
Iran Releases New Epstein Tape Proving Israel is Threatening to Assassinate Trump
According to verified intelligence out of Tehran, Israel is threatening to assassinate Donald Trump – just as they did with JFK – unless he follows in the footsteps of his predecessors and falls in… pic.twitter.com/H55SXJORPL
— TPV Sean (@tpvsean) June 27, 2025
I recommend leaving any city that can have this conversation out loud. https://t.co/3xYoBlzMm1
— Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays) June 28, 2025
“Whatever one can say about the wisdom of striking Iran or of the president’s larger foreign policy strategy, it’s hard to say this is anything other than a success..”
• Trump’s Iran Strike: Executive Leadership Versus Autopen Presidency (Stepman)
“This wasn’t a Pentagon operation. This was a Donald Trump operation. He came up with the PR. He chose the plans. He chose the day.” That’s a quote from news site Axios of a reportedly senior administration official about President Donald Trump’s role in conducting the operation to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities on Sunday. Lost in debates about what American policy should be toward Iran, Israel, and the Middle East was a reminder about the need for executive leadership in handling foreign policy crises. It’s a demonstration of the danger the previous White House put the country in by not having a commander in chief with his wits about him. Not only was this episode a demonstration of Trump’s individual abilities as a president, but it’s also a lesson in the difference between a presidency directed by individual initiative and accountability versus a presidency by committee.
While plenty of commentators on the Left and seemingly as much on the Right were critical of Trump’s decisions from moment to moment, what seemed clear is that Trump had a larger strategic plan and executed on it. Trump has been, even before his political career began, consistent about his belief that Iran should not get a nuclear weapon. A document released in February practically telegraphed his position of applying “maximum pressure” on the government of Iran to get it to abandon its nuclear ambitions and stop supporting terrorism. He then went on a major “commerce, not chaos” campaign in the Middle East to ensure friendly, cooperative relations with Iran’s neighbors. Trump gave Iran a 60-day window to change its ways.
When that didn’t happen, he was happy to let a regional ally strike the country while at the last minute of a short and decisive campaign, the U.S. military dropped some very big bombs on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Now, despite a few initial hiccups, it appears we have a ceasefire and hopefully the end of Iran’s nuclear program for a while. There were a lot of ways this timeline could have gone very badly. But Trump not only managed the difficult diplomacy of the strikes, he also staved off many concerns about the possibility of another American “forever war” in the Middle East that the American people have rightfully become deeply weary with and wary of. Not to mention, after some drastic changes at the Pentagon in the first days of his second term, he trusted the U.S. military to get a limited but challenging job done.
Whatever one can say about the wisdom of striking Iran or of the president’s larger foreign policy strategy, it’s hard to say this is anything other than a success. Trump’s style of leadership couldn’t be more different from Joe Biden’s, well, “leadership.” The contrast between Trump’s “12-day war” and the previous administration’s disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan is a good place to start. Both Trump and Biden had publicly expressed the desire to leave Afghanistan for years leading up to the withdrawal. America’s continual presence in that country two decades after 9/11 had become deeply unpopular.
“This time, we witness an empire already stripped of its rings, now forced to sacrifice its fingers.”
• A War, Three Victories, And The Usual Loser (Dionísio)
Will there no longer be wars like in the past, where the victorious side was easily identified? The truth is, considering the statements and propaganda from the three main contenders involved in the conflict sparked by Israel, something unusual has happened: all parties have declared themselves winners! Before analyzing the relative positions of each contender, we must establish the following preliminary points: This ambiguity in how we classify the outcome of the dispute for each party is typical of the intermediate moment we find ourselves in. Consequently, each party’s assessments suffer from the partial way they analyze the event, focusing on the relationship between their starting point and their self-defined endpoint.
The problem is that the “endpoint” not only differs for each party but also the outcome—the dialectical synthesis of the Israel-US/Iran-Islam-BRICS contradiction—remains unpredictable at this stage. None of the parties can claim to have reached or know the final result. In this sense, everyone settles for tactical advantages, more or less significant. In this context, all can claim victory because we are still in that intermediate phase where advances, retreats, losses, and gains are not only mutual but can also be overvalued by some at the expense of others. When the final reckoning comes, this ambiguity will disappear—only to resurface later.
Let us remember that even in the embryonic phase of the Ukraine war, the entire West claimed victory. On the other side, the Russian Federation did the same. As the conflict evolved and its fundamental components became clearer, it became increasingly difficult for the parties to ambiguously classify their positions. Today, it is undeniable that the Russian Federation holds a significant advantage, and the West is beginning to admit defeat. The warmongering and militaristic paranoia gripping the European Union stems from this desperation caused by the looming sense of defeat, now impossible to hide. No matter how much the conflict between Iran and the US/Israel is frozen, no matter how much the final escalation is avoided, there will come a moment of reckoning. Until then, everyone will claim victory—until they can no longer do so.
A conflict that did not begin now, but 78 years ago.This conflict took decisive shape—became inevitable—with the Nakba in 1948 and continued with the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948. The shockwaves from the occupation of Palestinian territories and over a century of Western intervention in the region inevitably led to events like the Islamic Revolution, secretly supported by the US and UK at the time. In 1979, the most powerful contender the West and Israel would face in their hegemonic dominance of the Middle East was born. A contender hardened by decades of sanctions, regime change attempts, a brutal war waged by the US and Saddam Hussein, and constant sabotage, boycotts, and corruption on its soil. As the saying goes, what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.
Sherman Narwani of The Cradle aptly notes that this US intervention marks a new moment in Western Asia, signaling the end of “proxy wars.” In her assessment, in a conventional war, with boots on the ground and considering geographical advantages, Iran is a peer to the US. This time, we witness an empire already stripped of its rings, now forced to sacrifice its fingers. Lacking a suicidal country whose elite would throw itself against Iran in the name of “democracy and human rights”—as others did, like Iraq, always with disastrous results for themselves—and with the Arab emirs paying in oil and petrodollars to be left alone, the US oligarchy had to turn to its prodigal son and its resources to attack Iran.
This was done under the assumption that if things went badly for Israel, the outpost could always count on the big brother (literally, figuratively, and in the Orwellian sense). In Ukraine, NATO and the US also found it necessary to get directly involved in the conflict, even if masking—with Russian consent—this intervention with “contractors,” “technicians,” “consultants,” and the like. The example of Georgia, among others, shows that the Ukrainian example is being studied in the region, just as the Syrian, Libyan, and Iraqi ones were. With the rings gone, it’s time for the empire to use its fingers.
“Putin wishes better but knows – especially now – that the good Germans are outnumbered and outgunned, and the bad Germans are planning for worse..”
• Understanding The War On The Southern Front Against Russia (Helmer)
In warfighting against Russia’s enemies, President Vladimir Putin makes mistakes. He admits as much. Unequalled among the current leaders of the enemy states, he has the capability to correct his mistakes quickly. That’s one of the reasons for his unequalled domestic voter support. Also, Putin is an attentive listener; he brooks criticism on condition it is not intended in a plan for regime change. Every ten years or so, Putin knows that Russia’s main enemies – the US, Germany, the UK – have come up with, will always come up with regime-changing schemes employing Trojan horses, Fifth Columns and quislings inside Russia. These started for Putin with the Chechen secession. After he had defeated that, they were followed by the plotting of the oligarchs around Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Boris Berezovsky and ended with Alexei Navalny.
Putin is well enough educated in the methods of analysis of Marxism-Leninism to understand that for Russia, regime change and warfighting, also class struggle, race war and imperialism, are constant and inevitable. Because of what the Germans did to the Russian people at the time of his father, mother, brother, and uncles, Putin knows there is only the deterrence of superior force to stop the Germans repeating themselves; killing Germans is a generational necessity for Russia’s survival. Putin wishes better but knows – especially now – that the good Germans are outnumbered and outgunned, and the bad Germans are planning for worse with US encouragement and armament, as before.
With the British and the Americans, Putin has tried a combination of traditional economic inducements, regular espionage, and manipulation in the manner of Felix Dzerzhinsky’s Trust.* In the calculus of the force required for divide-and-rule and warfighting against the Anglo-American empires, Putin has also understood that time is needed to rebuild Russia’s capacities, economic and military, from the level of destruction which Washington inflicted through the time of the Gorbachev and Yeltsin capitulations. In correcting his predecessors’ mistakes and their misjudgements of the Americans, Putin has been a quick study but a slow learner. Then there is Putin’s philosemitism in dealing with the Jewish state.
Joseph Stalin believed Israel to be an anti-imperial ally, but it has turned into a battleship for the empire in destroying all of Russia’s traditional Arab allies, and now Iran — the last holdout before Putin must fight a war on the southern front. There, Putin’s policy towards Iran combines two hundred years of Russian trial-and-error, some of the errors fatal ones. In the tradition of male loyalties in the Russian tusovka – mishpocha is the Jewish concept – Putin is both comfortable with and dutiful towards the Jewish men he shared his Leningrad boyhood with. Such loyalty is lifelong. No Russian can forget – even if Americans, Germans and British make a point and policy of forgetting – that they survived the war but not their grandparents, fathers, brothers and womenfolk.
Putin has been persuaded that the 15% of Israel’s population who are Russian by language, history, and habit are an extension of the tusovka to which he should show the loyalty which survivors must show each other. There has been nothing comparable towards the Iranian side; towards the Arab world, genuine Russian sympathy and cultural orientalism died with Yevgeny Primakov (1929-2015). Ties of trade, investment, and military cooperation are a poor substitute, as unpredictable and as fraudulent as the spot and future markets in commodities, including money itself.
Too big, too beautiful?!
• Senate Republicans Revise Trump Tax Bill To Win Over Holdouts (ZH)
Senate Republicans unveiled a revised version of President Trump’s $4.2 trillion tax package early Saturday morning, making targeted concessions on state tax deductions, Medicaid policy, and renewable energy provisions in an effort to unite their caucus ahead of a July 4 deadline set by the White House. The updated draft reflects compromises among Senate GOP factions that have sparred for weeks over how aggressively to cut social safety net programs and whether to roll back clean energy incentives enacted under the Biden administration. The legislation, if passed, would serve as the centerpiece of Mr. Trump’s second-term economic agenda. Senate Majority Leader John Thune announced that voting on the bill would begin Saturday afternoon, with a final vote potentially coming as soon as Sunday.
If it does pass the Senate, Republican leaders have indicated they will call House members back to Washington early next week in hopes of sending the legislation to the president’s desk before Independence Day. However, it remains uncertain whether all 50 Republican senators are prepared to back the measure. Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin said Saturday on Fox News that he would oppose beginning debate on the bill immediately, citing the need for more time. “This is an important bill,” Johnson said. “There’s no need to rush it.” To address concerns from House Republicans representing high-tax states, the new draft raises the cap on the state and local tax (SALT) deduction from $10,000 to $40,000 for five years. The cap would snap back to its original level thereafter, with a modest 1% annual increase during the interim period. The deduction would begin phasing out for taxpayers earning more than $500,000 annually.
A House provision aimed at curbing SALT workarounds used by pass-through businesses was stripped from the text. While fiscal conservatives have criticized the SALT compromise as overly generous, the deal is expected to secure the support of swing-district Republicans and has been endorsed by the White House. Senate Republicans also removed a controversial Section 899 “revenge tax” on foreign companies and investors following concerns from Wall Street and a request from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. The legislation makes permanent the individual and corporate tax cuts first enacted in 2017 and introduces new temporary breaks for tipped workers, seniors, and car buyers. In a nod to moderate Republicans, the revised bill creates a $25 billion rural hospital fund intended to mitigate the effects of Medicaid spending reductions that critics warn could threaten services in underserved areas.
Senator Susan Collins of Maine had pressed for a $100 billion allocation but has not yet commented on whether the smaller fund will earn her support. The new version delays the full impact of a 3.5% cap on state Medicaid provider taxes from 2031 to 2032. The cap, which would begin phasing in by 2028, applies only to states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Additionally, the bill imposes new work requirements for Medicaid recipients and would require ACA-expansion beneficiaries to contribute to their care through co-pays or deductibles. Republicans accelerated the phaseout of tax credits for wind and solar energy projects, now requiring such projects to be fully operational by the end of 2027 to qualify. That change, reportedly supported by Mr. Trump, could impact companies like NextEra Energy, the nation’s largest renewable developer.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer criticized the change, warning on social media that the rollback would “jack up your electric bills and jeopardize hundreds of thousands of jobs.” The bill also ends the $7,500 electric vehicle tax credit sooner than earlier versions proposed, cutting it off after September 30, 2025, including for used and commercial EVs. A separate provision reinstated in the draft would authorize the sale of up to 1.2 million acres of federal land across 11 western states for housing and community development, a measure pushed by Senator Mike Lee of Utah. The plan could raise up to $6 billion but faces resistance from GOP senators in affected states. Tax credits for hydrogen production, originally slated to end this year, would now continue through 2028 for projects started by then.
The legislation includes steep cuts to funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and federal food assistance programs, while increasing allocations for the U.S.-Mexico border wall. It preserves $15 million in funding for a task force to study alternatives to the IRS Direct File program, though it drops language that would have terminated the free filing service entirely — a defeat for tax software providers like Intuit. A proposed tax on money transfers by non-citizens was scaled back from 3.5% to 1%, a win for companies like Western Union and MoneyGram. Finally, the bill would raise the debt ceiling by $5 trillion, a move intended to avert a potential federal default projected for as early as August. With internal GOP divisions still simmering, the path to final passage remains uncertain. Yet with Independence Day looming, Senate Republicans are betting that the new concessions will be enough to unify their ranks — and deliver a long-sought legislative victory for the president.
Elon Musk [..], calling it “utterly insane and destructive,” and that it will “destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country!”
• Senate Advances Trump Tax & Spending Bill In Saturday Night Vote (ZH)
Update (2335ET): Senate Republicans narrowly advanced President Trump’s tax and spending package, as GOP lawmakers in both chambers are hoping to pass the legislation by the 4th of July. Now that the bill has advanced, it will be followed by a Democrat-demand to read the entire 1,000-page bill on the floor (total children) before a maximum 20 hours of debate on the legislation and a multi-hour vote-o-rama, putting it on course for final passage from Sunday into Monday. Two Republicans voted against the bill; Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) – who opposed raising the debt ceiling by $5 trillion, and Thom Tillis (R-NC), who says the ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ could cost his state heavily when it comes to Medicaid funding. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) flipped his vote from “no” to “aye,” while Sens. Mike Lee (UT), Rick Scott (FL) and Cynthia Lummis (WY) also voted yes.
There was drama into the home stretch… less than an hour after the vote opened up, Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Lee, and Scott, hadn’t made an appearance on the Senate floor. Paul and Tillis had previously announced that they would oppose the motion to proceed, and could not support the bill in its current form. When Murkowski finally sauntered onto the floor, Thune quickly approached her along with Sens. Barrasso, Graham, and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R-ID), who peppered her with demands – as one does when it comes to Lisa Murkowski…
Update (1718ET): Elon Musk has weighed in on the Senate’s latest iteration of President Trump’s tax and spending bill, calling it “utterly insane and destructive,” and that it will “destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country!”
The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country!
Utterly insane and destructive. It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future. https://t.co/TZ9w1g7zHF
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 28, 2025
Musk also called it ‘political suicide.’
Polls show that this bill is political suicide for the Republican Party pic.twitter.com/HJwKZ9g4tu
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 28, 2025
“Ukrainians are our brothers, no doubt about it. But the clique that came to rule them – it is a regime, it is not a government.”
“..The Ukrainian leader failed to deliver on his promises and stole billions in aid..”
• Zelensky Is ‘Politically Dead’ – Russia’s Top UN Diplomat (RT)
Ukraine’s “expired” leader Vladimir Zelensky is “politically dead” and refuses to step down to avoid accountability for his actions, Russian UN envoy Vassily Nebenzia has told RT’s Rick Sanchez. In an interview on Sanchez Effect aired on Friday, Nebenzia accused Zelensky of betraying the promises that brought him to power and dragging Ukraine into a wider conflict. He referenced Zelensky’s campaign pledge to end the fighting in Donbass, which the Kiev regime and its Western backers derailed by violating the 2014-15 Minsk agreements. “Zelensky came to power on the promise to end the war in Donbass… He promised one thing, but he turned 180 degrees… Politically, Zelensky is already dead,” Nebenzia stated.
Nebenzia said Zelensky is holding on to power to avoid the consequences of prolonging the conflict with Russia and misusing Western funds provided as aid. “The end of his presidency may entail something for him that he is trying to avoid at all costs: Reporting on the money stolen and the loss of the people whom he failed miserably,” Nebenzia stated. “So he has all the reasons… to cling to power and not to hold elections.” Ukrainians are our brothers, no doubt about it. But the clique that came to rule them – it is a regime, it is not a government. “They stole billions of dollars out of the aid they were receiving. That’s an open secret,” he said, adding that Kiev has already been asked to report on the aid but has failed to do so. “I think that when finally it comes to it, the revelations will be very dire.”
Zelensky has remained in office since his term expired in May, suspending elections due to martial law. He insists that he has the right to remain in office, though the constitution stipulates that presidential duties should pass to the parliament speaker. Russia has said it is open to talks with Ukraine but questions the legality of any deals made with the current government in Kiev. President Vladimir Putin recently said he would meet with Zelensky but called into question his authority to sign a treaty, as “the signature must come from legitimate authorities, otherwise, whoever comes after [Zelensky] will toss it to the dumpster.”
“..the EU doesn’t have a digital services tax, but some European countries do. President Trump is factoring in those targeted tariffs against our tech industry..”
• Scott Bessent Explains Response to Canada’s Digital Services Tax (CTH)
I was unaware until this interview the July 1st digital services tax that Canada is going to apply to U.S. tech companies is retroactive in application. Over a billion dollars will be due on Monday as a result of Canada’s targeting. Duplicitous Snow Mexicans. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent outlines the details of what Canada did and why President Trump is responding so forcefully. Bessent also explains that the EU doesn’t have a digital services tax, but some European countries do. President Trump is factoring in those targeted tariffs against our tech industry as he seeks to execute new trade agreements with the EU.
Supreme Court catfight?!
• The Chilling Jurisprudence of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (Turley)
For most citizens, the release of Supreme Court opinions is about as exciting as watching paint dry, particularly in a case dealing with the limits of district courts in issuing universal injunctions. Yet Friday’s Trump v. CASA case included a virtual slugfest between Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. The decision was one of the biggest of the term. The Court moved to free the Administration from an onslaught of orders from district judges seeking to block the President in areas ranging from the downsizing of government to immigration. However, it was the departure of the normally staid court analysis that attracted the most attention. The tenor of Jackson’s language shocked not just many court watchers, but her colleagues. It seemed ripped from the signs carried just a couple of weeks earlier in the “No Kings” protests.
The Court often deals with issues that deeply divide the nation. Yet it tends to calm the waters by engaging in measured, reasoned analysis — showing the nation that these are matters upon which people can have good-faith disagreements. But that culture of civility and mutual respect has been under attack in recent years. Not long ago, the Court was rocked by the leaking of the draft of the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade. That was followed by furious protests against conservative justices at their homes and an attempted assassination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
“This Was A Blowtorch” Julie Kelly On Amy Coney Barrett’s Slam Of Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Dissent In Birthright Case @julie_kelly2 pic.twitter.com/REfL8UVJf0
— Bannon’s WarRoom (@Bannons_WarRoom) June 27, 2025
There was also a change in the tenor of the exchanges in oral argument and opinions between the justices. Recently, during the argument over the use of national injunctions in May, Chief Justice John Roberts was clearly fed up with Justice Sotomayor interrupting government counsel with pointed questions and commentary, finally asking Sotomayor, “Will you please let us hear his answer?” This hyperbole seemed to border on hysteria in the Jackson dissent. The most junior justice effectively accused her colleagues of being toadies for tyranny. It proved too much for the majority, which pushed back on the overwrought rhetoric. While the language may seem understated in comparison to what we regularly hear in Congress, it was the equivalent of a virtual cage match for the Court.
Some of us have argued that our system is working just as designed, particularly as these issues work through the courts. The courts have ruled for and against this Administration as they struggle with the difficult lines of authority between the branches. Liberals who claim “democracy is dying” seem to view democracy as getting what you want when you want it. It was, therefore, distressing to see Jackson picking up on the “No Kings” theme, warning about drifting toward “a rule-of-kings governing system” She said that limiting the power of individual judges to freeze the entire federal government was “enabling our collective demise. At the very least, I lament that the majority is so caught up in minutiae of the Government’s self-serving, finger-pointing arguments that it misses the plot.”
The “minutiae” dismissed by Jackson happen to be the statutory and constitutional authority of federal courts. It is the minutiae that distinguish the rule of law from mere judicial impulse. Justice Barrett clearly had had enough with the self-aggrandizing rhetoric. She delivered a haymaker in writing that “JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: “[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.” Ibid. That goes for judges too.” She added, “We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.” In other words, the danger to democracy is found in judges acting like kings. Barrett explained to her three liberal colleagues that “when a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”
The last term has laid bare some of the chilling jurisprudence of Justice Jackson, including a certain exasperation with having to closely follow the text of laws. (In an earlier dissent this term, Jackson lashed out against the limits of textualism and argued for courts to free themselves from the confines — or shall we say the “minutiae” — of statutory language). In this opinion, Barrett slams Jackson for pursuing other diversions “because analyzing the governing statute involves boring ‘legalese.’” Again, what Jackson refers to as “legalese” is the heart of the judicial function in constraining courts under Article III. Untethered by statutory or constitutional text, it allows the courts to float free from the limits of the Constitution. For many, that is not an escape into minutiae but madness without clear lines for judicial power.
“We do not want to die for Ukraine. We don’t want our sons to come back in a coffin. We don’t want an Afghanistan next door..”
• Ukraine In NATO Would Mean WWIII – Orban (RT)
Ukrainian accession to NATO would lead to an immediate all-out war with Russia and World War III, according to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. He has also cautioned against hastily admitting Ukraine into the EU. Budapest has long opposed Brussels’ policies on the Ukraine conflict, including weapons deliveries and sanctions on Russia. It has also urged against integrating Ukraine into NATO and the EU. In a post on X on Saturday, Orban wrote that Ukrainian membership in NATO “would mean war with Russia, and World War 3 the very next day.” He added that the “EU’s reckless rush to admit Ukraine would pull the frontlines into the heart of Europe.” The Hungarian prime minister described the EU leadership’s approach as “insanity,” vowing not to “let them turn Europe into a battlefield.
Orban’s X post came after an interview with Hungarian media on Friday, in which he argued that the admission of Ukraine into the EU would ruin the entire bloc, including Hungary’s economy. He previously outlined his concerns over cheap Ukrainian produce undercutting Hungarian farmers. He added that Ukraine’s borders and population will remain fluid for as long as the conflict with Russia lasts, making EU membership untenable.] On Thursday, Budapest vetoed a joint EU statement on Ukraine at the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels, effectively blocking Kiev’s accession talks. Under EU rules, unanimous approval from all 27 member states is required to initiate the process. According to a communique issued by the bloc, the issue is expected to be brought up again at the council’s next meeting in October.
Commenting on his country’s stance earlier this week, Orban cited the results of a consultative vote in Hungary that ran from mid-April to June 20, which asked: “Do you support Ukraine’s European Union membership?” According to the prime minister, 95% of more than 2 million participants rejected Ukraine’s EU aspirations. Earlier this month, Orban insisted that even though the Ukraine conflict is “unwinnable… war-hungry politicians want us to believe that we must continue the war.” “We do not want to die for Ukraine. We don’t want our sons to come back in a coffin. We don’t want an Afghanistan next door,” he said, calling for a diplomatic solution instead.
He went on to criticize the increasing militarization of the EU, for which the European Council formally approved a €150 billion ($171 billion) borrowing mechanism last month. Moscow has long opposed Ukraine’s bid to join NATO, but had until recently maintained a neutral stance regarding its EU ambitions. However, in light of the EU’s “rabid” militarization, senior Russian officials have recently expressed reservations regarding EU membership as well.
Yes, this is how bad it is.
• IDF Soldiers Confirm Lethal Weapons Routinely Used On Crowds In Gaza (ZH)
Soon after the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) began distributing aid to war-torn Gaza in May, disturbing reports emerged of Israeli soldiers killing unarmed Palestinians approaching aid points for food. As the world’s eyes turned from Gaza to Israel attack on Iran, the pace of these reported killings increased — with multiple incidents claiming more than 50 lives each. Now, Israel’s oldest daily newspaper has dropped a bombshell report, with Israeli soldiers and officers confirming the routine use of deadly force on unarmed Palestinians as a barbaric form of crowd control — with the practice carried out under orders from superior officers.
Gaza’s Hamas-run health authority says 529 Palestinians have been killed at humanitarian aid sites or while waiting for food trucks just since late May, when the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) took on the task of distributing food in the strip. While Israel’s defenders invariably discredit Gaza casualty counts, US Army Colonel Nathan McCormack, who previously headed up the Joint Chiefs’ Levant and Egypt branch, has said, “We (Department of Defense, Department of State and the U.S. Intelligence Community) consider the Gaza Health Ministry figures to be generally reliable.” A shadowy organization, GHF is led by an evangelical Christian leader with close ties to Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Trump.
Employing a rhetorical device frequently used when Israel is accused of lethal wrongdoing, Netanyahu dismissed the newspaper’s report as a “blood libel” against the IDF The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) called the soldiers’ and officers’ accounts “vicious lies designed to discredit…the most moral army in the world.” However, perhaps bowing to the sheer breadth of the report by Haaretz, the IDF says it’s investigating the allegations. According to the enlisted soldiers and officers who spoke to Haaretz, a variety of deadly weapons have been routinely used as a means of communicating whether Palestinians have permission to approach the aid stations.
“The distribution centers typically open for just one hour each morning. According to officers and soldiers who served in their areas, the IDF fires at people who arrive before opening hours to prevent them from approaching, or again after the centers close, to disperse them. Since some of the shooting incidents occurred at night – ahead of the opening – it’s possible that some civilians couldn’t see the boundaries of the designated area.” – Haaretz.
Today's news from the World's Most Moral Army, all paid for and armed by American workers forced to send billions to Israel every year: https://t.co/08GfT3FQ2T pic.twitter.com/XhZxWE03NA
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) June 27, 2025
“Windward said 55 vessels sent a total of 101 atypical ID messages, such as “China owned” or “Russian crude..”
• Red Sea Ships Faking Links To Russia And China To Dodge Attacks – Reuters (RT)
Ships traveling near the Red Sea and Persian Gulf have begun transmitting false Russian and Chinese affiliations to avoid potential attacks, Reuters reported on Thursday, citing maritime risk analytics firm Windward and vessel tracking data.= Tehran, which controls the Strait of Hormuz – a key route for global oil – threatened to close it if the US joined Israeli strikes on its nuclear sites. Iran’s parliament reportedly approved the move on Sunday, though the final decision lies with the Supreme National Security Council. Meanwhile, the Iran-backed Houthis have attacked ships in the Red Sea since late 2023, citing solidarity with the Palestinians during the Gaza conflict.
While US President Donald Trump brokered a deal in May to halt the attacks in exchange for a pause in Western airstrikes, the group has since warned that it would target US ships if Washington backed Israeli attacks on Iran. Although a ceasefire was reached between Israel and Iran earlier this week, Ami Daniel, the CEO of Windward, said shipping companies remain skeptical about vessel safety in the area. “The perception among shipowners is that due to the convoluted nature of shipping it’s hard to know or ascertain clearly a chain of ownership to nationalities which may be under higher threat in shipping, namely the UK, US and Israel,” Daniel told Reuters.
Windward said 55 vessels sent a total of 101 atypical ID messages, such as “China owned” or “Russian crude,” between June 12 and 24 in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea. The firm said these were likely used to reduce the risk of being mistaken for Western or Israel-linked ships. A Panama-flagged ship en route to Pakistan signaled “PKKHI all Chinese,” while a Singapore-flagged vessel transmitted “Vsl no link Israel.” Daniel added that under normal circumstances vessels transmit destinations or neutral terms such as “For Orders,” while some use “Armed Guards on Board” in high-risk zones. But after Israel’s strikes on Iran, the use of non-standard messages spiked and spread from the Red Sea into the Persian Gulf.
News of ships disguising vessel identities comes as the West continues to sanction what it sees as Russian-linked maritime activity. The EU and US have accused Moscow and its trade partners of using a “shadow fleet” of tankers operating outside Western insurance rules to bypass sanctions. In May, the EU blacklisted 189 additional vessels – many flying the flags of other countries – bringing the total under restriction to 342. Brussels is currently discussing another package that would add another 77 ships to the list. Russia has repeatedly denounced the sanctions against its shipping sector as illegal. Presidential aide Nikolay Patrushev earlier warned that Western efforts to hinder Russian maritime transit through international straits were “de facto acts of piracy,” adding that such moves increasingly resemble a “naval blockade.” He said Russia is prepared to deploy its navy to safeguard navigation.
By now unstoppable. What will be left?
• 12,000 German Companies Went Bust In Six Months (RT)
Germany endured the highest wave of corporate bankruptcies in a decade in the first half of this year, a study by economic tracking agency Creditreform has suggested. The first six months of this year saw some 11,900 German companies go bust, the study released on Thursday indicates. The figure represented a 9.4% increase over the same period last year, according to the agency. Some 141,000 employees worked at the companies affected. “Despite some signs of hope, Germany remains mired in a deep economic and structural crisis. Companies are struggling with weak demand, rising costs, and persistent uncertainty,” Creditreform chief economist Patrik-Ludwig Hantzsch said. The situation is expected to remain difficult as Germany continues to struggle with a recession that has dragged on for two years already.
The wave of bankruptcies might ultimately increase in the next six months, given that the “persistently high level of insolvencies is increasingly triggering chain reactions,” Hantzsch warned.= While German GDP grew by a slight 0.2% in the first quarter of 2025, weak global demand and uncertainty in trade policies continue to take a toll on its economy. According to a new survey conducted by the Ifo economic institute released this week, expectations have worsened among German exporters this month over uncertainty regarding a potential trade war with Washington. The US was Germany’s top trading partner in 2024, with bilateral trade in goods totaling €253 billion (around $280 billion), according to official data.
Earlier this year, US President Donald Trump imposed 20% tariffs on all EU goods, with 25% on steel, aluminum, and cars. When Brussels signaled its readiness to retaliate, most of the levies were put on hold for 90 days to allow for negotiations. A 10% base tariff and the 25% targeted duties remained unchanged. “The tariff threats from the US are still on the table. An agreement between the EU and the US has yet to be reached,” Klaus Wohlrabe, head of Ifo surveys, said, adding that the uncertainty has lowered exporters’ expectations, with the respective index falling to -7.4 points in June from -5.0 in May. The index measures how optimistic or pessimistic German manufacturing companies are about their prospects for selling abroad over the next three month.
“The Hyde Amendment, a long-standing piece of legislation, prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the mother’s life.”
• Supreme Court Decision Allows States To Defund Planned Parenthood (ZH)
A recent Supreme Court ruling in favor of South Carolina allows states to deny Medicaid funds to NGO Planned Parenthood in a move that sets a precedent for conservative states across the country to block tax dollars going to abortion providers. Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, centers on whether low-income Medicaid patients can sue under what is known as Section 1983 – part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 – in order to choose their own qualified healthcare provider. The case involves South Carolina’s blocking of Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, which the organization argued violated federal law. bIn a 6-3 decision, the Court noted that the typical redress for such a violation would be for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to withhold Medicaid funding from the state, not for an individual to sue the state.
The decision upends the long running problem of taxpayers being forced to indirectly fund abortion clinics and procedures which they morally oppose. According to 2022 data, Planned Parenthood receives at least $600 million annually through state Medicaid reimbursments (taxpayer dollars), which is around 30% of the organization’s total revenue. Though not all of this money goes towards abortions, Planned Parenthood’s primary political lobby efforts focus on increasing abortion access. The Hyde Amendment, a long-standing piece of legislation, prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the mother’s life.
However, while federal funds cannot be used for abortions (except in the limited circumstances mentioned), the Hyde Amendment does not apply to state funding and some states may choose to use their own Medicaid cash to cover abortions. State Medicaid access has long been dictated by the ability of patients to choose their specific healthcare provider, meaning Planned Parenthood found a way around restrictions on federal money. South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster has been pushing to block public health dollars from going to Planned Parenthood, but a resident and patient at Planned Parenthood South Atlantic argues that doing so violates her rights under the Medicaid Act.
The key provision in the 1965 Medicaid Act guarantees patients a “free choice of provider” that is willing and qualified. Much of the conflict deals with whether Planned Parenthood is a “qualified provider” under the Medicaid law, and whether individual patients have an unambiguous “right” to sue to see their provider of choice, under its specific language. Furthermore, just because an individual or small group of people view Planned Parenthood as their provider of choice, does this mean everyone else is then required to pay into an NGO that offers services like abortion which they oppose? In other words, do voters in a particular state have the right to opt out of participation in abortion funding?
“In an era when most public figures wilt under pressure, she’s become a symbol of courage for women everywhere who are tired of being silenced. She’s not just defending herself; she’s defending reality..”
• J.K. Rowling Destroyed Trans Ideology With One Savage Tweet (Margolis)
Famed “Harry Potter” author J.K. Rowling became a vocal critic of transgender ideology back in 2019, when she supported a woman who lost her job for saying that biological sex is immutable. In 2020, Rowling’s tweets and essay argued that prioritizing “gender identity” over biological sex threatens women’s rights and safety, drawing from her experience as an abuse survivor. She faced fierce backlash, was branded a “TERF” by activists, and even endured death threats, but stood firm. Rowling’s stance has only grown more defiant as she continues to call out the bullying tactics of trans activism and the erasure of women. Despite relentless attacks from activists, media outlets, and even cast members from “Harry Potter,” her unapologetic wit and unwavering resolve have made her a leading voice of resistance against a radical ideology that silences dissent.
Attention all men telling me I look like a trans woman: I’m sensing that this isn’t meant as a compliment. In fact, the implication seems to be that trans women look male, or odd, or ugly. This is appallingly transphobic and I’ll thank you to take your bigotry off my timeline.
— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) June 24, 2025
This week, she once again proved why she remains a formidable force in the culture war over gender, giving courage to countless women who’ve been too afraid to speak out. Apparently some people have been attacking Rowling by saying she looks like a “trans woman.” Her response to such attacks says it all: Talk about a masterclass in rhetorical jiu-jitsu. She takes the intended insult of her critics and flips it right back on them, exposing the hypocrisy at the heart of so much of the pro-trans activist rhetoric. Rowling’s critics, who claim to be the champions of tolerance and inclusion, routinely stoop to personal attacks and misogynistic insults whenever a woman dares to challenge their orthodoxy. The latest trend is to hurl accusations that Rowling “looks like a trans woman,” a jab that is supposed to be both an insult to her and a defense of trans women. But Rowling, with her trademark wit and clarity, called their bluff.
She pointed out the obvious: If you’re accusing someone of looking like “trans woman” in the pejorative sense, you’re essentially admitting what most people already know: that “trans women” don’t look like real women. Let’s face it, men can grow out their hair, get breast implants, and take whatever drugs they want, but everyone knows what they really are. Calling Richard “Rachel” Levine a woman doesn’t make him a woman. Using female pronouns to refer to Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner doesn’t change the fact that he is a man. Letting Will “Lia” Thomas compete against real women doesn’t erase what he is. Rowling refuses to apologize, refuses to play by the ever-changing rules of the woke mob, and instead shines a spotlight on the contradictions baked into their rhetoric, like how calling someone a “trans woman” is supposedly empowering until it’s used as a slur. Her wit, clarity, and refusal to back down force her critics to confront the ugliness of their tactics.
Through years of smears, threats, and public pressure campaigns, Rowling has stood firm, using every attack as an opportunity to expose the movement’s double standards and moral incoherence. In an era when most public figures wilt under pressure, she’s become a symbol of courage for women everywhere who are tired of being silenced. She’s not just defending herself; she’s defending reality, and doing it with a fearlessness that leaves her critics sputtering. Just because trans activists demand that we all pretend that men who grow their hair out and play dress up are women doesn’t mean that the rest of us have to play along. And when those same activists who have spent years lobbing insults and even death threats at Rowling try to mock her by saying she “looks like a trans woman,” they don’t expose her bigotry; they expose their own hypocrisy. If comparing her to a “trans woman” is meant as an insult, then it’s not Rowling degrading “trans women”; it’s the so-called allies who use the comparison as a punchline.
It’s become the science In the same way that Fauci did.
• 1900 Scientists Say ‘Climate Change Not Caused By CO2’ (Keenan)
Millions of people worldwide are concerned about climate change and believe there is a climate emergency. For decades we have been told by the United Nations that Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from human activity are causing disastrous climate change. In 2018, a UN IPCC report even warned that ‘we have 12 years to save the Earth’, thus sending millions of people worldwide into a frenzy. Thirty-five years ago, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the (World Meteorological Organization) WMO established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide scientific advice on the complex topic of climate change. The panel was asked to prepare, based on available scientific information, a report on all aspects relevant to climate change and its impacts and to formulate realistic response strategies.
The first assessment report of the IPCC served as the basis for negotiating the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Governments worldwide have signed this convention, thereby, significantly impacting the lives of the people of the world. However, many scientists dispute with the UN-promoted man-made climate change theory, and many people worldwide are confused by the subject, or are unaware of the full facts. Please allow me to provide some information you may not be aware of.
1. Very few people actually dig into the data, they simply accept the UN IPPC reports. Yet many highly respectable and distinguished scientists have done exactly that and found that the UN-promoted manmade climate change theory is seriously flawed. Are you aware that almost 2,000 of the world’s leading climate scientists and professionals in over 30 countries have signed a declaration that there is no climate emergency and have refuted the United Nations claims in relation to man-made climate change? See https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/
2. I have also signed this declaration. How can I make such an assertion? I have experience in the field as a former scientist at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, UK Government; and as former staff member at United Nations Environment, where I was responsible for servicing the Pollution Release and Transfer Register Protocol, a Multinational Environmental Agreement, involving the monitoring of pollutants to land, air, and water worldwide. Real pollution exists, but the problem is not CO2. Industrial globalisation has produced many substances that are registered as pollutants, including thousands of new man-made chemical compounds, toxins, nano-particles and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that are in violation of the scientific pre-cautionary principle. [..]
3. Next, I will mention the Irish Climate Science Forum (ICSF) website, a valuable resource founded by Jim O’Brien. I am grateful to the ICSF for their excellent work in highlighting the scientific flaws in the UN climate narrative. The ICSF provides a comprehensive lecture series from renowned international scientists providing much evidence, analysis, and data that contradicts the UN assertions. The lectures are available at: https://www.icsf.ie/lecture-series The ICSF scientific view coincides with those of the Climate Intelligence (CLINTEL) foundation that operates in the fields of climate change and climate policy. CLINTEL was founded in 2019 by emeritus professor of geophysics Guus Berkhout and science journalist Marcel Crok. Based on this common conviction, 20 Irish scientists and several ICSF members have co-signed the CLINTEL World Climate Declaration “There is No Climate Emergency” (see https://clintel.org/ireland/).
4. The reality is that the climate has always been changing, the climate changes naturally and slowly in its own cycle, and CO2 emissions (and methane from livestock, such as cows) are not dominant factors in climate change. In essence, therefore, the incessant UN, government, and corporate-media-produced climate hysteria in relation to CO2 emissions (and also methane from cows) has no scientific basis. It appears to me the UN narrative is yet another example of fake science being used to drive an ulterior agenda, see also the book Godless Fake Science. In truth I am against ‘real’ pollution, and the reality is that the CO2 component is not a pollutant. Unfortunately, many misinformed environmentalists are driving around in electric cars, the battery production for which has caused vast amounts of ‘real’ pollution via the industrial mining and processing of rare earth metals, and the consequent pollution to land, air and water systems. See also this article. Note that the UN does not focus on the thousands of real pollutants that corporate industrial globalisation creates.
5. The conclusions of the Climate Intelligence foundation include the following:
• Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming: The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.
• Warming is far slower than predicted: The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.
• Climate policy relies on inadequate models: Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as global policy tools. They blow up the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
• CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth: CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
• Global warming has not increased natural disasters: There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent.https://t.co/q1SxCYJDPr pic.twitter.com/j2dOCMKd6m
— Dr. Genevieve Guenther (she/they) (@DoctorVive) June 28, 2025
Mercury
HOLLAND: “Mercury Has FINALLY Been Taken Out Of All Childhood Vaccines, This Has Been A 30 Year Battle”@ChildrensHD pic.twitter.com/NkwQHATcoC
— Bannon’s WarRoom (@Bannons_WarRoom) June 27, 2025
Neuralink
Detailed update on @neuralink
pic.twitter.com/eyPWB87CC5— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 27, 2025
Elephants
A large elephant herd.
In the year 1500, there were over 25 million elephants in Africa.
By 1900 this had fallen to 10 million, and by 1979 down to 1.3 million. By the mid-1990s they were below 300,000.
This is a photo from 1976. pic.twitter.com/zlTFJA4VaA
— Massimo (@Rainmaker1973) June 27, 2025
https://twitter.com/GuntherEagleman/status/1938914380370059324
Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.
