Menu Icon

Debt Rattle September 18 2026

Sep 182026
 
 September 18, 2026  Posted by at 8:45 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , ,  24 Responses »


Thomas Cole Commencement of Empire (Savage state) 1836


• Trump Concedes He Must Soon Decide On Iran End Game: ‘Annihilate Them Or Not’ (ZH)
• Iran Is Preparing an October Surprise Before the Midterms (Victor Davis Hanson)
• How Trump’s Iran Operation Turned Into A Forever War (Harrison Berger)
• Trump Working To Spare US The Effects Of Global Oil Crunch (JTN)
• Canada and Europe are Coordinating to Manipulate the US Midterm Election (CTH)
• Von der Leyen Announces Canada as 1st Associate Member of European Union (CTH)
• Canada Welcomes EU Proposal To Become ‘Associate Member’ (BBC)
• Where Did Our Happiness Go? Into The Pockets Of Others (Paul Craig Roberts)
• Who Represents America? (Paul Craig Roberts)
• Gandhi is Out, Mangione is In: Political Violence is in Vogue in America (Turley)
• Sen. Paul Introduces Birthright Citizenship Amendment (Turley)
• ICC Used As ‘Tool’ To Target Global South – Editor (RT)

 

 

 

 


“Trump tells Axios he’s approaching major crossroads in Iran war..”

• Trump Concedes He Must Soon Decide On Iran End Game: ‘Annihilate Them Or Not’ (ZH)

Some key lines of President Trump given to Axios on Thursday…He told the outlet he is at a “critical juncture” regarding the war in Iran, weighing whether to launch massive new attacks or pursue a different path to end the conflict. He has previously indicated his belief that war will continue through the November midterm elections. Trump has newly said: “I have a big decision coming up. Do I want to go in and annihilate them [the Iranian regime] or do I not? It’s a big decision. Anything could happen with me.”


The war is increasingly unpopular among Americans, and Trump’s rhetoric has appeared a bit more honest on this of late. What’s the end game? After six months of conflict, Epic Fury has looked like a bombing campaign in search of a strategy. According to more of Trump’s talk with Axios: Trump declined to say whether he’ll decide on the path forward before or after the midterms.

Trump and Hegseth have ordered the military to maintain its level of forces in the Middle East until the end of the year, to remain ready for a potential return to full-scale combat. The officials say Trump needs to decide soon on the way forward, partly because the US military can’t stay in its current holding pattern much longer. “At some point you have to decide what is the end game”

The situation of global energy transit has over the past week become much more complicated with the Houthis advance across Yemen’s Red Sea coastline, and drone damage to Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline. The US looks to be staying on the sidelines of Yemen fighting, for the time being. New via Al Jazeera:

A senior US official told Al Jazeera: We are focused on ensuring navigation in the Red Sea and allowing our partners to manage security challenges. And yet “partners” like the Saudis and its government in Sanaa are clearly not doing so well.

Read more …

I doubt Iran has much left to surprise us with.

• Iran Is Preparing an October Surprise Before the Midterms (Victor Davis Hanson)

We’re about 50 days out from the midterms, and everybody seems to have an October surprise. What’s the situation on the ground in Iran? One of the big surprises is we don’t know because this is the first really major engagement where there are no Western journalists allowed into Iran. There are no U.S. ground troops. There are no embedded reporters. The Mossad maybe has agents on the ground, but they’re not publicizing that fact. And Iranians who sporadically call people in the West on their cell phones are hunted down.


So, a lot of it is subjective conjecture. But I think it’s pretty clear that Iran is planning, as it is now sporadically, but planning an October surprise near the midterms. Their entire strategy has been to delay, negotiate, attack, delay, negotiate, attack. And the purpose was to, A, drive up the price of oil through that uncertainty, especially in hitting ships in the Strait of Hormuz, and B, get closer and closer and closer to the midterms.

They don’t really care about the details or statistics of American congressional operations. They don’t really understand that for the Democrats to cut off all aid to military forces that are fighting the regime, that means money that we give Israel, intelligence that we give the Gulf, but more importantly, our daily expenses from the Pentagon, they’re going to have to have a large veto-proof Congress. I don’t think they’ll get that even if they were to win the midterms. But that’s what Iran is worried about and concerned about, that they want the Democrats to win.

Why the Democrats? They remember in 2009, a million of them went out in the street to overthrow the regime. Barack Obama, newly inaugurated, didn’t do anything. He just kept mute for about 12 days. Why? Because he was going to negotiate with a theocracy about their nuclear program, and he wanted to reboot Iran as part of a rival to democratic Israel and the moderate Gulf regimes. He thought by empowering the Shia Crescent in Iran, in Syria, in Beirut, on the West Bank, and in Gaza, he could have creative tension, and he would be the adjudicator.

But the people don’t really trust the Democrats, and they know they’ve been very critical of this effort to hurt the theocracy. So, Iran and the Democrats have the same goal: create chaos. They have the same goal, and that’s to defeat Donald Trump. The Democrats want the Iranians to create chaos, drag out the war, and therefore drive down public opinion and raise the price of gas. That’s clear. They’ve all but said that. And in turn, the opposition has a what? What would we call it? An October surprise? It is gaming the midterms as well.

Now, what are they thinking? They are thinking that every time the Democrats come into power, they negotiate with this horrendous regime. They don’t trust that the Democrats want it gone. They fear, third, that the Democrats may be in power in the Congress. They fear that Donald Trump is at 40% popularity, and he might have to make concessions to them. So, in their interpretation of the calendar, the clock, the time remaining to the midterms, it might be they feel time is running out given two things.

One, they don’t have any fuel, gasoline, or diesel. We know that much. The gas lines are three to four miles long, and food is scarce, and air conditioning is probably nonexistent. Inflation is rampant, and things are deteriorating at a geometric rate in Iran. And two, they don’t think anybody will come to the rescue except Donald Trump, and Donald Trump right now has control of the Congress. So, in their way of thinking, they may think an October surprise would be to go out in the streets right before the midterms and show that they thank the United States, they support the United States.

There’s another October surprise. We haven’t heard much from the Kurds. The Turks have been very adamant that they did not want us to help the Iranian Kurds because that could spread into the Turkish Kurds, and the same thing is true of the Iraqi Kurds and the Syrian Kurds, etc.

But they have been more active than usual in the last week. If they sense the people of Iran are rising up or are about to go for broke, they may want to as well join them. So they may have an October surprise.

Read more …

It’s been 5 months. With mostly hardly any fighting. Why do you say forever war? Because others do, too? Because it takes longer than you thought/wanted?

Those “four primary objectives in the Iran War” are just your fantasy. There is one primary objective: no nukes for Iran.

The rest are secondary. At best.

• How Trump’s Iran Operation Turned Into A Forever War (Harrison Berger)

As the United States has struggled to secure its four primary objectives in the Iran War – achieving regime change, dismantling long-range ballistic missiles, eliminating nuclear enrichment, and halting Tehran’s support for regional proxies – U.S. officials have rolled out a series of tried-and-failed theories for how to achieve those goals.



In the past four weeks, Americans have watched their government attempt to inflict an economic victory against Iran through Operation Economic Outcast, tightening a sanctions regime which for decades has strangled Iran’s economy without resolving the underlying dispute. Now, as that strategy flags, we have seen the Trump administration return to its older strategy of kinetic strikes against Iran. Those strikes, too, have failed to achieve their desired objectives. Facing the prospect of a self-inflicted defeat, the U.S. has now proposed two new paths forward.

The first, reported by the Wall Street Journal last Wednesday, is an option to extend and formalize the current series of on-and-off strikes U.S. officials call this “mowing the lawn,” or a strategy of using periodic bouts of disproportionate force, as Israel did in Gaza prior to launching its full-scale, seemingly endless campaign after the Oct. 7 attacks of 2023. To support that option, the Pentagon has extended troop deployments in the Middle East through 2027.

The second option reportedly considered by the White House is for the U.S. to declare victory and walk away, with the Wall Street Journal reporting that Trump favors the idea. Among the supporters of the second option is Joe Kent, the former Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, who resigned in protest of the Iran War, and who has argued on X that the U.S. should “reset the terms of the deal” with Iran “by removing our troops & ships from the region.” The argument that the U.S should walk away and “declare victory” is growing increasingly popular even in establishment circles.

But given the historic limitations of sanctions to achieve political outcomes, coupled with Iran’s current demands, that strategy too appears unlikely to re-open the Strait of Hormuz and avert the economic consequences Iran’s leverage over the waterway will have on the global economy.

Political scientists have long doubted whether U.S. economic pressure and sanctions can shape political outcomes, particularly when the targeted state has little reason to believe these measures will be reversed in exchange for good behavior; researchers like David Siegel are quick to acknowledge that they “don’t work,” while U.S. officials like Janet Yellen have conceded the same point, noting that, while sanctions against Iran had caused a “real economic crisis,” they produced political outcomes “much less than we would ideally like.”

As Siegel – who most recently studied the failure of U.S. sanctions on Russia to redirect their state behavior toward U.S. and NATO interests – explains, “target states have strong incentives not to give in and sometimes even benefit from heightened levels of political support at home because they can now credibly blame their economic woes on a foreign imperial power.” Siegel argues that it’s “probably more true today than ever before due to the fact that sanctioned states can turn to China.”

The low likelihood of economic pressure opening up the Strait of Hormuz is depressed even further by the fact that one of Iran’s preconditions for opening the Strait of Hormuz is the removal of sanctions, which would require a vote from Congress, where the proposal would face an uphill battle. But perhaps the main reason walking away and declaring victory would fail to re-open the Strait and mitigate impending economic disaster is because Iran has tied freedom of navigation in the waterway to the U.S. reining in Israel, and the U.S. has long demonstrated it is unwilling to do so.

The June 17 agreement between the U.S. and Iran only required the U.S. force an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, and Washington failed to follow through. Now, subsequent provocations by the U.S. and Israel have led Iran to expand its ceasefire demands to other campaigns: in Iraq, in Yemen, and in Palestine.

Securing a deal to re-open the Strait and end the war is further complicated by the growing view around the world that the “Art of The Deal” author is simply incapable of making deals. Results of a 2025 Politico survey of diplomats from 15 countries show foreign officials describing Trump’s deal-making process as “reactive, with no clear direction,” while Trump has so far failed to resolve a proxy war in Ukraine that he promised to end “within 24 hours” of taking office. The White House has similarly failed to reach a peace deal in Gaza.

Read more …

“A soaring global energy crunch collides with mid-term election season in the U.S., as the White House looks abroad to Venezuela and pressures Ukraine to ease supply pressures.”

• Trump Working To Spare US The Effects Of Global Oil Crunch (JTN)

President Donald Trump is working furiously to spare the United States from the fuel crisis sweeping the globe, seeking out new sources in Venezuela, ensuring that the U.S. continues to pump oil, and calling for Ukraine to halt its strikes on Russia’s energy infrastructure.


So far, the United States appears to be insulated from the worst of the crisis as unrest breaks out in countries that are feeling acute oil shortages stemming primarily from the Iran war. Rising prices in regions as diverse as South Asia and Europe have prompted protests. Governments have responded with price ceilings, rationing, and even scheduled power cuts in poorer countries.

This weekend, for example, in Syria, protesters blocked a highway, blocking traffic and setting fire to tires, just hours after the central government announced it would temporarily raise prices on fuel products by as much as 40%, both Al-Jazeera and The New York Times reported. Similar protests have occurred in the Philippines, Bangladesh, Guatemala, and Portugal.

A missile strike by Iran-backed militias damaged Saudi Arabia’s Red Sea oil pipeline this weekend
The White House and administration officials view high oil prices as temporary, an issue that will resolve itself when the Iran war is finished, as Trump has said. However, no end to the conflict between Washington and Tehran appears likely before the midterm elections. Instead, voters are being confronted with the prospect of rising gas prices as tit-for-tat fighting between the U.S. and Iran continues just as the election season truly kicks off.

A missile strike by Iran-backed militias that damaged Saudi Arabia’s Red Sea oil pipeline this weekend has contributed to the recent oil price uncertainty sweeping the markets. The strike temporarily knocked the East-West pipeline out of commission, preventing Saudi Arabia from using its only reliable way to bypass the Strait of Hormuz and forcing the kingdom to cut oil shipments to Europe.

The current crunch is particularly acute for diesel, which is more expensive than gasoline. The price of diesel, an oil-based fuel often used in commercial vehicles and industrial machinery, set a new record when it surpassed $6 a gallon this weekend. Because of its use in freight and delivery transportation, elevated diesel prices often translate into higher prices for goods.

The pattern prompted the president to call on Ukraine to halt its strikes against Russian oil refineries in a bid to calm global diesel prices, which he blamed on the Russia-Ukraine war, not the conflict in the Middle East.

“Mr. Zelenskyy has to do one thing. He has to stop knocking out diesel fuel in Russia,” Trump said during a visit to Ireland. “Let him go after targets, but not diesel fuel because he’s causing a shortage of diesel. This isn’t done by the Middle East; this is done by what’s happening with Russia and Ukraine.”

Recent polls show 49% of voters are most concerned by the cost of living
The pressure is on. Polling throughout the summer has shown that potential voters are primarily concerned with the cost of living and economic conditions ahead of the elections, which will take place in November. In a Reuters/Ipsos poll in June, for example, respondents said the cost of living was the most important factor in deciding whom to vote for in November – at 49%, followed by democratic norms at 22% and immigration at 13%. In that same poll, 14% of respondents overall and 20% of Republican respondents labeled gasoline prices as the issue they most want members of Congress to prioritize.

Americans are also growing weary of how the president is handling the economy. Trump’s net approval on the economy is 33 points underwater, and American approval for the Iran war has also declined to the lowest levels since the conflict began, with only 31% of Americans approving of the war.

To bolster supply, the administration has turned its focus to South America, working to ease sanctions on Caracas and facilitate higher oil exports. According to reports by The Wall Street Journal, easing restrictions on Venezuelan crude could direct hundreds of thousands of additional barrels per day to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries, helping offset supply disruptions from the Middle East.

Read more …

Globalists vs nationalists. Soros vs Trump.

• Canada and Europe are Coordinating to Manipulate the US Midterm Election (CTH)

In this outline Promethean Action’s Susan Kokinda summarizes how energy prices are being weaponized to influence the 2026 midterm election. The multinationals, Canada, Europe, NATO and those opposed to America-First sovereignty are waging an economic war against President Trump’s geopolitical and economic reset.


This midweek update argues that the midterm elections are being shaped less by campaign ads than by coordinated economic and political pressure: rising diesel prices tied to Ukrainian strikes on Russian diesel infrastructure, energy pricing set by European exchange traders in London rather than producers, and continued Iran conflict framed as being prolonged to affect the vote.

Kokinda also cites Canada’s trade war and targeted tariffs as politically timed, alongside attacks on U.S. bonds and pressure to raise interest rates, describing “full spectrum economic warfare” against Trump’s agenda. A second front is an accelerated AI panic, beginning with viral warnings from an ex-Anthropic researcher and followed by Anthropic CEO calls for regulation, which Trump and allies call a control-driven “hoax.” The script traces AI-ban lobbying to London-based Control AI, highlights foreign funding networks, and links the push to international oversight and reduced national sovereignty.

Read more …

“Mark Carney just pulled Canada out of the USMCA and there’s no one to blame but himself.”

“Together both Europe and Canada convey a mindset and worldview that organizes fabricated problems to keep control of their populations. It’s a corporatist structure of modern Fascism where instead of govt telling the corporations what to do, the World Economic Forum of multinationals tell the governments what to do.”

• Von der Leyen Announces Canada as 1st Associate Member of European Union (CTH)

Pouring effusive and slobbering praise over the Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, the anointed “middle power” leader of a shrinking -and increasingly irrelevant- new world order, with grand pontifications EU Commissioner Ursula von der Leyen announced today that Canada is the first “Associate Member” of the European Union.


It’s a major award! As noted by Reuters, “There is currently no such status as associate member set out in the European Union’s treaties, though various versions of an associate-type of membership have been floated in the bloc over the years. Germany suggested Ukraine be an associate member as an interim stage to full accession, though the proposal failed to gain traction as some EU capitals pushed back.

von der Leyen gushed: “Dear Mark, I said we must urgently reimagine our partnerships. So, I would like to work with you on opening the door for Canada to be the first associate member of the EU. We share one ocean, one set of values, one way of seeing the world. And we will now build our shared future as well – thank you for being here.” Mark Carney sat with a big smile, giddy with excitement and barely able to control his visible glee.

DAILY MAIL – […] But the attempt to flatter the former Governor of the Bank of England backfired, with diplomats saying they were never briefed about the proposal and that, in effect, ‘associate membership’ doesn’t even exist. EU diplomats accused Brussels of ‘over-reach’, an accusation often levelled against Eurocrats by UK Brexiteers before Britain left the bloc. One EU diplomat told the Mail: ‘This bombastic announcement is just not right.

‘There will be a summit at the end of October, so logically they will talk about deepening the relations. ‘But no one has ever seen an associate membership and no idea what it means in practice. Canada is a valuable partner for the EU, one of the few currently in the world where we share the values, so it is nothing against Canada. ‘But first and foremost the member states should be the ones to express what kind of relationship the EU wants to have with any third country.’

Another added: ‘She kept this bit of associate membership out of the text until the last moment. She also did not mention it up front to EU member states. ‘It seems like she is a bit too far out in floating this. Everyone is positive about Canada, and wants to strengthen the relationship. ‘But there is a lot of uncertainty about what von der Leyen envisages by coining this label.’

They added that, in reality, the most that can likely be hoped for is a deeper trading relationship rather than ‘associate membership’, which implies Canada taking part in EU programmes that it would be forced to pay into, becoming more politically integrated and potentially even having a say over the bloc’s rules.

But there would be huge barriers to overcome to establish closer ties, as swathes of Canada’s regulations are at present incompatible with EU single market rules, with high taxes on the bloc’s alcohol exports another thorny issue. Under EU law, any granting of membership would have to be approved by the 27 member states, which is another reason they were wrong-footed.” (read more)

We all know what this is. This is simply a joint Canada/Europe response to the geopolitical realignment currently underway by U.S. President Donald Trump. At the core of the CA/EU association is the insufferable leftist mindset. A pontificating pretense that elites and globalists should determine the outcomes and values for the rest of the world.

Together both Europe and Canada convey a mindset and worldview that organizes fabricated problems to keep control of their populations. It’s a corporatist structure of modern Fascism where instead of govt telling the corporations what to do, the World Economic Forum of multinationals tell the governments what to do. It’s a constructed social and economic model where Western bankers are in charge of the proles beneath them.

The pontificating snobbery within the collective outlook, the pretenses and bureaucracy have nothing to do with representative government, as outlined in the unilateral approach by Ursula von der Leyen to create a status that doesn’t even exist, without any consultation with the members she is supposed to represent.

This move today is the personification of elitism and globalism in its last, desperate dying state.For the little schoolboy inside Mark Carney, this is the culmination of a lifetime goal to be important. For the Canadian people, this should be embarrassing; but it’s not. Canada is part of a British Commonwealth, and they proclaim “sovereignty” as their cause celeb against the horrible Trump, while rushing to the arms of the European Commission.

Actually, on second thought, this is perfectly Canadian. Here’s the point that will be missed by 80% of Canadians. The EU trade rules do not align with the USMCA. I don’t mean that in a vague or disingenuous manner. The specific rules, regulations and policies of the European Union are not compatible with the trilateral North American trade agreement between the U.S, Mexico and Canada. It’s not even close.

What most Canadians don’t realize amid all this gleeful back-slapping and pretentious cheer, is that Mark Carney has officially sealed the position of Canada as it relates to the USMCA/CUSMA. nCanada just did exactly what President Trump and U.S. Trade Greer had been organizing and hoping for. Mark Carney just pulled Canada out of the USMCA and there’s no one to blame but himself. We have been waiting for this for a long time. Thank you, Mark Carney.

Read more …

A coalition of the weak is still weak.

• Canada Welcomes EU Proposal To Become ‘Associate Member’ (BBC)

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has welcomed the European Union’s ambition for Canada to become its first “associate member”, calling for closer cooperation on defence, critical minerals and energy security. Carney told the European Parliament in Strasbourg on Thursday that Canada and Europe were “stronger together” in the face of “geopolitical rupture”. His comments came a day after European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen proposed “opening the door” to Canada’s associate membership, a status that does not currently exist.


US President Donald Trump earlier called the idea “laughable” and threatened “very serious tariffs” on Europe if he considered it a “hostile act”.Canada and the US are locked in an escalating trade dispute, with each side imposing tit-for-tat tariffs after bilateral talks collapsed last month. “Today our societies are being battered by new storms,” Carney said during his address, naming them as climate change, “the erosion of democratic norms” and the “weaponisation of trade”. “Economic integration is now being weaponised, tariffs being used to exert pressure,” he said.

“Financial mechanisms have been used for coercion. Supply chains constitute weak points to be exploited.” He said a Canada-EU alliance would create a “beacon for other democracies”, while stressing the two sides were not seeking to form a new power bloc. “I am not proposing a third bloc in order to become a great-power rival – only with better manners,” he told MEPs. “This is about sovereignty, our ability to live as we wish. We do not seek power to dominate others.” Asked about the proposal on Wednesday, Trump told reporters: “If I think it’s at all a hostile act, I will put very serious tariffs or stop trading with Europe, on many things.

“If it’s a good intention, that’s fine. If it’s a bad intention, we’ll put very heavy tariffs on Europe, which is a possibility.” Responding to Trump’s comments at a press conference following his address, Carney said: “This alliance is a positive process, that’s my response to the American president.””Canadians are united that nobody is going to tell us what language we speak, no-one is going to dictate our culture, or with whom we can strike agreements internationally,” he added.

Carney said Canada was “not in a position, nor seeking, to become a full member of the European Union”, describing the proposal as a “different framework”. Speaking at the European Parliament on Wednesday, von der Leyen said she wanted Canada to become the EU’s first associate member, with closer cooperation in areas such as manufacturing, technology, defence, energy critical minerals and economic security.

It is unclear exactly what that relationship would look like because the “associate member” status does not currently exist within the EU and could take years to implement. Any new arrangement would require the agreement of all 27 EU member states, with some governments having previously expressed reservations about creating a new form of membership. The EU and Canada already have a free-trade agreement, and cooperate in areas including trade, defence and research.

In his address, Carney said Canada and Europe could strengthen their “strategic autonomy” through “deep co-operation in the full range of strategic capabilities, including critical minerals”. He said Canada could supply liquefied natural gas and hydrogen to support European energy security, while benefiting from Europe’s expertise in clean-energy technologies. He also proposed pooling technological resources and deepening “people to people ties”, including allowing young people to “work, study and live where they want on either side of the Atlantic” through Canada joining the EU’s Erasmus+ programme.

Carney described the proposed relationship as “a unique, positive approach that we will define together”. He added that there would be a debate and a vote in the Canadian parliament on the proposals, but emphasised the two sides were still at the “start of a road”. A Canada-EU summit is due to take place in Montreal at the end of October, where Carney said they would “drill down the details”.

Read more …

House prices are used to control people.

• Where Did Our Happiness Go? Into The Pockets Of Others (Paul Craig Roberts)

Remember how happy we would be according to Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum when we owned nothing? Well, that is where we are. Are you happy? They took away memory cards and sold us cloud storage. They took CDs and DVDs and sold us streaming. They took software you once bought as yours and turned it into a monthly subscription. Corporate America figured out the real money wasn’t in selling you something. It was making sure you NEVER actually own it.


According to AI Overview, for Existing Homes, the median sales price for existing single-family homes and condos is $429,100. For New Construction, the U.S. Census Bureau reports the median sales price for new houses sold is $410,700, with the broader average around $502,700. Prices vary depending on whether you look at averages (skewed higher by multi-million dollar homes) or medians (the midpoint where half cost more and half cost less).

To comfortably afford a $400,000 house, you generally need an annual household income between $90,000 and $130,000, depending on your down payment, interest rate, and monthly debts.mIf you pay for the house with a mortgage, the cost of the house with principle, interest, insurance and real estate tax by the time the house is paid for is about triple the purchase price. You will have paid more than $1.2 million for your middle class home.

So Americans cannot afford to buy and they cannot afford to rent. Dear Americans, are you happy? Would you like a real populist government that represented you. Good luck.

Read more …

Paul Craig Roberts seems to feel it’s HIM who represents America.

• Who Represents America? (Paul Craig Roberts)

Mail-in voting, along with street corner drop boxes, has proved to be one of the most effective methods of election stealing. There are examples where at the last moment a large number of mail-in votes arrive that suffice to change the outcome.


The Covid lockdown was used to expand mail-in voting. Democrat states such as Connecticut and Delaware made special efforts t o expand mail-in voting. President Trump’s effort to limit mail-in voting to documented citizens is opposed by “voting rights groups,” which are mainly Democrats such as the League of Women Voters, by some election officials who claim mail-in voting increases election integrity, and by the US Supreme Court. The claim is made by Democrats that mail-in ballots are only sent to registered voters.

But we know that lists of registered voters are seldom brought up to date and that states and voting rights groups resist purging the rolls of dead people and people who have moved out of state. We have examples of people being voted in states that they no longer live in. James O’Keefe and others have presented evidence of vote and election fraud due to unverified mail-in ballots. It seems to be clear that whichever party that controls the elections in a state has a reserve of ballots that can be mailed in at the last minute to change the winner. There are examples where the last minute mail-ins are almost all for the Democrat candidate, although it does seem that the Zionist Republicans used this fraud against Israel critic US Rep. Thomas Massie in his recent primary.

Consider the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts’ case against Trump’s effort to ensure that the mail-in ballots actually come from US citizens residing in the states. Trump’s executive order requires the Department of Homeland Security to compile from various federal data bases, including Social Security, a list of US citizens for the US Postal Service with the requirement that the mail-in ballots can only be delivered to those on the voting list. The League of Women Voters argued that the federal data bases are out-of-date and unreliable. But so are the states lists of registered voters. The League of Women Voters does seem to be more concerned about preventing unqualified voting than with election integrity.

The League of Women Voters also argues that President Trump’s effort to restore integrity to US elections is an attempt to seize control of elections from Congress and the states. The League of Women Voters says no constitutional text allows actions by the President to protect election integrity. This is a curious way of putting it if the Constitution actually prohibits Trump from establishing election rules in the interest of election integrity. What exactly is the case that the President cannot act in the interest of election integrity, which requires that only citizens can vote?

The two justices on the Court who have the most integrity and who are the most principled, Thomas and Alito, saw the issue differently from the majority. Justice Alito pointed out that the issue on which the majority ruled against Trump’s executive order was that there was insufficient time to implement Trump’s order before the upcoming midterm federal elections and therefore the order would be disruptive of the election. In other words, the scheduling crunch was cleverly timed by those challenging Trump’s order.

Now, think about this for a moment. If Trump and the Republicans stood to gain from mail-in voting, why would they oppose it? Unless Democrats stand to gain from mail-in voting, why their enormous efforts to prevent President Trump from increasing the integrity of US elections?

Republicans claim that the Democrat political machine in Chicago elected John F. Kennedy president by stealing the election from Richard Nixon. I do not know if this is true. I do know that the Democrats stole the 2020 election from Trump with successful vote fraud in the swing states. The fraud is obvious despite its almost universal media denial. In the five swing states that flipped to Democrat, the states’ election procedures were controlled by Democrats. No Democrat state was flipped to Republican.

I do know that Republicans are more conservative and patriotic than Democrats. It is Republicans, not Democrats, who chant “USA, USA.” It is Democrats who favor voting by illegal aliens and who appoint them police officers and local government officials and act to prevent their deportation. It is obvious that Democrats favor multiculturalism over Americanism as evidenced by Minneapolis broadcasting over public loudspeakers the Muslim call to prayer six times a day. Anything a Democrat can do to stick her finger into America’s eye will be done.

Patriotic Americans, a body of people that I think excludes most Democrats, face a dilemma in the upcoming fall elections. Trump and the Republicans stand for Israel against America’s interest and at Americans’ cost. But the Democrats stand against America. The Democrats favor immigrant-invaders and have opposed all efforts to protect America’s borders and the meaning of US citizenship. The Democrats are the party of multiculturalism that is turning America into a Tower of Babel in which there is no longer a gender difference between male and female. All the weird stuff that infect our society has its home in the Democrat Party.

Read more …

Really, a murderer is your hero?

• Gandhi is Out, Mangione is In: Political Violence is in Vogue in America (Turley)

Across the country, a chilling shift is occurring. Political violence has become a twisted form of virtue signaling. Mahatma Gandhi is out and Luigi Mangione is in. For an increasing number of young people, nothing signals your values like a willingness to kill others for them. For decades, being nonviolent has been the touchstone for many on the left. Something is changing. On my campus and others around the country, students are rationalizing violence and even idolizing assassins.


A recent Emerson College poll shows that 4 out of 10 voters between the ages of 18-29 (39%) view Mangione’s role in the fatal shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson as “acceptable” or “somewhat acceptable.” Other polls show a troubling number of liberal voters consider political violence justified, including polls showing 40% of young people embracing political violence in some circumstances.

For college students, the rationalization of the killing of a Charlie Kirk or a Brian Thompson is now a litmus test of your movement bona fides. I have heard exchanges where students identify with accused assassin Tyler Robinson, who wrote, “I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and I took it.”

This week, UC Irvine instructor Matt Goldman came under fire for a posting showing the picture of conservative Nick Shirley with the menacing observation “Someone can do the funniest thing just before the Kirkiversary.” There was a time when political assassination was viewed as anathema, particularly among academics.

To put it simply, violence is in vogue. Hollywood isn’t helping our political violence problem Hollywood is commoditizing political violence. Many conservatives were critical of the movie “One Battle After Another,” with Leonardo DiCaprio, as glorifying domestic terrorism and fueling liberal paranoia.

Other actors seem eager to make their films part of a political rage fest. “Spider-Man” actor Andrew Garfield actually said that he hoped that his new movie, “The Uprising,” would make billionaires scared, declaring that “I hope that if any billionaires watch it, they’re scared s—less.” Garfield wanted to take this film as his own bona fides with the mob, demonizing the rich. He apparently forgot Spider-Man’s motto, “With great power comes great responsibility.”

Others are more direct. Lexi Alexander, director of the 2008 Marvel film “Punisher: War Zone,” triggered a firestorm Sept. 1 with an X post featuring Mangione’s face superimposed on Batman’s bat signal. The posting featured a new article’s headline: “Bank of America vice president killed in Times Square stabbing.” The vice president, Erin Piacenti, 32, left a 5-month-old daughter who will now grow up without a mother.

When people noted the obvious that Alexander, who bills herself as a “Palestinian filmmaker,” was seemingly celebrating the death of bank officer Piacenti, who was just back from maternity leave, Alexander accused them of being Israeli propagandists, or “Hasbara bots.”

In a now-deleted post, Alexander dismissed criticism that she knew about the executive being a new mother and said it was enough at the time that she was an executive because “it sounded like another Luigi situation.”

Read more …

Blood or soil.

• Sen. Paul Introduces Birthright Citizenship Amendment (Turley)

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of speaking at the Constitution Day event at James Madison University about “Rage and the Republic.” and various constitutional issues. During the event, organized by the James Madison Center on Civic Engagement, one student asked me what I would change about the U.S. Constitution. I said that I would amend the Constitution to eliminate birthright citizenship, as have other nations who once followed this ill-considered practice. Well, Sen. Rand Paul (R., Kentucky) has wasted no time. He just reintroduced his bill to ban birthright citizenship.


I have previously written about the possible need for such an amendment after the decision in Trump v. Barbara. With that decision, the matter now rests not with the court but with the country. We have never truly had a national debate over the practice. The basis and future of birthright citizenship have remained matters almost exclusively for the courts. Most countries in the world reject this controversial policy. Our closest allies in Europe reject birthright citizenship and follow the common practice of “jus sanguinis,” or right of blood. We are part of a smaller number of countries following “jus soli,” or right of soil.

Various countries that once followed the practice later amended their constitutions or laws to get rid of it. That is what would need to be done with a 28th amendment. It is time that we have a civil and substantive debate over birthright citizenship in the United States. Given that the states are Democratic-controlled, it is unlikely that an amendment would pass; as noted, we have never been given this decision at the national level. Even with the 14th Amendment’s ratification in 1868, there were differing views on the meaning of the critical line:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Both sides have good-faith arguments, but the time for that debate is long overdue.

Here is the language of the amendment:

JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to protect United States citizenship.

That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

“article —
“Section 1. For purposes of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, a person may be considered to be ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’ only in accordance with section 2.

“Section 2. A person born in the United States may only be considered ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’ if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is—

“(1) a citizen or national of the United States;

“(2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States; or

“(3) an alien with lawful status under the immigration laws performing active service in the Armed Forces.

“Section 3. Congress shall have the power to carry out this article through appropriate legislation.”

Read more …

The ICC is a tool.

“Western countries have turned the Hague-based court against their “opponents,” Khonya Mathonsi has told RT “

• ICC Used As ‘Tool’ To Target Global South – Editor (RT)

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has served as a “tool” for Western countries to target leaders in the Global South who challenge them, political commentator and Behind the News Network editor Khonya Mathonsi has told RT.


Mathonsi was commenting on Wednesday’s ICC hearing for former Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte in The Hague, the 81-year-old’s first public appearance in more than a year. Duterte faces charges of crimes against humanity over killings linked to his anti-drug campaign.

He said the court disproportionately pursued figures from Africa and Asia while largely leaving Western countries untouched. “The ICC was mostly [formed] to silence their opponents,” he said, adding that “it was used as a tool” against people viewed as anti-Western, particularly in the Global South.

Duterte was arrested at Manila airport in March 2025 and transferred to ICC custody in the Netherlands. He has defended his anti-drug campaign, saying he only ordered police to kill in self-defense. His lawyers have challenged the ICC’s jurisdiction, citing the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute. The court maintains that it can prosecute alleged crimes committed while the country was still a member.

On Wednesday, the ICC said Duterte “shall continue to be detained,” citing an increased risk that he could flee or interfere with witnesses and court proceedings. Mathonsi said Duterte had criticized the US and other Western governments and sought to run the Philippines without following their wishes. “This is his punishment,” he said, accusing the West of using financial pressure and sanctions against those who challenge it.

“The real issue here is that the West don’t see themselves standing in front of the judges,” he said, adding that there is “zero accountability” for Western countries. He said Global South countries should consider establishing an alternative body to uphold international law, suggesting that such an institution could be developed within or alongside BRICS.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle September 12 2026

Sep 122026
 
 September 12, 2026  Posted by at 10:07 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , ,  25 Responses »


Roy Lichtenstein Woman With Flowered Hat 1963


• Trump: If I Had To Do Iran Again I Would Do Exactly As I Did (ZH)
• Trump Says He Wouldn’t Have Bombed Nuke-Armed Iran (Antiwar)
• Flight 93 Hero’s Dad Warns of Threats From Within (Tim O’Brien)
• 9/11 After a Quarter of a Century (Paul Craig Roberts)
• We Are in World War Xi (AmG)
• RFK Tells the Brutal Truth About Islam on Eve of 9/11 Anniversary (Salgado)
• What the AfD Really Wants From China (Zemánek)
• EU Urges Kiev To Mobilize Women – Moscow (RT)
• Light and Dark (James Howard Kunstler)
• The Secret to “Sleeping Well” (Turley)
• To Hell with the Digital Revolution & Its Bastard Child AI (Paul Craig Roberts)
• More Than 62,000 Arrested For Speech-Related Offenses In Britain (AmG)

 


 

https://twitter.com/GuntherEagleman/status/2098213757335789979?s=20 https://twitter.com/PutinVladimirv0/status/2098085347712246160?s=20

 


 


Very consistent. But people want it over before it began.

• Trump: If I Had To Do Iran Again I Would Do Exactly As I Did (ZH)

An interesting moment from Thursday night’s Lara Ingraham exclusive with President Trump…


Q: Any regrets about Iran?

Trump: I don’t believe in the word “regret.”


Trump even commented to Ingraham that he would make the same decisions all over again if he had a chance. The Fox show host had posed to the president, “If we hadn’t done Iran, you would be cruising to midterms victory right now” – and made reference to high gas prices. Trump replied: “supposing we were cruising, and all of a sudden Iran has a nuclear weapon. They would use it.”

Explaining that he doesn’t believe in “regrets” and that he has none especially about launching the Iran war, Trump asserted: “If I had it to do again, I would do exactly what I did.” He further argued that if Iran had a nuclear weapon, its leaders wouldn’t hesitate to “wipe out” Israel and the Middle East, and could go so far as to hit American cities. In a separate brief interview with the press this week, President Trump was asked about reports that Vice President Vance and Secretary State Marco Rubio warned him of the possibility that the Iran conflict could persist for the remainder of his term…


Trump vehemently denied that there’s so much as a chance of this, but didn’t actually explain how he intends to wind down the war in a way favorable to the US and White House policy. Or in other words, the American public still awaits words on a realistic exit strategy.On going into Iran “full” – Trump did underscore that the midterm elections makes this a bad idea. His administration has also repeatedly said there won’t be boots on the ground in Iran. Was this a quiet part out loud moment?


Among the most interesting parts of the interview came when he was asked about the young men in MAGA who are angry over the Iran war:

Q: What do you say to all the young men who supported you in 2024? Trump: They still do.

Q: Some of them are demoralized. Trump: I don’t think they’re demoralized. I think they’re very proud of the fact I’m not letting Iran have a nuclear weapon.


Trump earlier this week insisted of Iran’s position in the conflict, “I don’t know that they’re gonna be able to hold out,” Trump said. “But it’ll get settled after the elections. Or maybe sooner. But it’ll get settled right after the election.” The reference to it’ll “get settled” could have ominous meaning. It suggests Trump could ether escalate against Tehran dramatically, or else there could be the opposite: de-escalation. The world will find out within a couple months.

Read more …

“Trump Says If Iran Had a Nuclear Weapon, He Would Have Politely Called the Supreme Leader Instead of ‘Bombing the Crap Out of Him’”

Bomb bomb bomb;

bomb bomb Iran

• Trump Says He Wouldn’t Have Bombed Nuke-Armed Iran (Antiwar)

President Trump said at the Republican National Midterm Convention in Dallas, Texas, on Wednesday night that if Iran had a nuclear weapon, he would have politely called up the Supreme Leader instead of “bombing the crap” out of the country.


“If they had a nuclear weapon, I’d be calling the Supreme Leader, and I’d be saying, ‘Mr. Supreme Leader, how are you, sir? Is there anything we can do for you?’ as opposed to bombing the crap out of him.” Trump said, evoking cheers from the crowd. “It’s very simple. We cannot let them have a nuclear weapon,” the president added.


While Trump has continued to frame his war with Iran as necessary to prevent the country from obtaining nuclear weapons, there was no evidence either before the June 2025 war or the current conflict that Tehran had decided to pursue a bomb, and that was the consensus of US intelligence agencies at the beginning of Trump’s second term.

“We continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003, though pressure has probably built on him to do so,” read the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s annual threat assessment that was published in March 2025 and represented the assessment of the entire US intelligence community. Trump also spent the months following the June 2025 war, known as the 12-Day War, boasting that the US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities had “obliterated” its nuclear program.

During negotiations with the US before both wars, Iran made clear it was willing to reduce uranium enrichment back down to 3.67%, the level it agreed to under the 2015 nuclear deal, far below the 90% needed for weapons-grade. But as Joe Kent, the former director of the National Counterterrorism Center who resigned due to opposition to the Iran war, has pointed out, the administration adopted the Israeli position, conflating any nuclear enrichment for civilian energy purposes with a desire for a nuclear bomb.

Read more …

“Are you guys ready? Okay. Let’s roll.”

• Flight 93 Hero’s Dad Warns of Threats From Within (Tim O’Brien)

If you dig into the history of 9/11, inevitably one of the names that will rise to the surface pretty quickly is Todd Beamer. He was a passenger aboard ill-fated United Flight 93, which on that day crashed into an empty field in Shanksville, Pa. His story has been well-documented and told in print, on the web, in documentaries, and even in dramatic movies. He’s the one who said those famous words, “Let’s roll,” just prior to the passengers’ attempt to take back the aircraft from those radical Islamic hijackers.


To appreciate those words, it’s worth being reminded of the context. On Sept. 11, 2001, Beamer was a 32-year-old account manager who worked for the big tech company Oracle. He was also a Sunday school teacher and the father of two boys. His wife Lisa was pregnant with their third child. His United flight left late that day, departing Newark at 8:42 a.m. At about 9:28 a.m., four al-Qaeda hijackers stormed the plane’s cockpit somewhere over Ohio. They either killed or incapacitated the pilots and then took control.

They herded everyone else into the back of the plane. They lied and said they had a bomb, when all they really had were box cutters. Thanks to the plane’s late departure, the passengers had the chance to use onboard Airfones and cell phones to call loved ones and emergency dispatchers. That’s how they found out that other planes were being hijacked and that this was likely a suicide mission for the hijackers.

Beamer used an Airfone to place a call and ended up talking to GTE Airfone supervisor Lisa Jefferson. They talked for 13 minutes, while he told her in detail what was happening. He told her of the knives, the possible suicide vest on one hijacker, and that at least one passenger was already killed. He told Jefferson that he and a few other passengers had a plan to take back the plane. Those individuals were Tom Burnett, Jeremy Glick, and Mark Bingham. Beamer told Jefferson that they decided this plane would not hit its intended target.

In a very real and true moment that is now the stuff of 9/11 lore, Beamer asked Jefferson to pray with him. The two recited the Lord’s Prayer and Psalm 23, which starts with, “The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.” He told Jefferson to deliver a message to his wife and family that, if he did not survive, he wanted them to know he loved them. Jefferson has said that his last words on that call were clear and unmistakable. She heard him ask the passengers around him, “Are you guys ready? Okay. Let’s roll.”

Immediately after that, the passengers reportedly rushed the hijackers and tried to take back the plane, which then nosedived into that field in Somerset County at 10:03 a.m.


If you watched that clip, I’ll give you a moment to collect yourself. Yes, the events of 9/11 happened 25 years ago, and yes, 25 years ago was just yesterday, because the realness of what these people did on that day lives with us to this very moment. If you’re paying attention, none of this has faded. Too many have forgotten because they’ve distanced themselves from the event with time, with their own hectic lives, and a lack of curiosity. But any time you’re confronted with the events of that day, large and small, it will come rushing back.

Todd Beamer was a credit to his parents and to his upbringing. Someone you may not be familiar with is Beamer’s father, David. The Beamer family seems to have tried to maintain a low profile since 9/11, not hiding from the media, but seeking privacy when possible. This makes it highly unusual on the 25th anniversary of 9/11 that we’d be hearing from that Flight 93 hero’s dad, who, for clarity, I will refer to as David. He recently participated in a rare interview with Fox News.

He’s a Michigan voter, and he has serious concerns with the state of American politics right now, specifically the Senate race in Michigan, which pits former congressman and military veteran Mike Rogers against Abdul El-Sayed, an Islamic socialist. David Beamer believes that El-Sayed and his allies pose an existential threat to America. He told Fox News that voting in November will be akin to what his own son did to defend this country. He pointed to El-Sayed’s radical beliefs, which are better reflected in his BFF Hasan Piker’s words than his own. Piker famously said, “America deserved 9/11.”

David said, “These Democratic socialists are really more closely aligned with domestic terrorists than with our way of life.” He added, “I’m [going to] vote against those that want to destroy America. I’m [going to] vote for an American, a real Michigan man. His name happens to be Mike Rogers. I want everybody across all the platforms, Democrat, independent, Republican, vote American this time. Don’t vote for those who are set about to destroy our [freedoms].”

Some on the left have criticized David for what they’re framing as a father sullying the memory of his son by getting political. These hypocrites say this as they politicize everything they touch. Then David went where any intelligent leftist feared he would go. He drew parallels between the 9/11 radical Islamic attacks and this election season. He warned that just as America was unprepared for 9/11, it may be unprepared for what a socialist takeover of our government would look like this November. He said Americans can’t afford to be caught by surprise.

David made the point that today’s threats to America don’t come from some foreign country in every case, but rather, more and more of them come from within – within our borders and within our own political system and government. “Our enemies haven’t gone away,” David told Fox News. “They identify themselves as Democratic socialists. Their platform is one that aims to destroy all the values and the foundations of this country that we’ve enjoyed for hundreds of years.”

He punctuated his comments by reminding the cable news network’s audience that he plans to vote against the Islamic socialist and his allies. And he called on everyone who cares about America, just as his son Todd did on 9/11, to get out and vote.

David is correct in that this threat to America can be pushed back in the most non-violent of ways. You have a vote, and so do all the people around you. Make sure that everyone you know and care about, and who care about the future of America as we know it, get out and vote this November.

Let’s roll.

Read more …

Got to do some 9/11.

• 9/11 After a Quarter of a Century (Paul Craig Roberts)

The shock of September 11, 2001, was so great that, despite some initial skepticism, it was four or five years afterward that professional and scientific independent investigators presented evidence that the official narrative had serious problems. Over the years as the evidential problems for the official narratives grew in number and magnitude, I reported the findings. On many anniversaries of the event, I reminded readers that there was more evidence against the official narrative than there was evidence for it. I am not going to repeat all of this information today, as it would be book length. Instead, I am going to show you a different way to think about what is in some ways a defining event.


Before we begin, keep in mind that as early as 2006–long before evidence began accumulating that the official narrative was a lie–a Zogby Poll found that 42% of Americans believed the government concealed and refused to investigate important evidence. How could they believe otherwise with New York’s Chief Fire Marshall protesting that in violation of law the forensic evidence contained in the debris of the Twin Towers and Building 7 was carried away and shipped out of the country before it could be investigated?

How could they believe otherwise when the Cheney/Bush/Zionist Neoconservative administration refused for one year to even convene, not an investigation, but a politically selected committee to ratify the official narrative, especially when afterward the co-chairman of the committee and chief legal counsel wrote books saying the committee was set up to fail, that information was withheld from the committee and that the committee had considered criminal referrals?

Of course, the whore American media reported all doubts as conspiracy theory. Any skeptic of the official narrative was a “conspiracy theorist,” as an AI check using the official narrative as the data base will tell you today. If memory serves–I am not going to go back and read my years of columns and search my archives for the documents as my memory is problem-free–the first professional assault on the official 9/11 narrative was by a professor of physics at Brigham Young University. Being a physics professor, he understood force. He knew that the Twin Towers had been built according to code to withstand airliner hits.

He knew that the effect of an airliner hitting a massive structure of steel and concrete would be the disintegration of the airliner, not the disintegration of the building, just as the airliner that allegedly hit the Pentagon, a structure not built to withstand an airliner strike, disintegrated without a trace with little damage to the building. The official narrative did not explain why the airliner that allegedly hit the Pentagon disappeared into dust, but the airliner hits on the twin towers caused the massive buildings to disintegrate into dust.

The physics professor’s name was Steven E. Jones. He obtained dust from the twin towers, which existed in abundance. Being a scientist, he knew evidence was in the dust. He examined and tested the dust and found unequivocal evidence that the dust contained both reacted and unreacted nano-thermite, the substance used in controlled demolitions. In September 2006 a federally intimidated BYU administration placed Professor Jones, a tenured professor, on paid leave to investigate his controversial public claims. Think for a moment.

When have you ever heard of a professionally qualified professor placed on leave and investigated for reporting a finding? In my opinion based on my Washington and university experience, the BYU administration was told by the George W. Bush regime to shut down Professor Jones or lose federal funding. Professor Jones, if memory serves, realized that his career was over and was paid $850,000 to resign. Jones’ removal served as an indication of what the fate would be for any physicist who took exception to the official narrative.

Ask yourselves, why would a physics professor destroy his career by concocting a false report, indeed, a report that to this day has not been shown to be incorrect. Why would a mistake, if it was, be a suspension worthy of an investigation? Clearly the corrupt George W. Bush Zionist regime intended the shutdown of a truth-teller.

In 2009 Jones together with University of Copenhagen scientist Niels Harrit and other scientists again proved the presence of nano-thermite (“Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” Open Chemical Physics Journal, April 2009).

American science depends heavily on federal funding, and this was too hot for dependent scientists. In my opinion no physicist anywhere in the world is stupid enough to believe the official 9/11 story. What they do know is that to challenge it is a career-ending event as it was for Professor Jones. Therefore, with mortgages, car payments, children to educate they don’t jeopardize their career and family by endorsing studies that contradict the official narrative. The despicable Wikipedia still labels all factual findings by scientists “conspiracy theory.”

In 2006 architect Richard Gage realized five years after the event that the official narrative had serious problems. He organized the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Enormous information poured out that the official 9/11 narrative was impossible. The NIST fabricated explanation for Building 7 was discredited by a high school physics professor, who showed that the building collapsed at free fall acceleration, which can only be achieved by controlled demolition. The NIST fabrication was discredited again by structural and forensic engineers at the University of Alaska, apparently the only university in America willing to risk federal funding for the truth.

Washington and its whore media labeled the facts a “conspiracy theory” but failed to discredit the independent reports. If it were a conspiracy theory, the establishment would have supported an investigation, as that would have proven that it was a conspiracy theory. Instead the regime worked to prevent and to discredit investigation. The facts were the official narrative. Anything else was a conspiracy theory. The American whore media went along with the fiction.

Structurel architects and high rise engineers face the same problem as professors of physics. If they say what they know, they loose clients. Washington and the whore media have been very successful in turning expressions of truth into anti-Americanism. If you don’t go along with official narratives you are not only a tin hat conspiracy theorist, you are also an anti-American on the side of “Muslim terrorists,” and you lose your clients.

Today anyone who believes the official story of 9/11 is brainwashed. The stupidity of a large percentage of the American population serves to suppress truth. Washington has learned that a story that implants fear in the feeble-minded American population is a success.

We can expect more such instances.

Read more …

Not really… Nukes neutralize the ideas.

“The real architect of World War III isn’t Putin. It’s Xi Jinping—and Russia’s war in Ukraine may be giving Beijing exactly what it needs.”

• We Are in World War Xi (AmG)

As the Russo-Ukrainian war continues, Americans may blame Russian leader Vladimir Putin for starting “World War III.” It is correct that World War III has started, but its cause is the People’s Republic of China (PRC), not Russia.


The war did not start with Putin’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 or with the appeasement of Russia in the years before Putin’s foolish aggression. It started with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The CCP has been at war with the U.S. since coming to power in 1949 and has employed many fronts in this war to undermine America and the West. The CCP’s May 2019 declaration of “People’s War” against the U.S. was CCP leader Xi Jinping’s call for a maximal effort against America. Not coincidentally, the COVID-19 outbreak soon followed. The CCP lied about COVID’s origins, refused to share information with the world, and used Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the director-general of the World Health Organization (WHO), as its willing accomplice.

Another front is CCP election interference. President Trump has revealed the CCP’s interference in the 2020 U.S. presidential election in an effort to secure President Joe Biden’s victory. Biden’s open borders allowed many hundreds of thousands of military-age Chinese men into the United States—prepositioning a force to strike against the American people in their homeland. The sustained chemical warfare attack that is fentanyl is another avenue of attack, destroying American lives and families. The CCP’s success at buying American and European politicians and journalists to serve as its agents of influence is yet another, as is TikTok.

Putin is not the source of World War III. Putin is, in the scheme of World War III, a secondary player. It is Xi who is driving World War III. It seems that the common denominator for every manifestation of this global crisis, whether overt or covert, foreign or domestic, is that Xi Jinping and his CCP have either inspired or enabled them—or at least, stand to be the principal beneficiaries. Consequently, while some call this World War III, one might consider a more apt name to be “World War Xi.”

It was Xi who gave the green light to Putin to invade Ukraine when they met in early February 2022. Xi and Putin have met over 11 times since then, most recently in Bishkek, and on each occasion, Xi has evinced strong, public support for Putin’s war. While the Russo-Ukrainian war is not yet resolved—it has lasted longer than World War I—it already has a clear winner: the PRC. The PRC provides great assistance to Russia—diplomatic, economic, and “dual-use” military aid—all of which is important to sustain Russia’s war. Beijing is receiving a prodigious return that is helping Xi win World War III.

First, by sustaining the war, the PRC occupies the U.S. and so diverts attention from its aggressive acts and preparations for war over Taiwan, which might include attacks against the U.S. itself. The U.S. intelligence community and military have only so much bandwidth, and the conflicts in Iran, Ukraine, and elsewhere in the Middle East are filling it. In addition, U.S. stockpiles are drained by the conflict in Iran and aid to Ukraine, including Patriot, ATACMS, and other missiles, and 155mm artillery rounds, all of which reduce the ability of the U.S. military to fight a high-intensity war with the PRC. In turn, a reduced U.S. arsenal hurts U.S. conventional deterrence in key theaters, like the western Pacific and Taiwan.

Second, the war cements Putin’s dependence on the PRC. Putin is Xi’s myrmidon, the supplicant in the relationship. Truly, Putin is Xi’s useful idiot. Xi drafted Putin to serve in his anti-Western alliance, which costs Putin his autonomy. Xi’s ultimate ambition is to overthrow U.S. power and position in the world and shackle the world to the PRC’s tyrannical ambitions. Putin’s interest would have been better served by emerging as the tertius gaudens of the conflict between the U.S. and the PRC. Now that he has tied Russia’s interests to the PRC, he will walk the path Xi requires of him.

That requires Russia to accept diminished influence when Russia’s interests conflict with the PRC, such as in Central Asia, and to serve as an instrument of distraction for the U.S. and its NATO allies while China expands its military power and strategic ambitions. Putin must fear that once he has served his usefulness, Xi may overthrow him. Third, Putin also serves as a lightning rod, attracting the world’s animus and attention for his acts while Xi’s genocide in Xinjiang remains too often unremarked and in the background. The PRC’s preparations for war against Taiwan and its increasingly coercive measures against the Philippines also do not receive the attention they deserve.

Fourth, as a result of the Ukraine war, Xi has secured his northern flank. Russian conventional and nuclear military power is now a tool to be employed in conjunction with or apart from the PRC’s military—but to serve Beijing’s interests. The U.S. has a “multiple front” war problem with which it must contend.

Moreover, Xi has secured his western flank in Central Asia. The Central Asian states perceive Russia as a threat due to the invasion of Ukraine and see Moscow as the junior partner in the Sino-Russian relationship. For Xi, this is a remarkable occurrence at the same time that China is committing genocide against Kazakh, Kyrgyz, and Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang or East Turkistan. The PRC’s western flank is as secure as it has been in recent years. With two flanks secure and Xi’s ability to project power expanding, it is no surprise that Xi is aggressing on the PRC’s southern and eastern flanks.

The bottom line is that the Russo-Ukrainian war greatly benefits the PRC. As the PRC gains in military might, this hurts the ability of the U.S. to defend its national security interests elsewhere, including in the western Pacific. In turn, this weakens the ability of the U.S. to deter aggression against Taiwan, the Philippines, and other states, as well as the ability to fight a war with the PRC, should deterrence fail. The costs of the Russo-Ukrainian war are high in every respect. While Moscow may eke out a Pyrrhic victory, the true winner of the war is Beijing. The war continues because Xi wants it to, and his aid allows Putin to pursue his folly. =

Read more …

“He lauded Israel “as America’s most critical frontline ally in fighting the toxic ideology of Islamism..”

• RFK Tells the Brutal Truth About Islam on Eve of 9/11 Anniversary (Salgado)

Islam is in an existential war with Judeo-Christian civilization, Health and Human Services Sec. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. warned Americans on the eve of the 9/11 terrorist attack anniversary.


America stands for liberty, equality, freedom of religion, Biblical morality, civil rights, and meritocracy. Islam stands for theocratic tyranny, religiously motivated genocide, sexual perversion, slavery, and violence. Inevitably, there is a struggle between the two ideologies for global dominance. And there are countless Muslims both in the United States and around the world who want to see a second 9/11 — Democrat campaign surrogate Hasan Piker practically said as much. Kennedy’s warning at the Republican midterm convention is particularly timely as this September 11 is the 25th anniversary of the infamous al-Qaeda attacks.

“RFK Jr. isn’t hiding behind politically correct terms and he’s calling out Islam for what it is. A radical ideology waging war on America. And Democrats no longer care. Communists are merging with Islamists. The unholy alliance is anti-American and anti-West. No more pretending.::— Brigitte Gabriel (@ACTBrigitte) September 11, 2026

I cannot agree with Kennedy that the Democrat Party used to be honorable and patriotic, because the leadership of the party has always been anti-constitutional, racist, elitist, and pro-violence. But I do applaud Kennedy for being willing to state the truth about Islam, even if he did so in a mistaken context of attributing his own views to previous Democrat politicians.

Kennedy condemned purveyors of “human slavery and of ethnic religious genocide.” He lauded Israel “as America’s most critical frontline ally in fighting the toxic ideology of Islamism, which, by its own account, is waging an existential war against our country and against Western liberal democracy. It is an ideology that has subjugated, impoverished, and tyrannized, and tortured the people of Palestine,” apparently meaning Gaza, because “Palestine” does not exist as a nation or political jurisdiction, “and [tortured] the people of Iran.”

Furthermore, Kennedy cautioned, fundamentalist Muslims “openly promise to do the same to us.”Indeed, in the same city where the Twin Towers collapsed due to al-Qaeda hijackers on 9/11, a Muslim who prays for the death of the infidels is now the mayor. “NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani Attends Friday Prayers at Al Khoei Islamic Center in Queens – Linked to Alavi Foundation Cited by the DOJ as an Iranian Front; Imam Prays for the Mahdi to Kill the Infidels by His Sword https://t.co/xrRsIpalcH”— MEMRI (@MEMRIReports) February 23, 2026

It’s very important, as too many Republicans fall prey to antisemitic propaganda, to note that Kennedy praised Israel and highlighted the plight of the people of Iran, who are longing for freedom. The Persians who have fought their Islamic regime and watched their family members killed this year would fully agree with Kennedy’s assessment and his warning. The 9/11 attacks were not an anomaly; they were part of an ongoing and g lobal war.

Read more …

“The AfD is not asking Germany to choose between Washington and Beijing. It is asking Germany to choose itself..”

• What the AfD Really Wants From China (Zemánek)

For decades, German foreign policy rested on a simple assumption: Germany belonged politically to the West, and its relations with the rest of the world would be conducted largely within that framework. The AfD is challenging that assumption. ts approach to China is one of the clearest tells. Beijing is not treated as an ideological enemy, but neither is it embraced uncritically. Instead, China is seen as a sovereign great power, an indispensable economic partner, and one pole of an emerging multipolar world.


Germany, in the AfD’s view, should cooperate with Beijing where German interests demand it, defend itself where necessary, and refuse to turn China policy into an extension of either American strategy or European ideological politics. For Germany, and therefore for Europe, that could become a genuinely transformative foreign-policy doctrine.

From cautious engagement to strategic realism
The AfD’s 2021 foreign-policy program already described China’s Belt and Road Initiative as a “century project” and called for Germany to participate actively, including by developing complementary connections from West to East. The idea was that if China was building the infrastructure connecting Eurasia, Germany should take advantage of it and represent its interests, not stand on the sidelines and complain about it.

By 2023, the position had become more explicitly geopolitical. When the German government published its China Strategy, AfD senior member Petr Bystron attacked it as an attempt to import American geopolitical confrontation into German foreign policy.

Then came the AfD’s first parliamentary delegation to China. In June 2023, Alice Weidel, Peter Felser and Bystron travelled to Shanghai and Beijing. The delegation’s conclusion was unequivocal: China had become too important for Germany to keep pretending that confrontation was a viable strategy. Felser rejected the idea of both “de-risking” and decoupling, promoted by other EU officials, and argued that German trade with China was simply too important to sacrifice to geopolitical fashion.

The 2025 federal election program adopted at Riesa consolidated this direction. China is treated as a major economic partner, while Germany is urged to protect its own technological and security interests. The party continues to support exploiting opportunities associated with the Belt and Road Initiative while rejecting the idea that Germany should subsidize a country that is already a major economic power.

No more moral foreign policy
Perhaps the deepest difference between the AfD and Germany’s political establishment is not actually about China. It is about what foreign policy is for.mThe AfD’s approach is realpolitik in the German interest, rather than moralpolitik. It explicitly endorses non-interference in the internal affairs of other states and rejects what it calls presumptuous lecturing and destabilizing intervention.

The AfD rejects making human-rights criticism the organizing principle of German-China relations. This does not require pretending that every Chinese policy is admirable. It does, however, mean refusing to make Germany’s relationship with a major sovereign power conditional on Berlin’s approval of its domestic political system. The AfD has argued that Western governments should stop behaving as if they were entitled to act as the world’s political schoolmasters. For Beijing, this is obviously a more comfortable basis for relations than the moralized language of mainstream Western European China policy.

The AfD does not consider all Chinese policies beyond criticism. It has criticized Chinese economic practices, strategic dependencies, technology transfers and the potential consequences of excessive state control over digital infrastructure and society. The party’s position is not ‘China is always right.’ It is ‘China is sovereign. Germany is sovereign. Let us deal with one another as sovereign powers.’

Partnership without dependence
The party wants more economic engagement with China while simultaneously warning Germany against excessive dependence on China. Felser, now chairman of the German-Chinese Parliamentary Group in the Bundestag, has repeatedly emphasized both sides of the equation. In February 2026, he described China as “by no means our enemy” but an “important partner,” while insisting that Germany must protect its “Mittelstand” and establish fair conditions for competition.

In March, he criticized the enormous dependence on China in strategic technologies and raw materials, contrasting German weakness with China’s systematic drive toward technological self-sufficiency. And in July, Felser warned against a trade war with China. Importantly, he did not deny the existence of Chinese dumping, “overcapacity” or competitive distortions. His argument was that tariffs are not an adequate substitute for negotiation.

By September, Felser went further: strategic dependence on China should be reduced not through decoupling, but by making Germany stronger – with lower taxes, less bureaucracy, and cheaper energy. China is not the problem; German weakness is. Germany should not become dependent on China. But neither should it destroy valuable relationships merely to demonstrate would-be ideological purity or geopolitical loyalty to another power.

The Weidel factor
Perhaps no one embodies this approach more naturally than Alice Weidel. The AfD co-leader’s knowledge of China doesn’t come exclusively from briefing papers. She studied in China, speaks Mandarin and has professional experience there. Her familiarity with the Chinese economy is unusual among senior European politicians.

That background provides the AfD with a senior political figure who approaches China neither as an exotic threat nor as a distant ideological abstraction, but as a country she has actually experienced – a rare trait in modern Western European politicians.

For a future German government, that kind of familiarity could be an asset, because China is not going away, and neither is Germany’s industrial dependence on the Chinese market. Pretending otherwise will not make the problem disappear.

[..] The stakes are larger than the AfD itself. Germany is the economic center of the European Union. If Berlin changes its understanding of China, the consequences will not stop at the German border.

A Germany that pursued pragmatic relations with Beijing, Moscow and Washington simultaneously would challenge the strategic assumptions that have governed Europe for decades.

A Germany that rejected automatic economic decoupling from China could force Europe to reconsider whether confrontation is really in its economic interest.

A Germany that put national sovereignty and multipolarity at the center of its foreign policy could fundamentally alter the balance between Berlin, Brussels and Washington.

The AfD’s policy is not about choosing China over America. It is about rejecting the idea that Germany must choose at all. It’s not a timid or ambiguous stance – on the contrary, it is unapologetically national, realist and multipolar.

And if the AfD eventually governs Germany, it may prove to be one of the most consequential political changes Europe has experienced in generations. A sovereign Germany engaging China on its own terms could be the beginning of a Europe that finally understands the world as it is – not as the liberal utopians once wished it to remain.

Read more …

EU demands that.

• EU Urges Kiev To Mobilize Women – Moscow (RT)

Brussels believes the move is needed to address the Ukrainian military’s severe manpower shortage, according to Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service Brussels is encouraging Kiev to start mobilizing women amid chronic manpower shortages and has demanded that Ukraine immediately make “a political decision” on the matter, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) has said.


Kiev launched its mobilization campaign soon after the conflict with Russia escalated in February 2022. Amid mounting frontline losses and desertions, the mobilization drive has grown increasingly violent. Recruitment officers have repeatedly been filmed chasing, beating, and forcibly detaining reluctant conscripts before bundling them into vehicles in what in Ukraine has become known as “basification.”

EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, described the idea of expanding the campaign to include women as “a step in the right direction” at a recent informal EU foreign ministers’ meeting, the SVR said on Thursday, citing information it had obtained. She allegedly warned that Kiev could soon run out of manpower due to a growing shortage of men fit for military service and said that Ukraine should use Israel as a “model to follow.”

The mobilization of women has long been a subject of debate in Ukraine. MP Mariana Bezuglaya argued as early as 2024 that it was time Kiev started targeting women to meet its conscription quota. Last year, the Ukrainian presidential administration’s deputy head, Brigadier General Pavel Palisa, also voiced support for mandatory conscription of women. According to the SVR, Brussels demanded that Kiev immediately “move from words to action” and make a formal decision to start mobilizing women. Under current Ukrainian law, men aged 25 to 60 are subject to mobilization, while those aged 23 to 60 are generally barred from leaving the country. Women can serve voluntarily.

Kiev’s brutal mobilization campaign has encountered large-scale draft-dodging and desertion. According to Euronews, around 1.15 million fighting-age Ukrainian men had ended up in the EU as of summer 2026, despite the ban on travelling abroad. According to the SVR, up to 5.6 million Ukrainians are currently residing in various European nations, with women accounting for 43.4% of them. Many men have proven ready to risk their lives to flee the country illegally through forests, rivers, and mountainous terrain.

In February, the head of the Ukrainian border agency, Andrey Demchenko, reported that over 70 apparent draft dodgers had died since 2022, most while trying to cross the Tisza River along Ukraine’s border with Hungary and Romania. Brussels has reportedly urged EU governments to devise legal mechanisms for sending back Ukrainian refugees residing in the bloc, the Russian intelligence service said, adding that the European Commission sees them as a reason behind the “rise of far-right sentiment” in countries such as Germany or Poland.

Some Western officials have also voiced support for the mobilization of Ukrainian women. Last year, former British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace said that Vladimir Zelensky should have launched a truly mass mobilization and conscripted all men and women, without sparing the younger generation. “Zelensky took a view that he was going to preserve the 18 to 28-year-olds, so it’s not a mass conscription,” Wallace said at the time, adding that the Ukrainian leader should have mobilized everyone and “asked Europe to train them because that is not a hard ask.”

Ben Hodges, a former top commander of US forces in Europe, argued earlier that Kiev should consider both drafting women and lowering the mobilization age to 18. “I also think that there is enough work for women in the army,” he stated.Moscow has repeatedly slammed Ukraine’s NATO backers as pushing the nation into a war “to the last Ukrainian,” describing the conflict as a Western proxy war against Russia fought through Ukraine.

Read more …

“It’s astonishing that anything exists.” — Ludwig Wittgenstein

• Light and Dark (James Howard Kunstler)


Joe DiGenova
Is this a week to drain our souls, or what? Yesterday, the memory of Charlie Kirk, a decent young man known for acting nobly in an ignoble era, cut down (it is alleged in court) by a pathetic product of Woke cultism — the trans avenging angel, avatar of our national mental illness. And today, the memory of 9/11, for which no alt-theory or engineering lecture can obviate the lonely arc of those little bodies free-falling out of the flaming towers into nothingness.


So, we move on because there is nothing else you can do, really. . . sad, furious, or what. . . and then do what you can to fix this joint. If this was a house in a storm, you’d be hearing the joists groan and the rafters squeak as they torque out of true, like just before the whole shootin’ match goes down. Meanwhile, news is out that Joe DiGenova, the former DC federal attorney supervising the grand jury action in Florida concerning RussiaGate and associated treasons, is out. He said he “resigned.” That’s usually a cover. Somebody gave him the boot, and it was either Todd Blanche or President Trump. Cuz, why? I suppose we’ll find out.

Trollish insinuations are flying in the usual channels that he couldn’t get enough evidence to bring any proper cases, but I don’t believe that for a horse-face Hochul’s New York minute, nor that Mr. DiGenova actually said anything like that. Anyway, at least twenty million civilians ‘out there’ have been following this constitutional death dance closely for years. We know the names, the acts, the memos, the emails, the money trails, the dots and the receipts by heart. Many can even recite long legal memoranda on the likes of John Brennan, Adam Schiff, Jim Comey, Hillary, Strzok, Page, blah blah, dates, times, document numbers.

Joe DiGenova is old, others say. Not a good organizer, turns out. . . not a good team leader. . . things like that. Well, maybe his force of personality or renowned avidity to correct epic insults to the nation concealed all that. Anyway, he was brought in to replace a federal attorney name of Maria Medetis Long, and I bet none of you even know her name. She was on the case down there in Florida during Pam Bondi’s unfortunate commission, too blah even to go down in infamy. To the casual observer, the whole wicked business begins to look like a Chinese fire drill.

Or possibly a circle-jerk. And, of course, everybody is wondering: what’s the blast radius on this one? Can the DOJ’s Southern District of Florida recover some kind of equipoise and carry on and usher this pretty large troupe of scoundrels into courts of law? Or is folding like a Broadway tryout in New Haven? Does it now all get sucked into some vortex of lost causes? And wouldn’t that be demoralizing?

My guess: these acts against the country and its people are too grave, too important, to just go away, and won’t go away. What the diGenova fumble seems to point to is that persons and parties behind that treason — and you might suppose I’m thinking: the Intel (so-called) “community” and its many-footed ancillaries — are both desperate and powerful enough to try to derail the process. Just imagine how many retired Intel rogues are out there after seventy-plus years of, say, the CIA alone. Must be a lot of them, imcluding the fifty-one ex-Intel bigshots who signed the Hunter Biden laptop public letter in 2020 to queer the election.

You’ve got to wonder whether the agency that John Ratcliffe is supposedly in charge of has an equally large shadow org of these people, perhaps operating under the likes of one ex-CIA honcho John Brennan. And then you have to wonder what machinery of government they’ve still got their mitts on? Or maybe they just put the word out that pursuing any just resolution of the traitorous trips laid on America by them could be bad for anyone’s health. In any case, I don’t hesitate to point out that the legions of ex-spooks and their bag-men all have names and records and. . . well. . . apply a little Anthropic hocus-pocus. . . we’ll know where you live and what you had for breakfast before the ten a.m. break.

What I’m getting at — and I regret even having to affect coyness — is that the departure of Joe diGenova could signify some Battle of the Titans, a civil war not on the ground between plain citizens too bamboozled by sexual hysteria to put up a fight, but between the general officer ranks of two opposing elite dominions, the legitimate and the shadow, the light and the dark.

The action won’t stay backstage for long. Barbarians really are at the gate, and that gate is the midterm election. America has gone so crazy that it doesn’t seem to even recognize how crazy many of the candidates for high office are. The shadow dominion appears to be behind them, too: Telarico, el-Sayed, Peggy Flanagan, Becerra, Hochul. . . Lord have mercy! These are not just not-normal people. They are outright sickies, working hard to wreck the country.

Well, Labor Day is gone and the blandishments of summer with it. Time to stop sulking. All hands on deck. The bell has rung.

Read more …

I haven’t paid any attention to the Lindsay Clancy thing, but here it is.

• The Secret to “Sleeping Well” (Turley)

I was surprised to hear on a flight this week that Lindsay Clancy’s defense counsel, Kevin Reddington, had unleashed a torrent of criticism of my commentary on the trial. In the interview with Fox News reporter Bryan Llenas, Reddington even suggested that we meet and debate these issues. I wanted to briefly respond to Reddington’s criticisms.


I actually praised Reddington’s handling through the end of the trial, until I felt he blew the summation to the jury. I was also critical of his motions to substitute a holdout juror with an alternate as running against the overwhelming authority in the area. However, what triggered Reddington was not my commentary on his trial performance, but what he did outside of the courthouse when he attacked the holdout juror. It was a repugnant and unprofessional venting by counsel who should be reaffirming the right of every juror to stand with their convictions against not just the other jurors but the world.

Reddington responded to my characterization of his conduct in front of the courthouse as “reprehensible” by calling my criticism reprehensible and adding, “maybe Jonathan Turley should check out the record before he makes his accusations.”

The “record” supporting this criticism is, in fact, his self-aggrandizing performance outside of the courthouse when he first said that the hung jury was “no time to gloat” and then gloated about how he “crushed” the prosecution in securing an 11-1 result. Yet, my objection was not to chest-thumping. It was a tad ungracious but unfortunately not entirely uncommon. Rather, it was the targeting of the holdout that left me floored as a fellow criminal defense lawyer.

Reddington had previously lit up the courtroom (which was being aired nationally) with his attacks on the juror. Reddington only knew that the other jurors were unhappy with the juror and said that he refused to follow the law. That is a common complaint against a holdout juror. This case turned on the credibility of the defendant and almost visceral reactions to a case where three innocent children were strangled by their mother, who planned the killings by sending her husband on errands.

I was mildly critical of the courtroom attacks, but I give leeway to a defense counsel who is fighting zealously for his client in seeking an acquittal. It was taking that rage outside the courthouse that crossed the line for me. Reddington slammed into the juror who was already identified as one of just three males on the jury. He knew the juror’s name would likely be disclosed in time, given the anger over the trial’s outcome.

We clearly disagree on what lawyers are expected to do in high-profile cases. This is not what I teach my students about the professional standards that govern our conduct as officers of the court. Most of those expectations are not directly enforced by bar or court proceedings. Rather, much of what we do is the result of self-regulation; seeking to reinforce the noble ideals of our profession.

Instead of reminding people that our system is based on this core belief in the right of any citizen to stand alone against the majority, Reddington shredded the juror as presumptively anti-disability and akin to a racist on the jury. In front of the cameras, he declared, “I hope that guy can sleep well at night.”

Reddington knew that he was playing to the mob. District Attorney Tim Cruz had just been heckled on the steps by women who protested throughout the trial in favor of acquittal of Clancy, with one yelling how Cruz “only cares about the three children. What about the Mom?”

Frankly, in the aftermath of the trial, the two things that surprised me most were not the verdict, but the absence of an immediate apology from Reddington for his gratuitous attack on this juror and the failure of Judge William Sullivan to publicly rebuke him for his comments.

While our disagreement focuses on the attack on the juror, Reddington returned to his claim that what this juror did was itself unethical and contemptible. This juror was not convinced by his arguments, but Reddington suggests that no reasonable juror could have reached such a view despite many in this country who saw his client as a troubled murderer, but a murderer nonetheless.

There was a good-faith basis for taking that view even if most people would likely see Clancy as not responsible by reason of insanity. The standard is not whether Clancy was medically ill. She was clearly a deeply disturbed individual who failed to receive adequate mental health treatment. However, you can be suicidal and mentally ill and still appreciate the gravity of your actions.

The defense position was not unassailable. The long list of medications ignored the fact that only a couple of those prescriptions would likely contribute to psychosis and it was not clear how many pills Clancy actually took. She also had a fairly unusual case of postpartum psychosis in terms of the passage of time and said that she first heard a commanding male voice for the first time just before she killed her children.

Most importantly, Clancy took steps that showed planning and control of her actions, including researching how long it would take her misdirected husband to return. She spoke with him on the telephone while she was carrying out the plan and kept him in the dark about her intent to kill their children.

Would that erase reasonable doubt in the minds of most jurors? Probably not. As I stated before the trial, the chances of getting a unanimous verdict in this type of case are slim. This is a visceral case, which is why I was not surprised that the jury asked only to see a couple of pieces of evidence. The views of most people were baked into this trial before it began, and frankly, that may have been true for some of the jurors.

Reddington has every reason to exploit those feelings and play to doubts among the jurors. What he did not have license to do was target and ostracize the one holdout juror. Rather than taking the high ground, he immediately ran for the lowest common denominator among a nation of rage addicts.

Yes, that is indeed reprehensible. To paraphrase Mr. Reddington, it is the type of thing that would keep most of us up at night.

Read more …

An age thing?

• To Hell with the Digital Revolution & Its Bastard Child AI (Paul Craig Roberts)

It has been pointed out that human interaction has been replaced by an app, a code, a portal that a large percentage of the population finds frustrating and inconvenient, especially for older people who did not grow up with the isolating and often difficult to use technology. The people who crammed this technology down our throats in order that they could make more money praise the “innovation.” But in fact it is a technology that isolates people and takes control away from them.


And brings failure. Not a week passes, and sometimes not a day, that I don’t experience the time-consuming failure of the digital systems to work. Why they fail so often I don’t know. Perhaps they are poorly thought out and will improve with time. Perhaps the instability in digital systems is due to the insecurity of the Internet, which requires more and more layers of security hoops to jump through in order to make a connection. One result is security system incompatibilities that result in dysfunction. Perhaps use is rising faster than the systems can accommodate.

I think the only reason there has not been a generalized breakdown is that there are some elements left of the analogue system that, with effort, can still be contacted to bypass or correct the dysfunctioning digital system. I just had another bad experience with “smart” people-free systems. I received an email telling me to confirm and do an early checkin online for an upcoming medical telephone appointment. Now you can do an annual checkup without having to see a doctor. I began the process and immediately encountered a problem. I was asked to confirm my telephone number. It was incorrect from three years ago.

I entered the correct number, and the red box appeared: “This is not the number we have on file. Please enter a correct number.” I had entered the correct number as requested in the update, but as far as the AI system was concerned the correct number was the old number. I puzzled why an old number was in the system as I have twice been in person in the office providing all the latest information and have even had telephone calls from the medical practice on the new number that AI tells me is not on file.

So I picked up my cell phone, which sometimes works, and called. I only had to wait 3 minutes for a human instead of being subjected to a callback within 48-hours, and in 2 more minutes the human had fixed the problem. I wondered how much the medical practice had paid for a digital system that did not work and was probably causing its patients stress-induced heart attacks.

I am convinced that the digital revolution and the AI it spawned will fail, because it will be overwhelmed by complexity. Moreover, once the quantum computers are up and running there will be no such thing as security. So bright boys will have institutionalized an insecure and dysfunctional system, a system whose achievement will have been to further dehumanize an already dehumanized society and impose massive costs for resurrecting the foolishly discarded analogue system which worked and did not dehumanize us.

When the digital system fails, who will there be with the skills and intelligence to rebuild the analogue system that worked? Will there even be a workforce available? The products of AI education are not capable of operating in an analogue system that relies on human ability. AI will have raised generations of illiterates who cannot read, write, do math and who have never learned to think. In the 1950s Mad comic book parodied our present time. AI operated everything, and one day the machine broke and no one knew how to fix it. Amazing that a comic book editor three-quarters of a century ago had more sense than the multi-billionaire architects of AI today.

Read more …

Why so much worse there?

• More Than 62,000 Arrested For Speech-Related Offenses In Britain (AmG)

More than 62,000 people were arrested in Britain for communications offenses over a five-year period, according to a new civil liberties report warning that the country’s increasingly broad speech restrictions are having a chilling effect on free expression. Big Brother Watch found that 62,199 people were arrested between 2021 and 2025, amounting to roughly 34 arrests per day. At least 18,500 people were charged and 12,292 were convicted, according to the organization.


The findings were based on Freedom of Information requests to police forces across the United Kingdom. Big Brother Watch said the actual number of arrests could be higher because some forces did not provide complete data. The report examined enforcement of communications laws that can cover threatening or grossly offensive messages and other online content. Big Brother Watch argues that broadly written statutes have resulted in people being investigated or arrested over controversial social media posts, jokes and other forms of expression.

The group also found stark geographical differences in enforcement. Cumbria Constabulary recorded about 25.7 arrests per 10,000 residents over five years, compared with just 1.9 in neighboring Northumbria.Big Brother Watch described the disparity as a “postcode lottery” that raises concerns about whether speech laws are being enforced consistently. The report follows growing scrutiny of Britain’s Online Safety Act, which imposes extensive content and child-safety requirements on internet platforms. Big Brother Watch says the law has encouraged platforms to restrict lawful material and require age verification for some online content.

Silkie Carlo, director of Big Brother Watch, called for an independent review of Britain’s speech laws and police practices. “Thousands of people are being arrested for controversial speech, online jokes and non-violent protest,” Carlo said. “Enough is enough.” The organization argues the figures demonstrate that Britain’s approach to policing speech needs significant reform, particularly when arrests do not ultimately result in criminal charges. Big Brother Watch is now calling on the government to conduct a national review of laws affecting freedom of expression and to reconsider police training on speech-related offenses.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle September 8 2026

Sep 082026
 
 September 8, 2026  Posted by at 10:15 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , ,  34 Responses »


Hokusai VIews of Mount Fuji: Ejiri in Suruga Province 1831


• USS Abraham Lincoln Returning Home After Being “Sunk” Three Times By Iran (ZH)
• AfD and the Most Dangerous Man in Germany (Charlie Martin)
• AfD’s Historic Win Shocks German Political Establishment (ZH)
• Happy Labor Day (CTH)
• Ukraine Cannot Be Settled Like A Business Deal ( Lukyanov)
• British Patriots Clash with Police as NGO Boats Arrive with Migrants (CTH)
• Democrats Have A Midterm Secret They Don’t Want Voters To See (Margolis)
• Good Faith v. Bad Faith (James Howard Kunstler)
• President Trump Lengthy Interview With U.K GB News (CTH)
• Sunday Fights: Energy Secretary Chris Wright vs CBS Margaret Brennan (CTH)
• When “Twelve Angry Men” Becomes One Angry Man (Turley)

 


 

https://twitter.com/AWills1995/status/2096628133902360658?s=20 https://twitter.com/RippleXrpie/status/2096580990772687048?s=20 https://twitter.com/MAGAVoice/status/2097053220053176816?s=20

 


 


How many other stories are being presented this way?

• USS Abraham Lincoln Returning Home After Being “Sunk” Three Times By Iran (ZH)

In yet another example of Iranian social media claims not matching up with reality, the nuclear powered Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln is returning home after a 286 day deployment and 5 days of rest at port in Thailand. The ship was untouched by any signs of combat, despite the IRGC claiming on at least three separate occasions that they had sunk the mighty vessel with drones and missile strikes.


Iranian aligned accounts even spread AI videos and video game clips of a ship sinking, arguing that the clips showed the Abraham Lincoln. Left wing commentators celebrated the news, only to scrub their posts after it was revealed that the information was fake.

Despite resounding evidence to the contrary, many conspiracy advocates asserted that the Lincoln had been hit and the US government was “covering it up.” This also turned out to be nonsense after the carrier arrived at Laem Chabang Port in Thailand for rest and cleaning.

The narrative then shifted, with people claiming that the Lincoln “looked damaged” and disheveled, which proved they were right about Iran hitting the vessel. In reality, the carrier had normal rust and residue caused by months at sea.

The posts exposed an embarrassing lack of basic knowledge when it comes to natural wear from sea water on naval ships facing long deployments.

https://twitter.com/SprinterPress/status/2095241132477460759?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2095241132477460759%7Ctwgr%5Ee579b198696ecbdcef99c7c185499aa0d8bed013%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fuss-abraham-lincoln-returning-home-after-being-sunk-three-times-iran

The ship was cleaned at port with no signs of damage from attack. It has now left Thailand on a return trip to the US and the Naval Air Station North Island in Coronado (San Diego).

The carrier and all its sailors are accounted for. The return of the USS Abraham Lincoln highlights an incessant disinformation campaign by Iran and Iran supporters, flooding social media with false claims in an effort to win the war in the theater of public opinion. On the ground, the vast majority of supposed IRGC successes have proven to be fake.

The Iran War and the war in Ukraine have become case studies for a new era of digital warfare. Substantial efforts are being made to “play the algorithms” and manipulate consensus. Iran, perhaps more than any government so far, has relied heavily on digital guerrilla tactics as a way to demoralize US operations. They have, of course, received extensive help from sources in the west.

Whether or not one agrees with the reasons behind the war, it is clear that propaganda alone is not going to lead to victory. Tangible realities matter and Iran is being hit with those tangibles in the form of an inflation crisis, import/export crisis and fuel shortage crisis and foreign ships passing more freely through the Strait of Hormuz.

The lesson here is simple: Online discourse is rarely a reflection of the truth. All one has to do is wait a few months for the fog of war to clear and the majority of false claims will melt away.

Read more …

Is Merz the Most Dangerous Man?

• AfD and the Most Dangerous Man in Germany (Charlie Martin)

Ulrich Siegmund, the head of the party in Saxony-Anhalt, himself received 49% of the vote in his district. The German political press is not happy. Der Spiegel — sort of Germany’s Time — ran a cover story on August 14 calling him “the most dangerous man in Germany.”

https://twitter.com/derspiegel/status/2087860828661797235?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2087860828661797235%7Ctwgr%5E99e09b2cc5d6391fe37f6812817fe01ea51dd91c%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpjmedia.com%2Fcharlie-martin%2F2026%2F09%2F07%2Fafd-and-the-most-dangerous-man-in-germany-n4956970


The German press reaction was just short of panic. Tagesschau, the German news program, headlined its story “AfD heads see a clear government mandate.” Die Zeit said, “AfD wins state election in Saxony-Anhalt, but failed to win an absolute majority.” Siegmund took the seat from Thomas Staudt of the CDU (Christlich Demokratische Union). The CDU is the main center-right party — where “center-right” is a little to the left of the American Democratic Party.

Siegmund was just one race, but the CDU suffered a real electoral bloodbath. The head of the state party, Sven Schulze, lost his seat to AfD’s Christian Mertens. German voters get two votes on the same ballot: one for a person in their district and one for a party. The district winner takes that local seat; the party vote decides how many seats the party gets overall, and the remaining seats are filled from a ranked party list published before the election, so Schulze will probably still have a seat from the party list.

Overall, CDU — which had control of the state — lost 41 seats. It won 0 district seats, so it fell from 40 to 15. The CDU can only retain control of the state’s legislature if it can form a coalition with every other party that won seats. That includes a new party, the BSW (Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht), which split from the left over migration and NATO/Ukraine skepticism. The FDP (Freie Demokratische Partei) — a classical liberal party, not what we call “liberal” — got no seats at all. This was a major defeat, as FDP has been part of the CDU-SPD-FDP coalition that had governed until the election.

N-tv, a private news network sort of like Germany’s CNN, had this to say: When the CDU loses a state election, it always feeds back into federal politics — especially when the CDU is the party in government. What happened in Saxony-Anhalt, though, blows past anything seen before. The CDU there was cut in half; the AfD doubled. That doesn’t just raise questions. It puts federal politics itself in doubt.

Friedrich Merz, after all, is a historically unpopular chancellor. That has to do with broken campaign promises, clumsy communication, and sloppy craftsmanship. Best example: his sparse campaign appearances in Saxony-Anhalt. Party colleagues there hid him on factory visits and carefully avoided any contact with actual people. Mecklenburg-Vorpommern recently showed what happens next: whistles and boos.

The current German government and associated NGOs are trying to formally ban the AfD. This started when the Verfassungsschutz, the domestic intelligence service, tried to classify the AfD as “confirmed right-wing extremist”, although it was blocked for the moment after the AfD sued. But several state branches — including Saxony-Anhalt — are already classified as confirmed extremist. An attempt was made in the Bundestag to examine formally banning AfD, and an NGO, the GFF (Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte), published a 1,500-page legal analysis supporting the potential ban. So far, the government hasn’t attempted to actually ban the AfD.

It’s easy to understand why Germany is suspicious of “right-wing” parties, especially after the National Socialist “Nazi” party was defined as “right wing.” But the AfD is more like the MAGA movement, and the AfD is certainly courting the link — which is naturally used by the legacy press as a smear. The curse “may you live in interesting times” should probably be translated to German.

Read more …

They hope it’s only in a small state.

• AfD’s Historic Win Shocks German Political Establishment (ZH)

The pro-Germany, anti-globalist, anti-mass migration right-wing populist party known as Alternative für Deutschland delivered its strongest election result ever in Saxony-Anhalt on Sunday, dealing a sharp blow to Germany’s political establishment. On Sunday, AfD secured 43.8% of the vote in Sunday’s regional election, exceeding polling estimates. Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s Christian Democrats lost about 19 percentage points, while turnout surged to 77.8% from 60.3% in 2021.


According to Marion Mühlberger, a senior economist at Deutsche Bank, AfD’s weekend win leaves the party holding 39 seats in the 83-member legislature, three short of an absolute majority. The CDU, Social Democrats, Greens and Left also have a combined 39 seats. Mühlberger said there are two possible outcomes of what comes next: an AfD minority government tolerated by BSW, or a political stalemate that leads to a snap election, which would only give AfD a new opportunity to secure outright control.

Mühlberger explained:”At the time of writing, the two most likely options are i) an AfD minority government (supported by the BSW) or ii) a stalemate resulting in snap elections, with the AfD hoping to reach an absolute majority rather than attempting a minority government. AfD leadership for now appears undecided on their preference: while national co-leader Chrupalla last night indicated a willingness to try a minority government, AfD’s lead candidate in Saxony-Anhalt, Ulrich Siegmund, already suggested a snap election as his preferred option, saying that “the AfD is not prepared to make far- reaching compromise to form a coalition.”

We believe that even an AfD (minority) government supported by the BSW would have materially detrimental ramifications for the economic prospects of Saxony-Anhalt over the coming years. Direct investment in the state would likely decline amid significant policy uncertainty, and skilled worker shortages would likely become even more pronounced. However, Saxony-Anhalt contributes less than 2% of German GDP, and any structural damage done to the regional economy is unlikely to spill over to the rest of the German economy. While an AfD state government might test some of Germany’s federal institutions, it will have no leverage over national economic or fiscal policy, not even via the constitutional court.

Over the course of today, we will see leaders of the coalition parties in Berlin officially react to their parties’ weak electoral performance. Chancellor Merz is expected to give a press statement today at 13.30 CET. There will likely be considerable political noise over the couple of weeks ahead of the state elections on 20 September in Berlin and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. There may be some criticism of party leadership and reform proposals. However, once these final state elections of the year are over, we believe that an AfD government in Saxony-Anhalt is likely to provide an additional impetus for the federal government coalition to double down on reforms.”

Mühlberger said the five seats held by the populist BSW will be decisive: “Thus, the populist BSW, with its 5 seats, has a key role to play in the upcoming coalition negotiations as potential kingmakers. While the AfD missed their 45+% / absolute majority election target, they missed it so narrowly that it seems difficult for them to not aim for governing Saxony-Anhalt


As no single party reached an absolute majority needed to govern alone, coalition negotiations for entering a formal coalition or receiving ad hoc support for a minority government will kick off today. The BSW has theoretically three options once the new parliament has convened and the next state premier is to be elected. First, they could elect the AfD lead candidate as state premier (without entering a formal coalition), second they could elect the CDU lead candidate or third they could abstain in the first two ballots for state premier. Judging from statements of BSW co-leaders (at the federal level) Wagenknecht and Ali yesterday night,1 we deem the first option the most likely. What comes next? There are two options:

Option 1 – BSW abstains in third round facilitating an AfD minority government This morning, BSW leader Wagenknecht called for a “political reset” in Saxony- Anhalt, especially when it comes to energy policy, sanctions against Russia (which however are set at the EU level), education, and public broadcasting. Thus, there is a certain overlap of political priorities with the AfD. However, the BSW does not want to enter a formal coalition with the AfD.

With the AfD rejecting the BSW’s proposal for an independent state premier, an AfD minority government tolerated by the BSW seems to be a possible outcome. This means that the BSW would not enter a formal coalition with the AfD, but elect the AfD lead candidate as state premier in an informal cooperation.

Option 2 – The route to snap elections The newly elected parliament must convene for the first time by 6 October at the latest. But the regional constitution does not set a deadline for electing a state premier. Until a new government is elected, Sven Schulze will remain in office leading the caretaker government. As government formation could turn out to be complex, snap elections may be a possible way out. The AfD’s lead candidate Siegmund already suggested this as a potential option, saying that the AfD is not prepared to make far-reaching compromise to form a coalition.

There are three routes to snap elections: If the newly elected parliament does not elect a state premier with an absolute majority after two ballots, it can decide with an absolute majority to dissolve itself before a third ballot. Six months after the election, the new parliament can decide with a two- thirds majority to dissolve itself. A newly elected state premier could call a vote of confidence. This could be a viable option for an AfD minority government, confident of winning an absolute majority in snap elections.

It is highly uncertain that snap elections would generate clear majorities. What could help the AfD is the narrative that the other parties want to keep them out of power, and that they now need a clear mandate. Moreover, smaller parties would again be at risk of not making the 5% hurdle, which would help the AfD. On the other hand, the strong AfD performance could again mobilise the centrist forces to avoid the AfD winning an absolute majority.

Mühlberger’s assessment was that an AfD majority in Saxony-Anhalt could weaken investment and aggravate skilled-worker shortages. She cited policy uncertainty, the party’s anti-mass migration agenda, and potential conflict with the civil service. For Merz, the most consequential challenge is containing AfD’s momentum in the upcoming elections in Berlin and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern on Sept. 20.

Read more …

Sorry, day late.

• Happy Labor Day (CTH)

Labor Day hits a little different this year, as there are elements outside our assembly seeking to fracture the coalition of pragmatic conservatives. The noise is louder, the distractions more intense and the stakes of resetting the economic balance sheet in favor of Main Street are higher. For all of those reasons and more, it seems more difficult to keep moving forward with economic nationalism as the roadmap.


However, we remind ourselves that everything of great purpose comes from within, and from a loving God. As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn famously said: “The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie. One word of truth outweighs the world.”

It’s Labor Day in America. We pause and celebrate work, productivity, problem solving, and the value of our workforce. A nation built on ingenuity – so long as we tend the flickering flame of liberty. So, to all of you who do not take part in the grand lies and manipulations that surround us, THANK YOU!


No other nation on earth was conceived to allow people to manifest their own destiny while keeping government out of their lives. The vision, the premise and the purpose, was to allow you the freedom to determine your place in life; and even, at any time, change that determination and strike off in an entirely new direction. Our American labor and aspirations would not be pre-determined by caste, tier, creed or social status; but rather by our personal vision for our own future. The right of self-determination. This is a uniquely American attribute.

Labor Day is a moment when we reflect on the value of work, the great benefit of endeavors achieved, the pride in accomplishment -regardless of scale- amid this thing we call life. But ultimately, all of these considerations have absolutely nothing to do with the money we assemble in the process. We ain’t taking any of it with us folks.

When you hold open the door, you make a difference. When you choose to stand against fraud and deceit, you make a difference. When you pray with purpose you make a difference. When you hold no tolerance for chaos, you make a difference. When you show up, even when you are not sure what comes next, you make a difference. When you achieve in silence because silence is not a mistake, you make a difference.

It is who you are that makes a difference. That is the currency of our life. Regardless of your chosen occupation or effort, you do it well. You live your standard. You have paid the price for your peace. Be proud of yourself. Allow the method of your labor to express the value of who you are and celebrate the accomplishment.

You matter!

Thank you for your fellowship and for your kindness.

With warmest personal regards,

Happy Labor Day!

Read more …

“Why American peace diplomacy keeps going in circles..”

Lukyanov thinks US is not capable of understanding Russia’s ways.

• Ukraine Cannot Be Settled Like A Business Deal ( Lukyanov)

Diplomatic efforts to end an acute and bloody armed conflict should always be welcomed and the persistence of Donald Trump’s administration, which has pursued this goal for more than a year and a half, also deserves recognition, even if the results so far can hardly be called outstanding.


At the very least, the White House remains the only actor in the West both attempting to change the situation and possessing significant leverage over it. Trump and his closest associates probably do genuinely want the war to end as its continuation distracts Washington from foreign policy priorities they regard as more important. But why, then, does Trump’s diplomatic initiative keep going round in circles, with each new attempt ending in another disappointment?

Trump and his principal envoys tend to approach the conflict as an extraordinarily difficult but essentially technical problem, as a puzzle to be solved in isolation from the wider international system. This reflects the worldview of the current White House, where international affairs are a collection of practical problems to be resolved in ways that strengthen America’s position, preferably with some commercial benefit attached. Given the professional backgrounds of the president and his two principal intermediaries, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, this is hardly surprising.

Such an approach can be useful as an instrument, but it becomes less useful when it substitutes for an understanding of the processes that produced the conflict in the first place and, to use the Russian formulation, its root causes. Any durable settlement requires some understanding of what must change in relations between the major powers if similar confrontations are to be avoided.

Trump repeatedly insists that the war would never have begun had he been president in 2022 with the implication that Joe Biden and the Democrats were simply too incompetent to prevent it. Trump has occasionally acknowledged that NATO’s long expansion eastward contributed to the crisis, but he generally shows little interest in the broader military and political processes behind it.

Yet American and NATO policy towards Ukraine wasn’t created by one administration or a handful of officials in Washington and Brussels, rather it developed over decades from a particular conception of Western strategic interests. The crisis that entered its most acute phase in 2022 was, from Moscow’s perspective, the culmination of processes underway since the end of the Cold War.

This helps explain why Washington continues to underestimate how much the outcome matters to the principal participants. For both Russia and Ukraine, too much is at stake for the conflict to be settled through the kind of transaction Trump instinctively favors, given their interests are obviously opposed, but both regard the outcome as fateful. Western Europe, having invested heavily in Ukraine’s cause, also has a direct political stake in the result, so every new attempt by Washington’s two brokers therefore encounters the same obstacle in that none of the parties sees this as simply another deal.

There’s another contradiction in the American position because Washington wishes to become the principal mediator in a conflict whose continuation it has materially supported.The US position has certainly changed under Trump as Washington’s previous fixation on Ukraine has diminished considerably. Trump would prefer America to step back while retaining decisive influence over what happens next, but that is precisely where the difficulty begins.

Transferring the financial burden, political responsibility and risks to the Western Europeans while continuing to dictate the terms requires a degree of obedience from junior partners that Washington can no longer guarantee. EU governments and Kiev have also learnt how to deal with this unconventional president and when they can’t persuade him, they have become increasingly adept at circumventing his pressure.

The one American instrument against which there would be little defence is a complete cessation of military support, but Trump is unlikely to take that step, even if he were personally inclined to do so because facilitating an outright Russian victory isn’t his objective. He may care less than his predecessor about the precise shape of the eventual settlement, but a complete Ukrainian defeat would be another matter. Nor would abandoning Ukraine enjoy much support across the American political establishment, where there is virtually no constituency for a fundamental rapprochement with Russia.

Read more …

Goverment treason.

• British Patriots Clash with Police as NGO Boats Arrive with Migrants (CTH)

Apparently, there was an organized boatlift of north African migrants crossing from France into the U.K earlier today. Various non-governmental organizations were in place with tents and supplies to assist the migrants upon arrival. By most accounts the influx appears to have been facilitated by NGO’s working with British authorities. However, at various ports where the migrants arrived, they were met with hundreds of young British men who attempted to blockade the activity of the police and nefarious human traffickers.


Telegraph – Hundreds of protesters have clashed with police in Portsmouth after a mega-dinghy carrying 140 migrants reached the UK from Normandy.Around 500 demonstrators are believed to have joined a protest in the area on Sunday night, with some dressed in all black – similar to those who joined an anti-illegal migrant protest which blocked the Port of Dover on Saturday.The large boat of migrants – believed to be the longest-ever Channel crossing by people-smugglers – was intercepted in the Solent between the Isle of Wight and Portsmouth earlier on Sunday.

Police used riot shields and pepper spray to force the crowds back, but the line broke through the weight of numbers. Protesters then made their way inside the marina compound. Earlier, George Madgwick, the leader of Reform UK in Hampshire, wrote in a post on X that “over 100 migrant men” had arrived on the Portsmouth shore.The French coastguard said it had detected the mega-dinghy, which was shadowed by a number of rescue boats in case it got into difficulties. Authorities estimated that up to 140 people were on board the vessel, 90 short of the record 230 who crossed on a similar boat last month.

[…] In a livestream from the scene, Daniel Thomas, known as Danny Tommo – an associate of Right-wing activist Tommy Robinson – encouraged viewers to travel to Portsmouth to join the protest.Thomas could be seen standing in the sea at the Eastney shingle beach, alongside a small group of other protesters, with police officers looking on.“Roads are all blocked, they are never going to be able to leave here,” Thomas said. He added: “It was only yesterday (at the protests in Dover) when we warned them that we will not accept this any more, and that this is no longer an option to tell us that the boat numbers are down.

“This isn’t about the numbers being down… this is about understanding that this has to come to an end now.” The mega-dinghy – launched from a beach east of Cherbourg in the Baie de la Seine – reflects a change in tactics used by people-smugglers, who have started loading more migrants on to fewer and larger vessels, partly because of the success of law enforcement in disrupting boat and equipment supply chains. (read more) https://twitter.com/TRobinsonNewEra/status/2096749963250164204?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2096749963250164204%7Ctwgr%5E14a1fdc000c3321ec76c5c1444e562133fe679bb%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheconservativetreehouse.com%2Fblog%2F2026%2F09%2F06%2Fbritish-patriots-clash-with-police-as-organized-ngo-boats-arrive-with-unwanted-migrants-on-the-coast%2F

https://twitter.com/GuntherEagleman/status/2096746349907652886?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2096746349907652886%7Ctwgr%5E14a1fdc000c3321ec76c5c1444e562133fe679bb%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheconservativetreehouse.com%2Fblog%2F2026%2F09%2F06%2Fbritish-patriots-clash-with-police-as-organized-ngo-boats-arrive-with-unwanted-migrants-on-the-coast%2F
Read more …

“They don’t even put anything out because it’s so unpopular. What are they going to say? ‘We’re going to abolish ICE’? No one wants to do that, Harold.”

• Democrats Have A Midterm Secret They Don’t Want Voters To See (Margolis)

With roughly two months left before the midterm elections, Democrats still don’t have a lock on winning back the majority, despite nearly everything in the political environment supposedly being in their favor. Between history, President Donald Trump’s approval ratings, and gas prices, polls should consistently give them a huge edge. Yet the most recent Harvard-Harris poll showed the GOP ahead by two points among likely voters on the generic congressional ballot.


The reason isn’t complicated once you look at what Democrats are actually campaigning on: nothing.Think about it. Their entire pitch is about resisting Donald Trump. Ask what they would do with a majority, and you’ll get vague talking points about affordability (something they failed miserably at when they were in power) instead of an actual policy agenda. That’s deliberate, and it’s the same playbook Democrats ran in 2020: sound moderate enough to win the general election, then govern like radicals when you’re in power.

Jesse Watters spelled out exactly why during a heated back-and-forth with Harold Ford Jr. on The Five last week, and it was more revealing than anything Democrats have said about their own strategy. “Your party is nuts, all right,” Watters told Ford. “They don’t even put anything out because it’s so unpopular. What are they going to say? ‘We’re going to abolish ICE’? No one wants to do that, Harold.” Ford insisted that the DSA, not the DNC, supports abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which isn’t true. “No. The DNC voted to get rid of ICE last week. I think you were on vacation,” Watters quipped.

Watters then brought up the example Democrats should be embarrassed to have avoided: Newt Gingrich’s 1994 Contract with America, a written, public, specific policy platform that Republicans ran on and that preceded their historic victory in which they won a House majority. “Remember Newt’s Contract [with] America?” Watters asked. “Put it out. I mean, I dare you guys to put it out.” They won’t take him up on it. Why? Because if Democrats actually laid out their real agenda and demanded that voters hold them to it, they’d never win.

“You guys want to nationalize the $2 trillion health insurance industry. You can’t do it because it’s stupid, Harold. You guys want to do the Green New Deal again? It didn’t work, you can’t do it,” Watters said. Both ideas failed to pass even when Democrats held the House, the Senate, and the White House at the same time. A party doesn’t campaign on ideas this unpopular.


That leaves House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) squeezed between two factions that want opposite things. The activist wing of his caucus wants confrontation: impeachment votes, government shutdowns, investigations into anything connected to Trump. The party’s presidential hopefuls want the opposite because they know the general-election electorate has no appetite for it. Jeffries doesn’t have enough control over his own caucus to make either side back down, which is exactly why the Democrat Party’s message heading into November amounts to three words: “orange man bad.”

If their ideas were popular, they’d run on them the way Gingrich did in 1994. The fact that they won’t tell you what they’re planning is the clearest evidence yet that they already know you wouldn’t vote for it.

Read more …

“In conditions of mass democracy, the soft and the infantilising will be preferred over the hard and the necessary again and again.” —Eugyppius on X

• Good Faith v. Bad Faith (James Howard Kunstler)


Massachusetts Women Demonstrating in Favor of Triple Child Homicides

Clusterfuck Nation never sleeps, even while everybody else lays aside their labors. Later today we’ll light up the ceremonial grill, but for now it’s onto the tribulations of this dolorous moment in history.


It was just such a sparkling September morning twenty-five years ago when those hijacked airliners knifed into the World Trade Center towers (plus the Pentagon + a field outside Shanksville, PA). Despite all the forensic debate since then, I go with the original explanation that four teams of jihadi maniacs did the 9/11 deed. And also, yet, despite all the official defenses mounted since then — the Patriot Act, etc. — here we are allowing a massive Islamic infiltration and even takeover of many places in America, proving, at least, that history is trickster.

After the trauma of 9/11, you can’t deny our country went off the rails psychologically, along with the rest of Western Civ, as if its immune system broke down and the body politic admitted all kinds of malevolent parasites into itself. They have induced disease in most of society’s organs — our institutions — the main political parties, the news media, the government agencies, the foundations, the schools, the arts & letters. The West’s collective brain got badly damaged in the process.

The disease is identifiable, though some of its mechanisms remain mysterious. The disease is called bad faith: acting or speaking falsely, and knowingly so. Pretending one thing as a cover for meaning something else, such as hollering about “justice” when you really mean vengeance; “inclusion” when you mean to cancel others out of careers and livelihoods; “diversity” when you won’t tolerate disagreement; “democracy” when you just want to push everybody else around.

The forces behind all this give off an odor of the occult. You can perhaps name and locate some of the engines driving it — the “Globalists,” the Marxists, the London banks, the EU, the WEF, the São Paulo Forum, the CCP — but their motives remain obscure. Angela Merkel has stated plainly why she allowed the mass immigration of the Third World into Germany (and thereby into all Europe due to the Schengen agreement that erased the EU nations’ borders): “to counter right-wing extremism,” she said. That sounds pretty clear, but it also seems quite crazy. And why on earth does Ursula von der Leyen do everything possible to keep that going? Have the migrants not sufficiently demonstrated their antipathy to Western society? How many rapes, knifings, beheadings, café massacres, and Christmas Village drive-throughs does it take?

It’s also hard to fathom how the London bankers (whoever they are?) have any sympathy with the Marxist revolutionaries who want to end the concept of private property and the instrumentalities of money that go with it. Or how the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations became so enamored of socialism. Or why the CIA seems bent on betraying the American common good. Or how come the League of Women Voters stridently opposes common sense election reform.

The race hustle is more comprehensible. It operates within a permission-structure built on the agonizing differential between success and failure. It’s just plain extortion: our failure is your fault, so pay up. And meanwhile, thanks for no-bail-and-no-jail, and for permission to shoplift, rape, murder, loot, and riot when we feel like it. (And cry harder about it.) It’s an obvious sado-masochistic setup.

The gender game gets more complicated, but it also comes out of a permission-structure based on success / failure, aggravated by a mutual shortage of marriageable males and females forced to compensate for any combination of bad luck and bad choices that lead to failure in life. But that dynamic has been neatly hijacked by groups seeking to create as much social chaos as possible. Why else would the Democratic Party get so avid for drag queen story hours in the early school grades? Is it not obvious that this isn’t really comedy, as claimed? Rather, it’s the presentation of women as monsters. Have you ever stopped to wonder how many of the kids watching these exhibitions are actually terrified by the disturbed adult males acting-out in their faces?

And now, the gender lunacy has climaxed — in Massachusetts, arguably the craziest US state — where mobs of deranged women chant and blubber in sympathy outside the courthouse where a mother who strangled her three kids just got off the hook. The kids were unfairly cluttering up Lindsey’s life, you understand. . . .If anything is an apt tipping point for a society to go one way or another, there it is.

Read more …

FYI

• President Trump Lengthy Interview With U.K GB News (CTH)

Against the popular uprisings currently taking place in Great Britain, this interview takes on additional context. Last week, just before the civil protests broke out on the shores of the U.K, President Trump sat down for an interview with GB News about issues and current events that hit both sides of the Atlantic.


President Trump answers questions about topics that pertain to both the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as well as the interconnectivity of the relationship to the United States. The interview is pragmatic, focused and deliberate as President Trump presents his perspectives on the challenges that face both nations.

Obviously one of the key policy issues facing the U.K is the topic of migration, and President Trump puts the issue into a factual framework of government accepting the problem. These are choices being made by political leadership against the interests of their citizens. The interviewer, Bev Turner, is fraught with political correctness and somewhat stunned by President Trump’s lack of pretense. WATCH:

Read more …

“It’s the western hemisphere, Margaret”

• Sunday Fights: Energy Secretary Chris Wright vs CBS Margaret Brennan (CTH)

The Sunday pearl clutching begins with CBS’s Margaret Brennan directing her adversarial prose toward U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright.


Secretary Wright is such a pro in this interview. “It’s the western hemisphere, Margaret”

[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: We begin today with the U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, who joins us from Denver. Mr. Secretary, it is Labor Day, and Secretary Bessent had predicted we’d see three-dollar gas by September 20th, depending on the Iran talks. Do you think we’re going to be back at three bucks in the next two weeks?

SECRETARY OF ENERGY CHRIS WRIGHT: Well, we’ve passed peak demand time with Labor Day tomorrow, the end of the summer driving season, and the Trump administration a couple weeks ago rolled out a change in regulations that’ll allow American refiners to produce more gasoline and diesel with their existing equipment. So, seeing demand likely go down in the next few weeks and supply going up, I think prices headed downward is- is not an unreasonable expectation.

MARGARET BRENNAN: What about the diesel fuel that trucks and trains rely so heavily on? We saw that record high price of $5.89 a gallon this week. Is for example, an export ban off the table?

SEC. WRIGHT: You want to keep as much energy flowing as possible. The diesel situation has been challenging because Russian refineries have suffered significant damage. Russia used to be a meaningful exporter of diesel. Today, today they don’t export any diesel, and in fact, they’ve become a meaningful importer of gasoline. So its global refining capacity is why gasoline and diesel prices are high, even more than oil prices. And this is- for 17 years, Democrat policies have been attack hydrocarbons, get as many refineries and coal plants closed. You could summarize their energy and climate policies in two words, expensive energy.

[..]

Read more …

Weird.

• When “Twelve Angry Men” Becomes One Angry Man (Turley)

“I hope that guy can sleep well at night.”


Those words from Kevin Reddington on the steps of the Plymouth, Massachusetts Courthouse were part of a diatribe against the “guy” who was reportedly the sole holdout in the Lindsay Clancy trial. The scene was a fitting end to a visceral trial, but it added a vindictive element that should prompt Judge William Sullivan to call out the seasoned defense attorney.

After declaring that the 11-1 mistrial was “no time to gloat,” Reddington bragged repeatedly about “crushing” District Attorney Tim Cruz, whom he also attacked. He insisted that, in the trial, no one said a single negative thing about his client as a mother — ignoring that little matter of the three young children whom she had strangled to death, one by one.

But it was his attack on the holdout juror that was a breathtaking abandonment of restraint and decency. Reddington knows it is very likely that the name of this juror (he has already been identified as one of only three males on the jury) will eventually be uncovered by Internet sleuths. He effectively put a target on the back of a juror who committed the unpardonable sin of not being convinced by his arguments.The fact that this is one of the three male jurors only ramped up the rage. This case prompted a striking gender divide between men and women, with many women expressing sympathy for Clancy and anger at the system for failing her.

For Reddington and many viewers, the hung jury was less “Twelve Angry Men” and more like “One Angry Man.” Indeed, in addition to attacking the juror, women outside of the courthouse heckled Cruz as he tried to speak to the press, shouting that he “only cares about the three children. What about the Mom?” Reddington followed up by saying that Cruz really did not care about the children (because he looked down to read their names). He also accused the holdout jurors of wasting the time of the jury, complaining “that guy stole seven weeks from those jurors.”

It was an ironic twist on the 1957 classic. In that movie, Juror number eight (Henry Fonda) was repeatedly attacked for “wasting time” and not yielding to the majority — until he ultimately convinced all of his peers.

Earlier in the day, Reddington had asked a Massachusetts Supreme Court justice for an emergency order to force Sullivan not to declare a mistrial, and instead to remove the holdout in favor of an alternate. It was an utterly meritless effort, but Reddington used the filing to further denounce the juror. He compared the juror’s refusal to vote for his client as akin to leaving a racist on a jury. In this case, he suggested that the “guy” was a virtual anti-disability version of “Bull” Connor or some deranged “ableist.”

The rising hatred toward this juror reflects how an act deemed noble in one context can be denounced as craven in another.Take the 1957 classic movie. Viewers love to watch Henry Fonda stand alone against his fellow jurors to raise reasonable doubt in favor of the young defendant. But in this version, the sole juror believed that his fellow jurors were ignoring the defendant’s culpability. Imagine the movie’s outcome if Reddington’s approach had been accepted in 1957, where Fonda could be pulled into court, questioned about his intransigence, and ultimately replaced with an alternate in order to flip the vote.

For all of the anger it has generated, the Clancy trial shows the best of our justice system. We have a system in which a single juror can stand against not only the rest of the jury, but against the world. The trial showed zealous counsel on both sides and a conscientious judge who ensured a fair trial despite the powerful emotions in society. You can disagree with this juror and the outcome but still celebrate that our legal system comes down not to judges or lawyers, but to simple citizens doing justice in thousands of cases a year. It comes down to whether every juror can vote not for a popular choice, but for a moral one.

That is why some of us were so shocked by Reddington’s public attack on this one juror. This is not who we are supposed to be as officers of the court. We stand in the path of the mob, not leading it. In another great movie, “To Kill a Mockingbird,” Gregory Peck captured that role from the novel most vividly as Atticus Finch, standing before a jail to stop a lynch mob. Finch showed that the strength of any legal system is ultimately only as strong as each individual’s ability to stand alone. He tells his daughter Scout, “The one thing that doesn’t abide by majority rule is a person’s conscience.”

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/2097078858826580400?s=20

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle September 7 2026

Sep 072026
 
 September 7, 2026  Posted by at 9:06 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  30 Responses »


Vasily Kandinsky Capricious Line 1924


• One Major Shift Can Solve the Iran Problem and So Much More (CTH)
• Wright and Bessent Explain the Squeeze on Iran (David Manney)
• View from Russia: Experts on why Kushner and Witkoff came to Moscow (RT)
• How Britain Built A War Network Around Russia (Yanovsky)
• AfD Sweeps Saxony-Anhalt Election In First “Far Right” Victory Since WW2 (ZH)
• France Can’t Finance Ukraine Forever – Le Pen Party’s Head (RT)
• Leftists Are Erasing the Truth About 9/11 From Classrooms (Matt Margolis)
• Asylum Denials Hit 94% in June (Catherine Salgado)
• The U.S. Has 13 Times the Economy — Carney Has 13 Times the Pout (Florack)
• U.S. Job Growth of 162,000 vs Canada Job Losses -42,000 (CTH)
• Operation Twist 2.0, 2032 Gold Target & 100,000 Robotic Soldiers (Armstrong)

 


 

https://twitter.com/PeterSweden7/status/2096209394350412223?s=20 https://twitter.com/thewriterme/status/2096314115060887761?s=20

 


 


This from Sundance is brilliant, and he thinks Trump is aware. . If Trump makes peace with Russia, their oil comes in to the market and lowers the price enough to sink the Iran regime. End the war with Iran, end the war in Ukraine. Lower the price at the pump. One fell swoop.

• One Major Shift Can Solve the Iran Problem and So Much More (CTH)

History has a tendency to rhyme. There is one move on the geopolitical chessboard that can put all of the U.S. and President Trump’s problems into an immediate checkmate. However, the forces against the alignment are significant. If President Trump can end the Ukraine-Russia conflict and end the sanctions regime against Russia, everything changes.


Bringing Russian oil, gas and natural resources back into the global economy not only removes all leverage held by Iran, but it also wipes out intransigent resistance against the geopolitical reset and upends over a hundred years of EU and Commonwealth financial manipulation.


Not only does the Iran problem immediately shift, but so too does any/all leverage carried by Canada on behalf of London and the broader commonwealth structure. With a U.S-Russia strategic economic alliance, something factually stated at the end of every message from Moscow, the dynamics of global structures is entirely different. However, all the oppositional interests are well aware of the consequence and their actions reflect it. The United States and Russia ended World War II. A U.S-Russia alliance would change everything.

Who would benefit from such a strategic partnership? The USA, Russia, India, China, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States (GCC), ASEAN countries and even Japan and the Caribbean, including Cuba.

Who would oppose such a seismic shift? The U.K, specifically the financial constructs within the City of London, Canada, the EU-NATO states, all the Commonwealth countries and the Five-Eyes group (Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the U.K and the U.S. Intelligence Community).

Now we have appropriate context for the dynamic of the issue, along with context for exactly why all oppositional elements are conducting current activity. A strategic partnership between the U.S. and Russia represents an existential threat to all the old systems – everything. The first step would be solving the Ukraine-Russia conflict. So, let’s look at that problem specifically and how a transactional approach might frame the four corners of an end to it.


Russia now occupies approximately 20% of the Ukraine land mass in eastern Ukraine and they are not going to ever concede it again. For the Federation of Russia, represented by Vladimir Putin and the overwhelming majority of those within influence inside the Federation, the NATO encroachment is an existential threat long term. Russia views the objective of the legacy system powers as intent on taking Russia apart. Ukraine represents their immediate shot to stop this from happening. All prior agreements and treaties by EU and NATO agreements were violated. Russia will no longer allow the wolves to circle their camp.

Looking at the challenge through the transactional prism, a ceasefire may include Russia retaining their current land gains, while giving up the confiscated $500 billion sovereign wealth fund as the purchase price. The fund could be considered reparations by Zelenskyy and his EU-NATO handlers, it matters not. What matters more than the sovereign wealth fund in this transaction, is the elimination of western sanctions.

With sanctions removed, immediately the Russian economy surges with sales of oil, gas, minerals and raw materials back to the global market. With the Iran conflict still afoot all that oil and gas carries a higher value. That is the pricing dynamic that makes loss of the Russian sovereign wealth fund more contextualized. However, with all of those abundant natural resources now back in the global supply chain, the leverage for all other western countries that rely on their natural resources, specifically Canada, is diminished.

Russian oil and gas could flow immediately and easily back into Europe. Currently, the power structures within the EU, those more concerned about raw power and control than the financial health and livelihood of their citizens, are against a return of cheap and abundant energy. They should think about the return of lower energy costs as a value to their economies and people; however, the EU ‘leaders’ are more concerned about the geopolitical reset -ultimately their diminished power, that would lay in the background.

As a consequence, the EU doesn’t really care about how much financial benefit there would be to their economic condition. For them this is a zero-sum power issue. Just as Russia doesn’t want to be torn apart by the grand ambitions of London, so too does the EU not want to lose the power to assist in the tearing apart aspect.

The rest of the problem is one of the future. A problem of security guarantees; of agreements that are bolstered against some significant non-wavering constant that can ensure no further expansion of NATO intent and no further threat to create purposeful conflict. The United States has constant regime changes, that takes the U.S. out of the ability to be the guarantor. However, THAT level of security guarantee is possible through the one construct that has put tentacles into every geopolitical economic structure in the world, CHINA.

There is a visible deal where President Trump sets up the transactional end to the conflict, the payments and economic mechanisms that conclude the Ukraine-Russia war, while Chairman Xi sets up the security guarantee aspect by leveraging everything that Beijing has created for decades. As paradigm resetting as that sounds, it’s not impossible. In fact, I would argue that’s exactly what China is saying HERE.


The Washington Post is getting the direction correct, but they are unaware of the destination. TDS infects all media analysis. They put the review of Chairman Xi’s comments through the prism of anti-Trumpism. That’s not at all what this looks like to me. From my perspective, Trump is looking to solve problems beyond his tenure in the White House. After all, how many times has each Trump supporter said, “well yeah – great, but what happens after Trump leaves office?”

Think about it carefully, through the prism of peace and stability – while understanding that President Trump is structuring long-term U.S. economic stability and retaining the perspective that Beijing influence in U.S. economic matters must be removed. Handle the transaction. Solve the Ukraine-Russia crisis. Form a strategic partnership and build fortress north America. Leverage the systems that Beijing has already put in place, including leverage upon the EU, and make Chairman Xi the minder for everything OUTSIDE our hemisphere.

President Trump looks to have gamed this out quite well. The tool that cuts the gordian knot is in the relationship.

Read more …

Operation Economic Outcast.

• Wright and Bessent Explain the Squeeze on Iran (David Manney)

Energy Secretary Chris Wright got a blunt question Sunday morning: After seven months of fighting with Iran, are Americans looking at a new normal of tanker strikes, military escorts, and an open-ended confrontation in the Persian Gulf? Wright didn’t duck it. The United States remains open to negotiations, he said, but its immediate military mission includes stopping Iranian oil and gas exports. He plainly described the goal: “We are strangling their economy” to force a change in Tehran’s policies or leadership.


From the Conservative Daily News: “Secretary of Energy Chris Wright outlined America’s long-term goal for securing global trade passing through the Strait of Hormuz even as its conflict with Iran threatens such traffic. Wright touted the sustained traffic transiting the Strait of Hormuz before telling Dana Bash during a “State of the Union” interview Sunday that securing the passageway “shouldn’t be just the United States’s responsibility” looking forward. His appearance on the CNN show comes the day after U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) forces reported taking out three Iranian oil tankers.

“The president says the Strait of Hormuz is under U.S. control. Just yesterday, the U.S. struck three Iranian tankers in retaliation for Iran firing missiles at U.S. warships. Meanwhile, The New York Times reports that Iran struck at least 23 merchant ships in the Strait in the last two months,” Bash said before asking Wright, “Does that sound to you like it’s a situation completely under control?” “Our transits through the Strait are averaging over 9 million barrels a day now. And with the access pipelines that go around the Strait, we’re probably two-thirds or more of pre-conflict flows,” Wright responded. “So Iranians are still causing trouble, but the United States Navy is winning that battle.”

Bash then asked Wright if he is suggesting that the U.S. Navy is going to have to stay in the Strait “indefinitely” to maintain the current flow of oil and tankers. “Oh, I think we’ll see a change in the Iranian regime, or certainly a change in their policy if they want to become a trading nation again and engage with the world,” Wright said. “But they have not lightly given up their nuclear weapons program.”The comments came after U.S. forces struck three Iranian oil tankers Saturday. U.S. Central Command said Iranian ballistic missiles had targeted American warships.

Two tankers were disabled, while a third was destroyed. The military said the ships belonged to a shadow network helping finance Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.


Wright’s argument was straightforward. President Donald Trump still prefers a negotiated settlement, but the administration isn’t counting on one. Wright said Iran’s nuclear capabilities are being degraded militarily while its economy is being squeezed through reduced energy exports and sanctions. He also left open the possibility that a nuclear agreement might have to wait for a different Iranian government. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has been delivering the economic half of the same message.

Bessent said Saturday that Trump’s blockade and Treasury sanctions amount to “one of the most powerful one-two punches” ever used for economic isolation. From Breitbart News: “During an appearance on FNC’s “My View” on Saturday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent praised the impact of U.S. policy regarding Iran. According to Bessent, the blockade paired with economic sanctions was having a crippling impact on the Iranian regime. “Just to stay with the Strait of Hormuz for a moment, you’ve also noted that you say the U.S. and China actually have more in common than we disagree on when it comes to safely navigating the Strait of Hormuz,” host Lara Trump said.

“I think the question for a lot of Americans is really how much can we trust China? They are still taking oil from Iran, so how do you navigate that situation?”Bessent replied, “Well, one of the things we’ve done, and what the president’s done, is fantastic sequencing. So we are running Operation Economic Outcast right now, and this is the greatest economic isolation operation in the history of the world. We are going to asphyxiate this regime.”

“Now we have the blockade, and because of the blockade, the oil is not getting out,” he continued. “So there’s probably only about 30 million barrels of Iranian crude oil left that China hasn’t bought. So that will run out soon, and there will be no problem with China buying because they have no product, so the blockade is — the blockade is working. It’s working like nothing we’ve ever seen, and the combination, everyone says, “Oh, sanctions don’t work. I can tell you, blockade and sanctions are one of the most powerful one-two punches in the history of economic isolation.” He argued that China’s purchases of Iranian crude will eventually become irrelevant if Iran can’t move the oil out of its ports.

The administration has given the financial campaign a name: Operation Economic Outcast. Treasury launched it Aug. 24 with the stated goal of cutting Iran off from the financial networks, banks, oil revenues, and sanctions-evasion systems keeping the regime funded. The campaign moved again Friday when Treasury sanctioned a Turkish financial institution and its subsidiaries for allegedly helping Iran’s Revolutionary Guard move money internationally.

From the Treasury Department: Announced by Secretary Bessent on August 24, 2026, dubbed Economic D-Day, Operation Economic Outcast is severing the remaining economic lifelines that sustain the Iranian regime. Treasury has mapped the networks, facilitators, and financial channels that Iran uses to smuggle oil, evade sanctions, and fund terror. Working with partners across the U.S. government, the European Union, United Kingdom, Gulf partners, and others, Treasury is targeting any source of the regime’s illicit revenue, as well as its sanctions evasion schemes to move funds.

Read more …

What/which part of the above did they discuss?

The man in the middle is Kyrill Dimitriev, Putin’s go-to guy.

• View from Russia: Experts on why Kushner and Witkoff came to Moscow (RT)

The latest visit to Moscow by Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff has triggered a fresh wave of speculation in Russia about what Washington is really trying to achieve. With US President Donald Trump under pressure at home and much of his administration’s foreign-policy bandwidth consumed by Iran, the trip has been interpreted less as a breakthrough mission than as a signal – one that may be aimed as much at domestic American politics and alliance management as at Russia itself.


Russian analysts see the visit in different ways. Some believe the Americans are simply sounding out Moscow before returning to Kiev, trying to gauge whether any space remains for movement on Ukraine. Others argue the mission is part of a broader performance of diplomatic activity by the Trump White House, intended to project momentum where little real progress is possible. Still others view it as an exercise in ‘shuttle diplomacy’, useful mainly for information-gathering and atmospherics rather than for producing concrete results.

Roman Romanov, American studies specialist, lecturer at the Faculty of International Relations, Political Science, and Foreign Regional Studies at RSUH
I have two explanations regarding the visit and the format of this visit. First, the American side has already shown several times that it is interested in maintaining dialogue with both Moscow and Kiev. And this visit – or rather, this tour – is aimed at “synchronizing watches.” What does that mean? The Americans are trying to understand what conditions might be acceptable to the parties for resuming an active negotiating process. In other words, what can be offered to both sides so that they are prepared to move the dialogue in the direction of progress.

The second explanation is purely domestic-political for the United States. Against the backdrop of the failure of the Iran campaign, it is necessary to demonstrate some other kind of political activity that at least theoretically resembles progress with a concrete result. Trump has done this kind of thing more than once.

Do they have any ready-made proposals? I do not think so, because, first, at the moment a significant part of US foreign-policy resources is concentrated on Iran, and second, because despite the constructive role of both Witkoff and Kushner, they still act more as envoys of the American president on a specific issue than as direct participants formulating the American president’s position on this issue.

It is difficult to explain why they first went to Moscow and then to Kiev. One can assume they first want to hear Moscow’s stance, because it is in a more advantageous position – Russia is advancing, winning on the battlefield – so the US believes it would be more expedient first to hear out Moscow’s demands and gauge how much they’ve changed since August 2025, since the meeting in Anchorage.

At the same time, although we do not observe public participation by the EU, through closed channels the European Union surely communicates its interests. Their representatives are not there, but the position the Americans are shaping includes the EU’s position as well.

Dmitry Dtobnitsky – Russian political scientist specializing in American studies, expert in US foreign and domestic policy
These negotiations will continue – that’s the only perspective they have. What are we negotiating with the US about? About how to stop the conflict in Ukraine? Let’s be serious. First, this conflict is much broader than Russia’s military operation. It is a geopolitical conflict with very high stakes, the kind that happens with Europe once every several decades or even centuries. The Cold War period with the US was still an exception in that there were at least attempts to play at détente from time to time.

The world has entered an era of major transformation. In that sense, the narrow focus is – will they reach an agreement on Ukraine? No. Every time you think about that, you have to recall how it all started, why it is like this, how wrongly the world is structured, how important it is for Russia to insist on its interests, why the European bureaucracy itself cannot accept that, because otherwise that would mean the end of both it and the political class of many countries. Why can’t this conflict stop? Because it can’t be settled.

Someone has to win. Just as with the US and Iran (which, incidentally, is a much more local conflict) – it is impossible to agree, there can be no deal. There can only be some movement in which one of the sides explicitly or implicitly recognizes its defeat. It may not be total defeat, but at least at some stage one side wins and the other side does not recognize it. Such a process will last a long time, but in the end there will still be some de facto consolidation of the results of this conflict. Not a negotiated one, unfortunately, but a factual one. Diplomats may formalize such a conclusion, or they may not. Frankly, that is no longer important.

When we talk about Russia-US negotiations on Ukraine, there are two extremes, and both miss the essence. Yes, we are negotiating, and we constantly demonstrate that Russia and the US have nothing to fight over. We are ready to coexist with the US on the same globe. That is exactly why Putin says: “Of course, Kushner and Witkoff are welcome guests, come. What else should we show you from Moscow’s kitchen?” You see, the US cannot conduct negotiations on Ukraine because it cannot force either Kiev, London, or Brussels to accept Russia’s reasonable demands. And how are they going to pressure Russia? I think the Trump administration more or less understands that it is pointless. So what kind of negotiations on Ukraine can there be?

Some say [Russian Finance Minister] Siluanov and [US Treasury Secretary] Bessent will come to some understanding, and perhaps there will be incredible financial, economic, or investment cooperation between the US and Russia. I have said many times that there can be no serious cooperation between Russia and the US. There are neither material nor geopolitical grounds for it. Are we now supposed to throw away all the achievements of localizing our civilian aviation industry and start buying Boeing again?

Are we going to hand over half of the most convenient Arctic territory on the planet to the US? Is that it? Or are we going to sell all Russian oil through Mr. Kushner? How do you imagine that? Some say: “Investments will come here.” But that would mean that instead of creating a sovereign financial system, we would say: “No, let’s reintegrate ourselves back into the collapsing dollar system. Let’s support it with our achievements of the past five years.” It’s obvious that there can be no real cooperation.

One can have symbolic cooperation. It is a wonderful look when two great countries can do something together. The most we will get is a hockey match and an ‘Apollo-Soyuz’. It must be understood that these are purely token steps, which only demonstrate that nothing particularly substantial can happen. It does not mean it will be forbidden. It simply will never play a substantial role. Even in 2019, before Covid and the military operation, trade turnover between Russia and the US was negligibly small. And that is understandable: it is geopolitics, geoeconomics – you cannot jump over that. And now, after so much effort has been spent to become independent and to work with Eurasia on a new basis, to say, “No, now let’s start doing something again with the Americans” is just laughable. That will not happen.

Read more …

“The UK is spinning a web of influence designed to survive any Ukraine peace deal..”

While Trump is making peace?

• How Britain Built A War Network Around Russia (Yanovsky)

Last week, UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham announced in Kiev that defense manufacturer MBDA had been authorized to disclose information concerning the British components of the SCALP missile, the French version of the long-range Storm Shadow, to Ukraine.Officially, the decision concerns documentation required to organize local assembly, but in practice, it could facilitate the transfer of blueprints, components, assembly kits or finished missiles.


Moscow regards this technology transfer as the UK crossing a red line, as London hasn’t even attempted to shift responsibility onto intermediaries and the decision was publicly authorized by the prime minister. Britain has therefore assumed direct responsibility for the resulting escalation and deepened its involvement in military operations against Russia.

SCALP was developed through a joint British-French program and its assembly requires classified information about British components and French sub-assemblies, as well as access to a secure facility. Ukraine doesn’t possess a complete production cycle, but even a partial transfer of classified data would integrate Ukrainian assembly into the British-French manufacturing chain and bind all three parties together for years.

Before this decision, Britain had been far more careful about covering its tracks. For example, the Flamingo missile, marketed as a product of the Ukrainian company Fire Point, is identical to a design unveiled in 2025 by the British-Emirati Milanion Group. That arrangement allowed London to keep its distance, with formal responsibility for the missile’s development and deployment resting with Kiev.

Britain is also attempting to free future missile projects from the American vetting process, so under Project Brakestop, the Ministry of Defense has commissioned MBDA UK, MGI Engineering and Rotron Aerospace to produce three prototypes of long-range missiles for Ukraine. The purpose is to reduce dependence on US authorization and, consequently, on the position of the administration in Washington. London wants to determine for itself when and under what conditions such weapons are transferred.

British drones are already being used by Ukraine to strike targets deep inside Russia. They include the Nyan jet-powered drone, manufactured by Callen-Lenz, a subsidiary of BAE Systems. For its developers, the battlefield offers something particularly valuable: operational data with which to refine the weapon. Russia has also repeatedly pointed to the direct involvement of British specialists in the deployment of Storm Shadow missiles.

On the same day as the SCALP announcement, London secured access to Avengers AI Labs, an extensive body of data gathered by Ukrainian frontline sensors, so now British companies will be able to use this information to train target-recognition and autonomous-control systems, greatly shortening the journey from development to battlefield deployment.Five British governments have come and gone during the active phase of the Ukraine conflict, but the country’s anti-Russian course has remained remarkably consistent.

Boris Johnson began a program to develop the Ukrainian navy, Rishi Sunak signed a ten-year security agreement, Keir Starmer followed with the Centenary Partnership Agreement and Burnham has now authorized access to classified missile technology. Each government has built upon the commitments made by its predecessor.

The same continuity is visible in Britain’s strategic doctrine, where Sunak’s Conservative government described Russia in its 2023 Integrated Review Refresh as the “most acute threat” to British security and Starmer’s Labour government retained that position. The 2025 National Security Strategy called Russia “the most obvious and pressing example” of confrontation, while the Strategic Defence Review described it as an “immediate and pressing threat.” That review established the principle of “NATO first, but not only NATO” and committed Britain to preparing for war.

These doctrines are supported by long-term financial obligations, given London has promised Ukraine £3 billion, approximately $4 billion, annually until at least the 2030-31 financial year. The century-long partnership agreement provides for joint production, technology transfers and cooperation in the Baltic, Black and Azov seas where Britain’s presence is intended to endure for decades, regardless of when the current military campaign ends.

The declaration signed by Britain, France and Ukraine on January 6, 2026, already outlines arrangements for the postwar period. These include multinational forces, military logistics hubs, secure facilities and a special legal regime for foreign personnel. In London’s calculations, a ceasefire wouldn’t end its involvement, but it would consolidate a new phase of Britain’s military and industrial presence.

Read more …

Saxony-Anhalt is small, 1.7 million voters, so it says little. But it makes me realize that this went fast! Where was AfD a year ago? Stuck in court.

Dutch news: AfD has 39 out of 83 seats. But the “populist” BSW party, which promised to support it, unexpectedly got its 5 seats, and could bring it to 44.

And the labels keep coming: far right, radical right, extreme right etc. That’s just for not wanting more immigrants?!

• AfD Sweeps Saxony-Anhalt Election In First “Far Right” Victory Since WW2 (ZH)

Update(1400ET): In a political earthquake, the AfD has taken a massive lead, per exit polls, at the Saxony-Anhalt election in what the party’s state leader hailed as sending a resounding “signal to Berlin.” This moment marks the first time what has been dubbed a German “far-right party” taking power at a state level since World War II. This is absolutely historic. “The exit polls, published by German public television stations, suggested that the party, known by its German initials AfD, would win between 39 and 41 seats in the eastern state of Saxony-Anhalt,” NY Times reports. “That would leave it just short of an absolute majority of 42, but far ahead of its nearest rival.”


But it remains unclear whether it will be able to form a government. Below is the latest via Deutsche Welle: Alternative for Germany (AfD) co-leader Tino Chrupalla says his party secured a mandate to govern with its strong election result in Saxony-Anhalt. “We have halved the CDU, so from that point of view it’s a great evening,” Chrupalla told journalists in Magdeburg, referring to an earlier remark by Christian Democratic Union (CDU) leader and chancellor Friedrich Merz that AfD’s result could be cut in half.

Chrupalla called the outcome “sensational.” “Ulrich Siegmund will be the new premier of Saxony-Anhalt,” he said. “From here, we will change Germany.” If the party falls short of an absolute majority, Chrupalla said it would be open to talks and even suggested an AfD minority government could be tolerated by other parties. AfD has signaled it is open to a coalition partner that would be open to changing its migration and energy policy – though this option doesn’t seem to be on the political map realistically at this early point. Youth turn to AfD in droves…

 


 

From last night:

Voters in Saxony-Anhalt head to the polls today in an election that could deliver Germany’s most massive political shock in decades, with the right-wing Alternative für Deutschland on track to beat Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s Christian Democrats.

Final polling estimates put the AfD at 40% to 41%, nearly double the CDU’s 23%. The party’s lead candidate, 35-year-old Ulrich Siegmund, has ruled out governing in a coalition, suggesting the AfD would need an outright majority to take power of its first German state government.

About 1.7 million people are set to vote today, with polls closing at 6 p.m. local time. AfD’s rapid ascent comes as voters are furious over Germany’s stagnant economy, deindustrialization, energy costs, and the Third World migrant invasion. The Polymarket bet on how many seats the AfD is expected to win today assigns a 74% probability to 38 to 41 seats, with 42 to 45 seats at 16%. Ahead of the historic election, thousands of far-left Antifa crazies took to the streets wearing all black and holding Antifa and LGBT flags. Others were seen carrying signs reading “FCK NZS” and “FCK AFD.”

https://twitter.com/COMPACTMagazin/status/2096309332111507721?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2096309332111507721%7Ctwgr%5E855b88b12e1dd9c69d1daa6ec38f09e58692f2c5%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fafd-predicted-win-saxony-anhalt-merz-panics-antifa-floods-streets

A reported 15,000 left-wing activists joined a so-called pro-democracy festival in the state capital, Magdeburg, on Saturday, organized by the “Saxony-Anhalt Open to the World” alliance. Yet the whole globalist cult in Germany has likely run its course. It has been nothing more than what some call a nation-killing experiment, pushing uncontrolled mass migration and deindustrialization policies that have sent Europe’s largest economy into a tailspin.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on Saturday threatened the AfD, saying, “We will not let these people, who trash Germany and everything we have achieved in recent years and decades,” before adding, “We will not let these people talk our country into ruin!”

https://twitter.com/MarioBojic/status/2096535311597662449?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2096535311597662449%7Ctwgr%5E855b88b12e1dd9c69d1daa6ec38f09e58692f2c5%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fafd-predicted-win-saxony-anhalt-merz-panics-antifa-floods-streets

Yet what did Merz actually achieve? Destroying Germany’s economy? That is something he certainly accomplished.

Read more …

“Paris needs guarantees that Kiev will repay the money it’s been getting during its conflict with Moscow, Jordan Bardella has said”

• France Can’t Finance Ukraine Forever – Le Pen Party’s Head (RT)

France lacks money for itself and simply cannot keep funding Ukraine indefinitely, Jordan Bardella, the president of Marine Le Pen’s right-wing National Rally (NR) party, has said. The main French opposition party faced harsh criticism from its rivals earlier this week after its vice president, Louis Aliot, said that NR “would turn off the tap” for Kiev if it comes to power after the 2027 presidential vote. Le Pen is seen as having strong chances to succeed in the election next year, no matter who her rival will be in the second round.


Bardella weighed in on the issue during his speech at the Ambrosetti Forum in Italy on Saturday, saying that Ukraine needs support from France and other Western nations during the conflict with Russia, but “our objective should not be to finance the war ad vitam æternam,” which means ‘forever’ in Latin. France has a national debt of €3.5 trillion ($4.6 billion) and cannot be “giving money that we no longer have” to Vladimir Zelensky’s government, he argued.

“The extremely serious and worrying state of French public finances means we can’t give money without any guarantees or assurances that this money will be repaid one day,” the National Rally president said. Paris has been one of the strongest backers of Kiev in the EU after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022, providing it with billions in military aid and supplying various sophisticated weapons, including CAESAR self-propelled howitzers and Mirage fighter jets.

According to Bardella, the Americans were “much smarter” than the Europeans when it came to assistance for Kiev “because the money they gave to Ukraine is secured against rare earth mining.” He was referring to the deal agreed upon between Washington and Kiev last year, which grants the US preferential access to Ukrainian mineral resources. During US President Donald Trump’s second term, Washington also significantly reduced aid to Ukraine, making European NATO members pay for American-made arms supplied to the country.

Earlier this week, Trump warned that he intends to present Europe with a belated bill for billions of dollars that Washington spent arming Ukraine under his predecessor, Joe Biden. He previously estimated that Biden gave Zelensky more than $300 billion worth of weapons for “free.” Le Pen said on Thursday that the National Rally is skeptical about further assistance to Ukraine because it believes that the conflict with Russia needs a diplomatic solution.

A poll by Harris Interactive in late August suggested that Le Pen has the support of 34% of the French public, which should guarantee her a place in the second round of the presidential election, where she would likely win comfortably against either her left-wing rival Jean-Luc Mélenchon or the centrist candidate, former Prime Minister Edouard Philippe. Russian officials said repeatedly that foreign weapons being sent to Kiev will not prevent Moscow from achieving its military goals, but will merely prolong the fighting, while increasing the risk of a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO.

Read more …

You mean we know that truth?!

• Leftists Are Erasing the Truth About 9/11 From Classrooms (Matt Margolis)

Friday marks 25 years since 19 terrorists hijacked four planes and murdered 2,977 people on American soil. In the wake of those attacks, this country made itself one promise: Never Forget. Twenty-five years later, it’s clear some people are working hard to make sure we do exactly that: forget.


Here’s the number that should make every American furious: only Arizona and Florida legally require public schools to teach about the September 11 attacks. Ten states have statutes that merely encourage some form of 9/11 instruction, according to an August University of Wisconsin study, and that can mean anything from a moment of silence to a full lesson. New York, where the towers actually fell, mandates only a moment of silence and a passing mention in Board of Regents standards. No statewide curriculum exists.

Rep. Andrew Garbarino (R-N.Y.), who is pushing legislation to require 9/11 education in all 50 states, told the New York Post, “We made a promise to ‘Never Forget’, but today, only a handful of states require 9/11 to be taught in their schools.” But it gets worse. So much worse.

According to the North America Values Institute, an education watchdog group, leftist activists, some backed by George Soros, have produced 9/11 lesson plans now used in schools nationwide, including in New York City. One, “Teaching Beyond September 11th,” spends exactly one paragraph on the actual attacks and never once calls the hijackers terrorists, instead building entire units around “Right-Wing Extremism” and “Islamophobia and the Oval Office.” It describes Osama bin Laden only as a man the United States “accused” of masterminding the attacks, leaving out his own confessions and his declared jihad against a country he called the “worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind.”

The curriculum was developed by the University of Pennsylvania’s Graduate School of Education beginning in 2019 and is now recommended by education departments in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, and Oregon. Zineb Riboua, a research fellow at the Hudson Institute, said this kind of material teaches kids “that America is responsible for the atrocities around the world to develop a moral framework that can be activated very quickly to get policies that reduce America’s power and sovereignty.” She said the tactic mirrors what the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps use to target young people. “Ayatollah Khamenei said the best audience to target is students,” she added.

It still gets worse.Adam Feinberg, a teacher at Brooklyn’s City Polytechnic High School, assigns ninth through 12th graders Osama bin Laden’s “Letter to America” alongside a worksheet asking them, without a hint of irony, “Why do you think Osama bin Laden hates Jews so much?” He uploaded it to the American Federation of Teachers’ own lesson-sharing portal back in 2020. He never denied writing it.

None of these curricula bother to mention that nearly 10,000 first responders and civilians have since died from illnesses tied to Ground Zero toxins, or what any of this does to the families left behind. Gail Silke’s brother, NYPD officer Stephen Driscoll, 38, died in the South Tower. She didn’t hold back: “They’re not affected by it, they’re not in our shoes, and they don’t want to be in our shoes. Those people can kiss my a*s.” A Manhattan mother whose father-in-law died on 9/11 said, “They were disgusted with the [expletive] they were taught, it’s not fair, they lost their grandfather.”

New York state Assemblyman Matt Slater (R-N.Y.) said, “Nearly 3,000 innocent people were murdered by al Qaeda on September 11th. They were the victims. The terrorists were the perpetrators. Any curriculum that blurs that fundamental truth, or makes the victims secondary to a political narrative, isn’t teaching history, it’s rewriting it.”

When Soros-linked groups are writing lesson plans that soft-pedal the hijackers and focus on “Islamophobia” instead, we have a problem. The left is so devoted to its woke ideology that it is trying to rewrite the history of 9/11.

Read more …

Takes some getting used to. But you get to keep your country.

• Asylum Denials Hit 94% in June (Catherine Salgado)

A combination of judicial firings and federal reforms has led to the denial of most asylum claims, an area where illegal aliens are known to exploit our system egregiously. In June 2026, over nine out of 10 asylum claimants did not receive what they requested. That’s good news for America.


I have emphasized many times here at PJ Media that huge numbers of illegal alien criminals, particularly under Joe Biden’s administration, simply claimed asylum and stated they were too afraid to go back home, which in prior years was practically enough to ensure they would receive asylum in the U.S. But in most cases, these people do not actually meet the legal standards for asylum. In some cases, indeed, they are afraid to go home, but only because they are gang members or convicted criminals fleeing justice.

On August 31, TRAC Immigration reported the following: “The number of individuals Immigration Judges grant asylum to each month has been falling. In June 2026, only 771 individuals were granted asylum—less than a quarter of the number of individuals awarded asylum just three years ago. At the same time, the number of asylum decisions has grown resulting in soaring asylum denial rates. In June 2026, 94 percent of all asylum cases were denied.

It appears that President Donald Trump’s administration has replaced many immigration judges with individuals less likely to take illegal alien criminals at their word. TRAC seems extremely upset about the change, but it is great news for Americans, as we can be sure that illegal aliens will have much less of a chance of abusing this loophole in order to obtain U.S. residency.

The Center for Immigration Studies’ (CIS) Andrew R. Arthur explained that the percentage of granted asylum claims is actually even lower than TRAC indicated, because it did not take into account claims that were withdrawn, administratively closed, or not adjudicated. He elucidated in some technical detail what all of those categories meant, but essentially, not every claim ends up going all the way through the process to denial or approval for various reasons.

Of the 254,680 asylum decisions IJs issued in the first nine months of FY 2026, 7,231 (2.8 percent) were grants, 89,740 (35.2 percent) were denials, 44,062 (17.3 percent) were not adjudicated, 18,251 (7.2 percent) were withdrawn, and 3,315 (1.3 percent) were administratively closed — but 92,081 (36.2 percent), the largest single category of IJ asylum decisions, were ones in which the claim was “abandoned”.

So actually, based on these figures, fewer than 3% of asylum applicants this fiscal year received the asylum they requested. That’s how few of the applicants were able to prove in court that they truly needed asylum. Many illegal aliens also abuse the asylum process to try to obtain work authorization, after which they never show up in court again, Arthur warned.

In short, if there is a record high of asylum denials, it is because the Biden administration encouraged excessive and widespread abuses, and the Trump administration now has to restore the integrity of the asylum process.

Read more …

“Ottawa appears to have shown up to a knife fight with a strongly worded press release.”

• The U.S. Has 13 Times the Economy — Carney Has 13 Times the Pout (Florack)

At first glance, it looks almost silly. Here we have two countries sharing the world’s longest undefended border, deeply intertwined economies, decades of trade agreements, and an enormous volume of commerce crossing back and forth every single day. Surely, one might think, reasonable adults could sit down and work this out over a Tim Hortons double-double. But, see, that’s the problem with looking at this purely as a spat over tariffs. It isn’t about tariffs at all. It’s about leverage — and Ottawa appears to have shown up to a knife fight with a strongly worded press release.


Here’s the inconvenient math sitting underneath the whole argument. According to current GDP data, the U.S. economy runs about $30.8 trillion, against Canada’s roughly $2.3 trillion. That’s not a rival negotiating across the table — that’s a difference of about $28.5 trillion, which means Canada isn’t negotiating with a comparably sized economy. It’s negotiating with one more than 13 times its size, and acting surprised when the bigger guy gets to set the terms.

Then there’s energy, where the gap gets even more embarrassing for Ottawa. The United States produced a record 13.6 million barrels of crude oil per day in 2025, the most any country has ever pumped, and also hit a record 39 trillion cubic feet of natural gas — America has been the world’s largest natural gas producer since 2011 and isn’t giving that title back. Canada’s oil sands are a genuinely valuable resource. The trouble, from Ottawa’s side of the table, is that Washington already has plenty of its own.

And Canada still can’t quit the American market even if it wanted to: in 2025, the U.S. imported 3.9 million barrels a day of Canadian crude, making America overwhelmingly Canada’s dominant customer. Canadian oil matters to the United States. The United States is Canada’s oil industry, full stop. That’s not a negotiation between equals — that’s a landlord reminding a tenant who holds the lease. Carney might try to shut that oil off, but it’s a surefire way to make Alberta the 51st state, which he can ill afford.

Then there’s the part of this fight Washington has been increasingly willing to say out loud: Canada’s approach to government spending, immigration, and social policy. The Trump administration has argued that Canada’s expansive government and rapid population growth eventually become someone else’s problem — namely, the strained housing market, the overloaded infrastructure, and the public services buckling under the weight.

Before anyone waves that off as typical American bluster, it’s worth pointing out that Ottawa has been saying the same thing about itself. Canada’s own government has acknowledged the pressure population growth put on housing and social services, which is precisely why it’s now slashing its own targets — permanent residency holds flat at 380,000 a year through 2028, while temporary-resident arrivals get cut from 2025’s 673,650 down to 385,000 next year and 370,000 the two years after, with the explicit goal of getting the temporary population under 5% of the country by the end of 2027. Trump didn’t write that policy memo. Carney’s own government did.


And the numbers behind it are genuinely striking. According to Statistics Canada’s 2021 Census, 26.4% of the population was first-generation — born outside Canada — and another 17.6% was second-generation, meaning Canadian-born with at least one foreign-born parent. Add those together and you land at roughly 44% of the country having an immediate immigrant connection. That’s not a talking point. That’s the census.

None of which means immigration itself is the villain here — Canada was built by it, and immigrants contribute to the economy. The actual question is whether the rate and mix of that growth can be reconciled with housing, infrastructure, employment, and a social safety net that has to be paid for by someone. Even Ottawa seems to have concluded the honest answer, for now, is “not at the pace we were running it.” Gee, guys, welcome to reality. You might start by noticing what others have noted from afar: the huge percentage of these immigrants are dependent on large social support outlays.

Even the OECD’s own 2025 economic survey of Canada — an organization not exactly known for MAGA sympathies — flags weak business investment and a widening productivity gap between Canada’s best firms and everyone else as structural problems, not passing headwinds. And that’s where this whole trade fight starts making a lot more sense.

The United States walks in with the world’s largest economy, record domestic energy production, a massive consumer market, and an industrial base most countries would trade their currency reserves for. Canada walks in with real resources, a well-educated population, a serious industrial economy, and one very good card: energy and commodities the U.S. genuinely wants. That’s a relationship worth keeping. It just isn’t a relationship between equals, and pretending otherwise, as Carney seems bent on doing, doesn’t change the scoreboard.

Maybe that’s the part some people in Ottawa are struggling to swallow. It isn’t that Washington discovered some secret new lever to pull. It’s that Washington has always had this much leverage, simply by virtue of being what it is. When one side shows up with a $30.8 trillion economy, record energy output, and a consumer market Canadian exporters can’t afford to lose, and the other side shows up with a $2.3 trillion economy that depends heavily on access to that exact market, the interesting question isn’t why Washington thinks it can ask for concessions. It’s why anyone in Ottawa, Carney in particular, assumed it couldn’t.

Sometimes the uncomfortable part of a negotiation isn’t finding out the other guy is bluffing. It’s finding out he isn’t — and that he’s been holding the better hand the entire time. That’s the position Carney finds himself in just now. The reality is Carney doesn’t have nearly the cards he’d like Canadian voters to believe he does. I’ve already pointed out the leftist proclivities Carney harbors.

Before becoming PM, Carney sat on the board of Canada 2020, a think tank Maclean’s has called the outfit that effectively runs Liberal Party policy behind closed doors, with documented ties to Obama-world Democrats and access to Soros Open Society funding streams. More recently, Carney delivered the closing keynote at a closed-door Global Progress Action Summit in Toronto, sharing a stage with Barack Obama, Alex Soros — George’s son, now chairman of OSF — John Podesta, Pete Buttigieg, and Sen. Elissa Slotkin.

Every critter listed in that paragraph considers Trump an enemy. No serious analysis of Carney’s actions would be complete without acknowledging this. Carney has run on standing up to America and particularly standing up to President Trump. The trouble for Carney is that he simply hasn’t got the leverage to do that. It’s time for either Carney to grow up and face reality, or for Canadian voters to remove him. Preferably the latter.

Read more …

Painful.

• U.S. Job Growth of 162,000 vs Canada Job Losses -42,000 (CTH)

In this episode from Promethean Action’s Barbara Boyd she takes a look at the U.S. economy and the Main Street policies of President Trump versus the banking/Wall Street Canadian economy. In the August jobs report the U.S. economy added 162,000 jobs, while the Canadian August jobs report reflected 42,000 job losses.


Boyd – “A blockbuster U.S. jobs report showing 162,000 jobs created is contrasted with Canada’s 40,000 job loss under Mark Carney, as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent tells Steve Bannon that Wall Street and major outlets like the Financial Times and The Wall Street Journal stoke economic panic and spread “fake news,” citing a misframed story about Norway’s sovereign wealth fund shifting from Treasuries into higher-yield Fannie and Freddie securities.

This episode frames today’s challenge as a “Red Queen economy,” arguing America must grow productivity fast enough to outrun debt, China’s advances, and infrastructure and skills obsolescence, while blaming Biden-era inflation and spending. It spotlights Trump administration workforce initiatives, including expanded training and Pell Grant use and the new Foundry School—an advanced manufacturing program with a Stanford curriculum and international PAX Silica partners. Finally, it covers Trump executive orders aiding ranchers’ beef processing and DOJ antitrust scrutiny of major meatpackers and retailers.”

Read more …

No more people in armies, but robots.

• Operation Twist 2.0, 2032 Gold Target & 100,000 Robotic Soldiers (Armstrong)

In Part 2 of this interview, economic cycle expert Martin Armstrong breaks down the immediate impact of the Fed’s latest operations on precious metals, the underlying drivers of the market, and why he projects gold’s long-term macro peak won’t arrive until 2032. Plus, Armstrong shares insights on the shift toward autonomous warfare, including the military’s development of 100,000 robotic soldiers, and why traditional AI still falls short of human curiosity.


Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/ivan_8848/status/2096176506523304402?s=20 https://twitter.com/warDaniel47/status/2096288093531730158?s=20

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle September 3 2026

Sep 032026
 
 September 3, 2026  Posted by at 10:12 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , ,  36 Responses »


Henri Matisse Bathers by a River 1910


• Trump: Who Says I Want a Deal With Iran? (Ed Morrissey)
• We’re Still Playing ‘Let’s Make a Deal!’ With Iran? (Stephen Green)
• Trump Proclaims War Won’t Last ‘Too Long’ (ZH)
• What Is Iran’s Boiling Point? We May Be Very Close to Finding Out (Patterson)
• The Leipzig Incident Has All The Hallmarks Of A False Flag (Andrew Korybko)
• Von der Leyen Tells EU Citizens ‘All Your Monies Are Belong to Us’ (Welborn)
• Von der Leyen Wants Your Bank Deposits: How to Keep Control of Them (Fares)
• The CIA Never Comes To Russia In Peace (Scott Ritter)
• Mike Johnson’s Got a Trick for Dems Trying to Pack the Supreme Court (Charles)
• The ‘Gaza Genocide’ Is a Hoax (David Harsanyi)
• Musk: The Future Is Power, Chips, and Data Centers (Stephen Green)

 


 

https://twitter.com/DeepLeaksHQ/status/2094778976598360189?s=20 https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2094882064046735484?s=20

 


 


Throughout the year many have said Iran was winning. Are they still out there? Or can we get real now?

• Trump: Who Says I Want a Deal With Iran? (Ed Morrissey)

Er … maybe Donald Trump? Repeatedly?


Nevertheless, this Truth Social post suggests that Trump learned his lesson, and a lot faster than a couple of his predecessors. ABC News reported earlier yesterday that Trump had again sent diplomatic signals to get a negotiated end to the Hormuz crisis. The IRGC had spent most of yesterday threatening their usual mother of all responses, but those empty threats have usually accompanied their own attempts to get other Gulf states to intervene with Trump on their behalf. The time for deals has passed, Trump posted last night:

Why haven’t the Iranian people risen up yet? That question got some blowback for a couple of reasons. The Iranian people are disarmed, first off, and their oppressors control nearly all the weapons. They tried an uprising in January; the regime massacred tens of thousands of them to keep control. The US did not directly intervene until six weeks later, and the war increased the internal enforcement of regime rule.

Second and perhaps more important, the constant attempts by the US to cut a deal with the regime undercut any momentum that the Iranian opposition might generate. Not to fulfill Godwin’s Law, but the clear parallel here is 1930s Europe and the constant deals offered to Hitler by Britain and France. The German military needed Hitler to suffer one defeat to seize power, and the old Prussian clique was prepared to do it, but Hitler kept getting concessions from the Versailles powers. By the time of the Munich humiliation and the subsequent seizure of Czechoslovakia six months later, Hitler was unstoppable thanks to attempts to appease Hitler back to peace.

Why would people risk their lives at the moment the US might cut a deal with their oppressors? This has been the problem with previous administrations that tried to negotiate with the Islamist terror regime in Tehran. Barack Obama wanted his Munich moment so bad that he backed the regime during the 2009 uprising by recognizing the ridiculously corrupt election in Iran that year. He spent the next six years chasing the JCPOA that Iran entirely ignored anyway. And Joe Biden wanted desperately to get the mullahs to sign back onto that useless JCPOA in order to declare that he had achieved peace in his time, too.

In that sense, Trump has learned his lesson a lot faster than his predecessors did. If he’s serious about this, as opposed to making this into a negotiating tactic, then Iran has a very big problem. Duane will go into more detail in our next post on this point, but the siege and traded “kinetic actions” favor the US. Iran has no blue-water navy, no effective air force or air defenses, and the strategic damage done in March to its military-industrial complex will set it back decades. Its currency has collapsed, and the only asset that the IRGC still has is Iran’s oil – which they can’t trade any longer, thanks to a relatively cheap blockade that Trump can maintain for months or longer.

Actually, it sounds like Trump wants a different kind of “trade” with Iran. He’s trading tankers, and again, Trump has a lot more pieces on the board: Why it matters: This is the first time the U.S. military has struck Iranian tankers in retaliation for Iranian attacks on ships in the Strait of Hormuz — rather than to prevent them from violating the naval blockade. A U.S. official said the move was part of a new “tanker for tanker” policy approved by President Trump to further deter Iranian attacks on tankers that move through the strait.

Driving the news: U.S. officials said around 100 targets were attacked during Tuesday’s strikes. The Iranian government tankers were anchored off Iran’s coast north of the U.S. naval blockade line. U.S. drones launched missiles that hit their engine rooms. Among the targets were Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) air defense sites, radar systems, mine-laying capabilities, communications sites, anti-ship cruise missile launchers and attack drone launchers, U.S. officials said.

This is an even bigger loss to Iran than just the replacement costs of the tankers. Iran has been forced to store its crude oil on its tanker fleet to prevent the necessity of capping their wells, which would potentially cripple their main industry for a generation. The rest of the world has the capacity to replace these tankers; Iran cannot afford to do that now, even if the blockade ends. Every disabled tanker also delays the recovery of their income stream when the siege does end, too.

Let’s hope that Trump means what he posted last night. No one should want a deal with the radical Islamist terrorists that currently have Iran in their grip. The Iranian people will rise up when they can feel confident that the rest of the world will not come to rescue this regime from itself.

Read more …

Bessent added: “My job is to make sure that they want to have a deal, and they will want to have one.” Put this one right on top of the stack of things I don’t understand.”

• We’re Still Playing ‘Let’s Make a Deal!’ With Iran? (Stephen Green)

I have a couple of Iran items for you today that go together like Scotch and sauerkraut. The first is that following the tit-for-tat attacks across the Persian Gulf over the weekend, American forces again lit up Iran’s southern coast on Tuesday night local time. The most recent reports indicate explosions in at least half a dozen cities stretching from Chabahar in the Gulf of Oman to Bandar Abbas and Qeshm Island on the Persian Gulf side. Qeshm is home to an underground missile base.


Axios reported almost exactly 24 hours ago that President Donald Trump and his national security team were “considering waging limited strikes in the Strait of Hormuz to prevent Iran from reconstituting its radar and missile capabilities to attack ships.” And so here we are. Again. OSINTtechnical is a reliable source for further updates on today’s strikes, if you’re interested.

Oil is back up to about $90.I feel very smart right now, having filled up the tank on Saturday. And it’s still something of a miracle — or at least adaptable logistics — that after six months of on-and-off war, mining the Gulf, etc., oil is still under $100. What happened to those scare stories of $150 or even $200 oil? The second item comes courtesy of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who last week revealed his “economic D-Day” sanctions against the Islamic Republic, targeting the regime’s enablers — particularly in Communist China’s banking system.

Today, when asked about developments in Iran, Bessent said to Fox Business, “We have zero tolerance. We are going to economically asphyxiate this regime.” That’s great. I’m all for it. Strangle away. Economically, that is. But then, Bessent added: “My job is to make sure that they want to have a deal, and they will want to have one.” Put this one right on top of the stack of things I don’t understand.

Bessent has been almost frighteningly effective in fulfilling his promise to collapse Iran’s currency, the rial. As he reminded Fox Business in that clip, the rial stood at 800,000 to the dollar last spring, but as of last week was down to two million. That’s created real-world hardships for the regime and the Iranian people. “Small protests occurred outside petrochemical plant and a sugar cane factory where workers were made unemployed but received no salary for last six months,” Peter Baum reported on X today. “One person killed by IRGC outside the sugar cane factory.”

Furthermore, “Academic staff at numerous universities on strike as they too have not been paid for months.” The trick is to keep asphyxiating the regime until Tehran can’t afford to pay the thugs who keep the people in line with beatings and mass murders as required. And these are the same theocrats Bessent thinks he can make “want to have a deal?” And that after we let go of their throats, they’ll stick to it?

What I had thought back in March might be a days-long campaign to hurt the regime has gone on too long for a deal — and the stakes are too elevated. Once you grab somebody by the throat, you’ve got to keep squeezing until the job is done.

Read more …

“They like the snipers better because all they do is have a crowd of 200,000 people, and a person goes down here right between the eyes ..”

• Trump Proclaims War Won’t Last ‘Too Long’ (ZH)

Trump again reiterated in afternoon comments to reporters that the military campaign against Iran won’t last too long. Of course, we’ve heard this many times before, also amid reports that White House aides are urging ‘quiet’ related to the Iran conflict until at least after November midterm elections, after which operations could ramp up again. “We blew up much more than their radar last night, it was a very heavy attack last night. And we’re prepared to do another one any time we want,” he stated.


“We hit them last night because they took a shot at our base in Jordan,” he continued, confirming the Iranian retaliation. “We hit them hard last night. They gave a little love-tap, but we hit them hard.” He also described that “some defensive, some offensive” Iranian radars and capabilities along the Strait of Hormuz were taken out. Trump says that while the US is ready to strike Iran “at any time”, he doesn’t expect the renewed fighting to last “too long”. Another interesting moment below… these numbers keep getting inflated, despite there not being any evidence of large-scale protests and violent suppression on the ground in recent months:

And there’s this via CBS: Trump in Oval described Iranian actions against protesters. They use “machine guns and sometimes the snipers. They like the snipers better because all they do is have a crowd of 200,000 people, and a person goes down here right between the eyes, and they’ll have three snipers doing it, and it’s a horrible thing to watch.”

What’s the timeline on this? What is he talking about? Netanyahu has also joined in from Israel, on Wednesday saying that Mossad continues to be active in Iran, and that the goal is regime collapse.

Read more …

“Tehran proper is now gridlocked by gas lines ..”

“..In the cities, for now, at least, there is enough water. At least enough that it’s increasingly being used to dilute gasoline in order to make the limited rations to petrol stations last longer ..”

• What Is Iran’s Boiling Point? We May Be Very Close to Finding Out (Patterson)

I can’t say I remember all of my high school chemistry and physics education, but I do remember the concept about water boiling. Under normal atmospheric pressure, 212 degrees is the magic temperature for it to begin bubbling off into steam in earnest. But if you can pressurize the container holding the water, doubling its surroundings in atmospheric pressure, you get an additional 36 degrees of heat before boiling begins. That’s why cars and trucks for a very long time have had pressurized cooling systems for engines.


Don’t worry, I’m not going to geek out on science for the rest of this column. I bring it up in order show that cars and water have a very symbiotic relationship, provided that they’re used in the right way. And when they’re not, as is happening with increasing frequency inside Iran, we’re about to see what happens when pressure reaches its critical point. An important sequence of events took place in the Middle East in the last week, and much of it was very predictable based upon economic conditions deteriorating rapidly inside Iran that we covered last week.

Without any revenue, gasoline, grain, or weapons flowing into the Islamic Republic, and nothing to generate revenue leaving, the IRGC could not stand still and starve along with 93 million Iranians. The status quo of the blockade with the addition of further sanctions rolled out in Operation Economic Outcast was not sustainable. They had to lash out in order to change the equation. The last straw for the regime? De-mining the Strait of Hormuz.

As President Trump is fond of saying, Iran’s Navy is gone. What they had left was speedboats with machine guns tied to them. Most of those are gone now, too. But late last week, the IRGC began scrambling together a ragtag group of naval volunteers into whatever they could find that would float, and fashion a few more mines to begin the process of closing the Strait anew. There were reports that the Iranians wanted to deploy rockets with mines as payloads and drop them into the Strait, as absurd as that sounds. Of course, Centcom had a pretty good idea they would try something, and unlike Iran, our Navy and Air Force have the ability to watch them.

On Sunday, targets on Larak Island, one of the channel islands in the Strait of Hormuz, the same island the IRGC envisioned would be the proverbial toll booth collecting fees from tankers and freighters, were destroyed. And according to several open source reports in Israel and around the region, it was a direct hit. How do we know? The Iranians immediately launched nine missiles in response at…Jordan.

Eight of the nine missiles were intercepted and destroyed, and one was far enough off course it was not a threat to anything except scorpions. President Trump expected Iran to pop off, and in keeping with his motto to hit ten times as hard if Iran went kinetic, two waves of strikes hit targets up and down the southern coast of Iran. The President, in his response to Iran, said there is no more deal on the table. Howie Mandel is not in the Oval Office with a bevy of young ladies with briefcases and a mysterious banker on the phone. His banker is Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and there is no more offer. There is either surrender or more pain and suffering. On social media, Trump gave this AI video as a warning to the Iranians not to escalate after this response.

He later told Fox News’ Trey Yingst that if the regime launched again after this, he would flatten them. Did Iran take their beating and stand down? Nah. They found 14 more rockets and fired…at Jordan again. Why Jordan? We have a military base there. We still do. Ten of thirteen rockets were once again intercepted and destroyed mid-air, and three were wide right of the uprights and wiped out more desert fauna. What about the 14th rocket, you ask? Well, it went up, and then came down on an Iranian house that was full of people conducting a wedding ceremony.

The regime blamed the tragedy on U.S. strikes while simultaneously admitting that a telecommunications tower was also struck. The tower and the house, by the way, were not near each other. This is what’s left of the tower.

President Trump, to pour salt in the wound, said the U.S. had been watching Iranians build this tower, which would help restore their radar system and track vessels in the Strait once again. We waited until they had basically rebuilt the thing — investing all the time, money, and energy, and then we blew it up. It’s sad bordering on the pathetic, but after everyone in the Middle East hearing about the menacing power of the vaunted Iranian Navy for decades, this literally is what constitutes the regime navy this week.

As of last night, the promised intensified third round of strikes had not begun. They certainly could be imminent, as it would be in keeping with what President Trump said multiple times in the last few days. But perhaps something else may be on the horizon. We’ll come back to that in a bit. I mentioned about cars, water, and pressure, and how Iran is about to become one giant science experiment. Let’s begin with water. As scarce as gasoline appears to be in populated areas, in the more rural regions, water is even harder to come by.

Water deliveries have all but stopped since the war began, and you have to walk miles to get it. Forget about plumbing and irrigation. Water showing up just under once a month for entire villages? How long is that supposed to be sustainable? In the cities, for now, at least, there is enough water. At least enough that it’s increasingly being used to dilute gasoline in order to make the limited rations to petrol stations last longer. Diluting gas with water was a one-off event last week, or so we were told by the regime. One station got a load of bad gasoline, and it was all just an innocent mix-up, if you’ll pardon the pun. This week, though, there are multiple reports of gasoline being more water than gas.

Water in the radiator and cooling system? You bet. Water in the windshield wiper tank? Absolutely. Water in the gas tank? Not if you want to make it home from the station. And to add insult to injury, Iranians are having to wait hours on end for a chance to play Russian Roulette at the gas pump. For some, they lie on their horns in frustration while they wait. They can’t go anywhere, They’re stuck, they’re hot, they’re angry, and so they honk. What in previous weeks were lines for gas in the outskirts of the cities, Tehran proper is now gridlocked by gas lines.

Read more …

Yes it does.

• The Leipzig Incident Has All The Hallmarks Of A False Flag (Andrew Korybko)

It was carried out to justify the German economy’s evolution to war footing, distract from the resultant problems, and legitimize a future serious escalation against Russia. Germany blamed Russia for last month’s incident in Leipzig when one explosives-laden drone was found on the tarmac in proximity to Ukrainian cargo planes, another reportedly collided with a separate cargo plane as it tried to land but failed to explode, and a third was later found close to the premises. Putin condemned their claim, shared his opinion that it was a false flag due to them planting evidence, and speculated that the motive was to distract from domestic problems by fearmongering about Russia.


While skeptics might roll their eyes, the Leipzig incident has all the hallmarks of a false flag. For starters, Germany is implying cartoonish incompetence on the part of Russia. The public is supposed to believe that the most skilled drone operators in the world, who were tasked with what would have been the most sensational Hybrid War attack on NATO ever, left a drone on the tarmac, got unlucky when another failed to explode after it hit a landing cargo plane, and left another nearby. That’s difficult to believe.

The second point to make in support of Putin’s hypothesis is that something similar happened last fall when unknown drones forced major airports in Scandinavia to temporarily ground all flights. Zelensky predictably blamed Russia and called for closing the Danish Straits to its shipping. As with the Leipzig incident, no evidence was ever shared in support of that claim, but it served as the precedent to blame Russia for mysterious drone-related incidents in Europe in order to justify more escalations against it.

And finally, while Zelensky’s proposed escalation ultimately never came to fruition (most likely to avoid a hot NATO-Russian war), an escalation of some sort might follow the Leipzig incident. It was argued here in late August that NATO would expect to gain more from a serious escalation with Russia than the inverse, which could take the form of resuming summer’s failed drone campaign against Russia at scale indefinitely in pursuit of its deindustrialization and demilitarization. That might be attempted next year.

Observers should remember that Germany, which is now Ukraine’s second-most-important military patron behind the US, reached a deal in the spring to develop Ukraine’s deep-strike capabilities. Its economy is also getting on war footing as Germany rapidly remilitarizes in furtherance of its goal to command Europe’s largest army ahead of the EU’s prediction of a possible war with Russia around 2030. This has proven unpopular with voters, however, ergo the need to justify it through the Leipzig incident.

To recap the explanation of Putin’s false flag hypothesis, last fall’s Russian drone scare in Scandinavia served as the pretext for blaming the Kremlin for future such incidents without evidence, which Germany has now done with the Leipzig one. The narrative of Russian drone operators’ incompetence is difficult to believe, however, but it’s still being pushed to justify the Germany economy’s evolution to war footing, distract from the resultant problems, and legitimize a future serious escalation against Russia.

As was written, this could take the form of resuming summer’s failed drone campaign against Russia at scale indefinitely in pursuit of its deindustrialization and demilitarization, but that risks crossing Russia’s nuclear threshold per its updated doctrine. At the very least, Putin would once again mildly “escalate to de-escalate” against Ukraine, but there’s always a chance that everything spirals out of control. It would therefore be best for Germany to eschew escalation just like the Scandinavian states ultimately did.

Read more …

If your money’s in a bank, they can probably touch it.

• Von der Leyen Tells EU Citizens ‘All Your Monies Are Belong to Us’ (Welborn)

Maybe, just schmaybe, those cod-clasping Vikings in Iceland knew what they were doing on Sunday evening, when, by the hairs on their bearded chinny chinchins, they extricated themselves for the foreseeable future from any discussions about becoming a European Union vassal state. Oh, excuse me – European Union ‘member,’ as if that implied some sort of chummy club filled with bonhomie, and all looking out for the other fellows’ best interests.


As someone said, it’s more the Hotel California. And at the rate the unelected Empress of Europe, current European Commission president, and epic Bond villainess Ursula von der Leyen is going, no one will be left standing to wonder how to check out, even if they could. The entire union charade is going to collapse in on itself with a great sucking sound, like a black hole, and simply wink out, leaving dazed survivors standing knee-deep in civilizational rubble and blinking in stunned astonishment like Rip Van Winkle waking up from his nap.

WHADDA WE DO NOW, GEORG?
The rumblings of discontent are already so loud, and the currents running beneath the surface so strong that one can tangibly detect them through the purposeful noise screen the Brussels Brahmins and their pliant government minions maintain to distract from it, and in defiance of all the legal obstacles erected in an effort to eradicate it. In five days, it very much looks as if the status quo seismic meter will suffer its first great shock, should the populist Alternative for Germany (AfD) Party earn its way to single-party dominance in the German state of Saxony-Anhalt.

NAZI! ULTRA RIGHT WING! EXTREMIST!
All the old, tired slurs are falling by the wayside because they’ve been deployed too often and too cheaply. As retorts rather than the real answers people are seeking for the miserable state of their countries. Those same everyday people, being slurred and demonized as ‘NAZIS!’ by the purple, blue, and green-haired freaks routinely assembled for public protests against them, have had quite enough of the double standard accorded to everyone but their hardworking, tax-paying selves.

They are tired of virtue signaling progressive/socialist politicians who rail against the middle class as NAZIS! for wanting an imported-men-of-fighting-age-stabby-types-free homeland once again while being married to actual neo-NAZIS! themselves.

[..]

The heaving, outraged chest of hypocrisy is no longer working its magic on listeners in the audience. No longer do they question why they thought they had a right to ask to begin with, and no longer do they slink away in shame that they somehow found the temerity to do so.

Now they see the arrogant hypocrisy on display, as if a film had been lifted from their eyes, and they are no longer being cowed into believing their honest concerns were wrong from the start. They see the frauds they’ve allowed to hold emotional sway berating them for who they are, and can begin to hold them accountable for what they’ve done, both to the nation physically and to the national psyche.

This explains the strength of the AfD’s appeal, the surging popularity of Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) in France, and the strength of populist movements across Europe. Citizens of countries whose cultural identities and work-ethic traditions have been nearly swallowed by diktats from the EU leviathan are stirring en masse to reject the politicians who have foisted this calamitous artificial construct on them. Farmers on tractors across Europe are blocking highways or spraying manure. Populist victories in elections in nearly every single country, particularly among the major players.

And the EU’s response to all of this? Ever more tone deaf tightening of the control screws, and rejection of the middle-class values that once made Europe ‘Europe.’ Ursula von der Leyen gave an astonishing speech to French business leaders five days ago that has just now broken into the news. As you will see in the video, the unelected Empress of Europe was tremendously animated for her normal appearances, but that was, perhaps, due to the subject – money.

She and her appointed satraps have run through all of it. The money sent to Brussels, the money they’ve extorted from ‘member states’ for their weapons build-ups and defense spending, all of it. And what makes her angry enough to smack the podium is the savings of hard-working Europeans, sitting fat and untouched in European banks, out of her control.

Read more …

View from a crypto site.

“Brussels wants Europe’s 10 trillion euros in deposits funding its companies. What it means for savers, and why Bitcoin savings plans matter.”

• Von der Leyen Wants Your Bank Deposits: How to Keep Control of Them (Fares)

The President of the European Commission stood in front of a room full of French business leaders last week and said the quiet part out loud. Europeans have roughly 10 trillion euros parked in bank accounts, that money is “sitting idle”, and Europe now needs to put it to work for European companies.She was not proposing to raid anyone’s account. But the language matters, because it tells you exactly how your savings are viewed from Brussels: not as your money, but as a national resource that is currently being wasted. Here is what is actually happening, and what you can do about it that does not involve waiting for a policy to be designed for you.


What Did Von der Leyen Actually Say About Europe’s Savings?
Speaking at the La REF business conference in Paris on 27 August, Ursula von der Leyen argued that Europe’s old economic model is finished. Cheap imported energy is gone, easy access to global trade is gone, and the assumption that someone else would handle Europe’s security is gone. Her answer is money. Specifically, your money. Around 10 trillion euros in household savings sit in European bank deposits, and a large share of Europe’s savings ends up invested outside the continent, mostly in the United States.

Meanwhile European companies stall out, get bought, or move abroad for funding. €10 trillion of household savings is currently sitting in bank deposits, and a significant part of European savings is invested outside our continent.Europe must now put these savings to work for its companies, and that is the goal of the Savings and Show more

The President of the European Commission stood in front of a room full of French business leaders last week and said the quiet part out loud. Europeans have roughly 10 trillion euros parked in bank accounts, that money is “sitting idle”, and Europe now needs to put it to work for European companies. She was not proposing to raid anyone’s account. But the language matters, because it tells you exactly how your savings are viewed from Brussels: not as your money, but as a national resource that is currently being wasted. Here is what is actually happening, and what you can do about it that does not involve waiting for a policy to be designed for you.

What Did Von der Leyen Actually Say About Europe’s Savings?
Speaking at the La REF business conference in Paris on 27 August, Ursula von der Leyen argued that Europe’s old economic model is finished. Cheap imported energy is gone, easy access to global trade is gone, and the assumption that someone else would handle Europe’s security is gone. Her answer is money. Specifically, your money. Around 10 trillion euros in household savings sit in European bank deposits, and a large share of Europe’s savings ends up invested outside the continent, mostly in the United States. Meanwhile European companies stall out, get bought, or move abroad for funding. The vehicle for fixing this is the Savings and Investments Union, or SIU. The Commission says the package of measures on securitisation, bank and insurance investment rules, market integration and supervision could unlock up to 470 billion euros in additional investment.

Is the EU Really Taking Money From Your Savings Account?
No, and anyone telling you otherwise is selling something. There is no confiscation, no forced conversion, no deposit levy in the SIU. What the SIU does is change the plumbing. It makes it easier and cheaper for banks, insurers and asset managers to move retail money into capital markets, it pushes simplified investment products and pension wrappers, and it leans hard on financial literacy campaigns to convince you that your deposit account is underperforming.

On the last point, they are not wrong. The Commission’s own framing is that bank deposits are safe and easy to access but usually earn less than capital market investments. That is true. The awkward part is the second half of the pitch: the goal is not only better returns for you, it is cheaper capital for European companies. You are being asked to become the funding source for an industrial policy. There is also a detail that rarely gets mentioned. Your savings were never idle. Banks lend deposits out. They always have. What Brussels means by “idle” is that the money is not flowing into the specific channels the EU wants it to flow into.

Why Are Bank Deposits Losing You Money Anyway?
Forget the politics for a second. The case against leaving everything in a savings account is much older than the SIU. A euro sitting in a deposit account earns a nominal rate. Inflation eats the real value. Across most of the last decade, the combination has meant a slow, quiet loss of purchasing power for European savers, even during periods when headline rates looked respectable. You do not see it, because the number on your statement never goes down. Only what it buys does. That is the actual problem. Von der Leyen is right that 10 trillion euros of deposits is a bad outcome for savers. Where reasonable people disagree is on the solution.

What Does It Actually Mean to Control Your Own Money?
Here is the test. If someone else can change the rules, freeze the account, redirect the flow, or inflate away the value while you sleep, you do not fully control that money. You have a claim on it.That applies to a bank deposit, and it applies just as much to whichever tidy EU investment wrapper gets rolled out in 2027 with a nice acronym and a tax incentive attached.

Bitcoin is the opposite design. Fixed supply of 21 million, no issuer, no board meeting that can change the schedule, and if you hold your own keys, no intermediary that can freeze it. That is the entire point of the asset. Whether you like the volatility or not, nobody in Brussels, Frankfurt or Washington can decide that your bitcoin is sitting idle and needs to be redirected.

Read more …

CIA state within state.

• The CIA Never Comes To Russia In Peace (Scott Ritter)

CIA Director John Ratcliffe traveled to Moscow last week. What we know: Ratcliffe met with Sergey Naryshkin, the director of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service. This has been confirmed by Naryshkin himself, who described the meeting as “routine.” We also know that the US spy chief did not meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin. “The meeting took place, there is nothing unusual in this,” Naryshkin stated afterwards. “In the practice of special services, meetings of managers, personal meetings or online are part of our work. So, the meeting with John Ratcliffe is a working format.”


Naryshkin refused to state what issues were discussed, explaining that they were within the competence of the intelligence services. “And the competence of the intelligence services is such a rather delicate and special thing,” the Russian spy chief said. What we don’t know: literally anything else. Rumors abound about additional attendees, as well as the agenda – or lack thereof – that was pursued by Ratcliffe during a meeting which appeared to be anything but routine. But the fact is, any meeting between Ratcliffe and Naryshkin, given the nature of the times we live in, could never be described as “routine.” A quick reminder: John Ratcliffe’s CIA is currently at war with Russia. Literally.

Ratcliffe assumed his current position on January 23, 2025. Prior to this, he did a short stint as national intelligence director during the last year of Trump’s first term in office. He was a Texas congressman for a few years, as well as a small-town mayor and acting US attorney for the Eastern District of Texas.He is a politician, not a spy. But he is fully cognizant of the CIA’s secret war against Russia, having been fully briefed while serving as DNI. As a member of Congress, Ratcliffe was a leading policy maker on national security issues serving as a member of the House Intelligence and Homeland Security committees. Any effort to portray him as some sort of “innocent abroad” fails on the face of the facts.

The CIA has always been at war with Russia. During the Cold War, Moscow Station (the name of the CIA’s operation center based out of the US Embassy) was literally the front line of the spy-versus-spy antics taking place between the US and the Soviet Union. The CIA headed up Operation Cyclone, a massive paramilitary-driven effort to create a Vietnam-like quagmire for the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. The goal of Operation Cyclone was to kill Russians. I worked with people who were directly or indirectly affiliated with Operation Cyclone. ‘Kill more Russians’ was literally their mantra.

There was a time when the CIA hired genuine Russia-area experts. The analysts who populated the Office of Soviet Analysis (SOVA) in the Directorate of Intelligence at the height of the Cold War were some of the best experts on the Soviet Union imaginable.I know because I worked with them. From 1988-1990, I received two classified commendations from the director of the CIA for my analytical work involving the Soviet Union. I was considered by the CIA leadership to be a top-notch Soviet analyst.

In 1992 the CIA actively recruited me for an analytical position within the predecessor to SOVA, the Slavic and Eurasian Office. I was brought in for a high-level interview, after which I was informed that the CIA would be passing on my application. When I asked why, I was told that I was too married to old school thinking about Russia – in short, I was a ‘Sovietologist’. The CIA was looking for people who could imagine Russia ‘differently’. What this meant was divorcing oneself from the mindset that Russia (i.e., the Soviet Union) was a peer-level opponent worthy of respect (my view), and instead adopting a stance that Russia was a defeated foe that needed to be kept down by any means necessary.

In the 1990s, the CIA’s task was to use Boris Yeltsin as an agent of influence to weaken Russia and facilitate foreign control over its resources. The CIA actively infiltrated every aspect of the Russian economy and used ‘soft power’ resources funded by the likes of the National Endowment for Democracy and overseen by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) to hijack Russian democratic institutions and Russian social life, especially through media-related activities.

The CIA also was very active in working to break Russia up into more manageable fiefdoms, each ruled over by a CIA-controlled lackey. The Russian-Chechen conflict was a primary example of this activity. When Boris Yeltsin stepped aside in favor of Vladimir Putin as Russia’s president on New Year’s Eve 1999, the CIA immediately made it its task to undermine Putin and replace him with someone from the Yeltsin camp willing and able to do the CIA’s bidding.

Putin’s resistance and resilience as a Russian leader operating independent of CIA control helped shape a new generation of Russophobes in the United States. The first generation were the ‘new Russian’ thinkers that replaced the old school ‘Sovietologists’ at the end of the Cold War. To them, Russia was a playground for which to launch experiments on economic and political domination with absolutely zero regard to the price being paid by the people of Russia.

This generation of Russophobes simply detested Russia and the Russian people, failing to attribute any normative human value to their lives. Millions of Russians lost their lives as a result, and tens of millions of others suffered greatly.Michael McFaul, the former US ambassador to Russia, falls into this category. So, too, does Fiona Hill. And Beth Sanner. People whose educational background and Russian experience pre-dates Putin, people who know the truth about Russia but opted instead to embrace the hegemonic policies of superpower singularity and work to weaken and destroy Russia.

But Putin’s stubborn hold on power, despite concerted efforts by the CIA to oust him (think Navalny), led to the birth of a new generation of Russophobes, so-called ‘experts’ whose only claim to relevance is their undying hatred of Putin and everything Russian. It is this generation that has gravitated to the upper levels of the CIA’s analytical community, and who openly hate all things Russia. People like Andrea Kendall-Taylor and Julia Gurganus. It is this openly Russophobic CIA that John Ratcliffe oversees.

His relationship with Julia Gurganus is both instructive and illustrative of the sickness that pervades the CIA when it comes to Russia. Gurganus was the National Intelligence Officer for Russia back in 2016-17, at the height of the Obama-era Russiagate scandal that tried to make the case of collusion between then-candidate Donald Trump and Russia to steal the 2016 presidential election from Hillary Clinton. Gurganus helped manufacture the intelligence that underpinned this false allegation. She was a vociferous critic of Trump, so much so that the CIA quietly exiled her to a think tank position during Trump’s first term in office.

When Trump was reelected, Ratcliffe oversaw the whitewashing of Gurganus’ role in falsely accusing Trump of collusion, leading to the elevation of Gurganus as the senior CIA briefer onboard Air Force One as Trump flew to Alaska to meet with Putin in August 2025. That’s right – Ratcliffe purposefully cleansed Gurganus of her anti-Trump credentials so she could personally brief the president before his meeting with Putin. Tulsi Gabbard, in her role as DNI, exposed Gurganus as an anti-Trump operative and had her security clearances revoked, but not before the damage was done.

There was a time when the CIA’s Directorate of Operations Russia House was home to living legends. People like Milton Beardon, who helped run Operation Cyclone and was chief of the Soviet/East European Division at the time the Soviet Union fell. Gardner Hathaway and Berton Gerber, who ran some of the most successful CIA spying operations from Moscow Station in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Read more …

“There’s a couple of Democrats here in the House who have suggested that they’re not on board with the Democrat Socialists of America, just a few. They’re going to get a chance to show us tomorrow. We’re going to see.”

• Mike Johnson’s Got a Trick for Dems Trying to Pack the Supreme Court (Charles)

House Republicans are set to propose a constitutional amendment that would prevent Democrats from packing the Supreme Court when they get back in power. This comes after years of Democrat politicians pushing for adding more seats to the Supreme Court to water down the influence of conservative-leaning justices.While addressing reporters at the U.S. Capitol, explained that lawmakers will be dealing with a series of legislative priorities on Wednesday.


“I’ll highlight one of those,” he said. “We are going to bring a constitutional amendment. It is a bill to amend the U.S. Constitution to ensure that the U.S. Supreme Court remains composed of only nine justices. We will keep the nine. Now, you’ve heard the Democrat Socialists of America.” Johnson continued, noting that “the communist socialists in the Democrat Party who are taking the party over, they published their platform” and that “they want to abolish the border. They want to abolish prisons, defund police. One of their objectives, among all the crazy things, is they want to pack the U.S. Supreme Court.”

We’re going to make sure that doesn’t happen. So we’re going to put that bill on the floor tomorrow on suspension because it requires a two thirds vote of both chambers of Congress to amend the Constitution. …There’s a couple of Democrats here in the House who have suggested that they’re not on board with the Democrat Socialists of America, just a few. They’re going to get a chance to show us tomorrow. We’re going to see.

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2094856135987896489?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2094856135987896489%7Ctwgr%5E4d3572432d1bb72d0eb88025d7d6cfe40c5a921a%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftownhall.com%2Fnews%2Fjeff-charles%2F2026%2F09%2F02%2Fmike-johnsons-got-a-trick-for-dems-trying-to-pack-the-supreme-court-n2682293

Democrat lawmakers have increasingly advocated for packing the Supreme Court over the past decade in response to a series of rulings that didn’t go their way. They argue that the change is necessary to maintain institutional legitimacy. Congressional Democrats have introduced multiple proposals in recent months aimed at weakening the power of the Supreme Court. These include increasing the number of justices, imposing term limits, and creating ethics standards.

These efforts have not been successful due to a series of legislative obstacles. Democrat Rep. Hank Johnson (GA-4) declared, “We can either sit back as our Supreme Court continues to act without any restraint or checks and balances, or we can do nothing about it.” Similarly, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) said, “When Democrats control the Senate in the next Congress, we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court.”

Of course, anyone with an IQ higher than my shoe size can see that this has nothing to do with restoring legitimacy or ensuring fairness. Democrats just want more power, and they can’t gain dominance over the court anytime soon without changing the rules.

Read more …

The anti-Israel voice seems to have reached a crescendo, on the waves of a pro-muslim song. We need balance

• The ‘Gaza Genocide’ Is a Hoax (David Harsanyi)

In May 2025, Tom Fletcher, the United Nations under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs, went on BBC Radio and told the audience that 14,000 babies in Gaza were going to die “in the next 48 hours unless we can reach them.” According to UNICEF, there are around 20,000 babies in the entirety of Gaza. Which means 70% of all infants were in danger of dying in mere hours. An “utterly chilling” figure, Fletcher stressed.


The New York Times, along with numerous other establishment media outlets, relayed Fletcher’s allegation to its credulous audience without any skepticism. The usual experts were summoned to discuss this unfolding famine on cable news. And the antisemites across social media amplified the claim. No matter how far-fetched a story is about Israel, including preposterous evidence-free accusations that it trains dogs to rape Palestinians, papers such as The New York Times will spread it to feed the perception that the Jewish state operates as a genocidal entity. And no matter how often the claims are debunked, they keep at it.

A couple of months after Fletcher’s pronouncement, for instance, The New York Times ran a front-page story about starvation in Gaza featuring a haunting photograph of an emaciated Palestinian toddler named Mohammed Zakaria al Mutawaq. Unmentioned was that the boy suffered from cerebral palsy and other serious preexisting medical conditions, and his appearance had nothing to do with hunger. In any event, what the U.N. report actually found was that 14,000 cases of malnutrition might occur among the 1 million children of Gaza, not babies, if aid did not reach them over the next year.

Aid did reach them. Lots and lots of aid. The U.S.-Israeli Gaza Humanitarian Foundation delivered around 187 million meal equivalents, plus produce, and over 1 million packs of supplementary food for children to Palestinians before the ceasefire. And a year after U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres claimed that “famine” in Gaza was a “failure of humanity itself,” a UNICEF-led “Nutrition SMART Survey Result” found that not only was there no widespread acute malnutrition in Gaza, but at 0.5%, the strip had one of the lowest rates in the region.

By the time “clarifications” run, the stories have coagulated in the imaginations of Israel haters. No credible person argues that Palestinians in Gaza do not suffer because of Hamas’ endless nihilistic wars against Israel. But there was no genocide. Not one popularly understood. And not legally. The exculpatory evidence against genocide is overwhelming. The most significant thing to remember about the genocide charge is that international organizations had to change the way they apply the legal definition that has been in place since the 1948 Genocide Convention to smear Israel.

In the popular understanding, the term “genocide” is something akin to the mass murder of people. As a legal matter, it is defined as acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.

The legal case against Israel relies on intent. If Israel harbors genocidal intentions, why would it deliver more humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip than any army has probably ever delivered to an enemy population during wartime in history? Israel, which gave Gaza autonomy in 2005, not only provided food but also clean water, electricity and medical aid for decades.

If Israel has genocidal intentions, why does it warn civilians with flyers, roof knocking, phone calls and other mitigation techniques? Israel remains the only nation in the history of Earth that is allegedly intent on genocide to put its own troops in more danger to spare civilians. Why does Israel move the populations of entire cities out of the way when trying to confront Hamas? Israel could, of course, annihilate all of Gaza within minutes if it felt like it.

If Israel has genocidal intentions, why does the Gaza war have one of the lowest combat-to-civilian death ratios in the history of modern warfare? This, despite the fact that Hamas urges its own people to become cannon fodder as a means of appealing to friendly Western journalists and intellectuals. Hamas leaders build tunnels under hospitals, schools and mosques. They fire rockets from civilian areas. They prevent their own people from evacuating combat zones.

If Israel had genocidal intentions, there would be a lot more than 70,000 total casualties during the war. That total, it needs to be stressed, includes deaths from illness, old age, executions, murders, natural causes and preexisting conditions. Most importantly, it includes Hamas and Islamic Jihad fighters — though that fact is barely ever mentioned by the mass media.

Of course, Israel itself is home to over 2 million Arab citizens, a fifth of the country, with full legal and voting rights, who serve in the Knesset, practice law and medicine, and attend universities. Arab Israelis have higher living standards, longer life expectancies and greater political freedom than Arabs in most neighboring countries. If Israel’s goal was ethnic cleansing, the nation is the most spectacularly incompetent operation in human history. There is no genocide. And there was no famine. There was a war. And the bad guys lost.

Read more …

“You have to have an environment that’s relatively free of regulation, meaning that new things must be default legal as opposed to default illegal,”

“..if the UK were a state, 30 years ago it would have been the fifth-richest in the Union. Today it would be our poorest state, ranked 51st behind Mississippi.”

• Musk: The Future Is Power, Chips, and Data Centers (Stephen Green)

SpaceX CEO and founder Elon Musk spoke some harsh truths to EU leaders at a G20 conference in North Carolina on Tuesday — and a reminder to Americans about where the future lies. Speaking and taking questions at the G20 Innovation Ministerial in Chapel Hill, Musk said he believes “AI will probably increase the global economy by 20 to 30%” over the next few years. “That’s my rough estimate — meaning on the order of 20 to 30 trillion dollars per year.”


“Toward a 30% increase of the total global economy — this is quite a lot of prosperity we’re talking about here, just from digital AI,” he added. “But from robotics … I think we’ll see many multiples of the global economy, meaning you can increase the economy by a factor of 10 or more. These are mind-boggling numbers.”One question is what drives all that growth. The answer is three things: more chips, more data centers, and a lot more power generation.

“The consensus,” Musk noted, “is that there will be a significant power shortfall next year — not a distant future. I believe the consensus estimate among analysts that follows the AI space very closely is that there will be at least a 15 gigawatt shortfall of power in 2027 for AI chips.” SpaceX plans to skip right past power generation limits by building data centers in space, but so far, at least, they’re the only company in the world with anything close to the ability to do that.

That’s one reason Musk said the exponential demand growth “creates an opportunity” for countries to “construct a lot of power, offer that to AI companies. And in exchange, of course, these data centers would be taxed and have to pay reasonable fees and so on.” The second question is who gets the lion’s share of that incredible growth. President Donald Trump kicked off the discussion on Monday, telling opponents of AI data centers that they would end up “backwards and poor,” and that they were helping rival China.

As previously noted, the last real innovation in the consumer space to come out of Europe might have been the web browser more than 30 years ago. That’s a long time ago.Europe does have a few tech firms with high-end specialties. There’s Germany’s Black Forest Labs for FLUX-based image generation, or France’s AMI Labs, which is just a startup — and a tiny one, by American or Chinese standards — but shows some promise. Mistral AI is probably Europe’s leader in AI. The company is privately held, but with an estimated valuation of less than $15 billion, the entire thing is almost a rounding error compared to leading U.S. or Chinese firms.

When it comes to general AI, Europe really doesn’t compete at the frontier. There’s simply no will across the EU or UK to allow the innovation (or power generation, or data center construction) required. “You have to have an environment that’s relatively free of regulation, meaning that new things must be default legal as opposed to default illegal,” Musk said to audience members including ministers from EU member states France, Italy, and Germany, and even EU tech chief Henna Virkkunen. In the EU, for example, we find that the regulation level is extraordinarily high, and things are generally default illegal, and this inhibits progress with new technologies,” he added. Take that, various ministers.

Europe fell badly behind the U.S. since the internet became the big growth-driver. So much so that if the UK were a state, 30 years ago it would have been the fifth-richest in the Union. Today it would be our poorest state, ranked 51st behind Mississippi. Over the next 25 years, probably less, Europe seems destined to get lapped by China, too. Is that the future we want for our country?

Opposition to building out energy generation, chip fabrication, and, yes, even data center construction is functionally no different than choking off rail and steel production at the start of the 19th century, or oil and automobiles at the dawn of the 20th. We know how to build the future. The final question is whether we allow ourselves to do it.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle September 1 2026

Sep 012026
 
 September 1, 2026  Posted by at 10:29 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , ,  28 Responses »


Henri Matisse Le Bonheur de Vivre 1906


• Trump Says Iran’s Regime Killed 100,000 Freedom Protesters (Salgado)
• The Left Would Hate for You to Know These Things About Trump (Margolis)
• Penn Professor Demands Politicians Commit to Packing the Supreme Court (Turley)
• Oh, Canada (James Howard Kunstler)
• Is the Muslim World Rising (Paul Craig Roberts)
• The True Story of World War II (Paul Craig Roberts)
• The Long Shadow of Judge Indira Talwani (Turley)
• Clyburn Calls for Packing the Court with “Baker’s Dozen” to Flip Cases (Turley)

 


 

https://twitter.com/KirkLubimov/status/2094455512821879045?s=20 https://twitter.com/MAGAVoice/status/2094225618443682274?s=20 https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2094139964439376307?s=20

 


 


Broken up work day today. Had to go to hospital for tests. The Matisse must make up for all that’s off.

• Trump Says Iran’s Regime Killed 100,000 Freedom Protesters (Salgado)

The Iranian regime’s massacre of its own people who want a freer and more democratic country has now climbed to 100,000, according to President Donald Trump. If the genocidal Iranian regime falls, which we all pray will happen in the near future, Trump seems to be contemplating Nuremberg-style trials, which is something we haven’t done for mass murderers in far too long. The president posted on TruthSocial on August 31 about the runaway inflation in Iran and how many freedom protesters have died in government crackdowns since the initial January slaughter that left 50,000 dead.


“Iran is officially a Failed Nation. IT IS DEAD!” Trump began in his usual exaggerative style. “They have no Navy, they have no Air Force, they have no currency, they are not paying their soldiers or police, Inflation is at 300%, and their leadership is in total disarray and incapable of properly representing the country. The only thing they have is FAKE NEWS from the USA, a willingness to kill their protesters (now over 100,000 people dead. They must be tried for war crimes against humanity!), and a good line of ‘BULLS**T.’ Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

Over the weekend, the Trump administration ordered strikes on Larak Island, where the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps had missile launchers. Unfortunately, the IRGC still seems to have enough missiles left to continue firing at American troops.

The people of Iran have shown their courage in the face of death all throughout this year in a way that history should immortalize. But tragically, until and unless the United States and Israel eliminate the rest of the top ayatollahs who indiscriminately kill Israelis, Americans, Persians, and Arabs alike, the slaughter will never end, and regime change will never happen. It is unfortunate that none of the weaponry the Biden administration abandoned to the Taliban in Afghanistan will be available for the Persians to take on their own terrorist government. I would much, much rather that the Persians who are pro-American have it and overthrow a regime that never stops screaming “death to America” than that Afghani terrorists who hate us should have and use it.

Unfortunately, for some reason, American weapons never do seem to end up in the hands of people who are willing to further our interests. Then again, perhaps there is an alternative to Americans and Israelis taking out the murderous mullahs directly.

Perhaps the U.S. government could stop sending so many weapons to Ukraine, where so many men have died in a stalemate war, and smuggle them to the Kurds or the Persians. Four more Americans died recently in Iranian strikes. It’s time to stop that Iranian terrorism once and for all. And there is a whole army of Persians and Kurds just waiting for the weapons and the opportunity to do the job for us.

Read more …

Not the Left, it’s the MSM that has made Trump a caricature.

• The Left Would Hate for You to Know These Things About Trump (Margolis)

The mainstream media have spent pretty much every moment since Donald Trump announced his candidacy for president of the United States portraying him as an evil, cruel, empathy-free tyrant who couldn’t manage a kind word for anyone outside his own family. Joe Biden practically built his entire 2020 campaign on that same premise, insisting that the election came down to character, and that Trump simply didn’t have it.


This is the same Joe Biden who spent years refusing to acknowledge his own granddaughter, Navy Roberts, the daughter Hunter Biden had with a former stripper. It’s the same Joe Biden who checked his watch through the dignified transfer ceremony for the 13 American troops killed in the terrorist bombing outside Kabul’s airport. And it’s the same Joe Biden who let the country believe he was sharp as ever while his own team quietly managed a cognitive decline he denied for years. But I digress.

Character, as it turns out, was never really the point. But two stories from a Newsmax podcast are the kind Democrats would rather nobody hear because they don’t fit the narrative they’ve been trying to sell to the public. The first comes from Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), who sat down with Greta Van Susteren and described what happened after Trump invited him to Mar-a-Lago back in January 2025. “He invited me to have dinner at Mar-a-Lago back in January of 25, and I took a lot of s**t for that,” Fetterman said. “Why? I don’t understand.” But the big reveal came next.

“He also even checked in on my dad. My dad’s having a real difficult situation, health, about his heart, and he absolutely checked in on that,” Fetterman said. He added that he disagrees with the president plenty on policy, but on a personal level, “it’s been more than happy. “The private and the personal, at least in my experience, is very different,” Fetterman said. Van Susteren backed Fetterman up with a story of her own, one that goes back years before Trump ever ran for office. She recalled reporting on a struggling veteran and getting an unexpected phone call.

“Years ago, before he even ran for president, I was covering the story of this down-and-out soldier who had PTSD,” Van Susteren said. “I got a call from Trump asking me what his address was. I said, ‘I don’t know his address. Why?’ He said, ‘Because I want to help the guy.'” “I said, ‘Well, I don’t know.’ He said, ‘Tell you what, I’ll send you a check and you find him,’ so he hangs up the phone,” Van Susteren continued. “The next day I get a FedEx from Donald Trump with a personal check to the guy for $25,000.”

There’s a reason why Van Susteren considered it a big deal. “It’s not something Trump could write off on his taxes. It’s not something that was reported,” Van Susteren said. “He’s pretty gruff, often he says some pretty rough things and tweets some pretty rough things, but he’s got that side of him.” None of this fits the character that Democrats have long insisted was true.

Read more …

“Carney increasingly reminds me of Fauci. He has that exact same air of technocratic infallibility. . . .” — Hans Mahncke on X

“Mark Carney has made himself a pain-in-the-ass for President Donald Trump.”

No, Trump got rid of one Trudy. He can take out any number of them.

• Oh, Canada (James Howard Kunstler)

You go for decades without even thinking of the place. The Great White North. Very polite people, somewhat Scottish, seems like. There’s poutine! Une invention Québécoise — an indigestible mélange of French fries, gravy, and cheese curds, like something you’d cook up at 4am after a toga party in a frat house. Ice hockey (of course, but was it necessary?) Polar bears. Puffins on the Labrador cliffs. Tar Sands. Plaid upholstery . . . .


Years ago, we used to go up there from college in the farthest reaches of upstate western New York just to get a half-fake buzz of being in “a foreign country.” Niagara Falls was like Times Square without the charm. Bunch of squalid wax museums and ashtray shoppes. Toronto was Rochester on steroids, beyond forgettable.

I once took a choo-choo train from Seattle to Vancouver just to take in the scenery along the Pacific Coast. Bald eagles galore all the way up feeding on stuff out in the Pacific tidal mud-flats. Got to Vancouver. They yanked me out of the customs line and stuffed me in a back office. A female immigration officer swaggered in, said they found a nine-year-old DUI conviction for me on some computer (well. . .. okay. . . a night of fishing with rum). Said she could keep me out of the country if she was in a bad mood. I couldn’t help wising off: “Nice to know Canadian immigration policy depends on your mood.” Whoops. They detained me for an extra two hours just to make me feel the pain. But I was eventually released into that boring city. Thank God for the Chinese restaurants.

And now. . . Mark Carney! He’s a beauty. A refined ectoplasmic manifestation of all the Globalist huggermugger working tirelessly to upend Western Civ. He has a weird glow of semi-transparency — not in the sense of revealing any truths, but more like you can partly see through him . . . he’s only half there . . . a ghost in the geopolitical machine.

More to the point, Mark Carney has made himself a pain-in-the-ass for President Donald Trump. On the surface, this US / Canada rift appears to be all about trade relations. Naw. It’s about Mark Carney being a tool for merry old England attempting to capture the resource base of northern North America to collateralize what little remains of the UK’s once-sprawling, now sinking, empire. England is not so merry these days. It has somehow managed to issue a fatwa on itself and entered a gruesome process of assisted economic and cultural suicide. You can’t even raise a British flag there anymore without risking weeks in the slammer. The home folks get stabbed and beheaded. It’s all blight, rape, kebabs, and hijabs over there. Not a good look if you still want to be that country you dimly remember.

Plus, they want to kick off a big war with Russia. Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Really? Lacking much of a military, Ukraine was Britain’s tool for that. Trouble was the huge expense of that project. Thought they could work-around it by turning Ukraine into a money-laundry, washing, rinsing, and disbursing US-sourced funds to Mr. Zelenskyy, with giant kickbacks to the Democratic Party’s money apparatus. Worked nicely when the phantom “Joe Biden” haunted the White House. He and his sicko son, Hunter, were already in so deep in Ukraine since JB’s felonious veepdom that Mark Carney — then chief of the Bank of England — could hang the Bidens out to dry anytime, if required.

Lo, these many years, then, Britain and NATO have sponsored all that drone-making and missile-launching action from Ukraine deep into Russia — in case you wonder how Zelenskyy carries on this stupid war, considering there are no young men left in Ukraine eligible to reinforce the battle lines in Donbas. Britain and NATO probably also furnish the satellite targeting of Russian assets. You must doubt that the USA is involved in that anymore. Luckily, Mr. Putin has the Christian patience of a true saint.

Our president is sick of Ukraine and the festering geopolitical disease it has been infected with by our increasingly-former allies in Europe. NATO’s aim with Russia is exactly the same as Britain’s push in Canada — a resource grab for the failing nations of Europe, who are getting choked to death by Ursula von der Leyen and her EU flying monkeys. Germany, France, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain. . . all whirling around the drain. Our president sees all that. (You don’t need magic glasses.)

Maybe it’s time to just send the 82nd Airborne into Ottawa. Flight time: under two hours from Fort Bragg, NC. Drop them on Parliament Hill. Let them hang around a few hours. Then, declare the whole thing a gag and fly them home. It’d be worth it. Or maybe go in and snatch Mark Carney like we did Maduro. Stuff Carney in an adjoining cell at the MDC in Brooklyn. I’m sure the two could amuse each other, swap satisfying gripes and sob stories.

Really, why stop at just re-naming Lake Ontario. Take the whole darn thing like a pie that has been left on the windowsill too long. The Canadian people would get over it five minutes. Everything is easier in the USA. Running a company, especially. They could keep their poutine and their hockey, learn to have a little fun once in a while. Quebec could become a theme park (what else have they got going there?). No more tariffs to get hung about. Honk if you like the idea.

Read more …

“Such an opportunity for Muslims has not existed for centuries ..”

• Is the Muslim World Rising (Paul Craig Roberts)

Recently there have been striking new developments that imply major changes in the correlation of forces. These developments have largely gone unacknowledged and their implications unexamined. I made the effort in online interviews on Dialogue Works and On Target. I will now attempt to do so in writing.


One of the developments is Iran’s defeat of US President Trump’s attack on Iran. Trump has been desperate to find a way out of the conflict without admitting defeat. His exit strategy is to redefine the conflict from a military one to an economic one and impose new economic sanctions on Iran and those who trade with Iran, while claiming that the Strait of Hormuz is an American territory through which is moving massive amounts of oil shipments. The combination of a redefined conflict with propaganda comprises Trump’s exit strategy.

Another development is the announcement of a mutual security agreement between Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. This development combines conventional military force with oil reserves and nuclear weapons and unifies three separate Muslim ethnicities in a strategic location with a population of 355,390,000 people. These are largely Sunni Muslims.

Another development is the announcement on Iranian news media that Iran, predominantly Shia, has been invited to join the alliance. It true, this would indicate that the schism between Sunni and Shia is breaking down. It would also mean a pact of four countries with 448,700,000 people, larger than the United States, with conventional and nuclear power, a large chunk of the world’s oil reserves, and control over the strategic oil waterways. It would be a bloc of strategic importance to Russia and China as the Muslim four country pact is located such that it protects Russian and Chinese interests. Such a pact could become a de facto alliance of 6 countries.

These developments, if real and not just words, signal the end of any pretense of American hegemony and Israel’s agenda of Greater Israel. Israel’s population of 10 million of which only 7.8 million are Jews is dwarfed by 448,700,000 Muslims. Moreover, the protection offered by the alliance would likely result in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen joining and the end of warfare stirred up by Washington among Muslims. Syria itself could be reconstituted, and Israel could be forced to give back enough of Palestine for a two-state solution to be possible.

Such an opportunity for Muslims has not existed for centuries and the possibility is so extraordinary that it seems likely to pass by due to stupidity, incompetence, and petty bickering. But if the opportunity is seized, the world has changed.

The only news I have of the Iranian response to the invitation is that Iran asked to see the details of the security agreement. Certainly Iran would want to know if the pact had any teeth or was just words, a bluff or an attempt to get attention. I know little of the content of the agreement, and I wonder at the absence of an explanation of its consequences. As it is announced, it is not secret, and you would think it would be of great interests to the world’s foreign policy analysts.

The report that Iran was invited to join came from Mehdi Rahimi, who heads Iran’s parliamentary news agency. However, I have not seen confirmations from the members of the pact or the Iranian executive branch that such an invitation has been issued. If no invitation has been issued, it raises the question whether the pact is an Israeli-American operation directed at Iran. If so, it seems that Trump would be more comfortable with the Iranian situation than he shows himself to be.

We have seen centuries of Muslim impotence due to their inability to unite. In the 21st century we have witnessed Washington destroy three Muslim countries for Israel–Iraq, Libya, and Syria–and attempt to destroy Iran, while Israel has completed its absorption of Palestine into Israel. Just the other day Israeli Finance Minister Smotrich announced that with the “Judaizing” of the remnants of the West Bank, there would now be new Jewish settlements in the Negev and in Galilee.

Possibly the Netanyahu coalition will be turned out in the upcoming election. Such a possibility could be heightened considerably should Iran receive and accept an invitation to join the Mecca pact, as it would show Israelis that the Zionist agenda of Greater Israel had no further prospect and that an accommodation must be arranged with the Muslim Middle East. If peace were to arrive in the Middle East, it could possibly arrive elsewhere.

Read more …

“..it doesn’t seem to be correct that there was an over-arching official policy from Hitler to exterminate the Jews.”

• The True Story of World War II (Paul Craig Roberts)

[..] The Nuremberg Trials were a travesty of justice. The “trials” served to put all war crimes, including the Soviet ones, on the Germans. I exposed the criminality of the Nuremberg Trials in a previous article on this website. Kristallnacht was a Brownshirts operation. David Irving reports that when Hitler heard of it he was furious. Irving provides the actual documentation. But when I ask AI, the false answer I get is that “it was explicitly orchestrated by top Nazi leadership and approved by Hitler.” I trust David Irving, not a polluted AI data base containing a vast number of lies written by court historians.


Hitler disapproved of the SA (Brownhirts) and destroyed them. As for the Holocaust, Europe has laws prohibiting any examination of the alleged Holocaust. The Zionist allegations must be accepted irrespective of any evidence. This is very curious, because if the narrative is true scholarly investigation would support the narrative. Generally speaking, matters that cannot be investigated are matters that truth does not support.

David Irving reported that after a half century of research, he had not found one word of a Holocaust in any official documents in German, Israeli, Soviet, British, American official archives or in any memoirs, diaries, letters. He even offered a monetary prize to anyone who can offer him some evidence. If memory serves, neither Churchill’s nor Eisenhower’s memoirs mention a Holocaust.

Think about this for a minute. An operation as large as the alleged Holocaust would have required an organization with its own administration, with its own stationary, headquarters, insignia and uniform, but no signs of such an organization exists. It would have required enormous budget expenditures, but no signs of such a budget entry exist. In the last days of the war it would have required special fuel permission overriding the needs of the German Army, but no such orders exist.

Evidence is conclusive that the so-called “death camps” were in fact work camps where synthetic fuel and rubber were made for the German Army. In Germany all labor was valuable, including Jews, as the German work force had been severely reduced to provide the Eastern Front with troops attempting to stop the Soviet advance on Germany. The notion that six million highly valuable workers would be deprived the hard pressed German labor force is difficult to accept.

There is no doubt that Jews in National Socialist Germany suffered discrimination and harsh treatment, both official and ad hoc. Rightly or wrongly, Jews were associated with the internal revolution and Germany’s WW I defeat. Many members of the National Socialist Party advocated and acted against them. But it doesn’t seem to be correct that there was an over-arching official policy from Hitler to exterminate the Jews. David Irving documents occasions when Hitler orders that Jews are not to be harmed, and states that “the Jewish question” will be settled after the war. Hitler’s original plan was to deport them to Madagascar.

With the initial success of Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union, Hitler decided that he would send the Jews to the rump of Russia behind the Urals that he would leave for Stalin. This announcement resulted in Nazi organizations sending Jews into the occupied Russian territories in advance of the expected victory, for which the administrators of the territories had no provision. David Irving says he can document 200,000-300,000 Jews being executed despite Hitler’s orders to the contrary by administrators who had no place to put them. Irving condemns these executions.

The Waffen SS was a large military force of tank and infantry divisions fighting in German front lines. They were often used to open or close breaches in the lines of combat. They were not an organization for the extermination of Jews. As David Irving and others have reported, some 150,000 Germans of Jewish descent, some being full-blooded Jews, served in the Wehrmacht, many as officers including officers in the SS. The last commander of the Luftwaffe was Helmuth Wilberg, a German officer of Jewish descent.

Read more …

“Talwani is viewed by many as a one-stop-shop judge for forum-shopping.”

• The Long Shadow of Judge Indira Talwani (Turley)

This week, the Trump administration found itself in a familiar position: facing an injunction from Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Indeed, it had just secured an order from the Supreme Court on its emergency docket lifting her earlier injunction on the U.S. Postal Service requiring voting lists to confirm U.S. citizenship.


The case against the executive order on mail-in ballots has reasonable arguments on both sides, although (as I have said previously) the challengers are likely to prevail in defeating the rule or at least delaying the policy until after the midterm elections. The Constitution gives states the primary responsibility over “the times, places, and manner of holding elections.”

However, the U.S. Postal Service is a federal agency, and the federal government does have a role in the funding and regulation of federal elections. More importantly, the Trump administration is arguing that it is not barring mail-in voting but merely imposing “modest informational requirements.” Non-citizens cannot vote in federal elections, and the new rule “does not displace a single state election law. And it need not and should not prevent a single voter from voting by mail.”

The controversy over Talwani is not necessarily the merits of her decision that the rule convenes the constitutional framework. Indeed, the Supreme Court did not rule on the merits and could well rule in favor of her interpretation. The controversy is the pattern of sweeping injunctions by Talwani and a few other judges.

Litigants have been accused of forum-shopping by going to liberal, Democratically appointed judges to prevent Trump policies from being implemented in a wide array of areas, including immigration, elections, reduction in government bureaucracies, and foreign aid.

Like her colleague in Boston, U.S. District Court Judge Brian Murphy, Talwani is viewed by many as a one-stop-shop judge for forum-shopping. Both have issued hair-trigger injunctions, and both have been repeatedly reversed.

Talwani was reversed on Aug. 24 for imposing an injunction against the mail-in balloting policy. Her injunction was taken to be premature and without a legal injury, since the administration had not issued a formal rule. The truth is, the challengers had her at hello. She did not wait for a showing of a cognizable injury before issuing another injunction, because the decision appeared made before the case hit her own docket.

Previously, Talwani showed the same inclination in other cases. For example, she issued an injunction against revoking the humanitarian parole program for hundreds of thousands of immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Her order was lifted on appeal. She also issued an injunction to stop the Trump Administration from defunding Planned Parenthood. That order was also set aside on appeal.

Regardless of the outcome of this latest injunction, Talwani has offered the strongest case in favor of the expanded use of the emergency docket, also known as the “shadow docket.” Liberal law professors and litigants have bewailed the expanded use of this docket at the Supreme Court to resolve cases without the need for a long briefing and oral argument. However, judges like Talwani have created legitimate concerns over the use of the appellate system to slow or freeze new policies. This is why the “shadow docket” has become more prominent.

This year, confidential memoranda were leaked from the court on the use of the emergency docket and published by the New York Times. It was only the latest such strategic leak from a court that was once the paragon of confidentiality and civility.

The internal exchanges of the justices were illuminating as to the majority’s underlying reason for allowing this fast-track review. The immediate issue was a move by the Environmental Protection Agency to impose unlawful regulatory burdens on electric utilities despite a countervailing earlier ruling in Michigan v. EPA. Chief Justice Roberts believed (as did many) that the EPA was using the ongoing litigation to force utilities to spend billions of dollars to comply with new regulations that the Supreme Court had already rejected.

“In other words,” Roberts wrote, “the absence of stay allowed the agency to effectively implement an important program we held to be contrary to law.”

As with the national injunctions that plagued the Trump administration in its first year, this tactic was all too familiar. Litigants would go to liberal judges in Washington, Boston, and other blue cities to secure injunctions that would take years to fully litigate. That approach effectively allowed individual judges to pursue their own preferred policies or to prevent a president from carrying out promises made during an election. At most, the president might have a year left after these cases slogged through the conventional appellate process. It is an administrative version of the old adage that “justice delayed is justice denied.”

What concerned the justices was that many of these injunctions directly contravened earlier precedent, exposing the cynical purpose of these orders. For a president to be able to carry out major changes, he had to run a gauntlet of hundreds of judges, any one of whom could effectively negate reforms. In response, the Supreme Court ramped up the use of the emergency docket and cracked down on national injunctions, quickly reversing the rapidly increasing number of injunctions against the Trump administration.

With the midterm elections rapidly approaching, the odds favor challengers in either running out the clock or prevailing on the merits on the mail-in ballots. But Talwani and some other judges have reinforced suspicions of the Roberts court that some courts are willing allies of partisan groups in seeking to gum up the system.

Ironically, Roberts is one of the most likely conservative justices to be concerned with the Trump administration’s effort to force election integrity reforms on the states. Either way, it is the shadow of these judges, not the docket, that is casting the most ominous concern for many of the Supreme Court justices.

Read more …

The only way they can win. Change the playing field.

• Penn Professor Demands Politicians Commit to Packing the Supreme Court (Turley)

University of Pennsylvania Professor Michael Mann is the Vice Provost for Climate Science, Policy, and Action and has pushed candidates to commit to major environmental reforms. Notably, he seemed to pivot in an interview with Peter Dominick on a podcast last week, calling for all Democratic candidates to face a litmus test on committing to pack the Supreme Court: promise to pack or get the sack. It is only the latest example of how the hostile takeover of the Court is now the priority for many Democrats in removing a barrier to a radical agenda.


Mann declared: “When it comes to Senate races, there should be a litmus test,” Mann said. “It isn’t just good enough to be a Democrat. You’ve got to be a Democrat who would be willing to expand the Supreme Court…There’s no way not to be partisan. There’s no way not to be political here. If you care about the environment, you’ve got to vote for the Democrats now.” Establishment candidates are offering the mob the Supreme Court to show their bona fides as the far left turns on “institutionists” who support our constitutional system. As I previously wrote, even law professors and deans joined this movement in calling for the rejection of our Constitution on the 250th anniversary of our Revolution.

Once packed, the Court could greenlight a variety of unconstitutional measures. Years ago, Harvard professor Michael Klarman laid out a radical agenda to change the system to guarantee Republicans “will never win another election.” However, he warned that “the Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described.” Therefore, the court must be packed in advance to make these changes possible. That includes an agenda for extreme measures ranging from wealth taxes to reparations to climate control regulations.

Mann raised the need to reverse doctrines limiting agency authority—a barrier to some climate control measures. In so doing, he got the underlying law fundamentally wrong: “It was in a conservative Supreme Court decision within the last few years that introduced the so-called Chevron standard. Basically, what they said was that the EPA no longer had the authority to make rules based on the science and its own determination.”

In 2024, the Supreme Court actually overturned the Chevron Doctrine in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. It also did not rule that “the EPA no longer had the authority to make rules based on the science and its own determination.” Rather, it said that courts would review such decisions without the prior presumptions in favor of agency decision-making. The restored, traditional judicial review is precisely to determine whether agency decisions are based on credible interpretations of the law and science.

Mann has had his own conflicts with the courts. He was sanctioned last year after winning a defamation case against bloggers Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn for attacking his climate control research.

At the time, some of us questioned the award, which awarded just $1 in actual damages but $1 million in punitive damages. In 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case, BMW of North America v. Gore, striking down a punitive damages award. The case involved the company’s practice of repairing and repainting cars damaged in transit without telling the customers. The jury in the original trial awarded $4,000 in compensatory damages for the car’s lost value due to the lack of a factory paint job and other damage; it then imposed $4 million in punitive damages for the company’s dishonesty.

D.C. Superior Court Judge Alfred S. Irving Jr. reduced the award against Steyn to just $5000 after finding the original award to be “grossly excessive.” The court later learned that Mann’s defense team had allegedly presented false accounts of his losses after the criticism. Mann’s legal team was accused of presenting a chart that listed a grant that Mann allegedly lost due to the defamatory remarks as $9.7 million when it was later found to be worth $112,000. Irving also found a disparity in the grant income figures given to the jury.

The court found the alleged misrepresentations to be “an affront to the Court’s authority” and sanctioned Mann and his legal team “for bad-faith trial misconduct.” After reversing the jury verdict, the court ordered Mann to pay $1.1 million of his critics’ legal expenses.Now, Mann is calling for all Democratic candidates to pledge to pack the Supreme Court as a condition for running. So any Democrat who believes in our institutions and resists this mob will be a persona non grata in the party as an “institutionalist” captured by “nostalgia.”

Mann joins a growing list of figures demanding the hostile takeover of the Court from Kamala Harris to Pete Buttigieg. The priority is telling. Much of what is planned by the far-left will be difficult to accomplish due to constitutional limits. You can remove those limits by eliminating an independent Supreme Court and turning this essential institution into a federal version of state courts packed with partisan jurists.

At its base is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Court’s role. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) not only renewed her previous call to pack the court but said the court was illegitimate for rendering decisions against “widely held public opinion.” However, the court was meant to be counter-majoritarian to protect minority groups and viewpoints from the majority will.

Mann’s advice is different from that of James Carville, who wants Democrats to hide this intended move from the public (which continues to oppose court packing). Carville told Democratic candidates: “If the Democrats win the presidency and both houses of Congress, I think on day one, they should expand the Supreme Court to 13. F—k it. Eat our dust. Don’t run on it. Don’t talk about it. Just do it.”

Mann and others (including former Attorney General Eric Holder) are done with any pretense: “There’s no way not to be partisan. There’s no way not to be political here.” In other words, it is time to make the Supreme Court itself partisan and political. It will then be reduced to just another partisan institution in an age of rage.

Read more …

It’s their only way to power.

• Clyburn Calls for Packing the Court with “Baker’s Dozen” to Flip Cases (Turley)

On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) added his voice to expand the Supreme Court to a “baker’s dozen,” or thirteen members to allow Democrats to add justices who agree with him and Democratic members on how the law must be interpreted. In the meantime, as discussed earlier, court pack ing is being pushed as the new litmus test for any Democratic candidates. Clyburn’s “baker’s dozen” is a telling description of an effort to bake in partisan views on a Court expanded to create an instant liberal majority. In defending this hostile takeover of the Court, Clyburn bizarrely insisted that the failure to do so might lead to a return to antebellum conditions when blacks were being given fewer rights than whites.


When asked by host Kristen Welker whether he supports the call of former Vice President Kamala Harris to pack the Court, Clyburn responded: “Yes, I do. I think that we are in a position now that calls for some significant actions taken by the Congress and we ought to expand. Thirteen is a pretty good number. A baker’s dozen would be a good number to have on the court. And I would hope we would get people on the Court who will follow the constitutional underpinnings of this great nation of ours.”

Clyburn then made the sensational claim that, without taking over the Court, blacks could be returned to virtual slave conditions. He added: “The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments have been interpreted different ways over the years. And we had in the Warren Court an interpretation of those amendments that I thought would be set for the future of the country. We have now a Supreme Court that has decided to reverse course and take this country back, I say, to those rulings of Justice Taney that said that no black man has any rights that a white man must respect.”

So, while recognizing that interpretations have evolved, Clyburn now demands a takeover of the Court because he disagrees with the current interpretations. It was fine when interpretations aligned with his views, but opposing viewpoints are intolerable and warrant packing the Court with reliable liberal votes. Other Democrats have demanded packing the Court to reverse immigration rulings.

The unhinged rhetoric reflects the importance of taking over the Court by Democrats who view the institution as a barrier to carrying out a radical agenda, including proposals that are considered unconstitutional. Liberal professors and pundits have identified a court takeover as essential to, as one law professor put it, guaranteeing that the Democrats never lose another national election. As former Eric Holder and James Carville have made clear, it is about power and guaranteeing its retention.

Of course, these figures know that it will take a great deal to get Americans to trash core institutions and values. Polls have long shown that a majority of citizens oppose efforts to pack the Court. FDR’s infamous court-packing plan in the 1930s has been widely panned in history, but is now being used as a model by many Democrats to achieve short-term political goals.

In order to overcome this fealty to our constitutional system, citizens must be very angry or very afraid. That is why the rage rhetoric is increasing as we approach the midterm elections. In the last election, the prediction was the imminent end of democracy. Now it is the return to slavery conditions in the United States.

One can disagree with the Court without suggesting that these justices are effective racists or want to return the nation to pre-Civil War slavery conditions. The suggestion that the Court would return this country to the Dred Scott period from before the Civil War is deeply offensive to the conservative justices, including Justice Clarence Thomas, who is African American. It is an absurd suggestion and shows contempt not just for the Court but for Black voters.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/2094437257021186067?s=20

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle August 25 2026

Aug 252026
 
 August 25, 2026  Posted by at 9:49 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , ,  54 Responses »


René Magritte Invisible world 1954


• “Operation Economic Outcast” Begins (ZH)
• Treasury Sec to Unveil ‘Economic D-Day’ Against Iran (ETM)
• Iran’s Civilian Leaders Call For Peace Amid Crippling U.S. Blockade (ZH)
• Le Pen Poised To Win French Elections? New Poll Shows Commanding Lead (ZH)
• The Democrats Are in a Trap of Their Own Making (Eric Florack)
• SCOTUS Gives Trump HUGE Win on Mail-In Voting (Matt Margolis)
• West Will Never Get Its ‘Loans’ Back From Kiev – ex-Ukrainian PM (RT)
• Zelensky Says Wartime Elections Would ‘Destroy’ Ukraine (ZH)
• Canada Chooses Climate Change, Censorship, and China (J.B. Shurk)
• Loonie Limps Lower As Trump Unleashes (More) Tariffs (ZH)
• Trump Gave Mark Carney an Ultimatum, USA or China? Carney Chose China (CTH)
• Trump Confirms ICE Investigating Ilhan Omar, ‘Enforcement’ Possible (Salgado)
• “This is My Place of Business” (Turley)

 


 

https://twitter.com/BasilTheGreat/status/2091833704331010055?s=20 https://twitter.com/CaseyKrol/status/2091526969951183212?s=20

 


 


“Bessent Warns Countries Helping Iran Face Expulsion From Dollar System..”

• “Operation Economic Outcast” Begins (ZH)

• Bessent Unveils “Operation Economic Outcast” Against Iran
• Pakistan enters diplomatic push: Pakistan’s army chief reportedly traveled to Tehran after Trump urged him to help reopen Iran talks.


Summary: US Treasury Sanctions Nearly 60 Iran-Linked Entities, Individuals And Vessels Across Nuclear, Missile, Cyber And Oil Networks:
• Five sectors face potential secondary sanctions: digital assets, technology, gold, aviation and shipping.
• Measures target brokerage networks and shadow-fleet vessels operating across the UAE, Hong Kong, China, Singapore, Switzerland and Europe.
• Bessent warns that countries failing to take action “will be removed from the US dollar system.”
• Bessent launched the Trump administration’s long-awaited “Operation Economic Outcast,” unveiling sweeping sanctions designed to sever Iran from the global financial dollar system and punish any foreign government or entity that continues facilitating Tehran’s trade.

The first wave of sanctions targets nearly 60 Iran-linked entities, individuals and vessels connected to the regime’s nuclear, missile, cyber and oil networks. The measures span a global web of brokerage companies, financial intermediaries and shadow-fleet vessels operating across China, Hong Kong, the United Arab Emirates, Singapore, Switzerland and Europe. “No one is above the reach of US sanctions,” Bessent warned during the press conference. Bessent made clear that Trump’s campaign extends well beyond Iran. Foreign companies dealing with Tehran now face an explicit choice: sever those ties or risk losing access to the US financial system.

Bessent stopped just short of naming countries such as China… “If others don’t act, Treasury will unilaterally act,” he said, adding that Washington “expects action” from other nations. Bessent added, “To those who enable Iran, don’t test US resolve.” The obvious pressure point here is China, which remains the largest buyer of Iranian crude. Washington has previously sanctioned independent Chinese refiners and trading companies.

Read more …

Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell

• Treasury Sec to Unveil ‘Economic D-Day’ Against Iran (ETM)

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent will announce massive new sanctions against Iran on Monday, a move he likened to “economic D-Day.” In an op-ed published in the Financial Times, Bessent said he is launching the “single greatest financial offensive ever marshalled against an adversary.” He said any nation that associates with Iran will face isolation. “Iran’s enablers purchase and transport its petroleum,” Bessent wrote. “They facilitate the flow of its finances through exchange houses and free trade zones. They welcome Iran’s flights and maintain registries on its behalf. They turn a blind eye to seaborne fuel transfers and the illicit use of their banks, all while concealing the extent of their complicity.”


Those enablers should “consider the consequences” of continuing their relationships, Bessent said. “Those who sever Iran’s remaining financial and commercial connectivity will reinvigorate their own,” he wrote. “They will deepen their access to global capital, reinforce confidence in their markets and attain the standing they seek in the world economy.” But, Bessent continued, “the alternative for those who tether themselves to Tehran is the foreclosure of any path to lasting prosperity.” “To become a sanctuary for terror is to become, in the eyes of the United States, a global pariah,” he said.

Iran’s head of national security, however, said the country will “retaliate in a seismic manner” to any sanctions and will consider any country supporting sanctions to be committing an act of war. Bessent compared the sanction strategy to the 1943 Tehran Conference, where Allied leaders planned the defeat of Nazi Germany. “As Roosevelt and Churchill weighed a campaign that would culminate in the Normandy landings, they asked themselves what could be done ‘to bring the greatest pressure to bear on the enemy,’” he wrote.

Read more …

Split the country. Without killing another 40,000.

• Iran’s Civilian Leaders Call For Peace Amid Crippling U.S. Blockade (ZH)

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian speaks during a visit to the shrine of the leader of Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution

Iran’s top civilian officials are publicly urging an end to the ongoing conflict with the United States, exposing a deepening internal rift as they attempt to rein in hardliners who champion continued resistance. The financial and social toll of the U.S. blockade is proving too severe to ignore – as Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian recently declared that the country cannot endure a state of perpetual limbo, though he cautioned against making concessions that would appear humiliating on the global stage.


“The war must come to an end at some point,” Pezeshkian stated in a Friday address, according to state media. “It is better that we demonstrate our strength and dignity today and tell the world that we have won and that we are ending the war.” President Donald Trump has maintained a relentless blockade on the Islamic Republic after a previous memorandum of understanding imploded – effectively severing the regime’s ability to export oil – its primary source of income. This has plunged Iran into a domestic crisis characterized by skyrocketing inflation and an increasingly desperate cost-of-living crisis.

The pressure is expected to intensify further this week, as U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent prepares to unveil what President Trump has characterized as an “economic D-Day.” While the exact nature of these punitive measures remains classified, Bessent has strongly signaled the implementation of sweeping secondary sanctions targeting any nation that continues to do business with Tehran.

A Regime Divided
The push for diplomacy from Iran’s civilian government stands in stark contrast to the shifting power dynamics among its clerics and military elite. Pezeshkian claims his diplomatic push aligns with the broader goals of the regime, referencing past speeches by Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei – who has conspicuously vanished from the public eye since the conflict escalated.”I was in the presence of the Supreme Leader, and in his speeches as well, he openly stated that we must move beyond this state of ‘neither war nor peace,'” Pezeshkian noted. “We are not going to humiliatingly back down before the enemy or bow our heads. We can sit down with strength, but also with logic, and resolve our problems.”

Prior to his public absence, Khamenei had elevated hardline factions who favor military confrontation over the moderates seeking a renewed deal with Washington. Despite this, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf echoed the President’s warnings, underscoring the severe national security risks of a collapsing economy. “No matter how much military power we have, if our people are struggling and the country lacks financial circulation and economic growth, we will not achieve progress,” Ghalibaf stated. “As someone who has experienced war, I understand the true value of peace.”

Washington’s Stance: The “Right Deal”
The Trump administration’s distrust stems from the fraught history of recent negotiations, during which U.S. officials reported receiving deeply conflicting signals from Tehran. The previous agreement shattered after Iran launched a series of strikes on maritime vessels navigating the Strait of Hormuz. For the United States, the objectives remain twofold and uncompromising: Nuclear Prevention: Ensuring Iran permanently loses the capacity to develop or acquire a nuclear weapon. Maritime Security: The full reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to global trade.

Currently, the Trump administration claims it’s securing the safe passage of 8 to 9 million barrels of oil through the strait daily – a steep decline from the roughly 20 million barrels that traversed the waterway before the conflict erupted. Washington is signaling that it will dictate the terms. Addressing reporters on Friday, President Trump summarized the diplomatic standoff: “They would love to make a deal, but they’re not ready to make the right deal.”

Read more …

No Macron.

• Le Pen Poised To Win French Elections? New Poll Shows Commanding Lead (ZH)

France’s Le Pen Leads French Presidential Race Early Monday, we previewed a Nomura report that expects an 18-month election cycle across Europe, shifting the continent toward populism, with elections scheduled this year in Germany and Sweden, followed by France, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, and Poland in 2027. Shortly after we released the note, new polling data from France showed, as The Guardian put it:


France loves a battle-scarred survivor. Charles de Gaulle, François Mitterrand and Jacques Chirac clawed their way back from political failure to become presidents of the republic. There is a significant chance that Marine Le Pen will be next. The latest Toluna-Harris poll shows Marine Le Pen winning every tested 2027 French presidential runoff:
• Le Pen 68%, Jean-Luc Mélenchon 32%
• Le Pen 55%, Édouard Philippe 45%
• Le Pen 57%, Gabriel Attal 43%
• Le Pen’s advantage extends beyond a matchup with the far left. She also holds double-digit leads over two leading establishment candidates, indicating that her National Rally party would enter the election as the clear favorite under these scenarios.

Polymarket odds of Le Pen winning the French presidential election currently stand at 32%. Here’s more:

https://twitter.com/Cap2027_/status/2091775772906168809?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2091775772906168809%7Ctwgr%5E4665f81154ac257c311cf658bf28696f75baed80%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fseeds-political-change-nomura-sees-europe-lurching-right-and-markets-are-fine-it

Circling back to Nomura analyst Andrzej Szczepaniak’s note, he expects that right-wing parties are positioned to make significant gains across Germany, France, Spain, Switzerland, and the UK over the next 18 months. Szczepaniak noted, “Five years ago, financial markets would not have seemed so at ease with such a prospect. But then again, these populist right-wing political parties were previously not so fiscally prudent as they are perceived to be today.

He added, “Now, if anything, financial markets are much more concerned about populist left-wing parties being elected due to their desire to increase spending, often paid for through higher borrowing or higher taxes, which are likely to shut the engine off of already stuttering economies.” Europe is entering an 18-month election cycle that could accelerate the continent’s shift toward populism, with high-profile elections scheduled this year in Germany and Sweden, followed by France, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, and Poland in 2027.

The much-needed political realignment reflects mounting public backlash against progressives in Brussels after years of uncontrolled mass migration from the Third World, deteriorating social cohesion, elevated violent crime, and nation-killing domestic policies that have accelerated deindustrialization. At the same time, European manufacturers face intensifying pressure from China (the demise of VW Group), which is exploiting its cost advantages and state-supported industrial capacity to flood the struggling continent with cheap electric vehicles.

Andrzej Szczepaniak, a senior European economist and executive director at Nomura International in London, describes this combination of pressures as “the seeds of political change,” warning that “politics in Europe is lurching towards more populism.” Szczepaniak says right-wing parties are positioned to make significant gains across Germany, France, Spain, Switzerland, and the UK over the next 18 months.

Read more …

“Establishment Democrats. They’re the ones who’ve either been holding the reins or doing everything in their power to obstruct the repair process for the better part of the last six decades.”

• The Democrats Are in a Trap of Their Own Making (Eric Florack)

Tim Hains at Real Clear Politics, this morning:”Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Jake Auchincloss told “FOX News” that the Democratic Party will lose if the moderate party establishment picks a direct fight with the new Democratic Socialists. “What my faction of the party needs to do is to demonstrate to Americans what our positive, proactive agenda is to strengthen the middle class, how we are going to base that in freedom, not socialism, free enterprise, free minds, freedom from fear, and free elections,” he said. (Sound of muffled laughter. Shuffling in the seat while I smooth my professional commentator demeanor back into place.)


The comments are from an interview on Fox with Shannon Bream, which we’ll get back to in a second. Free enterprise. Free minds. Freedom from fear. Free elections. Gotta tell ya, Congressman, that’s a genuinely lovely word salad, and I mean that with the sincerest possible sarcasm — because you’re delivering it roughly 48 hours after your own party’s biggest streaming ally got caught with a framed newspaper commemorating 9/11 hanging on his studio wall like a hunting trophy. But we’ll get there.

BREAM: So, there is a video of somebody who’s been campaigning a lot with Democratic candidates or Democratic Socialist candidates who say they belong in your party, Hasan Piker, he’s not disavowed this video that’s out there circulating this weekend where he’s singing a song that appears to be mocking the death of Charlie Kirk, of people who would, you know, be worshipped as Christians, worshipping Jesus. What’s your message to those within your party who are campaigning, fundraising, and appearing with Hasan Piker?

AUCHINCLOSS: I reject Hasan Piker’s ideology, whether it was seeming to celebrate or at least excuse 9/11, whether it is seeming to excuse the assassination of Charlie Kirk, which I condemned immediately. The Democratic Party does not stand for what Hasan Piker stands for. The Democratic Party also needs to be able to reach young voters from all walks of life who are angry at a status quo in which they cannot afford to buy a home, in which they do not believe Social Security will be there for them in their retirement, and in which they see corruption run rampant in Washington, D.C. Well, it seems to me that they’ve already identified who’s responsible for the status quo. Establishment Democrats.

They’re the ones who’ve either been holding the reins or doing everything in their power to obstruct the repair process for the better part of the last six decades. Young people can’t afford a home in large part because of Democrat-controlled cities and states stacking regulations, zoning restrictions, and tax burdens on top of housing supply until the whole market seizes up like an engine that’s never seen a drop of oil. Here’s the part Auchincloss conveniently glides past, though, and it’s worth dragging back into the light: While he’s on national television lecturing about “rejecting” Piker’s ideology, plenty of his own colleagues have been busy actively embracing it.

Fox News’s own reporting from just this month confirms Piker has framed, and proudly displayed on camera behind him during livestreams, the front page of the New York Times’ Sept. 12, 2001, edition — the “U.S. Attacked” issue — describing it to his audience as “the cutie Cinderella newspaper from 9/11.” A man decorating his broadcasting studio with a memorial to the deadliest terror attack in American history, treated as a cute keepsake. And he’s told CNN there’s “0% chance” the 2028 Democrat nominee will be pro-Israel, expressing total confidence his own party is drifting exactly where he wants it.

Meanwhile, Rep. Ro Khanna has publicly refused to apologize for appearing on Piker’s show, warning that distancing from him would signal “weakness.” House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar went on MS NOW’s Morning Joe and insisted, with a straight face, that “the party isn’t lurching too far left.” Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed told Meet the Press he cares about “reaching Piker’s audience,” not his actual comments — which is a genuinely remarkable sentence for a candidate to say out loud about a man who’s excused a terror attack that killed nearly 3,000 Americans.

Read more …

“..after months of Democrat officials trying to bury the policy in court, the administration finally has room to breathe.”

• SCOTUS Gives Trump HUGE Win on Mail-In Voting (Matt Margolis)

The Supreme Court just handed President Trump a massive victory in the fight to secure America’s elections. The justices cleared the way for his executive order restricting mail-in voting to move forward, and after months of Democrat officials trying to bury the policy in court, the administration finally has room to breathe. This is a big deal.


The SAVE America Act is still stalled in the Senate, blocked by Democrats who aren’t even hiding the fact they have zero interest in verifying that voters are who they say they are. Trump’s executive order just got a green light from the nation’s highest court anyway. Election integrity doesn’t have to die in the legislative graveyard to make progress.

Trump signed the executive order, called “Ensuring Citizenship Verification And Integrity In Federal Elections,” in March 2026. It directs his administration to build lists of eligible voters and orders the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to people on those lists. The Postal Service laid out its implementation plan last week, but the clock is ticking. Some states start sending mail ballots in just a few weeks, leaving the administration little time to get this right before the midterms. More court challenges remain possible.The victory is real, but it’s not the finish line.

Mail balloting has been a target of Trump’s for years, and for good reason. The Heritage Foundation has long argued that mail-in ballots are more susceptible to fraud, coercion, and chain-of-custody problems than in-person voting. Anyone who lived through the 2020 presidential election, one of the most disputed elections in history, watched that vulnerability play out in real time. In fact, a 2023 survey from Rasmussen Reports, conducted with the Heartland Institute, found that among the 30% of likely U.S. voters who cast an absentee or mail-in ballot in 2020, 19% admitted that a friend or family member filled out part or all of their ballot on their behalf. Another 17% admitted they voted in a state where they were no longer a permanent resident. Every one of those practices is illegal.

Think about that for a second: nearly a fifth of mail voters copped to letting someone else fill out their ballot. Democratic officials in 23 states and the District of Columbia sued to block the order, arguing that the Constitution gives states and Congress the power to run elections and that Trump’s changes could cause chaos and partisan abuse. Attorneys for the states wrote that “the consequences of allowing such transformative changes to take effect so close to this fall’s elections would be extreme.”

A judge in Massachusetts blocked the plan for the midterm elections in those states. An appeals court upheld her decision. She later granted a second order blocking it nationwide. The Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court on procedural grounds in late July, arguing that the states sued too soon. They also pointed to another ruling out of Washington, where a judge allowed Trump’s order to proceed. An appeals court backed that decision, while still leaving room for future court action if the changes are implemented.

Federal attorneys argued that the Massachusetts order “blocks the government’s ability to finalize and implement the President’s proposed policies to promote election integrity for the upcoming federal elections in November.”A dozen Republican-leaning states supported the federal government in their own appeal before the high court, saying states would have input on the final voter lists.

Trump has been to the Supreme Court on mail ballots before this year. In June 2026, the justices ruled against a Trump-backed argument, finding that states can count ballots arriving after Election Day. That case went through full briefing rather than the emergency docket. This time, Trump came out on top. This is a huge win, but now comes the hard part: building the lists, getting our Postal Service ready, and, of course, surviving whatever legal challenges come next, all before voters start filling out ballots. Election integrity advocates should be celebrating today, but also watching the calendar.

Read more …

“Assumptions that Moscow will lose the conflict and pay reparations are “just fairy tales,” Nikolay Azarov has told RT.”

• West Will Never Get Its ‘Loans’ Back From Kiev – ex-Ukrainian PM (RT)

The EU keeps providing “loans” to Ukraine despite knowing that its government will never repay them, the country’s former prime minister, Nikolay Azarov, has said. In a post on X on Sunday, Vladimir Zelensky called funding the Ukrainian military one of the “major challenges” his government is currently facing. “A lot of money is needed,” he wrote. Making sure that the second tranche of a €90 billion ($105 billion) transfer approved by the EU earlier this year arrives in Ukraine is “an extremely difficult task,” but he is working on it with Germany and France, Zelensky stressed.


In an interview with RT on Saturday, Azarov said that “loans and Western assistance that amounts to about three-fourths of the state budget of Ukraine are covering the budget deficit, funding arms purchases and sponsoring the Nazi terrorist and corrupt regime.” When the European Commission and major EU countries, who have been the main supporters of Ukraine after US President Donald significantly reduced American aid to Kiev, “grant these loans, they know that they won’t get this money back,” he said.

“And this causes some irritation among EU bureaucrats because they understand that the money of the American and European taxpayers is being embezzled in a very outrageous manner,” the former prime minister said. Inside the Ukrainian government, there is “an organized criminal group that embezzled the funds that Ukraine received as part of these loans,” he said. According to Azarov, that is the reason why EU ambassadors held a meeting in Kiev with the investigators of the Western-backed National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and “supported actions to expose corruption in the country,” particularly in Zelensky’s office.

Earlier this week, the Ukrainian leader sacked the deputy head of his office, Irina Mudraya, after her home was searched as part of a probe into efforts to raise and legalize $3.3 million in bail money for former Energy Minister Herman Galushchenko. Galushchenko is a key figure in a $100 million corruption case involving state nuclear operator Energoatom and linked to Zelensky’s longtime business associate Timur Mindich. The scandal led to the downfall of his highly influential chief of staff Andrey Yermak last November. Other recent corruption investigations have targeted former Ukrainian ministers, diplomats, and senior officials.

The claims that Kiev will reimburse the US and EU because “Russia will pay some kind of reparations someday… are just fairy tales. You have to be really short-sighted to believe these fairy tales,” Azarov stressed. “No one will give this money back to the West. There’s $275 billion of Ukrainian debt, you cannot pay it back,” he added. Azarov was the Ukrainian prime minister from 2010 to 2014, resigning during the Western-backed Euromaidan protests in Kiev and fleeing to Russia after the overthrow of democratically-elected President Viktor Yanukovich in February 2014.

Read more …

“That Purported Bastion Of Democracy..”

• Zelensky Says Wartime Elections Would ‘Destroy’ Ukraine (ZH)

Ever since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022 with a goal of excising the Russian-speaking Donbas region, American and Western European officials have repeatedly said they and their countries are duty-bound to support Ukraine because, as Nancy Pelosi put it, “The battle for Ukraine is a battle for democracy itself.” That notion has been growing ever more farcical over time, as President Volodymyr Zelensky refuses to hold elections that were supposed to happen back in the spring of 2024. Over the weekend, Zelensky doubled down on his preference for martial law, telling journalists it would “destroy the country.”

Zelensky’s former defense minister Mykhailo Fedorov turned up the heat on his former boss by calling for wartime elections


Zelensky is now in the eighth year of his five-year term. His new remarks defending his overstay came after former defense minister Mykhailo Fedorov recently called for elections, after his controversial firing by Zelensky in July. “Democracy cannot be held hostage by Russia,” said Fedorov. “We are fighting precisely because we want to remain a free European state.” In his nine-minute speech, he also took a shot at Zelensky’s way of governing. “It is particularly dangerous when society develops the feeling that the main criterion for an appointment is not professionalism, results or the ability to transform the country, but personal loyalty to the system,” he said.

Speaking to a group of journalists over the weekend, Zelensky firmly rejected calls for elections in his supposed bastion of democracy: “I believe that if we want to destroy the country, then during such a war we can move in the selection of elections… I believe that during such a war, elections in general are big risks. Elections right now are a tsunami for the state that will split Ukraine.” Zelensky pointed to the logistical and security challenges of balloting during wartime, noting that it would require “the participation of the military, in frontline territories, abroad, where millions of our citizens have gone, fleeing the war” and the risk of “strikes and shelling.”

He argued it could only begin to be conceivable if Russia were to agree to a ceasefire, which he preemptively ruled an impossibility. In December, President Trump said he was inclined to see Ukraine hold elections soon. “It’s been a long time. Hasn’t been doing particularly well. Yeah, I think it’s an important time to hold an election. They’re using war not to hold an election, but I would think the Ukrainian people should have that choice,” he told Politico. “You know, they talk about democracy, but it gets to a point where it’s not a democracy anymore.”

Skeptics of Zelensky’s reasoning might point to elections held in other war-torn countries. For example, Afghanistan held elections in 2004 and 2009, and Iraq held one in 2005. To be fair, violence affected turnout and the legitimacy of the results was questioned. Meanwhile, the UK was supposed to have an election in 1940 but put it off all the way until 1945. The Atlantic Council, which is a de facto NATO think tank, has pointed to the UK example in urging Zelensky to refuse elections during a war — a war that is happening because of NATO expansionism.

Time is marching on, however. Russia has thus far been content to pursue a slow-burn approach to the war, ever so gradually taking over more and more territory. If that pace continues and if Russia’s territorial ambitions widen — say, to include taking Odessa and creating a landlocked Ukrainian rump state — we could see Zelensky in charge for years more to come.

Read more …

Don’t miss Mr. Shurk’s brilliant analysis.

• Canada Chooses Climate Change, Censorship, and China (J.B. Shurk)

Central banker Mark Carney is doing that peculiar Canadian thing again — acting tough while exuding weakness. Just before midnight on Friday, the former governor of the Bank of England and King Charles III’s current prime minister in North America announced that trade talks with the United States had collapsed. This was expected, even though the Canadian and American trade delegations had publicly expressed optimism on Wednesday that a mutually beneficial framework for future trade relations was within reach.


The British Empire’s “climate change”-obsessed central banker announced the official start of the U.S.-Canada Trade War on his X account. That’s ironic because the Canadian government considers Elon Musk an enemy, restricts what information Canadian citizens can see on social media platforms, and seeks to tax and regulate all online communication. Because of the Canadian government’s censorship/propaganda machine, most Canadian citizens have no idea how economically vulnerable their British vassal state really is. Carney’s public memorandum makes it sound as if Canada’s economy is the envy of the world, when it is nothing more than a plaything for Chinese smugglers and European bankers who use the country as an entry point into U.S. markets. The average Canadian is about to learn how dependent Canada has always been upon the unreciprocated generosity of the United States.

Canada is a weigh station for moving products into the United States. Its value for other nations lies in its uniquely favorable trade agreements with the U.S. Canadian banks and manufacturers act as middlemen for foreign nations skirting American trade laws. For its trade- and money-laundering services, Canada receives a cut of the profits. China takes advantage of this arrangement by “snow-washing” their goods through Canadian shell corporations and hiding their commercial transactions within Canadian financial institutions. Over the decades, this “Trojan horse” operation — in which American adversaries use Canada as an economic workaround for hollowing out vital American industries — has greatly profited our neighbors up North.

In fact, the leftist-globalists running Canada have been able to generate enough revenue by stamping Chinese products, “Made in Canada,” that they have become emboldened to get on their “global warming” high horse and lecture the United States about the imaginary “climate apocalypse.” Even though the U.S. has actually reduced its so-called “climate emissions” by a larger percentage than Canada over the last twenty-five years (a feat accomplished through industrial innovation), the Canadian government pretends that the country’s poorly managed forest fires are the outcome of U.S. capitalism. (This is akin to blaming Thor for thunder.)

While sitting on some of the largest energy reserves on the entire planet, Canada has insisted upon throttling its own hydrocarbon output in the name of “fighting global warming.” By waging war against its own energy industry, Canada makes itself economically and militarily vulnerable. It cannot build things anymore. It is not self-sufficient. It depends upon kickbacks from communist China and military protection from the United States. These dual dependencies are mutually exclusive in a world in which China and the U.S. are already engaged in various forms of hybrid warfare.

Britain’s man in Canada, Mark Carney, is globalism personified. As the former governor of the Bank of England, he spoke regularly about a future in which central bankers managed the planet’s resources and economic activity. He has been a lifetime proponent of using the “global warming” bogeyman as a justification for controlling all human behavior. Carney is afflicted with the same narcissistic disease that grips all of Europe’s political and economic “elites”: He does not believe in the value of free markets, free speech, or human liberty. He is, at heart, a totalitarian committed to the proposition that a small cabal of central bank oligarchs and political aristocrats should exercise complete power over everyone else.

Read more …

“We Don’t Need Canada”.

• Loonie Limps Lower As Trump Unleashes (More) Tariffs (ZH)

“Canada has been ripping off the United States of America for years,” wrote President Trump in his latest social media outburst, laying out his tariff torrent against Canada. “Their ridiculously high tariffs on our Farmers and farm products has made life impossible for these great American Patriots, and has long created a 60 Billion Dollar Deficit between our two Countries.nNot sustainable, and NOT ANYMORE!”= The US implemented a new 50% tax on imports of hundreds of Canadian items including furniture, plastics, plywood and electrical equipment on Saturday.


It’s such a high rate that it may cut off the world’s biggest market for some Canadian enterprises. And now this morning, Trump unveiled more products will face dramatic tariff increases come the start of next year… “On January First, 2027, Tariffs on all Cars, Trucks, both large and small. Automotive Parts, and Steel, will be increased to 50%.Build in the U.S. and there are ZERO TARIFFS. Canada will be treated like a State no longer!

On Trade, and in other ways, also, they are among the worst Nations in the World to deal with. They feel entitled, and yet, WE DON’T NEED CANADA, THEY NEED US! They do 95% of their business with the U.S., with us, the exact opposite!” The Loonie was weaker ahead of Trump’s tweet…

Carney’s government has pledged financial help for businesses caught in the crossfire. That may prove more complicated than previous aid packages for industries like steel that have been facing US tariffs for more than a year. The new tariffs are “very diffuse, and they hit, in particular, small and many medium enterprises in various parts of the country and in radically different supply chains,” said Matthew Holmes, chief of public policy at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

Very difficult for the federal government especially to create a package of supports for them.” Canadians may have wanted their prime minister to stand tough and not sign a bad trade deal with the US; but the collapse of talks, and the escalation of the tariff war, will come at a price.

Read more …

So says the Council on Foreign Relations President.

• Trump Gave Mark Carney an Ultimatum, USA or China? Carney Chose China (CTH)

Council on Foreign Relations President Says Trump Gave Mark Carney an Ultimatum, USA or China? Carney Chose China


An interesting soundbin gave Canada an ultimatum within the deal proposed, us or them.

If Mike Froman is correct, Mark Carney chose China. [X LINK] Video Below:te from Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) President Mike Froman who distills down the main point of contention. Essentially, the U.S. position is to demand a common trade approach toward China and the U.S. delegationn.

Read more …

“.. the immigration fraud investigation against a Democrat representative is ongoing and could lead to an arrest.”

• Trump Confirms ICE Investigating Ilhan Omar, ‘Enforcement’ Possible (Salgado)

President Donald Trump indirectly confirmed that the immigration fraud investigation against a Democrat representative is ongoing and could lead to an arrest.


Trump did not comment in any detailed way on the investigation, but on Sunday afternoon, he shared an article from Just the News titled “ICE refuses to disclose records on Ilhan Omar fraud probe, cites ongoing ‘enforcement proceedings.’” By sharing this article on TruthSocial, the president verified its accuracy and immediately started a firestorm of speculation and controversy from other individuals and media outlets. The Trump administration had previously stated that they do have evidence that Minnesota’s Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Somalia) committed immigration fraud, but voters had begun to wonder if that would lead to any actual penalties.

Just the News is especially interested in the investigation because it filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the Omar immigration records in January, for all the details about her legally marrying her brother. ICE returned the following statement instead of the documents: “ICE has determined that the information you requested is being withheld in full pursuant to Title 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A). Disclosure of any responsive records at this time could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.”

No court admissible proof definitively proves that Omar’s legal ex-husband Ahmed Nur Said Elmi is her brother, Just the News said, although the government of the Republic of Somaliland, among others, has confirmed it. Somaliland, which is a breakaway nation from Somalia and hates Omar for her and her family’s connection to genocide, provided paperwork, apparently showing that Omar‘s name, like other members of her family, was originally Elmi before she altered it for the fraudulent marriage that helped her brother stay here.

Receipts: Ilhan Omar’s original last name was Elmi before it was changed. nThis evidence was available, but the Obama Justice Department refused to investigate. Her brother, Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, and their father, Nur Said Elmi (also known as Nur Omar), used multiple names… https://t.co/9sz3ZXVN3X pic.twitter.com/d16tAMCKrn — REPUBLIC OF SOMALILAND (@RepOfSomaliland) March 19, 2026

Omar has bragged about prioritizing Somalia‘s interests while serving as a congresswoman. In 2024, while furiously rejecting Somaliland’s longtime independence and maritime deals, she declared, “While I am in Congress, no one will take Somalia’s sea.” Somaliland continued to write about Omar:

Her true name? Ilhan Nur Said Elmi. Father? Nur Said Elmi (aka Nur Omar), Colonel in Siad Barre’s army. Soviet-trained. Part of the command that turned Hargeisa into rubble. Tens of thousands—up to 200,000 Isaaq civilians—bombed, executed, raped, starved in the late ’80s. We call it the Isaaq Genocide. The world still looks away.The mastermind? Major General Mohammed Said Hersi “Morgan”—”The Butcher of Hargeisa.” Barre’s son-in-law. And when Omar visited Somalia to a hero’s welcome in 2022, she attended an event where she sat only a few feet away from “the Butcher,” who has reportedly posed for photos with her relatives.

Read more …

Can we choose who we serve?

• “This is My Place of Business” (Turley)

“This is my place of business.”


Those words from Jim Sheehan, owner of the Wydaho Roasters coffee shop in Driggs, Idaho, have sparked the latest controversy over the right of businesses to refuse service on the basis of religious or political views. Sheehan has drawn national attention after throwing out a group of pro-life teenagers, calling them the equivalent of a Ku Klux Klan meeting in his shop. Sheehan clearly caters to those who want their lattes with an added shot of rage.

However, this and a number of other cases have exposed the hypocrisy of many regarding the service businesses must provide customers with opposing views. From cakes to coffee, shops remain ground zero for an age of rage. Years ago, politicians and pundits rallied around the effort to force Jack Phillips, a cakeshop owner, to create cakes celebrating same-sex marriages. Phillips objected that it violated his religious beliefs. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court in what many of us hoped would be a final resolution of this conflict.

I had long criticized the framing of the case (and other similar cases) under the religious clauses rather than treating it as a simple matter of free speech. In the end, the Supreme Court punted in a frustrating 2018 decision. In 2023, however, the Supreme Court delivered a major victory for free speech in 303 Creative v. Elenis. It ruled that Lorie Smith, a Christian website designer, could refuse to provide services for a same-sex marriage. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that “the framers designed the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to protect the ‘freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think.’ … They did so because they saw the freedom of speech ‘both as an end and as a means.’”

But notably, in cases like Masterpiece Cakeshop, Phillips insisted that he would always sell cakes to any couple, including same-sex couples. He only refused to make cakes specifically celebrating same-sex marriages, due to his religious views. The case of Wydaho is different. Sheehan refused the same general accommodation offered to all customers because he opposes pro-life causes. In the confrontation, Sheehan declared that “in my world” pro-lifers are no different from the Ku Klux Klan.

“This is my place of business,” he declared. “I did a lot of work to get people on the ballot so women would have the right to choose in the state of Idaho, and this is something I do not support, nor does my wife, and it’s our business. So we have that choice.” In my view, they do have that choice. Yet it must also be acknowledged what Sheehan is doing is far more extreme than what Phillips did in Masterpiece Cakeshop. He is not being asked to create a coffee concoction opposing abortion, like a Cafe Au Life specialty drink. He acknowledges that other groups might use the shop — he just does not want these teenagers to use it to support pro-life causes.

The same controversy arose the same week across the country in Virginia. In Alexandria, Fatana Karimi, owner of the Karimi Salon, threw out a woman after she revealed that she was Israeli. Jessica Walton posted an account of the encounter, and a video was later posted on social media.In the video, the person identified as Karimi says that she declared on Instagram that she would not serve those who support Israel. (She also adds that she got Walton to sign a release for the video.)

The Virginia Human Rights Act states that businesses cannot engage in “unlawful discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, ethnic or national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, age, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or military status.” Karimi will likely argue she refused service not due to Walton’s religion or national origin, but due to her support for Israel — a political position.

The case is reminiscent of the abusive treatment afforded to Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz at Martha’s Vineyard by a pierogi stand. He was also refused service over his political views.The line between national origin and religious discrimination versus political discrimination can be tenuous and unclear. However, in the video, the owner states that it is her national identity that is causing the action: “Get out of my shop. I can’t provide service to an Israeli. It’s against my political beliefs. You need to leave immediately.”

Back in Idaho, Sheehan’s bizarre analogy to the KKK outraged many, to the point that he later apologized for it. However, it is fascinating that liberals are now celebrating the right to exclude others for political or religious reasons, even when they are not asked to engage in any expressive act or make any creative product that contravenes their beliefs. If that is now the case, many owe individuals such as Phillips an apology for years of costly lawsuits, even after the Supreme Court gave him his first nominal victory.

Sheehan could be prosecuted if he were refusing general service or accommodations to the teenagers due to their race or religion. But he is refusing service on the basis of his own political views. Wydaho Roasters does not appear to want business from people who are pro-life, of whom there might be quite a few in Idaho. Karimi appears not to want either Israeli or possibly Jewish customers. It is a curious business plan to exclude such a large segment of the market, but some owners are sure to put their political views before their profits.

However, those on the left cannot have it both ways. They cannot reject the free speech rights of some owners to decline service while celebrating others’ refusal to do the same thing. None of this is likely to make society any more civil. No one wants a black eye to go with the red-eye espresso. Of course, recognizing the free speech rights of an unhinged coffee shop owner does not require patronizing his establishment. Sheehan clearly does not want to serve pro-life citizens, and I expect the feeling is mutual.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/cb_doge/status/2091894100937347455?s=20

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle August 24 2026

Aug 242026
 
 August 24, 2026  Posted by at 8:00 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  46 Responses »


Andrei Rublev Trinity 1411


• “Iran Is Losing Its Grip On Hormuz”: Strait Traffic Explodes Nearly 400% (ZH)
• Trump Eyes ‘Crushing’ Economic Blockade To Bring Iran To Its Knees (JTN)
• Carney Talking A Lot, President Trump Remains Quiet (CTH)
• Trump Loses Trade War With Canada — The Atlantic (TASS)
• Trump: Canada Wants ‘Benefits’ of Being US State (BBC)
• Zelensky Has ‘Questions To Answer’ – Fedorov (BBC)
• Putin Hints At ‘Catastrophic Scenario’ For Ukraine (RT)
• Gutfeld Delivers an Epic Takedown of the Democrats’ Big Tent Myth (Margolis)
• Bill Maher Admits Democrat Party Is Antisemitic (Matt Margolis)
• Hasan Piker Mocks the Murdered Charlie Kirk to Cheering Crowd (Turley)
• The New World Won’t Be Ruled By The ICC’s Bias (von Hoffmeister)

 


 

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2091310119309242825?s=20 https://twitter.com/ConstitustionX/status/2091321196436705568?s=20 https://twitter.com/RippleXrpie/status/2091183404649795886?s=20

 


 


“Nearly 200 ships navigated the strait last week, up from about 150 the previous week and just 40 two weeks earlier..”

• “Iran Is Losing Its Grip On Hormuz”: Strait Traffic Explodes Nearly 400% (ZH)

Shortly after President Trump declared the Strait of Hormuz “an American territory” on Friday evening, the New York Post published a new report citing UK Maritime Trade Operations data showing that commercial traffic through the critical waterway has rebounded sharply as more vessels use a US-backed route along Oman’s coast. This suggests that the US military presence and offensive operations in the region have degraded Tehran’s ability to fully control the waterway.


Nearly 200 ships navigated the strait last week, up from about 150 the previous week and just 40 two weeks earlier, according to UKMTO data. Traffic has recovered to roughly 20% of prewar levels, when the waterway carried about one-fifth of the world’s seaborne oil. “It increasingly looks like Iran has at least partially lost control of the strait,” Homayoun Falakshahi, head of crude oil analysis at Kpler, told CNN. “The Oman route absolutely makes the most sense,” added Dan Pickering, founder of Pickering Energy Partners, noting that it allows vessels to avoid the possibility of paying a toll to Tehran. President Trump told a crowd in South Carolina late Friday, “We don’t even know if we won, because I view the Strait of Hormuz as an American territory right now.”

Let’s revisit a mid-March note from Ex Uno Plures’ Zoltan Pozsar, who explained at the time that Trump was “methodically building a portfolio of assets” to pressure China, centered on strategic energy-supply nodes and maritime chokepoints that have historically supported Beijing’s access to cheap crude imports. His note highlighted the Panama Canal, Venezuelan oil flows, and the broader significance of Iran and the Strait of Hormuz.

Axios: 40 Tankers Transited Hormuz Friday Night, But Real Crisis Is Diesel
Axios political reporter and Middle East correspondent Barak Ravid reported early Saturday that 40 tankers transited the Strait of Hormuz on Friday night, citing three unnamed US officials. “Around 16 million barrels of oil moved out of the strait through the southern channel on Friday night,” Ravid wrote on X.

https://twitter.com/BarakRavid/status/2091159212587917391?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2091159212587917391%7Ctwgr%5E00e4da20ec21f610f45b22fbc487bac4b37b007f%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fenergy%2Faxios-40-tankers-transited-hormuz-friday-night-real-crisis-diesel

The latest Bloomberg vessel-tracking data show that 13 ships transited the critical waterway on Saturday, with seven traveling east to west and six moving west to east. Traffic remains well below the levels recorded during the brief memorandum-of-understanding period from June 15 through mid-July. On Friday, President Trump called the Hormuz chokepoint “an American territory”… “We don’t even know if we won, because I view the Strait of Hormuz as an American territory right now,” Trump said, addressing a crowd in South Carolina.

Trump joked about bombing Iran during the speech, saying, “It’s a Friday night. We have plenty of time… and what the hell do I have to do? Go back and bomb Iran a little bit more?” Axios reported Wednesday that the US military had established a shipping corridor in the critical waterway, which carries millions of barrels of oil each day. There was no word from Ravid on whether the 40 tankers sailed through the new shipping corridor. Even with these transits, the emerging energy crisis is not centered on crude availability, as SPRs around the world are being tapped to offset lost production in the Gulf region. Instead, the real crisis is materializing in the refined-products market.

The focus emerged at the start of the week when Bloomberg’s front-month US diesel crack spread (HOCL1 Index) topped $100 a barrel, as we warned: “Industrial economy either grinds to a halt or consumers about to be hit with the biggest energy pass-through in history.”

Then, by Wednesday, Jeff Currie, the former Goldman Sachs commodities chief and now co-chair of Abaxx Markets, appeared on CNBC to explain that the real crisis is not in crude but in diesel markets. “Nobody on the planet Earth consumes crude oil,” Currie told CNBC. “Refineries do. Everyone else consumes gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, and those markets look considerably uglier.” By Thursday, Currie explained that the convergence of tight physical markets, currency debasement and policy intervention represents the hallmark of a structural commodity bull cycle.

“Stop looking at crude. Nobody consumes it but refineries. The economy runs on gasoline and diesel, and that consumption-weighted basket costs $165 against $85 WTI,” Currie wrote on X. Read the report. The US diesel crack spread closed below $100 on Friday, but the Hormuz disruption, compounded by Ukraine’s decimation of Russia’s refining capabilities, is creating a perfect storm for global diesel markets ahead of the Northern Hemisphere winter.

Read more …

“The issue of Beijing’s support for Iran during the war remains sensitive ahead of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s planned visit to the United States in September.”

• Trump Eyes ‘Crushing’ Economic Blockade To Bring Iran To Its Knees (JTN)

The Trump administration plans to escalate its strategy to economically isolate the Islamic Republic by targeting its international enablers and financial networks, and sends a warning shot to Beijing. As the conflict with Iran nears its six-month anniversary, President Donald Trump has traded bombs for a comprehensive economic blockade of the Islamic Republic, hoping to strangle the regime by cutting off its economic lifelines. This week, the president — frustrated with the Iranian leaders’ failure to agree to a deal to settle the conflict that includes ending the country’s illicit nuclear program — vowed to significantly ramp up the United States’ campaign to crush the Iranian economy.


Trump: “Tremendous economic circumstances”
On Wednesday, Trump announced the “most crushing economic operation ever taken” against the Iranian regime that would target Iranian enablers, or any country “that allows its financial institutions, businesses, airports, or government entities to provide any type of lifeline to Iran.” “Those countries will face TREMENDOUS Economic Consequences,” the president said in a post to Truth Social. “Oil smuggling, swap lines, cash transfers, exchange houses, ship registries, front companies — It all needs to stop NOW. You know who you are,” Trump warned. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent elaborated further on the president’s goal. “[W]e are going to collapse this regime,” he said on Thursday in an interview with CNBC.

Victoria Coates, Vice President of Heritage’s Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at the Heritage Foundation, told Just the News that the president’s self-described “Economic D-Day” strategy began to take shape in April, when he first imposed a naval blockade on Iran’s ports and in the Strait of Hormuz, seeking to strip Iran of smuggled oil revenues it was using to fund its fight against the U.S. military.

“There was a major shift in April when the president decided, you know what, we’re going to blockade them. We’re not going to let them hold us hostage over the Strait of Hormuz. We’re going to hold the Strait of Hormuz hostage. We’re going to see who comes in and out,” Victoria Coates told the Just the News, No Noise TV show. “And Iran wasn’t prepared for that. So, they were expecting they could still get out about 750,000 barrels [of oil] a day, they could still get in their critical imports, and that’s really important. Most people don’t appreciate this because Iran hasn’t invested anything in their own economy. They’re heavily dependent on imports. We cut all that off, and so slowly over the summer, … we’re just strangling them,” Coates said.

UAE cuts trade with Iran
The president’s latest announcement outlines a plan to go even further by targeting the countries that are supplying so-called lifelines to Iran. Just a day before the president’s announcement, the United Arab Emirates announced that it would suspend all trade and financial transactions with Iran after the regime allegedly fired a missile at the UAE. The United States has for weeks been encouraging the UAE, which is a close ally, to crack down on the Iranian finance networks in the country. Tehran has long used the UAE as a conduit for financial and trading networks designed to circumvent international sanctions.

“The big move […] by the UAE to cut them off from Dubai, from any kind of commerce with the international financial markets, is huge, and I think that’s just going to continue on, and nature will take its course,” Coates said.

Aside from being a major trade partner of Iran before the war, the UAE has served as an intermediary for Iranian exports and financial exchanges in the global market, to which Iran’s access has been heavily restricted under sanctions regimes. U.S. government sanctions on Iranian regime-linked targets frequently include individuals based in Dubai, the UAE’s largest city. For example, the U.S. sanctioned companies and individuals in the UAE for their roles in a petroleum smuggling network linked to the Yemen-based Iranian proxy group, the Houthis.

Widespread effects of “Economic D-Day”
In June, the U.S. Treasury Department unveiled sanctions on the personal banker of Iran’s new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, targeting his network of assets abroad that benefit the country’s most senior leadership, Just the News previously reported. The banker, Ali Ansari, is an Iranian national who lives abroad in Dubai, where he has used his ties to the Iranian regime to embezzle government funds and amass “a global network of investment properties and financial holdings,” according to the U.S. government.

China, Iran’s largest trading partner, would also face actions from the United States if President Trump imposes his “Economic D-Day.” China has purchased the vast majority of Iranian oil for years, even while its exports are under international sanctions. Chinese banks and front companies help Iran with oil transactions to avoid the sanctions and operate ships in a shadow fleet to transport the sanctioned oil, according to the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. China has also sold Iran the technology and inputs required to construct its fleet of attack drones and missiles.

[US] Treasury Secretary Bessent on Thursday urged Beijing to “get with the program” and support the United States’ planned economic blockade. He cited China’s dependence on Middle East oil imports as a reason to get behind ending the conflict, indicating that the Chinese could face consequences if they continue to back Tehran. The issue of Beijing’s support for Iran during the war remains sensitive ahead of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s planned visit to the United States in September.

Read more …

” .. the Canadian position is based on lies, fraud and political denial. Canada is playing politics hoping to retain their one-sided benefits..”

• Carney Talking A Lot, President Trump Remains Quiet (CTH)

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney is delivering speeches, holding press conferences and trying to justify his position following the collapse of negotiations between the USA and Canada. Meanwhile, President Trump and his trade team are intentionally quiet. In all high-stakes negotiations, deals and financial issues, the apex predators always know you make your point clearly and without reservation, you establish your terms and then you don’t say anything. Total silence. The first person to break the silence is the losing hand. Once your terms are established you stay quiet and then let the other party talk, talk, and talk themselves to yes. Silence is the power.


Mark Carney is telling everyone his position and trying to justify what has taken place. Mark Carney is in a very weak position on both structure and substance of the issues. [I wrote a lengthy explanation HERE] Within this segment Carney tries to explain what the USA requests were that Canada would not agree to. He notes the U.S. wanted strict control over Canada’s free trade agreements (FTAs) with other countries. What Carney fails to note is that this exists already, right now in the USMCA [Article 32:10 of the USMCA]. The U.S. has termination rights to both Canada and Mexico FTAs with other countries. This is an example of Carney gaslighting Canadians.

In reality, Canada wants unlimited and unrestricted access to the U.S. market as if they were a 51st state. However, Canada will not permit unlimited and unrestricted access to their market for U.S. companies. This, Carney says, compromises the sovereignty of Canada. WATCH:

I was confident the discussions would collapse because the Canadian position is based on lies, fraud and political denial. Canada is playing politics hoping to retain their one-sided benefits and outlast President Trump into the midterm election. Trump, however, has already executed the tariffs and the only thing remaining for him and Greer to do is trigger the six-month USMCA withdrawal.

Read more …

“According to the article, the pressure directed at Ottawa has not proven effective..”

The Atlantic doesn’t like Trump.

• Trump Loses Trade War With Canada — The Atlantic (TASS)

US President Donald Trump is failing in the trade conflict with Canada as the threats and pressure directed at Ottawa have not proven effective, according to The Atlantic magazine. It said that although Canada’s economy is significantly smaller than that of the United States, its government is more rational and can protect national interests during the trade conflict. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney is more popular than Trump, and the Canadians have united around their distrust of Washington.


At the same time, the American public is facing a growing national debt, high interest rates, and an energy crisis. As The Atlantic points out, Trump’s inability to accept the fact that in wars not only strength but also endurance plays a role led to his defeat in the war with Iran and is the main reason for his loss in trade conflicts.

Trade Representative Jamieson Greer previously said that the Canadian government had rejected what Washington considered to be a beneficial deal with the US, and the US 50-percent customs duties on some Canadian goods came into effect on Saturday. Carney, in a widely circulated statement, confirmed that he had suspended the trade negotiations with the US. He said that Ottawa would impose retaliatory tariffs to protect workers and businesses from September 8.

Read more …

If they insist on being all wokey, Trump doesn’t want to give it to them. In that regard, Carney is just like Trudeau. A bunch of wokeys.

• Trump: Canada Wants ‘Benefits’ of Being US State (BBC)

US President Donald Trump has said Canada wants “the benefits of being a State, without being one” after trade talks between the two countries collapsed late on Friday. In his first comments since negotiations broke down, triggering new 50% US tariffs on a range of Canadian goods, Trump also said American farmers had been charged “massive amounts of Tariffs” for years. It comes after Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney called the fresh tariffs a “miscalculation” designed to “hurt and divide us”.


Carney confirmed he would match Trump’s tariffs “dollar-for-dollar” from 8 September, including levies on steel, dairy, appliances and electronics. The US and Canada are now in a trade “war”, he said. “They asked too much and they offered too little,” Carney said on Saturday. “You’re at war when you get attacked. We got attacked,” he added. Trump’s latest comments echo his repeated references to making Canada the “51st state” of America since returning to office, sparking frustration among its leaders and residents. The collapse of the trade talks upended a deeply integrated trading relationship, with no clear path to resolution.

“We cannot accept what they’ve offered, and we will not give what they’ve asked,” Carney said. Both countries were optimistic of a deal earlier in the week, but talks fell apart after both sides accused the other of making last-minute changes. The new 50% US tariffs will apply to a range of Canadian goods, in addition to existing US tariffs on Canadian steel, aluminium, automobiles and lumber. They are limited in scope, covering about $20bn (£15bn; C$28bn) of Canadian imports, or about 5% in total, including wine, dairy, cement, clothing and hockey equipment.


Carney faces crucial test after walking away from Trump’s deal
The prime minister said Canada was retaliating “reluctantly” to protect its interests. Details of the counter-measures will be released in the coming days, he said. Leaders of other federal parties in Canada, including the Conservative opposition, voiced support for the prime minister, as have the leaders of some Canadian provinces. Tariffs – a tax placed on imports from other countries – have been a key component of Trump’s trade policy, with the US president arguing they will boost American manufacturing and create jobs at home. Critics, however, say tariffs have raised prices for American consumers and have disrupted and damaged the global economy.

Carney’s speech on Saturday was his first address to Canadians after he announced late on Friday night that a deal would not be reached, accusing the Americans of making “last-minute changes” that were “unfair” and “uneconomic”. US negotiators, meanwhile, accused Canada of making “new demands and walk backs” on terms which had been previously agreed. On Saturday, US trade representative Jamieson Greer told Fox News there were no plans to resume talks. He added that the US had been prepared to cut some of its tariffs on Canada as part of the ill-fated deal.

Carney, however, said the US presented “unacceptable” terms that were too restrictive, including curbing Canada’s ability to strike new trade deals with other countries. He also rejected the assertion that Canada had made last-minute requests: “We clarified what was on offer and were continually disappointed by the answers.” Doug Ford, the leader of Canada’s most populous province Ontario, backed Carney and said Trump “can’t be trusted”. British Columbia Premier David Eby said the US demand for restrictions on Canada’s ability to have other trade deals “would reduce us to the economic equivalent of the 51st state”.

“It was never acceptable to Canadians,” Eby said. The Conservative opposition leader Pierre Poilievre also appeared to support Carney, calling the latest US levies “unjustified”. Quebec’s premier, Christine Fréchette, warned jobs would likely be lost as a result of the new US tariffs. “Behind these numbers are real people,” she said, vowing to introduce measures to support impacted sectors. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, whose oil-rich province has worked to make inroads with the Trump administration, urged both sides to resume talks. The collapse comes after more than a year of on-again, off-again trade talks, which intensified in recent weeks after a US-imposed deadline to strike a deal or face further tariffs.

The two countries were also engaged in a mandatory review of an existing North American free trade agreement, known as USMCA, with Mexico. The pact was signed by Trump during his first term to replace the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement. It underpins $1.6tn (£1.2tn) in annual trilateral trade across Canada, the US and Mexico. Earlier this summer, Canada and Mexico had formally requested for USMCA to be renewed for another 16 years. The US, however, declined to renew it in its current form. Asked how Friday’s trade talk collapse would impact the North American free trade pact, Carney said it was “certainly not good news”.

Read more …

Musk chose the side of the nazis. That does not feel good.

• Zelensky Has ‘Questions To Answer’ – Fedorov (BBC)

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has “questions to answer” about corruption in his government, his sacked defence minister Mykhailo Fedorov has told the BBC. Fedorov, a popular minister who modernised the armed forces and pioneered drone warfare, was fired last month after reportedly falling out with the head of Ukraine’s armed forces. He told the BBC a money laundering investigation announced last week raised questions about Zelensky’s awareness of potential corruption in his inner circle.


Fedorov also reiterated that “democracy should not be the hostage of Putin” – but stopped short of declaring his own political ambitions days after he posted a video calling for elections in Ukraine. There were angry protests over his sacking but his support dwindled and demonstrations ended on Wednesday, after Fedorov’s replacement was confirmed. His call for a wartime vote has been largely rejected. Asked whether he missed his old job, the 35-year-old replied “No”, citing the relentless stress of managing Ukraine’s war with Russia while transforming its defence ministry.

Ukraine has been under martial law since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, meaning elections are suspended. But Fedorov said it was his “moral right” to start the conversation about elections. “We should not be afraid of discussing it. That’s what democracy is all about. If I cannot share my ideas and be open about them with my own society, then what are we fighting for?” If elections were never held, he said, “then we are no longer a democracy”. In his earlier video statement Fedorov had argued that “people cannot endlessly live in a state where they do not understand why certain decisions are made”.

He shied away from criticising the president directly and declined to answer whether he backs Zelensky to win any election. Zelensky said he believed wartime elections would currently be too dangerous for Ukraine in remarks released on Sunday. “I believe that in a war like this, elections as such are a huge risk,” he said. “Elections right now are a tsunami for the country that will split Ukraine.” Experts have cited a number of obstacles to holding such a vote, including how soldiers, millions of Ukrainian refugees and people from occupied territories would vote, as well as disinformation threats from Russia.

Fedorov’s video highlighting political corruption last week came the day before a money laundering investigation was announced into lawmakers and bankers. Ukraine’s anti-corruption bureau said it had uncovered a scheme to misappropriate more than $3m (£2.2m) in Ukrainian currency to pay bail for a former energy minister accused of money laundering. A senior official in Zelensky’s office, alleged to be involved, was sacked. Fedorov said the case raised questions about the president’s awareness of potential corruption in his inner circle.

“Let him answer this question… I believe that he’s ready for such questions. It’s his responsibility to tell us all whether he was aware of all that or not… I don’t want to make any assumptions.” A spokesperson for the president had earlier told BBC News: “Since the former minister was part of every government since 2019, it’s strange that he phrases it as though these were somehow different governments without him. As everyone remembers, we didn’t hear any strong statements from him back then.”

Fedorov claimed he had rooted out elements of corruption from defence procurement but warned it was still affecting Ukraine’s frontline capacity. The former minister said he’d had no contact with the president for “a couple of weeks”, and had no evidence the president was personally corrupt. “In all the time that I worked with him, not a single time have I received from him any task or assignment that would go against law or my sense of integrity. So that’s my personal experience with him.”

As defence minister and previously digital transformation minister, Fedorov is credited with innovating to replace soldiers with an “army of drones”, saving lives on the battlefield and enabling long-range Ukrainian strikes on Russian military targets, oil refineries and distribution warehouses – thousands of kilometres over the border. He said he would continue to promote new ways to fight the war and confirmed a visit to the United States in the coming weeks, where he hopes to meet Elon Musk.

The billionaire businessman’s Starlink satellite communications system has been key in Ukraine’s success. Fedorov aims to convince Musk to extend the technology into Russian airspace to assist Ukrainian strikes, without the Kremlin benefiting from access. “The best tech companies in the world are supporting us and they will be investing in our victory, in ending this war. And we need to stay in touch with them regardless of my position. I have a previous successful track record of working with them and I need to stay in touch with them for my country,” he said.

Fedorov criticised bureaucracy in the UK and other countries supporting Ukraine for delays in supplying weapons. The UK is a longstanding supporter of Ukraine, spending £16bn supplying weapons since the war began. It was confirmed last week that British-made drones have been used to attack Russian targets. Fedorov said he was grateful for British support but blamed “bureaucracy and red tape” for delays in receiving promised equipment. “Governments are lagging behind the realities on the ground. It’s not only the issue for UK, but for other countries as well that announce some assistance and we are not getting it until the end of the year.”

Read more …

“Kiev “let the genie out of the bottle” by striking economic infrastructure, and is now reaping the retaliation, the Russian president has said..”

• Putin Hints At ‘Catastrophic Scenario’ For Ukraine (RT)

Ukraine is facing a “catastrophic scenario” from Russian retaliatory strikes after it “opened Pandora’s box” with its attacks on economic and civilian infrastructure, President Vladimir Putin said on Saturday. In spring, Kiev sharply escalated its long-range drone attacks on Russia’s oil and gas infrastructure, thereafter extending the strikes to e-commerce warehouses and civilian logistics facilities. Russia retaliated by targeting Black Sea shipping and key port facilities it said were handling Ukraine’s military-related imports, effectively severing the country’s main export route.


Kiev is now reaching out through intermediaries to try to “prevent this situation from developing into a catastrophic scenario,” Putin said in an interview with Russia 1. However, their trajectory is apparent, he added. Ukraine initiated this with its “massive missile and drone strikes on our civilian targets and logistics,” the president stated. It has opened Pandora’s box itself. Russia’s retaliation struck Ukraine’s “most sensitive economic sectors,” including agricultural exports, which are its main source of revenue, Putin said.

He added that the diplomatic proposals Moscow is now receiving are sometimes “exotic and unacceptable.” We are always ready for dialogue on peace, but only on the basis of the realities unfolding on the ground. Moscow has long stressed that it prefers a diplomatic settlement to the Ukraine conflict, but will only accept a long-term and stable peace that removes its underlying causes. Russia will continue to push toward its goals via military means as long as Kiev refuses to compromise, the Kremlin has said.

Read more …

“Run that equation long enough, and you don’t get a bigger tent. You get an empty one.”

• Gutfeld Delivers an Epic Takedown of the Democrats’ Big Tent Myth (Margolis)

Greg Gutfeld laid out a simple equation on Friday’s The Five that the Democrat Party is turning a blind eye to: welcoming radicals in gains you a handful of true believers, but it costs you a much larger group of people who just wanted a normal party to vote for. Run that equation long enough, and you don’t get a bigger tent. You get an empty one.


Gutfeld built the case by looking back at what actually worked for Donald Trump. “He had a lot of weird and odd people who backed him, and we called it a pirate ship,” Gutfeld said. “Because even though everybody was different, they all rode in the same direction.” Democrats, he argued, have the opposite problem. “They aren’t rowing in the same direction at all because they don’t have ideas. They just have identities.” That distinction is the whole ballgame. A coalition built around ideas can absorb a lot of different personalities and still move forward together. A coalition built around identity groups eventually runs out of room, because every new identity welcomed in has to be balanced against the people who feel replaced by it.

Gutfeld walked through the actual arithmetic. “You got a small group of super far-left fanatics who want to tear down everything, but there’s a much bigger group of regular Democrats who don’t,” he said. “So if you welcome the radicals into your tent, some will join, but then some normies, they’re going to leave.” The net change, as he put it, is the radicals who join minus the normies who leave, and normies vastly outnumber radicals. “Even a small percentage who leave, the party’s going to end up smaller,” he said. “And it will end up smaller. Trust me.”

“It’s like somebody deciding to add Ex-Lax to the office candy bowl,” he said. “Pretty soon, everybody’s going to start bringing their own snacks from home.” A key example, of course, is women’s sports, where fair competition based on biological sex gave way to policies that pushed female athletes out. He also mentioned churches that traded tradition for far-left positions and watched membership dwindle as a result, all while traditional congregations grew. The pattern holds because mainstream institutions survive on boundaries. Erase the boundaries to please the fringe, and the mainstream stops showing up.

Nobody has proven that point better than the Democrat Party’s own leadership. Party leaders have spent the past few months dismissing concerns about the rise of socialists inside their coalition, arguing that it is evidence the party is big enough for everybody. At the same time, plenty of the same leaders have spent those months working to sideline Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), a man who votes with his own party 95% of the time. His real offense was refusing to fall in line on Israel, Iran, the border, and socialism, the handful of issues on which the activist wing has decided disagreement is disqualifying.

“The Big Tent pretends to be this enrichment when it’s actually an erosion,” Gutfeld added. “The inclusion benefits only the outliers, but in the end, it destroys the institutions.”

The worst part is that the signs that this a problem for their party have been there, but Democrat leaders just refuse to acknowledge them.

Read more …

Pro-Muslim is anti-semitic.

• Bill Maher Admits Democrat Party Is Antisemitic (Matt Margolis)

On Saturday’s episode of HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, the host said the quiet part out loud about his own party’s relationship with Judaism. The exchange came after CNN anchor Dana Bash raised the case of Texas Democrat James Talarico, whose outspoken “Christianity,” she noted, means he “wears his faith on his sleeve” in a way Talarico believes could help him politically. Maher wasn’t buying the idea that all faith gets an equally warm welcome in the Democrat Party.


“Well, in the Democratic Party, as long as that faith isn’t Jewish, you’re good,” Maher said. Bash, clearly caught off guard, replied, “Well, you said it.” Maher wasn’t backing down. “Yeah, I said it because it’s true!” he shot back.

He’s right. As far as I’m concerned, when a lifelong liberal like Maher admits that the Democrat Party’s tolerance for public faith excludes Jews, that tells you how big the problem really is. What Maher admitted here is something Republicans have been calling out for years.And we got the receipts.According to Pew Research Center polling, 80% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents now hold an unfavorable view of Israel, up sharply from 53% in 2022. Compare that to Republicans, of whom only 41% hold a negative view of Israel and 58% hold a positive one.

That gap didn’t exist a few years ago, and it opened up almost entirely on one side of the aisle. The Democrat Party didn’t get here by accident. And the fallout is impossible to ignore. It gave an audience to antisemitic influencers like Hasan Piker, and voted for Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, both of whom built political careers on anti-Israel rhetoric. This isn’t a fringe problem. This is the base.

Sam Markstein, national political director and spokesman for the Republican Jewish Coalition, told Fox News Digital on Saturday that Maher got it right. “It’s a rare occasion when we agree with Bill Maher, but he’s right: there is only one party where American Jews can be proudly Jewish and loudly pro-Israel, and it’s the Republican Party,” Markstein said. “Democrats prove it again and again — from Kamala Harris passing over Josh Shapiro in 2024 to the rise of communist elected officials who traffic in antisemitism in halls of power across the country.” He didn’t stop there. “The Democratic Party is being remade by its radicalized base, and party leadership continues to fecklessly whistle past the political graveyard as American Jews flee,” Markstein said.

As far as I’m concerned, there’s a clear period when this shift began. Barack Obama’s eight years in office normalized antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiment inside his own party, and that shouldn’t surprise anyone who remembers his background. Before he ever ran for president, Obama spent 20 years in the pews of Jeremiah Wright’s congregation, absorbing anti-American and antisemitic rhetoric that became a real liability in 2008. He only quit the church once the cameras got too close. He never actually changed course, and his antisemitic record speaks for itself. This problem continued under Joe Biden. Essentially, Obama built the road, and Biden paved over it.

The results speak for themselves. A 2025 Gallup poll found American sympathy for Israel has collapsed to a 25-year low of 46%, while support for the Palestinians has climbed to 33%. Democrats now favor Palestinians over Israelis by a 59%-21% margin. They hold that position even though Hamas terrorists killed 1,200 Israelis on Oct. 7, including babies and Holocaust survivors, raped and tortured civilians, and took roughly 250 hostages.

The Democrat Party can keep pretending it’s still the party of religious tolerance and Jewish support. Even Bill Maher isn’t buying it anymore.

Read more …

Not exactly the best of America.

• Hasan Piker Mocks the Murdered Charlie Kirk to Cheering Crowd (Turley)

We have seen protesters on the left around the country mocking the assassination of Charlie Kirk, even reenacting his murder. Hate traffickers like Jennifer Welch have even justified his assassination. It is all shocking and depressing, but none reached the level of Hasan Piker leading a huge crowd in mocking Kirk and his faith. Before he was murdered, Kirk debated Piker and called him a “socialist hypocrite.” What is shocking is not the utter depravity and cruelty of Piker, but the ecstasy of the crowd in relishing the death of someone with opposing views. It is part of the conditioning in what I have previously called an “age of rage.”


In the video, Piker leads the crowd in the meme song “We Are Charlie Kirk” at a stop of his “Fear& LIVE” tour, including such lines as “We are Charlie Kirk, we carry the flame. We’ll fight for the Gospel, we’ll honor his name.” His co-hosts and the crowd seem to be laughing with joy. Joining him at this hatefest at the Golden Gate Theatre in San Francisco on August 21 were reportedly Will Neff, QTCinderella, and AustinShow. Hasan is wearing his now-signature Mao jacket as the young crowd and his co-hosts laugh hysterically. It is the very essence of this movement to desensitize people, particularly young people, to violence and hate.

In Rage and the Republic, I wrote about this national ragefest. It allows people to hate completely and without thought to the humanity of those being hurt. What people will not admit is that they like it. Rage is addictive, and it is contagious. Just look at the crowd in San Francisco, and you will see the addictive quality of uncut, undiluted hate:

Piker, Will Neff, QTCinderella, AustinShow, and these fans have every right to spread hate. It is protected speech just as KKK and neo-Nazi groups are allowed to promulgate their own hateful values.

What is exasperating is how hatemongers on the left want to enjoy hate speech while accusing others of hate and intolerance. They do so by excusing their actions or views by demonizing those who disagree. Democratic leaders continue the false claim that democracy is dying in America and that this may be our last free election. While made over multiple elections, the claim of the imminent death of democracy (unless they are elected) does not appear to register with their supporters.

Recently the rhetoric has reached hysterical levels. Florida Democratic Senate candidate Angie Nixon has compared Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to “modern-day slave catchers” and the government is “literally trying to kill us.” It is a narrative that allows you to speak like a Nazi while claiming to be fighting Nazis. Piker thrilled the crowd by mocking a murdered man over his faith and his death. It is more than being simply classless. It is commodifying rage. Piker is reportedly raking in a fortune as are other hatemongers like Jennifer Welch. They traffic in rage to a nation of rage addicts.

It is a scene that only reaffirms the work of Kirk who sought to expose the hate and intolerance of the left, particularly on our campuses. Kirk infuriated many by challenging them to debate. There is no room for reason in an age of rage. Those who try to introduce opposing views on campuses are cancelled or attacked. Recently, a group of pro-life teenagers were kicked out of the Wydaho Roasters coffee shop in Idaho by an owner who found their presence intolerable. At universities, faculty members have attacked displays and even students in righteous rage.

One professor who pleaded guilty to assaulting pro-life students was not only attained on the faculty but even honored by another school.Civility, and even humanity, become signs of weakness in these times. They gravitate to figures like Abdul El-Sayed who has campaigned with Piker and promises to “choke out” Republicans and refers to moderates like Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman (D) as ogres to have their heads cut off and put on pikes.

The American left has found their berserkers, the old Norse warriors who were known to fight in a virtual violent trance. The new berserkers offer the chance to hate completely and without remorse or reflection. Over time, supporters are conditioned to disregard even the murder of those with opposing views. As shown in San Francisco, assassination becomes nothing more than a sing-a-long in an age of rage.

Read more …

“The clash over sanctions on judges reveals a fading order in which neither moral monopoly nor financial coercion can claim legitimacy ..”

Constantin von Hoffmeister, a political and cultural commentator from Germany, author of the book The Fate of White America and director of Multipolar Press

• The New World Won’t Be Ruled By The ICC’s Bias (von Hoffmeister)

Washington’s clash with the International Criminal Court exposes the contradictions between supranational legal claims, American exceptionalism, and the rise of multipolar sovereignty.


The latest clash between Washington and the International Criminal Court says more about the structure of the present world order than about Tomoko Akane or Abdoulaye Seye. On August 18, 2026, the United States imposed sanctions on Akane, the Japanese president of the ICC, and Seye, a Senegalese senior trial lawyer in the Office of the Prosecutor. The measures freeze assets subject to American jurisdiction and restrict access to the American financial system. The ICC answered by calling the sanctions a “flagrant attack” on the independence of the court. Nine of its 18 judges, both deputy prosecutors, a former prosecutor, and another staff member now face American sanctions.

Washington says the court has exceeded its mandate by pursuing officials from states that never accepted its authority, above all the US and Israel. This dispute raises the oldest political question in a new form: who has the right to judge whom? The liberal international order promised an answer based on universal law. The American response supplies another answer based on sovereign power. A multipolar view has reason to distrust both claims when either seeks authority over civilizations and states that never freely granted it.

The American position contains a genuine question of sovereignty, even when Washington applies that principle selectively. The US never became a party to the Rome Statute. Israel also remains outside the court. From the American perspective, an international tribunal created by a treaty cannot simply acquire authority over American soldiers, officials, or allied leaders without American consent. The ICC answers that its jurisdiction can arise through the territory on which alleged crimes occurred, including territory belonging to states that accepted the Rome Statute. This is the legal basis behind some proceedings involving nationals of countries outside the court.

Lawyers can argue over jurisdiction, territorial consent, complementarity, admissibility, and treaty interpretation, but that us beside the point of the political issue in question here. A multipolar order begins from the existence of several sovereign centers of power, each possessing its own history, institutions, political traditions, and conception of justice. Any institution claiming authority above these centers carries an immense burden of legitimacy.

A tribunal with universal ambitions must either possess genuine universal consent or depend upon political power to enforce its judgments. The ICC possesses neither a world state behind it nor universal membership. The US, China, Russia, India, Israel, and several other important powers stand outside its system. Such a court can aspire to universality, yet aspiration alone cannot create a universal political community.

Yet Washington weakens its own argument whenever it converts sovereignty into a privilege reserved for itself and its allies. Sovereign equality means that American sovereignty deserves respect because every sovereign state deserves respect. American exceptionalism follows another principle: Washington claims freedoms that it frequently refuses to extend to others. The US objects when an institution beyond its control threatens American officials, while successive American governments have used sanctions, financial restrictions, diplomatic pressure, military power, and extraterritorial legislation to pressure individuals and companies far beyond American territory into complying with American policy.

Washington rejects the ICC because the court supposedly projects authority beyond the consent of sovereign states; Washington then answers that alleged violation by using the global reach of the dollar and the American financial system against foreign judges and prosecutors. Sovereignty becomes both the defense and the weapon. An international institution may pursue justice until its work touches the protected sphere of American power. At that point, financial coercion begins. For advocates of multipolarity, this episode illustrates why the concentration of global finance, sanctions power, communications infrastructure, and legal influence inside one geopolitical center creates political dependence even for institutions that describe themselves as independent.

The ICC itself deserves scrutiny from the same multipolar standpoint. The answer to American domination cannot consist of transferring ultimate authority from Washington to The Hague. The court arose during the high tide of the post-Cold War order, when Western political ideas increasingly appeared under universal names. Liberal democracy became “democracy.” Western doctrines of rights became “human rights.” Western political assumptions became “international norms.” Institutions created within that historical climate often inherited the same universal language. The moral appeal is easy to understand. Genocide, mass killing, torture, and deliberate attacks upon civilians are terrible acts, and societies naturally seek ways to punish those responsible.

The difficulty begins when moral judgment becomes a permanent supranational machinery claiming jurisdiction across radically different political worlds. International criminal law then enters the sphere of geopolitics. Prosecutors depend upon evidence supplied by states. Courts depend upon governments to arrest suspects. International bodies depend upon funding, diplomatic backing, banking systems, travel access, and political cooperation. Enforcement follows the distribution of power. A defendant from a weak state may find himself in The Hague. A leader protected by a great power may remain beyond its reach. The language remains universal while the ability to enforce it remains unequal. That gap between universal principle and political reality has haunted international justice from its beginning.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/17QStorm/status/2091133294159303085?s=20 https://twitter.com/dave_aldrine/status/2091202610808103090?s=20 https://twitter.com/DOGEQEEN/status/2091303969649775013?s=20 https://twitter.com/joehansen/status/2091204488853954683?s=20 https://twitter.com/JeebsTX/status/2091045886847586589?s=20

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle August 22 2026

Aug 222026
 
 August 22, 2026  Posted by at 9:12 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,  28 Responses »


René Magritte Personal values 1952


• China Rejects US Demand To Back Its Economic Operation Against Iran (ZH)
• The Strait of Hormuz Is Repricing the Entire World Economy (Martin Armstrong)
• Deaths of ‘Iranian Leaders’ Hindering Deal With US — Trump (TASS)
• U.S-Canada Trade War is Now a Reality (CTH)
• Cocaine Networks and Communists — Marco’s Been Busy Today (Sarah Anderson)
• AOC for President? It’s Time We Take That Proposition Seriously (Rick Moran)
• Remember the Names (James Howard Kunstler)
• ‘My Guardian and Protector’: Natalie Harp’s Devotion to Trump (CNN)
• FBI Seizes Devices Belonging to Eric Swalwell (CTH)
• Mirror, Mirror on The Wall: Who Is the Prettiest Politician of Them All? (SA)
• Wait, What? Trump Was on Michael Cohen’s Radio Show? (Matt Margolis)

 


 

https://twitter.com/ConstitustionX/status/2090504429208494479?s=20 https://twitter.com/John_F_kJr/status/2090543513674961159?s=20 https://twitter.com/ivan_8848/status/2090481005987545449?s=20

 


 


But will China understand?

• China Rejects US Demand To Back Its Economic Operation Against Iran (ZH)

China has firmly rejected Washington’s call to join in implementing US sanctions to “squash” Iran’s economy, pushing back against Trump administration pressure to be part of the “toughest sanctions in history” which has marked a new phase of conflict focused on extended economic warfare, as a military solution is seen as increasingly unrealistic and unlikely.”Regarding the Iran issue, sanctions and pressure do not help resolve the problem,” Reuters quoted a representative of the Chinese Embassy in Washington as saying. The White House’s new plan is to include heavy reliance on international pressure on external countries to impose extreme isolation on the Islamic Republic.


Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Lin Jian said the same to reporters Friday in a regular briefing. “China calls on all relevant parties to take responsible measures and resolve the problem through political and diplomatic means,” he said. Asked specifically about the latest comments of US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Lin emphasized the need for all parties to take “responsible measures” in resolving the war. “China opposes illegal unilateral sanctions that have no basis in international law and are not authorized by the UN Security Council,” Lin said.

Bessent had on Thursday told CNBC: “It is a one-two punch. We have the blockade (on Iran), and we are going to have the toughest sanctions in history.” He then vowed, “It is going to work in Iran and we are going to collapse this regime.” He further invoked some (infamous) words of President George W. Bush issued to allies in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. “You are either with us, or against us,” Bessent said in the interview. “This is going to be the greatest coordinated economic isolation in the history of the world.”

Such back-and-white rhetoric is very unlikely to sway the Chinese, given also that of course they know what happened next after that original proclamation by Bush – American forces got stuck in no less than two quagmires in the Middle East, Afghanistan and Iraq, in what came to be viewed cynically as ‘forever wars’. What’s more as the blowback in Baghdad was pretty immediate, as a key unintended consequence of the US regime change war was the ascendancy of pro-Iran Shia politicians ruling Iraq. Beijing is all too aware of the US score card in the region, even as Washington decision-makers continue ignoring the glaring lessons of recent history.

Bessent seemed perplexed at the reaction in oil prices on Thursday, while he also said that discussions with Beijing would be best done in private: “I think oil markets are misinterpreting what this economic pressure means,” Bessent said on Thursday. Oil prices climbed to more than three-week highs on Thursday. “We have asymmetric information, and I’m not sure why oil has popped up on this,” Bessent said. “If we are doing the maximum economic pressure, then that means that likely there will not be a large-scale kinetic restart.”

When asked if the U.S. could target China for doing business with Iran, Bessent said many conversations were best to have in private. “We are confident that everyone wants the Strait (of Hormuz) reopened, and for energy prices to come back down,” ` he continued. “Keep in mind that the Chinese get 50% (of their) energy from inside the Gulf. So it would do them a big service to get with the program.”Still, Bessent has been busy doubling-down on Trump’s message shift this week (opting for an economic siege warfare ‘solution’ as after military strategy hasn’t gone so well)…

Tehran has been consistently saying that is is ready for a long war, whether that come in the form of more US-Israeli bombs, or else an economic siege. Even Reuters has acknowledged the obvious in its own coverage, saying “Iran has weathered punishing economic sanctions for nearly 50 years, since the Islamic Revolution of 1979.” “Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi called Trump’s comments an attempt to divert American public opinion from domestic financial problems, including record debt and rising interest rates,” the report added.

There’s an additional important factor. At this point there’s no way that the two key UN Security Council permanent members Russia and China will sign off on any big new anti-Iran sanctions regimen brought before the United Nations. Closer to home, the White House risks more China blowback, especially with President Xi Jinping slated to visit the US next month. Bloomberg poses the following in Friday analysis:“Is the White House willing to prioritize this new economic warfare campaign above its China relationship? And if it chooses to, there are serious ramifications,” said Chris Kennedy, an economic statecraft analyst at Bloomberg Economics. Kennedy said the new threats are also an “admission that the US is running out of options.”

Any decision to hit China would risk worsening tensions just weeks before Trump hosts Xi for the Chinese leader’s first visit to Washington in a decade. It also raises the threat of Chinese countermeasures that could inflict pain on the US economy ahead of November midterm elections that will hinge on pocketbook issues. Beijing has already demonstrated a willingness to push back against Trump, most notably by announcing export restrictions on rare earths that forced the White House into a climbdown from their tariff fight. Meanwhile, more pushback against this week’s Axios report saying that large quantities of oil are moving through the Strait of Hormuz via a US Navy established ‘stealth’ corridor:

https://twitter.com/borzou/status/2090576229900423280?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2090576229900423280%7Ctwgr%5E0a80588e3499234b9a74d868adceed0299b51c1e%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fgeopolitical%2Fchina-firmly-rejects-us-demand-back-its-most-crushing-economic-operation-against-iran

On Friday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said that Iran will “under no circumstances bow to bullying.” But he also struck somewhat of a conciliatory tone, perhaps signaling Iran is still open to dialogue so long as Washington is willing to compromise. “It would be better to end the war today, now that we are strong and have dignity, with the whole world acknowledging our victory,” the semi-official Iranian Students’ News Agency quoted him as saying.

Read more …

If it were so bad, oil would be $200.

• The Strait of Hormuz Is Repricing the Entire World Economy (Martin Armstrong)

The politicians continue to speak about the Strait of Hormuz as though this were merely a regional dispute between Iran and its neighbors. That is complete nonsense. The strait is one of the most important arteries in the global economy, carrying roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil and gas shipments. Brent crude has moved above $91, but the headline price of oil is only the beginning. The real economic damage appears in shipping rates, insurance premiums, refinery margins, diesel prices, electricity costs, and ultimately government borrowing. War does not remain confined to the battlefield. It enters every household through inflation.


Washington claims the strait is open while Iran insists it remains closed. Both statements are political propaganda because it is the shipowners, insurers, and commodity traders who determine whether a waterway is commercially open. A tanker can theoretically pass through Hormuz, but that means nothing if the insurance premium becomes prohibitive or the crew refuses to accept the risk. Most politicians have never operated a business and do not understand that commerce depends upon confidence—not government declarations. Once confidence collapses, trade will retreat regardless of how many officials stand before cameras insisting that everything remains under control.

This is why the cost of the conflict cannot be measured solely by the number of barrels temporarily removed from the market. Every vessel delayed or redirected reduces available shipping capacity and increases freight rates elsewhere. Insurers must reprice the probability of a tanker being damaged, captured, or destroyed. Refineries must compete for alternative supplies, while countries dependent upon Gulf energy begin building precautionary inventories. Traders add a geopolitical premium because nobody knows whether the next missile will strike a ship, a refinery, a pipeline, or an export terminal. These costs compound through the entire system long before the average person notices the increase at the gasoline station.


The more serious warning is coming from refined products, particularly diesel. Politicians obsess over crude because that is the price quoted every evening on television. Yet modern civilization runs on diesel. Trucks transport food and consumer goods, farmers operate machinery, construction companies run heavy equipment, and emergency generators protect hospitals and critical infrastructure. When diesel rises, the cost of virtually everything rises with it.

Governments will pretend that this inflation is temporary or caused by greedy corporations. They said the same thing after the monetary expansion of 2020. Inflation is never politically convenient because it exposes the true cost of government policy. A war financed through borrowing does not require politicians to present taxpayers with an immediate bill. The expense is transferred into sovereign debt, currency depreciation, and higher prices. The public pays through the destruction of purchasing power, while officials continue claiming that military operations can be conducted without domestic sacrifice.

Europe is particularly vulnerable. It has spent years undermining its own energy security while increasing sanctions, regulations, and military commitments. European governments are already struggling with weak growth, aging populations, expanding welfare obligations, and enormous debt. A sustained rise in energy prices will reduce industrial competitiveness and force governments to subsidize households once again. Those subsidies will require still more borrowing at precisely the moment bond yields are rising. This is the trap: war raises energy costs, energy raises inflation, inflation prevents central banks from reducing interest rates, and higher rates increase the cost of servicing government debt.

The bond market understands what politicians refuse to see. Long-term government yields are rising across Europe, the United States, and Japan because investors are beginning to question whether governments can continue borrowing without limit. The Middle East conflict is accelerating a sovereign-debt problem that already existed. Governments accumulated debt during the pandemic, borrowed again to subsidize energy after the war in Ukraine, and are now expected to finance another expanding conflict surrounding Iran. Each crisis is treated as temporary, but the debt is permanent.

This is how confidence collapses. The decline of an empire does not begin when it loses one battle. It begins when the cost of maintaining its military commitments exceeds the productive capacity of its economy. Rome debased its currency to pay the army and preserve the frontiers. Spain consumed the wealth of the New World financing wars across Europe. Britain emerged from two world wars victorious but financially exhausted, surrendering its position as the center of global capital to the United States. Military power is always dependent upon economic power, yet the warmongers imagine the relationship works in reverse.

Iran also understands that Hormuz is more valuable as a threat than as a permanently closed waterway. Completely stopping trade would damage Iran and alienate China, India, and other Asian customers dependent upon Gulf energy. Tehran does not need to seal the strait with an impenetrable naval blockade. It merely needs to create enough uncertainty that commercial traffic slows and the world pays a permanent risk premium. A missile landing near a tanker can accomplish economically what a fleet might fail to achieve militarily.

The United States may possess the naval power to escort ships, but it cannot force private capital to ignore risk. Nor can it guarantee that mines, drones, missiles, or small boats will never penetrate the security perimeter. Every escalation requires more ships, more aircraft, more personnel, and still more government spending. The attempt to protect the trade route therefore adds to the fiscal burden created by the disruption itself.

The Strait of Hormuz is becoming a tax imposed upon the entire world economy. It will appear in freight costs, food prices, utility bills, interest rates, government deficits, and eventually elections. Western leaders will blame Iran, corporations, speculators, or climate change before admitting that their endless wars carry an economic price.

Read more …

“The US leader emphasized that Washington was successfully achieving its goals in the conflict with Iran”

• Deaths of ‘Iranian Leaders’ Hindering Deal With US — Trump (TASS)

The deaths of a significant portion of Iran’s leadership are among the factors complicating the conclusion of a deal between Washington and Tehran, US President Donald Trump stated. “Part of the problem is [that] so many of the leaders are gone. It’s not easy to make a deal. Nobody knows who’s leading [the country],” Trump said in an interview with WABC radio. At the same time, he emphasized that Washington is successfully achieving its goals in the conflict with Iran, particularly by preventing Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Read more …

Why exactly? Do we know? They seemed close to an agreement.

• U.S-Canada Trade War is Now a Reality (CTH)

Moments ago, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney delivered the news via his X account. Discussions between the U.S and Canada have collapsed. All trade representatives are called back home. The 50% U.S. tariffs against Canada are now in effect. A trade war begins. First, read the statement from Prime Minister Mark Carney, with the understanding that Carney is making the first statement because the news is exceptionally bad for Canada. Worse than bad.


When the 3-day tariff pause was announced, CTH said to be cautious. When USTR Jamieson Greer and Canadian negotiator Dominic LeBlanc said the terms were “basically agreed”, again CTH said be careful.The reason for our notes of extreme caution is because the divide between the two economies and trade policy is just too big. There was no way for both sides to close the gap without major structural economic changes within Canada. The issues are not points of friction, they are just too big and embedded within the laws of Canada that would have to change.

anking regulations would have to change. Intellectual property and media rules, regulations and laws would have to change. Industrial policy would have to change. The Canadian energy policy would have to change. The carbon trading scheme would have to change or be removed. All of this would fall upon Canada to carry out in order to position their economy in alignment with the USA. There’s literally no way for their government to accomplish this against the backdrop of their political ideology.

That was the structural argument and point made by former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. This is also why the USMCA as a trilateral trade agreement is impossible to maintain. The only trade agreement construct possible is two clearly separate bilateral free trade agreements, one with Mexico and one with Canada.

The 50% tariffs begin tonight.

A trade war is underway.

 

 

UPDATE: USTR Response

“Tonight, Canada declined to finalize the trade deal under the terms agreed earlier this week. Despite the U.S. offer to Canada to receive the best treatment of any major exporter to our market, new demands and walk backs of other commitments by Canada have upended the careful balance reached in the past days. In addition, Canada is continuing to maintain its prolonged retaliation against the United States, including, among other things, flat-out prohibitions on certain American goods and services.

For decades, Canada has enjoyed the most favorable access to the U.S. market of any country. And from the beginning of President Trump’s trade program, Canada has continued to enjoy the best treatment in the world, even after – like China – retaliating against the United States. This week, the United States agreed to provide even better treatment to Canada, offering significant tariff reductions on steel, aluminum, autos, and lumber.

The U.S. offer was also forward looking, and included a historic economic and national security partnership to cooperate on export controls, combat transshipment, enhance digital trade, and align certain external tariffs. The offer would have led to supply chain coordination on aerospace, complementary actions to address unfair trade practices, critical minerals cooperation, increased enforcement against imports produced with forced labor, and the announcement of formal U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) negotiations.

This is a missed opportunity for Canada to partner with the United States, which is the fastest growing economy in the G7.”

~ U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer

Read more …

Trump gives Marco free Latino reign.

• Cocaine Networks and Communists — Marco’s Been Busy Today (Sarah Anderson)

I was just getting ready to take the rest of the day off when the State Department flooded my inbox with emails. It seems that Marco Rubio has been pretty busy this week, and he’s largely focused on eradicating communism, crime, and drug trafficking from the Western Hemisphere, which is exactly where I like him. Let’s start with our old pal, Cuba, which Rubio has been sanctioning to death this summer. Or close to death. Unfortunately, the regime is still breathing, but it’s doing so with a massive statue of the secretary on its chest.


Today, the Department of State is designating nine entities and three individuals to further the Trump Administration’s comprehensive push to end the Cuban regime’s malign activities, both in Cuba and across our hemisphere. This action targets the leadership of the U.S.-designated Cuban Institute of Friendship with the Peoples (ICAP) and designates nine Cuban entities supporting the regime.These designations build on the Department’s July 20 report Cuba: The Capital of 21st Century Communism, which summarizes the Cuban regime’s decades-long use of brigades, such as the one coordinated by the designated ICAP earlier this month, to advance Cuban interests at the expense of the United States.

ICAP is the organization Fidel Castro began in 1960 to build global “friendship” and “solidarity” and maintain relationships with foreign activist groups. In reality, it’s a way to spread communist propaganda. According to the State Department, “it claims to have more than 2,000 solidarity organizations across over 150 countries [and] serves as the main organizing hub of Cuba’s ideological network.” Think Code Pink and the like. Additionally, “it coordinates research, educational, and cultural exchanges between American and Cuban institutions, builds relationships between American political movements and Cuban officials, and harnesses its global reach to draw leftwing activists, intellectuals, students, influencers and politicians to Cuba from across the world.”

It’s also directly tied to Cuban intelligence, and 90% of its staff are affiliated with the Cuban spy agency. Anyway, on Thursday, Rubio sanctioned some of ICAP’s leadership, including: Fernando Gonzalez Llort, the president of ICAP and is one of the “Cuban Five” group of Cuban intelligence officers arrested in 1998. Llort was released from U.S. custody to Cuba in 2014. Noemi Ramona Rabaza Fernandez, who serves as the first vice president of ICAP. Leima Martinez Freire, who serves as the ICAP North America Director.

But he didn’t stop there. Rubio also sanctioned entities he accuses of exploiting Cuba’s metals and mining sector for the benefit of the regime. These include:
• Empresa de Níquel Comandante Ernesto Che Guevara, a state-owned enterprise dedicated to the extraction and processing of nickel and cobalt.
• Empresa Importadora Exportadora y Comercializadora de Metales or METALCUBA, a “Cuban state-owned enterprise that facilitates the import of heavy industrial products, including specialized fuel and metal components, on behalf of state and non-state actors.”
• Grupo Empresarial Geominero Salinero (Geominsal), a group that “develops and markets mineral resources and salt, and provides technical services associated with these industries.”
• Acinox Comercial, a state-owned enterprise that facilitates the import and export of metallurgical goods and industrial equipment.

In addition to those, he sanctioned several regime-controlled entities, including the Ministry of Construction of Cuba and Agencia de Contratacion a Representaciones Comerciales S.A. (Acorec S.A.), an organization that supplies Cubans to foreigners for labor inside Cuba and then garnishes 90% of the workers’ wages. That’s not all. He also designated: • Coratur S.A., the organization that “manages international trade, import-export operations, and foreign market partnerships.”
• Empresa Central de Abastecimiento y Ventas de Equipos de Transporte Pesado y Sus Piezas (Transimport), a group that has “imported over $5 million worth of vehicles, automotive parts, and industrial equipment in recent years.”
• Empresa Comercializadora de Articulos en General (Consumimport), a group that “imports and exports a wide variety of goods, including appliances and construction materials.” Meanwhile in Ecuador…

The State Department also announced on Thursday that it is sanctioning “an Ecuador-based network of 15 individuals and entities and identified 10 Ecuador-based fishing vessels as blocked property for their role in trafficking thousands of kilograms of cocaine each month from South America to Mexico, destined for distribution in our homeland.” It goes on to state that these groups in Ecuador are growing closer to Mexican cartels, particularly the two biggest and most dangerous, Sinaloa and Cártel de Jalisco Nueva Generación (CJNG), as well as Ecuadorian Foreign Terrorist Organizations, Los Choneros and Los Lobos.

“These trafficking operations generate billions of dollars annually for cartels responsible for a significant share of the deadly drugs flowing into our communities,” the State Department reports. “The United States will continue to use all our tools to dismantle the cartels profiting at the expense of American lives.” The network operated under the cover of legitimate fishing fleets out of Manta, using government-subsidized fuel to resupply go-fast boats hauling multi-ton loads across the Pacific.

Editor’s Note: Thanks to President Trump and War Secretary Pete Hegseth’s leadership, the warrior ethos is coming back to America’s military.

Read more …

“She’s palling around with Bernie Sanders and will likely inherit his very large, very sophisticated political movement.”

• AOC for President? It’s Time We Take That Proposition Seriously (Rick Moran)

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) may be uninformed, poorly educated, and without scruples. But she’s the frontrunner in some polls for the Democratic Party’s 2028 presidential nomination and is well-positioned to ride the growing wave of radical-left energy now taking over the Democratic Party all the way to the top. Getting past superficial profiles of her, AOC has many gifts and a jungle savviness about politics that makes her a formidable opponent for any Democrat who’s been mentioned as a potential presidential candidate.


Her clownish social media gimmicks aside, this is a woman with a plan. And Republicans who underestimate her do so at the party’s peril.Mark Halperin, a veteran of several presidential campaigns, writes in The Free Press, “AOC boasts three indispensable factors for a successful presidential race: national name recognition, the capacity to raise tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, and insatiable media interest.”

A Democrat Trump? Don’t laugh it off. She’s palling around with Bernie Sanders and will likely inherit his very large, very sophisticated political movement. In that, she’ll have a leg up on Trump, who didn’t have much of an organization when he started running for president in 2014.

AOC maintains one of the largest digital footprints of any politician in Congress, with a combined social media following exceeding 23 million across major platforms. It doesn’t matter if they’re all brain-dead millennials and Gen Zers. They don’t care about “issues” the same way that older voters might consider before deciding who to vote for. It’s all about “feelings” and “vibes.” And AOC knows how to tap into that zeitgeist.

The Free Press: “An iconic face of the zeitgeisty progressive movement, a fundraising dynamo on a first-name basis not just with cable news hosts but with producers, network executives, hair and makeup folks, and popular influencers as well, AOC showcases other en vogue traits. She is a young outsider railing against the establishment. She is a master of the attention economy, a social media wizard with a keen sense of timing. She is bracingly gruff and tart, unafraid of conflict and controversy, and comfortable in the eye of the storm. She is widely considered gorgeous, with a sharp fashion flair. She possesses ineffable magnetism that catches attention; when she appears on any television or tablet, she compels viewers to turn up the volume to find out what she is saying.”

AOC understands that modern politics is part ideology, part organization, and part show business, and she does not pretend to be offended by the performative superficialities of the profession. Most politicians say they hate the circus while making sure they are standing in the center ring. AOC genuinely enjoys the circus. She is soulful, sincere, winking, ironic, and a ham all at the same time. Many Republicans have a hatred for AOC that’s so rabid they can’t acknowledge her obvious political gifts and the threat she poses. This is suicidal. She will be a formidable opponent in 2028 if she doesn’t stumble over her own stupidity.

Her obvious weak spot is foreign policy. Her recent efforts to create a foreign policy résumé resulted in an embarrassing appearance at the Munich Security Conference in February. Halperin notes that “even an intensive course in national security and foreign policy might leave her vulnerable to a career-stalling gaffe.” That’s because talking about foreign policy with simple-minded talking points or stumbling over a “what I believe” question shows a shallowness voters will recognize immediately.

Foreign policy is not simply a matter of expressing the ideologically accepted values. Presidents have to know things. They have to understand NATO, China, deterrence, nuclear doctrine, intelligence, trade, alliances, sanctions, the Middle East, the history behind the current crisis, and the interests behind the public rhetoric. They have to know enough to tell when the generals, diplomats, and intelligence officials sitting around the table are right, and when they are protecting their own bureaucratic interests.

At Munich, AOC at times seemed like someone who had learned the broad strokes but was not particularly capable of comprehending or interested in the intricacies. A presidential campaign would ultimately unmask that weakness, and her opponents would run with it as far and fast as possible. Furthermore, her Munich stumble laid bare the broader question of gravitas. AOC has spent her entire national political life as an insurgent legislator. She has never been a governor. She has never run a large executive branch. She has never had to balance a state budget, manage a natural disaster, command a National Guard, negotiate a major bipartisan agreement, or make the kind of lonely executive decision for which there is no politically easy answer.

She’s got a little more than a year to change that impression. The frightening possibility is that it might not matter as much as it has in the past. The younger voters are far more impressionable and have less ability to recognize a lightweight like AOC. Her communication skills will only take her so far, as long as her voters don’t question the intellectual basis for her ideology. Personally, I believe 2032 will be her year. If she’s the nominee in 2028, she will lose and lose big.

Read more …

“. . . it’s subversion and nothing about it is accidental. it’s a well worn playbook to use the democratic institutions of a high trust state to destroy a civilization.” —El Gato Malo on Substack

Jim has been in fine form for quite a while..

• Remember the Names (James Howard Kunstler)

An eerie quiet masks the panic rising among the many players in the long-running train of crimes carried out under color-of-law against the people of the this country that goes roughly under the clunky name of The Grand Conspiracy. What is Joe DiGenova up to, exactly, in the Southern District of Florida, with its several grand juries grinding away? Indictments will fly, for sure, but then who will flip on whom? It won’t take a whole lot of flippers to seal many fates in this skein of sedition and treason. The tension must be terrible for them.


The question has long been: how do you even begin to organize a set of coherent cases around this roaring avalanche of nefarious acts that got bigger with each successive attempt at cover-up? Let’s see if we can block out a panoramic picture of potential prosecutions. The gigantic mess must be separated into packets.

It’s probably best to begin with the FBI’s “Midyear Exam” op of 2016 — the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server. You can bet that the server contained evidence of HRC’s two seminal crimes that kicked things off: 1) the transfer of US military technology to Russia’s Skolkovo high-tech hub and payments from seventeen companies involved coincidentally received by the Clinton Foundation when she was Sec’y of State; and 2) the “Uranium One” deal transferring US-owned nuke material to Russia (via Canada) that required a State Dept signoff by HRC — coincident with husband Bill receiving a half-million dollar “lecture fee” from a Russian bank. Players involved in Midyear Exam: Comey, Strzok, McCabe, Page, then-AG Loretta Lynch.

That potential embarrassment of this sketchy business was simply squashed by Lynch and Comey, while HRC took care to physically destroy the server and devices linked to it. But it also prompted the creation of the Russian collusion prank against then-candidate Donald Trump, (“Crossfire Hurricane”) to distract attention from all that. . . which turned into the huge RussiaGate operation that marshaled the FBI, the CIA, the Senate Intel Committee, and offices deep in the Pentagon to put over a gigantic hoax. It was green-lighted by President Barack Obama and organized by CIA-Director John Brennan, with FBI Director Comey and DNI James Clapper.

Supporting players (potential defendants) include Susan Rice, Sally Yates, Veep Joe Biden (or “Joe Biden”), then White House aide Lisa Monaco, and CIA agent Eric Ciaramella (who wrote the actual Intel Community Assessment that jump-started the op). McCabe, Stzrok, Page, Ohr (and wife, Nellie), Rosenstein, and many FBI agents are potential defendants. Also Gina Haspel, CIA London station chief, who coordinated with the UK’s MI6 agent, Christopher Steele of the Steele Dossier. Throw in DOD-sponsored spook Stefan Halper and FBI liaison in London, Alan Kohler. After May, 2017, Christopher Wray was responsible for all FBI mischief and FISA Court irregularities (along with FISA Judge James Boasberg).

The Mueller Investigation was a subset of RussiaGate, but deserves its own case packet. It was an attempt to legitimize the RussiaGate hoax, and to keep the news media fed with innuendo. In effect it was a hoax unto itself, consumed $32-million, and ran nearly two years. It produced exactly nothing in evidence that President Trump had “colluded” with Russia about anything. Since Robert Mueller was mentally incapacitated, the investigation was run by subordinates, Aaron Zebley, Andrew Weissmann. Attorneys Jeanie Rhee, Elizabeth Prelogar, Brandon Van Grack and others. It was a fraud on the public and probably an obstruction of justice.

Impeachment No. 1 (the Ukraine phone call impeachment) was an entirely false operation cooked up by lawfare ninja Norm Eisen in collusion with Reps. Jerrold Nadler and Adam Schiff, with assistance from CIA agent (“whistleblower”) Eric Ciaramella and NSC member Lt. Col. Alex Vindman, with a boost from then-IC Inspector General Michael Atkinson. Eisen later admitted on a video that the aim of the impeachment was to “prebunk” Veep “Joe Biden’s” bribery and grift activities in Ukraine as the Democratic party prepared to run him for president in 2020. Ciaramella had accompanied Veep “Joe Biden” on several trips to Ukraine and knew what “JB” was up to there. Indict them all for sedition and treason.

The 2020 election op was pulled off in coordination with the Covid-1 scam that positioned the nation for massive mail-in ballot fraud, which was coordinated by lawfare ninja Marc Elias, then employed by the Democratic Party law firm Perkins Coie. Elias was assisted by Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook, now Meta), whose nonprofit, Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), distributed over $400-million to roughly 2500 election districts around the country, much of it used to pay select officials who would count and report mail-in ballots. The mail-in ballot fraud had been planned and gamed-out previously by the non-profit org Transition Integrity Project, run by Rosa Brooks and Nils Gilman.

In October 2020, fifty-one former intel officials signed a public letter denouncing the Hunter Biden laptop as having “the earmarks of Russian disinformation.” The letter was organized by Antony Blinken and former CIA-Director Michael Morrell. It was done in coordination with a social media campaign to suppress public knowledge of the laptop (and the Biden family record of international grift inside it) to influence the presidential election a month later. Potential fraud indictments.

The Jan 6 riot at the US Capitol has never been adequately investigated. FBI Director Wray was allowed to evade answering to Congress about the number of FBI agents and associated employees (including CIA personnel) that were mixed in with the crowd to provoke the intrusion inside the building and related violence. Speaker Nancy Pelosi engineered the situation so that the certification of electoral vote slates would not be challenged as procedure allowed. Sedition and Treason.

The Jan 6 Congressional Committee was a fraud on the American people put together by Speaker Nancy Pelosi to coverup her involvement in the crimes behind the Jan 6 Capitol riot. The members involved likely enjoy Congressional immunity for the spectacle itself, but perhaps not for destroying all the evidence that was collected in the course of the investigation. Chairman Bennie G. Thompson was responsible for that.

The Mar-a-Lago raid of August 2022 was authorized by Attorney General Merrick Garland and carried out by FBI Director Wray with Assistant Director Steven D’Antuono. Three months later, Garland appointed Jack Smith Special Counsel to oversee the Mar-a-Lago documents case, which he botched, resulting in its dismissal two years later. The raid itself arguably lacked probable cause and was based on an improper scope of evidence sought. Indict Merrick Garland under 18 U.S.C. § 241, conspiracy against rights.

The lawfare operations of 2023-2024 in several jurisdictions resulted in indictments against candidate Donald Trump and others in Fulton County, GA, and New York City. The Fulton County case under DA Fani Willis (later disqualified for “the appearance of impropriety”) was assisted by the “Joe Biden” White House, possibly by attorneys Richard Sauber and Beth Mueller in the WH Counsel’s Office, giving it the odor of a purely political prosecution.

In the the Stormy Daniels hush money case against Donald Trump brought by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, DOJ officer Matthew Colangelo left his cushy position as Principal Deputy Associate US Attorney General to take a job assisting DA Bragg in the NYC court. Colangelo delivered the opening statement at the 2024 trial and played a central role in the prosecution. The trial was presided over by political judge Juan Merchan. Just days ago, The New York Times reported that the Democratic Party fundraising company, Authentic Campaigns, previously owned by Judge Merchan’s daughter, Loren Merchan, has been under investigation the past year. Anybody detect the odor of politics? Malicious prosecution, improper judicial conduct.

Many of the political celebrities mentioned above, and probably many not-so-well-known players, must be freaking out as the waves ominously pound the beach and the summer days tick down toward the ill winds of fall. I’m pretty sure that readers and commentors can add some candidates to the list of potential indictments, and perhaps some ops I might have overlooked. (The entire odious Covid-19 affair is partly a separate matter, but that has also commenced a new phase with the guilty plea deal announced days ago by Dr. Fauci’s chief advisor, Dr. David Morens.) Even former President Obama looks boxed-in. He enjoys immunity from actions he took as president, but that immunity prevents him from hiding behind the fifth amendment as a now-private citizen in a court of law. Things are livening up.

Read more …

CNN finds it a juicy story. So they keep running with it.

• ‘My Guardian and Protector’: Natalie Harp’s Devotion to Trump (CNN)

President Donald Trump’s close aide Natalie Harp expressed her utmost loyalty to him in at least two letters addressed to the president, which were published by The Daily Beast on Thursday amid increased scrutiny of the close aide’s relationship to Trump. “I want things to always be right between us,” Harp wrote in one of the letters, which were printed out and signed. It began with “Dear Mr. President” and concluded with, “With all my heart, Natalie.” Excerpts of one of the letters had previously been published by the New York Times.


Harp’s constant and dedicated presence at Trump’s side has been in the spotlight this week after Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff mentioned her by name in a now-viral speech attacking Trump. The Georgia senator swiped at the president’s “travel with Natalie on their apparently defenseless flying palace gifted by the Emir of Qatar,” a reference to her joining the president — along with a very limited group of aides — when he secretly boarded a smaller aircraft to leave Turkey due to a threat from Iran in July.

She added in the letter from 2023: “I never want to bring you anything but joy. I’m sorry I lost my focus. You are all that matters to me. I don’t want to ever let you down. Thank you for being my Guardian and Protector in this Life.” In another letter, Harp reminisced about their relationship when she was a host on the conservative One America News Network. “I miss the days when you used to call, during my Talkshow days, and we’d talk about everything and nothing,” Harp wrote. “I want to get back to that synergy. We shouldn’t have to talk about work all the time!!” In the same letter, Harp added: “And please, when I fail, will you tell me? You have the absolute right to cuss me out, if need be, when I deserve it, because no one knows or cares about me more.”

US President Donald Trump and aide Natalie Harp exit Marine One on the Ellipse near the White House on August 16, 2026.


CNN has not independently confirmed that Harp wrote or sent these letters to Trump in 2023. The Daily Beast said the writer Michael Wolff obtained them while he was writing a book about Trump’s 2024 campaign. White House spokesperson Davis Ingle defended Harp in a statement to CNN, saying she is “one of the most loyal and hardest working aides on President Trump’s team.” But White House officials have privately acknowledged in recent days that the sharper, widespread attacks have had the adverse effect of bringing more attention to Harp’s relationship with Trump.

Harp is so close to Trump that she once rode in an SUV trunk to accompany him to a court appearance in New York City in October 2023, CNN reported on Tuesday. There wasn’t room for her in the vehicle, but she insisted that Trump had personally asked her to attend and was determined not to be left behind.

Harp is omnipresent in Trump’s orbit, officials familiar with her role have told CNN. But unlike past staff secretaries and aides to the president — like Trump’s former personal secretary Madeleine Westerhout, who similarly served as the president’s gatekeeper of information during his first term — she doesn’t sit outside the Oval Office, but in it. Harp is with Trump much of the day, sitting in on meetings and in constant communication with him.

She speaks with Trump late into the night about social media posts, the officials said. Harp is also a channel for foreign leaders to try to reach the president and is tasked with contacting people he sees on television. She is someone he will ask to send notes to others when he doesn’t want to reach out directly. Their working relationship is so effective, officials said, because of her total loyalty to the president.

But Harp’s methods have irked senior aides and at times prompted efforts to box her out of the president’s inner circle, according to multiple sources who described her dynamic with Trump. The former television host began working for Trump after crediting him with saving her life. Harp has become a main conduit between the president and the outside world, passing along messages from allies and setting up meetings, typing out Truth Social posts and toting printouts of laudatory articles, all while staying in close physical proximity at all hours of the day.

She is known as the “human printer” — a title she referenced in one of the letters, in which she said Trump “forced me to ‘unplug’” during a trip to Scotland and Ireland. “I didn’t have to be ‘Human Printer.’ I could take time to enjoy good conversation, and still get all my work done at the end of the day. In fact, I even had time to take long morning and evening walks to enjoy each Sunrise and Sunset (though I did forget to eat and sleep!),” she wrote.

Read more …

“…During Investigation of Rape and Sexual Misconduct.”

• FBI Seizes Devices Belonging to Eric Swalwell (CTH)

Generally speaking, when the FBI seizes devices it’s usually to bury them and protect affected interests in/around Washington DC. Rarely, if ever, does the confiscation of electronic devices result in any public awareness of the contents – unless the release runs in alignment with the interests of those in Washington DC.


EX. If it was the confiscation of electronic devices deemed adverse to the interest of DC (Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, Scott Perry, Mike Lindell, etc.) then the content of those devices is publicly exposed. However, most confiscations are to protect the guilty – therefore they are buried. SEE: Hunter Biden laptop, Huma Abedin laptop, Anthony Weiner cell phones, Hillary Clinton phone(s) and laptops; Awan Brothers laptops (4) and phones; Seth Rich phone and laptop; Jeffrey Epstein, phones, laptops, hard drives; Stephen Craig Paddock phones and laptops, Syed Rizwan Farook/Tashfeen Malik cell phones, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev phones and laptops; Senator Bob Menendez, phones and laptops etc.

Therefore, accepting things as they are most likely – and not as we would prefer them to be – it is best to think of the recent story as one of protecting the downstream issues from Eric Swalwell, as they are associated during his tenure as a targeting conduit for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) and later as a Trump impeachment manager and J6 Committee official.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal agents seized electronic devices from former Rep. Eric Swalwell and searched his Washington home as part of an investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct by the ex-Democratic congressman from California, according to a person familiar with the matter. Swalwell’s devices were seized at the San Francisco airport on Saturday and agents executed a search warrant at his home a day later, said the person, who was not authorized to publicly discuss an ongoing investigation and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

A message seeking comment was left Thursday with an attorney for Swalwell, who has denied allegations of sexual assault and misconduct. The Daily Mail first reported the seizure of Swalwell’s devices on Thursday. Swalwell announced his resignation from Congress in April following allegations that Swalwell had sexually assaulted a woman twice, including when she worked for him. The San Francisco Chronicle, followed by CNN, first reported the allegations. CNN also reported that three other women alleged various kinds of sexual misconduct by Swalwell, including sending them unsolicited explicit messages or nude photos.

[…] A lawyer representing Lonna Drewes, a California woman who in April said she had been raped in 2018 by Swalwell, said his team was cooperating with all law enforcement agencies investigating the former congressman. “We are encouraged to learn about the escalation of the FBI’s investigation into the allegations against Eric Swalwell,” attorney Arick Fudali said in a statement. (read more)

Read more …

Sarah Anderson. “I’m gonna need a real man to represent my state, not this clown.”

• Mirror, Mirror on The Wall: Who Is the Prettiest Politician of Them All? (SA)

(I bet some of you regulars thought I was about to write about Marco Rubio. That’s not what this is about.) Somehow, this story slipped through the cracks a bit when the Free Beacon came out with it in July, but it’s making the rounds this week. I know our own Scott Pinsker mentioned it in passing a few days ago, but I felt it deserved its own standalone article.


Because, as a Georgia resident, I’ll do anything I can to ensure this person is not my senator anymore. So if you had to guess, which prominent political candidate (at the federal level) spends the most on hair and makeup? Maybe it’s Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)? She might not be the brightest bulb in the box, but she’s a pretty girl who looks put together most of the time. Or maybe it’s Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.)? Another lovely lady who obviously puts a lot of effort into her appearance.

Well, if you guessed it was either of them, you’re wrong. If you guessed it was any woman at all, you’re wrong. The answer is Sen. Jon “Pee-wee Herman” Ossoff (D-Ga.). According to campaign finance records, Ossoff has paid “makeup artist Stephanie Ponder $2,887 for ‘makeup services'” since February. The Free Beacon reports that the most recent payment came in June to the tune of $900. Here’s more:

Ossoff’s four-figure makeup expenditures stand out among federal candidates. The Georgia senator who is running for reelection against Republican Rep. Mike Collins (Ga.), has reported spending more on makeup than any other candidate this year, beating out the likes of far-left Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) and Rashida Tlaib (D., Mich.). Ocasio-Cortez has spent $1,837.93 on ‘campaign event hair & makeup services’ in 2026, while Tlaib has spent $320 on ‘hair and makeup services.’

The spending also comes as liberal media figures praise the 39-year-old Ossoff’s carefully managed on-camera presence and float him as a prospective 2028 presidential candidate. He’s not only paying big bucks for hair and makeup, but he’s also paying them to a high-profile artist. Ponder has a resume that includes working on The Notebook, Hunger Games, and Remember the Titans. The article also mentions that, “A recent Puck profile asserted that Ossoff ‘has seemingly reinvented himself’ in anticipation of a 2028 presidential bid, adding a ‘beefier physique to his studied, Obama-like cadence.'”

And the media is falling for it, of course. Ezra Klein of the New York Times has pointed out that Ossoff knows how to make himself appear imposing and powerful on TV (I invite Mr. Klein to come to Atlanta and watch these campaign commercials that are in my face constantly because that’s not what I see — I see a weasel). Vogue did an article on his “internet thirst” and called him “an attractive camp counselor.” Queerty reported that “Jon Ossoff & his slutty little glasses are already our summertime political crush” and called him “an attractive version of Atticus Finch.”

All I can say is gag me with a spoon. You can’t see me, but I’m trying not to throw up as I write this. The idea of a man who spends more on hair and makeup than I do — and I love expensive makeup, I must confess — is just gross. I’m gonna need a real man to represent my state, not this clown.

Read more …

Two audio files. Not sure what the difference is.

• Wait, What? Trump Was on Michael Cohen’s Radio Show? (Matt Margolis)

Donald Trump spent part of Thursday swapping pleasantries with Michael Cohen, his former “fixer” who then became the left’s favorite anti-Trumper and even testified against the president in court and before Congress. It’s hard to say which is more bizarre: that this interview happened at all, or how warm it was. Part of the sit-down aired Thursday evening on Cohen’s radio show on 77 WABC-AM in New York, with the full interview set to air Sunday. It was an exceptionally friendly affair. Believe it or not, the whole segment played like a reunion special.


Cohen is currently filling in for Andrew Cuomo, who is taking a break from the show for the summer. Apparently, station owner John Catsimatidis, a Trump ally, ran it by the White House. The administration “had no objection,” Catsimatidis told the New York Post, adding that Trump had “expressed empathy” for Cohen. Empathy. For Michael Cohen. Sit with that for a moment.

On the air, Trump told Cohen, “They weaponized you like nobody’s ever been weaponized, like few have been.” He went from empathy to esteem. “I respect the fact that you recanted everything you said,” Trump said. “That’s a big thing that you did.” In a separate interview before the radio segment aired, Cohen told CNN he’d resubmitted a pardon application to the White House after the Biden administration denied his original request, and he hadn’t heard back yet. “I took that same application with the same documentation, and I just rewrote the cover letter removing the name of President Joe Biden and inserting the name President Donald Trump … I do have a receipt,” Cohen said.


Cohen is hardly the first Trump ally to blow up publicly and find his way back into the fold, following Elon Musk and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.). He once said he’d “take a bullet” for Trump, before his testimony in Trump’s 2024 trial, on charges of falsifying business records to illegally influence an election, helped secure a 34-count felony conviction that carried no punishment. It’s worth noting that Trump never said a warm word about Cohen before Thursday, though he’d linked to Cohen’s own comments this year about feeling pressured by prosecutors Cohen has spent the past year trashing.

Cohen framed it all as forgiveness in his Substack. “Forgiveness does not mean amnesia,” he wrote. “It is about having the courage to decide that yesterday will no longer dictate tomorrow.” At one point, he even got sentimental. “Boss, remember when I was by your side?” he asked. Cohen now says he only turned on Trump because prosecutors squeezed him. “I felt pressured and coerced to only provide information and testimony that would satisfy the government’s desire to build the cases against and secure a judgment and convictions against President Trump,” he wrote on Substack in January.

That tracks. We know how desperate the Deep State was to stop Trump. Heck, the Biden administration didn’t even try to hide that it was weaponizing the government against Trump.

Read more …

 

 

 


 

https://twitter.com/RobotaxiRadar/status/2090557478689734670?s=20 https://twitter.com/niccruzpatane/status/2089885020328505454?s=20

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle August 12 2026

Aug 122026
 
 August 12, 2026  Posted by at 9:50 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , ,  33 Responses »


Rene Magritte Memory 1948


• Iran’s Military Command: US Must Meet All Demands For Hormuz Opening (ZH)
• Iran Has One Last Chance Before Trump Hits Back (Victor Davis Hanson)
• Biden Caused US Munitions Problems By Aiding Kiev — Trump (TASS)
• I Liked the Dems Better When AOC Was Their Craziest Commie (Stephen Kruiser)
• The Cunning Genius of AOC’s ‘Woke’ Reboot (Scott Pinsker)
• Radical DSA Platform Grabs Spotlight As Candidates Surge In Primaries (JTN)
• COVID-19 Vaccines, Scientific Theories, Medical Speculation (CTH)
• Judge Allows Trump To Amend $10 Billion BBC Lawsuit (JTN)
• Trump Weighs Federal Challenge to Mamdani’s New York Pied-à-Terre Tax (ZH)
• Massachusetts Legalizes Abortion Up To Birth As Liberals Cheer (MN)
• Wall Street Giants Hand Nvidia $500bn To Fund Boom In AI Projects (BBC)
• Niceness as Whiteness: Professors Denounce Niceness as White Privilege (Turley)

 


 

https://twitter.com/seanhannity/status/2086990011816202702?s=20 https://twitter.com/CaseyKrol/status/2086837726943363530?s=20

 


 


Iran is overasking. They can’t help themelves.

• Iran’s Military Command: US Must Meet All Demands For Hormuz Opening (ZH)

Pakistan started the day by floating optimistic reports of the warring sides reverting to ‘moving toward peace efforts’ – however that appears very short-lived, or really was probably never a reality, given soon on the heels of these claims a top Iranian official has reiterated that the Strait of Hormuz will remain closed until the US corrects its ‘behavior’. According to fresh reports out of state media sources:


Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council of Iran Rezaei says Strait of Hormuz will not open until the US changes its behavior and accepts Iran’s conditions. This comes amid widespread reports that Iran has just undergone a significant military shuffling of top command leadership, which points to the ascent of the ‘hardliner’ crowd – as in those who are against signing an MoU deal with Washington…


The Wall Street Journal and others are picking up on Tehran’s obvious shift away from negotiations, and toward a more permanent state of military resistance. It writes: “Now, the new supreme leader, Khamenei’s son Mojtaba, is putting his own stamp on the country’s national-security policy amid a confrontation with the U.S. that could last months or even years.” According to more of WSJ’s analysis:

“In a sweeping overhaul of the government’s top echelon on Sunday and Monday, Iran named seasoned hard-liners to run the country’s security policies and institutions of repression. It marked the most significant government reshuffle under Mojtaba Khamenei, who hasn’t been seen in public since the war began. U.S. intelligence agencies say he is alive but severely injured, and top Iranian cabinet members say they have never met him since he took office. Iranian officials say he was injured but in good health.

Analysts said the appointments signaled Khamenei’s determination to hold fast in a showdown with President Trump, who is seeking concessions on Iran’s nuclear program and the Strait of Hormuz. “The regime is preparing for a more confrontational posture at home and abroad,” said Kasra Aarabi, an expert on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a powerful paramilitary force, at United Against Nuclear Iran, a policy organization that opposes Iran’s government. For some – especially the non-interventionists, it was obvious the war would take this course from day one.

‘Return of Peace Efforts’ Headline Pushes Oil Down
Despite what are clearly ongoing attacks on international vessels in regional waters, suddenly mediators are feeling optimism again, and decided to float another apparent round of pre-US market open headlines suggesting peace could return. Though there’s as yet no evidence of this, the Pakistani Defense Minister has signaled that the US and Iran are close to some agreement and that the situation is moving towards peace. Oil prices promptly plummeted ahead of market open. Pakistan’s interior minister Mohsin Raza Naqvi, has also just arrived in Tehran for talks with Iranian officials amid going mediation efforts, according to Iran’s Mehr news agency.

Read more …

“I don’t think you can trust them. But the point is they got the message that now this was the last chance. So, if they break this, and I think they will, Trump will have no choice, if he is to have any credibility..”

• Iran Has One Last Chance Before Trump Hits Back (Victor Davis Hanson)

Sami Winc: But there were leaks from the government that there was a depletion of our weaponry to fight Iran with. And then, if you have anything, [President Donald] Trump is talking about there’s a new deal with Iran in the works. I know your audience is thinking, “Yeah, that’s not gonna pan out.” But if you have anything on that, and then also tales of JD [Vance] and Bibi Netanyahu not getting along.


Victor Davis Hanson: Well, to go first very quickly, people have been leaking that there are not enough Patriot missiles, for example, or Harpoon missiles, older ones, Tomahawk missiles. We’ve heard there are not enough bunker busters. I don’t know if any of this is true, but it’s been leaking.

And the problem, why Trump is so angry, is we have enough, we have about 40% or 50%, likely, of our arsenal, which is too low. This has been going on for a long time. [Former President Barack] Obama cut the defense budget, [former President Joe] Biden did, and we don’t have enough stuff. But the problem that makes people angry is we have enough to handle Iran. We don’t have enough to handle Iran, give Ukraine enough to protect Kyiv, and then deter China from attacking Taiwan. So, the more you say that and leak it, the more likely China might believe it and want to try.

While we’re engaged with Ukraine and Iran, they might want to try to see if they could go into Taiwan, and we wouldn’t have enough missiles. That’s the worry. The second thing about Trump and the Iran war, we’ve had five or six of these where he says the negotiations are going great. And then they break down, and then he hits them once or twice, and then they beg him, beg him, beg him to get back, and then everything’s close to an agreement. But the Iranians don’t tell the truth, and then he gets frustrated.

And the problem with this is that on Feb. 28, you know, we had 250 days before the midterms. So, after 38 days of kinetic operations, we stopped. We stopped because about 80%, 90% of everything they had was destroyed. But we didn’t know that they had these little mosquito boats hidden everywhere, and we didn’t know to what degree they had drones and missiles hidden. And they had a lot.So, when we kept saying we’re destroying 90% of their air capacity as far as missiles and drones, we didn’t know what the denominator was. We didn’t know 90% of what. 10,000? 20,000? It could be a lot, 10%. And so, they started threatening the Gulf.

At that point, the Gulf freaked out. And they had wanted us to go in there and eliminate Iran. But now that they got hit, they didn’t want to commit with their 600 aircraft and join us because they thought we wouldn’t take them out completely. So, then people came to Trump, I guess, this week and said, you’re out of time. We’re only 90 days. If you’re going to solve this, you can’t keep saying this because—so, last week they dreamed up, we’re just going to unload the greatest military campaign in the air since World War II. And they were. And then that panicked Iran.

And they say now they’re going to open the Strait of Hormuz. I don’t think you can trust them. But the point is they got the message that now this was the last chance. So, if they break this, and I think they will, Trump will have no choice, if he is to have any credibility, unless he continues with that program. And your third part of the question?

Winc: JD was at odds with Bibi. That was the tale. He was on Laura and he denied it, but—

Hanson: Well, that’s a complicated question because Trump came out today and said that he supports JD as his successor as the Republican nominee in 2028. The reason he did that was JD was starting to be associated with these negotiations and not the kinetic part under [War Secretary Pete] Hegseth. And the negotiations hadn’t worked.

And he had said we were dealing with the moderates. There are no moderates in Iran. There’s people who pose as moderates, but even if they wanted to be moderate, they’d be murdered. It’s run by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, everybody knows that, and the theocracy. And then he said that Israel couldn’t kill its way out. That sounds like Israel wanted to kill people. They didn’t want to kill people. If Hezbollah had stopped the missiles tomorrow, they wouldn’t have ever gone into Lebanon.

So, there was an impression that, on the international stage, he wasn’t as experienced, let’s say, as Rubio, and Rubio’s stock was starting to come up. And if that continued, there might be a destructive race in 2028. So, what Trump did was he said to JD, pretty much, I will back you, but you’ve got to stop the stuff about Netanyahu. So, he had him meet Netanyahu, and there was supposedly—on Laura Ingraham’s interview, he denied there was a bad.

But the problem is this, that Tucker’s son worked for JD, and he, whether it’s fair or not, is associated with that wing of the MAGA movement, the Tucker Carlson, the Candace Owens, the Steve Bannon, the Joe Kent, is that his name? Yeah. All of those guys, and maybe Megyn Kelly, I don’t know. And Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massie.

And the problem with that, if he is to be associated with them, they say some pretty crazy things about Israel and the Jews. And when Thomas Massie is at a loss, because of the decision that was made in Israel, you know. And so, there’s a lot of— And there’s two problems with that. Trump’s grandchildren are Jewish and his daughter has converted to Judaism. And more importantly, there’s a lot of powerful Jewish donors who are sick of the Democratic antisemitism. So, the Republican Party is trying to attract them.

But already you see, not just among Jews, but among other people, are worried that JD seems to be singling out Israel for criticism that’s not applicable to other, more deserving targets. So, this week he’s been rehabilitated, sort of, as he got in with, he had a talk with Netanyahu. He got on Fox and said it went well. Trump endorsed him, and you didn’t hear him taking—he’s more now looking at corruption than trying to solve the negotiations. And we’ll see what happens.

Winc: Yeah, we’ll see what happens. Well, let’s turn to some of the things going on at the federal level of our government. Rand Paul has gotten the votes to refer [Dr. Anthony] Fauci for contempt, given that he took the Fifth 111 times. And my question is not so much on that as this precedent set, and I don’t know if it’s worse now than it has been in the past, of having a government official execute the laws terribly against the people or to the people, and then just being able to get away with it because, at the end of a president’s term, they pardon them. And that’s a very bothersome pattern or precedent. And I’m not sure which one.

Hanson: Well, there’s two things that presidents do. They give pardons, so they’re exempt from prosecution, and they give clemencies, so that if they’ve been sentenced, their sentence can be stopped, they can get out of prison, for example. And they do both. And it’s controversial who does more of one or the other. But if you put them both together, which you should, out of our last 47 presidents, the top 10 were Democrats. And the most was Joe Biden at about 4,500 total. That’s pardons and clemencies and other things related to that.

And then there’s FDR. Then there’s Woodrow Wilson. I think Trump now is three or four in six years. But Eisenhower gave a lot too, by the way. But out of that 10, I think eight are Democrats. And that’s important to remember because they keep saying that Trump is the all-time pardoner. I think it’s been widely abused.

Read more …

”According to the US leader, Joe Biden gave Kiev munitions worth $300 billion to Ukraine.”

• Biden Caused US Munitions Problems By Aiding Kiev — Trump (TASS)

US President Donald Trump said that any hypothetical shortage of munitions in the US armed forces stemmed from his predecessor Joe Biden’s decision to supply them to Ukraine, rather than the current military campaign in Iran. “They talk about munitions. We’re fine with munitions. <…> But the reason it could be lower <…> is because he [Biden] gave $300 billion worth to Ukraine,” Trump said in an interview with Real America’s Voice. Earlier, US media reported that US weapons stockpiles had fallen to record lows amid the conflict with Iran. The reports concerned Patriot air defense missiles, THAAD interceptors, ATACMS and PrSM long-range missiles. On August 5, The Washington Post reported, citing sources, that Trump had asked Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth to explain why the department had misled the president about a munitions shortage in the conflict with Iran. According to the report, the exchange demonstrated Trump’s “growing frustration” with Hegseth. Trump later denied that he was dissatisfied with Hegseth’s work.
Read more …

AOC’s career is carefully scripted. It has to be, because she’s not terribly bright. But this is the party that can’t find a face/leader.

• I Liked the Dems Better When AOC Was Their Craziest Commie (Stephen Kruiser)

Democrats are big fans of election year chaos. It helps cover up the fact that they are bereft of any substantive ideas to offer the voters. This year, they’re flooding the zone with crazies and waiting to see what sticks. Thus far, it’s mostly the communism that’s sticking. I wrote in last Friday’s Briefing that the Dems will never believe their party is so broken that it needs to be fixed. Of course, the reality divide between us is so wide that what we think is broken they might think is perfectly fine.


The way that the Democrats used to go about playing the game of politics was impressive. Until President Trump came along, I maintained that they played the long game much better than the Republicans. That’s one of the many things that he flipped on its head. The Dems have been in pure rage mode since then, just seeking out opportunities to tell the world that they hate Trump. It seemed to me that they lost their mojo for long-term strategy. Because nothing is ever too weird anymore, I’m willing to reconsider my opinion.

Rather than back away from the issues that have turned their party into a coastal elitist insane asylum, the Dems and their flying monkeys in the mainstream media are now pointing to the commies of the Democratic Socialists of America as proof that the establishment isn’t so bonkers. No, really:

That’s right: Things are so topsy-turvy now that people can speak of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as a member of the Dem establishment. Squeaky is no longer the biggest thorn in the side of the elder Democrats, or so some would have us believe. She’s actually the Queen of the Thorns, which is the surest sign that the Dem elders aren’t that freaked out by this so-called DSA insurgency. Once more, with feeling: The DSA has been an accepted coalition in the Democratic Party proper all along. It’s not as if its members just emerged from the fog and surprised the geriatric Schumer wing of the party.

The only real thing that the Democrats have to sucker the voters is the promise of “free” stuff that isn’t really free, and the upstart honest commies in the party are even better at that than the more seasoned officials. The old way was to offer the voters fake freebies that were at least in the realm of possibility. With the DSA Stalinistas, it’s all unicorns and free housing in cities that run on cotton candy wishes. When you consider that, the internecine drama in the party looks a lot less genuine.

I’m all for them heading into November trying to sell a narrative that says Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is whatever passes for a centrist over there. She’s not even “commie lite.” My RedState colleague Sister Toldjah wrote about Wisconsin Democratic gubernatorial candidate Francesca Hong, the next looming DSA “problem” for the Dems. Hong’s past is littered with campaign fodder for any eventual Republican opponent. The post mentions a recent interview with AOC and her attempt to cover for Hong. Put mildly, she’s not the best at being the grownup in the room.

As I also wrote on Friday, when November rolls around, every Democrat will be all-in on the DSA commie kids. It’ll be fun to see what kinds of faux tortured rationalizations they come up with to pretend that wasn’t the plan from the beginning.

Read more …

“She’s now a known entity — practically a comfort food. And because of the public’s familiarity with her, AOC doesn’t seem as scary — or as flippin’ weird — as the new kids on the DSA block.”:

• The Cunning Genius of AOC’s ‘Woke’ Reboot (Scott Pinsker)

After meeting Zohran Mamdani, Graham Platner, Abdul El-Sayed, and Francesca Hong, AOC doesn’t seem so scary, does she? Why, she’s almost quaint, traditional, and (slightly) old-fashioned by comparison. Tread carefully, Republicans: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) is still America’s most dangerous Democrat — and still the odds-on favorite to win her party’s 2028 presidential nomination.And if she captures the nomination, there’s (roughly) a 50%-50% shot she’ll win the White House. Don’t underestimate her: She’s media-savvy, camera-friendly, photogenic, and her PR instincts are as sharp as Sardinian swords.


Consider how deftly she just rebooted the “woke” narrative. Because woke is a joke in 2026: Woke is cringe, woke is dead, woke is done. Other than the fringiest of the fringe, nobody takes it seriously anymore. Just ask South Park: The excesses of wokeism are legion. A lesser politician would’ve tried to relitigate this or recalibrate that. But AOC knew better. Instead of polishing a turd and pretending it’s chocolate, she acknowledged overreaching, killed the old narrative, and set the stage for the “new and improved” version 2.0. Remarkably, she did it in a single sentence.

“I have a local city councilman that has this saying, ‘Woke One was crazy,'” says Ocasio-Cortez with a laugh. Lots of conservatives attacked her for it — and justifiably so.

All of the above are fair, legitimate criticisms. Yet consider what AOC just accomplished: She demonstrated humility by acknowledging her “woke” mistakes. (And a politician who admits mistakes isn’t something we see every day on Capitol Hill. She rebranded ALL the P.C. craziness as “Woke One,” which effectively closed its chapter. (Now, everything that follows is “Woke Two” — which, of course, is something TOTALLY different [eyeroll]. She signaled a willingness to learn, grow, adapt, and change. (OMG, AOC is maturing before our eyes!)

For her political purposes, #3 was most significant. AOC’s greatest vulnerability in a national election is being painted as a far-left extremist, but by showing a willingness to learn, grow, and change, she comes across as an open-minded pragmatist.And by definition, an open-minded pragmatist cannot be an ideological extremist. It was a subtle but effective PR rebuttal: One of the most radical, far-left politicians in federal history is mastering the art of cosplaying as a moderate!Naturally, her liberal allies are happy to help:

As are some conservatives:

AOC was elected to Congress in 2018. After she wins reelection in 2026 (she usually gets about 70% of the vote) and completes her fifth term, she’ll have served in the House for 10 years. And she was a celebrity from the very beginning.That’s 10 long years in the spotlight. She’s now a known entity — practically a comfort food. And because of the public’s familiarity with her, AOC doesn’t seem as scary — or as flippin’ weird — as the new kids on the DSA block. (Hey, at least she doesn’t want to ban Thanksgiving or get rid of July 4 fireworks, right? Why, by comparison, she’s borderline MAGA!)

Because politics is a comparison sport: Your goal isn’t perfection; it’s to outperform your opponent. And compared to the DSA newbies, AOC really, truly seems moderate, mature, and (gasp!) reasonable. They’re the ones who are extreme — not her! Rep. Ocasio-Cortez won’t be the only Democrat vying for the DSA lane in 2028. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) is sprinting in that direction, too. But Khanna is ugly; Cortez is attractive. Khanna is boring; Cortez is charismatic. Khanna is a bandwagoner; Cortez a trailblazer. Sorry, but it ain’t a fair fight. Khanna is toast.

Assuming AOC inherits Bernie Sanders’ socialist network of donors and activists, the DSA lane is hers for the taking. Meanwhile, “establishment” candidates like Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, Josh Shapiro, Pete Buttigieg, Mark Kelly, JB Pritzker, Cory Booker, Wes Moore, Andy Beshear, and Rahm Emanuel are all locked into a fierce battle to be the darling of the DNC. But that’s a very crowded lane. Not much room. Only one establishment candidate will survive. (The rest will cancel each other out.) It’s like Highlander — there can be only one. And by then, it’ll probably be too late: AOC will already have won a plurality in multiple primaries — and all the momentum going forward. She’ll be unstoppable. The nomination will be hers.

In the good ol’ days, a politician like AOC would have to move miles to moderate her image (which would risk angering her base). Not anymore. With the rest of her party racing like Usain Bolt to the radical left, all AOC has to do is temper her rhetoric and acknowledge overreaching with the “woke agenda” — and presto, she’s a moderate. It might be a coincidence, but she’s doing EVERYTHING a 2028 presidential frontrunner needs to do. Either way, the 2026 election will be the last time AOC competes in a House race. She’s outgrown her seat. Two years from now, she’ll have bigger fish to fry.

Chuck Schumer’s Senate seat is within her grasp, too. If she’s too risk-averse to run for president, replacing Schumer would be the next best thing. Schumer is done; he’s the least popular man in Washington. But if you want to change the world, nothing equals the presidency. She’ll still be attacked as a left-wing loon because she is a left-wing loon. And rebrand or not, the sheer magnitude of cringeworthy “Woke One” content she disseminated on social media won’t be forgotten: And by her own standard, it shouldn’t be forgotten. After all, in woke’s heyday, AOC called for archiving all the X posts of “Trump sycophants” who may “deny their complicity in the future.” Lo siento, mi amiga: What’s good for the goose is also good for el ganso.

But she’s making all the right moves to moderate her image. (Notably, AOC declined to endorse Francesca Hong and Graham Platner.) She rebooted the woke narrative in a single borrowed sentence. And in a Democratic Party where everyone else is sprinting left, simply by staying in place and making pragmatic concessions, she comes across as a reasonable, middle-of-the-road, non-threatening politician. We’ve known her for 10 years: That’s our Sandy! She has more name recognition, DSA fundraising infrastructure, and a larger social media footprint than almost all her peers. And like it or not, she’s excellent at PR. She really is. Don’t sleep on her.

Think of AOC like this: A bag of bones like Bernie Sanders came within a whisker of winning the Democratic nomination not once, but TWICE! (And Sanders was an old man, turning 79 in 2020.) So what do you think will happen when a photogenic, charismatic, media-savvy, 30-something Latina — running as Sanders’ successor — throws her hat in the ring? Sanders did well with his “Bernie Bros” but struggled with minorities and women. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) even claimed that Sanders told her point-blank that a woman isn’t electable, which Sanders hotly denied. Either way, he couldn’t connect with either group — struggling mightily with minority women.

AOC is positioning herself as the next Bernie Sanders — plus women and plus minorities. In today’s Democratic Party, that’s a passport to the presidential nomination. It was an under-the-radar move, but AOC just moved one step closer to the White House.

Read more …

Will they defeat the “old” Democrats?

• Radical DSA Platform Grabs Spotlight As Candidates Surge In Primaries (JTN)

As they experience newfound success across the United States in Democratic primaries, the Democratic Socialists of America have gone on a media blitz to share their vision for America. That vision includes radical changes to the American political system, like abolishing the senate, heavily restricting private markets, and abolishing police and prisons. The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) rode a wave of dissatisfaction with the status quo to unprecedented electoral success this year. DSA affiliated candidates and fellow travelers lead New York City and are poised to dominate its congressional delegation.


Dismantling the entire American system of government
In other areas of the country, DSA candidates are campaigning on a radical platform once unthinkable. Beyond New York, DSA candidates have won in Colorado, Michigan, and in down-ballot races in Oregon, California, Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Utah and Maryland. On Tuesday, a DSA member is leading in the polls for the Democratic Party nomination for governor in Wisconsin, testing the viability of the far-left political and economic messaging in a state that President Donald Trump won in 2024. Controversy has followed Francesca Hong. Like many other DSA affiliates, her past social media posts, including arguing to defund the police and calling to cancel Thanksgiving, are at the center of it.

In an interview last month on Fox News, DSA’s national co-chair, Megan Romer, answered that, “yes,” the DSA’s platform includes “abolishing the Senate,” “[replacing] the presidency and Supreme Court as we now know them,” and “absolutely” abolishing immigration enforcement, defunding the military, and, eventually, abolishing police and prisons. “Yes,” “true,” and “yep,” said Romer in response to the host’s questions. The relentless media tour by senior DSA leaders focused scrutiny on the organization’s official platform. Republicans sensed an opening and traditional Democrats are worried the group’s radical proposals might sink the party’s midterm chances.

Indeed, many of the Democratic Socialist leaders are self-professed communists, Just the News previously reported. Many of the DSA’s leaders belong to internal party caucuses that explicitly define themselves as Marxist and advocate for achieving communism. This includes Romer, who is a member of the Red Star caucus of the DSA, which explicitly pronounces its ultimate aim: the overthrow of capitalism in the U.S. and, eventually, communism. Last month, the DSA released a new “program,” or platform, that outlined its priorities. Here are some of the most striking in the group’s own words:

‘End Mass Incarceration and Police Immunity’
The DSA’s platform includes radical proposals to defund, and eventually abolish, the “police and prison system,” which the organization argues is slanted for the benefit of the rich. Similar comments made by DSA-backed candidates have stirred controversy. “Demilitarize police departments, disempower police unions, and redirect funding to public services as steps towards fully abolishing the police and prison system which protects the rich and jails the poor,” the DSA’s program reads.

Francesca Hong, the DSA member vying for the gubernatorial nomination in Wisconsin, has worked to distance herself from prior social media posts from years ago in which she argued for abolishing police. “I support defunding the police as a first step towards abolishing the police,” Hong posted in 2020, echoing the modern DSA policy platform. Other DSA-tied candidates have come under fire for holding similar views. For example, Darializa Avila Chevalier in New York City faced scrutiny for a series of deleted posts to social media expressing support for abolishing police, prisons and borders, seizing private property, and nationalizing industries, Just the News previously reported.

‘Abolish ICE’ and ‘Amnesty for All’
“A world without borders—just like a world without prisons or police—is possible, necessary, and the only moral way forward,” Chevalier posted to Twitter, now X, in September 2021. The DSA’s program also calls for completely ending immigration enforcement, including ICE detentions and deportations. DSA organizers have been at the center of nationwide protests against the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement policies, cooperating with a coalition of left-wing organizations, some of which received funding from China-based billionaire Neville Roy Singham.

“End ICE detention and deportations and punish federal agents’ brutality. Legalize migration, grant amnesty for all immigrants regardless of status, provide a path to citizenship for all permanent residents, and end visa caps and quotas,” DSA’s program reads. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who is a member of the DSA, has called repeatedly for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to be abolished. “As [New York’s] mayor, I firmly believe that ICE should be abolished,” Mamdani said. “I will not sit here beside you and proclaim the only way to respond to [immigration] is an agency that I’m older than.”

‘Abolish the Senate’ and ‘Replace the President and Supreme Court’
Hong, who will face Wisconsin Democratic voters on Tuesday, has also called for abolishing the agency. “Abolishing ICE isn’t radical — it’s good policy,” she posted to social media in January. The DSA’s proposals for reforming the United States government are also nothing short of radical. The organization envisions completely remaking the three separate branches of power in Washington and replacing the current system with a single legislature that directly appoints the other branches.

For example, rather than reform the Senate, as some Democratic politicians have argued for many years, the DSA wants to do away with the upper legislative chamber completely, vesting all congressional power in an expanded and more proportional House of Representatives. The organization’s leaders argue that doing so would make the country more democratic and representative. “The Senate is a very undemocratic institution,” DSA co-chairman Ashik Siddiqu said in an interview on C-SPAN. “I talked a bit about democracy, a ‘small d’ democracy, and that’s really important to us. We want democratic representation of all people who live in this country.”

“Public Ownership” of “Corporations”
The DSA calls for the “public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries.” This program of nationalization would be “to ensure democratic control and accountability to the people.” To this end, the organization’s program calls for “the end of capitalism” as the system of economic organization. In some way, New York City Mayor Mamdani is piloting aspects of this broader plan in a place where the DSA actually holds levers of power. His city-run grocery store experiment intends to create a system of stores that will offer a 30% discount compared to private competitors. The plan has some in the city warning that the stores will cost taxpayers and may force private stores to close.

The platform also argues for replacing the presidency and the Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary panel “chosen by and subordinate to Congress.” All of these reforms would require major constitutional changes. Abolishing the Senate would likely require the approval of all the states because of the special constitutional provision requiring each state to have “equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

Read more …

The best queation is short:

“Why would Anthony Fauci need criminal immunity?”

• COVID-19 Vaccines, Scientific Theories, Medical Speculation (CTH)

What is surfacing now, five years later, is a stronger understanding of just how the establishment medical complex determined the safety and efficacy protocols of the COVID-19 vaccination. They had theories, they had speculation, they had scientific discussion; but ultimately, they did not know to what extent the vaccine was safe – and statistically it wasn’t safe. Looking back on recent history, the COVID experience stands out. The lessons from observing the government’s response, and how people reacted to it, have influenced our perspective on many topics related to liberty and freedom.


I turn to faith, read the gospel and recognize in more than a few ways the COVID experience was a generational test. It is generally accepted that somewhere around 60 to 70% of Americans accepted the COVID vaccine, although a great many of those who took the vaccine did so under tremendous pressure, essentially under duress and without fully informed consent.

There really was no way to apply “informed consent” to the process because the ‘information’ that should have supported the consent was skewed, shaped and in many instances intentionally manipulated. Again, the pressure for compliance to the process was extreme; beyond extreme. I said at the time we had never seen such a pressure campaign on any topic or issue as aggressively oppressive as we endured during two-years of COVID vaccination compliance pressure.

I do not fault anyone who took the vaccine. In fact, I hold great empathy toward those who now live with the hindsight question of their life potentially being shortened. Everyone has been impacted by this medical experiment and the subsequent sociological implications in the aftermath. A few days ago, a person wanted to discuss Dr Anthony Fauci’s testimony with me. I never bring up the subject of the COVID vaccine; not ever in personal discussion. However, if it is brought up to me, I will engage carefully, honestly and with empathy. I was asked about Fauci taking the fifth amendment and his previous grant of immunity by Joe Biden.

My response was short, purposeful and direct. Why would Anthony Fauci need criminal immunity? A lengthy reframing of the question resulted from my friend, who essentially then repeated it. Again, I responded, “why would any agent of the United States govt even begin a thought process that immunity for criminal activity would be needed?” Silently, inside my mind I wonder if perhaps I’ve spent too much time learning about the way Russian people think. They are like American mid-westerners of old; the questions are much shorter and more direct; there is no pretense. Why did Fauci need immunity? Why indeed. Someone knew something, eh?

That sense, the one we all carry that alerts us when something just doesn’t add up, doesn’t sit right, doesn’t reconcile unless we pretend something else exists in the sentence to explain the stuff that doesn’t reconcile. The stuff inside the sentence we create in order to explain or justify is the nonexistent stuff, the pretending stuff. Take the pretending out of the thought, and suddenly you know the answer. [Again, now you are thinking like a Russian.] We are in an abusive relationship with government. The COVID-19 experience just created a shortcut to show us just how extensive and abusive that relationship is.

How many Americans have physically been harmed in this example, and how many millions more are suffering the downstream consequences of continued codependent denial. COVID-19 was the embodiment of the truism: “when push comes to shove.” How far are you willing to go -what pain are you willing to suffer through- to retain your definition of liberty, freedom and sovereign control. Is there a price? The COVID-19 experience gave us all the uncomfortable answers….. and now the discussion necessarily gets quiet in mixed company.

Many people are angry. Many people have every emotional right to be angry. The scale of vaccine compliance suffering runs the gambit from collapsed friendships to lost jobs, broken marriages, to painful isolation and yes, to death itself.

There is no way to measure cold anger at a scale not entirely visible. Several years ago, CTH said to gently avoid touching the sensitive nerve of those vaccinated, there is no way for them to retreat from the decision. Done is done. Genuine human empathy must be applied generously, while simultaneously a pragmatic perspective must be maintained. Each person can define and judge but choosing to express that judgement is a different matter entirely. Remember, for the vaccinated all discussion is zero-sum.

As the revelations about the vaccine administrators, their thoughts, their severely compromised and corrupt activity continues to surface, it is worthwhile reminding ourselves that some people need to retain cognitive denial in order to avoid seeing the vaccinated person in the mirror. The credibility of all U.S. government institutions has collapsed; all of them. Let me repeat. When you stop pretending you accept the credibility of all U.S. government institutions has collapsed in our lifetime. The only people left covering for this collapse are those who need to retain the illusion of institutional credibility.

The Food and Drug Administration permits toxic chemicals in food and is controlled by Big Rx. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is controlled by Big Ag. The corporate media are controlled by their corporate advertisers. Manage your personal affairs accordingly. We may not live there, but we are all Russians now.

Read more …

The BBC should be bankrupted over this. At a minimum, those who took decisions should lose their jobs and pensions.

• Judge Allows Trump To Amend $10 Billion BBC Lawsuit (JTN)

The president sued the network in December in his personal capacity for defamation over the BBC airing a program in 2024 that edited clips from his speech on January 6, 2021, to make it seem like he was inciting violence.A federal judge handed President Donald Trump a minor legal victory Monday by allowing him to amend his $10 billion lawsuit against the BBC in a move that is expected to help him dodge sharing financial information with the outlet. The president sued the network in December in his personal capacity for defamation over the BBC airing a program in 2024 that edited clips from his speech on January 6, 2021, to make it seem like he was inciting violence.


United States District Judge Roy K. Altman gave the president permission to file an amended complaint by next week, and dismissed the BBC’s request to dismiss the lawsuit as “moot.” The federal judge said the network can file a new motion to dismiss after the amended complaint is filed. “Today’s strong and thoughtful ruling is a major win for President Trump’s powerhouse lawsuit against the formerly respected and now disgraced BBC, which defamed President Trump by intentionally, maliciously and deceptively doctoring his speech in a brazen attempt to interfere in the 2024 Presidential Election,” a spokesman for Trump’s legal team told Fox News.

“President Trump is holding the leftist BBC, along with all of its comrades in the mainstream media, accountable for their peddling of Fake News through deception and maliciously defamatory conduct,” he added. The lawsuit comes after the British news corporation apologized for the editing, acknowledging that it failed to live up to the company’s standards by giving a false impression and promised to never show the segment again. But the network declined to say it was defamatory.

The segment edited Trump’s declaration at the White House that he and his supporters were “going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women,” and his statement nearly an hour later that Republicans should “fight like hell.” The clip instead combined the comments to have the president state: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol… and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell.”

Read more …

“.. for the millions of people who cherish New York and want to see it thrive, as opposed to becoming a filthy, crime-ridden, decrepit place of mockery and scorn.”

• Trump Weighs Federal Challenge to Mamdani’s New York Pied-à-Terre Tax (ZH)

President Trump said in a Truth Social post around lunchtime that his administration is examining whether the federal government has the legal authority to block NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s dangerous political “experiment” before it can “destroy what was once a great City and State.”


“It is pure Amateur Hour, and it’s hard, as President of the United States of America, to sit back and watch it happen, especially to a place I once loved. Financial, and then Social, RUIN, is a 100% certainty – And then the Radical Left Jihadists charge Congestion Pricing on top of everything else,” Trump said.

He continued, “This doesn’t work in America, and must be stopped, NOW! I am looking to see if the Federal Government has any legal right to avert this disaster, before it is too late, for the millions of people who cherish New York and want to see it thrive, as opposed to becoming a filthy, crime-ridden, decrepit place of mockery and scorn.”

“The City Screwed This Up”: Judge Temporarily Blocks Mamdani’s Pied-A-Terre Tax Scheme
A New York judge temporarily halted Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s socialist experiment to impose a new tax on luxury second homes, ordering far-left City Hall officials to remove a controversial list doxing more than 900,000 homeowners from the public domain

The publicly accessible database exposed names, addresses, and property values, effectively creating an easily accessible targeting list for radical activists, including Luigi-worshipping far-left activists, amid City Hall’s escalating war on property owners.

“I’ve Been Doxed”: Lefty Podcaster Scott Galloway Rips Mamdani After Landing On Socialist’s Rich Target List
Bloomberg reports that Justice Wayne Ozzi temporarily restrained City Hall from proceeding with the new pied-à-terre tax and required the city to remove the online list of properties that would be targeted by the tax and halt further action based on roughly 17,000 notices mailed to property owners. A hearing is scheduled for Aug. 31. “The city screwed this up… got it wrong… stop the train and make them do it over,” Randy Mastro, a former deputy mayor, told the court. Mastro is the one who brought the suit on behalf of three New York homeowners.

“The city screwed this up… got it wrong… stop the train and make them do it over,” Randy Mastro, a former deputy mayor, told the court. Mastro is the one who brought the suit on behalf of three New York homeowners. z”We are very gratified by the judge’s decision, which has vindicated the rights of hundreds of thousands of New York City homeowners who were subjected to a process they never should have been a part of in the first place,” Mastro said after the ruling. On Monday, Mamdani noted Mastro’s role in suits challenging his socialist housing policies. “You know, there are few things more certain in New York City than death, taxes and Randy Mastro filing a lawsuit against this administration,” the mayor said at a press conference.

He continued, “So we look forward to vigorously defending our city’s position in court as we have done so with the previous lawsuits that he has filed and I’m sure with the lawsuits that he will continue to file in the months and years to come.” Last month, Mastro also filed a separate complaint on behalf of a group of NYC landlords who sued to void a rent freeze approved in June, arguing that Mamdani improperly influenced the Rent Guidelines Board’s vote and ignored evidence of soaring operating costs for landlords. This plays into the broader socialist endgame: bankrupt landlords and create conditions for City Hall to seize distressed apartment buildings.

Mamdani has said the new pied-à-terre tax will help fund safer streets, safer schools, and “the city that New Yorkers deserve.” Yet we know socialists do not live in economic reality, and the fact that they had to dox homeowners suggests an alternative motive: they want to seize the means of production. Putting such a list out in the public domain for their radical left foot soldiers to access suggests that wealthy homeowners will be targeted. This is dangerous, especially given the rhetoric pushed by Mamdani’s friend Hasan Piker, who recently said, “Kill capitalists.”

Read more …

“At the very stage when premature babies are receiving lifesaving care in neonatal intensive care units, Massachusetts will permit abortionists to end the lives of children of the same age – and even older. That is not compassion, and it is not health care,”

• Massachusetts Legalizes Abortion Up To Birth As Liberals Cheer (MN)

Massachusetts Democratic Governor Maura Healey has signed into law a measure that effectively permits abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, right up to the point of birth. Liberal women packed the room and gleefully cheered as she put pen to paper.The previous statute restricted abortions after 24 weeks to specific circumstances: preserving the life of the patient, physical or mental health, lethal fetal anomaly, or a grave diagnosis incompatible with sustained life outside the womb without extraordinary intervention. That framework is now gone.


The new law, deceptively titled the “Prioritizing Patient Access to Care Act” (H.5595), states that an abortion may be performed by a physician based solely upon the professional judgment of the physician. No medical review process can override that judgment and the patient’s decision. Healey framed the change around stories of “pain and anguish and heartache and a lot of trauma.” She declared: “We’re signing this law today so that new patients, people we won’t know or won’t meet, will be able to get the care that they need in Massachusetts.”

She added that health care decisions should be made “between women and families and their doctors, not politicians,” and promised abortion would remain “safe… legal, and… accessible here in Massachusetts.” The ceremony featured applause and smiles from advocates, doctors, and lawmakers. Massachusetts now joins Alaska, Colorado, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington, D.C., as jurisdictions with no statutory gestational limit. The law takes effect in 90 days.

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2086974128565723606?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2086974128565723606%7Ctwgr%5E19c5838c7a6769317dcca19cbcfb9d5ac8b965bd%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fmassachusetts-legalizes-abortion-birth-liberals-cheer

Pro-life leaders did not share the celebratory mood. Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life, stated: “Governor Healey and the Massachusetts Legislature have erased the final protections for unborn children who can feel pain and who could survive outside the womb.” “At the very stage when premature babies are receiving lifesaving care in neonatal intensive care units, Massachusetts will permit abortionists to end the lives of children of the same age – and even older. That is not compassion, and it is not health care,” Tobias further urged.

Myrna Maloney Flynn, president of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, was blunt: the measure “legalized elective abortion up to birth on healthy moms and healthy, pain-capable infants. She continued that it is “not about protecting the doctor-patient relationship. It is about abortionists normalizing the deaths of fully-developed infants and pressuring vulnerable women to permit their unborn children to die in heinous acts of violence.” These procedures, she noted, rank among the most severe human rights abuses permitted in only a handful of places worldwide.

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) responded simply: “Jesus wept.” This movement fits a pattern of cultural celebration around the destruction of the unborn. Earlier this year a woman in Memphis took abortion pills at a gender-reveal party after learning she was having a girl while friends shouted “kill it.” Washed up Sex and the City actress Cynthia Nixon drew widespread criticism for posing in a red hat altered to read “Make Abortion Great Again,” once again providing an example of how weirdo celebrities with dysfunctional lives should not be taken seriously whenever they spout off about how society should function.

Across the Atlantic, the UK House of Lords advanced measures that also effectively open the door to abortion up to birth, despite polling showing only about 1 percent of Britons approve of such extremes and clear majorities favor gestational limits to protect viable life.

The Massachusetts law removes objective statutory guardrails and hands the decision entirely to the attending physician. Pro-life physicians emphasize that true medical emergencies requiring separation of mother and child are distinct from induced abortion intended to end the life of a viable unborn child. Late-term procedures often involve dismemberment or induction, with the latter risking live birth if fetal demise is not first induced. Supporters insist the change merely prevents families from traveling out of state for “complex medical circumstances.”

Critics counter that the prior exceptions already covered life-threatening situations and severe anomalies, and that the new open-ended standard invites elective procedures on healthy mothers carrying healthy, pain-capable infants. Data from the state’s own Department of Public Health already showed dozens of abortions at 24 weeks or later in recent years; the removal of limits is expected to increase that number.

Read more …

The money boys don’t understand AI. But they can’t afford to miss out on it. So they play it safe.

• Wall Street Giants Hand Nvidia $500bn To Fund Boom In AI Projects (BBC)

Nvidia has teamed up with some of Wall Street’s largest banks and investors to raise $500bn (£370bn) in capital for artificial intelligence infrastructure. The chipmaker said it had struck deals with Apollo, BlackRock, Blackstone, Brookfield, Goldman Sachs and KKR, and that the investors were for the first time treating AI hardware and infrastructure, often referred to as “compute”, as an asset class. “In AI, compute is revenue,” Nvidia chief executive Jensen Huang said. “We are bringing the world’s leading long-term capital providers together to independently underwrite AI infrastructure.”


The financing will go towards Nvidia’s own projects and those being built by its partners. Infrastructure projects backed by this fund will likely include the construction of new data centres to house, operate, and cool miles of stacked computer chips that process AI data and actions. It will also back new factories to manufacture the AI chips needed to power these systems and increase their availability to buyers. “Compute has become a critical infrastructure asset,” Joe Bae and Scott Nuttall, co-chief executives of KKR, said in a joint statement. “As we’ve scaled our approach to digital infrastructure, we’ve learned that delivery, not ambition, is the hard part.”

Essentially every major technology and AI company uses Nvidia’s computer chips, or graphics processing units (GPUs), to power their services, AI platforms and AI chatbots. “Nvidia is absolutely enormous and produces these chips that everybody needs for AI and it needs to keep facilitating the growth of AI,” Jane Sydenham, senior investment manager at Rathbones, told the BBC. However, she added: “The worry is that more and more money is going into these projects. Are they all going to earn the right return for the future?” ‘

Mission critical’
Companies using Nvidia’s popular chips or GPUs include Google, Meta, Amazon, Microsoft, SpaceX, Tesla, OpenAI and Anthropic. Such companies have collectively spent over $1tn in just three years on AI projects and infrastructure, with much more spending expected. And their demand for Nvidia’s chips and services has driven the stock market value of the company up fivefold in three years. In a statement on Monday, Huang referred to Nvidia’s role as a chip-maker as the company’s beginning. “Today, we are helping create a new class of productive, investable infrastructure: AI factories,” he said.

With a new ability to tap some funding from the banks and investors partnering with Nvidia, they will be able to finance more of the AI boom. Jim Zelter, president of Apollo, a lender which manages more than $1tn in assets, said: “Modern compute has emerged as a scarce, mission-critical asset class.” It is also “positioned to drive significant long-term economic growth and productivity gains”, Zelter added. BlackRock last month entered into an individual deal with Meta to finance and take a majority ownership stake in one data centre in Texas.

Anthropic also recently entered into a deal with Macquarie Asset Management and GIC, a sovereign wealth fund in Singapore, for its own investment in AI infrastructure. The company did not specify the size of the deal, but said more financing was needed as its popular chatbot Claude had become so popular that the “demand requires significant new compute”.

Read more …

I must admit I don’t think I fully understand this. Can someone explain?

• Niceness as Whiteness: Professors Denounce Niceness as White Privilege (Turley)

We have previously discussed how many professors seem to compete in finding new forms of racism in every facet of society and education. Astrophysics, math, runoffs, science, statistics, and meritocracy have all been denounced as racist. In this academic cottage industry, professors secure publications and speaking opportunities by identifying racism in expressions, images, or entire fields. Even time itself has been declared racist. Now, however, academics have found another undiscovered continent of white privilege: niceness.


When I saw a story in The College Fix on a study of “niceness as Whiteness,” I was skeptical and decided to take a look. The study by Vanderbilt Postdoctoral Research Fellow Abigail Beneke, Professors Benjamin Fisher (U. Wisconsin-Madison), F. Chris Curran (U. Florida), and Samantha Viano (George Mason) was first flagged by Dr. James Nuzzo. The paper “Niceness as Whiteness in School Police Officers’ Perceptions of Student Arrest” addresses the “perceptions of arrest” by school resource officers, or SROs) in two school districts.

The officers appear to be precisely what you are looking for in an SRO: empathetic and reluctant to make arrests. The researchers admit that they try to avoid arrests. However, according to the authors, hidden behind those sympathetic approaches was, of course, a boiling caldron of racism in terms of the racial disparity of those arrested. Indeed, the researchers realized that it was the niceness itself that was the evidence of oppressive “Whiteness.” Indeed, the officers may not want to be engines of racism and use “niceness” as a “coping mechanism,” but do so by deluding themselves and others that they are nice:

“Nice SROs did not want to arrest children. Nice police officers thought of themselves as well-meaning. Yet, they expressed being required to arrest children because of real or imagined mandates. They used niceness as a strategy for upholding a system of Whiteness that systematically privileges White people and excludes those who fall outside of Whiteness. Niceness hinders possibilities for the types of political, communal relationships central to authentic care.”

The paper makes it sound like everyone would be better off, or at least more honest, to return to hostile, racist-spewing officers. The reason is that niceness is an “enduring component of Whiteness” which “allows predominantly White people to elide how their own actions contribute to inequality by maintaining a sense of their own benevolence.” The evidence of niceness includes such findings as how officers work at “minimiz[ing] the negative impact of arrest by highlighting their own goodness.” (This includes saying things like “You want to listen to the radio? You want the window down? Is there a station you want to listen to?” after an arrest.)

Then there is the fact that these officers have good relationships and perspectives of the students. Again, it is just a shield of “whiteness” “SROs used niceness as Whiteness in their recounts of arrest … by highlighting the positive relationships they had with students they arrested…As with highlighting their own goodness, highlighting these positive relationships reframes violence (i.e., arrest) that contributes to racial inequality as a positive, since students still like the SROs. This strategy emphasizes the officer’s ability to retain his niceness—by virtue of the maintained interpersonal relationship—despite having arrested the student.”

The paper is an example of ideological screeds posing as academic research. Based on a few interviews, the researchers simply declare the empathy and relationships to be shields perpetuating “whiteness.” They cite other studies identifying niceness as a whiteness tactic:

“Prior research has demonstrated how primarily White women educators use niceness to uphold Whiteness in their work with children (Bissonnette 2016; Drake & Rodriguez 2022; Gardiner et al., 2023; Vlach et al., 2022; Wiborg, 2022). We found niceness was also present in the work of SROs, suggesting the potential for broader application of niceness to well-intentioned actors working in structurally violent systems. In addition to framing niceness as a means of excusing behavior that upholds Whiteness, we equally center the structural binds that delimit SROs’ capacity for providing care. In doing so, we identify niceness as a coping mechanism for arresting children.”

At these universities (Vanderbilt, Wisconsin, George Mason, and the University of Florida), these faculty members and their obvious agenda are viewed as ideal choices to teach their students. With four kids, I found the SROs at their schools to be extraordinary and popular figures. They would routinely intervene with kids to see if they were having trouble or try to direct them away from trouble. It turns out that everything that parents valued in their SROs was a perpetuation of privilege, according to these researchers.

While the researchers insist that “we do not intend to demonize individual SROs,” they reward the cooperating officers by twisting their every comment as revealing their deep white privilege. Presumably, they conveyed to the SROs that this would be a fair, unbiased study. It was neither, and, perhaps reaffirming their own triumph over racism, they were not a bit nice about it.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/mcafeenew/status/2086906681058025620?s=20 https://twitter.com/Teslaconomics/status/2086919130465411429?s=20 https://twitter.com/GuntherEagleman/status/2086895337545801994?s=20

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 Older Entries