Menu Icon

Debt Rattle July 27 2026

Jul 272026
 
 July 27, 2026  Posted by at 9:29 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,  29 Responses »


Paul Cézanne Les (Grandes) Baigneuses 1905


• Zelenskyy Pledges Ukraine Satellite Intel to Assist NATO/USA in Iran (CTH)
• Iran Lashes Out at “Freeloader” Zelensky for Caspian Sea Attack (ZH)
• Iran, Oman Hold Hormuz Talks As US Pauses Airstrikes For Second Day (ZH)
• Britain’s New Cabinet Of Fakers, Fraudsters And Hangers-On (Newsome)
• Why Is National Review Pretending Barack Obama Was a Moderate? (Margolis)
• GOP Senator Kennedy on the SAVE America Act (Matt Vespa)
• Mike Lee to Force Roll Call Vote on SAVE Act Before Recess (Salgado)
• Tucker Carlson Wants Trump Tried for Treason (Matt Margolis)
• It’s Going to Be JD and Kamala, So Calm Down (Kurt Schlichter)
• Why Every Young DSA Member Needs to See ‘Star City’ (Rick Moran)
• Foreign Nationals Now Nearly Half of Germany’s Prison Population (Salgado)
• Fauci Files: A Megalomaniacal Egomaniac (Tom Elliott)

 


 

https://twitter.com/Real_RobN/status/2081059184104370325?s=20

 


 


“Zelenskyy Pledges to Share Exclusive Ukraine Satellite Intelligence to Assist NATO/USA in Defeating Iran..”

• Zelenskyy Pledges Ukraine Satellite Intel to Assist NATO/USA in Iran (CTH)

If you thought Ukraine was busy defending itself and launching counterattacks against Russia, think again. Apparently, unbeknownst to the rest of the world Ukraine was launching geo-synchronous satellites over the Middle East, deploying proprietary signals intelligence intercepts between Russia and Iran, and conducting covert surveillance operations, in addition to weaving sweaters for homeless kittens from Zelenskyy’s hair… or something. But seriously, read this:


Isn’t he just the most magnanimous little fella? Not only is he singlehandedly going to win a war against Russia, but he’s going to take a few minutes break and win the war against Iran for everyone. What a guy. The last few weeks have been a tidal wave of weird and sketchy stuff that indicates some form of NATO intelligence operation is underway.

This round of sketchy started with that trip to London to meet the coalition of the willing and King Charles; followed two days later with the surprising “drone” attack on the Dormition Cathedral of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, which bore all the same hallmarks as the Nordstream pipeline attack, which was immediately before the G7 meeting in Paris and perfectly set up the horrible Russia theme for the summit.

Someone then launched hundreds of simultaneous long-range drones into Russia hitting oil/gas refining facilities shortly before the NATO summit in Turkey, that set up the “vulnerable Russia” theme. A few days later, Zelenskyy fires the young Defense Minister responsible for the recent success of the modern Ukraine drone program; then following public backlash fires the Commanding General of the military while simultaneously proclaiming everything was awesome.

A few more days pass and suddenly Laura Loomer is in Ukraine begging forgiveness for saying bad things about Zelenskyy and promoting the horrible Putin / innocent Ukraine narrative. (MAGA cleaving) To wit, 12 hrs later Tucker Carlson is giving a Russia-centric podcast -targeted exclusively to a U.S. audience- a horrible Trump / Glory to Putin narrative. (More MAGA cleaving) Somehow, despite Zelenskyy’s exceptionally busy calendar, he found a few hours to sit down with Loomer and talk about the resilience of the Ukraine people who are ducking a weaving through air raids while Zelenskyy stormtroopers try to capture them on the street and push them into the Eastern Ukraine meatgrinder.

But wait, there’s more… This weekend, Ukraine holds a very public, outdoor, open-air drone exhibition and Military Drone Exposition that drew military hardware companies from around the world to Kiev and put a bullseye on the location of many Military contractors and vendors. Not surprisingly, Russia targeted the well-publicized drone exposition, hit the venue with multiple ballistic missiles and killed hundreds of military drone dealers/vendors.

Following the strike on the Drone Exposition, Volodymyr Zelenskyy is now saying he has the time to help NATO defeat Iran by sharing information gathered from Ukraine intelligence operations on Russian satellite orbits. Join in when you feel comfortable. These joint NATO intelligence constructs are difficult to keep up with. When it sounds crazy, it’s ALWAYS an intelligence operation!

Read more …

“Iran Blasts ”Freeloader” Zelensky For Ordering Deadly Attack On Caspian Vessel ”At Israel’s Behest”..”

Zelensky’s nazis use him to get close to Israel. Oh irony.

• Iran Lashes Out at “Freeloader” Zelensky for Caspian Sea Attack (ZH)

Iran has accused Ukraine of attacking an Iranian commercial vessel in the Caspian Sea, which it says resulted in an explosion that killed one sailor and injured another. As we previously reported of the Saturday maritime incident, Ukraine seems to be openly boasting of this escalation. President Zelensky himself announced soon after on X, “We also have very good results from long-range strikes in the waters of the Caspian Sea. In particular, these are vessels that were involved in transporting military cargo from Iran, and a warship.”


Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned Ukraine’s charge d’affaires in Tehran to severely protest the “hostile and criminal” attack on Saturday, IRNA reported. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has further warned that the “blatant UN Charter violation” which was “done at Israel’s behest” could serve to “drag Europe into its war”. Araghchi also denounced and attacked Zelensky personally, calling him the “freeloader in Kyiv”…

The risk of the Russia-Ukraine conflict merging with the US-Iran conflict seems plausible, but still remains low, and yet the Caspian Sea situation shows that it is actually possible. The Iranians have sought alternative trade and shipping routes via the Caspian, and early in Operation Epic Fury Israeli warplanes reportedly targeted and took out Iranian naval vessels there. This isn’t the first time that FM Araghchi has called out Zelensky. Back in January of this year, for example, he called Zelensky a “confused clown”, and said that the Ukrainian leader had been “rinsing American and European taxpayers to fill the pockets of his corrupt generals.” The two countries have previously clashed over Iran supplying Russia with Shahed suicide drones.

Iran Will Halt Tit-For-Tat Strikes If US Maintains Pause The diplomatic track appears to have opened with the Trump administration’s move to pause strikes as a goodwill gesture ahead of the weekend – now in its second day. That created space for Omani officials to meet their Iranian counterparts over the weekend, with Tehran reporting “some progress.” The talks have now produced a reciprocal stand-down, under which Iran would halt retaliatory strikes on US bases as long as the US maintains its pause in airstrikes.

Reuters reports: Iran will halt its own attacks as long as the United States maintains its latest pause on air strikes, a senior Iranian official told Reuters on Sunday, after President Donald Trump abruptly called off his two-week-old bombing campaign. After 13 nights of intensifying U.S. air strikes on Iran, the Pentagon abruptly suspended the campaign late on Friday, with no U.S. attacks reported on either Saturday or Sunday. Iran, which had been following each night of U.S. attacks with its own strikes on neighboring countries that host U.S. bases, has also so far held fire for two days.

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Mike Waltz, told Fox News on Sunday that Trump had decided to pause U.S. attacks to allow more time for diplomacy. “He’s giving talks some space, he’s giving it a little bit of room,” Waltz said, without providing further details. The senior Iranian source, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters: “Iran’s position remains ‘attack for attack’: if the attacks stop, Iran will also halt its operations. That message has already been conveyed to the United States.” The source added: “However, Iran is prepared to mount a broad response should the U.S. launch another attack.”

Asked about the pause, a senior official in Trump’s administration said on Saturday that the president “has always been clear that his preference is diplomacy, but he has shown Iran what will happen if they fail to come to the table in a serious way.” The senior Iranian source said Tehran did not hold much hope that Trump’s decision to pause strikes represented a major shift in the U.S. negotiating position. “There is more skepticism than optimism about the halt in attacks. The prevailing view is that the pause is tactical rather than genuine. Iran has accumulated enough bitter experience with what it sees as U.S. deception,” the source said.

Read more …

“The pause offers the clearest signal yet that a diplomatic off-ramp may be emerging, with Iranian and Omani officials reporting progress in talks to reopen the critical waterway.”

• Iran, Oman Hold Hormuz Talks As US Pauses Airstrikes For Second Day (ZH)

The US military paused its air campaign against Iran for a second consecutive night after nearly two weeks of tit-for-tat strikes. US strikes were aimed at degrading Tehran’s one-way attack drone and missile capabilities around the Strait of Hormuz, while Iran hit US bases in the region. The pause offers the clearest signal yet that a diplomatic off-ramp may be emerging, with Iranian and Omani officials reporting progress in talks to reopen the critical waterway.


Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said in a Telegram post that he met with the Omani deputy foreign minister and held talks on Friday and Saturday about restoring safe transit for commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz. Baghaei said the officials exchanged views on principles and operational mechanisms for managing safe maritime navigation through the strait. “The talks were constructive, and some progress was made,” he added, noting that technical and political consultations remain ongoing. The Omani delegation left Tehran on Saturday evening.

The talks coincided with the US military’s two-day pause in strikes and came as Brent crude futures surged into triple-digit territory and the national average for regular gasoline jumped above the politically sensitive $4-a-gallon mark. JPMorgan’s head of Global Commodities Research and Strategy, Natasha Kaneva, told clients last week that Brent prices at this level could increase pressure on Washington to reopen diplomatic channels. Meanwhile, Iranian Army spokesman Mohammad Akraminia appeared on state television on Sunday and warned the US that any further strikes would widen the conflict.

“I believe that if the Americans once again fall for the Zionists’ deception, or move in line with them, and insist on continuing the war, particularly through air strikes, geographically this will expand further,” Akraminia warned. Akraminia said the conflict has already expanded to the Bab al-Mandab Strait on the southern Red Sea, referencing the recent Houthi attacks on tankers. “The scope of our operations now encompasses the entire region, from US bases in Jordan to the countries along the Persian Gulf,” he said. Earlier, United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations reported an incident in the southern Red Sea after a “tanker witnessed a splash from an unknown projectile in proximity to the vessel.” Details are scant at the moment.

Read more …

Can’t post the entire article here. But do read, I learned a lot.

“Burnham is an out-and-proud socialist who had already signaled that his government would spend and tax more.”

• Britain’s New Cabinet Of Fakers, Fraudsters And Hangers-On (Newsome)

Britons are struggling to characterize their new Cabinet, following the arrival of a new prime minister on Monday. The Cabinet is not as northern or female as Andy Burnham signaled. Most members have certainly changed. Most are not loyalists to Keir Starmer, even less so to Tony Blair. Like Burnham, many hark back to a mythical golden age of socialism in the 1970s. Like him, most are alarmingly deficient in popular mandate, external qualifications, and even political trust for their new responsibilities.


Let’s start with Burnham himself, a man born in Liverpool who pretended to be Mancunian to win the mayoralty of Manchester. He claims to represent the north but has not lived north or east of Manchester. At best, he represents a narrow part of west-central England, just north of the Midlands. Burnham has always looked south while talking up the north. Burnham was most newsworthy for agitating for changes in national government, despite sharing a party with Starmer.

As Starmer continued to trip himself up with both feet, Burnham was one of the Labourites who prevailed on ministers to brief against their PM. After Starmer blocked Burnham’s candidacy for an accidental by-election in February, Burnham prevailed on a local MP to resign from Makerfield to force a by-election in June, which Burnham won easily, to return to Parliament, which would allow him to challenge Starmer for the leadership (less than two years into Starmer’s five-year term). Starmer initially vowed to fight on but announced his intent to quit this month. No MP stepped up to challenge Burnham’s presumptive run.

Thus, Burnham has no popular mandate to be PM, even within the party, except in the form of pledges by more Parliamentary partisans in support than against. Opposition parties rightly called for a general election to confirm his premiership, but the constitution does not oblige him.

Burnham’s supporters pretend that his easy rise proves the strength of his candidacy. In reality, it proves the weakness of his party. It could not find a new leader within its own MPs, despite a whopping majority. It triggered an expensive by-election and a more expensive mayoral election to reach outside of Parliament. Meanwhile, Burnham unwittingly poured scorn on that same Parliamentary party by criticizing normal politics and the London elite. (Since then, he has aired the idea of moving the Cabinet from London to Manchester. His current plan is to spend at least one day per work week there. That’s neither efficient nor effective.)

In the many weeks that Burnham enjoyed as rising PM, he remained vague about his Cabinet and his policies. On Monday, he spent hours appointing just the highest roles in the Cabinet. The other appointments look set to continue for days. Of the first day’s picks, I must start with the only selectee who can be coded as qualified and mandated (although not loyal).

John Healey becomes Chancellor of the Exchequer, the second most powerful position in government. He had quit as defense secretary six weeks ago, over Starmer’s procrastination on filling a hole in defense spending. Healey said that Britain should spend 3 percent of GDP on defense by 2030, which means he will need to find a couple dozen billion pounds per year. Previously, he advocated issuing “war bonds,” but who would buy them when the government is running record debt? He will need to cut other departments or raise taxes (probably both). On Monday, Healey said “fiscal control” would be his “first duty.” You could see the markets’ confidence decline immediately.

Healey’s resignation suggests a certain loyalty to Burnham, but otherwise they barely know each other. More usefully, he was a minister in the Treasury under Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Yes, Healey is actually qualified by experience! This is remarkable given that his predecessor, Rachel Reeves, falsified her CV, couldn’t add, and quickly became the most U-turn-prone and hated chancellor ever, as well as the most tearful.

Healey remains constrained by record government debt and his party’s suicidal unwillingness to cut spending. Remember that Starmer increased spending on welfare and benefits, after backbenchers rejected his proposal to cut them. (That was within Starmer’s first year of premiership.)

Burnham is an out-and-proud socialist who had already signaled that his government would spend and tax more. By Tuesday, his administration revealed plans to cut VAT (a sales tax) on electricity, to be funded by cutting the Starmer administration’s planned digital ID. But the minister responsible for that plan, Darren Jones, revealed, after being fired by Burnham, that digital ID was never funded. So Burnham is either ignorant or dishonest. This . . . doesn’t . . . bode . . . well.

In any case, scrapping VAT on electricity doesn’t make much difference to a household electricity bill in which most of the pricing goes to fund green initiatives, debt, stealth taxes, and administration. Burnham already looks unprepared and unreliable. Confirmation comes in the form of his deviation from his team’s prior briefings that he would appoint either Ed Miliband or Shabana Mahmood to the Treasury.

Red Ed goes to the Foreign Office, for which he is woefully unqualified and an undoubted liability. He infuriated the U.S. (and most Britons) as energy secretary, with his absolutism about reaching net-zero carbon by 2030, at whatever cost to the consumer. Ed also, by the way, reminds everybody of the weakness of the party’s leadership selection. He was leader from 2010 to 2015, when he literally and metaphorically stumbled at every election husting. Yet Burnham thinks Miliband is the best person to articulate British interests abroad? This won’t last long.

Miliband is already hurt. He has been denied the job he wanted, even though he was the first senior minister to call for Starmer to go, and he helped Burnham with an economic plan. (Some plan: it remains as vague as ever, except for the Soviet-style time horizon of 10 years.)

Meanwhile, Mahmood stays at the Home Office. Under-informed (or biased) souls read this as confirmation of her competence in pushing through controls on illegal immigration in the face of majority opposition from civil servants and backbenchers. In fact, she is hurdling a low bar after decades of government failures to control immigration, despite popular demands and almost every party’s commitments to lower net immigration.

Worse, Mahmood is duplicitous. She tells the right wing that her tweaks to the benefits and the timeline of asylum applications will dramatically control immigration. She tells the left wing that she will make the refugee route easier (which is the route by which almost all illegal immigrants get residency, with more privileges than citizens).

Also concerning is Mahmood’s long history of Islamocentrism, which is bizarrely ignored by mainstream media. She tars normative Britons as racists (whites and Jews in particular: isn’t that racist?), campaigned against Israel, played up her status as the first Muslim home secretary, promised that her promotion would serve “her” community, and railed against supposedly routine experiences of racism in her hometown of Birmingham, where her demographic is the largest.

I doubt Mahmood will last much longer than Miliband within Team Burnham. He favors the left of the party, which has characterized her (ridiculously) as a Nigel Farage in Labour colors. For now, Burnham needs to be seen to reward her, if only because one of her allies in Parliament, Josh Simons, was the MP who resigned from Makerfield to make way for Burnham.

So the highest three officers in the land will not last as long as normal, in my estimation. Burnham’s administration will not bring the stability that Britons crave, let alone the competencies that the markets and foreign governments crave.

Read more …

“..he built the most sweeping left-wing agenda of any modern president, yet somehow convinced people like Klein to call it “moderation”..

• Why Is National Review Pretending Barack Obama Was a Moderate? (Margolis)

National Review Online editor Philip Klein wants you to believe Barack Obama was some kind of political moderate. That’s the only way to read his reaction to a viral clip of the former president telling Caitlin Clark not to let “media nonsense” get her down and reminding her she’s a great player. Klein called it “a perfect example of why Obama is hated by the far Left & also why he won two elections comfortably.”


Set aside the Caitlin Clark moment for a second. The framing is the real story here. Klein wants readers to believe Obama was more moderate than John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012. He wasn’t.

Sean Davis, cofounder of The Federalist, made the point with numbers Klein conveniently left out. “Obama was adored by the far Left when he left office (95% approval rating among Democrats) and he remains adored by the far Left today because he is the most left-president in modern American history (89% approval rating from self-identified liberals in a CNN poll last month vs. 28% approval from self-identified conservatives, which means the left-wing loves him even more than the right-wing hates him),” Davis wrote.

I’ve written a few books about Obama, and I can tell you exactly why the far left worshipped him then — and still does: he built the most sweeping left-wing agenda of any modern president, yet somehow convinced people like Klein to call it “moderation” just because he said a few kind words to Caitlin Clark. Let’s run through what he actually did as president, since Klein seems to have misplaced the receipts.

Obama ran in 2008 promising to “fundamentally transform” the United States, and then he did exactly that. The 2009 stimulus was one of the largest government interventions into market activity in American history. Obamacare handed Washington unprecedented control over the nation’s healthcare system, and its Medicaid expansion extended federal-state coverage to millions more people, with Washington footing most of the bill. Dodd-Frank buried the financial industry under new federal regulations.

Obama didn’t stop at legislation. When Congress refused to pass the DREAM Act, he unilaterally shielded hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who arrived as children from deportation through executive action alone, an end run around Congress that was blatantly unconstitutional. He committed the United States to international greenhouse gas targets the same way, through executive fiat instead of Senate ratification, because he knew the votes weren’t there.

His administration also nationalized the student loan industry, cutting private lenders out of the market entirely. He reinterpreted Title IX to smuggle “gender identity” into federal law, a decision that eventually opened women’s sports and locker rooms to biological men. He repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” ordered his Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court, and later endorsed same-sex marriage after running in 2008 as a supporter of traditional marriage. Obama also helped transform the Democrat Party into an antisemitic party.

And don’t even get me started on what Obama did to race relations in this country. That last part tells you everything about how Obama operated. He knew exactly where the country stood in 2008, so he told voters what they needed to hear. Nobody who was paying attention actually believed him. He was too shrewd a politician to show his full hand before he had the power to play it.

None of this is moderate. None of it is centrist. It’s the most aggressive leftward lurch this country has taken in modern presidential history, and Obama pulled it off while much of the press corps treated him as a reasonable, above-the-fray statesman.

So when the editor of National Review holds up a clip of Obama being nice to a basketball player as proof of ideological balance, ask yourself why a supposedly conservative magazine is doing PR for one of the most radical presidents this country has ever had. Obama didn’t win over the far left by accident. He earned every ounce of that adoration by delivering exactly what they wanted, one executive order at a time.

Read more …

“BRENNAN: “The SAVE Act, as you know, or even some version of it, is highly partisan, highly controversial.”

“Bigger picture, isn’t it going to hurt faith in our election process if a Republican-only policy to change how elections are run is rammed through 100 days…less than 100 days out from the election?”

• GOP Senator Kennedy on the SAVE America Act (Matt Vespa)

President Trump criticized Sen. John Thune (R-SD) for his weak, unimpressive effort to pass the SAVE America Act, a key priority for the president and a top demand of the GOP base. The bill will be a significant step toward improving election integrity, specifically making sure only Americans vote in U.S. elections. It represents everything conservatives have fought for regarding election security.Yet, CBS News’ Margaret Brennan thought it could undermine faith in our elections, because why wouldn’t an establishment outlet go down that rabbit hole? Yet, Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) was the one interviewed for this segment, and he wasn’t having any of this nonsense. His response to her first question was great, with a simple “no.”


BRENNAN: “The SAVE Act, as you know, or even some version of it, is highly partisan, highly controversial.”“Bigger picture, isn’t it going to hurt faith in our election process if a Republican-only policy to change how elections are run is rammed through 100 days…less than 100 days out from the election?”

KENNEDY: “No.”

“In my opinion, for both sides to have credibility in our elections, we need to do two things and only two things.” “Number one, you have to prove you are who you say you are in order to register to vote and to vote.” “And number two, however you decide to vote, that’s up to the states. We need to go back to having an election day, not an election month.” “We’ve got to know the results of elections that night or shortly thereafter, if it’s close.” “That, to me, is what the SAVE Act is all about.” “And I think we can pass it. And I think we can craft it in a way to survive a birdbath, but we’re not going to know if we don’t try!”

BRENNAN: “Grants, in other words, to states to incentivize. Not requirements for states to action…that’s your version.”

KENNEDY: “That’s not the only thing.” “I’ve been contacted by some really smart people about a way to do it in addition to the grants. I’m not saying it will work. But you’re not going to know unless you try.”

Read more …

Forcing the vote appears to be the only way. BRENNAN: “The SAVE Act, as you know, or even some version of it, is highly partisan, highly controversial.

• Mike Lee to Force Roll Call Vote on SAVE Act Before Recess (Salgado)

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) has openly promised to be the one senator necessary to force a roll call vote exposing who will or will not vote for crucial election integrity legislation just before the August congressional recess. Congressional rules acknowledge that the ability of any senator to demand a roll call vote is grounded in Article I, Section 5, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that “the yeas and nays of the members of either house on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the Journal.” Therefore, it requires only one senator to start the process for such a vote.


Notably, election reform is wildly popular not only with Republican but even with Democrat voters. The SAVE America Act has bipartisan voter support. Scott Presler begged that one senator “to object to unanimous consent & ‘ask for the yeas and nays.’” Mike Lee replied on X:


Lee subsequently reshared Presler’s message while tagging Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.). “I hereby object to any effort to put the Senate into recess in August—at least until such time as the Senate has passed the SAVE America Act—and hereby request a roll call vote,” Lee wrote, making it clear to the whole country what he was doing and putting Thune on the spot. “Do not assume you have my consent. You do not,” Lee warned Thune.

The House had actually found a workaround to avoid the blocks the Democrats set up, as provisions of the SAVE Act were really included in the budget resolution that the lower chamber had put together before the recess, a resolution that also included vital military funding. Unfortunately, Thune, ever the backstabber, delivered a nonsensical lecture about the importance of consulting Democrats — you know, the ones who aim to defund ICE and the Iran conflict, fund foreign criminals, and kill all election integrity efforts — and coming up with a “bipartisan” funding package.

The last thing Thune wants is to be put on the record with a roll call vote, exposing him and his lack of efforts to pass the SAVE America Act. On Saturday, President Donald Trump made one last push for the legislation. “The all Republican Senators! Terminate the Filibuster, which the Democrats will do as soon as they get the chance, and PASS THE SAVE AMERICA ACT, and everything else, including the Budget, and upcoming Debt Ceiling. Do it now, before it is too late!!!” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. Lee endorsed Trump’s call.

Sadly, Republican senators keep forgetting they’re supposed to work for We the People, the ones who elect them and pay their salaries. Hopefully Lee can galvanize some Senate action before the August recess. Most Americans across the political spectrum support voter ID, so We the People definitely want action.

Read more …

What does Tucker say about October 7?

• Tucker Carlson Wants Trump Tried for Treason (Matt Margolis)

It’s been coming for a while, but this week, the once-conservative firebrand Tucker Carlson has doubled down on a version of reality that would make Iran’s mullahs blush. Carlson used an appearance on the East Meets West with Olga and Tara podcast to unload on a provision in the fiscal year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act that would expand defense-technology cooperation between the United States and Israel. His verdict? Lawmakers who back the measure are acting against America’s own interests, effectively merging our nations’ militaries.


Carlson didn’t stop at policy disagreement. He accused the Republican Party of handing the country’s sovereignty to a foreign government, sparing only two members from his contempt. “The Republican Party has decided that the interest of Israel is more important than the interest of the United States,” Carlson said on the podcast. “There are a couple of exceptions Marjorie Taylor Greene, Thomas Massie, and they were driven out of the Republican Party. So it tells you what the priority is. The priority is serving Israel.”

Coming from a man who has spent years cozying up to authoritarian regimes and excusing Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, that’s rich. But consistency has never been Carlson’s strong suit. He then accused Israel’s Mossad of feeding American policymakers fabricated intelligence for decades. “Mossad has fed, repeatedly, disinformation lies to American policymakers over decades, including the lie that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction,” Carlson said. “That fundamentally came from Israel. There’s no dispute about that.” There’s plenty of dispute about that, because it’s false.

British intelligence, French intelligence, German intelligence, and Spanish intelligence all concluded Iraq likely possessed chemical and biological weapons and was in defiance of the United Nations. From there, Carlson’s rhetoric went from conspiratorial to unhinged. He called the defense-technology partnership a “generational disaster” and framed it as proof Americans no longer control their own country.”It’s the definition of treason,” Carlson said. “This is treason. This is acting against your own nation, on behalf of a foreign nation.”

Then came the real bombshell. Carlson wants President Donald Trump and the Republicans who support the NDAA provision put on trial for it. “The idea that the Republican Party would support merging U.S. and Israeli intelligence, IDF and Pentagon is so deranged that you have to root for treason trials, for Nurnberg trials at some point,” Carlson said. “And the president could veto it; he won’t because he’s a slave to Israel.” Let’s be honest here. Comparing a defense-cooperation bill to the crimes of Nazi Germany while demanding war-crimes-style tribunals against your own president isn’t principled dissent.

This is full-on loony talk here. He sounds no different than the socialist candidates running for Congress nationwide… and, let’s be honest, some Democrats in Congress today. Carlson closed out his rant by accusing anyone who defends Israel of defending genocide. “We’re against genocide, we’re against book burning, that’s what we learned from the Nazi period,” Carlson said. “And all of a sudden you wake up and we’re like, ‘No, no, genocide’s totally fine, as long as Israel’s doing it.’ In fact, if you call it genocide, you’re the bad person.” I don’t know what happened to Tucker. I remember being excited when he started his show on X, but now, he’s become indistinguishable from far-left crazies. Calling for treason trials against a sitting president over a defense bill is the sign of an absolute meltdown.

Read more …

We have two years of these bets ahead of us. Yay!

• It’s Going to Be JD and Kamala, So Calm Down (Kurt Schlichter)

Everybody who wants to gobble popcorn while watching exciting POTUS primary races in 2028 is going to be disappointed, at least in terms of the final outcome. We know how this story ends, but what leads up to it may be hilarious, particularly on the Democrat side. Every weirdo, loser, and mutation in their party intends to try to get the nod, knowing that the fix is already in; it’s just going to be a chance for folks like Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14) and Pete Buttigieg to try to raise their profiles or maybe get picked to be VP. Neither of those two will.


But right now, it’s obvious who is going to go head-to-head against each other in the general election. You can deny it, you can argue it, you can cope all you want, but barring some unforeseen turn of events, we know how this is going to play out. It’s going to be JD versus Kamala, and that’s just the way it is. Well, that’s not technically correct. On the Republican side, the guy who’s going to be nominated is the guy who Trump says is going to be nominated, and right now that’s Vice President JD Vance. People are fantasizing that Secretary of State Marco Rubio is going to jump in and fight the veep for the top of the ticket, but that’s crazy talk.

And the least crazy guy involved is Marco Rubio himself, who has made a magnificent and fantastic 180° turnaround since his unfortunate dalliance with amnesty under the influence of a bunch of Bushie loser Senate colleagues a decade ago that nearly sank his political future. He knows that Donald Trump is going to pick the next nominee, and Donald Trump is already sending up smoke signals that it’s going to be JD. Marco is young. He has time. And he has no political death wish. He has stepped on the Donald Trump land mine before, and he does not want to be blown to little bits. But you can be sure that if JD stumbles, Marco Rubio will be right there to pick up the ball and run it in for the big win.

Will JD Vance stumble? He’s getting a lot of heat from some people on the Republican side, particularly those who think that he is insufficiently committed to destroying our enemies and protecting Israel. It’s annoying. Never-Trump has-been Brett Stephens, whose self-seriousness is inversely proportional to how seriously he should be taken, said, “Vance is MAGA at its absolute worst. Able to still sound reasonable while defending the indefensible.” Sounds like a rave review. Others cited his role in the Senate to essentially blame him for Capitol Hill dysfunction. Come on. Vance got grief for referring to the organized haters as an op; the organized haters of the op were outraged he called their transparent op an op.

JD terrifies those with the fantasy of returning to the good old days of submissive GOP-managed decline; they know he’ll carry the Trump message forward – which is a selling point. JD certainly doesn’t have the same view of war as a lot of traditional Republicans do, no doubt, in part, because, unlike most of them, he actually went and fought in one. He has seen firsthand the failure of America’s foreign policy establishment, and if he’s a little bit gun-shy about gunboat diplomacy, he’s got good reason to be. After all, his homeland in Appalachia has traditionally been one of America’s premier fields for growing crops of cannon fodder.

The consequences of the hawks’ prerogatives fall on people like JD Vance. Though a fellow son of that region and a veteran, I tend to be a little more on the “Bomb the bastards back into the Stone Age” side. Still, JD has earned his right to be skeptical about the overextension of American military power.Then there’s Israel, and while many of the people who are critical of him are very much aligned with me—my objection to Israel is that we’re not giving the Jewish state enough money and they’re not killing enough terrorists—they are misguided. JD Vance is not a groyper. If you actually listen to what he says instead of watching carefully curated podcast clips, you’ll see that what he’s saying is true.

The Venn diagram representing the interests of the United States and Israel is not a circle. Israel has its interests, and we have ours, and there’s nothing wrong with saying that. It’s obvious, and it’s important that we acknowledge this reality. Israel has a terrible image problem in the United States, partially because many Americans are stupid and weak, and because Democrats are cowardly and weak. The proper answer to terrorists is to kill them all and lay waste to their homes. That’s aesthetically displeasing to many people. Israel has chosen being aesthetically displeasing to being genocided out of existence by semi-human seventh-century barbarians, and a lot of fools hold that against it.

JD Vance does not hold that against Israel. He simply points out, correctly, that sometimes what Israel needs to do conflicts with what the United States needs to do, and a president of the United States should do what the United States needs to do. As for Iran, if you think he somehow believed that the Iranians were going to completely change who they are and become nice guys, I really can’t help you. This guy is a lawyer. He knows a little something about negotiating. And when you’re negotiating, you rarely describe your obnoxious opponent in the harshest possible terms. You talk nice about them. That’s how negotiations work.

Now, he may not choose to run for president in 2028. He’s got a very young family, including a newborn. It’s not clear his wife loves being in the limelight. She’s an incredibly smart woman; spend five minutes with her, and you’ll see. JD is even younger than Rubio. He’s got time. The bottom line is he may choose not to run. If he does choose to run, right now he’s got Trump’s endorsement, which means he’s the nominee. Certainly, he could lose Trump’s endorsement—Trump is notorious for spectacular breakups with former allies—but if you’ve got chips, put them down on JD.

Maybe there will be competition. There are rumblings about Ted Cruz jumping in, but I don’t think Ted Cruz is going to do that because Ted Cruz is smart and he doesn’t want to be humiliated by being utterly destroyed in the primary. There will probably be some dorky Never Trump geebos going for it, like Mike Pence, which would be hilarious. The Ned Flanders of American politics would be humiliated, but for Pence, you get the vibe that that might be a plus for him. Look, the GOP nominee in 2028 is going to be JD Vance about 80 percent of the time, so everybody needs to get their feelz under control and get ready to back him. Maybe he’s not 100 percent with you, but the alternative is 0 percent with you. Get over your panty twist, people.

And the Democrat nominee is going to be Kamala Harris. That’s just the way it’s going to be, because the Democrat Party’s biggest constituency is not failson and disappointment daughter, Democrat Socialists, but black women. Kamala is a black woman; ergo, she’s going to get nominated. You’re not going to get the Democrats to nominate someone who’s not a black woman. We’re seeing what happens when you do that in Texas. That blasphemous imp James Talarico is just not winning over black voters after beating Democrat Rep. Jasmine Crockett (TX-30)

One of the benefits of Kamala is that she’s also DSA-friendly; she’s a communist and was recently sucking up to the Hamas wing. The socialists will swallow hard and take her. A bunch of others will run, and they’ll lose. There’s some talk about AOC, but she’s going to take noted burger chef Chuck Schumer’s Senate seat. AOC’s sell-by date is fast approaching anyway. Believe it or not, she’s not left enough for the socialists, and here’s a hard truth some people don’t want to hear: she’s getting hefty.

Part of the attraction of AOC was that she was a cute young woman. Remember, they literally auditioned her for the job, and key to that was that she was attractive. Between losing her hotness and the fact that every time she opens her mouth, she says something stupid—like how the Senate was constituted to enshrine Jim Crow about a century before Jim Crow—this clownette peaks at junior senator from the Empire State. .

Read more …

A different history. What if the Russians won?

• Why Every Young DSA Member Needs to See ‘Star City’ (Rick Moran)

How the Soviets got to the Moon first is only hinted at in Star City, a tense, cold-blooded sci-fi spy thriller, also on Apple TV, that trades the optimism of its parent show for a bleak, paranoid look at the Soviet space program in a paranoid country. The Soviet Moon landing a few weeks before Apollo 11’s is simply accepted as fact, with no sense of how the Soviets won the race. That small omission can be forgiven because the rest of this nightmare scenario is truly high-quality TV.


Critics widely praised it as a gripping, high-stakes expansion of the FAM universe. Told from the Soviet point of view, in Star City, the Americans are the bad guys and Soviet paranoia has a logical basis. Of course, the Communists misinterpret many American actions, which feeds their paranoia. The action in Season 1 takes place in the 1969-71 timeframe. The high-risk trip to Venus, planned by the Chief Designer, played with great humanity and brilliance by Rhys Ifans, knows that the Central Committee will never give the go-ahead for the mission and hides his intention from all but a few engineers and astronauts.

The Chief Designer is never named. We also saw the nameless Chief Designer in Tom Wolfe’s The Right Stuff, appearing in the film as a laughing, bald-headed stand-in for insufferable Soviet superiority. The real “Chief Designer” of the Soviet space program was Sergei Korolev (Sergei Pavlovich Korolev). During his lifetime, his identity was kept as a closely guarded state secret by the Soviet government to protect him from potential assassination by foreign intelligence and to maintain state security.

In Star City, the Soviet apparatus of oppression is the star of the show. The Communists never let anyone breathe without their knowing. Everyone—I mean everyone—is followed, recorded, and surveilled. The most terrifying character on television today is Anna Maxwell Martin, who plays KGB Colonel Lyudmilla Raskova. A cold-blooded killer, torturer, and intimidator, Raskova stands in the middle of a web of Soviet oppression that uses all the tools of state intimidation and fear to maintain a level of control that is unbearable to citizens. Instead of fighting it, they try to stay out of its way as much as possible.

Her quiet, fanatical devotion to the Soviet state (and her own career) makes her casual brutality and scheming seem not only logical but necessary. Raskova is a composite character, but she represents the logical extreme of socialism. How many times have we heard from socialism’s apologists that the reason it’s never worked isn’t the system; it’s the people who run the governments who are the problem. Castro, Pol Pot, Lenin, and Mao—these were the “wrong” people to be leading any country. The theory of socialism is sound and will work if the “right” people are implementing it.

The logic of oppression leads inevitably to socialism as a national economic and social template. There simply is no better way to control people than mandating the actions of the citizenry based on what’s “good for everybody.” Imposing controls on how people act is only the beginning. In order to impose socialist dogma on the people, the state must control how they think as well. This means censorship to ensure homogeneous thinking, surveillance to ensure “proper” actions, and punishment for anyone who steps outside the socialist boundaries established by the government through anti-state thoughts, words, and deeds.

Putting someone in jail for listening to rock music? The Soviets outlawed rock as “degenerate.” Certain writers who published “dangerous” ideas were also locked up. Young people enamored of socialist ideology should think long and hard about the kind of society created by adopting socialist principles. They are not only unrealistic, but they’re also impossible. Human beings do not act the way that the socialists say we must act to create their utopia. Until we do, the imposition of socialism will always—always—result in brutality, poverty of mind and spirit, oppression, and death.

Read more …

Mutti Merkel is/was the uitimate globalist. And she destroyed what was once West-Germany, a country she grew up neighboring from her dirt-poor communist East-Germany. Was this her revenge?

• Foreign Nationals Now Nearly Half of Germany’s Prison Population (Salgado)

A statistic you won’t find in the mainstream media, because it totally undermines the idea that mass immigration is in any way beneficial to Europe, is the number of foreign nationals in Germany’s prisons. Remix reported on July 24 that foreign nationals account for 45% of the prison population in Germany, and that in the cities of Hamburg and Berlin, the proportion of foreign nationals in prison is almost 60%. When you consider that many migrants have become citizens or have children who are German citizens, the number of criminals due to mass migration could be much higher.


The majority of the foreign criminals reportedly came from either Eastern Europe or Arab countries. To put more precise numbers on it, Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung found that 27,000 of the 60,408 people in German jails in March 2026 were not citizens of the country. Notably, as recently as 2015, the percentage of foreigners in German jails was 30%, so the number has increased dramatically since then. Remix also reported that dual citizens and foreign-born German citizens are not included in the above statistics, arguing that the actual share of inmates with a migration background is likely even higher than the reported 45%.

I always point out that European and other Western nations’ governments do not import persecuted Christians or Jews, nor do they import freedom-loving political prisoners. They do not bring people in to assimilate them or demand that they accept Western moral standards. No, Western governments import masses of violent Third Worlders, many of them Muslims, whom politicians then encourage not to assimilate. That has led to the crime wave sweeping the West. In fact, while the foreign population of Germany is only around 17%, according to Remix, foreign nationals possibly comprise a majority of the country’s criminals.

The German Association of Prison Officers’ chairman, René Müller, complained that translators are increasingly necessary in the prison system and that they are not always available to meet the needs of the number of prisoners who require them. He believes this raises the risk of aggression from inmates and the possibility of Muslim prisoners becoming increasingly radicalized and isolated.

Bavaria’s Justice Ministry attributed aggressive behavior by inmates towards staff to language issues and “culturally determined behaviors.” If only the German authorities had examined the cultures of these migrants before welcoming them into the country without any language skills or shared values to make assimilation possible.

Remix News reported on this back in 2024, when it was estimated that German prisons cost taxpayers approximately €4.14 billion annually, with around €1.82 billion spent incarcerating foreign nationals. At the time, foreign prisoners already made up more than half of the inmate population in several states.

Alternative for Germany lawmaker Martin Hess said those figures demonstrated the consequences of the country’s migration policies. … The former police officer called for stricter deportations and a complete reversal of Germany’s migration policy, arguing that foreign criminality imposes both a security risk and a major financial burden on taxpayers.

Unfortunately, woke German authorities like their current system of arresting citizens for free speech while lavishing money on foreign criminals.

Read more …

“…Milking Covid For Everything It’s Worth ..”

If they try again, we should be better prepared.

• Fauci Files: A Megalomaniacal Egomaniac (Tom Elliott)

On May 28, 2021, Anthony Fauci learned that the Department of Health and Human Services would refer EcoHealth Alliance – the New York nonprofit that had routed NIAID money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology – to its inspector general. That night he wrote in his diary:


“I am certain that there will be some deficiencies that the IG will find as is always the case with IG audits. Certainly, whatever they find it will be misconstrued by those who want to make a case for our involvement in the outbreak. I am starting to feel that it is important for me to write an editorial or an opinion piece giving our side of the story.” (p. 753)

Our involvement in the outbreak. Followed closely by a plan to get out in front of it. That instinct – get ahead of it, control the story, decide what the public needs to believe and then saturate every channel with it – is the organizing principle of these documents. It shows up in the origins fight. It shows up in masks, transmissibility, and boosters. It shows up in how he handled the people who disagreed with him. And it shows up, most revealingly, in what he chose to write down.

What was released
On July 24, Senator Rand Paul’s committee published two documents that have not been reported in any depth.The first is Fauci’s personal diary, 1,141 pages, running from late 2019 through his retirement in December 2022. It is partly a journal and overwhelmingly a scrapbook: he pasted hundreds of articles about himself into it, frequently in full. The second is 136 pages of internal email about his awards – nominations, ethics clearances, and the disposition of prize money. Fauci does not date the composition of his entries, so we cannot always distinguish what was typed the same evening from what was assembled later. Page numbers refer to the released PDFs.

I. What they thought at the start
Page 13 of the diary covers two important events from January 31, 2020. The first is that Fauci is handed the mic to serve as Covid’s point person. He writes: “White House is now fully convinced that I be the science/health spokesperson for the USG. Bob Redfield just does not come across very weel. He takes forever to say something and it is usually wondering. This drives the WH and HHS comms people crazy and so they are putting me out on all the requests.” The director of the CDC was not sidelined for being wrong, but for being slow on camera. The selection criterion was not who’s the most credible scientist, but who performs best on TV.

Redfield’s own account of that period, given under oath in 2023, is worth recalling. Asked why he had been excluded from the origins discussions, he pointed to ideological differences: “Because it was told to me that they wanted a single narrative, and that I obviously had a different point of view.” The second thing happens after he gets back to his office. Jeremy Farrar of the Wellcome Trust calls, sounding “very concerned,” with Kristian Andersen of Scripps conferenced in and Eddie Holmes in the background from Sydney. Fauci writes down what they told him:

“The people on the phone felt that the mutations around the furine cleavage site of the spike protein could not have occurred naturally since it would require an evolutionary ‘jump’ that they found nowhere in bat isolates.” Deliberate insertion, they said, followed by release – accidental release being the most likely. The next day Fauci convened a larger call of twelve experts in epidemiology. His entry characterizing it (p. 14) is the probably the single most consequential paragraph in the whole diary. There was “not total agreement about the likelihood of deliberate insertion,” he writes.

Ron Fouchier was certain it could have arisen naturally and said they shouldn’t waste time. Christian Drosten agreed with Fouchier. And then, in Fauci’s own words: “the rest felt that deliberate insertion was possible.” Ten of twelve thought it must be manmade. And he admits the person driving the zoonotic theory perspective, Ron Fouchier, was “expected of him since he was the original GOF [gain of function] person with Yoshi Kawaoka.”

II. What happened next
Three days later, four of the scientists from that call were circulating a draft arguing the opposite. “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” appeared in Nature Medicine on March 17, concluding that the virus was not a laboratory construct. Andersen told the journal in his cover note that the paper had been prompted by Fauci and Francis Collins. Drafts went to both men before publication. Fauci’s reply to Andersen: “Nice job on the paper.” Two months after Proximal Origin published – Fauci’s institute approves an $8.9 million grant for Andersen.

On April 16, Collins wrote to Fauci asking whether NIH could help “put down this very destructive conspiracy.” The following day, Fauci cited Proximal Origin from the White House briefing room podium – the most watched platform on earth at that moment. Three weeks after that, on May 4, 2020, he told National Geographic that the evidence was “very, very strongly leaning toward this could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated,” citing “a number of very qualified evolutionary biologists.” The doubt referenced in his diary never reached the public. And his account of that February call has never stopped changing.

A June 7, 2021 diary entry (p. 767), recounting the same meeting: “About half of the people felt that this was possibly a constructed virus and the other half were convinced that this was a natural occurrence.” In a June 3, 2024 sworn opening statement to the House Select Subcommittee, Fauci said he joined a call with about a dozen international virologists, that the discussion was “lively, with arguments for both possibilities,” and that after further examination several who had been concerned about lab manipulation became convinced the virus was not deliberately manipulated.

The June 2021 retelling contains another problem: he says “a few weeks later” Andersen and colleagues re-examined the data and concluded natural origin. The draft was circulating on February 4 – three days after the call. The June 2021 entry shows how he’s trying to mould history into something different for posterity.

III. Habit becomes routine
Origins is where this pattern is most consequential, but it is not where it started or where it stopped. The diary shows the same strategy applied to every contested question of the pandemic: decide what the public needs to believe, then flood the zone. Consider masks. Fauci’s public reversal in the spring of 2020 is well known, and he has explained it as a response to shortages and to emerging evidence on asymptomatic spread (p. 375). But watch what happens when the question comes back around in February 2021, when he begins pushing double-masking (p. 619):

“CDC starting to do practical things that I have actually been pushing for some time. For example: Wearing 2 masks could be better than just one. They did a dummy study and showed that a cloth mask over a surgical mask actually gives a more complete fit and keeps out aerosols.” Note the order of operations: He had been pushing it “for some time,” the evidence arrives afterward, and the evidence is a mannequin. That is the entire evidentiary basis for double-masking in a 1,141-page diary kept by the government’s chief spokesman on the subject during the month he was urging 330 million people to adopt it.

We see every time Fauci is turned to for guidance, he makes bold proclamations without feeling burdened to verify any scientific basis. We see it in the numbers.Across 1,141 pages by the nation’s senior infectious disease official during the largest public health event in a century, here is how often certain terms appear. Never once: “peer review.” “Meta-analysis.” “Risk-benefit.” “Learning loss.” “Mental health.” Once: “N95.” “Seroprevalence.” “Cost-benefit.” Twice: “Cloth mask.” “School closure.” “Natural immunity.”

Against which:
“Award” – 80
“Hero” – 49
“Instagram” – 36
“Bobblehead” – 23
“Selfie” – 19
Entries headed “PRESS:” – 641

The question of whether prior infection conferred meaningful protection – the question underpinning the vaccine mandates that cost people their jobs – is never worked through anywhere in these pages. It appears twice, both times as an attack to be repelled.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle July 21 2026

Jul 212026
 
 July 21, 2026  Posted by at 9:31 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  33 Responses »


Wassily Kandinsky Autumn Landscape with Boats 1908


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

 


 

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2079000563333939440?s=20 https://twitter.com/ivan_8848/status/2079122207796548037?s=20

 


 


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Read more …

Trump confronting Mamdani.

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

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

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2078838491388031146?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2078838491388031146%7Ctwgr%5Eaf9f5cf6ec9507f23d141bbd7943e1b2278b5c8f%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fborder-czar-warns-new-york-city-ice-surge-coming-enforcement-expanding


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

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

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

Read more …

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

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

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


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

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

Read more …

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more …

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Read more …

He’s just the next one.

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

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


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

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

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

Read more …

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

Read more …

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more …

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

Read more …

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

Read more …

He may well be right.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more …

For now far left field, but despair works miracles.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more …

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

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

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


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

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

Read more …

That’s a lot of licenses.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more …

Will Jamie Dimon finance it?

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/Chicago1Ray/status/2079010414445130084?s=20

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle July 15 2026

Jul 152026
 
 July 15, 2026  Posted by at 9:47 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , ,  27 Responses »


Claude Monet Japanese Footbridge 2 1899(?)


• Trump Backs Off 20% Fee Plan For Hormuz (ZH)
• The US Needs to Hit Iran Harder to End the War (Victor Davis Hanson)
• Iran War 3.0 (Alastair Crooke)
• Two Ever-Widening Wars Bring World to Armageddon Moment (Paul Craig Roberts)
• UK Government Lobbied For Putting Migrants And Trans People On BANKNOTES (MN)
• Ann Widdecombe Murder was Political Assassination by Far-Left Extremist (CTH)
• Trump’s White House Front Entrance Improvements (O’Brien)
• Trump Pays E jean Carroll $5m In Damages Over Sexual Abuse And Defamation (BBC)
• Kamala Harris’s Humiliating WNBA Speech Is Painful to Watch (Margolis)
• Ro Khanna Launches Bid as Class Warrior with Expanded Wealth Tax Pledge (Turley)
• War of Words Turns Ugly After EU Migration Vote (RT)
• US House To Vote On Bill Making Daylight Savings Time Permanent (JTN)
• Bill to End Birthright Citizenship by Following Kavanaugh Roadmap (JTN)
• The Digital Euro: Control and the End of Financial Privacy (Daniel Lacalle)
• Mick Jagger Defends Elon Musk (MN)

 


 

https://twitter.com/KellyMarieBrady/status/2076691002186989753?s=20 https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/2076772464701440453?s=20 https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/2076696919640858730?s=20

 


 


See what fits. Trump does that in the open.

• Trump Backs Off 20% Fee Plan For Hormuz (ZH)

It’s the return of another TACO Tuesday as President Trump in a lengthy Truth Social missive appears to have reversed his plan to collect a 20% of cargo fee for international vessels wishing to transit the Strait of Hormuz. “Oil is flowing like never before,” he began (except it’s not…), before writing, “Based on highly productive conversations with Middle East leadership, I have decided to replace the 20% United States Reimbursement Fee with Trade and Investment Deals that the various Gulf States will be making into the United States. Those Investments will be MASSIVE but, at the same time, extraordinarily good for them, and their future.” He echoed the same in follow-up with reporters at the White House:


So Gulf allies, and likely officials within his own cabinet, have talked Trump out of the 20% collection scheme idea, which would have likely in the end just shifted leverage back over to Iran, given its own much cheaper passage protocol scheme.

US OIL PARES GAINS, WTI TRADES NEAR $78/BBL

Read more …

“We did the hard work. They’re no longer a threat. We’ve taken out their 47-year, half-a-trillion-dollar military investment.”:

“They don’t ever hit Israel because Israel has announced that their response will be disproportionate and aimed at the surviving government.”

• The US Needs to Hit Iran Harder to End the War (Victor Davis Hanson)

We’re now in the 134th day of, quote-unquote, “the war with Iran.” I’m speaking on July 12. But we got to remember that we really only had March and April. We started on Feb. 28, about 38 days until we stopped fighting on April 8. So, we’re really talking about 90-plus days of negotiations and 38 days of actual fighting. That should tell us something about what the Iranian strategy is. They want to talk, talk, talk, and they do not want to fight, fight, fight. We want to fight and get over and go home, and they don’t. And they … because of the length of the negotiation vis-a-vis the kinetic part, they may be in an advantaged position.


Part of the problem is that we have knocked out at least three centers of the four of their government. The theocracy with the death of Khamenei and the disabling of his son and killing of many of the others is sort of inert. We’ve taken out a lot of the heads of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. There’s a lot of military planners that were central to Iran’s military, industrial, nuclear complex that are gone, and we have a few elected leaders. And so that’s who we’re dealing with, but we’re not sure if they are good cops and the rest of what’s left are bad cops, or if anybody’s any cop.

So, where do we go from here? What’s happening right now is we have no war and no peace. That is about every day and a half or every other day, what’s left of the bad cops—that is, the theocracy, the military, and the Guard Corps—freelance, and they hit one of the Gulf states or a tanker. Notice they don’t ever hit Israel. They don’t ever hit Israel because Israel has announced that their response will be disproportionate and aimed at the surviving government. So, they don’t do that. We haven’t said that. But every other day they do that, and now we’re starting to respond disproportionately, and that means for every 50 or so strikes, we have 120 or 130. But that itself will go on and on and on.

What we need to do is to find a way to do two things: one, stop their ability to make any strikes, and that can be accomplished in various ways. We can either stop all of their supplies, and I mean all of them. That is, we can take out their airlift capacity, their airport. We can take out all the rail lines over land to China. We can take out the Caspian Sea ports. We cannot allow any seaborne traffic into Iran. And we can take out their electrical generation plant, short out the grid, take out more. We can stop their ability to make war rather than just hunt for an individual target, a missile target or a launcher pad or something like that.

And then we have to make the conditions for which we can go home. We did the hard work. They’re no longer a threat. We’ve taken out their 47-year, half-a-trillion-dollar military investment. There’s a lot of other interests that would like the Gulf open, particularly the Gulf Council states, the Europeans, the Japanese, the Chinese, South Koreans. So, we need to make Iran so weak, if they do not want to negotiate, and we’re not going to get into this tit-for-tat cycle, that these other countries will be able to keep the Strait of Hormuz open.

Read more …

Alastair Crooke is no fan of Trump. That’s why he sees the US losing vs Iran.

To make his point, he drags US polls and even the AI market into the equation. But what have they to do with the Iran war?

“Essentially, Trump has plunged into an escalatory trap, seemingly in part out of pique at his collapsing polls at home.”

Has anyone else seen those collapsing polls? I haven’t. Anyone?

“.. the “hurt” being experienced by Trump back home in the context of his fading political prospects, but also by his dislike for any personal humiliation.”

..”his fading political prospects”, “personal humiliation”: we’re not watching the same movie.

“A downturn in the AI market would send shockwaves throughout the entire economic ecosystem.

A market downturn in the US – exacerbated by an energy crisis – could spell disaster for Trump’s midterm hopes.”

I give up.

• Iran War 3.0 (Alastair Crooke)

When the US Navy, in co-ordination with Qatar and Oman, tried to slip a convoy of four vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, via Omani waters, last Tuesday night – rather than pass via Iran’s officially approved route – Trump may have imagined (or been told) that with the massive funeral for the late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei under way, that Iran would not react as the US Navy attempted to force open an American corridor. Trump however, misread the Iranian jibe – Hormuz is its “atomic weapon.” Iran will not relinquish it.


Trump insists – in clear contradiction to the terms set out in paragraph five of the MoU – that Iran has no right to interfere with any ship trying to transit the Strait of Hormuz. Iran nonetheless is acting within the terms of the agreed de-escalation framework, and has warned repeatedly that it would strike any vessel circumventing the Iranian control mechanism. Iran responded directly to Trump’s challenge to Iranian control of the Strait by striking two vessels with missiles and a third with an armed drone. A fourth Qatari-owned tanker, laden with liquefied natural gas, was set ablaze, forcing its crew to abandon the stricken vessel.

These Iranian ripostes provoked Trump to order American air strikes against Iranian targets; to reimpose sanctions on the Islamic Republic’s oil exports; and to revoke the MoU framework he had signed with what he called the “Iranian scum” – thus ending the ceasefire. “We hit them hard last night,” Trump said at the NATO summit in Ankara. “We will probably hit them hard again tonight.” Trump did hit Iran again Wednesday night – even though Iran had not attacked another vessel seeking to by-pass the Iranian corridor. In response, Iran launched ballistic missiles and drones at US bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, the UAE and Muwaffaq Al-Salti airbase in Jordan.

Vice-President Vance is saying to Iran, “If you try to close the Strait of Hormuz, the American military will respond. It’s that simple” – i.e. Iran either keeps the Strait fully open to all, or the US will keep hitting it, as it did on Tuesday night. Iran insists that it is the US that has violated the MoU and (via the spokesman for Iran’s Parliamentary National Security Committee) warns that further attacks by the US on Iran will be met by a comprehensive all-out surprise offensive by Iran – and potentially by other options too, such as an Iranian withdrawal from the NPT, changing the country’s nuclear doctrine, and closing the Bab al-Mandab Strait alongside the Strait of Hormuz.

So, Vice-President Vance is saying if Iran restricts Hormuz (i.e. it stays open to friendly states’ vessels) the US will escalate. And Iran is responding to this threat by warning that it will escalate militarily – two strikes for every one American strike – and that they may also turn to new doctrines of warfare. Essentially, Trump has plunged into an escalatory trap, seemingly in part out of pique at his collapsing polls at home. He did, however, directly put himself in this situation by trying to “act cute” during the Khamenei funeral pre-occupations in order to try to gain a “quick win.”

How long will this escalatory episode last? Certainly, it will not lead to the opening of the Strait; nor bring a return of the status quo ante that preceded the war. As long as Iran maintains its ability to exert control over Hormuz, there is no basis to assume that the situation will return to what it was. On the contrary, and more likely, the crisis will accelerate the onset of looming global economic crisis that could last until the economic pain becomes acute, as the drawdown on sour crude continues – and as the effects on the real economy in the West become visible. With shortages of munitions and the drawdown on air assets from the Middle East already beginning, Trump probably lacks the wherewithal to go full “Iran War 3.0.”

[..] It is not certain that this new US policy will work. The world is changing rapidly. Their expected triumph of Israel over the Middle East has resulted in failure. Trump’s MoU ploy to open Hormuz likely will fail, too. The connected war on Russia and the siege of China are faltering too – and Israel’s (until now unassailable) hold over the US is in question too. A senior US democrat, Rahm Emanuel, and potential 2028 US Democratic presidential candidate, spoke in Israel yesterday; he warned in no uncertain terms that Israel “has lost the world’s support, become a ‘regional pariah,’ [and that its] alliance with the US is ‘at a crossroads’.”

And finally, a “black swan” now can be observed swimming in increasingly sunlit waters – Eric Katz writing in Notus writes that, “a draft report inside the US Treasury Department is set to warn of the risks posed by the artificial intelligence market, likening key aspects of it to the dotcom bubble that upended the US economy when it burst in the early 2000s.” Treasury analysts wrote – “Career Treasury analysts found that AI firms are more deeply entrenched in the US economy than their dotcom predecessors and pose significant risk to the entire system if financial conditions change, productivity goals are missed or various choke points stymie growth.”

A downturn in the AI market would send shockwaves throughout the entire economic ecosystem. A market downturn in the US – exacerbated by an energy crisis – could spell disaster for Trump’s midterm hopes.

Read more …

Over the top: “Never in history has a country’s leader displayed such refusal to recognize an existential threat.”

“..In my thinking at this time, the world without its wish is heading into two big wars.

• Two Ever-Widening Wars Bring World to Armageddon Moment (Paul Craig Roberts)

“Russia open to Turkey selling S-400 air defense systems to UAE, sources say” “The Russian government views the potential sale of S-400 air defense systems currently operated by Turkey to the United Arab Emirates in a “positive light”, multiple sources familiar with the issue told Middle East Eye, while cautioning that negotiations have yet to be completed.” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirms that the Kremlin is discussing with Turkey the transfer of the S-400 Russian air defense system to Iran’s enemies. This shows you what a piece of shit ally Russia is. Money comes first and nothing else matters. Helmer quotes a Russian source:


” I expect no limits to what the Kremlin will stoop in their money-making now. You can expect, a year from now, Russian S-400s and 500s will be sold direct to the Emiratis and Saudis. No doubt about it. Strictly speaking, the Turks do not have to do a resale. They will say they are giving military defensive cover, jointly with Europe and the US, to the Arabs; the Russians will go along with that.” My understanding is that the operative range of the S-400 covers the entire Persian Gulf and likely Israel and Jordan as well. In other words, the S-400 completely disarms Iran.

Here is my speculation about how this surprising deal is being put together. When Turkey purchased the S-400, a purchase that is inexplicable. Why would the Kremlin deliver the technology of the world standard–the S-400–to a member of NATO? Is the answer the stupid Kremlin chasing money at the cost of Russia’s existence? Helmer’s sources think so. Or was it an ill-conceived plot to bribe Turkey away from NATO into Russia’s orbit? If so, it did not work.

Putin has needlessly, gratuitously, left Russia mired in a 4.5 year old conflict that due to Putin’s irresolution and prevarication has moved from Donbas to deep inside Russia. Putin now faces state-of-the-art drones produced in Germany and transported without Russian interference to Ukraine where they are guided by US targeting systems into attacks on Russian refineries and fuel storage. Russia has been sufficiently damaged that Russia now must import diesel fuel. Putin pretends that this is not war, merely a terrorist operation. Never in history has a country’s leader displayed such refusal to recognize an existential threat.

Putin has been trying to stay afloat by riding two contending horses. One is the horse of the Russian military and patriotic citizens. The other horse is the horse of the Russian oligarchs whose wealth was stolen from the state during the period of the Soviet collapse. My solution, which I presented to the Soviet Union in its last year was not followed, and a few seized the wealth of the country. Those who stole Russia’s wealth were the West’s allies against Russia from day one. And these pro-American, not pro-Russian, interests are 50% of the advice that the Kremlin receives.

Here is what is what is happening. Krill Dmitriev has told Putin that the more the Kremlin sucks up to Trump, the more likely the Ukrainian Conflict will be reconciled by mutually profitable business deals, which is the aim of the Russian Oligarchs. The point was made to Putin that protecting Israel and the American Gulf states that host the US attacks on Iran from attack by Iranian missiles wins brownie points that can free Russia from the sanctions on its oligarchs..

Where does all this go? In my thinking at this time, the world without its wish is heading into two big wars. All of humanity will be destroyed. No where in the governments of the world is there any capability to comprehend the reality that confronts them. Each dumbshit government has its own narrative, and none of them are correct. Where are the leaders of humanity? Why are there none?

Read more …

Ungovernable. You can’t make plans like this and then move on.

• UK Government Lobbied For Putting Migrants And Trans People On BANKNOTES (MN)

The UK’s own Cabinet Office pushed hard to overhaul banknotes by elevating LGBT+ and ethnic minority figures, claiming historic greats like Winston Churchill gave an “incomplete picture” of British identity. This push came just before the Bank of England decided to ditch those same towering historical figures for images of hedgehogs and foxes. This latest revelation exposes the ideological machinery at work inside Whitehall. While the public recoiled at the idea of swapping national heroes for animals, government officials were actively lobbying for even more radical identity-driven changes.


In a letter to the Bank of England’s chief cashier last summer, officials from the Office for Equality and Opportunity – part of the Cabinet Office and led by Bridget Phillipson – argued that current historical figures reflected “limited dimensions of British identity.” They called for “greater representation of women, disabled people, ethnic minority communities and LGBT+ individuals” to “send a strong signal of progress and recognition.”

The whole saga is particularly ridiculous because the core argument for axing Churchill and other giants was that they were supposedly too “ideologically divisive” for modern Britain. Yet officials simultaneously pushed to install figures selected explicitly through the lens of identity politics and group representation – an approach guaranteed to be far more polarizing in practice. It reveals the selective outrage: traditional British heroes are labeled divisive for their achievements, while injecting contemporary activism onto the currency is framed as unifying “progress.”

The intervention has sparked accusations that Labour elements conspired to sideline Britain’s most celebrated figures. Shadow minister Alex Burghart slammed the move: “Labour tried to deny any involvement in the cancellation of Winston Churchill and other British heroes. But government officials have been caught red-handed conspiring with the Bank of England to remove them from our banknotes.” He added that banknotes “should feature the greatest Britons – the historic figures that unite our country. They shouldn’t be chosen on the basis of Labour’s equality laws.”

This diversity drive unfolded alongside the Bank of England’s decision to replace Churchill on the £5 note, Jane Austen on the £10, J.M.W. Turner on the £20, and Alan Turing on the £50 with images of British animals, plants, and landscapes. The Bank cited a public consultation where a majority favored nature themes, partly for security reasons on new polymer notes. Critics have pointed out the irony, noting Alan Turing – a gay war hero – was already featured, yet the push continued for broader “under-represented” groups. Suggestions reportedly included figures tied to events like the Empire Windrush. This fits a longer pattern of institutional discomfort with Britain’s historic icons. Our earlier coverage highlighted the absurdity of trading Churchill for hedgehogs and the broader erosion of national symbols.

A serious nation honors the leaders who defended its freedom and shaped its character – not because they tick modern demographic boxes, but because their achievements built the country whose currency circulates today. Swapping out the likes of Churchill for foxes and badgers, while civil servants agitate for identity politics on money, signals a profound loss of confidence. Britain’s history is not a problem to be diluted. It is the foundation worth preserving.

https://twitter.com/ColinKi54036475/status/2076414880307974512?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2076414880307974512%7Ctwgr%5Ec3aa6dba427f4106565dfe9c313c6b6c3629a430%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fmodernity.news%2F2026%2F07%2F13%2Fthe-uk-government-lobbied-for-putting-migrants-and-trans-people-on-banknotes%2F
Read more …

Pay attention Britain.

“.. the reality was her murderer drove over five hours to kill her. “

• Ann Widdecombe Murder was Political Assassination by Far-Left Extremist (CTH)

78-year-old Ann Widdecombe was a well-known conservative in British politics. She was a staunch defender of free speech, a direct opponent to leftist cultural Marxism and an advocate for the commonsense Reform Party. Widdecombe was against abortion, gay rights, transgender advocacy and wokism writ large. Ms. Widdecombe was beaten to death in her home Wednesday July 8th around 12:30pm by an assailant who drove 270 miles to kill her. Immediately the police said her murder was not politically motivated and not connected to foreign or domestic terrorism.


Despite the credulous claim that her brutal murder was not political in nature, the reality was her murderer drove over five hours to kill her. This was an obvious premeditated, calculated and targeted murder. However, the politically correct leftist media and political institutions within U.K. government, were desperate in trying to deny the obvious. Yesterday, the British Counterterrorism Police took over the investigation. “Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, said that as a result of “new information and evidence,” specialist counterterrorism officers were “now leading on the investigation into the horrific murder.”” {citation} Today, it is admitted that her killer had a library of communist and Marxist ideology.


(DAILY MAIL) – […] Yesterday the probe was taken over by Counterterrorism Policing South East which announced the suspect had been re-arrested on suspicion of commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. The suspect, who remains in custody, was the son of a teaching assistant. Relatives said he had become reclusive after the sudden death of his engineer father last year. […] In a dramatic escalation, counter terrorism officers yesterday took over the investigation into the killing of the former Tory minister. It came after the discovery of Russian communist literature and other items of political ideology at the home of the suspected killer. […] Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood confirmed yesterday that the British white suspect, who the Mail is not naming, was not known to the Government’s deradicalisation programme, Prevent. Police are making inquiries about his mental health. (more)

Leftism is a violently dangerous ideology. Those who believe in Diversity, Equity, Inclusion as well as cultural rights and genderisms are intolerant in the extreme. Their ideological arguments do not stand up against scrutiny, natural laws or historic outcomes. As a result, their emotions drive the internal sense of self-hate outward to attack others. These are deeply disturbed, emotionally unstable people. Democrats, Socialists, Communists writ large are extremely dangerous once they achieve power. The larger the population they control or target, the larger the killing field.

Read more …

“Trump the builder has looked at our nation’s capital and its iconic landmarks with a critical eye..”

• Trump’s White House Front Entrance Improvements (O’Brien)

Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) tends to enter the ludicrous stage for its sufferers most quickly when President Donald Trump wants to do something that’s inarguably good, mostly to the benefit of future administrations and future generations of visitors to Washington, D.C. Trump the builder has looked at our nation’s capital and its iconic landmarks with a critical eye ever since he took up residence in the White House in 2017. So, in his second term, he’s decided to do something about the problems he’s seen simply by fixing things up. Seriously, who can argue with that? The left, the Democrats, and the legacy media can, that’s who.


My colleague David Manney covered earlier iterations of this issue. And so, we’ve become all too familiar with the ludicrousness the left compulsively dishes up every time the Trump administration tackles another improvement project. The left is now so predictable and so fake about its outrage, it should come as no surprise that, with Trump setting his sights on the front door to the White House, the left would pretend to have a meltdown.

First, let’s take a look at the project, which was specifically prompted by a request from the U.S. Secret Service (USSS). The federal agency has wanted to bolster the front entrance to the White House with “security-focused upgrades” in a project that is expected to take months to complete, CNN has reported. The front entrance to the White House is at the North Portico of the building.

As much as you know CNN wanted to outright blame Trump for every facet of this story and spin it all into a negative, the cable news network said on its website, “The changes, which sources said have long been advocated by the US Secret Service, are aimed at fortifying the White House entrance at the North Portico, which has recently been obscured by scaffolding and a tarp as workers repair the exterior columns at President Donald Trump’s request… But unlike many of Trump’s projects around the White House — from hanging gold signage to paving the Rose Garden — the work on the front door is not cosmetic, and instead focused on enhancing its security, the White House official said.”

CNN further reported that in addition to the front entrance, security fencing is planned for Lafayette Park, “which surrounds the north side of the White House.” Keep in mind, the White House grounds are already fenced off and have several layers of intense security, some that you can see, most that you cannot. Reports are that the USSS, not the president, want to better secure the park so that when there are “presidential movements,” they don’t have to continually erect temporary security barriers. The goal, CNN reported, was to arrive at “a more permanent solution to the existing patchwork of temporary barricades, what officials describe as ‘comprehensive yet flexible fencing strategy for varying security risk.’ The permanent fencing is meant to make it easier to shut down the road when needed.”

The administration is going through all of the proper channels in deciding on the fencing, which means a proposal has been sent by the USSS, the White House, and the Department of Interior to the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts. That commission will look at the proposal with an eye towards the aesthetic and with historic preservation standards in mind. So, how is the left taking it? Well, Trump is turning Washington into a police state, of course.

The Lincoln Project decided to channel its TDS by using the USSS’s requested security upgrades as proof that Trump wants to be president for life.

On both the fencing story and the front door story, even though it’s clear that the USSS is behind the major changes, someone in the Democrats’ spin room has come up with the “never leaving” theme.

I happen to agree with the left here. Why is the USSS making such a big deal about security around the White House? It’s not like anything bad ever happens around there or could even happen. Just one more conservative conspiracy theory, I think.

Well, OK, there was the time leftists literally tried to breech the White House security perimeter and burn the White House down, but if Trump wasn’t president at the time, they wouldn’t have had to do it. In fact, he made them do it. And they were just peaceful protests, anyway.

Read more …

This is so bad, it makes you fear for America. New York hates Trump.

• Trump Pays E jean Carroll $5m In Damages Over Sexual Abuse And Defamation (BBC)

US President Donald Trump has paid writer E Jean Carroll more than $5m (£3.7m) in damages three years after he was found liable for sexually abusing and defaming her in a civil case, her lawyers confirmed. “Today, we are pleased to report that she has received the damages payment the jury awarded her as a result of that verdict,” Roberta Kaplan, a lawyer for Carroll, said in a short statement on Tuesday. Trump was pushing to delay the payment, in order to ask the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision not to hear his appeal of the case. But last week, the judge overseeing the case ordered him to pay the damages.


A representative from Trump’s legal team declined to comment on the payment. A statement from Carroll’s legal team confirmed that she had been paid more than $5.62m – the $5m awarded in damages plus the interest accrued during the appeal. Carroll, a former magazine columnist who is now 82, accused Trump of attacking her in the mid-1990s in a Bergdorf Goodman department store dressing room in Manhattan, and later defaming her on his Truth Social website in a 2022 post denying her allegations. In 2023, a New York jury unanimously awarded Carroll the damages over her claim. Trump denied the allegations.

Trump put the damages into a court-controlled account shortly after the verdict, and it was held there while the appeals process played out. Lawyers for Trump decried the judge’s ruling that he must pay, calling the case a “hoax” and “Witch Hunt” which they alleged had been funded by Democrats. Trump has repeatedly alleged that Judge Lewis Kaplan, who presided over the civil trial, improperly admitted evidence that prejudiced the jury against him. A federal appeals court agreed with the jury’s verdict last year and said Kaplan did not make errors that would warrant a new trial.

The Supreme Court last month declined Trump’s request to consider the case, clearing the way for the money to be paid to Carroll.Carroll cheered the ruling at the time, writing on her Substack blog: “WE WON!” “THIS WIN IS FOR EVERY WOMAN IN THE WORLD!” Carroll wrote. Trump has also appealed against another jury’s decision in 2024 finding the president liable for defaming Carroll in a separate instance and awarding her nearly $84m. A panel of federal judges denied his appeal last year.

Read more …

Why do they keep her around?

• Kamala Harris’s Humiliating WNBA Speech Is Painful to Watch (Margolis)

Did you know that Former Vice President Kamala Harris is a fan of the WNBA? Okay, she probably couldn’t name more than a couple of teams if you quizzed her, even if she studied all night, but the takeaway here is that she went to a game on Sunday and was given the opportunity to speak to the Los Angeles Sparks (that’s one of the teams) after the game. And it was bad. Following the Sparks’ 102-87 win over the Chicago Sky, Kamala made her way to the team’s locker room to share a few words with the players. In her brief remarks, she praised the growth the WNBA has seen in recent years (though she didn’t thank Caitlin Clark) and congratulated the team, not just for the win, but for what she called the players’ broader impact.


“You are having an incredible impact. I travel our country; young girls, boys, people of every gender, background, race, watch the W and understand how inspiring it is,” Kamala said in her speech.Every gender? Good lord, how many different leagues will the NBA have to subsidize now? “So keep doing what you’re doing,” Kamala continued. “You guys are impacting people who you will never meet, people who may never know your name or mine, but they are aware of what you are doing. And it is giving them a sense of their value and their dignity and what they have a right to expect from this world. So, congratulations on this game, but congratulations, as much as anything else, for the path you guys are charting. It is extraordinary to watch.”

It’s a good thing she waited until after the final buzzer to say any of that. Imagine trying to run out for tip-off after hearing your “impact” summarized in a sentence that long. The Sparks might have lost by 30. To put it mildly, Kamala has never been known for her oratory skills or deep insight. She has a reputation for being a vacuous moron, and this speech (if you even want to call it that) did nothing to change it. She is about as exciting and uplifting as a can opener, and she still found a way to underperform even that. Emily Compagno tore into the speech Monday night on The Five, and she didn’t hold back.

“I feel like there should be a global policy against having her anywhere near a locker room pregame,” Compagno said on The Five. “Because I can think of nothing more deflating than listening to her and what she has to say. Sophie Cunningham did more for the WNBA in her two seconds of being a ring girl at the UFC fight, which was so explosive and awesome, than the vice president. I feel sorry for those women who are actually seeking any type of inspiration from her.” As Compagno went in, the Fox News chyron running at the bottom of the screen did some of the work for her. It read “Kamala Airballs Her WNBA Speech,” which is the kind of headline you can’t buy and definitely can’t spin.

“But we’re not surprised by this,” Compagno said. “And the unfortunate part to me is that she is still being enlisted as somehow a mouthpiece of the Democrat Party. She continues to flop in all of her speeches. I think fundraising continues to work, which surprises me. But I love this chyron so much, because she just whiffs every single time. I don’t understand why. The fact that her speeches — that lack substance, both in policy and actual ignition — continue to be spread throughout.”

“Whiffs” is generous. Kamala has had years, an entire presidential campaign, and a vice presidency to figure out how to talk to a room and inspire someone beyond her own ego.

Read more …

The Democratic Party is one big vacancy. Cue the likes of Ro.

• Ro Khanna Launches Bid as Class Warrior with Expanded Wealth Tax Pledge (Turley)

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) just moved to outbid his Democratic colleagues in the presidential auction. With the radical left sweeping away establishment figures in favor of socialists, various prospective presidential candidates are offering up key institutions in their effort to appease the mob. The Supreme Court has been the starting bid. Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg and Josh Shapiro have yielded to the mob and embraced court packing. Khanna is not to be outdone. After his disastrous campaigning for Graham Platner, Khanna is returning to a sure winner: Class warfare.


Last week, Khanna confirmed that the “billionaire tax” is just the start and that they will go on to target the wealth of other citizens as an untapped resource of new revenue. For years, some of us have warned that the billionaire tax was a ruse. Sponsors like Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Khanna were using billionaires as an easy political target, but they were unlikely to stop there. The challenge is to get the tax through the courts, which is why it is so essential to pack the court. Warren notably was an early advocate of both changes. I discuss the tax in my book “Rage and the Republic” as an example of the “eat-the-rich” politics used by demagogues from ancient Athens to the French Revolution.

Politicians seek to divide a population into “haves” and “have-nots” with the promise that citizens could have it all if only they are given back power. Warren tried to use the tax to restart her moribund 2020 presidential campaign. During one debate, she dramatically told the rich she was coming after “your Rembrandts, your stock portfolio, your diamonds and your yachts.” She thrilled the crowd by greedily rubbing her hands together after saying she would take some of the wealth of fellow candidate John Delaney, a self-made millionaire.

The problem is that a federal billionaire tax (which is distinct from California’s billionaire tax that will be on the upcoming state ballot) is, in my view, completely unconstitutional. The federal government secured the right to tax individuals in 1913, but the 16th Amendment only approved income taxes. As made clear by Warren, Democrats want to tax people for the things that they bought after paying their taxes from homes to art to boats. If they can pack the Court and greenlight a billionaire tax, there would be no limit to then moving the threshold wealth level downward. Once that Rubicon is crossed, Democrats would suddenly be able to tax trillions in the property and possessions of citizens.

That is precisely what Khanna finally admitted last week in a Substack post, arguing that “the tax should not stop at billionaires; it must reach centimillionaires. The tax has to reach all fortunes $50 million and up.” The wealth tax is the closest this country has come to an open redistribution-of-wealth effort, a core agenda item for the rising socialist movement. Other countries such as France tried wealth taxes with disastrous results. Not only did it fail to generate the expected revenue (the wealth left the country en masse), but it also had to be rescinded. In Norway, the government kept reducing the level of targeted assets to six-figure thresholds.

The national tax is meant to address the growing disaster in California, which has reportedly lost trillions as the wealthy flee the high-tax state. Khanna and other Democrats hope to give the wealth nowhere to flee by taking this “hunt-the-rich” effort national. In making this pitch, Khanna is trying to achieve the political stunt of the century. Khanna is reportedly worth roughly half a billion dollars thanks to his wife’s inheritance. He is not alone among the super wealthy Democrats declaring themselves the champions of the proletariat.

After all, there’s Illinois Gov. Jay Robert “JB” Pritzker, who also inherited his fortune. In a July interview with CNN, Pritzker virtually begged the mob that he is a different kind of billionaire, pointing at Trump billionaires as the rightful targets (not him with $4.3 billion). Others found themselves on the wrong side of the mob. Rep. Dan Goldman, who inherited a massive fortune of almost $300 million as a trust baby, unwisely promised to help subsidize his congressional reelection campaign from his family fortune. Goldman fell flat with the socialist and increasingly antisemitic base — and was crushed by over 30 points.

Khanna hopes to stay ahead of that mob by leading it to the homes of other wealthy citizens. As for California, the state is already showing how class warfare does not quite work if the upper classes simply leave with their wealth, businesses and jobs.

Read more …

“A Swedish MEP has filed criminal charges after a Danish colleague told her to “go home” in a social media post..”

• War of Words Turns Ugly After EU Migration Vote (RT)

A dispute over an immigration bill passed by the European Parliament has escalated into a criminal complaint, with a Swedish MEP accusing a Danish colleague of racist hate speech over a social media comment, The Guardian reported on Monday. A Swedish MEP of Iraqi descent, Abir Al-Sahlani, filed the complaint with Swedish police against Danish MEP Kristoffer Storm. He told her to “go home” in response to her post criticizing anti-immigration chants that followed the passage of a law aimed at speeding up the deportation of illegal migrants. She has also lodged a formal complaint with European Parliament President Roberta Metsola.


The dispute stems from last month’s approval of the Return Regulation, the toughest anti-immigration legislation passed by the EU in recent years. The measure allows member states to establish ‘return hubs’ outside the bloc to accelerate the deportation of illegal migrants. After the vote, chants of “send them back!” erupted in the chamber. In a speech condemning the outburst, Al-Sahlani called it “a new low level, even for the fascists on the far right.”

“I have never felt as unsafe in this parliament as after the voting about the Return Regulation, because the shouting of the far right was not against the political opponent… It was about ordinary people who did no other crime than looking for a better life in Europe,” she said. Storm rejected accusations that his response online was racist. Speaking to Politico, he said the phrase “go home” referred to leaving the parliamentary chamber, arguing that if Al-Sahlani found the democratic decision and lawmakers’ reactions so upsetting, “she would have been better off leaving the chamber.”

The clash comes amid growing tensions over migration across the EU. According to Eurostat, the bloc received more than 8.5 million immigrants from outside the bloc in 2023 and 2024, and immigration remains one of the most divisive issues in European politics. Earlier this month, US President Donald Trump claimed that European countries had deteriorated to the status of “Third World countries” because of their immigration policies.

Read more …

We can talk about it for years. Occupational therapy.

• US House To Vote On Bill Making Daylight Savings Time Permanent (JTN)

The U.S. House will vote this week on a bill making daylight savings time permanent, despite warnings from medical, education and safety organizations. The Sunshine Protection Act of 2025, which would end the nearly nationwide biannual clock changing and make daylight savings time permanent year-round, advanced out of committee Monday afternoon. States that use standard time year-round – currently only Arizona and Hawaii – before the law goes into effect wouldn’t have to change.


House Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Frank Pallone, D-N.J., testified in support of the bill, which Rep. Vern Buchanan, R-Fla., introduced. Pallone argued that changing the clocks every year is widely unpopular with Americans and that making daylight savings time permanent would boost the tourism industry. n“The real question is, why do we still change our clocks?,” Pallone said. “It’s getting harder and harder to justify.” Besides the U.S. tourism industry, retail and golfing industries have long lobbied Congress to permanently set the clocks an hour ahead.

“Our industry is uniquely tied to daylight, and the number of playable hours directly affects the number of rounds we can offer, the staff we employ, and the revenue we generate, especially in the late afternoon and early evening,” National Golf Course Owners Association CEO Jay Karen told lawmakers in 2025. bWe ask the Senate to consider the practical and economic consequences of losing evening daylight.” The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Retail Federation, National Association of Convenience Stores, the American Farm Bureau Federation and others have expressed support for making daylight savings time permanent.

But medical professionals, education advocates and safety professionals overwhelmingly support making standard time permanent instead. “By artificially shifting the clock time an hour forward, daylight saving time causes a misalignment between clock time and solar time, interfering with our circadian timing and resulting in a condition known as ‘social jet lag,’’ the American Academy of Sleep Medicine stated in its opposition to the bill. “This condition is associated with an increased risk of obesity, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease, and depression. If daylight saving time becomes permanent, then Americans will be living with social jet lag year-round.”

The American Medical Association, American College of Occupational Medicine, National Sleep Foundation, American Federation of Teachers, National School Boards Association, National Safety Council, and dozens of other organizations have endorsed permanent standard time. Congress tried to implement permanent daylight savings time in the 1970s. The two-year trial lasted less than a year, however — in a 1974 speech on the Senate floor, the former U.S. senator for Kansas Bob Dole said the change “is a classic example of the Congress legislating blindfolded”

“It has caused great inconvenience and in some cases hazard. It appears to me that the better part of wisdom might be outright repeal,” Dole said. “After spending the first 3 weeks of winter daylight time in Kansas, I became more convinced than ever that its hardships, inconvenience, and real hazards are too great to justify its continuation.” If the Sunshine Protection Act does pass the House on Tuesday, its future in the Senate is uncertain as it will need at least 60 votes to pass.

Read more …

Birthright Citizenship is 150 or so years old. It’s old. Nobody else has it. There are no slaves anymore.

• Bill to End Birthright Citizenship by Following Kavanaugh Roadmap (JTN)

Indiana Republican Sen. Jim Banks introduced legislation Monday that seeks to end birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants by labeling them as children of “invaders” under federal law. The legislation was inspired by a roadmap suggested by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh last month following a ruling that determined President Donald Trump’s executive order limiting automatic citizenship for certain individuals born in the United States violated the 14th Amendment.


Kavanaugh wrote a separate concurring opinion that stated that although the president’s order had conflicted with federal birthright citizenship law, Congress could amend the statute to create new exceptions, according to Fox News. Banks’ legislation would codify Trump’s 2025 executive order declaring illegal migration across the southern border an “invasion,” and change the Immigration and Nationality Act to exclude children of such “invaders.” The senator’s “Citizenship Act” legislation reads: “Any person who enters the United States without authorization or for the purpose of engaging in birth tourism is considered an invader.”

Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, Trump has not given up hope that his attempt to end birthright citizenship could pass and he has called for the high court to have a rehearing on the issue. Rehearings are not unprecedented but extremely rare. “The Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship decision was an unprecedented assault on American sovereignty, and we must do whatever it takes to save our country,” Banks told Fox News. “I’m leading the Citizenship Act to reverse the effects of this consequential ruling and ensure the millions of illegal aliens that invaded our country can’t continue to exploit our immigration system.”

Read more …

It’s about control, plain and simple.

• The Digital Euro: Control and the End of Financial Privacy (Daniel Lacalle)

European Union lawmakers in Strasbourg have now agreed on their position regarding the digital euro, approving it in a vote on the 8th of July 2026. With this position, the European Parliament can start talks with national governments on the details of the design and functioning of the digital euro.


The ECB argues that the digital euro is required to preserve the benefits of cash in a digital age and protect Europe’s monetary sovereignty, while offering a fast, secure, widely accepted public means of payment. However, it is not a neutral or purely technological upgrade to Europe’s payments infrastructure. It is a political and technological project that may embed surveillance, monetary control, and fiscal dominance into the very structure of the currency.

EU lawmakers are now debating the regulation that will define the legal status, privacy framework, and holding limits of the digital euro, with the ECB openly lobbying for strong legislation to support what it calls a collective step forward for Europe. This means the most significant features, including programmability, limits, data access, and the role of commercial banks, will be decided in Brussels and Strasbourg rather than by markets or citizen demand.

The ECB sells the digital euro on four main promises: more efficient payments, greater monetary sovereignty, financial inclusion, and higher privacy than current private electronic payment systems. Not one of those claims holds up once you look at them, even briefly.

Read more …

The article says the interviewer is annoyed. I see none of that. Jagger makes sense.

• Mick Jagger Defends Elon Musk (MN)

Mick Jagger just delivered a masterclass in cutting through media spin, leaving a leftist New York Times podcaster visibly rattled as he clarified that his “mad mogul” lyric about Elon Musk was actually a compliment. The Rolling Stones legend refused to play along with the expected narrative during the interview, pushing back firmly when the host, David Marchese, presumed the line was a diss. Instead, Jagger highlighted Musk’s real-world achievements in space, crediting him with stepping up where government agencies have fallen short.

In the exchange, Jagger explained the context behind the lyric from the new Rolling Stones album Foreign Tongues. He pointed to the rescue of the stranded NASA astronauts last year, noting that Musk’s SpaceXprovided the transportation NASA couldn’t. ]Jagger told the interviewer: “It’s not nagging, but people hear one word and they don’t really listen to the line. So it’s like, ‘Mick Jagger has a go at Elon Musk.’ You’re not listening to the line, you’re only listening to ‘Musk.’ … even though I do call him mad.”

Marchese’s expression totally changed from smiling to frowning in an instant when Jagger refused to confirm the interviewer’s gleeful expectation that the singer would criticise Musk. He continued: “When I wrote that, I was thinking that because of him, they were able to get those astronauts back that were stuck because he provided the transportation because NASA couldn’t provide the transportation…” “Who would you trust to get you into space?” Jagger continued, adding “Would you trust Boeing or would you trust NASA or would you trust mad mogul Mr. Musk? It’s really a side-winding compliment because he was the one I remembered was able to do that when the others couldn’t.”

Jagger exposed how Marchese had completely misinterpreted the lyrics of the song, making him look foolish.The podcaster pressed on, noting Musk was the only person named on the album, implying significance. Jagger stood his ground, adding that “mogul doesn’t always go down well, either,” and the host again showed how one dimensional he is by suggesting “No one likes a mogul.” Jagger was clearly exhausted with the exchange as Marchese simply refused to understand what the singer was getting at.

In another recent NYT interview, Jagger contrasted his approach to performing live with Bruce Springsteen’s rabid anti-Trump activism, emphasizing that his job is to give fans a great time, not sermonize. Jagger’s nuanced expression underscores a refreshing independence in an industry often dominated by predictable elite consensus, and his clarity cuts against the grain of performative outrage. Moments like this expose the disconnect between coastal media bubbles and ground-level realities.

The Rolling Stones continue to prove their enduring relevance not by chasing trends, but by staying true to a no-nonsense ethos that prioritizes delivery over dogma. Jagger’s unapologetic take serves as a subtle rebuke to those who weaponize art for division rather than unity through great music and honest reflection. Jagger gets it – focus on what works, entertain the audience, and let results speak louder than spin. In a free society, that kind of straight talk is exactly what keeps culture vibrant against efforts to enforce conformity. https://twitter.com/Jules31415/status/2076829239265956264?s=20

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2076778037752869318?s=20

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle June 18 2026

Jun 182026
 
 June 18, 2026  Posted by at 9:17 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  15 Responses »


Priest and scribe Ka-aper ca. 2465-2323 BC


• Trump And Iran Sign MOU Deal Ahead Of Schedule (ZH)
• Read The 14-Point US-Iran Draft Deal Set For Friday Signing (ZH)
• Trump Shifting Focus Back To Ukraine: Where Do Peace Talks Stand? (RT)
• Trump Calls Out ‘Dumocrat’ Double-Cross,” Keeps Pulte As Acting DNI (ZH)
• 5 Arrested in Plot to Attack UFC Event at White House (ET)
• How Deep Are the Newsoms In It? THIS Deep. (Stephen Green)
• Kamala’s Anti-Trump Meltdown in Austria a Masterclass in Projection (Margolis)
• Ease In Our Time (Every)
• Nigel Farage’s ‘White Britain’: A Long-Overdue Step (von Hoffmeister)
• Nigel Farage’s ‘White Britain’ is a Fantasy (Graham Hryce)
• A Social Media Ban for Minors Requires Data From Everyone (ET)
• Canada is Next Up (CTH)
• The World Is Re-Discovering America In the World Cup — and Loving It (Moran)
• Russia’s New Warning Shot From Space (Martin Armstrong)

 


 

https://twitter.com/JesseBWatters/status/2067048468552536132?s=20 https://twitter.com/MAGAVoice/status/2067182879038406656?s=20

 


 


“If [the Iran deal] works out, I’m going to take the credit; if it doesn’t work out, I’m blaming [Vance].”

• Trump And Iran Sign MOU Deal Ahead Of Schedule (ZH)

Trump Signs Iran Deal Remotely Ahead Of Schedule. Confirming earlier speculation, Axios reports that the U.S. and Iran have remotely signed their memorandum of understanding to end the war and open the Strait of Hormuz, and the agreement is now in effect. The signing – which took place electronically between Trump, Vance and Ghalibaf – reportedly took place at dinner in France alongside President Emmanuel Macron. The signing was supposed to happen in Switzerland on Friday, but a diplomat from a mediating country and a second source familiar told Axios earlier on Wednesday that there had been discussions about signing and implementing it earlier


The diplomatic source said the discussions around accelerating the timetable were intended to open the strait sooner than Friday, as both parties were in agreement on that issue. Another factor may have been the political pressure on the White House to release the text of the MOU, which it sitll hasn’t done officially. The source familiar with the discussions claimed it was Iran that demanded the text not be published until the formal signing, and denied the White House was responding to political pressure. The only “public release” so far consisted of a senior administration official reading the agreement to reporters in a briefing call on Wednesday, after days of confusion about what was in it.

Ahead of the signing, Iran’s foreign ministry said the sides had agreed that the MOU should be signed electronically by both presidents. For Iran, the signing represents a major victory as it now stands to receive billions in unfrozen (and other) funds from the US and Gulf sources. While it’s now just a formality, the meeting between the U.S. and Iranian delegations headed by Vice President Vance and Iranian parliamentary speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf is still expected to take place as planned on Friday in Switzerland. They are expected to discuss the launching of negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program.

The signing took place after this remarkable press conference earlier in the day in which Trump tried to justify conceding to Iran’s terms: As BBC’s Siavash Ardalan writes, Trump’s responses to the reporters’ questions to justify the agreement with Iran were bizarre and unprecedented in their own way: They asked him how he could allow $300 billion in investment in Iran. He said, “We’ve already inflicted $2 trillion in damage on Iran; $300 billion is nothing in comparison.” They asked why he’s giving Iran tens of billions of dollars. He said, “If we don’t return their own money to them, other countries will be afraid to put their money in our banks, and then the dollar’s position will weaken.”

They asked why the missile issue isn’t in the agreement. He said, “We’ve already destroyed 85% of their missiles anyway; the rest are buried underground, and besides, we sell air defense systems to the countries in the region so they won’t worry about Iran’s missiles.” They asked if he’s not worried that Iran will say, “We’re only producing nuclear energy for civilian purposes.” He said, “You can’t tell everyone else to produce electricity with nuclear power while only Iran can’t.” Finally, he said, “If we continue sanctioning Iran, 91 million Iranians will die of hunger—what’s the point of that, really?” Oh, and he joked that “If [the Iran deal] works out, I’m going to take the credit; if it doesn’t work out, I’m blaming [Vance].”

Read more …

They should talk until about August 20. As the date approaches, Iran will say they need more time.

• Read The 14-Point US-Iran Draft Deal Set For Friday Signing (ZH)

With US and Iranian officials preparing to formally sign a memorandum of understanding in Switzerland on Friday, the conflict is entering the much-needed diplomatic phase to avert a potentially disastrous energy cliff. The MoU would open a 60-day negotiating window aimed at ending the war, restoring maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, and hammering out the future of Iran’s nuclear program.


Bloomberg published the text of the 14-point draft MoU, offering the clearest look yet at the proposed trade: de-escalation and sanctions relief for Iran, in exchange for a ceasefire across all fronts, commitments on shipping access, and a broader nuclear deal to be finalized by the end of summer. But Iran’s Tasnim news agency cited an unnamed official earlier today, saying some of the MoU published by Bloomberg is inaccurate. The report did not specify the discrepancies. Bloomberg noted that some of the wording could be different between the English and Persian versions. Below is the text of the 14-point draft MoU:

  1. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States, together with their allies in the current war, declare upon the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding an immediate and permanent end to the war on all fronts, including Lebanon, and undertake that from now on they will not launch any hostile action against each other, and will refrain from the threat or use of force against each other. The final agreement will confirm the provisions of this Article and the remaining Articles
  2. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States undertake to respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and to refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs
  3. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States undertake to negotiate and reach a final agreement within a maximum period of 60 days, extendable by mutual consent
  4. Immediately upon the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding, the United States Lift the naval blockade and prevent any interference or obstruction against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and restore traffic within a maximum of 30 days to its full capacity; the traffic of ships shall be proportional to the pre-war volume of traffic on the part of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States also undertakes to withdraw its forces from the surrounding areas within 30 days after the final agreement
  5. Upon signing this Memorandum of Understanding, the Islamic Republic of Iran will immediately take steps to ensure that the movement of merchant ships from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa is resumed within 30 days to the pre-war volume, taking into account the need for the removal of technical obstacles and the neutralization of mines by Iran.
  6. The United States undertakes, together with its regional partners, to create a comprehensive plan agreed upon by both parties for the rehabilitation and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran, While ensuring financing of at least $300 billion. The implementation mechanism of this plan, as part of the final agreement, will be formulated within 60 days.
  7. The United States commits to ending, on a schedule to be agreed upon as part of the final agreement, all types of sanctions currently facing the Islamic Republic of Iran, including resolutions of the United Nations Security Council and the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and all unilateral U.S. sanctions, both primary and secondary.
  8. The Islamic Republic of Iran reiterates that it will never produce nuclear weapons. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States have agreed that the fate of enriched material and the fate of all other mutually agreed nuclear-related issues, including Iran’s nuclear needs, will be adequately addressed in a final agreement; the final agreement will confirm the provisions of this Article.
  9. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States agree that, pending a final agreement, they will maintain the status quo: Iran will maintain the status quo on its nuclear program, and the United States will not impose new sanctions on Iran or strengthen its forces in the region.
  10. The United States undertakes that immediately after the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding, and until the date of the lifting of sanctions, the United States Treasury Department will issue waivers for exports of Iranian crude oil, petrochemical products and their derivatives, and all related services, including banking, insurance, transportation, and the like.
  11. The United States undertakes that, in light of the progress of negotiations towards a final agreement, frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran will be released and made fully available. These funds, whether held in the master account or transferred, will be used for any final beneficiary payment determined by the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran and will be fully available for use. The United States undertakes to issue all necessary permits and licenses on this basis.
  12. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States agree that an implementation mechanism will be established to oversee the successful implementation of and future commitment to the Final Agreement.
  13. Following the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding, and upon receipt of assurances regarding the commencement of implementation of Articles 4, 5, 10, and 11 of this Memorandum of Understanding, and the continued implementation of these steps, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States will enter into negotiations for a Final Agreement solely with respect to the remaining Articles.
  14. The final agreement will be approved through a binding resolution of the UN Security Council

Based on the text above, the first take of the MoU appears to be front-loaded economic relief for Tehran in exchange for a ceasefire, a nuclear freeze, and commitments to negotiate hard topics, such as the nuclear program, at a later date.

Who Stands To Benefit:
Tehran benefits most directly because it gets economic oxygen, oil waivers, frozen funds, sanctions relief language, and reduced US military pressure in the region. Hezbollah and Iran-aligned actors also benefit if “all fronts, including Lebanon” locks in a ceasefire that constrains Israeli operations. And, of course, the global economy because global shippers benefit if Hormuz reopens and war risk premiums in crude oil collapse. The Gulf states benefit if the conflict ends because energy exports through the Strait of Hormuz will resume. A report on Tuesday said that QatarEnergy was planning to ramp up LNG production in the coming months.

Where is Leverage Lost:
The US loses some coercive leverage once the Hormuz blockade ends, oil waivers are granted, and asset-release mechanisms begin. Israel loses freedom of action if the agreement binds the Lebanon front and limits further strikes. Sanctions and hawks lose leverage because the draft moves quickly toward broad sanctions dismantlement. The urgency behind the MoU and locking in peace talks for 60 days, with a formal signing event at the Bürgenstock resort in Switzerland on Friday, stems mainly from the world being headed for an energy cliff, as SPRs globally were being drained to offset the loss of Gulf production with the Hormuz chokepoint shuttered. Brent crude futures edged down overnight, trading around $79 a barrel on Wednesday morning.

One of the biggest uncertainties remains the Strait of Hormuz. President Trump stated that the critical waterway will reopen permanently and be toll-free, but the MoU suggests the toll-free arrangement may only last through the 60-day negotiation period. Another major uncertainty is Tehran’s compliance.

Read more …

Zelensky represents a bunch of deeply corrupt neo-nazis. Trump knows this. For Europeans and US Democrats, Ukraine is a money whitewash vehicle. What is it for Trump?

• Trump Shifting Focus Back To Ukraine: Where Do Peace Talks Stand? (RT)

Where do the talks stand?
After Washington resumed direct contacts with Moscow following years of diplomatic freeze under Joe Biden, Russia, Ukraine and the US held three rounds of talks aimed at reaching a settlement. The negotiations yielded several tangible results, including major prisoner exchanges, the repatriation of fallen soldiers, and the exchange of peace memorandums. However, they failed to secure a peace deal, with key disagreements persisting, particularly over Moscow’s demand that Ukrainian forces withdraw from Donbass.A fourth round of talks, expected in March, was postponed after Washington shifted its focus to the Iran war. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has since described the process as being in a “situational pause” pending renewed US engagement.

What settlements have been proposed?
Following the Alaska summit, where Moscow and Washington stressed the need for a lasting settlement rather than the ceasefire sought by Kiev and its European backers, Trump unveiled a 28-point peace roadmap. According to leaked drafts, it called for Ukraine to abandon its NATO ambitions, drop territorial claims, and cap its military at 600,000 personnel. Moscow welcomed the proposal as a potential basis for peace. However, under pressure from the EU and UK, several key provisions were later removed or revised.

The updated 20-point plan reportedly included demilitarized zones, Western security guarantees for Kiev, an 800,000-strong peacetime Ukrainian military, a reconstruction fund for Ukraine, and a path toward EU membership. Russia confirmed receiving the revised proposal but declined to discuss its contents, accusing the Europeans of reshaping the framework and undermining peace efforts.

What are the next steps?
On Tuesday, Trump discussed Ukraine with Zelensky and other leaders during a closed-door G7 session and later held a separate meeting with the Ukrainian leader. While details were not disclosed, Zelensky said afterward that it was important to “coordinate positions.” Meanwhile, Trump’s envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner are expected to resume contacts with Moscow after shifting their focus to the Iran war. Putin aide Yury Ushakov said preparations are under way following Sunday’s call between the Russian and US presidents. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov later said no dates have been set and that the issue will likely be revisited after Washington signs its memorandum with Tehran.

Europeans split
European countries remain divided between those favoring engagement with Moscow and those seeking to maintain pressure on Russia. Hungary and Slovakia have urged direct dialogue with Moscow and criticized policies they say prolong the conflict. Those seeking to maintain pressure, which includes Poland, the Baltic states and much of the EU leadership, argues that political, economic and military pressure must continue. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen reiterated that stance on Monday, calling support for Ukraine a top G7 priority.

France and Germany occupy a middle ground, backing continued aid to Kiev while acknowledging that any lasting settlement will require negotiations with Russia. That approach was tested last week when French, British, and German envoys met Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin in Moscow. According to Russia, however, they merely repeated calls for a ceasefire and security guarantees for Ukraine, prompting Moscow to argue that the countries arming Kiev cannot act as neutral mediators.

Trump’s position
During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly claimed he could end the Ukraine conflict within 24 hours through direct diplomacy, though he later acknowledged that a settlement would be harder to achieve. Since returning to office, he has criticized both Moscow and Kiev at various times, accusing each side of hindering peace efforts, while consistently arguing that the conflict should be resolved through negotiations rather than prolonged fighting.

https://twitter.com/e3z9b_qI1ytkw/status/2066683484358242763?s=20

After speaking with Putin and Zelensky on Sunday, Trump described both conversations as “very good” and said both leaders were “very open” to peace. According to Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov, he also told Putin he was prepared to “influence” Kiev and its European backers toward a settlement. Speaking at the G7, Trump said he would “look” at what could be done regarding Ukraine, while suggesting the conflict was of limited importance to the US, adding that “it has no impact on us other than we sell weapons.”

Zelensky’s demands
Amid mounting battlefield pressure, Zelensky has insisted on securing a temporary ceasefire and continued Western support, while maintaining that Ukraine will not formally recognize Moscow’s sovereignty over territories that joined Russia through referendums. He has also opposed any settlement negotiated directly between Moscow and Washington without Kiev’s participation, insisting that Ukraine’s European backers be included in the process.

Read more …

“No FISA Without SAVE Act:”

• Trump Calls Out ‘Dumocrat’ Double-Cross,” Keeps Pulte As Acting DNI (ZH)

Just two years after Donald Trump urged Congress to kill Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act while on the campaign trail, he’s now livid that Democrats won’t help Republicans pass it. Trump took to Truth Social early Wednesday morning with a lengthy post accusing ‘Dumocrats’ of breaking a bipartisan deal on FISA reauthorization – and announced a series of moves that throw a wrench into Senate plans for both intelligence leadership and surveillance powers.


According to Trump, Republicans played themselves – after agreeing with Democrats to accelerate the removal of Acting DNI William Pulte (by fast-tracking Jay Clayton’s confirmation) in exchange for Democratic support on renewing FISA Section 702 surveillance powers. Now, however Democrats are threatening to vote against FISA anyway.

“The Republicans wound up having fulfilled their commitment, but Dumocrats broke the Deal.” As a result, Trump said he is canceling today’s Senate hearing for Jay Clayton as permanent DNI. He will not move Clayton out of his current role as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York until Jamie McDonald (a Sullivan & Cromwell partner and Trump’s former personal lawyer, recently nominated to replace him at SDNY) is confirmed – including clearing the “blue slip” process.

In the meantime, Bill Pulte will remain as Acting Director of National Intelligence – who Trump picked to replace Tulsi Gabbard after she said in May she was leaving the administration in June to spend time with her husband following his cancer diagnosis. Pulte has been a controversial pick over his lack of intelligence experience – which led to Trump nominating U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Jay Clayton to be the next DNI. nTrump explicitly linked his approval of FISA renewal to passage of the SAVE America Act – his priority legislation requiring photo ID, proof of citizenship for voter registration, and strict limits on mail-in ballots.


“Therefore, to add a slight bit of intrigue but, for the Good of the Nation, and the People of our Country, I will not approve FISA without THE SAVE AMERICA ACT going along with it. Not complicated, actually, the Republicans fell into a trap.” The SAVE America Act – which requires Americans to show proof of citizenship to register to vote and a valid ID to cast a ballot, has stalled in the Senate after the House passed the legislation in February.

Read more …

What amazed me was the scale.

“.. the aim of the attack [..] was to create chaos and overthrow the U.S. government.

• 5 Arrested in Plot to Attack UFC Event at White House (ET)

Five men have been arrested for allegedly plotting to attack the mixed martial arts event that was held at the White House on June 14. The charges include conspiracy to murder. The men were planning to set off explosives at the event and force people there to flee a certain way, according to court documents. Snipers would be positioned to take out high-level targets, including President Donald Trump, according to the charging papers. One of the men, Tycen Proper, 19, told law enforcement that the attack would “jumpstart” a revolution in the United States, according to the FBI. Proper’s mother called the police on June 10. Officers arrived and learned that Proper had met people online and had been planning “recons” and “missions” with them, according to prosecutors.


He had also spent $3,000 on guns, ammunition, ballistic plates, and other items, and planned to leave during the upcoming weekend to meet with the people, his father said. Proper was admitted to a local hospital because of “homicidal ideations,” the FBI said. Proper later spoke to investigators and shared with them images and messages from accounts he was using, including accounts on TikTok and Signal. Proper said that the group with which he was involved believed the United States was headed in the wrong direction, and needed to be “torn down so that it could be rebuilt,” according to the FBI. He said the plan was for people to leave their homes on June 12 or 13 and meet in Fredericksburg, Virginia. They would stage a demonstration near the White House.

During the demonstration, the group would fly drones laden with explosive devices and set them off in a specific area, forcing the crowd to evacuate in view of waiting snipers, who would shoot people as they fled. Targets included Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), and Rep. Carol Miller (R-W.Va). Through the information Proper provided, law enforcement identified four other men involved with the attack plan, according to officials. One of the men, Abraham Hermosillo Alvarez, 31, discussed the targets during the attack. “As many and as deadly as we can get,” he allegedly wrote. Another man, Daniel Eskridge, 32, wrote that the plan required five teams of three people each, and that the teams would each consist of a sniper, a drone operator, and a look-out.

The other two men allegedly involved in the plot are Bryan Omar Roa, 24, and Michael Alan Thomas, 32. Roa told the FBI during an interview that he had planned to protest at the UFC event but “his vehicle malfunctioned and he had to return home.” His relatives told law enforcement that he had planned to go to Washington and appeared ready to carry out an act of violence, and he discussed how a person could hypothetically use drones armed with explosives to bomb buildings near the White House, according to charging documents. Thomas told the FBI that he was a planner and adviser for the group, the FBI said. Thomas allegedly said the aim of the attack, and subsequent planned attacks, was to create chaos and overthrow the U.S. government.

“This is still an active, ongoing investigation,” U.S. Secret Service Deputy Director Matthew Quinn told reporters at a press conference on Tuesday. “There are still suspects at large, and we’re going to work it until everyone’s been identified.” Quinn also said that the event on Sunday was “never at risk. Period.” A public defender appointed to represent Alvarez declined to comment. Lawyers representing Proper and Eskridge did not respond to requests for comment by time of publication. It was not clear whether Roa and Thomas had retained legal counsel.

FBI Director Kash Patel said in a statement that “thanks to the rapid action of this FBI, our partners, and the Department of Justice in a multi-state operation, multiple individuals are now in custody and allegedly planned attacks were stopped cold.” He added, “I want to thank our great agents and partners, this work remains ongoing and we will continue to update the public as permitted.”

Read more …

It is sad to look at the potential Democrat candidates.

• How Deep Are the Newsoms In It? THIS Deep. (Stephen Green)

It seems impossible — or just too revolting — to keep up with the financial hanky-panky of California Gov. Gavin Newsom and First Partner (gag) Jennifer Siebel Newsom. But thanks to a couple of investigative reporters with stronger stomachs than I have, let’s see if I can’t put everything you need to know into one easily digestible column. I love it when other people do my dirty work for me, so let’s get started. “Today, my wife & I joined Donald Trump’s hit list,” Newsom practically boasted on Monday. “He has directed his Department of Justice to investigate us. They have not found a crime — they are simply trying to find one.”


Well, let’s see what Fox Business anchor Liz MacDonald and my old friend and Red State colleague Jen Van Laar have to say about that. MacDonald said Tuesday that the DOJ probe “is about California Democrats’ modern-day machine politics,” which she described as a “feedback loop of Sacramento-corporate lobbyists-governor/wife nonprofit-behested nonprofit donations-lucrative state contracts-Sacramento.” Don’t bother writing all this down — there won’t be a quiz at the end of today’s column. You’re welcome.

“The modern Sacramento machine trades corporate compliance and nonprofit funding/donations for policy access and state business,” MacDonald added, and then explained how that grift (allegedly!) worked for the Newsoms: According to IRS Form 990 disclosures, her nonprofit frequently buys from Siebel Newsom’s for-profit film company—Girls Club Entertainment LLC—writer, producer and director services and the licensing and production rights for her documentaries. Then it sells the docs to the state and public schools.

IRS records show that her nonprofit has paid her Girls Club Entertainment LLC roughly $1.64 million for these production and licensing rights since 2012, which includes a steady annual contracting fee of $150,000 since 2018. TL;DR: Siebel Newsom produced unwatchable propaganda videos for children, for which Democrat-dominated schools then paid her handsomely. Or as MacDonald summed it up, “Over the past decade, Siebel Newsom has collected over $3.7 million in combined personal salary and LLC payouts funded by the nonprofit.”

Then there are behested payments, which MacDonald explained are “a unique mechanism in California politics where an elected official asks a corporation, labor union, or wealthy individual to donate money to a specific charity, nonprofit, or government program.” Unlike campaign donations, there are no caps. As governor, Newsom requested a record $226 million in behested payments in one year. “Hundreds of thousands of dollars went to the California Partners Project,” MacDonald wrote, “a nonprofit founded by his wife.” “Many of the biggest donors were corporate giants (like health insurers and utility companies) actively bidding for lucrative state contracts or fighting state regulations.”

One hand washes the other with filthy lucre, if you’ll allow me to mix metaphors. Which brings us to Jen Van Laar, and her hip-deep-in-the-muck wade through the Newsoms’ finances, going back years. Way back in 2021, Jen asked, “Somebody Paid $3.7 Million Cash for CA Gov Newsom’s Estate – But Who?” But couldn’t come up with any satisfactory answers. That’s because the Newsoms alternately claimed that “the Newsoms’ cash was used to purchase the home but was done through an LLC managed by his first cousin,” or that “Newsoms obtained a loan… to purchase the home because the sale happened so quickly that they didn’t have time to obtain a mortgage.”

Then, California’s First Couple played similar LLC games, buying a second home for $9.1 million in ritzy Marin County. “Based on my examination of 15+ yrs of Newsom’s financial disclosures, tax returns, and real estate transactions,” Jenn explained in March, “they absolutely did not have $9.1M in cash.” Clearly, somebody did. The shenanigans were so egregious that — no matter what TDS nonsense Newsom’s social media team posts on X — the DOJ investigation began under the Biden administration. As I quipped on Instapundit this week, maybe Newsom needs to take a break from social media and lawyer up.

Then there are the real-world effects, the fallout from personal corruption and statewide, one-party rule. On Tuesday, Victor Davis Hanson wondered if California is “reaching critical mass,” thanks to one-party rule creating a “neo-feudal society” that is “hardly democratic.” The most egregious example was the fate of 2014’s Proposition 1, a $7.12 billion water bond “designed to solve the state’s chronic water storage deficit.” Even though Prop 1 is an actual constitutional amendment, including “$2.7 billion specifically designated for new reservoirs,” an alliance of bureaucracies, elected officials, and green activists still managed to block any new reservoir construction.

“Adding insult to injury,” Hanson continued, “Governor Gavin Newsom instead used $250 million from the Proposition 1 fund to blow up four dams on the Klamath River.” Californians voted for more water infrastructure. Newsom’s party blocked them, and Newsom himself had four dams destroyed that had “once provided storage, electrical generation, recreation, and flood control.” Tell me again about Muh Democracy™. All of which is my long-winded way of concluding that, as corrupt as the Newsoms appear to be, they are merely a symptom of the progressive disease killing our once-greatest state.

Read more …

As long as she’s around, how can you take that party even a little bit serious?

• Kamala’s Anti-Trump Meltdown in Austria a Masterclass in Projection (Margolis)

Kamala Harris took the stage at the Austrian World Summit on Tuesday and delivered the most shameless masterclass in projection I have ever seen. The moderator, Elex Michaelson, asked Harris about the news that California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) is now under investigation by the Department of Justice.


It was a loaded question, of course, and, as you might expect, she responded with a classic Kamala word salad. “So I am not surprised that he may be using the Department of Justice to go after a political enemy in the current governor of California,” she said, “and this is why I do believe this, upon many other examples of what is, essentially — you’re gonna ask me questions about the current president, I’m gonna be candid — what is essentially the most callous, corrupt, and incompetent presidential administration America’s ever experienced, and for that reason, I have no question or doubt that we will win the midterms, and it will be a result of people of every background and political association who will contribute to that outcome.”

She claimed that President Donald Trump told everyone he’d weaponize the DOJ against his enemies, and now he’s doing it. It’s an absolute joke that anyone connected with the Biden-Harris administration would even attempt to play that card, because they didn’t just talk about using government power against political opponents. They did it, repeatedly, and boy, did they do it with gusto.

They jailed nonviolent January 6th protesters and denied them due process. They prosecuted pro-life demonstrators for praying outside abortion clinics. The Biden-Harris DOJ targeted Catholic churches. The FBI labeled parents who showed up at school board meetings as domestic terrorists for the crime of caring about their kids’ education. And, of course, the Biden-Harris administration literally sent the FBI to raid the home of President Trump in a blatant scheme to put him in prison so he couldn’t return to the White House.

Sorry, but Kamala Harris has no business accusing the Trump administration of weaponizing the Department of Justice, especially while citing the Newsom case, which, as PJ Media previously reported, actually began under the Biden-Harris administration.

While I’m here, we might as well address Kamala’s accusations of incompetence, too. This is the vice president who watched Afghanistan collapse into the hands of the Taliban, abandoned American allies to their fate, and presided over a withdrawal that got 13 U.S. troops killed. That’s before we even get to the border crisis her administration refused to control, the unchecked inflation that gutted American paychecks the administration claimed would be transitory, the bungled response to the East Palestine train derailment, the confused handling of the Chinese spy balloon, the disastrous and ultimately abandoned Gaza pier project, the sluggish response to the Maui wildfires, and the failure to deter Russia from invading Ukraine in the first place. And that’s just a few examples off the top of my head.

And don’t get me started on corruption. Between the Biden Crime Family and the whole cover-up of Joe Biden’s cognitive decline, the last thing Kamala should want is for anyone to go there — not that Michaelson would call her out on any of those things.

So when Kamala stands on a stage in Austria and calls the Trump administration the most callous, corrupt, and incompetent in American history, conservatives can be forgiven for laughing. She’s not describing Trump. She’s describing the administration she was a part of for four years.

Read more …

“.. maqluba (a deal, flipping the rice) or muqlaba (no deal, flipping the peace)..”

• Ease In Our Time (Every)

Yesterday saw the BOJ hike rates to 1%, the highest level since 1995, and the RBA hold at 4.35%, with some chatter of the next move being down, not up, despite inflation running way above 2%. Today it’s the turn of new Fed Chair Warsh who, like the other central banks, has to deal with a geopolitical backdrop which may or may not allow for any monetary policy easing.


There, the text of the 14-point US-Iran MoU has been leaked ahead of its Swiss signing ceremony on Friday: ironically, it says “Ease in our time.” It allows Iran to immediately sell oil again, including the waiver of all banking and transport sanctions (though US legislation may prove an obstacle re: IRGC terror designation). It also includes the private sector $300bn investment fund for Iran, which Reuters claims has already been half committed.

What does this imply? It’s either a giant TACO that markets look past the full implications of to embrace; or a can-kick until the midterms (after which what?); or the Middle Eastern dish maqluba –not muqlaba (‘confrontation’)– layers of rice, veggies, and meat prepared one way up, then flipped when served. In other words, a behind-the-scenes-and-rhetoric normalisation from Iran. Ultimately, the proof of that dish is in the eating, and there are still many points to choke on.

NBC reports Iran has continued to fire multiple drones toward ships in Hormuz since the MoU was agreed, with the US shooting them down. The US Navy underlines the Strait still holds “substantial” risk. Insurers therefore remain wary, and as noted yesterday, maritime traffic is more likely to flood out than back in ahead.

Iran is demanding an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, which Israel states it will not and just struck Hezbollah again, with Iran now threatening to respond if Israel continues. Trump yesterday suggested Syria, with a history of looking at Lebanon as its own, should take care of Hezbollah (which the Lebanese government wants to disarm, but is unable to), not Israel. Given Syrian president Al-Sharaa’s Al Qaeda background and links to Turkey, with its history of looking at Syria as part of the Ottoman Empire, this does not seem the panacea some might hope for.

The MoU text is vague on uranium: it “will be adequately addressed in a final agreement.” Again, is it maqluba (a deal, flipping the rice) or muqlaba (no deal, flipping the peace)? China is warning the next phase of US-Iran talks will be “more difficult,” which is very clear.

The US is also weighing boosting ties with the Palestinian Authority as it seeks to advance its Gaza Board of Peace and an expanded Abraham Accords, while Israeli PM Netanyahu is said to be dropping election campaign posters showing him alongside Trump, as his opponents are all as hawkish as him re: Hezbollah and Iran, if not on the Palestinian issue.

In short, there are so many layers of rice, veggies, and meat here that’s not clear if anyone can flip the dish without spilling the food: and that’s just the Middle East, which is a current pivot point within a larger global negotiation.

Read more …

RT has a pro- as well as a counter article.

• Nigel Farage’s ‘White Britain’: A Long-Overdue Step (von Hoffmeister)

Nigel Farage’s recent Substack post lays bare the reality of Britain’s “two-tier” system, where native white Britons face systemic disadvantages in policing, housing, employment, and justice while ethnic minorities receive preferential treatment under the guise of “equality.”


This is not an aberration or a policy glitch. It is the predictable outcome of attempting to impose liberal democracy on a multiracial society. Different ethnic groups possess distinct collective interests rooted in both biology and culture. Where those interests diverge, genuine democracy, meaning rule by the people for the common good, becomes impossible. Only one outcome prevails: the slow disenfranchisement of the historical white majority.

Human beings are not blank slates. Evolution and genetic similarity theory demonstrate that people favor their own ethnic group. This is not “racism”; it is kin selection, an adaptive strategy honed over millennia. Studies of in-group preference, crime statistics, voting patterns, and nepotistic networks across the globe confirm it: most non-white groups operate tribally as a matter of course. Middle Eastern clans, African kinship networks, South Asian extended families, East Asian ethnic solidarity, and Latin American mestizo patronage systems all prioritize “our people” first. This is normal human behavior.

Whites are the glaring exception. Through Christianity’s universalism, Enlightenment individualism, and post-World War II indoctrination via education, media, and elite institutions, Europeans have been brainwashed into viewing themselves solely as atomized individuals. “Race doesn’t matter,” “we’re all the same,” and “diversity is our strength” are articles of faith, not empirical observations. Whites extended this universalism outward – abolishing slavery, spreading human rights, and building institutions based on merit and fair play – only to then have it weaponized against them. Other groups never adopted it; they simply exploited white openness. The result is asymmetric competition: cohesive ethnic blocs practice nepotism, bloc voting, and resource extraction, while whites compete as isolated individuals, handicapped by their own self-imposed scruples.

In a heterogeneous society, this cannot produce a fair democracy. Democracy assumes a shared conception of the public interest. When ethnic groups have irreconcilable preferences – on crime and policing, welfare redistribution, immigration, family structure, time horizons, and cultural dominance – majoritarianism becomes ethnic spoils. Non-White groups act for their tribe’s advantage. Whites, crippled by individualism, appeal to abstract principles that no one else honors. Nepotism always defeats naive individualism in the long run. Look at any Western city with significant demographic change: ethnic enclaves, parallel societies, demands for Sharia accommodations, affirmative action, and reparations. The social whole dissolves.

The West invented the highest expressions of universalism: rule of law applied equally, individual rights, and merit-based advancement. These are noble achievements responsible for unparalleled prosperity and innovation. Yet in a world of group differences, they function as unilateral disarmament. Non-whites import their tribal strategies into open societies while whites cling to universal rules that prevent collective self-defense. Elites, often insulated by wealth, celebrate this as ‘moral progress.’ The autochthonous population pays the price: suppressed wages, strained welfare systems, skyrocketing crime in ‘diverse’ areas, cultural displacement, and two-tier justice.

[..] Whites must rediscover their own ethnic consciousness, not out of supremacy but survival and reciprocity. Rejecting universalist suicide does not require hating others; it requires realism. Other groups pursue their interests unapologetically. Only when whites do the same can stable, high-trust arrangements emerge. Farage’s critique of a two-tier Britain is a starting point. The deeper truth is that without halting demographic replacement and rethinking governance along lines of peoplehood, democracy itself becomes a fiction masking tribal conquest.

This is the hard reality many conservative thinkers have warned about for decades. Pretending otherwise accelerates decline.

Read more …

“The Reform UK leader’s manifesto attacks DEI and immigration, but beneath the outrage lies a thin program built on grievance and biology..”

• Nigel Farage’s ‘White Britain’ is a Fantasy (Graham Hryce)

Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, has published a lengthy personal manifesto on his Substack this week. Farage is not noted for making detailed policy pronouncements, and his long-winded writeup provides an interesting insight into Reform’s policy agenda – revealing, as it does, both its intellectual and political shortcomings. Farage’s manifesto is titled “Britain is a two-tier state – against white people” and it was clearly triggered by the recent Henry Nowak and Stephen Ogilvie cases, in which white British citizens were brutally attacked (and in Nowak’s case, killed) by a Sikh and a Sudanese respectively, neither of whom were illegal immigrants. Farage sets out in detail the circumstances surrounding the Nowak case, and his strident criticisms of the police are entirely valid.


Farage’s central contention is that white people in Britain are treated much less fairly than other ethnic groups, and that the mainstream political parties – he calls them “the establishment parties” – are unwilling to acknowledge the fact that “anti-White racism is embedded into the heart of the state” – because they created this state of affairs and are ideologically committed to maintaining it. Farage sees the “ideology of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI)” and the Equality Act, passed by Labour in 2010 and subsequently strengthened by the Conservatives, as being the main culprits here, and argues that “every section of the state… has been ideologically compromised” by these “toxic ideologies.” According to Farage, this has created a less harmonious and less fair Britain.

Farage claims that this “two-tier state” has created a “two-tier market” in employment, social housing, education, the military, policing, and healthcare – which discriminates against white people, especially the young. Ominously, according to Farage, the situation can only get worse in the future – because while “White Brits” are a sizable majority at present, they “will become a minority in this country before the end of the century.” Notwithstanding this bleak state of affairs, Farage nevertheless maintains that “there is reason for hope” because Reform “has the will and the ability to ensure that no young White person ever has to grow up feeling ashamed of who they are again.”

How precisely does Reform propose to bring about this miraculous social transformation? Farage sets out a number of specific policy proposals that Reform proposes to implement if the party wins government, including the following:
• abolish the Equality Act and prohibit national and local government bodies from implementing DEI policies;
• prevent foreign nationals from having access to welfare benefits;
• ensure that students receive a “balanced and patriotic education” and compel every school to “fly the Union flag” and prominently display a picture of the King;
• restore pride to Britain’s armed forces.

The flimsiness of these policies is obvious, and even if they were implemented, they would do little or nothing to alleviate the serious and longstanding problems that bedevil contemporary Britain – including a declining economy, the cost-of-living crisis, a ballooning public debt, and rising crime rates. Liberal commentators have long been critical of the Equality Act and illiberal ideologies like DEI – and Farage is correct to condemn them and point out how destructive they are of social cohesion. But, even here, Farage underestimates how difficult it will be to abolish them. Britain is still bound by the EU Human Rights Act and a raft of other EU laws, and the UK Supreme Court will fight tooth and nail to retain the status quo.

Read more …

And the people pushing these laws know that very well.

They push “safety for kids” only to get -legal- access to -grown-up- you.

• A Social Media Ban for Minors Requires Data From Everyone (ET)

In debating a social media ban for minors, it appears we face a choice between two perceived harms. One is the reported damage that social media is doing to the mental health of children and adolescents. The other is the normalization of mass age verification systems—most likely involving biometrics—that would apply to everyone, not just minors. This carries real risks of privacy invasion, data breaches, and future mission creep.


There is little dispute that many Western countries have experienced a rise in youth mental health problems beginning around 2010–2012 (when Smartphones and social media exploded). Anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicide rates among adolescents, particularly girls, have increased dramatically since this period. There is disagreement, however, not over whether these spikes exist, but whether they can be attributed specifically to social media. The lingering effects of the pandemic and lockdowns, and family breakdown are just some of the other factors that could be in play.

Data debates aside, most Canadians with common sense and personal experience using social media for prolonged periods of time would admit that doing so is harmful for their mental health, no matter their age. So, what should we do? Whatever steps we take, resorting to broad government-mandated bans and mass surveillance should not be one of them.

Australia offers the clearest real-world test of such a policy. Since its under-16 social media ban took effect on Dec. 10, 2025, platforms operating in the country, including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, X, YouTube, Reddit, Twitch, and Kick, have been required to take “reasonable steps” to prevent users under 16 from creating or maintaining accounts. Platforms guilty of breaching this new law can reach up to AU$49.5 million.

Australia’s legislation “specifically prohibits platforms from compelling Australians to provide a government-issued ID or use an Australian Government accredited digital ID service to prove their age.” To comply with the law, platforms have implemented widespread use of behavioural analysis, device signals, and facial age estimation scans. By mid-December 2025, platforms had already removed access to approximately 4.7 million suspected under-16 accounts.

But large numbers of teenagers quickly found workarounds. Surveys conducted in early 2026 show that more than 60 percent of under-16s who had accounts before the ban continue to access at least one restricted platform. Common methods include using borrowed phones or parents’ ID, fake age declarations, VPNs, and printed mesh masks to fool facial recognition. Without robust age verification systems, therefore, a meaningful ban doesn’t exist. It might initially remove under 16s, but millions of ineligible minors will find a way to return to these platforms, as has taken place in Australia.

This begs an important question: What is the point of an age verification system that is only half effective? This would create a new set of problems including the loss of privacy rights for everyone, without actually solving the underlying problem the legalization is reportedly designed to fix.= Canada is aware of this conundrum. What would Canada do, then, to both kick minors off the platforms and keep them off the platforms? There is no reason to think that parental oversight or enforcement will be any different here than across the Pacific.

One possibility is social media users must submit verification of identity every time they log in to the platform. The most obvious way to do this would be a government-mediated login system. This would essentially grant government an immense amount of metadata about who logs in to what, how often, etc.

Another possibility would be for social media platforms themselves to monitors users’ data, either by periodically scanning faces and matching it to submitted photo ID, or by evaluating user behaviour (i.e., what content is being accessed and predicting the age of users). This would give an immense amount of data to social media companies that, if retained, could lead to significant privacy violations. Imagine a camera monitoring you every time you use Instagram or Facebook. Think about the fact that biometric technology can already be used to predict age based on wrinkles, skin texture and elasticity, facial proportions, eye shape, hairline, and bone structure. Researchers have even found statistical correlations between typing speed, error patterns, touch pressure, and age.

In this latter possibility, Canadians would be handing highly sensitive biometric data (faces, fingerprints, typing style, etc.) to foreign corporations that are subject to foreign laws (U.S. CLOUD Act, Chinese national intelligence law, etc.). These companies can be compelled by their own governments to hand over your personal and identifiable data. This type of data is also permanent. If it gets hacked, leaked, or demanded by a foreign government, you cannot change it like a password.

Finally, a mandatory social media ban for minors under 16 would significantly restrict their ability to access information about the world. Freedom of expression under the Charter section 2(b) includes not only the right to speak, but also the right to receive information. Canadian courts have recognized this in several cases. Social media platforms have become one of the primary ways many young people receive news, public debates, educational content, and diverse viewpoints.

One doesn’t have to be an absolutist to value freedom and privacy, but the fact of the matter is we have not tried alternative strategies that would minimally impair this fundamental freedom of privacy for everyone, and freedom of speech for minors. Yes, facial recognition is already used voluntarily on some platforms (such as dating apps). And a driver’s licence is often required from gambling sites to ensure compliance with the law. But there is a profound difference between choosing to use one of these sites and being required by law to submit biometric data to participate in modern public discourse. The scale is also vastly different.

We should pursue less invasive strategies instead of choosing between an ineffective ban or a robust and draconian one. Aggressive cultural campaigns against early smartphone use, phone-free schools until at least Grade 9 or 10, and better parental control tools have all shown meaningful results for youth mental health in multiple studies. Stronger platform liability for addictive design specifically aimed at children could also be pursued. At the end of the day, parents are responsible for their children’s social media use with or without a law that requires everyone share their digital data. In other words, even if a robust law existed, parents would still be responsible to ensure their children avoid workarounds.

The instinct to protect children is good, but we cannot protect them by quietly dismantling the privacy and freedom of the entire society. The cure must not be worse than the disease.

Read more …

5 eyes.

• Canada is Next Up (CTH)

It is not coincidental that we have seen Australia, New Zealand, the U.K, and now Canada trigger online ‘age verification’ laws; simultaneous with a political push inside the USA to maintain FISA (702) legislation. Separating the USA for a moment. The intelligence services of Australia, New Zealand, U.K and Canada make up four of the intelligence services 5-eyes. In essence, the British Commonwealth is the IC commonality. [Yes, there is some validity to the Lyndon LaRouche perspective (Promethean Action PAC)] Additionally, I would also posit a reminder of the international assembly who structured the originating financial sanctions against Russia; again, a commonality.


Focusing on the most recent political creation in Canada, there are three bills currently being rushed through the Canadian House of Parliament, C-34: keep kids safe on social media; C-36: stronger privacy rules, and C-22: modern tools for police. Not surprisingly, it is difficult to find non-govt-approved information about this legislative construct online. Canadian media must remain compliant with approved government narratives in order to maintain their business model. However, putting together some various information found on non-controlled information sources, it is possible to begin discussion of the situation. The two issues that merge with the greatest impact are Bill C-22: The Surveillance Bill, and Bill C-34: The Children’s Safety Bill.

Bill C-22 requires that all information transmission providers, every telecom and internet company, retain metadata on all Canadian users for up to one year. This is electronic metadata which we all know encompasses a lot more than just content. Signal app, NordVPN, Windscribe, DuckDuckGo, Apple, and Meta have all formally opposed it. Signal app has threatened to leave Canada entirely rather than comply. This is a government mandated metadata storage library on all electronic communication and activity by Canadian users. Then there’s Bill C-34: The Children’s Safety Bill, as noted by Lucy Hargreaves, a bill that ‘Applies to Everyone’, not just kids.

“The government’s social media ban for under-16s is genuinely popular, with 75% of Canadians supporting it in polling. The problem is what it requires in practice. To stop anyone under 16 from creating an account, platforms need to know how old everyone is. There is no way to identify who is under 16 without identifying everyone who isn’t. This means every Canadian adult would need to submit government ID or a face scan to a third-party verification company before posting a photo, using cloud storage, or playing an online game. The bill also creates a new Digital Safety Commission with sweeping powers to set the rules, decide which platforms must comply, and approve or deny exemptions — with almost no criteria written into the law itself.”

“Australia introduced the same social media ban in December 2025. Six months later, the eSafety Commissioner told Parliament she was “not really keen” on it from the start and called it a “blunt force approach” drafted too quickly. 70% of young Australians reported the ban had little effect on their social media use. It didn’t reduce cyberbullying. What it did produce was a surge in VPN use… pushing young people to darker, less-monitored platforms.

The UK implemented age verification under its Online Safety Act in mid-2025. Within one month, VPN downloads hit over two million — the highest ever recorded — and monthly downloads stayed above one million for a year as users raced to bypass the requirement. The EU considered its own version of mandatory message scanning (dubbed “Chat Control”) and its own Parliament voted it down in March 2026, with the EU’s legal service concluding that indiscriminate scanning of private communications is incompatible with fundamental rights.

The government’s core justification for C-22 is that Canada is the “only Five Eyes country” without a lawful access framework. But the United States has no federal mandatory metadata retention law. The EU’s highest court has struck down blanket retention twice as incompatible with human rights. When the Public Safety Minister claimed Canada’s provisions would be “in line with U.S. counterparts,” he was forced to walk back the statement within hours.”

Think about what all the critics (correctly) point out as the bigger issue behind the “age id” social media stuff. What is the unspoken goal of Australia, New Zealand, the U.K and Canada? Ultimately control. Govt online surveillance, correct? Some form of legal, legislated, govt authorized data surveillance that permits law enforcement to have actionable mechanisms, right? If that is indeed the goal, then in the USA we overlay FISA (702). NZ, AU, UK and CA get digital IDs. The USA gets 702. It’s the same basic premise; the same govt motive; the same underpinning reasoning. Just different and nuanced approaches.

Read more …

One more admirer. Part of this story is that the US economy erupted since 2008, while Europe just about stood still. Today, the US looks like paradise to Europeans (no, not the food).

• The World Is Re-Discovering America In the World Cup — and Loving It (Moran)

About 250 years ago, America cast a spell on Europe and the rest of the world. That magic compelled 15-18 million people to uproot themselves and escape war, poverty, crop failures, and political instability to start all over again in the new nation between 1800 and 1900. More than 15 million immigrants arrived in the first 15 years of the 20th century, mostly from Eastern Europe and Russia. Funny how America’s critics gloss over that astonishing fact. Whenever they bother to mention it, they point to the industrial revolution, which created an insatiable demand for labor, as capitalism “enslaved” these unsuspecting workers.


Still, people kept coming. As bad as the left believes America is, people of all races, all religions, and from every nation ignored the portrayal of the United States as a racist, sexist country of white supremacists and came anyway. This is something America’s most vicious critics can’t get around. The people of the world voted with their feet, and while many of us may not like it, the promise America holds for a better life is irresistible. For the next month, more than 1.7 million foreigners will come to America to watch a soccer tournament. It hardly matters why they’re coming. They come with their preconceived notions about the U.S being a horrible place. Their own governments tell them so. American leftists amplify that message.

But once these soccer fans get here, an amazing transformation happens to many of them. They fall in love with the U.S. Perhaps they have relatives who left the old country to come here and have heard about America all their lives. Whatever their preconceptions about the U.S., nothing prepared them for how completely different it is from what they’ve been told or what they imagined. PJ Media editor Chris Queen wrote about this phenomenon last week, chronicling a German tourist’s travels through the South. Many other visitors in the U.S. for soccer find themselves delighted with what they’ve found.

New York Post: “Bright red fire trucks. Walmart’s cathedral of abundance. The miracle of free refills.” These are just a few of the American wonders World Cup tourists are encountering during their travels through the heartland — and they can’t seem to get enough of them. Visitors from all over the world are documenting their journeys across the United States on social media, much to the delight of every American who doesn’t think patriotism is a dirty word.“A place like this could ONLY exist in America and I LOVE it,” posted Sean from Scotland as he toured a Texas Buc-ees in abject astonishment.

“The vibes are insane!” exclaimed Freddy from Germany while road-tripping through Louisiana to New Orleans. Elsa from Sweden is demanding of X, “Why did no one tell me ranch sauce is like crack?” It seems that Gen X and Y had no idea of the “real” America. “One thing I love about the European World Cup tourists right now is that they’re not just being dropped off in the middle of Los Angeles or New York City or some overhyped metropolitan hub that most Americans like myself don’t even like,” X user @realmikolson observed. “They’re being dropped right in the middle of the heart of middle America.”

Fox News: “Olson said international tourists driving nine hours across Texas and experiencing Auburn University fraternity houses are witnessing “overwhelming American kindness.” “A lot of the locals in these areas have no idea who these people are or why they’re even there,” he said, adding that there’s been very little World Cup news or marketing, particularly in small towns.

Nevertheless, he’s heard of instances of restaurant owners driving World Cup fans to games because they can’t find an Uber. A deli owner gave British tourists free lunch “just because they came all this way,” he said. Some Alabama firefighters reportedly gave foreign visitors a tour of their fire department and free merchandise. Of course, there are many Americans who wish the foreigners would just go home and leave us alone. But there are enough Americans still imbued with small-town values and principles that make coming to America an incredibly rich and rewarding experience.

Read more …

Blocking GPS would have a paralyzing effect.

• Russia’s New Warning Shot From Space (Martin Armstrong)

For years, politicians have been obsessed with tanks, artillery, missiles, and troop counts while the real battlefield has quietly moved into space. The latest reports suggesting that Russian satellites may be capable of disrupting GPS signals on a continental scale should be sending shockwaves through military circles. If these findings prove accurate, then we are looking at a capability that extends far beyond simply making a driver’s navigation system malfunction. GPS is embedded in aviation, shipping, banking, telecommunications, emergency services, power grids, financial transactions, military operations, and virtually every aspect of modern infrastructure.


According to researchers, dozens of GPS interference events detected across Europe since 2019 may have originated from Russia’s EKS satellite constellation. These satellites were originally designed as part of Russia’s missile early-warning system, but testing suggests they may also possess the ability to transmit powerful signals capable of disrupting GPS reception across vast regions. The significance is not whether a disruption lasts a few seconds or a few minutes. The significance is proving the concept works. Once a nation demonstrates it can interfere with navigation systems from orbit, the entire strategic equation changes.

What many fail to appreciate is how dependent modern warfare has become on satellite navigation. Precision-guided weapons rely on GPS. Drones rely on GPS. Aircraft, ships, logistics networks, battlefield communications, and intelligence systems all depend on accurate positioning data. Remove that capability and armies suddenly find themselves operating under conditions that resemble an entirely different century. During the Ukraine conflict, both sides have aggressively pursued electronic warfare, jamming systems, and signal disruption technologies. What appears to be emerging now is the possibility of extending those capabilities far beyond localized battlefields and into continental-scale operations.

Financial markets depend on precise timing synchronization. Cellular networks require timing signals to coordinate traffic. Shipping companies use satellite navigation to move trillions of dollars worth of goods annually. Airlines depend on navigation systems to safely manage thousands of flights every day. Even modern agriculture relies heavily on GPS-guided equipment. The public views GPS as a convenience. Governments and corporations know it has become a critical piece of economic infrastructure.

This development also highlights something I have warned about repeatedly. The next major conflict will not resemble the wars of the twentieth century. Future wars will target infrastructure before populations even realize an attack has occurred. A cyberattack can disable communications. A satellite disruption can interfere with transportation networks. Financial systems can be disrupted electronically. Power grids can be targeted remotely. The battlefield increasingly consists of networks, satellites, data centers, and communications systems rather than simply soldiers crossing borders.

The timing is noteworthy. We are entering the most dangerous phase of the geopolitical cycle. The 2026 Panic Cycle year has already begun exposing vulnerabilities across the global system. Relations between Russia and NATO remain strained. The United States and China are engaged in a rapidly escalating technological competition. Military spending is rising globally. Governments everywhere are preparing for contingencies that most citizens never consider. Space is no longer a peaceful frontier. It has become a strategic domain where the major powers are competing for dominance.

What should concern policymakers is not merely that Russia may possess this capability. The real question is how many nations are developing similar systems. The United States, China, Russia, and other powers have invested heavily in electronic warfare, anti-satellite technology, cyberwarfare, and space-based military assets. Every major power understands that controlling information, communications, and navigation systems may prove more decisive than controlling territory itself.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle September 6 2025

Sep 062025
 
 September 6, 2025  Posted by at 9:56 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , ,  37 Responses »


Pablo Picasso The dream 1951

 

• Vance Torches Hypocritical Dems for Targeting RFK (Salgado)
• Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: A Voice That Cannot Be Silenced (Jamie K. Wilson)
• The Grifters’ Lament (James Howard Kunstler)
• A New World Order Where The West Is Optional (Lukyanov)
• Russia Never Turned Its Back On The US – Putin (RT)
• Did Putin Really Threaten Potential Peacekeepers In Ukraine? (RT)
• Ukraine’s Backers Select Non-NATO Forces For Buffer Zone – NBC News (RT)
• US Generals Involved In European Plan To Send 10,000 Troops To Ukraine (RT)
• NATO Troops In Ukraine Would Be ‘Legitimate Targets’ – Putin (RT)
• ECHR ‘Endangers The Existence Of Western Democracies’ (RMX)
• The FBI Corruption Scandal Just Got a Whole Lot Worse (Margolis)
• Letitia James Asks Appeals Court to Reinstate Trump’s $500 Million Penalty (ET)
• Damning New Evidence Emerges in Biden Autopen Scandal (Margolis)
• New Biden Autopen Scandal Bombshell Involves Kamala (Margolis)
• Tesla Offers Musk Unprecedented $1 Trillion Pay Package (ZH)
• President Trump Hosts Tech Executives at White House for Dinner (CTH)

 

 

Gen. Flynn is right: the song is brilliant. And the video too.
It should be no.1 in the British charts.

RFK
https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1963616927982493702


https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1963624700845731852

A complete idiot

Rutte

Medvedev

Musk
https://twitter.com/iam_smx/status/1964127814904316142

 

 

 

 

“We were lied to about everything — we were lied to about natural immunity,” he said. “We were told again and again the vaccines would prevent transmission, [that] they prevent infection. It wasn’t true. They knew it from the start.”

• Vance Torches Hypocritical Dems for Targeting RFK (Salgado)

After Democrat senators made fools out of themselves at a Thursday congressional hearing with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Vice President JD Vance called out the senators for “enriching big pharma” at the expense of Americans. The Big Pharma acolytes have their knives out for Kennedy right now, since he is actually trying to put Americans’ health ahead of corporate kickbacks and pressure. Democrats are particularly manic about the fact that Kennedy backed away from the controversial COVID-19 vaccines. Vance disgustedly posted on X, “When I see all these senators trying to lecture and ‘gotcha’ Bobby Kennedy today all I can think is: You all support off-label, untested, and irreversible hormonal ‘therapies’ for children, mutilating our kids and enriching big pharma. You’re full of shit and everyone knows it.” Kennedy reacted to Vance’s comment:

One of the senators who almost exploded spontaneously from fury at Kennedy was Elizabeth “Fauxcahontas” Warren, who came in full war paint, ready to tomahawk Kennedy for no longer unequivocally recommending the COVID-19 vaccines to every age group. “If you don’t recommend then the consequence of that in many states is that you can’t walk into a pharmacy and get one. It means insurance companies don’t have to cover the $200 or so cost,” she said. “As senator — doctor Cassidy said, you are effectively denying people vaccines.” Kennedy countered, “We’re not going to recommend a product for which there’s no clinical data for that indication. Is that what I should be doing?” He later exposed exactly why Warren is beside herself.

“And I know you’ve taken $855,000 from pharmaceutical companies, senator!” As Rush Limbaugh always said, follow the money. Warren apparently doesn’t care whether any safety and efficacy tests were done as long as she gets kickbacks. Perhaps that is also why Democrats are so enthusiastically behind unscientific transgender “treatments.” Secretary Kennedy also ripped apart those in the medical, scientific, and political communities who falsely framed untested and ultimately harmful COVID-19 policies as incontrovertible science. “We were lied to about everything — we were lied to about natural immunity,” he said. “We were told again and again the vaccines would prevent transmission, [that] they prevent infection. It wasn’t true. They knew it from the start.”

In fact, Kennedy stated, “It wasn’t true because that’s what the animal studies in the clinical trial showed. We were told that there was science behind cloth masks. The CDC allowed the teachers unions to write the order closing our schools, which hurt working people all over the country, and then pretend it was science-based.” But it turned out that was very far from the truth. And how many children suffered because of it? Nor can any alleged vaccine benefit be quantified, Kennedy said, because of the “data chaos at CDC.” He bluntly asked, “Did it save a million lives? Well, there’s no data to support that, or … there’s no studies, …there’s faulty data. I’m not going to sign on to something if I can’t make it to a scientific certainty. It doesn’t mean that I’m, you know, anti-vax, it just means I’m pro-science.”

Read more …

Lovely portrait. Is it the female touch?!

• Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: A Voice That Cannot Be Silenced (Jamie K. Wilson)

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. does not sound like other politicians. Where others glide on polished cadence, his words arrive jagged and rasping, sometimes strangled mid-syllable as though each one must be forced out against resistance. For many, the sound is jarring. For him, it is a daily war. Kennedy suffers from spasmodic dysphonia, a rare neurological disorder of the voice. In this condition, the brain misfires signals to the larynx, causing the vocal cords to spasm uncontrollably just as they’re needed for speech. Instead of vibrating smoothly, they seize up, clamp shut, or flutter open at the wrong moment. The result is a broken, strangled voice — not from weakness of will, but from muscles betraying the speaker at the most intimate moment of communication.

The mechanics are cruel enough. But what it feels like is worse. Patients describe it as trying to talk while someone presses fingers into their throat. The words are fully formed in the mind, yet trapped in the larynx. Each syllable becomes a contest of strength, like forcing air through a blocked pipe. The effort leaves muscles sore and the speaker fatigued, as if a long run had been crammed into a two-minute conversation. And layered over the physical strain is the constant social pressure: the sideways looks, the assumption that the speaker is nervous, drunk, or evasive. Most who live with this condition retreat. They limit calls, avoid public speaking, or slip quietly out of leadership roles. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. did not.

He was diagnosed in the late 1990s at Massachusetts General Hospital after years of legal advocacy had already begun to strain his voice. Treatments exist — botulinum toxin injections that temporarily paralyze the spasming muscles, voice therapy to retrain breathing — but none are permanent. Every few months, the fight resets. For most patients, the disorder is enough to narrow their lives. Kennedy chose the opposite: to live in the open arena of public speech, and to keep showing up even when every sentence feels like lifting a stone uphill.

That persistence is not simply personal grit; it’s leadership. Kennedy’s willingness to endure visible and audible struggle in order to be heard demonstrates the same force of will he applies to his causes: a refusal to be silenced, even when silence would be easier. Where his father and uncle were remembered for soaring oratory, he is remembered for the determination it takes to simply finish a sentence. And in that difference lies a different kind of strength.

Which is why it was especially ugly to see The Daily Beast sneer at his “Darth Vader breathing” during Senate testimony. This was not satire or cleverness, but cruelty: mocking a man for a neurological disorder that makes every sentence a battle. The same media class that congratulates itself for “amplifying marginalized voices” revealed its hypocrisy by jeering at the very act of persistence. Kennedy’s strained cadence is not an affectation. It is authenticity, and their contempt shows how little of it they can bear.

But wait, there’s more. That hearing centered on the COVID vaccine — and many of the senators shouting Kennedy down were the same ones who, during the Biden years, colluded with media and tech giants to muzzle scientists and doctors who questioned its safety or proposed alternatives. They silenced debate then, and now, faced with a man whose own body fights to silence him, they fall back on the same tactic: shouting, jeering, and trying to drown him out, even as his own body seeks to silence him.

Kennedy’s voice, then, is more than sound. It has become a metaphor for freedom of speech itself. Just as his body tries to choke off his words, powerful institutions try to silence dissenting voices. Just as his disorder demands greater effort to be heard, so too does speaking uncomfortable truths in an age of censorship, cancellation, and corporate propaganda. Every phrase he utters, forced through pain, echoes the larger struggle to preserve open expression in a society and culture where free speech grows more fragile by the year.

He is no victim. His broken voice is his banner — the scar that testifies to endurance. It is impossible to fake authenticity at this cost. In a political age of spin and slogan, Kennedy’s strangled cadence carries a weight others cannot match: it is the sound of someone who refuses to surrender his voice, no matter how hard the world — or his own body — tries to take it away. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. embodies the First Amendment in flesh and blood: freedom of speech under siege, battered but unbroken, still alive because one man wills it to be so. His voice is more than a condition. It is a witness.

Read more …

“We are the sickest country in the world. That’s why we have to fire people at the CDC … They did not do their job! This was their job to keep us healthy!” —Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

• The Grifters’ Lament (James Howard Kunstler)

What a gruesome spectacle it was to see HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. take on a conclave of vicious grifters on the Senate Finance Committee straining to warp reality in defense of their mighty patron, the nation-wrecking pharmaceutical companies. Do you understand how deep, convoluted, and grave the political sickness is? Over the years, the public health agencies and “big pharma” had evolved into a symbiotic vector driving the nation into chronic illness. They allowed the population to poison themselves on a diet of corn syrup, engineered snack foods, and chemical additives. Result: epidemic obesity, diabetes, and many other illnesses. To counter that, they dosed everybody to-the-max with sketchily-tested pharma products while the agency employees raked in royalties and pharma got a get-outa-jail-free card in the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) — legal liability cancelled.

Then, they all badly mis-stepped, conniving in the Covid-19 operation, a still poorly-comprehended scheme to punk the American people and enable mail-in ballot fraud to steal the 2020 election. First, there was Dr. Fauci’s years’ long effort to hatch a novel corona virus, Covid-19, in labs here and overseas. Then, there was the opportune release of the virus in 2019. Then, the pharma response to the virus: a “miracle” mRNA vaccine that was likely already developed in secret, even before Operation Warp Speed was acted-out to pretend that pharma just came up with it. And, of course, there was President Trump 1.0 getting hosed by his Covid Response Team (Fauci, Birx, et al.) on all this.

Thus, you have that battery of US Senators all paid handsomely by Pharma to defend the industry with hysterical obfuscation against the lone figure, Mr. Kennedy, striving to correct all that fantastic corruption. He retorted to their malign nonsense honorably, revealing their conflicts of interest, their cupidity, the bales of dollars paid by pharma to the likes of Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and the rest over the years, and their longstanding silence on the afore-mentioned poisoning and drugging of America.

Incidentally, to understand how this grift got so exorbitant, look to the unfortunate 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (558 U.S. 310). In a 5-4 ruling (by majority conservative justices, then including Alito, Thomas, and Scalia), SCOTUS decided that previous prohibitions on corporate money in election campaigns were unconstitutional because corporations enjoy legal status as persons, that is, as citizens, and giving money to election campaigns is a form of free speech under the first Amendment, which can’t be abridged by any law.

And so, the spigot opened on vast fortunes laid on politicians by corporations seeking to protect their interests. If anything went to warp speed, it was the Beltway lobbying industry. The Citizens United decision was a singular tragedy for our country. The legal reasoning behind it was specious because corporations, unlike real human citizens, do not have duties, obligations, and responsibilities to the nation, entailed in their citizenship. Rather, corporations have duties, obligations, and responsibilities solely (and explicitly in law) to their shareholders, whose interests are not necessarily consistent with the public interest. Why has no one noticed this?

Read more …

“The West is retreating inward, shifting to a defensive crouch – sometimes aggressively so – and in the process cutting itself off from much of the world.”

• A New World Order Where The West Is Optional (Lukyanov)

Historical anniversaries often provide the backdrop for diplomacy to become spectacle. This week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Tianjin was deliberately staged ahead of China’s grand parade marking 80 years since the end of World War II. Beijing, the host, made sure the symbolism landed. The timing also underscored the contrast with Washington: Donald Trump, who has long admired military parades, is already planning a lavish one next July for America’s 250th anniversary, after his low-key attempt last summer fell flat. For the SCO itself, the Tianjin meeting carried weight comparable to last year’s BRICS summit in Kazan. Documents were signed, but as always the road from declarations to implementation will be long. What mattered most was setting a benchmark. In international politics, the very act of gathering matters as much as the outcomes.

By inertia, many still measure importance by whether Western powers are in the room. For decades, world affairs were shaped by East-West confrontation in the Cold War, and then by the unilateral primacy of the US and its allies. Membership of the G7 (at one time G8) was once the crown jewel of global respectability. Even the G20, designed to reflect a more diverse world, remained dominated by Western influence over its agenda. Meetings without the West were seen as parochial or symbolic. That perception is now outdated. The real turning point came last year – first at BRICS, now at the SCO. Both groupings, very different in composition, are drawing growing interest. Countries are applying to join or at least to participate. Simply appearing at these forums has become prestigious, and the corridor diplomacy surrounding them allows for meetings that are otherwise difficult to arrange.

The shift is not just about Russia. The attempt by Western governments to isolate Moscow after the escalation in Ukraine has backfired. Instead of leaving Russia in the cold, it accelerated the formation of what is now described as the “global majority.” Many states do not want to submit to anyone else’s political logic. They follow their own calculations of interest and expediency. Structures once mocked in the West as artificial, jealous imitations of Western clubs – BRICS and the SCO foremost among them – are now becoming indispensable. They are no longer simply ideological counters to hegemony, but practical platforms. This explains efforts to expand the BRICS New Development Bank and to set up an SCO Development Bank. These institutions will not rival the IMF or World Bank immediately, but the trajectory is clear: to build alternatives that bypass Western gatekeepers.

The West finds this almost impossible to digest. For Washington and Brussels, any institution outside their control looks like a threat, a conspiracy “against democracy.” In fact, the opposite is taking place. The West is retreating inward, shifting to a defensive crouch – sometimes aggressively so – and in the process cutting itself off from much of the world. The formula that has gained currency in Moscow – “not against the West, but without it” – is finally becoming reality.

Read more …

“The two-headed eagle, one of our national symbols, looks both ways,” Putin said, referencing Russia’s coat of arms. “Did we turn our backs on anyone? We did not. The eagle looks both ways just like always.”

• Russia Never Turned Its Back On The US – Putin (RT)

Moscow remains open to economic cooperation with the United States, and American businesses could benefit from joint projects if Washington allows it, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Friday at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok. “The two-headed eagle, one of our national symbols, looks both ways,” Putin said, referencing Russia’s coat of arms. “Did we turn our backs on anyone? We did not. The eagle looks both ways just like always.” Putin said US companies have expressed an interest in projects and proposed joint natural gas production in Alaska. “They have resources, and we have extraction and liquefaction technologies that are significantly more efficient than what our American partners have,” he said. Putin said American and Russian companies are eager to cooperate, should the US government give the green light.

The Russian leader added that opportunities also exist in the Arctic. “Together with our Chinese friends, we discussed possible three-way operations in our Arctic fields that can be done right now,” he said. “Those proposals are on the table and require a political decision.” US President Donald Trump has argued that expanding economic cooperation with Russia is in America’s best interest, but the Ukraine conflict continues to stand in the way of the normalization of relations. Earlier this week, Kirill Dmitriev, Putin’s aide on international economic affairs who is directly involved in talks with the US, said trilateral Arctic ventures involving Russia, the US and China could ease geopolitical tensions among the three powers.

Read more …

We’re talking about two very different situations: 1) before a peace treaty, and 2) after a peace treaty. Before, any troops are a threat to Russia. After, it’s different. First, because as Putin says, no troops are needed. When there is a treaty, Russia will stick by it. Second, because the west appears sensible enough to agree sending non-NATO troops.

There’s talk of Bangla Deshi and Saudi peacekeeping troops. If the will is there, so is the solution. But of course, there’s still people like Rutte, who says it’s none of Russia’s business what troops are in Ukraine. Yes it is.

• Did Putin Really Threaten Potential Peacekeepers In Ukraine? (RT)

When Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke on Friday, he issued his familiar warning: any foreign troops entering Ukraine during active fighting would be considered “legitimate targets.” Yet Western media ran with a drastically different narrative – suggesting he was threatening peacekeepers, not just combatants. That framing missed a crucial distinction. In the same remarks, Putin separately addressed the idea of postwar peacekeeping forces, saying they would be unnecessary once a settlement was reached. Within hours, Western headlines turned those words into something much starker – a supposed threat against European “peacekeepers.” By erasing the context that Putin had separated conflict intervention from postwar scenarios, much of the press presented a conditional statement as intimidating.

1) What Putin actually said Putin’s remarks drew a clear line between two situations. Speaking of the conflict as it stands, he said: “If some troops appear there [in Ukraine], especially now during military operations, we proceed from the fact that these will be legitimate targets for destruction.” This was a reiteration of Russia’s long-stated position: any foreign forces fighting alongside Kiev would be treated as combatants. Later, he addressed the idea of international peacekeepers in the event of a settlement: “And if decisions are reached that lead to peace, to long-term peace, then I simply do not see any sense in their presence on the territory of Ukraine, full stop.” In other words, once hostilities end, the presence of foreign troops would be irrelevant because they would not be needed – not because they would be attacked.

2) What Western media reported The Washington Post explicitly collapsed the two scenarios, writing that “any foreign military troops deployed to Ukraine – even for peacekeeping – would be considered targets.” By inserting “peacekeeping” into the “legitimate targets” line, the paper presented Putin as threatening stabilizing forces that might only arrive after a settlement. The Financial Times published the headline: “Foreign troops in Ukraine would be ‘legitimate targets’ for Russia, Putin warns.” While the article noted elsewhere that Putin dismissed the need for peacekeepers after a deal, the headline stripped away the condition and implied a sweeping threat.

The BBC headlined its story: “Putin says EU troops in Ukraine would be legitimate targets.” Without the qualifier “during military operations,” the piece left readers with the impression that all EU deployments, including peacekeepers, would be targeted. The Guardian summed it up as: “Putin threatens Western troops in Ukraine.” Again, no mention of the wartime vs. postwar distinction, effectively merging peacekeepers and combatants into a single hostile category. In each case, coverage framed Putin as if he had rejected any Western presence in Ukraine, even under a peace deal. The nuance – that his threat applied only to wartime combatants – was stripped away.

3) Why it mattersThis shift in framing has significant consequences. Diplomatically, it paints Russia as unwilling to tolerate even postwar stabilization forces, which narrows the range of perceived options for negotiation. For public opinion, it reinforces the view that Moscow is hostile, potentially hardening attitudes against ceasefire or peacekeeping initiatives. And for journalism itself, it illustrates how stripping away conditions in pursuit of the narrative can distort meaning and erode trust.

4) Bottom line Putin’s remarks drew a clear boundary: foreign soldiers fighting in Ukraine during the conflict would be treated as legitimate targets, while peacekeepers after a settlement would be unnecessary. By collapsing those two scenarios into one, Western media reframed a conditional warning into a sweeping threat – turning a repeat of long-standing policy into another headline of Russian aggression.

Read more …

“..foreign soldiers would either become targets for Russian forces during hostilities or serve no purpose if a genuine peace agreement were reached..”

• Ukraine’s Backers Select Non-NATO Forces For Buffer Zone – NBC News (RT)

Kiev’s European backers want the US to oversee a buffer zone between Russia and Ukraine in the event of a peace deal, with troops from non-NATO countries such as Bangladesh or Saudi Arabia potentially deployed on the ground, NBC News reported Friday, citing anonymous sources. According to the outlet, Washington’s role would be to use drones, satellites, and other intelligence capabilities to monitor conditions and coordinate with participating nations. Moscow has repeatedly rejected the idea of foreign troops in Ukraine as part of any peace settlement.

Politico previously outlined the same proposal for a buffer zone, suggesting involvement of third-party states but not naming them, and indicating that French and British troops could make up much of the force. A former Pentagon official told the outlet the plan reflected Kiev’s European backers “grasping at straws.” On Friday, Russian President Vladimir Putin again stressed Moscow’s opposition, warning that foreign soldiers would either become targets for Russian forces during hostilities or serve no purpose if a genuine peace agreement were reached. He added that “the West’s dragging of Ukraine into NATO was one of the causes of the conflict” and said any settlement would have to include security guarantees for both Russia and Ukraine.

On Tuesday, Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky met with members of the “coalition of the willing,” the group of nations supplying Kiev with weapons and promising security commitments in the event of a resolution with Russia. Most of them have publicly ruled out putting their own forces on the ground. Meanwhile, Moscow has said it plans to establish its own buffer zone along parts of the border to protect Russian civilians, particularly in Kursk and Bryansk regions. Putin noted in May that Ukrainian forces often target non-military assets, including homes and civilian vehicles such as ambulances and farm equipment, which he said made such measures necessary.

Read more …

Does this sound like a peace treaty to you?

“..two groups of forces that are to be sent to Ukraine, according to the report. One of them would be tasked with training and assistance to the Ukrainian military, while the second would serve as a “reassurance force” for Kiev.”

• US Generals Involved In European Plan To Send 10,000 Troops To Ukraine (RT)

Top US military officials have been involved in drawing up a plan for “security guarantees” for Kiev advocated by Paris and London that includes a massive troop deployment to Ukraine, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday, citing a European diplomat. The scheme drawn up primarily by European army chiefs includes two groups of forces that are to be sent to Ukraine, according to the report. One of them would be tasked with training and assistance to the Ukrainian military, while the second would serve as a “reassurance force” for Kiev. The troops are to be deployed once Moscow and Kiev reach a peace deal. A total of 26 nations agreed to contribute to “security guarantees” for Ukraine in various ways, French President Emmanuel Macron said earlier this week, following a meeting of the so-called ‘coalition of the willing’ – a group of Kiev’s European backers.

The current commitments would allow for a deployment of over 10,000 troops to Ukraine, the WSJ source said, adding that the plan “received input from some US generals,” including the US head of the NATO Allied Command Operations. The level of US involvement in the scheme remains unclear, the report said, adding that there have been no clear statements from President Donald Trump. Russia has expressed strong opposition to any NATO troop deployment to Ukraine. On Friday, President Vladimir Putin warned that foreign soldiers would either become targets for Russian forces or serve no purpose if a genuine peace agreement were reached.

He added that “the West’s dragging of Ukraine into NATO was one of the causes of the conflict” and said any settlement would have to include security guarantees for both Russia and Ukraine. NBC News also reported on Friday that Kiev’s European backers want troops from non-NATO countries such as Bangladesh or Saudi Arabia to be sent to a “buffer zone” between Russia and Ukraine overseen by the US in the event of a peace deal.

Read more …

“Nobody should doubt that Russia would implement the agreed terms fully. We will respect security guarantees that both Russia and Ukraine need to be offered.”

• NATO Troops In Ukraine Would Be ‘Legitimate Targets’ – Putin (RT)

Any Western troops deployed to Ukraine would either become legitimate targets for Russian forces while hostilities continue or irrelevant in the event of a peace deal, President Vladimir Putin said on Friday. Speaking at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, Putin commented on the recent meeting of Ukraine’s European backers – dubbed the “coalition of the willing” – in Paris. He reiterated Moscow’s opposition to the group’s proposals for the deployment of troops to Ukraine. “The West’s dragging of Ukraine into NATO was one of the causes of the conflict. If any troops show up now, while the hostilities are ongoing, we would consider them legitimate military targets,” Putin said. “If decisions are made that result in long-term peace, then I simply see no sense in such a presence,” he added. “Nobody should doubt that Russia would implement the agreed terms fully. We will respect security guarantees that both Russia and Ukraine need to be offered.”

Putin also noted that Kiev’s backers have not seriously discussed security guarantees with Moscow. The coalition – including the UK, France, Germany, and other European nations providing weapons to Kiev – is weighing possible security commitments, although many of its members have publicly rejected sending ground forces to Ukraine. Earlier this week, former Polish President Andrzej Duda said the Ukrainian leadership is “dreaming” of drawing NATO into a direct war with Russia. He referred to a 2022 incident when a Ukrainian missile struck a Polish border village, killing one person, and Kiev swiftly accused Moscow of attacking the member of the US-led military bloc.

Read more …

“European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is undermining national sovereignty by creating what he called a “de facto right to immigration through the back door.”

• ECHR ‘Endangers The Existence Of Western Democracies’ (RMX)

Hans-Jürgen Papier, Germany’s former chief justice and one of the country’s most senior legal scholars, has warned that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is undermining national sovereignty by creating what he called a “de facto right to immigration through the back door.” The 82-year-old Ludwig Maximilian University professor, who led Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court at the start of Angela Merkel’s chancellorship, told The Times newspaper that a growing body of asylum case law from national courts and the ECHR in Strasbourg had created an “ever deeper reaching and ever more closely meshed agglomeration” of rulings. These, he said, were now “settling like mildew over the states’ political power to take action.” In his view, the result has been a dramatic broadening of the right to asylum, far beyond what was originally intended under the Geneva Convention.

“The citizens expect those with political responsibility to revise the asylum policies to suit the changed circumstances. But that is in danger of failing because of the ossification of a body of law that is getting increasingly rarefied and ultimately looks irreversible to many politicians,” he said. Papier criticized the way European courts have interpreted Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR — the rights against inhuman treatment and to family life — to block deportations, including cases where asylum seekers could face homelessness or irregular work in other EU states. “That simply goes too far,” he argued. “Here, human dignity is being treated like small change and thereby robbed of its special dignified status.”

The former judge warned that the overzealous application of human rights laws by the ECHR was “generally destroying the European citizen’s trust in the capacity of their democratic institutions to act, and so at the end of the day endangering the existence of Western democracies.” He called for reforms to the ECHR itself, though he admitted this was unlikely given the need for consensus among all 46 Council of Europe states. Instead, he suggested that the EU or national parliaments draft a “precisely formulated law of migration” that would reduce judges’ scope for interpretation and return asylum rights to the original Geneva standards.

Among his proposals are electronic asylum visas for those with a realistic chance of success, strict annual ceilings on “subsidiary protection” — a weaker asylum status covering people at risk of violence or hardship — and potential third-country solutions for processing applications abroad. Papier has long been a critic of what he sees as Europe’s open-border approach. In an op-ed for the Bild newspaper in November 2023, he warned that “essentially nothing has changed” since the 2015 migration crisis. He accused Germany of allowing migrants to bypass the Dublin Regulation, which requires asylum seekers to lodge claims in the first EU country they enter, and insisted that Berlin should move “as quickly as possible” to introduce clear and enforceable rules.

“It is not about affecting the right to asylum for people who are actually being persecuted,” he wrote, “it is about protecting this right from being abused for reasons that are clearly unrelated to asylum.”

Read more …

“While Hunter Biden was collecting millions from Chinese energy interests, a corrupt FBI official was sabotaging the investigation that might have exposed the entire scheme.”

• The FBI Corruption Scandal Just Got a Whole Lot Worse (Margolis)

Just when you thought the web of corruption surrounding the Biden family’s foreign dealings couldn’t get any more tangled, along comes a bombshell revelation that exposes how deep the rot truly goes within our federal law enforcement agencies. According to a new Justice Department Inspector General report, Charles McGonigal, the former head of the FBI’s New York counterintelligence division, leaked sensitive details about a criminal investigation into CEFC China Energy—the same Chinese conglomerate that funneled millions to Hunter Biden.Let’s be crystal clear about what happened here. While the FBI was secretly investigating CEFC China for criminal activity, McGonigal was simultaneously tipping off the very people they were pursuing. He admitted during a November 2023 proffer session that he warned an associate of the Chinese energy giant about upcoming arrests and shared classified investigative details. His exact words to this individual, known as “Person B,” were that he “made it perfectly clear” that CEFC-related figures would be arrested.

Just the News has more: “McGonigal, who was sentenced in December 2023 for money laundering related to a Russian oligarch, met with prosecutors in November 2023 and “acknowledged during the proffer interview that he shared information with Person B about the CEFC investigation and anticipated arrests arising from it.” “The DOJ watchdog said that “Person B was a consultant to foreign governments and businesses on international investments, and, in addition to his work for CEFC China, Person B was a non-governmental advisor to the Prime Minister of Albania.”

Horowitz assessed that “although the full extent of the harm from McGonigal’s leaks of sensitive investigative information to foreign subjects and targets will likely never be fully known, we determined that the impact of McGonigal’s conduct on the CEFC investigation, a significant FBI criminal investigation, was substantial.” Hunter Biden and his associated businesses are also believed to have received $5 million or more in payments from CEFC in 2017 and 2018, and CEFC Chairman Ye Jianming’s deputy, Patrick Ho, also agreed to pay Biden, the son of former President Joe Biden, a $1 million legal retainer after Ho was eventually arrested. Hunter referred to him as “the f***ing spy chief of China” in a May 11, 2018, voice recording.

Inspector General Michael Horowitz didn’t mince words about the damage McGonigal caused. He assessed that these leaks inflicted “substantial” harm on a significant criminal investigation, emphasizing that the full extent of the damage will likely never be known. Think about that for a moment—we may never understand how badly this betrayal compromised national security and ongoing investigations. McGonigal’s corruption extends far beyond these China-related leaks. He faced multiple charges for accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars from individuals with European business ties and foreign intelligence connections. In December 2023, he was sentenced to fifty months in prison for conspiring to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and money laundering, specifically related to his work for sanctioned Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska in 2021.

The pattern here is undeniable. A senior FBI counterintelligence official was simultaneously working for foreign interests while protecting those same interests from American law enforcement. Meanwhile, the Biden family was getting rich off deals with the very Chinese energy company that McGonigal was protecting from federal investigation. This isn’t just another Washington corruption story—it’s a national security nightmare that reaches the highest levels of government. While Hunter Biden was collecting millions from Chinese energy interests, a corrupt FBI official was sabotaging the investigation that might have exposed the entire scheme.

Read more …

Is she just playing for time?

• Letitia James Asks Appeals Court to Reinstate Trump’s $500 Million Penalty (ET)

New York Attorney General Letitia James filed an appeal on Sept. 4 of a court ruling that threw out an estimated $500 million penalty in President Donald Trump’s business fraud case. James’s office filed a notice of appeal with the New York Supreme Court in Manhattan, indicating an appeal was being launched with the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals of the State of New York, on behalf of the state. The brief notice does not spell out arguments from James as to why the appeal should be allowed. The filing came after a ruling on Aug. 21 by the New York Appellate Division’s First Judicial Department, a branch of the New York Supreme Court, tossed the penalty in a fractured ruling but left the civil judgment against Trump undisturbed. The case concerned allegations that the Trump Organization was involved in financial fraud by misrepresenting property values.

The trial judge, New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron, ruled against Trump in February 2024, issuing a judgment of more than $460 million, with interest accruing. Trump posted a bond of $175 million, and the appeals process moved forward in the New York Appellate Division’s First Judicial Department. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment issued by Engoron, but the panel of five judges was divided, filing three separate opinions, including partial dissents. Two of the jurists—Justices Peter Moulton and Dianne Renwick—said they thought James “acted well within her lawful power in bringing this action, and that she vindicated a public interest in doing so.” However, both disagreed with the high-dollar penalty.

Moulton said in a concurring opinion that the lower court’s penalty order “is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.” Justices John Higgitt and Llinet Rosado joined an opinion saying Engoron’s judgment should be vacated and a new trial ordered. Justice David Friedman criticized James, saying she was focused on “political hygiene, ending with the derailment of President Trump’s political career and the destruction of his real estate business.” He said that the court’s ruling “unanimously derails the effort to destroy his business.”

Trump hailed the Appellate Division ruling in an Aug. 21 post on Truth Social, saying he achieved “total victory” and that he was “so honored by Justice David Friedman’s great words of wisdom.” James lauded the Appellate Division ruling when it came out. “The First Department today affirmed the well-supported finding of the trial court: Donald Trump, his company, and two of his children are liable for fraud,” she said on X. “The court upheld the injunctive relief we won, limiting Donald Trump and The Trump Organization officers’ ability to do business in New York.” It is unclear when the Court of Appeals of the State of New York will act on the appeal.

Read more …

“Biden’s team ran a shadow presidency, making major decisions while their boss stayed clueless, and in the process, they shredded any pretense of accountability.”

• Damning New Evidence Emerges in Biden Autopen Scandal (Margolis)

Fresh revelations about Joe Biden’s autopen scandal paint a picture so damning that even his most loyal defenders should be squirming in their seats. Internal emails obtained by the New York Post show a White House in complete disarray, with staff frantically scrambling to figure out whether Biden actually knew what documents were being signed in his name. The timeline alone should make every American’s blood boil. On Jan. 11, Biden allegedly gave verbal approval for commuting the sentences of crack cocaine offenders. But those documents weren’t signed until Jan. 17, and only after a series of panicked late-night emails between White House staff trying to establish some semblance of proper authorization.

Staff Secretary Stef Feldman, clearly the only adult in the room, demanded verification of Biden’s approval before allowing the autopen to do its work. At 9:16 p.m. on Jan. 16, she wrote to Biden’s aides, “I’ll need an [email] from [Deputy Assistant to the President Rosa Po] confirming the president’s sign-off on the specific documents when they are finalized.” But here’s where it gets really ugly. Deputy White House Counsel Tyeesha Dixon forwarded concerns to Chief of Staff Michael Posada, asking, “Michael, any thoughts on how to address this?” Most tellingly, Dixon noted in her email that “the president did not review the warrants.” The expectation that autopen would handle Biden’s pardons and commutations says everything about how his White House operated and raises legitimate questions about who was really running the country.

Staffers routinely mechanically applied Biden’s signature to legal documents, and now we know his own counsel admitted he never actually reviewed what he was supposedly signing. Among those benefiting from this constitutional chaos was Russell McIntosh, a 51-year-old involved in the 1999 murder of a woman and her two-year-old child in North Carolina. This is the caliber of individual Biden’s team was cutting loose while the president remained blissfully unaware of the specifics. The Justice Department wasn’t faring any better. Here’s more from the Post:

“The emails also indicate Justice Department confusion on how to carry out Biden’s orders — with the department not receiving names of the roughly 2,500 affected inmates from the White House until after the public announcement and then quibbling with the content of the files. DOJ veterans expressed concerns about the fact that some of the commutation recipients were violent criminals — and also raised questions about whether the wording of one of three of Biden’s clemency warrants rendered the grants null and void. That document said offenders were having their punishments reduced for “offenses described to the Department of Justice,” without any specifics. DOJ official Elysa Wan wrote to Dixon, English and White House associate counsel DeAnna Evans on the evening of Jan. 17: “We do not know how to interpret ‘offenses described to the Department of Justice.’ Could you please clarify?”

Then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bradley Weinsheimer wrote to Dixon and Evans on Jan. 18 that he too was concerned about the vague wording of the clemency warrants impacting dozens of more serious cases. This wasn’t a fluke or a simple mistake. Biden’s team ran a shadow presidency, making major decisions while their boss stayed clueless, and in the process, they shredded any pretense of accountability. This was a full-blown constitutional crisis. Americans should be furious.

Read more …

“Kamala effectively exercised presidential power without constitutional authority, creating one of the gravest constitutional crises in modern history.”

• New Biden Autopen Scandal Bombshell Involves Kamala (Margolis)

The Biden autopen scandal just got even worse, and this time Kamala Harris finds herself squarely in the crosshairs.The Trump administration’s investigation into former president Joe Biden’s reliance on the autopen has unearthed internal White House memos that reveal something far more damaging than anyone initially suspected: Biden wasn’t just using the autopen to sign documents—he was effectively handing over presidential power to his vice president, who had no constitutional authority to wield it. In the earliest days of Biden’s presidency, White House Staff Secretary Jess Hertz circulated a draft memo that should alarm every American. Just the News obtained and reviewed the documents, which recommended that Biden “personally approve and hand-sign all decisions that require presidential action,” particularly when it came to pardons.

You have to wonder why such a memo was even necessary. From the very start, those closest to Biden knew he wasn’t capable of handling the most basic responsibilities of the office, and decisions normally reserved for the president were being delegated to others. By Biden’s final year in office, even that minimal safeguard had collapsed. Internal memos obtained by the Trump White House reveal that Biden was increasingly deferring to Kamala Harris on clemency decisions. A particularly damning February 2024 memo from Biden’s White House Counsel’s office noted that while Biden had previously asked to discuss pardon candidates personally, the process had shifted to the point where “the Vice President’s approval was sufficient to obtain his approval.”

The Constitution grants the power to “grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States” exclusively to the president—yet Biden was outsourcing this authority to Kamala Harris, who had no constitutional right to exercise it. The National Archives has been unable to find records proving Biden attended four crucial clemency meetings in late 2024 and early 2025. These sessions covered commutations for federal death row inmates, CARES Act recipients, and even controversial preemptive pardons for Biden family members. Despite retroactive emails claiming Biden was present, the Archives found “no specific meeting notes that clearly mention or note that the President was present” for any of them.

Even more troubling, Biden’s clemency decision memo on federal death row cases remains completely unmarked, with no version indicating presidential approval. Yet 37 commutations were signed and executed. If Biden didn’t approve them, who exactly was running the country? The scope of this deception becomes clearer when you look at the numbers. According to the Pew Research Center, Biden granted 4,245 acts of clemency during his tenure—more than any president in history. And based on internal memos, Kamala may have been the one driving that process. Do you remember when Biden tried to dismiss the autopen scandal back in June? He said, “I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn’t is ridiculous and false.”

But these documents from his own White House now contradict that claim. That’s not a misunderstanding—it’s a cover-up. The Trump administration’s investigation is only beginning, but the evidence already points to a scandal that reaches the very top of the former administration. Kamala effectively exercised presidential power without constitutional authority, creating one of the gravest constitutional crises in modern history. Even more damning, it shows she knew Biden was mentally unfit all along. While she publicly denied his decline, behind the scenes she was actively complicit in deceiving the American people about his health and his ability to govern.

Read more …

This is not about cars. It’s the Optimus personal robot.

• Tesla Offers Musk Unprecedented $1 Trillion Pay Package (ZH)

The same leftist activist judge who torpedoed Elon Musk’s Tesla pay deal earlier this year will likely go berserk over the company’s latest plan: a jaw-dropping 10-year, $1 trillion compensation package for the billionaire. This is the largest in the history of corporate America. Then again, when you’re running a company positioned to dominate the 2030s – from EVs to robots to chips to AI – and make the U.S. competitive against China in these critical technologies, it all starts to make sense. Bloomberg reports Musk’s trillion-dollar pay package over ten years is contingent on achieving ambitious growth milestones, such as:

Musk must expand Tesla’s robotaxi business and increase market value from $1 trillion to $8.5 trillion. The terms of the new pay package were outlined in Tesla’s proxy filing on Friday. The additional shares would raise Musk’s stake in the electric-vehicle maker to at least 25%, a level he has previously stated he wants. Unlocking the full 423 million-share payout will be challenging. To justify an $8.5 trillion market value – up from about $1 trillion on Friday – Tesla would need to sell 12 million additional EVs, secure 10 million autonomous driving subscriptions, deploy 1 million robotaxis, sell 1 million AI-powered robots, and expand adjusted earnings 24-fold to $400 billion.

Tesla’s proxy filing highlights some novel features of this new CEO performance award:

Despite a leftist activist judge in a Delaware court who struck down Musk’s prior $50 billion pay package from 2018, Tesla’s board offered the CEO an interim $30 billion pay package in August. “Simply put, retaining and incentivizing Elon is fundamental to Tesla achieving these goals and becoming the most valuable company in history,” Tesla Board Chair Robyn Denholm wrote in a letter to shareholders. Tesla’s proxy filing also details how Musk must participate in the board’s development of a framework for long-term succession planning as the CEO. There was also talk that Musk would “wind down” political work… Recall yesterday, Musk was snubbed from a tech CEO party at the White House.

Read more …

It feels extremely short-sighted to assume that Zuckerberg and Gates, whose fortunes stem from pre-AI, will also rule the (post-)AI era.

• President Trump Hosts Tech Executives at White House for Dinner (CTH)

Initially it was supposed to be closed to the press, but President Trump decided to bring in the media as interest increased. President Trump hosted a significant group of some of the most influential tech leaders into the White House for dinner. In large measure, this group is not -by disposition- very favorable toward President Trump, however with the power of the office they understand how dependent they are to his favor. From his perspective, Trump is leveraging the power and ingenuity of advanced technological capacity against adversaries who might align against U.S. dominance (China, Russia et al), so this group represents a capability he is leveraging. Some of the group, looking specifically at Bill Gates, are just plain globalist a-holes, promoting their self-importance as global influencers. President Trump’s decision to open the doors to the media puts the group in an uncomfortable position as they are then forced to reveal publicly their opinion of the assembly. [Insert fox smiling picture here].

Russian President Vladimir Putin made remarks earlier in the day about discussions with President Trump and corporate global energy developers about collaborating in the artic circle and Alaska. In the big picture, President Trump wants both peace and economic abundance globally, and while regional interests like Ukraine influence the background of collaboration, nonetheless the desire remains. One side has raw industrial power; the other has technological capabilities. President Trump is leveraging the abilities of the latter against the strength of the former. I enjoy watching this dance. Somewhere in my smiling dream state I imagine Tulsi Gabbard and Marco Rubio discussing the challenges when President Trump walks into the room and says, “eh, quit worrying; if we need to, we can turn off their little machines. C’mon, let’s go eat tacos, and Marco can tell us about his trip down south.”

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/Awesomevideos07/status/1963615997283246500

Scott

kookaburra

Surf

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle August 27 2025

Aug 272025
 
 August 27, 2025  Posted by at 9:45 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  33 Responses »


René Magritte L’avenir (the future) 1936

 

• Britain’s Newest Crisis: Too Many Patriotic Britons (Green)
• WItkoff: We Hope To See Ukraine Conflict Resolved By The End Of 2025 (RT)
• Zelensky Wants EU To Provide $1 Billion Monthly Allowance (Cradle)
• West Discussing Sending 4-5 Brigades to Ensure Security in Ukraine (Sp.)
• Zaluzhny Lauds Neo-Nazi Role Models (RT)
• Trump Threatens Ukraine With Sanctions And Tariffs (RT)
• Has Ukraine Just Declared War On Hungary? (Romanenko)
• Bolton Attacks Trump For ‘Utterly Incoherent’ Ukraine Policy (ZH)
• Can Trump Find a Way Out of the Box He Is in? (Paul Craig Roberts)
• BBC Warns About RT’s Global Influence (RT)
• Trump Vows To Punish Nations Imposing Digital Taxes (RT)
• Trump Goes Knives-Out for Leftist Media (Salgado)
• Kamala Screwed the Democrats So Badly I Can’t Stop Laughing (Green)
• Are Democrats on the Verge of a Historic Midterm Wipeout? (Margolis)
• Did NSA Director Mike Rogers Warn Donald Trump on November 17, 2016? (CTH)
• Washington’s Nightmare: Modi and Xi Break The Ice (Bhadrakumar)
• Trump’s Nobel Peace Prize Dreams Face Resistance (Cradle)
• Burkina Faso Suspends Health Project Funded By Bill Gates (RT)

 

 

https://twitter.com/SaltyGoat17/status/1960504651876286716

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1960082737848782924

1 trillion
https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1960402526114627812

Tulsi
https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1960397959717175428

Enten

 

 

 

 

“Britons who still love their country and want to turn it around. Can you imagine the nerve?”

• Britain’s Newest Crisis: Too Many Patriotic Britons (Green)

On top of growing Islamification and accompanying antisemitism, decaying national defense, poverty-inducing “net zero” policies, the ruination of Doctor Who, and a whole host of other issues, Britain has yet another crisis that the government just can’t seem to get a handle on. Britons who still love their country and want to turn it around. Can you imagine the nerve? You might have already seen in the last week or two, Britons defiantly flying the U.K. Union Jack or England’s St. George’s Cross — only to have officials who seem to have no problem with displays of Palestinian or Pakistani pride take them down. In fact, those displays sometimes come with a government seal of approval. This one is from the Birmingham City Council:

The country’s Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office got in on the action, too, wishing a “very happy Independence Day to Pakistanis in the UK, in Pakistan and around the world.” The post on X included little emojis of the Pakistani and British flags, and can you guess without clicking through which one came first? Flag order makes a statement..

https://twitter.com/TRobinsonNewEra/status/1959388210288640101?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1959388210288640101%7Ctwgr%5E226debe250fe769813f3c4a532edab7ceb6e0ee7%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpjmedia.com%2Fvodkapundit%2F2025%2F08%2F25%2Fbritains-war-on-britain-n4943012

…and so does pulling them down. And Another Thing: The world was a better place when Britain imposed British notions of justice on Third World nations instead of importing Third World notions into Britain. Discuss. According to the city’s Wikipedia page, Birmingham, as of 2021, was 30% Islamic and 34% Christian, which might explain this BBC report on Friday:

“Some residents have found the sudden appearance of St George’s and union flags ‘intimidating”, a council has said. While many people were flying the flag to cheer on the Lionesses during the 2025 Euros, thousands more have appeared in towns and cities in England during August – many attached to lampposts. Leader of Dorset Council, Liberal Democrat Councillor Nick Ireland, described the movement as an “explosion of patriotism”, but also said it was “naive” to suggest the emblems had not been “hijacked” by some far-right groups.”

Want to take an ordinary, patriotic Briton and convince him he’s a fascist? That’s how you do it. Want to convince the local Muslim population that they can bully Britons into giving up flying their own flags in their own country? Same trick. Some Britons have had enough, and are raising — or making — flags wherever they’re able.

https://twitter.com/TPointUK/status/1957348946465956049?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1957348946465956049%7Ctwgr%5E226debe250fe769813f3c4a532edab7ceb6e0ee7%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpjmedia.com%2Fvodkapundit%2F2025%2F08%2F25%2Fbritains-war-on-britain-n4943012

Then there are purely practical efforts like this one:

Sorry, did I say “purely practical?” I meant to say, “half-practical, half-cheeky.” The deadly epidemic of [checks notes] waving the flag comes hard on the heels of protests at the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex — where “migrants” were housed at taxpayer expense, and not without some inconvenience. First, there was the migrant “charged with three sexual offences, harassment and inciting a girl to engage in sexual activity.” And then this: “Mohammed Sharwarq, 32, a Syrian national living in the same hotel, has been charged with sexual assault, two counts of common assault, and four counts of assault by beating.

A BBC report states that these offences are alleged to have occurred inside The Bell Hotel. Mr Sharwarq denied the claim of sexual assault, but admitted the non-sexual offences at a court hearing, according to a Sky News report.”The High Court put at least a temporary halt to the hotel’s use as a migrant shelter. Scenes like these are distressingly common in the postmodern United Kingdom — a country that could use a few more flag-waving patriots, and far fewer “migrants” acting like occupiers of a conquered nation.

Read more …

“..the Russian side has at least “put a peace proposal on the table.”

• WItkoff: We Hope To See Ukraine Conflict Resolved By The End Of 2025 (RT)

US special presidential envoy Steve Witkoff has said Washington hopes to see the Ukraine conflict resolved by the end of 2025, citing Moscow’s “peace proposal on the table” and ongoing meetings with Russian and Ukrainian representatives. Speaking at a cabinet meeting with President Donald Trump on Tuesday, Witkoff said he will be “having meetings all this week” on Ukraine and other global conflicts, “and we hope to settle them before the end of this year.” In a follow-up interview with Fox News, Witkoff said that although Trump had expressed frustration with both Moscow and Kiev, the Russian side has at least “put a peace proposal on the table.”

He acknowledged that territorial concessions “may not be something that the Ukrainians can take,” but argued that the Trump administration had brought the sides closer to agreement than ever before. “There’s a peace proposal on the table,” Witkoff reiterated. “We’re at this place where we think the end is in sight… we have technical teams working on it and we’re hopeful that by the end of this year, and maybe quite a bit sooner, we actually can find the ingredients to get to that peace deal.” According to Witkoff, Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed a clear desire to end the conflict and discussed Moscow’s position in depth with Trump during their historic Alaska summit earlier this month.

While no details of any potential deal were made public, Moscow has long insisted that a sustainable settlement can only be achieved if Kiev agrees never to join NATO, undergoes demilitarization and denazification, and recognizes the new reality on the ground. This includes the status of Crimea, Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, and Zaporozhye as part of Russia – territories that voted to join the country in referendums in 2014 and 2022. Witkoff emphasized that any decision on territorial concessions would be for Ukraine to make, and suggested the issue would be tied to long-term security guarantees. He noted that he would meet Ukrainian officials in New York this week and stressed that Washington maintains daily communication with Moscow.

Recent reports have indicated that ongoing discussions include Kiev potentially ceding its remaining positions in Donbass in exchange for yet-to-be-defined Western commitments. Witkoff further claimed “we may end up seeing a bilateral meeting” between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky, adding that Trump might be “needed at the table to finish a deal.” Putin has not ruled out meeting Zelensky, but insisted a meeting could only follow tangible progress in negotiations. Moscow has also questioned Zelensky’s legitimacy, citing his expired presidential term and warning that any deals he signs could be overturned by his successor.

Read more …

He’ll get it.

• Zelensky Wants EU To Provide $1 Billion Monthly Allowance (Cradle)

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stated on 25 August that Kiev plans to secure at least $1 billion monthly from European nations to purchase US weapons to continue his war against Russia. Zelensky made the comment while speaking alongside Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store during a press conference in Kiev on Monday. US President Donald Trump is seeking to move away from providing weapons directly to Kiev. He instead wants European nations to purchase US weapons for the Ukrainian military to continue the war.The Ukrainian president also said Norway could contribute to security guarantees for Ukraine with an emphasis on providing air defense and maritime security.

On 24 August, US Vice President JD Vance claimed Russia has been “flexible” and made “significant concessions” in some core demands as part of negotiations to end the war, including regarding US and European security guarantees. “They’ve recognized that they’re not going to be able to install a puppet regime in Kiev. That was, of course, a major demand at the beginning. And importantly, they’ve acknowledged that there is going to be some security guarantee to the territorial integrity of Ukraine,” Vance stated while speaking on NBC News’ Meet the Press talk show on Sunday. Last week, Axios reported that senior officials from the US, Ukraine, and several European countries were discussing a proposal for security guarantees for Ukraine, likely involving US air power.

In an interview with Fox News, President Trump stressed no US troops would be sent to Ukraine, but that he was open to providing air support to European ground forces should they be deployed to the country.Trump also said he thought Russian President Vladimir Putin would be willing to accept such US and European security guarantees for Ukraine. However, the Russian Foreign Ministry has said it “categorically” rejects the possibility of “a military contingent with the participation of NATO countries” inside Ukraine.

Read more …

Russsia can say 1,000 times they won’t accept NATO troops next door, makes no difference. What happens when Russia fires the first rounds at them? Article 5?

• West Discussing Sending 4-5 Brigades to Ensure Security in Ukraine (Sp.)

Western states are discussing a possibility of sending 4-5 brigades by the group of countries supporting Ukraine – the so-called “coalition of the willing” – to ensure security in Ukraine along with “strategic enablers” from the US, the Financial Times newspaper reported, citing Head of the Office of the Ukrainian president Andriy Yermak. On August 18, US President Donald Trump hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders for talks at the White House. During the meeting, Trump said he would not compare the security guarantees that Kiev could receive with those existing in NATO. “Discussions revolved around 4 to 5 European brigades on the ground, provided by the coalition of the willing, plus ‘strategic enablers’ from the US,” The Financial Times quoted Zelensky’s chief of staff as saying.

Yermak said that the meeting in Washington provided clarity on issues related to security guarantees and the acquisition of US-made weapons through European financial instruments. The support of the “coalition of the willing” will comprise a combination of military, political, and economic measures, he added. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said that the presence of NATO states’ troops on Ukrainian territory, under any flag and in any capacity, including as peacekeepers, is a threat to Russia, and that Moscow will not accept it under any circumstances.

Read more …

Ukraine’s former top military commander. De-nazififation is easier said than done.

• Zaluzhny Lauds Neo-Nazi Role Models (RT)

Retired Ukrainian General Valery Zaluzhny, widely seen as a potential successor to Vladimir Zelensky, has called for education programs that highlight members of the neo-Nazi Azov military unit as role models. As Ukraine’s former top military commander and now ambassador to the UK, Zaluzhny is considered one of the country’s most popular public figures. Polls suggest he would likely defeat Zelensky if presidential elections were held, and Western governments are reportedly courting him as a possible future leader. In an interview published on Saturday Zaluzhny praised the Soviet Union’s approach to memorializing historic figures and suggested Ukraine adopt a similar model using fighters with the controversial regiment – which is accused of war crimes and recognized as a bastion of militarized neo-Nazism – as examples of proper behavior.

“It’s very important for the military-patriotic education to know who did what and what came out of it,” Zaluzhny said. “Soviet propaganda did it right. I once argued with NATO specialists, telling them we, members of the military who grew up in this territory, put great importance into [historic connections].”Ukraine, he added, should “set a goal of what it wants from its children in 10 years,” arguing that promoting Azov’s “heroism” would be beneficial.Formed from members of radical Ukrainian nationalist groups, Azov was integrated into the National Guard in 2014 and since then has grown more influential and powerful. Before the escalation of the conflict with Russia in 2022, even Western observers described the unit as a hotbed of extremism and neo-Nazism that attracted white supremacist sympathizers across Europe.

In 2018, the US Congress barred funding for Azov over human rights concerns, but the restriction was lifted in 2024 after the group rebranded and claimed to have abandoned its neo-Nazi roots. Russia designates Azov a terrorist organization and has accused its members of committing atrocities during hostilities. Moscow has identified “de-Nazification” – reducing the influence of radical nationalist ideology in Ukrainian politics – as one of its key goals in the conflict.As of March, Russia’s Investigative Committee reported successful prosecutions against 145 members of Azov on charges including breach of rules of war, mistreatment of prisoners of war and civilians, and murder.

Read more …

“I’m sure that Ukraine thought they were going to win. It’s going to be, you know, we’re going to win. You’re going to beat somebody that’s 15 times your size.”

• Trump Threatens Ukraine With Sanctions And Tariffs (RT)

Washington could impose sanctions and tariffs on both Russia and Ukraine if the two adversaries fail to make progress in settling hostilities, US President Donald Trump has said. Speaking to reporters at the White House on Tuesday, Trump said that it “takes two to tango,” and suggested that Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky “was not exactly innocent.” “Thousands of young people, mostly young people, are dying every single week. If I can save that, by doing sanctions or by just being me, or by using a very strong tariff system that’s very costly to Russia or Ukraine or whoever we have,” Trump stated. He also reiterated his readiness to slap new restrictions on Moscow.

“We want to have an end. We have economic sanctions. I’m talking about economic because we’re not going to get into a world war,” he said. Trump criticized his predecessor, Joe Biden, calling him “grossly incompetent” for allowing the Russia-Ukraine conflict to happen in the first place. “Nobody goes into a war thinking they’re going to lose. They go in – I’m sure that Ukraine thought they were going to win. It’s going to be, you know, we’re going to win. You’re going to beat somebody that’s 15 times your size. Biden shouldn’t have let that happen,” Trump stated.

The US president also appeared to dismiss Moscow’s concerns about the Zelensky’s legitimacy. “Doesn’t matter what they say. Everybody’s posturing. It’s all bullsh*t, ok? Everybody’s posturing,” Trump told reporters.Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reiterated Moscow’s stance in an interview with NBC aired on Sunday, calling Zelensky the “de facto head of the regime,” and stressed the person signing any peace deal must have legal authority to do so.

Read more …

“Zelensky openly threatened Hungary. He admitted that they hit the Druzhba pipeline because we don’t support their EU membership. This proves again that Hungarians made the right decision.”

• Has Ukraine Just Declared War On Hungary? (Romanenko)

In the swirl of the Ukraine war, headlines rarely fail to shock. Yet the latest spat between Kiev and Budapest raises a question that would have been unthinkable two years ago: has Ukraine effectively opened a second front – albeit hybrid, rhetorical, and economic – against an EU state? The immediate spark was the Druzhba (“Friendship”) oil pipeline that still delivers crude from Russia to Central Europe. Several Ukrainian drone strikes targeted the pipeline in recent weeks, halting supplies to Hungary and Slovakia. A Ukrainian commander, known by the call sign Madyar, publicly admitted involvement. For Hungary and Slovakia, this was more than an economic disruption. Both countries rely heavily on the pipeline, and in response, their leaders called on the European Commission to guarantee supply security.

Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto, a frequent critic of EU policy on Ukraine, accused Brussels of serving Kiev’s interests over those of member states. His frustration boiled over further when he described Vladimir Zelensky’s quips about “friendship” as thinly veiled threats. Zelensky’s remark – “We have always supported friendship between Ukraine and Hungary, and now the existence of this ‘Friendship’ depends on Hungary” – was apparently meant as a pun on the pipeline’s name, but to Hungary it sounded like a mafia-style threat. Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s reaction was uncompromising: “Zelensky openly threatened Hungary. He admitted that they hit the Druzhba pipeline because we don’t support their EU membership. This proves again that Hungarians made the right decision.”

The timing is telling. Strikes on the pipeline coincided with Zelensky’s Washington visit alongside EU leaders. Either Brussels tacitly encouraged him to punish Orban, an ally of Donald Trump, or the EU simply looked away as Zelensky acted on his own. Both explanations sound outrageous, but there hardly seems to be a third option. What is clear is that Kiev, facing immense pressure on its eastern front, is choosing a dangerous rhetorical battle with Budapest. Hungary has made abundantly clear its discomfort with the EU’s unquestioning support for Ukraine. Since the Russian military operation began in 2022, Budapest has resisted sanctions on Russian energy, insisted on continuing imports through the Druzhba pipeline, and refused to send weapons to Kiev. Orban has shown himself to be a pragmatic outlier: defending Hungarian interests, pursuing cheap Russian energy, and maintaining cordial ties with Moscow.

For this, Hungary has faced isolation within the EU. While Poland, the Baltics, and most of Western Europe rallied behind Ukraine with military and financial aid, Budapest has been resisting this consensus. Orban’s government was derided as Putin’s Trojan horse in Europe. Yet for Hungarians, this positioning has had a rationale: keep the economy stable, avoid direct confrontation, and retain flexibility in a deeply uncertain geopolitical landscape. Lost in the heated rhetoric is the fact that Hungary has also quietly carried a humanitarian burden. In 2022 alone, over 1.3 million Ukrainians crossed into Hungary – second only to Poland and Romania. Budapest accepted them with little fanfare, though later tightened its asylum rules to restrict new arrivals to those from active war zones. At the same time, Hungary supplies a significant share of Ukraine’s electricity, a fact Szijjarto reminded Kiev of when rebuffing Ukrainian accusations.

To respond with accusations and pipeline attacks against such a neighbor seems, at minimum, ungrateful. At worst, it risks alienating one of the few EU members that has provided crucial – if unheralded – humanitarian support in a time of war. The broader context is sobering. On the battlefield, Ukraine faces mounting setbacks in the Donbass and along the eastern front. Against that backdrop, Zelensky’s rhetoric toward Hungary appears almost surreal – boastful, as if victory against Russia were imminent. The contrast between battlefield realities and diplomatic bravado risks undermining Kiev’s credibility. In any sane timeline, here is where Brussels should stop and think again about continuing its support for Kiev.

Should the EU stand behind Zelensky even when his actions harm member states, or acknowledge that Orbán – despite his many disagreements with Brussels – has a point? Recent history shows that we are not in a sane timeline, though. Open threats, pipeline sabotage (remember Nord Stream?), and insults from Ukrainian officials don’t seem to register with Brussels officials at all. Kiev’s behavior towards Budapest may not amount to a declaration of war, but it is undeniable that Ukraine has chosen to ramp up its confrontation with Hungary. If the EU wants to sell its support for Kiev as “unity” – a word often used and abused by the likes of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen – then letting Zelensky get away with this is a bizarre choice.

Read more …

“..Bolton “could be a very unpatriotic guy. We’re going to find out.”

• Bolton Attacks Trump For ‘Utterly Incoherent’ Ukraine Policy (ZH)

Former national security adviser John Bolton has gone after President Trump, blasting his Ukraine strategy as “incoherent” in an opinion piece published Monday, just a few days after federal agents raided his Maryland home and D.C. office over the handling of classified documents. “President Donald Trump’s Ukraine policy is no more coherent today than it was last Friday when his administration executed search warrants against my home and office,” Bolton said in Washington Examiner. Bolton’s op-ed title went all-in: “Trump’s utterly incoherent Ukraine strategy.” He wrote that “Collapsing in confusion, haste, and the absence of any discernible meeting of the minds among Ukraine, Russia, several European countries, and America, Trump’s negotiations may be in their last throes, along with his Nobel Peace Prize campaign.”

Hoped-for momentum towards an eventual trilateral Putin-Zelensky-Trump summit has indeed been stalled, and Trump said late last week that we could make a major decision if peace isn’t negotiated in two weeks – which likely means more biting sanctions on Russia and its trading partners. Neither warring side has actually backed off from its position, and Russia has little reason to soften its demands given that it maintains the clear upper-hand on the battlefield. Still, Bolton – as one of the neocon madmen behind the push to invade and overthrow Iraq (and other countries) – is not one to talk about coherent foreign policy.

“The administration has tried to camouflage its disarray behind social media posts, such as Trump comparing his finger-pointing at Russian President Vladimir Putin to then-Vice President Richard Nixon during the famous kitchen debate with Nikita Khrushchev,” Bolton said further in his piece. “Why Trump wants to be compared to the only president who resigned in disgrace is unclear.” So clearly, Bolton is not backing down or being quiet despite the FBI raid on his home last Friday, which was described as a “court-authorized law enforcement activity.” The ‘war’ in the op-ed pages has been unleashed, as on Tuesday White House trade adviser Peter Navarro took to The Hill and charged Bolton with “profiteering off of America’s secrets” in relation to his 2020 book, “The Room Where It Happened.”

Navarro’s op-ed said “He was trafficking in Oval Office conversations and national security intelligence that should have stayed secret – either by law or under executive privilege.” “That isn’t service. That isn’t patriotism. That’s profiteering off of America’s secrets,” Navarro wrote, citing a federal judge who at the time said “seems to be out of the barn” – when Trump officials had tried to stop its publication. Back in 2020, Navarro had slammed the memoir as like “revenge porn”. Bolton has only issued rare praise of Trump when he bombs another country (as he did Iran this summer)… As for the raid on Bolton’s house, Trump has said that he didn’t personally order it or know about it before-hand, amid accusations that it is politically motivated retribution. The president has, however, said that Bolton “could be a very unpatriotic guy. We’re going to find out.”

Read more …

“Putin’s side of the bargain would be to let Trump grandstand in presiding over the peace agreement that ends the war.”

• Can Trump Find a Way Out of the Box He Is in? (Paul Craig Roberts)

Yesterday on his program Dialogue Works Nima had two guests, Larry Johnson, formerly of the CIA, and me. I come in at about the one hour mark at the close of the program with Larry. I recommend that you take advantage of the double feature. https://www.youtube.com/live/Tw0wfYs-kOQ Nima and I discuss the severe constraints on President Trump that handicap him in his effort to bring about not only a settlement in Ukraine but also impede a wider settlement with Russia that would put the world at peace.

Larry Johnson and I agree that the easiest way for Trump to conclude the conflict in Ukraine is to stop supplying, weapons, money, and diplomatic support. But to do this requires Trump to jettison the US military/security complex along with its budget and power which are dependent on having Russia as an enemy. Presidents such as John Kennedy, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan who had in mind winding down the Cold War ran into problems with the military/security complex. The military/security complex has military bases or armaments manufacturers in nearly every state. The number of governors, House and Senate members, and businesses dependent on orders from military bases and weapon manufacturers is vast. The combination of taxes, employment, campaign contributions, and supply relationships is too large of a force for Trump to jettison.

Another constraint on Trump is the American doctrine of hegemony which is at odds with peace-making. The US foreign policy doctrine requires that the US take an aggressive approach to countries that could constrain US unilateralism. In other words, the pursuit of hegemony makes a country a poor peace-maker. Trump has not repudiated the hegemony doctrine. Instead he exercises it with his numerous threats to other governments. As I have consistently reported, the conflict in Ukraine is a symptom and not a cause of what Putin refers to as the root cause of the conflict. The root cause is the absence of a mutual security agreement between Russia and the West. NATO with missile bases on Russia’s border creates insecurity for Russia. This insecurity is the root cause. Both the material interest of the US military/security complex and the hegemony doctrine are obstacles to removing the insecurity.

As the Russian position remains the same and Zelensky remains uncooperative, perhaps Trump sees Putin getting off his butt and quickly winning the war as the escape route from the box in which Trump finds himself. Perhaps Trump signaled to Putin, as he did to Netanyahu, to get it over with as its continuation is too embarrassing to Trump. Putin’s side of the bargain would be to let Trump grandstand in presiding over the peace agreement that ends the war. The wider and serious problem is Russia’s sense of insecurity with NATO/US missile bases on her border. To remove the real problem of nuclear conflict, the US needs to move away from Russia’s borders and honor the agreement the George H. W. Bush administration made with Gorbachev that NATO would stay distant from Russia’s border.

Read more …

“Russia is like water: where there are cracks in the cement, it trickles in…”

• BBC Warns About RT’s Global Influence (RT)

Russian media organizations are expanding their reach internationally as Western networks scale back operations due to financial constraints, the BBC reported Monday. RT and Sputnik, which remain banned across much of the West following accusations that they had spread “misinformation” – have been growing their presence in other regions. RT launched a Serbian-language service in late 2024, while Sputnik Africa has recently launched radio broadcasting in Ethiopia. The UK broadcaster said this “coincides with an apparent weakening from the Western media” driven by budget cuts and shifting foreign policy priorities. In Lebanon, it lamented, Sputnik has moved into airwaves previously occupied by BBC Arabic. The report also pointed to staff reductions at US-funded Voice of America under President Donald Trump, part of a broader push to curb what his administration sees as inefficient government spending.

The policy shift had global repercussions. In Ukraine, as many as 90% of media outlets have faced financial strain since foreign grant money became scarce. Media experts interviewed by the BBC argued that Russian outlets have capitalized on the West’s retreat. “Russia is like water: where there are cracks in the cement, it trickles in,” said Kathryn Stoner, a Stanford University political scientist. Stoner and other scholars published a book last year titled ‘Russia, Disinformation, and the Liberal Order,’ which characterized RT as a “threat to democracy.” Founded in 2005, RT was designed to project Russian perspectives to international audiences. Part of its strategy has been to challenge entrenched Western narratives and present viewpoints excluded from other global broadcasters.

Read more …

Big Tech=US companies.

• Trump Vows To Punish Nations Imposing Digital Taxes (RT)

US President Donald Trump on Monday threatened “substantial” new tariffs and curbs on semiconductor exports against countries that maintain digital taxes and regulations he says “discriminate” against American tech firms. Digital services taxes (DSTs), now in place in dozens of countries, are designed to capture revenue from the biggest global tech firms. Trump has long argued the levies unfairly target American companies – notably Meta, Alphabet and Amazon – and has pressed US trade partners to abandon them. In a post on his Truth Social platform on Monday, Trump blasted “Digital Taxes, Legislation, Rules, or Regulations,” warning he could impose additional tariffs and tighten export controls on US technologies, stressing that America and its firms would no longer serve as the “piggy bank” or “doormat” of the world.

”As the President of the United States, I will stand up to Countries that attack our incredible American Tech Companies. Digital Taxes, Digital Services Legislation, and Digital Markets Regulations are all designed to harm, or discriminate against, American Technology,” Trump wrote. He complained that such measures “give a complete pass to China’s largest Tech Companies” and declared “this must end, and end now.” The salvo risks reigniting trade tensions with the UK and EU, despite both having recently struck agreements with Washington. US officials have repeatedly criticized Britain’s digital services tax, which remained in place after its deal with the Trump administration, and have also taken aim at the EU’s landmark Digital Services Act requiring tech firms to more aggressively police their platforms.

Several EU states, including France, Italy and Spain, maintain digital services taxes of their own. Digital services taxes have already emerged as a flashpoint in Trump’s trade agenda. In June, he threatened to halt all talks with Canada. Ottawa backed down just before the measure was due to take effect, prompting the White House to boast that Canada had “caved” to US pressure. Countries that impose digital services taxes argue the charges are justified because tech giants such as Amazon reap huge profits from their citizens while paying little or no tax to local budgets.

Read more …

“No one watching CNN or CBS could think they were free and objective.”

• Trump Goes Knives-Out for Leftist Media (Salgado)

President Donald Trump famously dubbed radical leftist media “fake news,” and now he’s weighing how to deal yet another decisive blow to that fake news. Now that the Trump administration is in control of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Trump is apparently considering urging his hardcore FCC chairman, Brendan Carr, to investigate revoking licenses for mainstream media outlets that are little more than arms of the Democrat Party. The days of leftist media dominance are over. Late on Sunday, Trump posted on Truth Social, “Despite a very high popularity and, according to many, among the greatest 8 months in Presidential History, ABC & NBC FAKE NEWS, two of the worst and most biased networks in history, give me 97% BAD STORIES.” It is unclear exactly which study or dataset Trump was referencing here, although a study from Media Research Center earlier this year found that coverage of the Trump administration on ABC, NBC, and CBS was 92% negative.

But most Americans do not need a study to tell them that leftist media is incredibly biased against Trump and anything he does, which is how they can turn anything, including major victories, into an excuse to bash Trump. Just witness the extreme media hysteria over his federalization of law enforcement to clean up Washington, D.C, which so far has been very successful at bringing down crime in our nation’s capital. Trump Derangement Syndrome is rampant in our mainstream media. After mentioning the nearly 100% negative coverage of himself and his administration, Trump continued, “IF THAT IS THE CASE, THEY ARE SIMPLY AN ARM OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY AND SHOULD, ACCORDING TO MANY, HAVE THEIR LICENSES REVOKED BY THE FCC. I would be totally in favor of that because they are so biased and untruthful, an actual threat to our Democracy!!! MAGA.”

Trump followed that up with another post about the potential action against excessively biased mainstream media: “Why is it that ABC and NBC FAKE NEWS, two of the absolute worst and most biased networks anywhere in the World, aren’t paying Millions of Dollars a year in LICENSE FEES,” he asked. Then Trump made his daring statement again: “They should lose their Licenses for their unfair coverage of Republicans and/or Conservatives, but at a minimum, they should pay up BIG for having the privilege of using the most valuable airwaves anywhere at anytime!!! Crooked ‘journalism’ should not be rewarded, it should be terminated!!!” Freedom of the press is a core constitutional right, but the problem is that a significant amount of our press is not free. So many outlets now receive favors from politicians in exchange for positive coverage, regardless of reality. No one watching CNN or CBS could think they were free and objective.

Read more …

“Kamala’s team “believes she’s done her part,” by blowing $1.5 billion on a losing presidential race and leaving her party millions in debt.”

• Kamala Screwed the Democrats So Badly I Can’t Stop Laughing (Green)

Forget the old-school thrills of “F1,” the family charm of “Freakier Friday,” and even the surprisingly pro-life “Fantastic Four: First Steps” — because this summer’s feel-good movie turns out to be an August sleeper hit that virtually nobody saw coming. It’s the story of a failed presidential candidate who raised record sums, left record debt, lost anyway, and gave her party the finger when it needed her most. It’s called “Kamala’s Revenge,” and it’s the kind of razor-sharp political comedy that Hollywood hasn’t dared make since 1997’s “Wag the Dog.” The premise of “Kamala’s Revenge” is even wilder than Chauncey Gardiner in “Being There” from 1979. If you need a refresher, Peter Sellers plays a simpleton named Chance who was raised in total isolation by a wealthy man in D.C.

When the old man dies and Chance is forced out on the street — wearing the old man’s very nice suit — “Chance the gardener” is mistaken for “Chauncey Gardiner,” and is soon dispensing advice to Washington’s rich and powerful. It’s an all-time favorite movie, but it has nothing on “Kamala’s Revenge.” The premise of “Kamala’s Revenge” is that the vice president is a totally inept (not to mention comically inapt) DEI hire who, when the senescent president is forced out of his reelection campaign by his own party’s elders, finds herself with just 107 days to scrape together a presidential campaign. I know this sounds too crazy for fiction, but bear with me — it gets crazier. Despite running the shortest presidential campaign in history, Kamala (with a big assist from the media and various celebrities) raises a record $1.5 billion, but blows through it all and then some.

She goes down in major defeat, but according to this political news site in the movie — it’s called Axios or something — months later, her party had to pony up “more than $15 million toward paying off [her] campaign expenses.” Crazy, right? But “Kamala’s Revenge” has only begun mining its comedy gold. Thanks to Kamala’s debts and some massive fundraising by the other side, Axios says that her party doesn’t even have $20 million in the bank, but the other party — headed up by the bad guy she lost to — is sitting on a massive $80 million war chest. So the bad guys run attack ads, boost their social media presence — all the smart political stuff Kamala’s party used to dominate. Instead, they’re just flailing around, talking about stolen lands, letting illegal immigrant wife-beaters out of jail, sticking male sex offenders in girls’ bathrooms, and all this other crazy stuff you’d never believe.

But it gets wilder. “Some donors,” Axios says, “have grown reluctant” to give Kamala’s party more money even as they try to “pivot to the 2026 midterms.” They’re searching the sofa cushions for cash at this point. They’re so desperate that the party elders go back to Kamala for help. She agrees to let the party use “her email list to help raise money and has held a few small fundraising events. But the total money raised from the events has been disappointing.” Disappointing to them, of course, but audiences can’t stop laughing. The kicker though is in one of the final scenes. When the email list fails to accomplish much, party organizers go to Kamala and beg her to personally host the kind of big fundraisers she pulled off during her campaign… but she tells them no. Kamala’s team “believes she’s done her part,” by blowing $1.5 billion on a losing presidential race and leaving her party millions in debt. If Hollywood ever makes a sequel to “Kamala’s Revenge,” maybe the big twist is that she turns out to have been the other party’s mole all along. Otherwise? Just another simpleton in a nice suit.

Read more …

“I couldn’t find a point at which Republicans were doing better at this point in the cycle. It’s at least this century. It probably goes way back in the last century.”

• Are Democrats on the Verge of a Historic Midterm Wipeout? (Margolis)

I’ve previously reported that Democrats have a money problem. In addition to a lack of donations coming in, the Democratic National Committee is paying down Kamala Harris’s campaign debt. However, these are not the only issues threatening their 2026 midterm prospects. Money is certainly important, but perhaps even more so are voters. But according to CNN’s Harry Enten, the voters aren’t exactly there for the Democrats, either. Enten delivered a devastating assessment of the 2026 electoral landscape for the Democrats, noting that Republicans are seeing unprecedented gains in voter registration across critical battleground states. “Four swing states that, in fact, do keep track of registration by party,” Enten noted. He revealed that the GOP hasn’t been this well-positioned at this stage of the cycle in two decades.

“Look, the Republican Party is in their best position at this point in the cycle since at least 2005 in all four of these key battleground states.” Enten began his analysis in the Southwest. “Arizona. How about Nevada? Republicans haven’t done this well since 2005 — oh my goodness gracious — at this, at this point in the cycle.” As he moved eastward, the numbers just kept getting better for the GOP. “North Carolina: I couldn’t find a point at which Republicans were doing better at this point in the cycle. It’s at least this century. It probably goes way back in the last century.” There was more: “And Pennsylvania, very similar: Republicans doing better at this point than at any point, at any point this century, at least as far as I could find.”

https://twitter.com/OpenSourceZone/status/1960138861368979521

Enten then broke down the size of the GOP’s registration surge by comparing it to the first Trump administration in 2017. “Look at this. The Republican Party gains in party registration compared to this point back in 2017, during the Trump first administration,” he enthused. He highlighted that in Arizona, the GOP has gained three points in party registration compared to 2017. In Nevada, it’s six points; in North Carolina, eight points, and finally, in Pennsylvania, GOP registration is eight full points above this point in Trump’s first administration. Enten’s analysis underscores just how dramatic the GOP’s organizational and registration push has been heading into 2026.

For Democrats, the numbers paint a dire picture: Republicans are not only expanding their base in traditional swing states but are doing so at levels unseen in decades — generations, even. The money race is incredibly important because you need money to fund campaigns and get your message out. The problem is that even if Democrats had more money, their pool of voters isn’t growing as much as the GOP’s, and that puts them at a severe disadvantage going into the midterms. Of course, the elections are still over a year away, and anything can happen, but at this point in time, the GOP is in an incredibly strong position over the Democrats.

Read more …

Sundance keeps digging.

“NSA Director Mike Rogers shut down FBI contractor access to the NSA database April 18, 2016, the very next day what happens? On April 19, 2016, Perkins Coie hires Fusion GPS Glenn Simpson to conduct research on Donald Trump..”

• Did NSA Director Mike Rogers Warn Donald Trump on November 17, 2016? (CTH)

The short answer is no; he did not.

Was NSA Director Mike Rogers aware that political spying was conducted through the use of searches on the NSA database? Yes. Did NSA Director Mike Rogers take action in April 2016 to stop the searches within the NSA database that were entirely due to political surveillance? Yes. Six months later, October 20, 2016, the extensive review of all the political surveillance searches done from November of 2015 to April of 2016 was completed; the NSA compliance officer briefed Director Rogers. Six days later on October 26, 2016, NSA Director Mike Rogers then informed the FISA court of the unlawful searches and his action to address the issue. One month later on November 17th, 2016, NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers went to see President-Elect Donald Trump in Trump Tower, New York. Director Rogers never told his boss, DNI James Clapper.

The very next day, Friday November 18, 2016, The Washington Post reported on a recommendation in “October” that Mike Rogers be removed from his NSA position. “The heads of the Pentagon and the nation’s intelligence community have recommended to President Obama that the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, be removed. The recommendation, delivered to the White House last month, was made by Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., according to several U.S. officials familiar with the matter. […] In a move apparently unprecedented for a military officer, Rogers, without notifying superiors, traveled to New York to meet with Trump on Thursday at Trump Tower. That caused consternation at senior levels of the administration, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal personnel matters.”

Notice how the WaPo conflates the two issues. (1) Meeting with Trump (Nov), and (2) the recommendation to fire him (Oct). The October recommendation to fire Rogers was likely based on the outcome of his decision to fully stop “about queries” of the NSA database and speak to the FISA court. The recommendation to fire Rogers preceded his visit to Donald Trump, though the IC effort may have provided some additional motivation for the Rogers visit itself. NSA Director Mike Rogers traveled to New York November 17, 2016, when a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility) was set up for President-elect Trump to use following the November 8, 2016, election. The next day, November 18, 2016, the Trump Transition Team announced they were moving all transition activity to Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey. Where they interviewed and discussed the most sensitive positions to fill. Specifically, Defense, State, CIA and ODNI.

There was a great deal of speculation at the time surrounding the visit by Director Rogers and the move from Trump Tower to New Jersey. Did Rogers tell President Trump about the political surveillance from November 2015 to April 2016? We now know the answer is no, he did not. Director Rogers did recommend an easier venue for the SCIF to operate with secured communication channels; but Rogers did not notify President Trump about the use of the NSA database for political spying. It is worth noting other events in/around this timeline. The NSA compliance officer did not brief Admiral Rogers until 20th Oct 2016. The next day, October 21 the FISA application against Carter Page was approved by the FISA Court; Rogers would be unaware of this submission and issuance. Admiral Rogers then notified the FISC Oct 26, 2016, about the NSA database issue. [In October of 2016 James Clapper and Ash Carter were recommending Rogers’s firing.]

The issue of the “FBI Contractors” having access to the NSA database for political spying was stopped by Director Mike Rogers on April 18, 2016. NSA Director Mike Rogers shut down FBI contractor access to the NSA database April 18, 2016, the very next day what happens? On April 19, 2016, Perkins Coie hires Fusion GPS Glenn Simpson to conduct research on Donald Trump. Now, fast forward to Devin Nunes in March of 2017, two similar but importantly different issues surface. (#1) The collection of information from within the NSA database; and (#2) the unmasking of names within intelligence community communication. These are two distinctly separate issues.In February and March 2017 HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes, a gang of eight member, reviewed intelligence reports that were assembled exclusively for the office of the former President (Obama). That is why he went to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building (EEOB) Information Facility to review.

After Devin Nunes review the information March 22nd, 2017, Nunes stated the intelligence product he reviewed was “not related to Russia, or the FBI Russian counter-intelligence investigation”.House Intelligence Committee Chairman, Devin Nunes, then held a brief press conference and stated he had been provided intelligence reports brought to him by unnamed sources that include ‘significant information’ about President-Elect Trump and his transition team

Read more …

2.7 bllion people?!

• Washington’s Nightmare: Modi and Xi Break The Ice (Bhadrakumar)

This week, India and China have taken a great leap of faith in their mutual efforts to incrementally advance the normalization process in their bilateral relationship. This may assume the nature of a rapprochement when Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi meets Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation [SCO] summit in the port city of Tianjin in northeast China on 31 August–1 September. The Sino-Indian rapprochement will be a historic event in world politics. It holds the potential to be a key template in the emerging world order in the 21st Century. From the Indian perspective, what is unfolding promises to be the finest legacy of Modi in a tumultuous political career as his 75th birthday approaches next month.

Wang Yi’s Landmark Visit to New Delhi. No doubt, the two-day visit to New Delhi this week by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who is also a member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee and director of the Office of the Central Commission for Foreign Affairs, will go down as a watershed event. It is a game-changer because Wang, arguably one of the world’s most seasoned diplomats, has turned boundary talks into a mission to harness recent positive momentum and inject a new dynamic into the normalization process. Wang forcefully argued that China and India are obligated “to demonstrate a sense of global responsibility, act as major powers, set an example for developing countries in pursuit of strength through unity, and contribute to promoting world multi-polarization and democratization of international relations.” Xinhua news agency characterised Wang’s remarks as the “consensus” opinion between him and India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar.

Wang and Jaishankar noted that a critical mass is accruing in the relationship. The Chinese foreign minister said Beijing–New Delhi relations are “showing a positive trend toward returning to cooperation.” Jaishankar concurred that bilateral relations “are continuously improving and developing” and “exchanges and cooperation between the two sides in all fields are moving toward normalization.”Interestingly, Jaishankar called for India and China to “jointly maintain the stability of the world economy” and stressed that “stable, cooperative, and forward-looking bilateral ties serve the interests of both countries.” The Indian external affairs minister proposed that New Delhi is willing “to deepen political mutual trust with China, strengthen mutually beneficial cooperation in economic and trade fields, enhance people-to-people exchanges, and jointly maintain peace and tranquility in border areas.”

He later said in a social media post, “Confident that our discussions today [18 August] would contribute to building a stable, cooperative and forward-looking relationship between India and China.” Wang’s visit yielded some breakthroughs, too. Principally, the two countries agreed to resume direct flights; facilitate trade and investment flow; cooperate on trans-border rivers; reopen border trade via the Himalayan passes; facilitate visas to tourists, businesses, media, and other visitors in both directions; and expand the visits of Indian pilgrims to the holy places of Kailash-Manasarovar. China is reportedly lifting the ban on rare earth and fertilizer exports to India, as well as heavy equipment for making tunnels in mountainous areas.

Border settlement: Modi’s defining challenge. The most sensational development is that the two countries are exploring an “early harvest” in delimitation of boundaries and have agreed on new mechanisms on border management, which will also work towards de-escalation. This is a highly sensitive issue, as Indian public opinion is shaped by self-serving narratives that emerged after the 1962 war and by the idea of establishing a border that never historically existed. This is where Modi’s leadership becomes crucial. Modi is probably one of the only leaders today who has the credibility, decisiveness, and vision to navigate a border settlement with China. He has prioritized the normalization of relations with China and is conscious that a truly stable relationship is critically dependent on predictability and stability, which makes it imperative that a border settlement is reached. Modi, during a meeting with Wang on 19 August, emphasized the importance of maintaining peace and tranquility on the border, and also reiterated India’s commitment to a “fair, reasonable, and mutually acceptable” resolution of the boundary issue.

Traditionally, India attributed primacy to its post-Cold War relationship with the US as a hedge against China, which, unsurprisingly, spawned absurd notions that Washington regarded New Delhi as a “counterweight” to Beijing. Suffice to say, the administration of US President Donald Trump’s erratic foreign policies and, specifically, its unfriendly moves recently to curb India’s strategic autonomy came as a wake-up call. On the other hand, India’s actions have also been partly driven by domestic economic pressures. The point is, India seeks to lift some restrictions imposed on China in recent years, welcome Chinese investment, and increase people-to-people exchanges to boost its economic confidence. Equally, facing US pressure such as high tariffs, India aims to diversify economic and trade ties with countries, including China, which may help to reduce some of the external pressure from the US.

Wang has signaled that Beijing is as eager as New Delhi to improve the relationship against the backdrop of an increasingly reckless and belligerent Trump administration. Both sides sense that they have common interests. Inevitably, a China–India working relationship anchored on a strategic understanding will do wonders for BRICS. This prospect is already worrying Trump, who has threatened BRICS more than once for allegedly working to dethrone the dollar as the world’s currency.

Read more …

People like to talk about this because it allows them to paint Trump as vain.

• Trump’s Nobel Peace Prize Dreams Face Resistance (Cradle)

At least three of the five members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee have spoken out against US President Donald Trump, casting serious doubt over his chances of securing a Nobel Peace Prize, the Washington Post reported on 25 August. Committee chairman Jorgen Watne Frydnes singled out Trump in December for what he called “the erosion of freedom of expression even in democratic nations,” highlighting the president’s repeated verbal assaults on the media. Former Norwegian education minister Kristin Clemet wrote in May that Trump was “well underway in dismantling American democracy” after just over 100 days in office. Another committee member, Gry Larsen, posted in 2017 that Trump was “putting millions of lives at risk” with cuts to foreign aid and later mocked his campaign slogan with a “Make Human Rights Great Again” hat.

Two other members, Asle Toje and one unnamed colleague, have not been openly hostile. Toje previously wrote sympathetically about Trump’s legal struggles under the Biden administration, leaving open the possibility of support. Still, the balance remains against the US president. Trump himself has acknowledged the opposition. “A lot of people say … no matter what I do, they won’t give it up, and I’m not politicking for it,” he said this month while signing a peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Trump pointed to his work on Ukraine, including outreach to Russian President Vladimir Putin, as central to his case, with some western diplomats conceding that his emphasis on direct talks could make sense given Putin’s control of the war effort.

Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani was shortlisted for the 2025 Peace Prize for his “efforts to mediate peace in Gaza.” Meanwhile, Trump said that Israeli hostages would be freed only after Hamas is “destroyed,” voicing clear support for Israel’s move to seize Gaza City. Previously, the US president had floated a plan for Washington to “take over” the Gaza Strip and forcibly displace its people, to turn it into the “Riviera of the Middle East” – an idea widely condemned as a violation of international law.

Despite this, some foreign leaders have amplified his push for a prize, with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev asking, “Who, if not President Trump, deserves the Nobel Peace Prize?” Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan echoed the sentiment, joking with Trump about front-row seats at a future ceremony. Nonetheless, with the Norwegian public polling overwhelmingly against him and three committee members on record as critics, Trump faces an uphill battle for the award.

Read more …

“..it welcomed the transitional government’s decision to end the project “with great joy.”

• Burkina Faso Suspends Health Project Funded By Bill Gates (RT)

Burkina Faso has suspended a project funded by the Gates Foundation aimed at curbing the spread of malaria in Africa, amid concern that it could be misused to advance population control on the continent. The Target Malaria research team, based at the Burkinabe Institute of Health Sciences Research (IRSS), is working to alter mosquito genes to render the insects incapable of transmitting the disease, which the World Health Organization says killed 569,000 people in Africa in 2023. The non-profit consortium, which also receives funding from Open Philanthropy, operates in Ghana and Uganda as well. In a statement released on Saturday, Samuel Pare, Secretary-General of Burkina Faso’s Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation (MESRI), said Target Malaria has been ordered to halt all activities in the West African country.

https://twitter.com/DD_Geopolitics/status/1960235767168454916

“The facilities containing genetically modified mosquitoes have been sealed since August 18, 2025, and all samples will be destroyed according to a specified protocol,” he stated. MESRI did not give a reason for the decision, which came days after the project announced it had successfully carried out “one small-scale release” of genetically modified (GMO) male mosquitoes in Souroukoudingan, a village of about 830 people, roughly 350km southwest of Ouagadougou. The project first released a swarm of GMO mosquitoes in 2019 in the nearby village of Bana. Target Malaria said it had received approval for its activities from Burkina Faso’s National Biosafety Agency (ANB) and the National Environmental Assessment Agency (ANEVE) and has complied with national laws since onset of the program in 2012.

“We have engaged actively with the national authorities and stakeholders of Burkina Faso and remain ready to cooperate,” the non-profit organization stated. The Gates Foundation, Target Malaria’s largest funder, has been embroiled in controversies over some of its initiatives, with advocacy groups accusing it of promoting genetically modified crops and industrial agriculture models that benefit large corporations while sidelining smallholder farmers. The Burkinabe civil group Coalition for Health Sovereignty has previously demanded an “immediate halt” to the genetically modified mosquito project, calling it a “risky and irresponsible” experiment aimed at exercising population control. On Friday, the Coalition for Monitoring Biotechnology Activities (CVAB), which calls the Target Malaria initiative “dangerous to the country’s health sovereignty,” said it welcomed the transitional government’s decision to end the project “with great joy.”

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Gun


Coral Coast
https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1960420423868235855

String

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle August 2 2025

Aug 022025
 
 August 2, 2025  Posted by at 9:31 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,  34 Responses »


Samuel Colman The Edge of Doom 1836-38

 

• Trump ‘Prepared’ For Nuclear War With Russia (RT)
• Trump Moves Two Nuclear Subs Closer To Russia After Medvedev Tweets (NYP)
• White House Makes Trump Nobel Peace Prize Claim (RT)
• The Artificial Demon (James Howard Kunstler)
• The BRICS Hit Back: Trump’s Old Tricks Meet New World (Sibal)
• Chuck Grassley Releases Declassified John Durham Annex (CTH)
• Durham Annex Bombshell Exposes New Twist in Russian Collusion Hoax (Margolis)
• Sitting US Senator Now Implicated in Russia Hoax Cover-Up (Margolis)
• Orban Hammers ‘Weak and Ridiculous’ EU (RT)
• The Art of the Defeat: Kamala ‘Writes’ Memoir About 2024 Campaign (Margolis)
• Marco Rubio Discusses Current Geopolitical Events and Russia Hoax (CTH)
• Why Western Education Is Doomed (Marsden)
• Ghislaine Maxwell Is Quietly Moved To Cushy New ‘Club Fed’ Prison (NYP)
• Rule by Quacks (Paul Craig Roberts)
• Pediatricians Organization Says Eliminate Vaccine Exemptions for Children (Dick)
• CDC Recommended Vaccine Schedule 1986 vs. 2019 (CHD)
• ‘Dead zone’ In Gulf of America Shrank Sharply In 2025 (JTN)

 

 

Sachs

Ritter

Tuberville

CBDC
https://twitter.com/JimFergusonUK/status/1951190664194171030

MAGA
https://twitter.com/MAGAVoice/status/1951101868865675361

Brennan

 

 

The next time you dislike your life, remember it’s all about perspective. I have a friend who reads 2-3 books a week, works out twice a day, has no financial worries, and has people who want to have sex with him all the time. And yet he constantly complains about how much he hates prison.

 

 

 

 

“Well, you just have to read what he said. He was talking about nuclear. When you talk about nuclear, we have to be prepared. And we’re totally prepared..”

Why does Trump react to tweets? He can just as easily ignore them.

• Trump ‘Prepared’ For Nuclear War With Russia (RT)

President Donald Trump has said he cannot treat any talk of nuclear weapons lightly and that the US must always be “totally prepared” for any potential confrontation, responding to what he described as an inappropriate “threat” made by former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump explained his alleged order to deploy two nuclear submarines closer to Russian waters, saying the move was necessary to ensure national security. “Well, we had to do that. We just have to be careful. A threat was made, and we didn’t think it was appropriate,” Trump said. “So I do that on the basis of safety for our people. A threat was made by a former president of Russia, and we’re going to protect our people.”

Earlier on Friday, Trump announced in a post on Truth Social that he had ordered the deployment of two US nuclear submarines to what he called “the appropriate regions,” in reaction to remarks made by Medvedev on social media. Trump condemned the former Russian leader’s rhetoric as “foolish and inflammatory,” warning that “words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences.” The dispute escalated after Trump referred to Medvedev as a “failed” leader and warned him to “watch his words.” Medvedev, who currently serves as deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, responded with a scathing message warning against provoking Moscow too far, referencing the legendary ‘Perimetr’ automatic nuclear retaliation system, which dates back to the Soviet era and is presumed to still exist in Russia.

“And about India’s and Russia’s ‘dead economies’ and ‘entering very dangerous territory’ – well, let him remember his favorite movies about ‘the walking dead,’ as well as how dangerous the fabled ‘Dead Hand’ can be,” Medvedev wrote. Though Russia has never officially confirmed the existence of the system, it is widely believed by Western analysts to serve as a last-resort deterrent in the event of a decapitating strike on the Russian leadership. The White House and the Pentagon have not provided any further comments, and Trump’s claim about the submarine redeployment remains impossible to verify, since the exact locations and patrol areas of US nuclear submarines are among the military’s most closely guarded secrets.

Read more …

“Trump issued a theatrical ultimatum to the Kremlin. The world shuddered, expecting the consequences. Belligerent Europe was disappointed. Russia didn’t care..”

• Trump Moves Two Nuclear Subs Closer To Russia After Medvedev Tweets (NYP)

President Trump said Friday he had ordered two nuclear submarines moved closer to Russia in response to “highly provocative statements” by a top Kremlin official. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, now deputy chairman of the Security Council of Russia, had taunted Trump directly in a recent post on X, saying “each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war.” “I have ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, without revealing the location of the vessels. “Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances,” he added. The Pentagon referred requests for additional information to the White House, which declined to comment on the record.

Medvedev, a close ally of Putin and deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, taunted Trump in a series of posts on X. Trump had threatened Russia with secondary sanctions if Moscow does not stop its ongoing war on Ukraine by Aug. 8. Medvedev wrote in his post that Trump “should remember two things” as he issues his threats on Moscow — that “Russia isn’t Israel or even Iran” and that “each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war. Not between Russia and Ukraine, but with his own country.” “Don’t go down the Sleepy Joe road!” Medvedev mocked. The former Russian president often makes aggressive remarks on social media and is less diplomatic toward the US than Putin in his public comments. Medvedev served as president from 2008 to 2012 and was widely seen as a puppet of Putin, who at the time was only allowed to serve two terms in a row.

While the Russian president has held off on commenting on Trump’s upcoming sanctions, Medvedev has taken to X numerous times to directly condemn the threat. “Trump issued a theatrical ultimatum to the Kremlin. The world shuddered, expecting the consequences. Belligerent Europe was disappointed. Russia didn’t care,” Medvedev wrote on July 15. Medvedev, 59, was even more belligerent under former President Joe Biden, arguing in November of 2024 that if the US were to send nuclear weapons to Ukraine, then Russia would have grounds to respond with an atomic attack. He also raged against Trump directing the US military to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities, writing on June 22, “at this rate, Trump can forget about the Nobel Peace Prize — not even with how rigged it has become. What a way to kick things off, Mr. President. Congratulations!”

Read more …

As the kids are dying in Gaza. Can the Nobel really sink any lower?

• White House Makes Trump Nobel Peace Prize Claim (RT)

US President Donald Trump should have received a Nobel Peace Prize years ago, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has claimed, citing his role in multiple international peace agreements. Despite several nominations during his first presidency, Trump has not won the award. At a briefing in Washington on Thursday, Leavitt said Trump had intervened in conflicts such as the Thailand-Cambodia dispute by threatening to withhold US trade deals, which she claimed had led to a swift ceasefire. “We had about one peace deal every month,” Leavitt stated. Trump has repeatedly argued he deserves the award, saying in June that he has been overlooked because “they only give it to liberals.”

Several foreign leaders have recently nominated the US president for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu handed Trump a nomination letter earlier this month, crediting his role in mediating a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. Before any ceasefire talks began, however, the US launched a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities in June, aiming to cripple Tehran’s capabilities. Trump later said he didn’t want to cite Hiroshima or Nagasaki as examples, but claimed that just as those bombings had ended World War II, the 2025 strike had ended the Iran conflict. The comment drew sharp criticism from Japanese officials, who called it morally reckless and offensive.

Cambodia’s deputy prime minister also nominated Trump for his role in calming a border dispute with Thailand earlier this year. The Pakistani government publicly backed his nomination, highlighting his involvement in the India-Pakistan ceasefire talks. India, however, has firmly rejected claims of US involvement in the ceasefire, dismissing the notion of any third-party mediation. Trump had vowed to end the Ukraine conflict within 24 hours if re-elected – a promise he later walked back, suggesting a 100-day timeline instead and calling the original claim “a little bit sarcastic.” In July, his administration approved advanced arms deliveries to Ukraine, including Patriot missiles funded by EU NATO allies. Russia condemned the move as a provocation and accused the US of escalating the conflict under the guise of support.

Read more …

“With apologies for bluntness, the mainstream press fucked around, now the mainstream press is finding out.” —Matt Taibbi

• The Artificial Demon (James Howard Kunstler)

By now, it must be kind of obvious that Mr. Putin of Russia was staged-up into a demon for the convenience of Hillary Clinton — resulting in a decade of deformed US foreign relations that has dragged us to the edge of a third world war. Nice work, Democratic Party! I will proffer a harsh truth to you: the best outcome in Ukraine would be for Russia to win the war as expeditiously as possible, neutralize and disarm the place, change-out its illegitimate government, and let it revert to being the frontier backwater it was for eight decades previous, when it was not a problem for the other nations of the region. Mr. Putin has put up with our country’s psychotic nonsense with remarkable patience. The idea that he seeks to conquer western Europe was a preposterous confection of the neocon crazies in our State Department and Intel “community.”

The long game for the neocon crazies has been to use NATO as the instrument to break up Russia and gain control of its resources. This was after Secretary of State James Baker told Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, in discussions over German reunification, that “not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.” Starting in 1999 with the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland, sixteen additional nations were induced to join NATO, encroaching on Russia’s borders, with new military bases and missiles. It was a stupid game.

And it failed. Ukraine was the final gambit. The US destabilized it on purpose in 2014, installed a series of governments we could control, made it a ward of US taxpayers, sprinkled it with bio-weapons labs and money laundries, and gave Mr. Zelenskyy the go-ahead to start shelling the Donbas provinces adjacent to Russia. After years of that, Mr. Putin moved to stop it in 2022. The development of drone weapons, along with US-based satellite targeting tech, has prolonged the war. But, of course, the Russians, too, have modernized their own weapons arsenal to match that. The current state of things is a slow Russian grind to defeat a Ukraine that has run out of available fighting men and is apparently short of all weapons besides its drones.

On the campaign trail, Mr. Trump promised to end the Ukraine war in a New York minute. That proved more difficult and complicated than he realized. He said lately in so many words that he has “lost patience” with Mr. Putin for failing to join a ceasefire as a prelude to peace talks. Accordingly, Mr. Trump set a fifty-day deadline and then shortened it to twelve-days, running out on August 8-9 (accounting for time zones). Failure to comply will cause Russia to suffer a new round of sanctions. Mr. Putin has shrugged off that threat, saying that time has proven Russia to be sanction-proofed.

Some kind of game is afoot in all this. Neither Trump nor Putin could possibly want to turn this fiasco in Ukraine into a greater war that will destroy what’s left of Western Civilization. You might find this startling, but for all our efforts to anathemize Russia, it is still a part of Western Civ. After its soviet experiment failed, Russia wanted above all to reintegrate economically with Europe, but the neocons here and the globalists of Europe would not allow that. They became determined instead to wreck Russia — a vicious ethos likely to have emanated from the UK, with its lingering imperial delusions. (For Germany, it has brought only economic suicide.)

You might suspect that Mr. Trump has to pretend to be tough with Russia to counter the still-lingering suspicion — germinated by the Hillary Clinton campaign a decade ago — that he is “Putin’s puppet.” By coincidence, strange or not, that trope is now unraveling with the release of the RussiaGate intel archive that the rogue DOJ and FBI squirreled away since the Trump 1.0 term in office. Mr. Patel found a trove of documentary evidence in a burn-bag in a back room at FBI headquarters. DNI Tulsi Gabbard retrieves more previously-hidden evidence by the day from the vast NSA data base. It ought to be clear now that the initial Hillary Clinton campaign prank metastasized into the worst perversion of abusive government power in our country’s history, and is yet on-going.

Read more …

“Trump positions himself as a peacemaker and openly aspires to win a Nobel Peace Prize, while at the same time bombing Iran and assisting Israel in perpetuating the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.”

• The BRICS Hit Back: Trump’s Old Tricks Meet New World (Sibal)

US President Trump has rattled Washington’s ties with New Delhi to an unexpected degree. Countries, including, India were prepared for rough diplomatic weather after Trump won his second term, but did not anticipate the kind of onslaught he has unleashed on the global system and diplomatic norms. Trump’s latest attack on India and the BRICS countries explains this underlying dynamic. The BRICS aspire to play a greater political, economic and financial role in global affairs. This aspiration is based on shifts of economic and concomitant political and financial power towards the so-called emerging powers or middle-income countries. BRICS countries have already begun to use their national currencies in trading with each other as much as possible. The use of draconian financial sanctions on Russia by the West has accelerated this process.

Today, almost all trade operations between Russia and China are conducted in rubles and yuan. India too is encouraging the use of its national currency in payment transactions with select countries. A significant portion of the trade between India and Russia is now settled using a rupee-ruble mechanism. Washington cannot use secondary sanctions to prevent countries, including India, from using the US dollar to trade with Russia and then oppose de-dollarization if these countries are compelled to use alternative payment mechanisms. If the US continues to weaponize the dollar, it will inevitably lead to the very “de-dollarization” that Trump is concerned about. India has officially disowned any de-dollarization agenda – not the least because the US is its biggest trade partner in goods and services. India seeks more investments and technology transfers from the US. In many ways, New Delhi’s ties with Washington are the most important for achieving its growth and developmental goals.

But that does not preclude India from establishing other partnerships to reduce over-dependence on one country, balance its external relations and hedge against the excesses of US foreign policy. Trump has exacerbated the disruptions caused by Washington’s frequent use of sanctions as a political weapon by also weaponizing tariffs. He is convinced that by imposing arbitrarily determined tariffs on imports from other countries he will compel them to enter into negotiations with the US to obtain relief by lowering their high tariffs on American products. But India on Wednesday sent a clear message: it is determined to protect the interests of its own businesses, farmers and people. Trump’s use of tariffs as lever, like in the case of Brazil, where he has cited President Lula’s treatment of his predecessor Bolsanaro as reason for imposing 50% levies, is being closely monitored by the world’s governments.

Trump has repeatedly targeted BRICS since his return to the Oval Office. He had threatened the countries with tariffs if they contonie to pledge to create a new common currency or support any alternative to the US dollar. Trump appeared to harbor the illusion that BRICS was ”dead” following his threats – which have now materialized into action. In reality, the BRICS summit held in Brazil this July showed no visible signs of intimidation. On the contrary, such overt displays of American economic coercion may well drive more countries toward alliances that seek to challenge the dominance of any single global power. The administration in Washington appears to lack realism in its assessment of global trends. Trump positions himself as a peacemaker and openly aspires to win a Nobel Peace Prize, while at the same time bombing Iran and assisting Israel in perpetuating the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

Read more …

“Obviously, the DNC and the people running the Open Societies Foundation (Soros) knew what the Clinton campaign was doing; they also knew the FBI was assisting the Clinton campaign.”

• Chuck Grassley Releases Declassified John Durham Annex (CTH)

The FBI, CIA, ODNI and DOJ declassified the annex to the John Durham investigation of the origin of the Trump-Russia collusion hoax. The declassified annex was released today by Senator Chuck Grassley. First, the basic outline. The John Durham Annex outlines how the CIA received information in mid-2016 from a “credible foreign source,” talking about Hillary Clinton’s campaign working with the FBI to manufacture a Trump-Russia conspiracy, as an October surprise. Beginning in 2014 and continuing through 2016, Russian hackers gained access to the email accounts and main accounts of the Soros Foundation/Open Societies Foundation who was working with the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign. What the hackers discovered was a trove of information showing how the Clinton Campaign was constructing a smear job against Donald Trump with the manufacturing of a fraudulent Trump-Russia conspiracy.

The emails and communication showed the Clinton Campaign was directly working with the FBI to create the smear. A CIA source gained custody of the Russian analysis of the information. The information was then shared with the CIA, who evaluated the Russian framework as “authentic” and “valid.” The CIA then shared that information with the FBI, who said the information was “unreliable.” Obviously, the FBI held a conflict of interest because the information received outlined their misconduct. So, the FBI claimed the information gained from the hack was false and likely Russian propaganda. However, the CIA deemed it credible because it was clearly happening in real time. Additionally, this information was then used in the summer of 2016 by CIA Director John Brennan to brief President Obama on what the Russians knew about the Clinton Campaign working with the FBI to create this false political narrative.

Part of what the Russians knew from their intercepts was that President Obama would not support the Clinton campaign directly, but Obama had instructed Attorney General Loretta Lynch to assist Hillary Clinton’s efforts. Lynch would work with FBI officials to exonerate Hillary Clinton from her email server scandal and then greenlight the FBI to assist with the Trump-Russia smear. The 29-page annex then goes into details about who was communicating with whom and what the joint Clinton-FBI agenda was. The information inside the Durham Annex is remarkable in that it shows the planning of the Clinton Campaign to use Fusion GPS and the FBI to smear Donald Trump with the false Trump-Russia narrative.

The declassified Annex has two central components. First, it walks through the evidence against Clinton and the FBI organizing the operation. Second, it then takes a rather remarkable look at how the FBI manipulated the information around Carter Page to support the Clinton/FBI operation. All of the information contained within the declassified annex is not entirely new; however, the clear and compelling evidence it provides highlights the operation as it unfolded. Obviously, the DNC and the people running the Open Societies Foundation (Soros) knew what the Clinton campaign was doing; they also knew the FBI was assisting the Clinton campaign.

The term “special services” in this context is the FBI.

Crowdstrike and ThreatConnect would then push the Trump-Russia narrative into the media. That’s exactly what happened.

I strongly suggest everyone to take the time to read carefully the 29-page declassified Annex. The entire outline of the operation to discredit candidate Donald Trump is within it. CIA Director John Brennan then briefs President Obama to tell him the Russians’ are aware of the op. The Obama administration then begins making moves to target Russia, as both an enhancement to the Clinton operation and as a defensive move to protect themselves from discovery as the operation continues.

Read more …

“..explosive allegations that the FBI may have been doing George Soros’ bidding during Operation Crossfire Hurricane.”

• Durham Annex Bombshell Exposes New Twist in Russian Collusion Hoax (Margolis)

In a bombshell development that should rattle every American, newly declassified documents confirm what conservatives have said all along: the Trump-Russia collusion narrative wasn’t just baseless; it was a deliberate political hit job that the highest levels of the Obama administration orchestrated, with Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign at the helm and the FBI eagerly playing along. But it gets worse. Buried in a classified annex to John Durham’s report, which is finally seeing the light of day after the Biden administration kept it under wraps, are explosive allegations that the FBI may have been doing George Soros’ bidding during Operation Crossfire Hurricane.

This intel, which Durham acquired and shared with a Senate committee, was reportedly so sensitive that whistleblowers say it never saw daylight until now. The hoax wasn’t just a smear campaign. It was a weaponized operation, and the American people were the targets. After Tulsi Gabbard declassified the annex, Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley released it to the public this morning. And buckle up because if the testimony witnesses provided to Durham is accurate, the Soros Foundation wasn’t just tangentially involved in this political hit job; it was knee-deep in it. We’re talking elbows-in, fingerprints-all-over level involvement in what now looks like one of the most brazen abuses of power in modern political history. Just the News has the details:

“Newly-declassified so-called Clinton Plan intelligence included intercepted communications from a George Soros ally which suggested that Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign against Donald Trump was plotting a “long-term affair to demonize” Trump by linking him to Russian leader Vladimir Putin, and that the Clinton campaign expected that “the FBI will put more oil into the fire.” The revelations, including intercepted purported communications from Leonard Benardo, a top official at George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, and communications by Clinton foreign policy adviser Julianne Smith, provide new insight into information that the U.S. intelligence community received in July 2016 – just before the FBI launched its politicized Crossfire Hurricane investigation. The bombshell allegations about a plot to falsely link Trump to Putin in an effort to distract from Clinton’s classified emails scandal are found within a formerly classified but now largely-unredacted appendix from special counsel John Durham’s 2023 report on the origins and conduct of the Russiagate investigation.”

According to the newly declassified annex, U.S. intelligence, including the FBI, received information suggesting that Clinton personally approved a scheme to link Donald Trump to Russian hackers in order to distract from her own email scandal. And it was a Hillary-approved plan. “HRC [Hillary Rodham Clinton] approved [Campaign adviser Julie’s] idea about Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections,” the email read. “That should distract people from her own missing emails.” The plot outlined how a Clinton adviser pushed a long-term plan to “demonize Putin and Trump,” using media outlets, CrowdStrike, and ThreatConnect to launder the narrative under the guise of cybersecurity analysis. Durham concluded that there’s credible evidence that the Clinton campaign’s plan to tie Trump to Russian hackers was real and that the campaign followed through with it.

“The office’s review of certain communications involving Smith provided possible additional support … to the notion that the Clinton campaign was engaged in an effort or plan in late July 2016 to encourage scrutiny of Trump’s purported ties to Russia, and that the [Clinton] campaign might have wanted or expected the FBI or other agencies to aid that effort (‘put more oil into the fire’) by commencing a formal investigation of the DNC hack,” Durham’s classified annex reads.These are not wild conspiracy theories. The documents have shattered the illusions of even the most stubborn deniers.

“Based on the Durham annex, the Obama FBI failed to adequately review and investigate intelligence reports showing the Clinton campaign may have been ginning up the fake Trump-Russia narrative for Clinton’s political gain, which was ultimately done through the Steele Dossier and other means,” Sen. Grassley said in a statement. “History will show that the Obama and Biden administration’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies were weaponized against President Trump. This political weaponization has caused critical damage to our institutions and is one of the biggest political scandals and cover-ups in American history.”

Read more …

“..Sen. Warner’s involvement marks a turning point. This scandal no longer stops with the intelligence agencies; it now reaches deep into Congress..”

• Sitting US Senator Now Implicated in Russia Hoax Cover-Up (Margolis)

In recent weeks, a scandal of epic proportions has come to light, confirming that the Obama administration rigged intelligence to concoct the Russia collusion narrative against Donald Trump, and the conspiracy went all the way to the top: Barack Obama himself. This is no longer hearsay, thanks to two explosive document releases from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. They reveal a conspiracy coordinated between the highest levels of America’s intelligence community and the White House — an open assault on the presidency in retaliation for Trump winning the election. Barack Obama personally ordered the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment to rely on the notorious, unverified Steele Dossier, an opposition research hit job that even career analysts derided for its lack of credibility.

The dossier’s only real value was its utility: fueling Democratic cries of collusion and giving the legacy media a weapon to batter the new administration. Inside the agencies, voices of dissent were crushed. Analysts warned the dossier was junk, but their objections were overruled. The process became not about facts but about constructing a narrative at any cost. Amid this corruption, a senior analyst tried to do the right thing. He witnessed former CIA Director John Brennan warping intelligence and sought to raise the alarm. But speaking the truth in a rigged game is a recipe for punishment. When the analyst tried to report his concerns, he was promptly silenced by Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), then the Democratic chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, whose interest in oversight seemed to depend on political expedience.

Then, intimidation from the very top set in. According to notes obtained by The Federalist, then-DNI James Clapper’s right-hand man threatened the analyst’s career, making it clear that professional advancement hinged on parroting the party line. “The notes made public for the first time today recount a conversation the top analyst in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) had with an unnamed superior who worked closely with the then-Director James Clapper, according to sources familiar with the document,” explain Margot Cleveland and Mollie Hemingway. According to a person familiar with the notes, the analyst documented his recollection of the conversation on March 31, 2023 — more than six years after the conversation occurred.

The delay, The Federalist’s source explained, occurred because the analyst’s efforts to share his concerns, first with the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (IC), and then later with Special Counsel John Durham and Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, proved unsuccessful. Only later did the analyst receive an inquiry for more information about his claims, leading to the drafting of the summary of his recollections. Those notes capture the analyst claiming in early January that his supervisor told him, “There is reporting you are not allowed to see,” adding that “if you saw it, you would agree” with the ICA. After noting he concurred “with varying confidence with most of the 2017 ICA’s Key Judgements,” the analyst explained that he “would need to review any reporting myself in order to consider it.”

“You need to TRUST ME on this,” Clapper’s crony countered, stating to the analyst he “would need to demonstrate [his] ability to ‘outgrow’” his refusal to sign off on assessments he did not share, in order to be recommended for a promotion. The analyst remained firm, according to the notes, which led his exasperated superior to reply, “I need you to say you agree with these judgements, so that DIA will go along with them!” Unlike the left’s celebrated whistleblowers, this analyst was ignored, stonewalled, and silenced for daring to expose the truth. Despite him raising concerns with the IC Inspector General, John Durham, and even Sen. Warner, no one listened — because his story threatened the power structure in Washington. For over six years, the same institutions that claim to protect democracy worked to bury his warnings. Now, the documents show something far worse than mere misconduct: a deliberate scheme to weaponize U.S. intelligence against a sitting president and subvert the will of the voters.

The Russia hoax wasn’t a mistake; it was a slow-motion coup dressed up as national security. And unless the people behind it face real consequences, there can be no restoring trust in the intelligence community. The evidence is now overwhelming that senior Obama officials didn’t just manufacture the Russia collusion hoax, but they actively worked to suppress anyone who challenged it. With the help of a sitting U.S. senator, they silenced a whistleblower to keep their deception buried. Sen. Warner’s involvement marks a turning point. This scandal no longer stops with the intelligence agencies; it now reaches deep into Congress. Lawmakers weren’t merely complicit; they played an active role in a coordinated plot to mislead the American people and undermine a duly elected president.

Read more …

“We are what we are. Weak, ridiculous, loud-mouthed. We educate others, but we have no strength when it comes to negotiating. We show neither talent nor ability. So it’s the worst combination.”

• Orban Hammers ‘Weak and Ridiculous’ EU (RT)

The European Union’s recent dealings with the US have reinforced Brussels’ image as a weak yet overconfident partner prone to lecturing others, according to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. Speaking on Friday during his regular interview on Kossuth Radio, Orban took aim at European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen for her handling of trade negotiations with US President Donald Trump. He claimed she had failed to secure a balanced agreement and made side commitments – such as pledging to purchase US arms, presumably for Ukraine – that she had neither the authority to offer nor the capacity to fulfill.

Orban described the resulting trade arrangement as “an economic own goal,” and suggested the EU had lost ground in a trade dispute that remains unresolved. The Hungarian leader, a frequent critic of Brussels, said the bloc’s foreign policy approach was incoherent and ineffective, painting a picture of dysfunction at the top. “We are what we are. Weak, ridiculous, loud-mouthed. We educate others, but we have no strength when it comes to negotiating. We show neither talent nor ability. So it’s the worst combination.”

He likened EU diplomacy to “a little hamster huddling in the corner, hissing at everyone, arguing with everyone, humiliating ourselves, and then still thinking we are in a position to lecture others about human rights, democracy, and behavior.” Orban was commenting on a perceived diplomatic slight toward top EU officials during their visit to Beijing earlier this week. Members of the delegation, led by von der Leyen and European Council President Antonio Costa, were seen exiting shuttle buses at the airport upon arrival before eventually being offered individual transportation. The footage shown by Chinese media prompted speculation that the reception was not in line with the dignitaries’ rank.

Read more …

“There are currently no details about what kind of advance she got for the book, which probably means it was really small.”

• The Art of the Defeat: Kamala ‘Writes’ Memoir About 2024 Campaign (Margolis)

It looks like Kamala Harris isn’t fading away into the sunset just yet. Brace yourselves; she’s writing a book. After tanking so spectacularly in the 2024 election that her future in public office is all but shot, she’s chosen the classic liberal consolation prize: the post-defeat memoir. Harris has announced a memoir about her failed presidential campaign, titled “107 Days.” The video announcement, which she delivered with all the forced earnestness we’ve come to expect from the former vice president, attempts to reframe her presidential campaign as something noble, inspirational, and worth commemorating. You can already tell this book will be 300-plus pages of agonizing prose, blaming everything and everyone for her defeat, except Harris herself.

Even the title, “107 Days,” feels like a not-so-subtle attempt to plant the idea that she never really had a fair shot. It’s not her fault she burned through over a billion dollars and lost every swing state; it was just “the circumstances” that made victory impossible. The whole thing reads like a preemptive excuse masquerading as a reflection. “Just over a year ago, I launched my campaign for President of the United States,” she said. “107 days traveling the country fighting for our future, the shortest presidential campaign in modern history.” Apparently, Harris has spent her post-office time reminiscing about those three and a half months of political mediocrity, cobbling together what she calls a “journal” into a book. “Since leaving office, I’ve spent a lot of time reflecting on those days,” she said, explaining she was “pulling my thoughts together… in essence writing a journal that is this book.”

Of course, she insists the book offers more than just an extended therapy session. She promises a “behind-the-scenes account” and insists it’s filled with “candor and reflection,” which in Harris-speak likely means recycled talking points and plenty of passive voice. “I believe there’s value in sharing what I saw, what I learned, and what I know it will take to move forward,” Harris added, though she neglected to explain how losing to Donald Trump by a landslide in 2024 qualifies her to lecture anyone on how to “move forward.”In other words, it’s the spiritual sequel to Hillary Clinton’s “What Happened?” She goes on to claim that one “truth” kept coming back to her while supposedly writing this book. That truth? “Sometimes the fight takes a while.” A poetic way of saying: I lost, but I’m still pretending it mattered.

Finally, Harris assured her dwindling fan base, “I will never stop fighting to make our country reflect the very best of its ideals, always on behalf of the people.” Translation: I’m not done chasing relevance. In what feels like the latest stop on Kamala Harris’s never-ending farewell tour minus the applause, “107 Days” is shaping up to be yet another entry in her growing library of hollow slogans and forced gravitas. “I cannot wait for you to read this,” she declares, which is ironic, because most Americans won’t. Simon & Schuster is publishing the book, which comes out in September. There are currently no details about what kind of advance she got for the book, which probably means it was really small.

Read more …

“..an evaluation of the Ukraine-Russia conflict and the frustration of the Trump administration to find a way to settle the issues..”

• Marco Rubio Discusses Current Geopolitical Events and Russia Hoax (CTH)

Secretary of State/National Security Advisor, Marco Rubio, appears for an interview with Brian Kilmeade to discuss recent events in the world of geopolitics in addition to the events now surfacing with the declassification of the Trump-Russia hoax documents. The beginning of the conversation starts with an evaluation of the Ukraine-Russia conflict and the frustration of the Trump administration to find a way to settle the issues. The second subject is the status of U.S-India relations now that trade negotiations have stalled. The conversation then moves to the ongoing declassification of information. At 07:30 of the interview Rubio is asked about his previous SSCI investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. Rubio talks about his prior role as Chairman of the SSCI and the efforts of the Intelligence Community to manipulate public opinion.

Read more …

Try woke spelling.

“Shur, whi not rite a sentins like this won, wear awl the wurdz sound rite but luk lyke they flunked owtta speling skool?”

• Why Western Education Is Doomed (Marsden)

In France, the attempt to institute a similar post-knowledge educational system has seen middling results. High school math classes were ditched entirely in 2019 under President Emmanuel Macron. But the outcome was such a disaster that it was reversed for the 2023/24 school year. This year’s French final standardized exams for high schoolers and middle schoolers, which have just taken place, saw the French media publish a bunch of instructions that were given to the test graders to dummy things down for France’s future Nobel Prize hopefuls. “The first is to not deduct points for spelling or grammar mistakes. What matters is not compliance with the spelling code, but intelligibility,” said France’s RTL.

Oh, so something like this, you mean? “Shur, whi not rite a sentins like this won, wear awl the wurdz sound rite but luk lyke they flunked owtta speling skool?” Because that fits the stated criteria. Imagine an email from that colleague when he or she gets into your workplace.mnnApparently, graders were also told not to remove all points when a student is asked to conjugate a verb – and then gets the root of the same verb that was just listed wrong. Maybe the verb they replaced whatever was right in front of their eyes with doesn’t even exist, but the ending is right. Only half the points are taken away for that.

The final philosophy exam had to explain the meaning of the word “preponderant,” because it was apparently considered too hard for kids about to head off to university, RTL reports. The media outlet also pointed out that graders of the oral exam, read from a text that the student has 20 minutes to prepare, were only to focus on the student’s performance at the end of the session, to account for nerves. This may or may not have been read off a student’s page:

“Hai, my naym is Sam. I hav two bruthurs and wun sistur. We lyk to play soker togethur. My mum cuks gud fud and my dad lukes to wach mooviz wif us. I lyk drawin and playin vidyo gayms. Thansk for lisnin! Do I pas high skool now?” Oui, oui! A+. Every day seems to bring a new revelation about how the West’s Wokémon Academy is doing. In a world where feelings outrank facts and spelling is optional, it’s anyone’s guess what our ‘graduates’ will actually know and be equipped with for real life. But hey, at least their safe spaces are well-furnished.

Read more …

This is after talking to Deputy AG Todd Blanche for 9 hours this week.

”Maxwell is supposed to be locked up until 2037. Yet inmates “typically only go to a camp if you have just a couple years left,”

• Ghislaine Maxwell Is Quietly Moved To Cushy New ‘Club Fed’ Prison (NYP)

Notorious sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell has quietly been moved to a cushy Texas prison camp known as Club Fed as she tries to hash out a deal to divulge her sordid secrets about late pedophile ex Jeffrey Epstein. The 63-year-old convicted child sex trafficker was transferred from a lockup in Florida to the minimum-security prison camp in Bryan, Texas, the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) confirmed to The Post on Friday. No reason was given for the move, but it comes days after she met Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche twice while trying to seek immunity and a deal to spill her secrets about Epstein. The notorious madam — who is serving 20 years for helping Epstein groom and abuse underage girls — will now be neighbors with white-collar criminals, including Elizabeth Holmes, the disgraced fraudster convicted of ripping off investors in her now-defunct blood-testing company Theranos.

“It’s one of the best prisons for anyone to go to,” Josh Lepird, regional vice president for the prison officers’ union that includes Maxwell’s new camp, told the Houston Chronicle on Friday. “When you hear people say ‘Club Fed,’ they’re talking about places like FPC Bryan. ”Maxwell is supposed to be locked up until 2037. Yet inmates “typically only go to a camp if you have just a couple years left,” Lepird told the outlet. “But if someone is a cooperating witness, they can request a lower security level.”

Her unexpected move from Federal Correctional Institution Tallahassee was handled directly by BOP officials, rather than US Marshals, according to the New York Sun, which said it included a “brief stopover” in FCI Oakdale in Louisiana. No reason was given for the unexpected move. Maxwell’s lawyer, David Oscar Marcus, also declined to elaborate, saying, “We can confirm that she was moved but we have no comment.” However, the sudden transfer comes a week after Blanche — the DOJ’s second-in-command and formerly President Trump’s defense lawyer — huddled with the disgraced British socialite and her lawyer at the US Attorney’s Office in Tallahassee.

Read more …

“Sit down with a double martini to help keep you calm, and try to think of even one American institution that serves a public interest..”

• Rule by Quacks (Paul Craig Roberts)

Adam Dick of the Ron Paul Institute reports that the American Academy of Pediatrics last Monday called for mandated vaccinations of children for the full plethora of vaccines and the elimination of all exceptions. The irresponsible American Academy of Pediatrics served as despicable shills for Big Pharma’s murder for profit of children by insisting that every child be infected with the spike protein from the Covid vax. The academy’s support for mandatory vaccination of children with the 54 shots, many known to be toxic and dangerous and the cause of the extraordinary increase in childhood illnesses since the mass vaccination, fortunately for me after my generation, was imposed on naive parents, is proof that the American Academy of Pediatric is a collection of incompetent quacks on the take from profit-driven Big Pharma.

In my opinion, every member of the academy should be arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced for conspiracy to commit murder. American doctors are so indoctrinated by Big Pharma’s control over medical education and research that Americans can no longer trust their doctors. Americans can’t trust their hospitals either. Reports are emerging of hospitals harvesting for profit the organs of patients before they are dead. The value of money has replaced the value of life in American health care. We see it everywhere. For example, cancer cures such as Ivermectin and Fenbendzole are being suppressed in order to save the high profit chemotherapy and radiation treatment. It seems the entire purpose of medical research, 70% of which is funded by Big Pharma grants, is to protect Big Pharma’s control of health care practice.

Sit down with a double martini to help keep you calm, and try to think of even one American institution that serves a public interest. The health system serves profit. The educational system serves left-wing ideology by teaching white kids that they are racists and born into the wrong body and by replacing a merit-based society with DEI ideology. The military serves the power and profit of the military/security complex. Take it from here and extend the list. Is there any way short of massive violence for Americans to regain control over their lives?

Read more …

“Shots mandates for children are already widespread in America. But, that is not good enough for AAP. It appears determined to eliminate the ability of almost all parents to opt their children out of the mandates.”

• Pediatricians Organization Says Eliminate Vaccine Exemptions for Children (Dick)

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) distinguished itself as an obsessive shots pusher and freedom theatener during the coronavirus crackdown. It was admonishing that children — who were at very minimal risk from coronavirus — be subjected to the quack practices of masking and social distancing to protect them until they became “fully vaccinated” with experimental coronavirus “vaccine” shots. The AAP was also calling on pediatricians to evangelize for giving these dangerous and ineffective shots to nearly all children in the age groups for which the United States government had approved the shots. Luckily for many American children, their parents resisted the AAP supported effort. But, many other parents, placing confidence in pediatricians that peddled the AAP line, went along.

While the coronavirus crackdown has receded into the past, the AAP, an organization claiming 67,000 members, is still pushing shots and threatening freedom on a grand scale. The latest example is the policy statement the AAP issued on Monday titled Medical vs Nonmedical Immunization Exemptions for Child Care and School Attendance. In the policy statement, the AAP endorses the presence of laws and regulations requiring children to receive “immunizations” as a prerequisite for attending school or daycare. Further, the AAP supports eliminating philosophical and religious based exemptions from such mandates — the means by which the vast majority of parents who have opted out across America have been able to protect their children from receiving some or all of the plethora of shots listed in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) childhood vaccination schedule.

The only exemption basis, declares the AAP in its policy statement, should be “medically indicated exemptions to specific immunizations as determined for each individual student.” As this phrasing from the policy statement indicates, this medical exemption route turns out to deny exemption for most children and can even limit the applicability of medical exemptions that may be granted to just one or some of the mandated shots. Showing a child has already been hurt by shots is part of one of the limited routes to maybe obtain a medical exemption. Such an exemption will, by definition, be too late. As I wrote in April of 2023, the medical exemption for vaccines “could more accurately be called the mirage exemption” given that it is unavailable to almost all children.

The AAP policy statement further says that, even once granted, medical exemptions should have hanging over them the possibility of being revoked at any time. The policy statement directs that “all pediatric health care providers” should “recertify the need for these exemptions on a regular basis.” Here today, gone tomorrow. The AAP also appears to want to shut the door on any doctors who try to grant medical exemptions in any but the most stingy manner. The policy statement declares that “states and territories should develop policies to ensure that any medical exemptions are appropriate and evidence based.” It is not the doctor’s determination after all. Big Brother will be there to crack down on any doctor who swims against the current. Shots mandates for children are already widespread in America. But, that is not good enough for AAP. It appears determined to eliminate the ability of almost all parents to opt their children out of the mandates.

Read more …

Who finds this a good thing?

• CDC Recommended Vaccine Schedule 1986 vs. 2019 (CHD)

In the early 1980s, children received three vaccines for seven illnesses—two combination vaccines (diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis and measles-mumps-rubella) and a polio vaccine—totaling two dozen doses by age 18. In the decade following 1989 (beginning soon after the NCVIA’s implementation), the CDC packed multiple doses of several more vaccines into the childhood schedule, including those for Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), hepatitis B (on the day of birth) and varicella (chickenpox), as well as a rotavirus vaccine (withdrawn a year after its introduction)

Next, in the first decade of the 2000s, the CDC recommended an even larger batch of new vaccines, going after not just children but also adolescents and adults: hepatitis A, HPV, meningococcal conjugate, pneumococcal conjugate, rotavirus (again) and zoster (shingles), along with an adult tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis booster (Tdap) and a massive expansion of influenza vaccine recommendations for all ages . At present, the childhood vaccine schedule requires almost six dozen doses through age 18 for sixteen diseases.

Read more …

We’re not all used to ‘Gulf of America’ yet.

• ‘Dead Zone’ In Gulf of America Shrank Sharply In 2025 (JTN)

The Gulf of America’s “dead zone” has shrunk significantly this summer, with scientists measuring a hypoxic area of just over 4,400 square miles — roughly a third smaller than last year and far less than the long-term average, federal officials announced Wednesday. The dead zone, a stretch of oxygen-depleted water that forms annually off the Louisiana and Texas coasts, is caused primarily by excess nutrients washing into the Gulf from the Mississippi-Atchafalaya River Basin. This year’s zone, measured during a July 20–25 survey aboard the research vessel Pelican, was 4,402 square miles — 21% smaller than NOAA’s early-season estimate and the 15th smallest on record, according to NOAA-supported scientists from LSU and the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium.

“This year’s significant reduction in the Gulf of America’s ‘dead zone’ is an encouraging sign for the future of this area,” said Laura Grimm, acting NOAA administrator. “It highlights the dedication and impactful work of NOAA-supported scientists and partners, and serves as a testament to the effectiveness of collaborative efforts in supporting our U.S. fishermen, coastal communities, and vital marine ecosystems.” The measured area is equivalent to roughly 2.8 million acres of bottom habitat temporarily made unavailable to marine life such as fish and shrimp due to low oxygen levels. That marks a 30% drop from 2024, when the zone spanned a massive 6,703 square miles — more than 1.3 times the long-term average and nearly 3.5 times larger than the target goal of 1,930 square miles set by the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Task Force.

Despite this year’s improvement, the five-year running average remains high at 4,755 square miles—still more than double the federal benchmark. Dead zones emerge when excess nutrients — mostly nitrogen and phosphorus from upstream agriculture and wastewater — fuel algae blooms. As algae die and sink, their decomposition consumes oxygen in bottom waters. Without sufficient oxygen, marine species must flee or perish.= In 2024, the area west of the Mississippi River experienced heavy hypoxia with extremely low oxygen readings and little water mixing, according to NOAA. “The stratification of warmer surface water over cooler, saltier bottom water was strong enough to prevent oxygen replenishment,” researchers wrote in a followup report.

Some bottom waters saw oxygen drop across the lower five meters of the water column. Even with relatively low chlorophyll readings — indicating modest live algae near the surface — researchers noted high concentrations of degraded algae and organic detritus near the seafloor, still enough to drive significant bacterial oxygen consumption. The Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Task Force, a coalition of federal and state agencies, has worked for over two decades to reduce nutrient pollution flowing into the Gulf. The EPA established a dedicated Gulf Hypoxia Program in 2022 to accelerate these efforts.

“The Gulf of America is a national treasure that supports energy dominance, commercial fishing, American industry, and the recreation economy,” said Peggy Browne, acting assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Water. “I look forward to co-leading the work of the Gulf Hypoxia Task Force to assess evolving science and address nutrient loads from all sources.” So far, nitrogen loading from the Mississippi River has not declined since the 2001 adoption of the Hypoxia Action Plan, scientists noted. NOAA’s June 2025 forecast, which had predicted a dead zone of 5,574 square miles, was based on U.S. Geological Survey nutrient data from spring river flows and fell within model uncertainty ranges.

NOAA’s Coastal Hypoxia Research, Ocean Technology Transition, and Uncrewed Systems programs are working to improve monitoring and prediction tools. This year, several autonomous surface vehicles were deployed alongside ship-based crews to compare mapping methods. Researchers said ASVs may provide a more cost-effective way to track dead zones in the future. NOAA also partners with the Northern Gulf Institute and Gulf of Mexico Alliance to expand observational capabilities and state-level technical support.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

DOGE: regulations

IVM
https://twitter.com/newstart_2024/status/1951236472314450127

Pelosi
https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1950982971533439364

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle November 10 2024

Nov 102024
 
 November 10, 2024  Posted by at 9:41 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , ,  72 Responses »


Claude Monet Camille on the Beach at Trouville 1870

 

• Goodbye To The Liberal Elites (Diesen)
• Trump Must End Wars, Focus On Problems At Home – Dennis Kucinich (RT)
• Trump’s Election Victory Gives Cautious Optimism For Peace In Ukraine (SCF)
• Trump Seeking ‘Major Changes’ To US Foreign Policy – Bloomberg (RT)
• Biden Allows Deployment Of US Military ‘Contractors’ To Ukraine – Media (RT)
• Can Trump Tame Resistance 2.0? (J. Peder Zane)
• Trump’s Triumph Sows Sorrow for Soros (Sp.)
• Kamala Harris May Be Appointed Supreme Court Judge (Sp.)
• Zelensky ‘Afraid War Will End’ – Slovak PM Fico (RT)
• Zelensky Must Accept ‘Crimea Is Gone’ – Trump Strategist (RT)
• Musk Says “Time Is Up For The Warmonger Profiteers” (ZH)
• Will Trump Clash With Musk Over EV Tariffs? (Sp.)
• Putin Outlines The ‘Moment of Truth’ (Pepe Escobar)
• Neoliberalism Has “Become a Totalitarian Ideology” – Putin (Paul Craig Roberts)

 

 

 

 

Bullet

Gender
https://twitter.com/i/status/1855075005693935930

20 million
https://twitter.com/i/status/1854967604269682852

 

 

 

 

App
https://twitter.com/i/status/1854976633733890264

Co-President

Elon
https://twitter.com/i/status/1855085762930422025

Amish

Vivek Elon
https://twitter.com/i/status/1855142541697728612
https://twitter.com/i/status/1855281327253188672

Kash Patel
https://twitter.com/i/status/1855244901916492023

FYI

Disavow

 

 

 

 

 

 

“..Trump’s flaw is that excessive tariffs and an economic war on China will severely disrupt supply chains to the extent it will undermine the US economy..”

• Goodbye To The Liberal Elites (Diesen)

“Make America Great Again” is likely a reference to somewhere around 1973, when the US peaked – it’s since been in decline. Under the neoliberal consensus, society became an appendage to the market and politicians became unable to deliver the changes demanded by the public. The political left could not redistribute wealth, and the political right could not defend traditional values and communities. Globalization gave birth to a political class loyal to international capital without national loyalties, and accountability to the public disappeared. Globalization often contradicts democracy, and there is a growing division between illiberal democracy versus undemocratic liberalism.

A key lesson from the American System in the early 19th century was that industrialization and subsequent economic sovereignty is a necessity for national sovereignty. Tariffs and temporary subsidies are important tools for infant industries to develop maturity, and fair trade is thus often preferable to free trade. Trump’s tariffs to re-industrialize and advance technological sovereignty are noble ambitions that even the Biden administration attempted to emulate. However, Trump’s flaw is that excessive tariffs and an economic war on China will severely disrupt supply chains to the extent it will undermine the US economy. The excesses of Trump’s tariffs and economic coercion derive from the effort to break China and restore US global primacy. If the US can accept a more modest role in the international system as one among many great powers, the president elect could embrace a more moderate economic nationalism that would have a greater prospect of succeeding.

Trump’s vice president-elect, JD Vance, correctly noted the self-defeating moralizing of the US: “We have built a foreign policy of hectoring and moralizing and lecturing countries that don’t want anything to do with it. The Chinese have a foreign policy of building roads and bridges and feeding poor people.” It is a good time for pragmatism to triumph over ideology. Critics of Trump are correct to point out the paradox of a billionaire claiming to represent the people against a detached globalized elite. Sitting in flashy buildings with his name on the side in large golden letters, Trump has nonetheless taken the role of representing American workers by calling for re-industrialization. Raised in the excesses and hedonism of America’s cultural elites, Trump calls for preserving America’s traditional values and culture. Is Trump a savior? Probably not.

But policies are more important than personalities, and Trump is kicking open a door that was seemingly closed by liberal ideology. Trump’s appeal to end the forever wars resulted in invaluable support from former Democrats such as Tulsi Gabbard, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Elon Musk. The liberal crusades over the past three decades have fueled unsustainable debt. Of course, they financed the deep state (the blob), but they alienated the US across the world, and incentivized the other great powers to collectively balance Washington. The forever wars were costly mistakes that never end well, yet the US could absorb these costs during the unipolar era in the absence of any real opponents. In a multipolar system, America must scale back its military adventurism and learn how to prioritize foreign policy objectives.

Read more …

“Trump is a deal-maker… a family man concerned about children and grandchildren. He’s not personally interested in seeing the US expand into war, he’s not a globalist in that way..”

• Trump Must End Wars, Focus On Problems At Home – Dennis Kucinich (RT)

US president-elect Donald Trump will have his hands full fixing the mess in foreign and domestic policy left by incumbent leader Joe Biden’s administration, according to Dennis Kucinich, two-time Democratic presidential candidate and retired eight-term US congressman. In an interview with Going Underground host Afshin Rattansi broadcast on RT on Saturday, Kucinich said that the success of Trump’s presidency will depend on his ability to shift the focus of US politics from the “globalist aspirations of the State Department” to problems at home. The veteran politician welcomed Trump’s victory over Democrat Kamala Harris in this week’s election, saying that it represents a “historic shift” in US politics towards “populism.”

“[The US] has come through a very dark period where the government put this country to the edge of World War III, and people don’t want that,” Kucinich stated, noting that ordinary Americans worry about simple things like paying bills and generally “making ends meet,” which he called “very practical aspirations they have in common with people around the world.” He said Trump’s presidency “will depend on not getting further involved in foreign entanglements.” “This economy is shaking, the dollar is not in the same position it was in four years ago… the previous administration has not been successful in reviving the economy with all this money for Wall Street but not enough for main street,” he stated. Kucinich added that this happened “precisely” because the Biden administration poured billions into wars “that are not necessary.”

There’s a lot of work Trump will need to do, he is going to be faced with some serious decisions about scaling back the US position in Europe and the Middle East and to try to find a way that we can move past the events that the Biden administration embroiled America in. Kucinich noted that he expects Trump to be able to extricate the US from global conflicts through his “deal-making finesse.” “Trump is a deal-maker… a family man concerned about children and grandchildren. He’s not personally interested in seeing the US expand into war, he’s not a globalist in that way,” he stated. Kucinich also suggested that Trump would be wise to lead the US towards cooperation with the “new world” that is “taking shape in response to disastrous sanctions and wars,” citing BRICS as one of the alignments that the US should consider working with.

Read more …

“Russia’s military victory in Ukraine is as assured as it is righteous and legally correct. Moscow will set its own terms and is not looking for U.S. approval under Trump or anyone else.”

• Trump’s Election Victory Gives Cautious Optimism For Peace In Ukraine (SCF)

As the dust settles after a tumultuous U.S. presidential election, the magnitude of Donald Trump’s victory becomes clearer. His decisive win to become the 47th president of the American Republic is an emphatic popular mandate for change. This could enable Trump to bring the disastrous U.S.-led proxy war in Ukraine against Russia to a peaceful end, as Francis Boyle, a respected American professor of international law, remarked this week. Going into the election, the stakes could not have been higher. A continuation of the nearly three-year-old conflict – as would have happened if the Democrats had remained in power – was potentially leading to World War Three and a nuclear conflagration. Trump had starkly warned of that imminent danger. A central part of his election platform was a pledge to push for a diplomatic resolution.

At 78, Donald J Trump becomes the only second president in U.S. history to win two non-consecutive terms. The last figure to do that was Grover Cleveland, a Democrat, in 1892, as noted by Martin Sieff, a seasoned observer of American elections. What makes Trump’s political comeback so astonishing is the defiance of the establishment and the mainstream media, which for the most part was staunchly supporting his rival, Kamala Harris. “Every dirty trick, lie and scare tactic in the history of American politics – which is filled with them – was used against him. They all failed,” wrote Sieff this week. The pre-election polls, right up to voting day on November 5, weren’t even close, as it turned out. Trump swept the electoral map, taking even the supposedly battleground states, to win by more than 4 million popular votes. He also stormed past the crucial threshold of 270 to win over 300 electoral college votes.

The key factor for his triumph was the economy which Trump tapped into. Bound up in the economic tribulations for ordinary Americans is the militarism and warmongering that the Democrats have become associated with. The callous lack of priority to address pressing social and economic needs of poor, working Americans that the Biden administration and his vice president Kamala Harris had displayed over the past four years was matched by their license to fund the war in Ukraine to the tune of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars.

There was also the factor of the Biden administration’s appalling complicity in the Israeli genocide in Gaza over the past year. Millions of Muslim, Arab and young voters who would normally vote Democrat were outraged and disgusted. They refused to give Harris their votes. Trump is no friend of the Palestinian people, but at least he could not be accused of complicity in genocide the way Biden and Harris indelibly are. Not only does Trump win the White House decisively, his Republican Party also took back control of the Senate and looks like maintaining its majority in the House of Representatives. With that dominance in the executive and legislative branches of government, the second Trump administration will be able to implement his program without impediment. His previous administration (2016-2020) was hampered by Democrats and the corporate-controlled media over spurious claims about “Russia collusion”. That propaganda farce is obsolete.

The authority of Trump’s political position makes it propitious for him to follow through on his election pledge to end the conflict in Ukraine. Trump has boasted that he can end the war in 24 hours. That is typical bluster from the former real estate magnate. The signs are that Russia has its own clear-sighted objectives and will not be swayed from achieving them. Russia is done with Western duplicity. It is determined to defeat the Kiev NeoNazi regime, to retain its newly regained historic territories, and to ensure whatever is left of the rump Ukrainian state that it will never join the NATO military alliance. Russia’s military victory in Ukraine is as assured as it is righteous and legally correct. Moscow will set its own terms and is not looking for U.S. approval under Trump or anyone else.

What Trump can do to expedite the end of the bloodshed and establish peace is to immediately sever the reckless military aid to the Kiev regime. Trump’s “America First” manifesto suggests that is what he will do. By closing down the war racket that was driven by the Biden administration, the conflict will come to a much-needed prompt end. This week, Russian President Vladimir Putin congratulated Trump on his election and said that Moscow was open for reasonable dialogue. But it seems patent that the dialogue will be about accepting the eminently reasonable conditions that Russia had always offered – no NATO expansion into Ukraine and recognition of the principle of indivisible security for all.

Read more …

“..the country is now “moving in the direction – knowing that Trump has won – of accepting that negotiations are a reality.”

• Trump Seeking ‘Major Changes’ To US Foreign Policy – Bloomberg (RT)

US President-elect Donald Trump is wasting no time in his push to revamp Washington’s policies on Ukraine, even though his inauguration is still weeks away, Bloomberg reported on Friday. One unnamed former Trump administration official told the agency that the Republican will “have an immediate head start thanks to the perception that he will be tougher than his predecessor.” He added that some US adversaries could change their behavior without waiting for the president-elect to be sworn in, as they might be “deterred by the threat of US retaliation,” while others could try “to exploit their remaining leverage before President Joe Biden leaves office.” According to Bloomberg, the shift in the wind is “felt most acutely in Ukraine,” given that Trump has promised to settle the conflict within 24 hours if elected, even before his inauguration.

The president-elect and Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky have already had a phone call, with X owner Elon Musk – a Trump ally who has advocated for Kiev to cede territory to Russia to end the conflict – also reportedly joining in. Shelby Magid, the deputy director of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center, told Bloomberg that Trump’s victory has changed Ukraine’s attitude toward talks. She added that the country is now “moving in the direction – knowing that Trump has won – of accepting that negotiations are a reality.” The transition period is often turbulent in the US, the article added, noting that this has been exacerbated by Trump’s apparent intention to change US policy. According to Bloomberg, this has “handcuffed the Biden administration,” as many US allies had been reluctant to take action before they were sure who would be the next US president.

As for a possible settlement of the Ukraine conflict, the Wall Street Journal reported that one of the plans under consideration includes Kiev dropping its ambitions to join NATO in the near future and freezing the conflict along the current front line. While Zelensky has ruled out any concessions to Russia, including “trading” territory, Ukrainian media reports suggested that he might be powerless to resist US pressure if Trump decides that Kiev must make a peace deal with Russia. Moscow has ruled out a freezing of the conflict, insisting that all of the goals of the military operation – including Ukrainian neutrality, demilitarization, and denazification – must be achieved. Nevertheless, Russia has signaled that it is open to talks aimed at resolving the crisis.

Read more …

What if they come under fire? What about body bags?!

• Biden Allows Deployment Of US Military ‘Contractors’ To Ukraine – Media (RT)

The administration of outgoing President Joe Biden has lifted a de facto ban on deploying US defense contractors to Ukraine to repair American-made armaments, Reuters and CNN reported on Friday, citing anonymous Pentagon officials. This reversal of previous US policy comes as Donald Trump, who has been skeptical of providing funding and military assistance to Ukraine in its conflict with Russia, secured his second term in the White House. While it is unclear whether Trump would have continued the prior policy, he has promised not to put American lives at risk and to rapidly conclude the conflict once in office again. The potential American presence on the ground will be “small” and located “far” from the front lines, and they are not expected to engage in combat, Reuters wrote on Friday, citing an anonymous US official.

As the US and its NATO partners have provided Kiev with increasingly sophisticated American-made armaments, such as F-16 fighter jets and Patriot air defense systems, restrictions have slowed repairs and proven increasingly challenging. Much of the equipment has been damaged beyond repair by Kiev’s own specialists. The policy change aligns the Pentagon more closely with the US State Department and USAID, which already have contractors in Ukraine, according to another official. “These contractors will help the Ukrainian Armed Forces rapidly repair and maintain US-provided equipment as needed so it can quickly return to the front lines,” CNN wrote on Friday, citing a defense official. Specifically, F-16 jets and Patriot batteries “require specific technical expertise to maintain,” they said.

Allowing US contractors to work in Ukraine will provide a faster alternative to the current method of transporting equipment to NATO countries such as Poland and Romania for repairs, CNN noted. Meanwhile, the risks of being killed by Russian strikes will fall on the companies bidding for the Pentagon contracts. “Each US contractor, organization, or company will be responsible for the safety and security of their employees and will be required to include risk mitigation plans as part of their bids,” CNN cited a defense official as saying.

Russian President Vladimir Putin previously stated that Moscow is aware of the “direct involvement of NATO troops in this conflict.” He pointed out that several high-tech systems the US and its allies have provided to Kiev, such as ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles, require the involvement of Western officers to operate them. The Russian Defense Ministry regularly reports airstrikes on repair facilities in Ukraine. This week alone, the Russian military conducted at least 38 strikes on Ukrainian military-industrial complex facilities, as well as the energy and military infrastructure supporting them, according to the latest report on Friday.

Read more …

“They will keep fighting, banking on a return to power in two or four years when they can continue their project to transform America. They are masters of the long game.”

• Can Trump Tame Resistance 2.0? (J. Peder Zane)

Last Tuesday, we were all equal – one person, one vote. Against every effort by the liberal elites, a slim majority of Americans returned Donald Trump to the White House, investing him with vast authority through their 73 million votes. On Wednesday, the normal order of inequality was restored. The potent forces in government, business, media, and academia that opposed Trump by hook or crook took back up their undemocratic reins of power and began to plot how, as Kamala Harris put it in her concession speech, they “will continue to keep fighting.” This is not as bad as it sounds. America became a free and prosperous nation in large part because of the constraints our founders put on government – both in the checks and balances at the federal level and the federalism that invests states with great authority. This, along with the visionary Bill of Rights and the refusal to establish a national church, created vast opportunities for individuals and non-governmental organizations to shape our country.

This diffusion of power is a major reason why we have never come close to dictatorship. Even with the vast expansion of government since the New Deal and Great Society, there are still too many moving parts for a wannabe authoritarian to corral. As it empowers the non-governmental actors, the American system depends on an implicit set of checks and balances – both vigilance and restraint – on the behavior of the people. One clear example concerns speech. The First Amendment’s broad protections are limited by the guardrails imposed by ever-evolving community standards regarding acceptable discourse. In theory, everybody can say the n-word, but you really can’t, along with a host of slurs that once filled our newspapers. Another example involves accepting the results of elections. Even in Ronald Reagan’s 1984 landslide, about 42% of Americans did not vote for the Gipper.

Still, the losing side is expected to accept defeat graciously, to respect the authority their adversary has gained in this zero-sum game of elections, and take up the mantle of the loyal opposition. In the wake of Trump’s victory, this is another norm that conspicuous segments of the modern Democratic Party seem intent on breaking – not through a Jan. 6 episode of violence but through the legislative maneuvers, investigations, and lawfare that marked their resistance during his first term. Before the election, the legacy media was filled with largely celebratory articles about efforts to Trump-proof government in case he won. This effort is now being turbocharged with reports that President Biden aims to use the lame-duck session to thwart his successor. Governor Gavin Newsom has called a special session of the California legislature to Trump-proof state laws.

Governor Maura Healey has said Massachusetts state police will not support Trump’s mass immigration plans – a bedrock promise of his campaign, which is backed by a majority of Americans. This opposition is only the tip of a long spear of Resistance 2.0. The liberal and leftist elites in the legacy media, academia, and various other power centers have made clear that they will do everything they can, not just to oppose but to undermine and delegitimize the democratically elected president. This is not business as usual, nor is it merely an echo of Mitch McConnell’s vow in 2010 to make Obama a one-term president. It is a rejection of the compact that has long ruled American politics in which the losing side gives the winner a chance to prove them wrong.

How could they? Their unhinged claims that Trump is an authoritarian fascist are not a political ploy but a deeply held belief, cultivated over decades of Manichean indoctrination. They have used similar language to describe every Republican president since Reagan. Trump is the culmination of this uncompromising worldview. The concise paraphrase of the physicist Max Planck’s insight – that science proceeds one funeral at a time – captures what Trump is up against. Democrats and their allies are too invested in their own ideology to change. They will keep fighting, banking on a return to power in two or four years when they can continue their project to transform America. They are masters of the long game. In response, Trump and his allies must first hope that the GOP retains control of the House of Representatives – votes are still being counted. This is crucial for limiting the Democrats’ ability to kneecap the new administration with spurious congressional investigations.

More importantly, Trump must, as best he can, limit his love for battle, resist his instinct to take the bait. He should treat his opponents with the contempt they deserve, ignoring their provocations for the sake of effective governance. He should be guided by the single best line of his campaign, “My revenge will be success.” He must focus on our problems rather than his enemies. The challenges we face – especially our unsustainable debt, an economy that is not working for ordinary Americans, and a world beset by conflict – have little to do with the opinions of Democrats and the New York Times. Yes, his opponents enjoy great power, which they will brandish in an attempt to weaken and frustrate him. But if he can rise above their malice – and his own pettiness – he just might make America great again.

Read more …

“I expect that Trump will be found guilty at least in some cases, and will be in jail by election day in November 2024..”

• Trump’s Triumph Sows Sorrow for Soros (Sp.)

Billionaire hedge fund shark-turned liberal ‘philanthropist’ George Soros’ financial interests and political projects may be in trouble when Donald Trump returns to the Oval Office, with tens of millions in campaign funding, smear jobs and even involvement in the Trump prosecutions failing to stop the former president from making a comeback. Bloomberg reported on Friday that Soros Fund Management plans to shut down its Hong Kong office as part of a surprise “administrative reorganization” after 14 years of operations. The move may signal preparations by the Soros family to make major changes in the way their soft power empire operates with Trump back in power. The campaign by the elder Soros and his son and heir apparent Alex to keep a Democrat in the White House has failed to pay dividends, despite the Soros’ Fund for Policy Reform’s transfer of $60 mln to Future Forward, a pro-Democrat dark money super PAC.

That’s on top of a $15 mln donation by an Open Society Foundations subsidiary in 2023. Along with money, the Soros family invested significant personal capital into the campaign against “MAGA-style Republicans” in 2024. In the spring of 2023, Alex Soros announced a dramatic scaling back of OSF’s operations in Western Europe to focus on Ukraine, Moldova, the Western Balkans, and the United States, with the effort to stop Trump becoming a top priority. George Soros first sounded the alarm over Trump’s “America First” foreign policy in 2016, when he pumped millions into Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign but failed to see his preferred candidate elected. After Trump won, Soros funded an anti-Trump “resistance movement,” manifesting itself in street protests, court challenges to his domestic agenda, secret lobbying of members of his administration, support for lawmakers promoting a neoliberal foreign policy, and even $1 mln in cash spent on the infamous debunked ‘Trump-Russia collusion’ dossier.

During Trump’s first term, Soros lobbied tech giants to regulate social media, funded a campaign to support dozens, if not hundreds, of liberal prosecutors and judges, gubernatorial candidates, congressional hopefuls, and other state and local officials in 2018 and 2020. Soros and the OSF’s noticeable shift away from meddling abroad to interfering in US domestic politics earned the ire of Trump backers, who sought to declare him a “domestic terrorist,” strip him of his assets, and expel the Hungarian-born billionaire from the country. When Joe Biden won in 2020, a Soros-linked think tank lobbied his administration to support policies favoring OSF principles in nearly two dozen different policy areas, and laid out $20 mln to create ‘grass roots organizations’ to sell Biden’s $1.2 trln infrastructure bill. In 2022, Soros channeled $125 mln into a ‘Democracy PAC’ to support anti-MAGA candidates in the midterms.

In 2023, as criminal indictments began to come down on Trump, the former president immediately linked the political “witch hunt” against him to Soros and his “hand-picked and funded” Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, to whose 2021 campaign Soros is known to have donated at least $1 mln. “I expect that Trump will be found guilty at least in some cases, and will be in jail by election day in November 2024,” Soros said in an August 2023 interview. “If I am right, he is unlikely to win the election. But if I am wrong, the US will face a constitutional crisis that is likely to bring on an economic crisis as well.” Something seems to have gone terribly wrong in the billionaire’s calculations, with Soros’ ex-money manager, Stan Druckenmiller, warning in mid-October that the markets were “very convinced” that Trump would win.

With the Soros family dealt a major blow in Tuesday’s election and set back to where it started in 2016, only time will tell whether the OSF empire will restart its anti-Trump “resistance” movement, and if the president-elect’s inner circle – steeled by over eight years of efforts to sabotage Trump and undermine his ability to govern – will tolerate Soros-style attacks on the US political system and constitutional order.

Read more …

Eminently unqualified.

• Kamala Harris May Be Appointed Supreme Court Judge (Sp.)

US Vice President and former presidential candidate Kamala Harris may be appointed an associate justice of the US Supreme Court after the failed attempt to become the first female president of the United States, Newsweek reported, citing a Democratic member of the South Carolina House of Representatives, Bakari Sellers. Harris has a Doctor of Law degree and worked in the prosecutor’s office, the mayor’s office and for lawyers. She also served as San Francisco district attorney and California attorney general between 2011 and 2017. During that period, she refused to support two initiatives banning the death penalty in the US, which gave her opponents grounds to accuse her of inconsistency. Sellers believes outgoing US President Joe Biden can persuade the current associate justice, the 70-year-old Liberal, Sonia Sotomayor, to resign, for Harris to take her place, Newsweek said.

However, the move should be made quickly, before the Trump administration enters the White House, according to the report. “I think that’s actually a very good plan. I think it’s something that should happen,” Sellers was quoted as saying by Newsweek. Sotomayor’s health is of growing concern, since she is at quite an advanced age and has type 1 diabetes, Newsweek reported, adding that some Democrats have been urging her to resign. A presidential election took place in the United States on November 5. Republican candidate Donald Trump, who served as the US president from 2017-2021, was declared the winner by all leading race callers and networks, namely the Associated Press, Decision Desk HQ, Fox News, and CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS from the National Election Pool consortium, as he secured enough votes in the Electoral College to win the election.

Democratic candidate Kamala Harris conceded defeat in an address to her supporters, and US President Joe Biden congratulated Trump. The Electoral College, the group of presidential electors from the states, will vote for the candidate whom each state’s voters have chosen on December 17, and the results will be approved by Congress on January 6. The presidential inauguration will take place on January 20. Trump became the first US president since the 19th century to be elected to non-consecutive terms.

Read more …

“The EU is a peace project, and the war must be stopped.”

• Zelensky ‘Afraid War Will End’ – Slovak PM Fico (RT)

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky is deeply concerned about Donald Trump’s triumph in the US presidential election, fearing it could lead to a suspension of military and financial aid from Washington, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has said. In an interview with Radio Slovensko on Saturday, Fico discussed how Trump’s policies could impact global politics and the Ukraine conflict. The prime minister claimed that when he saw Zelensky during the EU summit in Budapest, Hungary, on November 7, the Ukrainian leader appeared visibly shaken. “Have you ever seen a person who is afraid that the war will end? I saw him, and his name is Vladimir Zelensky,” Fico told the host, adding that Zelensky seemed “shocked that Trump won and that there could be a halt to aid from the United States.”

Throughout the presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly promised to end the fighting in Ukraine within “24 hours,” without specifying how he might achieve this. Fico argued that the fighting will not stop as long as the West continues to send billions of dollars’ worth of weaponry into the conflict zone. “That means there will be some fundamental decisions regarding the war in Ukraine… He is someone who simply doesn’t like wars as such,” Fico remarked, reflecting on how Trump, as a businessman, “prefers” tariffs and sanctions to military confrontations. The Slovak leader suggested that the president-elect will take “decisive steps.” If Washington cuts financing to Kiev, the EU will need to adjust its policies and push for negotiations instead of doubling down on arming Ukraine in the hope that Russia will eventually lose. “We are again acting as a military cabinet in relation to Ukraine… Is the EU ready to assume all the costs of the war in Ukraine?” Fico wondered.

“There is still an opinion that if we keep supporting Ukraine, we will bring Russia to its knees, but that does not work,” he argued, urging the bloc to recognize that this logic is flawed. “The EU is a peace project, and the war must be stopped.” European Union leaders discussed in Budapest whether they can afford to continue financing the Ukrainian military if Trump decides to withdraw Washington’s support, Bloomberg reported on Friday. However, according to sources, rather than money, they are more concerned about “the available military resources that have come primarily from the US.” Meanwhile, Zelensky seemed more concerned about the money – as he demanded from the EU roughly $300 billion in frozen Russian sovereign assets if the US cuts him off, claiming the money “rightfully belongs” to Ukraine. He also told the summit that he did not yet know Trump’s plans, and that only Kiev should “decide what should and should not be on the agenda for ending this war.”

Read more …

“.. if that is your priority of getting Crimea back and having American soldiers fight to get Crimea back, you’re on your own..”

• Zelensky Must Accept ‘Crimea Is Gone’ – Trump Strategist (RT)

The second administration of US President-elect Donald Trump will focus on achieving peace in Ukraine rather than enabling it to take back all the territory it has lost to Russia, Bryan Lanza, a senior campaign advisor to the US president-elect, has said. Lanza, a veteran Republican party strategist who has worked on campaigns with Trump since 2016, made the remarks to the BBC on Saturday. While he expressed respect for the Ukrainian people, Lanza said the US priority would be to achieve “peace and to stop the killing.” The strategist dismissed as unrealistic Kiev’s proclaimed goal of expelling Russian forces from all the territory it claims. Lanza specifically mentioned the Crimean peninsula, which broke away from Ukraine in the aftermath of the 2014 Maidan coup and joined Russia via a referendum. He did not say anything about four other formerly Ukrainian territories incorporated into the country in 2022.

When [Vladimir] Zelensky says we will only stop this fighting, there will only be peace once Crimea is returned, we’ve got news for President Zelensky: Crimea is gone. The US will not fight on Ukraine’s behalf to get the those areas back from Russia, Lanza stressed. “And if that is your priority of getting Crimea back and having American soldiers fight to get Crimea back, you’re on your own,” he said. Instead, the Ukrainian leadership should come up with a “realistic vision for peace” ahead of potential negotiations. Zelensky’s insistence that “we can only have peace if we have Crimea” just shows he is “not serious,” Lanza said. “What we’re going to say to Ukraine is, ‘You know what you see? What do you see as a realistic vision for peace? It’s not a vision for winning, but it’s a vision for peace. And let’s start having honest conversation,” he added.

Trump repeatedly promised to end the conflict between Russia and Ukraine in 24 hours during his election campaign. However, he has provided little detail on how he intends to do so. Meanwhile, Vice President-elect J.D. Vance has suggested that the conflict could be frozen along the current front line, with Kiev forced to abandon its claims over the territories held by Russia, as well as its aspiration to join NATO. Lanza’s statements on the Ukraine issue do not reflect Trump’s position, Reuters reported on Saturday evening. “Brian was hired to work on the campaign,” the agency quoted a Trump campaign representative as saying. “He does not work for the president [now] and does not speak for him.”

Read more …

“J.D. Vance has previously called for Ukraine being “heavily fortified so the Russians don’t invade again” as part of a future peace process..”

• Musk Says “Time Is Up For The Warmonger Profiteers” (ZH)

The Wall Street Journal this week reported that President-Elect Donald Trump is being presented with an array of competing proposals from advisers related to his campaign promise to immediately end the war in Ukraine upon entering the White House. While he’s reportedly yet to approve a specific plan, and much might also depend on his team identifying who will fill the top national security and foreign policy posts in the administration, what’s clear is the Zelensky government will feel the pressure to immediately sit at the negotiating table with Moscow. The WSJ has revealed that the current options being considered all involve imposing a ‘freeze’ on the war, which to Kiev’s dismay would involve “cementing Russia’s seizure of roughly 20 percent of Ukraine” while imposing a 20-year suspension on Ukraine pursuing NATO membership.

The front lines in the east “would essentially lock in place” according to the proposed plan which is reportedly attracting most attention within Trump’s team, and this freeze would be enforced by European peacekeepers along an 800-mile demilitarized zone. Trump officials have told the WSJ that the president-elect is committed to seeing that no American troops are deployed as part of policing this buffer zone; instead the Europeans should shoulder the burden: “Who would police that territory remains unclear, but one adviser said the peacekeeping force wouldn’t involve American troops, nor come from a U.S.-funded international body, such as the United Nations. “We can do training and other support but the barrel of the gun is going to be European,” a member of Trump’s team said. “We are not sending American men and women to uphold peace in Ukraine. And we are not paying for it. Get the Poles, Germans, British and French to do it.”

The degree to which this plan is actually being mulled and favored by Trump is unclear. Ukraine is likely to object to being forced to give up such a large chunk of what it sees as its legitimate sovereign territory. “Anyone—no matter how senior in Trump’s circle—who claims to have a different view or more detailed window into his plans on Ukraine simply doesn’t know what he or she is talking about or doesn’t understand that he makes his own calls on national-security issues, many times in the moment, particularly on an issue as central as this,” a former Trump National Security Council aide told WSJ by way of important caveat. However, Elon Musk, who was invited by Trump to join in on a phone call with Ukraine’s President Zelensky this week, has suggested the above peace plan is likely top of the list of what’s being considered.

“The senseless killing will end soon. Time is up for the warmonger profiteers,” Musk posted on X in direct response to X commentator Mario Nawfal, who wrote about “Trump’s plan for Ukraine.” Nawfal in his original post which caught Musk’s attention wrote that Trump “reportedly plans an 800-mile demilitarized zone between Russia and Ukraine, with British and European troops patrolling the area” – quoting Newsweek. “Under the proposal, Russia would retain its territorial gains, and Ukraine would agree not to join NATO for 20 years,” Nawfal’s post added.

Another controversial aspect to the plan would be Washington would continue to pump Ukraine full of weapons while declaring it ‘neutral’ regarding NATO. J.D. Vance has previously called for Ukraine being “heavily fortified so the Russians don’t invade again” as part of a future peace process. But this would probably be especially objected to by the Kremlin, given a stated aim of Putin’s in executing the war is precisely to ‘demilitarize’ Ukraine, and to halt the advance of NATO infrastructure into the former Soviet satellite. Putin might perceive that the West continuing to arm Ukraine for many years to come would just set things up for another major future clash and war in Eastern Europe.

Read more …

“Take away the subsidies. It will only help Tesla,” Musk posted on X in July..”

• Will Trump Clash With Musk Over EV Tariffs? (Sp.)

Throughout his campaign, Donald Trump has railed against Joe Biden’s climate policies, vowing to row back spending on green energy, and boost drilling for oil and gas to “further defeat inflation.” Donald Trump may help Tesla and the domestic EV industry by imposing very high tariffs on Chinese EV exports to the US, Dr. Mamdouh G. Salameh, a global energy expert, told Sputnik. “This will give a domestic boost to Tesla,” he said, “in return for the financial and political support” that Tesla CEO Elon Musk provided to his election campaign. Weighing in on Trump’s campaign pledges to “end the electric vehicle mandate on day one,” geopolitical commentator Thomas W. Pauken II speculated that Biden’s EV subsidies were “not exactly very business-orientated.”

“It was a case of having government spending on unpopular EVs… It didn’t make the cars cheaper. It just made it cheaper for the manufacturers to produce the cars and to even go head over heels over increasing automated manufacturing. So, the subsidies, rather than invest into human labor or to lower the cost, instead went to the manufacturers to automate their factories,” he underscored. The president-elect is “correct for opposing these types of subsidies,” the pundit said. “When Biden was having to decide on what companies would get the subsidy, I’m pretty sure that he looked at the DNC donors list to see who is more worthy of the subsidies and who is not,” Pauken II added.

Biden made EVs the centerpiece of his administration’s bid to fight climate change, allocating billions to manufacturers, the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program to install more EV chargers, incentives for battery factories, and tax credits for buyers. Trump, however, has slammed EVs as too expensive and undermining the American auto industry. In his nomination speech at the Republican National Convention, Donald Trump said that he would “end the electric vehicle mandate on day one,” adding that this would result in “saving the US auto industry from complete obliteration, which is happening right now, and saving US customers thousands and thousands of dollars per car.”

Elon Musk, who donated over $119 million to a political action committee in his support, according to Federal Election Commission filings, has dismissed concerns about a potential end to Biden’s EV tax credit. “Take away the subsidies. It will only help Tesla,” Musk posted on X in July. Shares of Tesla, Inc. soared 15% on the results of the November 5 election, adding roughly $15 billion in value to Musk’s net worth.

Read more …

“..this is a clash of the very principles on which relations between countries and peoples will be built at the next historical stage.”

• Putin Outlines The ‘Moment of Truth’ (Pepe Escobar)

President Putin’s plenary session performance (address + Q&A) at the annual Valdai Club meeting in Sochi felt like a high-speed train on cruise control. Totally cool, calm, comfortable, in full command of a Himalaya of facts, no political leader anywhere – recent past and present – would even come close to delivering what amounts to an extensive, detailed world view deeply matured over a quarter of a century at the highest geopolitical level. Putin began his address referring to the October 1917 revolution, drawing a direct parallel with our turbulent times: “The moment of truth is coming”. In a clear tribute to Gramsci, he stated how a “completely new world order” is “being formed before our eyes.” The subtle reference to the recent BRICS summit in Kazan could not possibly escape critical minds across the Global Majority.

Kazan was a living, breathing testimony that “the old order is irrevocably disappearing, one might say, has already disappeared, and a serious, irreconcilable struggle is unfolding for the formation of a new one. Irreconcilable, first of all, because this is not even a fight for power or geopolitical influence, this is a clash of the very principles on which relations between countries and peoples will be built at the next historical stage.” As concisely as possible, that should be taken as the current Big Picture framework: we are not mired inside a reductionist clash of civilizations or the “end of History” – which Putin defined as “myopic” – but facing a make-or-break systemic clash of fundamental principles. The result will define this century – arguably the Eurasia Century, as “the dialectics of History continues.” Putin himself quipped that he would drive into “philosophical asides” during his address.

In fact that went much further than a mere refutation of unilateral conceptual fallacies, as “the Western elites thought that their monopoly is the final stop for humanity” and “modern neoliberalism degenerated into a totalitarian ideology.” Referring to AI, he asked rhetorically, “will human remain human?” He praised the building of a new global architecture, moving towards a “polyphonic” and “polycentric” world where “maximum representation” is paramount and the BRICS are “coming up with a coordinated approach” based on “sovereign equality.”

Read more …

“Peace is possible if Trump can escape from the US military/security complex and the warmonger neoconservatives.”

• Neoliberalism Has “Become a Totalitarian Ideology” – Putin (Paul Craig Roberts)

At the Valdai Forum Putin said that neoliberalism stifles national sovereignty and traditional values and erodes national cultures, thus eliminating diversity. “There is no room for difference in the neoliberal order. It seeks to flatten diversity rather than celebrate it.” Washington’s unipolar system “only serves a small number of powerful elites.” Now that Putin has come to these realizations, perhaps he will replace his neoliberal central bank director. Putin thanks Washington for the economic sanctions that forced Russia off the mistaken path of globalism. “The sanctions have forced us to look inward, to focus on developing domestic industries.” Globalism is a one-way street to economic death. For Americans the consequence was the offshoring of American industry and middle class jobs, pressure on state and local budgets, and the loss of a trained work force.

Putin says that he respects Western civilization–probably more than do graduates and professors of Western universities. The problem is not Western culture. The problem is with the aggressive policies of Western governments. Putin is puzzled that such weak political and military countries are so aggressive toward such a powerful unified country as Russia. Putin said Trump was a capable leader who has shown courage and resilience. Putin declared willingness to work with Trump to normalize relations and put them on a more constructive path. Now that both powers have capable leaders perhaps the world can escape from war. Peace is possible if Trump can escape from the US military/security complex and the warmonger neoconservatives.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

WHO

 

 

RFK

 

 

CO2

 

 

Panther

 

 

Simple

 

 

Pick up

 

 

Yakutia
https://twitter.com/i/status/1854863147049291988

 

 

Plane
https://twitter.com/i/status/1855294204915953986

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle Election Day 2024

Nov 052024
 
 November 5, 2024  Posted by at 9:30 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  62 Responses »


Berthe Morisot The old track to Auvers 1863

 

• Joe Rogan Endorses Trump (RT)
• The Final Days of the Lie Machine (Paul Craig Roberts)
• Will The Coming Election Make Or Break America? (Von Hoffmeister)
• Escape from Psychopathocracy (Kunstler)
• US Judge Refuses To Block Elon Musk’s Election Lottery (RT)
• Early Voting Numbers ‘Scary’ For Harris – Former Obama Campaign Manager (RT)
• Will America Survive the 2024 Election Tomorrow? (Paul Craig Roberts)
• Harris and Walz Declare War on America (Klingenstein)
• Washington Activates National Guard, Oregon “Standing Ready” (ZH)
• NBC Airs Trump Message After Harris Saturday Night Live Appearance (ET)
• Both Parties Deploy Legions of Lawyers For Election Challenges (Turley)
• Ukraine Needs 500,000 New Troops – Lawmaker (RT)
• US Preparing Europe to Start Direct War With Russia If Ukraine Fails – Lavrov (Sp.)
• Is The West Finally Ready To Admit Defeat In Ukraine? (Diesen)
• Diving Expert Questions Narrative Behind Nord Stream (RT)
• Netanyahu’s “Imaginary War Narrative” Strategy (Alastair Crooke)

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/i/status/1853138762513187263

Axelrod

Elon subsidies
https://twitter.com/i/status/1853284733389779368

Vivek

He hates

Little secret

Megyn

Naval

Elon
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1853259040098308317

 

 

 

 

“Musk makes what I think is the most compelling case for Trump you’ll hear, and I agree with him every step of the way. For the record, yes, that’s an endorsement of Trump..”

• Joe Rogan Endorses Trump (RT)

Podcaster Joe Rogan has endorsed former President Donald Trump following an interview with one of his most vocal supporters, billionaire Tesla CEO Elon Musk, on the eve of Trump’s faceoff against Vice President Kamala Harris. Rogan promoted his interview with the “great and powerful” Musk in a post on X, insisting that if it weren’t for the self-described free speech absolutist, “we’d be f**ked.” “Musk makes what I think is the most compelling case for Trump you’ll hear, and I agree with him every step of the way. For the record, yes, that’s an endorsement of Trump,” Rogan told his 13.3 million followers on Monday evening. During the interview, Musk reiterated his warning that the 2024 election could become the last if Democrats win and move to “legalize enough illegals to turn the swing states, and everywhere will be like California.”

https://twitter.com/i/status/1853632989680357836

“There will be no escape. This is it. This is the last chance. Go out and vote. Vote like your life depends on it. Vote like your future depends on it, because it does,” he urged the audience. The news soon reached Trump, who was holding a rally in the crucial battleground state of Pennsylvania at the time. “It just came over the wires that Joe Rogan just endorsed me. Is that true? Thank you, Joe. That’s so nice. And he doesn’t do that,” Trump said.

Last month, Trump appeared on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast, where he accused his Democratic opponents of representing an “enemy from within” that undermines the country and poses a greater threat than any foreign adversary. The three-hour conversation covered a wide range of topics and garnered over 45 million views on YouTube alone. The host of the largest podcast in the US also wanted to interview Trump’s rival, Vice President Kamala Harris, but could not reach an agreement on terms. The Harris campaign allegedly wanted Rogan “to travel to her, and they only wanted to do an hour,” leading him to decline the offer despite his “sincere wish” to “get to know her as a human being.”

Read more …

“The Washington Post and the New York Times win prizes, but increasingly we talk only to a certain elite. More and more, we talk to ourselves.”

• The Final Days of the Lie Machine (Paul Craig Roberts)

One of the worst features of Democracy is the self-serving lobby groups. The Israeli lobby groups, AIPAC and ADL are having a rough time because of the Zionist genocide of the Palestinians. People are starting to wonder how Israel is a victim when Israel is slaughtering women and children not only in Gaza but also in south Lebanon. Now that in Ukraine the Biden-Harris regime have given Americans another lost war, which casts more doubt on American omnipotence, the military/security complex lobbies are experiencing public disbelief in their narratives. The Atlantic Council is a lobby group for the military-security complex and Washington’s hegemony over Europe. Attempting to control explanations important to war profits, the group created a lie machine, DFR Lab. On October 30, one of the lie machine’s employees, Meredith Furbish, branched out into other areas and defined those of us who have documented the legalization of election theft in the swing states as “Russia-linked media.”

Furbish doesn’t say why only Russians and not Americans are concerned with the mechanisms used to steal American elections. Citing a narrative controller called Alliance for Securing Democracy, Furbish describes me as “an RT regular and noted conspiracy theorist.” I think it has been years since I was interviewed by RT, and being interviewed doesn’t make one a “regular.” Furbish is so incompetent that she doesn’t know that the Russian journalist Ekaterina Blinova writes for Sputnik, not RT. The notion Furbish is trying to perpetuate is that those who identify voting irregularities are Russian agents spreading disinformation. Russia has to be behind everything so that we can stay at war with Russia. As for being a conspiracy theorist, the self-serving interest groups declare all truth-tellers to be conspiracy theorists. Every explanation, no matter how truthful, that does not uphold the official narratives is a conspiracy theory. This tells us that it is the conspiracy theories that are correct, not the official narratives.

To suppress truth has been the function of the print and TV media and NPR for many years. The editors and journalists in the presstitute media have no independence. Moreover, most were indoctrinated in journalism schools that their task is to control narratives for the ruling elite. Lobby groups such as the Atlantic Council create their own lie machines to guard their agendas from exposure. But it hasn’t worked. The lie machine has failed. We have that on the authority of no less than two major lie machine operators. The editor-in-chief of the Wall Street Journal, once a reputable newspaper but no longer, recently said that the media had lost readership because the newspapers ceased reporting and became protectors of official narratives and lost the trust of the public. The words she used were the media “lacks transparency.”

Jeff Bezos, owner of the Washington Post, never a reputable newspaper, wrote on October 28 a Washington Post editorial in which he said that the reputation of the American print and TV media has fallen below that of Congress. “Our profession is now the least trusted of all.” Reality, Bezos said, won over the lie machine: “Reality is an undefeated champion.” To regain credibility, Bezos says, the media will have to return to accuracy and cease to sacrifice truth to the promotion of ideological agendas. “The Washington Post and the New York Times win prizes, but increasingly we talk only to a certain elite. More and more, we talk to ourselves.” Who does Meredith Furbish talk to? Her discredited lie machine bosses. No one reads her. No one cares what she says. The election tomorrow will tell us if enough Americans have escaped their indoctrinated existence to save our country.

Read more …

“A wave of mistrust washes ashore with each campaign promise and counterattack, feeding a monster that has been lurking since the nation’s founding..”

• Will The Coming Election Make Or Break America? (Von Hoffmeister)

As the 2024 US election nears, tension is rising across the nation, fueling fears that the American republic itself hangs in the balance. For some, this election presents the risk of a final fracture, one where states weary of federal overreach might assert their autonomy and challenge Washington’s hold. Supporters of a more decentralized America argue that a return to local governance could strengthen the republic, while critics warn it may signal the beginning of a dissolution of that which once bound the states by family ties and shared purpose. With the world watching, the outcome of the election may determine whether America endures as a unified power or breaks up into a mosaic of rival territories, each proclaiming its own justice.

Many foresee an era of upheaval – one that may bring the nation closer to collapse than ever before. The election, many argue, could serve as a sword dividing the states, slashing the bonds of unity that held them through trials and bloodshed. A wave of mistrust washes ashore with each campaign promise and counterattack, feeding a monster that has been lurking since the nation’s founding. Dread grows that strong states like Texas may finally cast off the federal chains, carving paths as sovereign lands should they sense betrayal from a distant capital.

Some voices call for the wisdom of disaggregated administration, suggesting that perhaps strength lies not in a vast, singular realm but in federated regions, united only by a loose pact. For these, the nation’s greatness could thrive in a non-monolithic structure, one that allows each region to wield its own power and champion its distinct traditions. They see this as a way to preserve the land’s beauty, avoiding the stain of forced conformity and letting each region flourish like a proud kingdom unto itself. But others see this as the beginning of the end, a shattering of the once-mighty republic, a descent into fractious states wary of neighbors and embittered by ancient rivalries.

Across the oceans, foes of the republic watch with a glint in their eyes, sensing the scent of weakness. The world, once ordered by America’s hand, could see new realms emerge as pillars of a power shift. With America splintered, vast civilizations unshackled from Western influence could grow bold, forging a world of their own design. In the tumultuous aftermath of this election, new alliances could take shape, established on ancient principles that defy the siren song of democracy. It is a prophecy of an order led not by one people but by many, each distinct, each following the call of its own land and heritage.

For the republic itself, dark forebodings abound. Some warn that unchecked discord could rend the union asunder, casting the states as enemies sworn to conquer one another, much as kingdoms of old clashed on blood-soaked fields. Political battles, once confined to speeches and votes, may soon take the form of steel and fire, with regions seeking dominance or defense of their way of life. In such a landscape, the banners of free states could be raised high, each upholding its own “God-given” reign, even as they march against one another.

Read more …

“It is an enormous, dastardly machine designed to deprive you of your consent to be governed. It is the work of political psychopaths.”

• Escape from Psychopathocracy (Kunstler)

Why does it seem that the Democratic Party is in it solely to remain in power? I will tell you: because it controls the money-flows to the vast cadres of a vicious parasitical bureaucracy and its support system of outside orgs that commit crimes and make war on the rest of us. It’s called “the blob” for a reason. It’s exactly like that monster out of the 1950s horror movies, a shape-shifting leviathan that devours everything in its path with only one purpose, to grow ever larger until it consumes. . . everything. In my state of New York last week, the DEC authorities sent a swat team to seize a man and woman’s pet squirrel and raccoon and then killed the animals. Why? Because they could. How is that different from the DOJ swatting and seizing a grandmother for walking through the US capitol building and then stuffing her in prison for the rest of her natural life on misdemeanor charges? It’s not different.

They are both demonstrations of deliberate cruelty — and that’s why the squirrel story resonated so widely around the country. You know exactly what it says: we can take whatever is dear to you. . . your pets. . . your livelihood. . . your freedom. . . your life. Who failed to notice that candidate Kamala Harris was unable to articulate any coherent notion about how her government might manage its business beyond some empty nostrums about “joy,” and “turning the page”? Because the party’s actual purpose, which it hides and lies about, is just to push you around, tell you what to do and what to think, and to punish you if you don’t comply — in other words, to exercise despotic power. It can’t do anything else with that power. It lacks the competence to manage an economy from the top down, and it certainly won’t allow the countless volitional transactions of people at liberty to produce and sell things of value on their own.

It will go to war against anything to steal more money: some pitiful foreign kleptocracy of a country. . . the liberty-minded people of our own country. . . against sound ideas, proven principles, standards of decency, and, not unusually, against reality itself. And now you and I face the ordeal of an election that, by design, will be nearly impossible to audit, will remain inconclusive for weeks, and subject to endless dispute. Why, because it serves the purpose of the Party of Chaos, which is. . . chaos! The scheme was to introduce so many devices of uncertainty as to guarantee political paralysis. Why else would you use batteries of hugely expensive computerized vote-counting machines that can be easily hacked, untraceable mail-in ballots with no chains of custody, the automatic registration of non-citizens, and laws (as in California) to literally forbid the requirement of voter-ID?

This was the work of lawfare terrorist Marc Elias — with hundreds of millions of dollars at his disposal, some from the government itself, a bunch from the party, and some from rogue billionaires such as George Soros, Bill Gates, and Reid Hoffman, and then disbursed surreptitiously through hundreds of NGOs — to elect officials such as Secretaries of State and district attorneys who will ignore or bend the law, to pay off state legislators around the country to change voting rules, to hire brigades of ballot “harvesters,” and to file ruinous lawsuits against anyone who objects to these pranks. It is an enormous, dastardly machine designed to deprive you of your consent to be governed. It is the work of political psychopaths.

[..] One way or another, looks like we’re in for a hard, anxious winter. Threats galore loom concerning possible blob / Party of Chaos mischief ahead, designed to disorder our national life: false flags prompting the imposition of martial law. . . aggressive censorship and cancellation of free-speaking regime opponents. . . deployment of Antifa mobs against civil order, with violence, looting, arson. This symbiotic enemy of the people is desperate to evade accountability for the crimes they’ve already committed as officials running institutions: abuse of power, conspiracy to deprive many citizens of their civil rights, perhaps even treason. They’re capable of anything. They must be defeated.

Read more …

“There is no prize to be won; instead, recipients must fulfill contractual obligations to serve as spokespersons for the PAC..”

• US Judge Refuses To Block Elon Musk’s Election Lottery (RT)

A judge in Pennsylvania has allowed Elon Musk’s giveaway to continue until Election Day on November 5, rejecting the district attorney’s request to block it as an “illegal” lottery. On October 19, the CEO of X, SpaceX, and Tesla announced he would give $1 million each day to registered voters in swing states who signed his petition defending “free speech and the right to bear arms.” He presented the first check during a rally in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, that same day, stating the giveaway would run until Election Day. Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner, a Democrat, filed a civil lawsuit accusing the entrepreneur of running an “illegal” lottery.

According to the lawsuit, America PAC, a political action committee, and Musk “are lulling Philadelphia citizens – and others in the Commonwealth (and other swing states in the upcoming election) – to give up their personal identifying information and make a political pledge in exchange for the chance to win $1 million.” America PAC attorney Chris Gober argued that despite Musk describing the giveaway as random, the program does not constitute a lottery. “There is no prize to be won; instead, recipients must fulfill contractual obligations to serve as spokespersons for the PAC,” Gober said at a hearing before Common Pleas Court Judge Angelo Foglietta on Monday.

Krasner’s office called Gober’s statement a “complete admission of liability,” with lawyer John Summers arguing during the hearing that Musk and the PAC have deceived thousands of Philadelphians by being intentionally opaque about the details surrounding the giveaways. Musk, who previously positioned himself as politically neutral, publicly endorsed the Republican nominee shortly after the failed assassination attempt on Trump on July 13. Last month, the US-based billionaire revealed he had donated $75 million to America PAC, which he founded in July. The organization aims to bolster turnout for Trump in swing states. On the eve of the election, Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Kamala Harris are deadlocked in key battleground states, with polls suggesting neither has an advantage greater than two points.

Read more …

“Republicans did not do what they did last time. Last time, Trump said: ‘Do not early vote,’ and so they did not.”

• Early Voting Numbers ‘Scary’ For Harris – Former Obama Campaign Manager (RT)

The early voting numbers in the US presidential election look “scary” for Democratic candidate Kamala Harris, former US President Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign manager Jim Messina has said. Messina made the warning on Sunday, during an interview with MSNBC host and former White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki. “Early vote numbers are a little scary,” he said. According to the former Obama campaign manager, supporters of Republican candidate Donald Trump have been much more active this time compared to the previous election. “Republicans did not do what they did last time. Last time, Trump said: ‘Do not early vote,’ and so they did not. Republicans do have an advantage in early vote numbers. When the early vote comes in, it is going to look a little bit different than 2020,” he said. The early voting figures have “led lots of your friends and my friends to call me panicking,” Messina told Psaki.

However, he stressed that Harris’ campaign also has grounds to be “very, very happy.” It is because two voting blocks that are believed to be crucial for the Democratic candidate are “coming big,” the former campaign manager explained. Women make up more than a half of the early voters and “in the past ten days, young voters in these battleground states are coming out in what looks to be… historic numbers,” Messina explained. According to NBC’s figures, 76.2 million mail-in and early in-person votes have already been cast across the US. Among those who voted early, 41% are Democrats and 39% are Republicans, with the party affiliation of the remaining 20% unknown. However, more Republicans cast their ballots in four out of the seven battleground states, with the margin being the largest in Arizona: 42% to 33%. NBC’s figures suggest that among the early voters, 53% were females and 20% those aged between 18 and 39 years.

Read more …

“Are Americans going to elect Kamala, who has responsibility for these policies, President of the United States? If so, Americans are kissing their country good-bye.”

• Will America Survive the 2024 Election Tomorrow? (Paul Craig Roberts)

The election is upon us. It is an important election, because the result will determine whether America as we knew it will continue to exist. Trump represents America. Kamala represents the forces attempting to overthrow America. In the last few days leading Democrats, such as Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, have said that the First Amendment is in the way of their ability to impose their agendas on the American people and that censorship of truth is essential to their rule. Democrat Law school deans and Democrat intellectuals have said the same. In the Autumn 2024 City Journal, Jacob Siegel describes the Democrats’ plot to manage Democracy. Censorship is used to control the public’s access to information. Denied facts, controlled narratives are used to create public acceptance of Democrat agendas.

These agendas are open borders; normalization of sexual perversity; sexualization of young children; demonization of white people as “racists,” “deplorables,” and “garbage;” replacement of merit with DEI, and further erosion of parental control by performing sex change operations on under age children without parental consent. Liberal American women think these are good policies. If Kamala becomes President of the United States, it will be while liberal women who elected her. Jacob Siegel writes: “The Democratic Party’s strategy to win the presidency in 2024 hinges in large part on preventing a normal election from taking place. Procedural and voting irregularities that would have triggered alarm across the political spectrum until recently have become an accepted feature of the landscape. The Democrat party has pursued this strategy since 2016, when the Obama White House and the Hillary Clinton campaign worked with U.S. intelligence agencies to frame Trump falsely as a Russian agent.”

You have heard this all before from me. The Democrats want a Sodom and Gomorrah Tower of Babel, and they are working hard to get it. The same agenda is afoot in Europe where countries composed of ethnic nationalities for which they are named–French, German, Italian, Dutch, British, Irish, Spanish, Portuguese, Belgian, Hungarian, Polish, Czech–are disappearing into “diversity.” To get rid of ethnic Europeans and their culture is the reason for the open borders that have decimated European civilized existence. The destruction of white ethnic countries and their replacement with Towers of Babel is the intention of the left-wing Western intellectuals and all of the currently ruling political parties. Western ethnicities have been sold out by their own elected leaders. What explains the insouciance of peoples who elect to power people who intend to displace them from their own country?

[..] Steven Malanga writing in the City Journal makes it clear that the destruction of racial homogeneity has a cost. The Biden-Harris regime have made it possible for South American criminal gangs to get visas into the US without background checks due to a Homeland Security (sic) program called the Electronic System for Travel Authorirzation–Visa Waiver Program. The result Malange reports, has been a run-away epidemic of crimes. All sorts of gangs have been unleashed on Americans. Some specialize in drugs, some in trafficking women and children for prostitution, some in burglary, some in murder. Malanga reports that immigrant-invader burglary gangs use “Wi-Fi suppression equipment to disarm home alarms, cell-phone trackers to determine the location of homeowners, and fake IDs.” The gangs face minimal risk. If arrested, they are usually quickly released and vanish. “The leaky immigration system has made some criminals so bold that they deliberately get themselves arrested at the California border, knowing that they will be immediately released into America.”

The amount of crimes committed by immigrant-invaders is difficult to determine, because Democrats do not want Americans to know the cost of the Democrat’s open borders policy. Malanga reports that a sense of the problem’s magnitude is available from a Government Accountability Office study of crimes committed by illegals incarcerated in prisons. “Analyzing data from 2011 through 2016, the study attributed more than 1 million drug violations, 33,000 homicides, 500,000 assaults, 110,000 auto thefts, and 132,000 sex offenses to illegals. And these figures predate the 2021 border surge, recent bail reforms that have let offenders walk free, and the reduction in public-safety efforts following the defund-the-police movement.” Are Americans going to elect Kamala, who has responsibility for these policies, President of the United States? If so, Americans are kissing their country good-bye.

Read more …

“We are in a war. But only one side is fighting—their side. You can’t win a war if you don’t fight.”

• Harris and Walz Declare War on America (Klingenstein)

Kamala Harris and Tim Walz are prepared to wage war on America. Let me explain. Walz’s most important education advisor is Brian Lozenski, a professor of “urban and multicultural education” at Macalester College. Lozenski is a prominent national voice in the world of critical race theory (CRT), and the foremost authority on CRT in Minnesota. CRT holds that everything about American society is racist. Everything—American values, from patriotism and hard work; American institutions, from the traditional family to religion; and American policies, from secure borders to energy independence. Racism, say the critical race theorists, is in America’s DNA. In a recently unearthed video, Brian Lozenski puts it even more directly: “America is irreversibly racist…[and] must be overthrown.” In case you missed his meaning, he goes on to say, “You can’t be a critical race theorist and be pro-U.S.” This is a declaration of war. It could not be any clearer.

Tim Walz appointed Lozenski to a key curriculum committee tasked with developing “ethnic studies” standards for instruction in every grade, in every required class, in every public school in Minnesota. (Ethnic studies is a cousin of CRT and, like CRT, has the “overthrow” of America in its sights.) Under the proposed standards, as described by Katherine Kersten of the Center of the American Experiment: “First-graders must ‘identify examples of ethnicity, equality, liberation and systems of power’ and ‘use those examples to construct meanings for those terms.’” (Yes, first-graders.) “High school students are told to ‘develop an analysis of racial capitalism’ and ‘anti-Blackness’ and are taught to view themselves as members of ‘racialized hierarchies’ based on ‘dominant European beauty standards.’” Ethnic studies is the centerpiece of Walz’s education agenda, and Lozenski is the leader of the ethnic studies initiative. Nor is this radical program simply something that has bubbled up from below.

According to Kersten, Walz himself “has used both legislation and administrative rulemaking to achieve…radical Ethnic Studies instruction… Between 2021 and 2023, Walz proposed and pushed Ethnic Studies in a series of ‘governor’s policy and budget bills’ at the Minnesota Legislature.” This is the Democrats’ nominee for vice president of the United States of America. Republicans have long failed to realize that they are in a war. Now they should. If someone says they want to destroy you, then you know you are in a war—it’s pretty obvious. It’s time for Republicans to get on a war footing. They must fight like our democracy depends on it. The destructive left is sure that the former President Donald Trump is a threat to democracy—or at least they say so, and they act as if they believe it. We know this is nonsense. The Lozenski video shows us clearly where the real threat to our democracy lies.

If Lozenski is a revolutionary, and he certainly is, then so is Tim Walz, who entrusted him with the education of Minnesota’s children. What about Kamala Harris? Could it be that she didn’t know who she was choosing? No, it couldn’t be. She knows perfectly well who Tim Walz is and what he believes. After all, she chose him over more qualified candidates precisely because his ideology was the most compatible with hers. It is sometimes the case that a presidential candidate fails to detect some aspect of their running mate—for example, personal failings or minor policy positions—but a candidate does not choose, say, a Marxist, or in this case, a revolutionary, running mate by accident. From Kamala’s perspective—and we must understand Kamala’s perspective—she simply chose a man who wants to improve America in the same way she wants to improve it. But their idea of “improving” is identical to Lozenski’s overthrowing.”

Trump regularly says, and quite rightly, that the enemy within is “far more dangerous” than China and other enemies without. But we have not had a face for the “enemy within.” Now we do. The face of the enemy within is Brian Lozenski. The right must give up the delusion that we are still engaged in politics as usual. We are in a war. But only one side is fighting—their side. You can’t win a war if you don’t fight. It is well past time that we engage the enemy, prepared to give our last full measure of devotion so that the greatest country in the history of mankind shall not perish from the earth.

Read more …

The army. For an election. Already seems normal.

• Washington Activates National Guard, Oregon “Standing Ready” (ZH)

Washington Governor Jay Inslee is activating the Washington National Guard ahead of election day, according to KING 5, and neighboring state Oregon isn’t far behind. The action by the governor follows two recent ballot box arsons in Portland and Vancouver, Washington, in late October, which destroyed hundreds of ballots. Officials are still seeking a suspect. Governor Inslee announced that some National Guard members will assist local law enforcement and the State Patrol, with the exact number yet to be decided. Homeland Security has warned of potential political violence and threats to election infrastructure ahead of the 2024 General Election. Guard members will be on standby from Monday through Thursday night. “The southwest region of Washington state has already experienced specific instances of election-related unrest,” Inslee commented according to CNN.

“Based upon general and specific information and concerns regarding the potential for violence or other unlawful activity related to the 2024 general election, I want to ensure we are fully prepared to respond to any potential additional civil unrest,” he continued. Oregon is taking similar measures, with its National Guard “standing ready”. In a statement, Gov. Tina Kotek said: “The governor’s office is closely monitoring and coordinating with local, state and federal agencies to ensure Oregon voters can safely cast their ballot.” Meanwhile, Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler noted there’s “no current information to suggest unrest” but acknowledged community tension. Oregon State Police, Portland law enforcement, and the Department of Emergency Management are coordinating efforts, with Portland increasing police staffing on Tuesday as a precaution. In 2020, Oregon deployed the National Guard and a unified command for election security, and recently, states have increasingly activated the Guard for cybersecurity during elections, the report concluded.

Read more …

“We have to straighten out our country, we have to close our borders, we have to lower our taxes, we have to get rid of inflation. I’ll fix it.”

• NBC Airs Trump Message After Harris Saturday Night Live Appearance (ET)

NBC aired a message from former President Donald Trump one day after Vice President Kamala Harris appeared on Saturday Night Live (SNL). Trump spoke for about one minute during the message, which was prerecorded and broadcast during a NASCAR race on Nov. 3. It was aired again during an NFL game. Trump, after greeting fans of sports, noted that the presidential election is slated for Nov. 5. “We’re two days away from the most important election in the history of our country. We’ve got to save our country, and it needs saving. It’s in very bad shape,” Trump said. “We’re going to end up in a depression based on what’s been happening,” he added later. “We have to straighten out our country, we have to close our borders, we have to lower our taxes, we have to get rid of inflation. I’ll fix it.”

Harris appeared live during Saturday’s SNL. She participated in a skit that portrayed her speaking to another version of herself ahead of the election. “It is nice to see you, Kamala, and I’m just here to remind you, you got this. You can do something your opponent cannot do. You can open doors,“ Harris told Maya Rudolph, who was playing the vice president and had said she wished she could talk to someone ”who’s been in my shoes; a black, South Asian woman running for president, preferably from the Bay Area.” Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner Brandon Carr wrote in a Nov.3 post on social media platform X that the Democratic presidential nominee’s appearance may have violated an FCC rule against licensed broadcasters using public airwaves to influence an election in favor of a candidate unless the other candidate is offered equal time by the same broadcasters.

The rule in question “generally means providing comparable time and placement to opposing candidates,” according to an FCC fact sheet. The regulator gives an example of a qualified candidate appearing on a station. In that scenario, the station “will be required to entertain requests for Equal Opportunities by opposing legally qualified candidates for the same office,” the FCC states. “However, the station is not required to seek out opposing legally qualified candidates and offer them Equal Opportunities.” The FCC grants licenses to some broadcasters. The agency can revoke licenses, although its chairwoman said in October that revocation would not happen “for political reasons.” Over the weekend, NBC lodged a notice with the FCC that said Harris appeared on its network for one minute and 30 seconds. The broadcaster said the appearance came “without charge.”

Read more …

“..a judge had to order Democratic Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes to release the names of roughly 218,000 voters who may have been allowed to register without the proof of citizenship required by state law..”

• Both Parties Deploy Legions of Lawyers For Election Challenges (Turley)

The Supreme Court has already intervened to stop an effort by the Biden-Harris administration to force Virginia to put people back on the voting rolls who had identified themselves as non-citizens. It is a crime for non-citizens to vote. Although Virginia allows any mistaken information to be corrected (and also allows for challenged voters to file provisional ballots), lower courts ordered Virginia to enable people to vote who had said they were not citizens. Critics charge that the case is the continuation of the administration’s unrelenting attacks on voter identification and proof of citizenship laws, even though 84 percent of Americans support such laws. In California, Governor Gavin Newsom and Democratic legislators actually made it a crime for any poll worker to ask voters for identification.

Some of these early challenges are welcomed, in the sense that we still have time to work out problems. Courts are notoriously reluctant to intervene after an election with the limited time before the certification of votes. They often refuse challengers access to vital election board information or bar cases as speculative or litigants as lacking in standing. This fuels the public’s distrust of the integrity of the election. Some challenges potentially involve a high number of votes in swing states. For example, in North Carolina, the Republican National Committee is suing the North Carolina State Board of Elections over 225,000 people who may not have been appropriately registered because that state failed to require a driver’s license or partial Social Security number. In Arizona, a judge had to order Democratic Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes to release the names of roughly 218,000 voters who may have been allowed to register without the proof of citizenship required by state law.

There is also a growing concern over possible systemic voting registration violations in multiple districts in Pennsylvania. Initially, 2,500 forms were marked as suspicious for possible false names, duplicative handwriting or unverifiable or incorrect identifying information. Lancaster County District Attorney Heather Adams and her team found that about 60 percent of the 2,500 forms were potentially illegitimate. Monroe County District Attorney Mike Mancuso linked the registrations to “Field and Media Corps,” a subsidiary of Fieldcorps, an Arizona-based organization. Field and Media Corps appears to have taken down its website, but it previously identified itself as a subsidiary of FieldCorps. It described itself as “connecting campaigns and projects with communities of color across the state. Our clients benefit from our social activism and coalition leadership experience gained through decades of leading campaigns, highlighting social inequalities, and developing BIPOC coalition building.”

FieldCorps has reportedly been working for the Harris-Walz campaign, the Mark Kelly campaign in Arizona and other Democratic campaigns. Efforts to reach FieldCorps for comment have been unsuccessful. The concern is that companies like FieldCorps could be replicating errors across districts and states in the rush to register new voters. If these are knowing falsifications, it could constitute a federal crime. We also have the same controversies arising in this election about changes to voting laws just before the election. In 2020, many voters were opposed to courts in states like Pennsylvania issuing last-minute changes. Many assumed that these laws had been finally worked out to guarantee the criteria for consideration of mail-in ballots and other forms of voting.

However, with less than two weeks to go, a divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court voted 4-3 to order a significant change in election rules. The Election Code in the state is a model of clarity — it says that a provisional ballot “shall not be counted if the elector’s [mail] ballot is received in a timely manner by a county board of elections.” However, the court ruled that provisional ballots must be counted even if an individual has already sent in a mail ballot rejected for violating a mandatory rule, such as failure to place the ballot in a secrecy envelope or to date or sign the envelope. Late Friday night, the Supreme Court declined to block the counting of the provisional ballots.

However, on Friday, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did hold the line on another major change of the state election laws ordered by a lower court. The court stayed a decision that it is unconstitutional to reject mail ballots without handwritten dates on the return envelopes. The stay means that the law will remain in effect for the election. Justice Kevin Doughtery (joined by Chief Justice Debra Todd) wrote a reassuring concurrence for many of us having to follow these cases: “‘This Court will neither impose nor countenance substantial alterations to existing laws and procedures during the pendency of an ongoing election.’ We said those carefully chosen words only weeks ago. Yet they apparently were not heard in the Commonwealth Court, the very court where the bulk of election litigation unfolds.”

Read more …

“The Russian Defense Ministry has estimated Ukraine’s total losses – killed and wounded – at over 500,000, or around half of its total manpower..”

• Ukraine Needs 500,000 New Troops – Lawmaker (RT)

Ukraine needs at least 500,000 new recruits to replace combat losses and outfit new units, lawmaker Roman Kostenko has said in an interview. Kiev’s current plans would fall 300,000 men short. Kostenko is the secretary of the Verkhovna Rada’s Defense and Intelligence committee and a former officer in the Ukrainian military. His comments came in an interview with the TV channel Priamyi (Direct) over the weekend. Taking into account the situation, the estimate floated at the end of last year by former military chief Valery Zaluzhny seems more relevant than Kiev’s current figures, Kostenko said. “Zaluzhny did not take those numbers randomly. I rather agree with him here that after all, such a number is more relevant than what we’ve gathered, than what we were told before, that we don’t need that many,” Kostenko said. Zaluzhny had called for a mobilization of 500,000 men in December 2023.

Vladimir Zelensky initially agreed with that assessment, but backtracked due to a public backlash. Zaluzhny was relieved in February – reportedly due to disagreements about the draft – and named Ukraine’s ambassador to the UK. While Zelensky did not specify how many troops would have to be drafted, the authorities in Kiev spoke of 160,000 by the end of the year, following changes to the mobilization rules this spring. According to Kostenko, the goal was actually 200,000 troops but mobilization rates dropped in September and again last month. This “cannot be allowed under any circumstances,” he said, as mobilization rates need to keep up the pace with battlefield attrition. According to Ukrainian media, Kiev’s armed forces currently number 1.05 million. Additional troops are needed to replace combat losses as well as allow frontline units to be rotated out for fresh brigades.

Ukrainian lawmakers have revealed that over 100,000 troops have deserted since the start of the conflict. Mobilization officers have resorted to hunting men down in the streets and markets, often hauling them away by force as onlookers record the incident. Moscow is currently waging “one of the most powerful” offensives since 2022, according to Zaluzhny’s replacement, General Aleksandr Syrsky. Ukrainian units are in “constant demand for the replenishment of resources,” Syrsky has said. Russian forces have made major advances in Donbass over the past several months, taking Ugledar and Selidovo and approaching Kurakhovo while maintaining pressure all along the line. The Russian Defense Ministry has estimated Ukraine’s total losses – killed and wounded – at over 500,000, or around half of its total manpower.

Read more …

If Trump wins, they’ll do it before Jan. 20.

• US Preparing Europe to Start Direct War With Russia If Ukraine Fails – Lavrov (Sp.)

The US is preparing Europe to enter into a direct military conflict with Russia in case of Kiev fails, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Monday. Top diplomat added that conflict with Russia would be “suicidal adventure” for Europe. “As a fallback option in case the regime of Zelensky fails, they [the US authorities] are preparing continental Europe to embark on a suicidal adventure and enter into a direct armed conflict with Russia,” Lavrov said at the International Symposium “Creating the Future.” Moscow is hosting the international symposium from November 4-6. This year, the event is attended representatives from 87 countries, including speakers, delegates, artists, diplomats, and journalists. Russia will continue discussion on multipolar world principles at international platforms, including during the G20 summit in Brazil, Sergey Lavrov added.

“In July, under our chairmanship, the United Nations Security Council held an open debate on the principles of co-existence among states and in a multipolar world. We proposed for discussion a number of concrete steps aimed at restoring credibility and stabilizing the international situation. We will continue this dialogue at other multilateral platforms, including this month in Rio de Janeiro at the G20 summit,” Lavrov said. Meanwhile, the dialogue on the intergovernmental level is facing difficulties, the Russian top diplomat said, adding that the West was still trying to gain unilateral advantages by any means, including “the privatization of the secretariats of the international organizations.” The UN should not keep silence in connection a with a bill in Ukraine that seeks to ban the Russian language, Russian Foreign Minister said.

Last month, Ukrainian Minister of Education and Science supported a bill banning the use of the Russian language in schools. “The very first article of the UN Charter, it is impossible to pass by it if you read this document seriously, it says: everyone is obliged to respect human rights, any human being, regardless of race, sex, language and religion. This is also the UN Charter, which the secretary general [Antonio Guterres] is calling for to guide in the Ukrainian conflict. I have not heard a single comment from Guterres’ spokesperson regarding the legislative extermination of the Russian language in Ukraine in all spheres of life,” Lavrov said. The secretary general needs to get his spokesperson to better articulate the United Nations Secretariat’s interpretation of international law, the official added.

Read more …

“Support for continued fighting in a war that cannot be won has been the only acceptable expression of empathy..”

• Is The West Finally Ready To Admit Defeat In Ukraine? (Diesen)

The Economist magazine reports this week that “Russia is slicing through Ukrainian defenses” and Ukraine is subsequently “struggling to survive.” Across the Western media, the public is being prepared for defeat and painful concessions in future negotiations. Journalists are changing the narrative as reality can no longer be ignored. Moscow’s coming success has been obvious since at least the summer of 2023, yet this was ignored to keep the proxy war going. We are witnessing an impressive demonstration of narrative control: For more than two years, the political-media elites have been chanting ‘Ukraine is winning’ and denounced any dissent to their narrative as ‘Kremlin talking points’ that aim to reduce support for the war. What was ‘Russian propaganda’ yesterday is now suddenly the consensus of the collective elites. Critical self-reflection is as absent as it was after the Russiagate reporting, following the 2016 US election.

Similar narrative control was displayed when the media reassured the public for two decades that the US was in control of Afghanistan, before it fled in a great rush with dramatic images of people falling off an airplane. Journalists deceived the public over the past while by presenting the stagnant front lines as evidence that Russia was not gaining an edge. However, in a war of attrition, the direction of the war is measured by attrition rates – the losses on each side. Territorial control comes after the adversary has been exhausted as territorial expansion is very costly in such high-intensity warfare with powerful defensive lines. The attrition rates have throughout the war been extremely unfavorable to Ukraine, and they keep getting worse. The current collapse of Kiev’s front lines was very predictable as its manpower and weaponry have been exhausted.

Why has the former narrative expired? The public could be misled by fake attrition rates, yet it is not possible to cover up territorial changes after the eventual breaking point. Furthermore, the proxy war was beneficial to NATO when the Russians and Ukrainians were bleeding each other without any significant territorial changes. Now that the Ukrainians are exhausted and are beginning to lose strategic territory, it is no longer in the interests of the US-led bloc to continue the war. Back in 2022, the political-media elites weaponized empathy to get public support for war and disdain for diplomacy. The Western public was convinced to support the proxy war against Russia by endless messaging about the suffering of Ukrainians and the injustice of their loss of sovereignty. Those who disagreed with NATO’s mantra that ‘weapons are the way to peace’ and instead suggested negotiations were quickly dismissed as puppets of the Kremlin who did not care about Ukrainians.

Support for continued fighting in a war that cannot be won has been the only acceptable expression of empathy. For the postmodernists seeking to socially construct their own reality, great power rivalry is largely a battle of narratives. The weaponization of empathy enabled the military narrative to become impervious to criticism. War was virtuous and diplomacy treasonous as Ukraine was allegedly fighting Russia’s “unprovoked” war with the objective to subjugate the entire country. A strong moral framing convinced people to deceive and self-censor in support of this noble cause. Even criticism of how Ukrainian civilians were dragged into cars by their government and sent to their deaths on the front lines was portrayed as supporting ‘Kremlin talking points’, as it undermined the NATO war narrative.

Reporting on high Ukrainian casualty rates threatened to undermine support for the fighting. Reporting on the failure of sanctions threatened to reduce public support for the sanctions. Reporting on the likely US destruction of Nord Stream threatened to create divisions within NATO. Reporting on the US and UK sabotage of the Minsk agreements and the Istanbul negotiations threatened the narrative of the West merely attempting to ‘help’ Ukraine. The public was offered the binary option of adhering either to the pro-Ukraine/NATO narrative or the pro-Russia narrative. Anyone challenging it with inconvenient facts could thus be accused of supporting Moscow’s objectives. Pointing out that Russia was winning was uncritically interpreted as taking its side.

There are ample facts and statements that demonstrate NATO has been fighting to the last Ukrainian to weaken a strategic rival. Yet, the strict narrative control entails that such evidence has not been permitted to be discussed. The strict demand for loyalty to the narrative hides the fact that US foreign policy is about restoring global primacy and not an altruistic commitment to liberal democratic values. The US considers Ukraine to be an important instrument to weaken Russia as a strategic rival.

Read more …

“Andromeda had only one 25-kilogram anchor and a 100-meter-long chain, while its crew supposedly dived at the depth of between 80 and 90 meters in the sea. That is just “impossible”..

• Diving Expert Questions Narrative Behind Nord Stream (RT)

A narrative pushed by the Western media about a small team of Ukrainian divers being behind the sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines in September 2022 is hard to believe, Dr Sven Thomas, a renowned German diving specialist, has told Bild over the weekend. Damage sustained by the Russian undersea pipelines suggests that much more powerful explosive charges and a much larger vessel were used to render them out of commission, he said, adding that a small yacht the media keep reporting about would never suffice. American and German media have repeatedly claimed that the blasts were linked to a small Ukrainian crew that rented a leisure yacht called Andromeda at a German port and set off armed only with diving equipment, satellite navigation, and open-source maps. The operation was reportedly given a green light by Ukraine’s then-commander in chief, Valery Zaluzhny.

Multiple media outlets reported in August that the German authorities had issued an international arrest warrant for a suspect in the case, a Ukrainian diver identified as Volodymyr Z. “There must have been at least one more team to cause the huge explosions,” said Sven Thomas, who heads a state-backed life-saving service in the German city of Halle. The specialist, who leads a crew of professional divers and underwater archeologists, added that he had “serious doubts” about the whole story linking the incidents to just a six-member Ukrainian crew using a 15-meter-long leisure yacht. According to Thomas, divers working at a depth of just 34 meters in a lake would need at least four anchors chained to a vessel to keep their equipment stable. Andromeda had only one 25-kilogram anchor and a 100-meter-long chain, while its crew supposedly dived at the depth of between 80 and 90 meters in the sea. That is just “impossible,” according to Thomas, who has been conducting diving operations for years.

The total weight of the equipment needed for such an operation would be about four tons, the expert said, adding that seismic records of the explosions show that at least several charges equivalent to 400 kilograms of TNT were used to blast the pipes. “They cannot drop such bomb charges into water without a crane and a counterweight, the vessel would just capsize otherwise,” Thomas said. According to the specialist diver, the fact that the pipelines were “crushed like a tin can” suggests that the damage was caused by powerful explosions nearby rather than small charges planted directly on the pipelines. Thomas believes that it points to military-grade bottom mines with a yield equivalent to around 1260 kilograms of TNT. Such mines can only be planted by a large vessel with a crane onboard, the expert told Bild.

Andromeda could have been behind only one of four blasts, which was likely caused by a small explosive charge planted directly on one of the pipelines, he added. Moscow dismissed the Western media reports implicating Andromeda as implausible. President Vladimir Putin has maintained the view that the explosions were carried out by professionals supported by “the full might of the state, which has certain technologies,” noting that the US was “probably” behind it. Last month, Danish media reported that US Navy warships had been operating near the Nord Stream pipelines shortly before the explosions.

Read more …

“The Narrative – U.S. tech and its Intel as ‘invincible’ – must be maintained. To heck with the facts.”

• Netanyahu’s “Imaginary War Narrative” Strategy (Alastair Crooke)

On Saturday, an Israeli force of some 100 aircraft attacked Iran from a stand-off position in Iraq, some 70 kilometres outside the Iranian border. A Wall Street Journal author, Walter Russell Meade, Distinguished Fellow at the Hudson Institute, wrote: “Israeli warplanes didn’t only cripple Iran’s air-defence systems and inflict painful blows on its missile-producing facilities. They also sent a message that Israel knows where Tehran’s strategic vulnerabilities are, and it can destroy them any time it wants”. Russell Meade adduces from this reading his key point: “Military forces that have access to American military technology and intelligence-gathering capabilities can wipe the floor with militaries that rely on Moscow … American technology is the gold standard in the world of defence – even more so for a country such as Israel that has significant intelligence and technological capabilities”.

The western ‘war of imagined, created reality’ thus reaches out beyond Ukraine – to arrive in Iran. The Narrative – U.S. tech and its Intel as ‘invincible – must be maintained. To heck with the facts. There is too much at stake to forsake it for truthfulness. A more sober and experienced observer however, notes after four days examination, that, succinctly put: “The IAF strikes seem to have produced minimal results; it appears however that covert operatives within Iran achieved several [inconsequential] drone hits. The Israelis launched a lot of missiles [some 56] – all from maximum stand-off distance. Iran put up a LOT of air defence missiles. There are no firm reports, nor video evidence (so far) of big ballistic missile strikes on any significant Iranian targets. The Iranians say they intercepted most of the attacking missiles, but admit some got through”.

As usual, the ‘imaginary war narrative’ being broadcast is completely detached from that which can be observed from ground imagery. Russell Meade effectively was demanding the pretence that ‘we not notice’ that Israel’s attack failed – tht it did not cripple air defences, nor did it devastate any significant target. Yet, as Professor Brian Klaas writes, “the world doesn’t work as we pretend [or imagine] it does. Too often, we are led to believe it is a structured, ordered system defined by clear rules and patterns. This is the meme at the crux of the Rules Order narrative. The economy, apparently, runs on supply-and-demand curves. Politics is a science. Even human beliefs can be charted, plotted, graphed – and by using the right regression and enough data, understand even the most baffling elements of the human condition”. It is a stripped-down, storybook version of reality.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

AI

 

 

Tate

 

 

Love formula
https://twitter.com/i/status/1853337564331081789

 

 

Bugger
https://twitter.com/i/status/1853379205976736142

 

 

Boxfish

 

 

Dam
https://twitter.com/i/status/1853233419456577793

 

 

Sandal

 

 

Zebra

 

 

Holly

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle November 4 2024

Nov 042024
 
 November 4, 2024  Posted by at 9:22 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,  42 Responses »


Berthe Morisot After luncheon1881

 

• Trump Could Become Second JFK – Medvedev (RT)
• Can A Tsunami of Trump Votes Give Power Back to the American People? (PCR)
• Trump’s Supporters Deserve A “Smack” – Biden (RT)
• I Shouldn’t Have Left The White House – Trump (RT)
• Rogan Exposes Democrats’ Plan To Destroy American Democracy (ZH)
• The Latest Harris Campaign Gaslighting Is Comedy Gold (Margolis)
• “We’re Not Going to Allow Them to Steal it”: Raskin (Turley)
• AI Will Kill Writing – Scientist (RT)
• The Internet Is Getting Flushed Down Orwell’s Memory Hole (ZH)
• The BRICS Summit Should Mark the End of Neocon Delusions (Jeffrey Sachs)
• Ukraine’s Territorial Losses Are Its Own Fault – Lavrov (RT)
• 101 Staff Members Accuse BBC of Pro-Israel Bias – Media (RT)
• UK FM Blames Civil Unrest In Europe On “Russian Disinformation” (ZH)
• Zakharova: Ukraine Took Back Just 279 POWs, Although 935 Were Offered (TASS)
• British King ‘Making Millions’ From Secret Property Empire – The Times (RT)

 

 

 

 

Polls

https://twitter.com/i/status/1853115111336276152

65 Project

Elon PA

Free speech

Young man

 

 

 

 

 

 

“..if he really attempts to [end the Ukraine conflict], he could become a new JFK..”

• Trump Could Become Second JFK – Medvedev (RT)

Should Donald Trump be elected US president and attempt to end the Ukraine conflict in earnest, he could end up sharing the fate of John F. Kennedy, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has claimed. He also argued that relations between Washington and Moscow will likely remain highly strained regardless of who comes out on top in the November 5 presidential election. During the course of his campaign, the GOP candidate has repeatedly vowed to put an end to the bloodshed in Ukraine in short order, if elected. However, he has not provided any specifics. His Democratic rival, Kamala Harris, has suggested that Trump would essentially force Kiev to surrender. Meanwhile, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has also expressed skepticism regarding the Republican nominee’s ability to stop the conflict overnight, noting that no “magic wand” exists with which he could do so.

In a post on his Telegram channel on Sunday, Medvedev, who currently serves as deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, wrote that Moscow does not have high expectations regarding the outcome of Tuesday’s US presidential election. He argued that “for Russia, the election won’t change anything, as both candidates’ stances completely reflect the bipartisan consensus that our country has to be defeated.” According to Medvedev, while on the campaign trail, a “somewhat fatigued Trump” has been dishing out “banalities” regarding peace prospects for Ukraine, and his supposedly good relations with world leaders. However, if elected, the Republican “would be forced to observe all of the rules of the system,” and would be “unable to stop the war. Not in a day, not in three days, not in three months.” “And if he really attempts to [end the Ukraine conflict], he could become a new JFK,” the former Russian president warned.

John F. Kennedy, the 35th US president, was assassinated in 1963. As for Harris, the Russian official dismissed her as “stupid, inexperienced [and] controllable.” Medvedev alleged that if elected, she would be a mere figurehead, with other officials and members of former President Barack Obama’s family pulling the strings. In an exclusive interview with RT earlier this week, Medvedev stated that “if Western countries, especially the United States, had had enough flexibility and wisdom to make a security agreement with Russia, there would have been no special military operation [in Ukraine].” He said that the US and its allies failed to realize this in time because “they’re in the habit of bullying everyone into submission,” and operating “on the principle of American exceptionalism and the primacy of US interests.”

Read more …

“I caution Trump that he cannot merely make Kennedy and Musk advisors. He must give them an executive power base by putting them in charge of the agencies.”

• Can A Tsunami of Trump Votes Give Power Back to the American People? (PCR)

The Democrats are set to steal the election. They have everything in place except enough votes to hide their theft. Watch the video of the Trump Grand Finale, listen to the speeches by Robert Kennedy and Tucker Carlson. Marvel at the massive audience. It appears that Americans have cast off their insouciance and are going to take back their country from the two corrupt political parties, both of which have unleashed evil on America and the world. The American ruling elite, which is evil beyond comprehension, will not take kindly to their loss of power and exposure of their crimes. The FBI, CIA, NSA, Secret Service, and Clinton murder machine only have to assassinate four people–Trump, Bobby Kennedy, Tucker Carlson, and Elon Musk–and the country is back in their hands. Considering the extraordinary support that both Trump and Bobby Kennedy extend to Israel, it is unclear how an America that supports and enables the Genocide of Palestine can be made great again.

I do have to say that I am disturbed by Trump seeing Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea as enemies that he will be tough with. This leaves Trump susceptible to neoconservative influence. If Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea are our enemies, it is because Washington made them enemies. It is not Russia that pulled off a Maidan Revolution in Germany and then used a Russian installed puppet to cause problems for NATO and the EU. It is Washington that used Ukraine to do that to Russia. It is not China that offshored its manufacturing to the US and then blames the US. It was not Iran that initiated 24 years of war in the Middle East. It was the US and Israel. It is Washington that has done everything possible to isolate and demonize North Korea for 70 years.

There is one threat in making American great again, and that threat is restoring American militarily dominance. The neoconservatives will use this American desire not only to foment wars but also in the name of national security to restore the spying, the restraints on free expression, and the name-calling that have eroded our civil liberties. “You are with us or against us” will be used to silence the voices of peace. Will MAGA Americans understand that a country can be great without being a hegemon? Permit me to explain that when Trump says there will never again be rallies like his MAGA ones, he is not being egotistical or claiming that no future candidate will be as popular with the people as he is. Neither is he giving assurance that he will not hold Third Reich style rallies. He is saying that once power is restored to the people, in place of political rallies there will be meetings to work out how to best get America back on course.

With Trump in the Oval Office, Elon Musk as Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Robert Kennedy as head of the Food and Drug Administration, Tucker Carlson as White House Press Spokesman, General Flynn as Director of the CIA, Edward Snowden as head of the National Security Agency, John W. Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute as Attorney General, Michael Hudson as Secretary of the Treasury, and Tulsi Gabbard as Secretary of State, there is a chance that America can be rescued and restored. These appointments might be too imaginative for Trump, and if Trump were to make them would the corrupt US Senate confirm them? I caution Trump that he cannot merely make Kennedy and Musk advisors. He must give them an executive power base by putting them in charge of the agencies. Otherwise, they will be cut out of the action by those in charge. If Kennedy and Musk are merely to give advice, they will soon quit out of frustration.

I caution Trump that he cannot give Scooter Libby a pardon and leave his January 6 supporters imprisoned. He cannot leave the attorneys legally harassed who collected evidence that the 2020 election was stolen by Democrats. There are a lot of people on his side who need rescuing. If Trump’s ego or stupid advisors cause him to be magnanimous to his deadly enemies who tried to assassinate him both politically and physically, he will fail. I think Trump has won the election. Nevertheless, the Democrats might try to steal it again, orchestrate an “insurrection,” invoke Pentagon Directive 5240.01, and prevent Trump from being inaugurated. We must keep in mind that the inauguration of a president comes two and one-half months after his election. There is plenty of time for Democrat and ruling elite mischief. The high and mighty have committed so many crimes that they are vulnerable if Trump regains the presidency. In many ways, for the ruling elite this election is an existential matter.

Read more …

He likes talking tough. Think he ever won a -fair- fight in his life?

• Trump’s Supporters Deserve A “Smack” – Biden (RT)

US President Joe Biden has condemned Republican nominee Donald Trump’s promise of lower taxes for high earners, and lashed out at “macho guys” who support such ideas. He made the remarks during a campaign stop in his birthplace of Scranton, Pennsylvania on Saturday, in support of Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate for the November 5 election. “There’s one more thing Trump and his Republican friends want to do. They want to have a giant tax cut for the wealthy,” Biden told the local chapter of the carpenters union. “Now, I know some of you guys are tempted to think it’s macho guys,” he continued in an apparent reference to Trump’s supporters.

“I tell you what, man, when I was in Scranton, we used to have a little trouble going down the plot once in a while. These are the kind of guys you’d like to smack in the ass,” he said while gritting his teeth and clenching his fists. “By the way, I’m serious,” he added. Throughout his presidential campaign, Donald Trump has proposed various tax cuts along with tariff increases on imported goods. This includes a 20% reduction in corporate tax rate. He also pledged to eliminate tax on overtime pay and on tips for service workers, and to make Social Security benefits for seniors tax-free.

Earlier this week, Biden caused an uproar when he branded Republican supporters “garbage,” accusing Trump of dividing the country “based on the race.” The White House later edited the transcript, claiming that there was “a difference in interpretation” while Biden said his comment was in response to “hateful rhetoric about Puerto Rico spewed by Trump’s supporters at his Madison Square Garden rally.” Both Democrats and Republicans have frequently engaged in harsh rhetoric, with Trump often describing Harris as a “low IQ individual,” calling her policies “plans of a simpleton” and the vice president accusing the former president of constantly lying and branding him a “petty tyrant.”

Read more …

“..the US has turned “a failed country” under the leadership of an “incompetent group of fools.”

• I Shouldn’t Have Left The White House – Trump (RT)

US Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has said that he regrets leaving the White House after losing to Joe Biden in 2020, reiterating his claim of “stolen elections.” Speaking at a campaign rally in Lititz, Pennsylvania on Sunday, two days before Election Day, the former president said that the US has turned “a failed country” under the leadership of an “incompetent group of fools.” He went on to accuse the Democratic candidate, Vice President Kamala Harris of being unable to prevent the flow of illegal migrants across the border with Mexico. “We had the safest border in the history of our country, the day I left,” Trump said. “I shouldn’t have left. I mean, honestly, because we did so, we did so well.”

Trump labeled the Democratic Party a “corrupt machine” and claimed that the integrity of the election could only be guaranteed if US states only use paper ballots and require voter IDs. “In California, you are not even allowed to ask for a voter ID. They are only doing it because they want to cheat,” he suggested. Trump has never admitted that he lost the 2020 election, despite courts failing to find evidence of widespread voter fraud. He eventually stepped down as president after a crowd of his supporters stormed the US Capitol building on January 6, 2021, briefly interrupting the certification of Biden’s victory.

Read more …

“”There’s a significant number of these people that are illegal immigrants that have made their way to swing states. And then there’s been calls for amnesty..”

• Rogan Exposes Democrats’ Plan To Destroy American Democracy (ZH)

“Undeniably,” admits Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman to podcaster Joe Rogan, “immigration is changing our nation.” The two men spoke about a wide variety of political topics ranging from how Donald Trump won in 2016 to how immigration stands as a key issue in the election today. Specifically, Fetterman played the Democratic Party card, claiming that Republicans in 2024 “had an opportunity to do a comprehensive border-bipartisan-and that went down because Trump, he declared that that’s a bad deal after it was negotiated with the other side.” Rogan then brutally ‘fact-checked’ the stammering senator, pointing out the reality that that the deal made many concessions that Republicans concerned about the border found to be unacceptable. “But, didn’t that deal also involved amnesty,” responded Rogan,”and didn’t that deal also involve a significant number of illegal aliens being allowed into the country every year?”

Silence from Fetterman. Rogan continued: “I think it was 2 million people. So still the same sort of situation. And their fear is exactly what I talked about, that these people will be moved to swing states and that that will be used to essentially rig those states and turn them blue forever.” Finally, the PA Senator responded “I’ve never witnessed those kinds [illegals voting] of a thing… I don’t think there’s that level kinds of organization.” But Rogan once again would not allow the politician to ‘lie’ pointing out that “there is an organization that’s moving these people [illegals] to swing states.” “There’s a significant number of these people that are illegal immigrants that have made their way to swing states. And then there’s been calls for amnesty. There’s been calls for allowing these people to have a pathway to citizenship and allow them to vote.

The fear that a lot of people have is that this is a coordinated effort to take these people that you’re allowing to come into the country, then you’re providing them with all sorts of services like food stamps and housing and setting them up and then providing a pathway to amnesty. And then you would have voters that would be significantly voting towards the Democrats because they’re the people that enabled them to come into the country in the first place, first place and provided them with those services. This is a big fear that people have and that you’re rigging this system and that this will turn all these states into essentially locked blue like California is.” Fetterman’s responds: “undeniably,” adding that “immigration is changing our nation.” “I haven’t spent a lot of time in Texas but it’s very clear that immigration has remade Texas and I think it’s generally, it’s a good thing.”

Read more …

“The only thing the Harris campaign has functional at this point is a bulls**t machine that is dutifully repeated by the legacy media as if fact.”

• The Latest Harris Campaign Gaslighting Is Comedy Gold (Margolis)

The Harris-Walz campaign claims late-deciding voters are breaking their way, and by a lot. Former Obama campaign manager and current senior advisor to the Harris-Walz campaign made a rather bold claim on X/Twitter on Friday. According to Politico, Plouffe’s comments “echo[ed] those shared by senior campaign officials earlier Friday on a call with reporters.” “We have believed all along that there were still undecided voters here, and that the close of this race was really, really important,” said one of the senior campaign officials, granted anonymity to speak candidly about the state of the race. “And we are seeing that be the case as we are closing out in the last week.” The official said that a recent focus group with undecided voters in a battleground state showed that the racist, misogynistic and vulgar language at Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally in New York over the weekend isn’t just impacting Puerto Rican and Latino voters, but undecided voters as a whole.

“It really kind of crystallized for them the choice in their minds between the vice president, who they’re seeing talk about being a president for everyone, someone focused on them and solving their problems, and Trump, and these really kind of dark, divisive language and events and activities,” the official said. “We don’t always see, when we’re talking to swing voters, anything that you can really see them kind of finalize their point of view or finalize their opinion.” According to the Harris campaign, we’re supposed to believe that a comedian’s joke holds more significance than pressing issues like the economy, immigration, and foreign policy. During a 2WAY livestream, Mark Halperin took aim at the media for uncritically accepting David Plouffe’s claims, saying the assertion “seems questionable on the face.”

He argued that proving whether undecided voters were truly swayed by the Madison Square Garden event would require precise analytics, but that hasn’t stopped the media from treating Plouffe’s statements “like it’s a fact” despite lacking hard evidence. Halperin also shared that, based on his conversations with the Trump campaign, they believe undecided voters lean 2-to-1 in Trump’s favor. He may not believe that’s entirely true, but was clearly less convinced by Plouffe’s suggestion, which Halperin believes was intended to create a “bandwagon effect” for Kamala, shifting the narrative to portray her as gaining momentum. Consider this: if the Access Hollywood tape couldn’t derail Trump’s campaign in 2016, there’s little reason to believe that a comedian’s joke at one of his rallies would, either. Americans recognized Trump’s comments as “locker room talk” back then, just as they understand that a comedian known for crude humor is simply aiming for laughs.

When Halperin asked Trump’s campaign advisor, Chris LaCivita, for his take, LaCivita responded bluntly: “What the hell is he going to say? He’s losing? Fact of the matter is David can’t do anything but bulls**t until Tuesday because we are kicking his a**. The only thing the Harris campaign has functional at this point is a bulls**t machine that is dutifully repeated by the legacy media as if fact.” In the end, both campaigns believe, or are at least claiming, that they have the edge with late-deciding voters. Ignore it all. Just get out there and vote, and make sure every Trump supporter you know votes.

Read more …

“This could prove a long night, if not a long week.”

• “We’re Not Going to Allow Them to Steal it”: Raskin (Turley)

On Bill Maher’s HBO Show on Friday, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) appeared to repeat his reservation about accepting a Trump win in the presidential election. Raskin said that Democrats will only support a “free and fair election.” Trump was widely criticized for the same position when he said “If everything’s honest, I’ll gladly accept the results.” Raskin previously said that he would not guarantee certifying Trump and that, if he wins, he may be declared as disqualified by Congress: “It’s going to be up to us on January 6th, 2025 to tell the rampaging Trump mobs that he’s disqualified. And then we need bodyguards for everybody and civil war conditions.” Raskin went on HBO to repeat his reservation on accepting the results of any Trump victory: “When I say we will support a free and fair election, no, we we’re not going to allow them to steal it in the states, or steal it in the Department of Justice or steal it with any other election official in the country.

If it’s a free and fair election, we will do what we’ve always done. We will honor it.” Remarkably, as the audience applauded Raskin, Maher added “That is the Democrats’ history: They honor it. That’s the big difference between the parties.” However, that is not the history and Raskin knows it. The certification of President George W. Bush’s 2004 re-election was opposed by Democrats and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) praised the effort of then-Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) who organized to challenge. Jan. 6 committee head Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) voted to challenge it in the House. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) sought to block certification of the 2016 election result.

Raskin also insisted on CNN that the effort to prevent citizens from voting for Trump is the very embodiment of democracy: “If you think about it, of all of the forms of disqualification that we have, the one that disqualifies people for engaging in insurrection is the most democratic because it’s the one where people choose themselves to be disqualified.” Democrats not only sought to strip Trump from the ballot this election, but sought to cleanse ballots of 126 House members. We are already seeing an ominous uptick of challenges, which I discuss in my column this weekend. There are also new allegations of systemic fraudulent registrations in multiple districts. Raskin presumably expects any voters to protest “peacefully” if they are declared the losers.

I am leaving for New York today to join in the coverage. This could prove a long night, if not a long week.

Read more …

“Some 86% of students use AI in their studies..”

“There will still be smart people, but only those who choose to be.”

• AI Will Kill Writing – Scientist (RT)

The use of Artificial intelligence (AI) for writing both at work and in school will result in the majority of people losing the skill in several short decades, Paul Graham, a computer scientist and author, has warned. This will create a problem because writing means thinking, Graham, a veteran investor and cofounder of Y Combinator, a startup accelerator and venture capital firm, believes. “The reason so many people have trouble writing is that it’s fundamentally difficult. To write well, you have to think clearly, and thinking clearly is hard,” he said in an essay posted on his website last week. However, the development of technology has allowed people to outsource writing to AI.

There’s no longer a need to actually learn how to write, or hire someone to do it for you, or even plagiarize, the English-American scientist wrote. “I’m usually reluctant to make predictions about technology, but I feel fairly confident about this one: in a couple decades there won’t be many people who can write,” Graham said. It’s common for skills to disappear as technologies replace them; after all, “there aren’t many blacksmiths left, and it doesn’t seem to be a problem,” he admitted. But people being unable to write is “bad,” he insisted. “A world divided into writes and write-nots is more dangerous than it sounds. It will be a world of thinks and think-nots,” Graham believes.

It won’t be an unprecedented situation, he observed, referring to preindustrial times, when “most people’s jobs made them strong.” “Now if you want to be strong, you work out. So there are still strong people, but only those who choose to be,” Graham said. In his view, it will be the same with writing. “There will still be smart people, but only those who choose to be.” Some 86% of students use AI in their studies, according to a recent survey by the Digital Education Council. While 28% of them resort to technologies to paraphrase documents, 24% use AI to create first drafts, the study has found.

Read more …

“For the first time in 30 years, we have gone a long swath of time – since October 8-10 – since [the Wayback Machine] has chronicled the life of the Internet in real time..”

• The Internet Is Getting Flushed Down Orwell’s Memory Hole (ZH)

We interrupt today’s important election coverage for a story that could have impacts even longer-lasting than President Kamala Harris’s first ten-trillion-dollar budget. I’ll wash my keyboard out with soap later for typing the phrase “President Kamala Harris.” When the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine was hacked in early October, it looked at first like just another email-and-password smash-and-grab. But that was followed up by repeated Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks that crippled the service. The Internet Archive was hit again on Oct. 20, “this time with the threat actors gaining access to their Zendesk support email system.” The Wayback Machine came back but as a read-only service. What that means is, while you can search archived webpages from before the attacks, “you can’t currently capture an existing web page into the archive.”

That matters bigly. When the New York Times, Washington Post, or anyone else stealth-edits a news report to hide the truth, you could still find the original on the Wayback Machine. That’s no longer true. “For the first time in 30 years, we have gone a long swath of time – since October 8-10 – since this service has chronicled the life of the Internet in real time,” the Brownstone Institute reported this week. As of this writing, fully three weeks of web content have not been archived. What we are missing and what has changed is anyone’s guess. And we have no idea when the service will come back. It is entirely possible that it will not come back, that the only real history to which we can take recourse will be pre-October 8, 2024, the date on which everything changed. But it gets worse. Google killed off its cache feature — similar to the Wayback Machine — right around the time the Internet Archive got hacked. Coincidence? Probably. But I’m making a tinfoil hat, just in case.

The White House just got caught altering Presidentish Joe Biden’s “garbage” remarks. “Nothing to see here,” Sean Davis quipped, “just the Biden-Harris administration deliberately falsifying federal records.” They got caught this time, and sources like X still have the original video. But what happens next time, when some politician or MSM editor waits until the furor dies down before making their stealth edit — and there’s no Wayback Machine to catch them? Wikipedia is the defacto internet encyclopedia but has proven time and again to be biased at best and subject to stealth edits at worst. More people are using AI to perform their web searches and summaries for them, but the large language models are scraping data from sources increasingly subject to manipulation.

Read more …

“Time has run out on the neocon delusions, and the U.S. wars of choice..”

• The BRICS Summit Should Mark the End of Neocon Delusions (Jeffrey Sachs)

The recent BRICS Summit in Kazan, Russia should mark the end of the Neocon delusions encapsulated in the subtitle of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1997 book, The Global Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. Since the 1990s, the goal of American foreign policy has been “primacy,” aka global hegemony. The U.S. methods of choice have been wars, regime change operations, and unilateral coercive measures (economic sanctions). Kazan brought together 35 countries with more than half the world population that reject the U.S. bullying and that are not cowed by U.S. claims of hegemony. In the Kazan Declaration, the countries underscored “the emergence of new centres of power, policy decision-making and economic growth, which can pave the way for a more equitable, just, democratic and balanced multipolar world order.”

They emphasized “the need to adapt the current architecture of international relations to better reflect the contemporary realities,” while declaring their “commitment to multilateralism and upholding the international law, including the Purposes and Principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations (UN) as its indispensable cornerstone.” They took particular aim at the sanctions imposed by the U.S. and its allies, holding that “Such measures undermine the UN Charter, the multilateral trading system, the sustainable development and environmental agreements.” Time has run out on the neocon delusions, and the U.S. wars of choice.

The neocon quest for global hegemony has deep historical roots in America’s belief in its exceptionalism. In 1630, John Winthrop invoked the Gospels in describing the Massachusetts Bay Colony as a “City on the Hill,” declaring grandiosely that “The eyes of all people are upon us.” In the 19th century, America was guided by Manifest Destiny, to conquer North America by displacing or exterminating the native peoples. In the course of World War II, Americans embraced the idea of the “American Century,” that after the war the U.S. would lead the world. The U.S. delusions of grandeur were supercharged with the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991. With America’s Cold War nemesis gone, the ascendant American neoconservatives conceived of a new world order in which the U.S. was the sole superpower and the policeman of the world. Their foreign policy instruments of choice were wars and regime-change operations to overthrow governments they disliked.

Following 9/11, the neocons planned to overthrow seven governments in the Islamic world, starting with Iraq, and then moving on to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. According to Wesley Clark, former Supreme Commander of NATO, the neocons expected the U.S. to prevail in these wars in 5 years. Yet now, more than 20 years on, the neocon-instigated wars continue while the U.S. has achieved absolutely none of its hegemonic objectives. The neocons reasoned back in the 1990s that no country or group of countries would ever dare to stand up to U.S. power. Brzezinski, for example, argued in The Grand Chessboard that Russia would have no choice but to submit to the U.S.-led expansion of NATO and the geopolitical dictates of the U.S. and Europe, since there was no realistic prospect of Russia successfully forming an anti-hegemonic coalition with China, Iran and others. As Brzezinski put it:

“Russia’s only real geostrategic option—the option that could give Russia a realistic international role and also maximize the opportunity of transforming and socially modernizing itself—is Europe. And not just any Europe, but the transatlantic Europe of the enlarging EU and NATO.” (emphasis added, Kindle edition, p. 118) Brzezinski was decisively wrong, and his misjudgment helped to lead to the disaster of the war in Ukraine. Russia did not simply succumb to the U.S. plan to expand NATO to Ukraine, as Brzezinski assumed it would. Russia said a firm no, and was prepared to wage war to stop the U.S. plans. As a result of the neocon miscalculations vis-à-vis Ukraine, Russia is now prevailing on the battlefield, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are dead. Nor—and this is the plain message from Kazan—did U.S. sanctions and diplomatic pressures isolate Russian in the least. In response to pervasive U.S. bullying, an anti-hegemonic counterweight has emerged.

Simply put, the majority of the world does not want or accept U.S. hegemony, and is prepared to face it down rather than submit to its dictates. Nor does the U.S. anymore possess the economic, financial, or military power to enforce its will, if it ever did. The countries that assembled in Kazan represent a clear majority of the world’s population. The nine BRICS members (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa as the original five, plus Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates), in addition to the delegations of 27 aspiring members, constitute 57 percent of the world’s population and 47 percent of the world’s output (measured at purchasing-power adjusted prices). The U.S., by contrast, constitutes 4.1 percent of the world population and 15 percent of world output. Add in the U.S. allies, and the population share of the U.S.-led alliance is around 15 percent of the global population.

The BRICS will gain in relative economic weight, technological prowess, and military strength in the years ahead. The combined GDP of the BRICS countries is growing at around 5 percent per annum, while the combined GDP of the U.S. and its allies in Europe and the Asia-Pacific is growing at around 2 percent per annum. Even with their growing clout, however, the BRICS can’t replace the U.S. as a new global hegemon. They simply lack the military, financial, and technological power to defeat the U.S. or even to threaten its vital interests. The BRICS are in practice calling for a new and realistic multipolarity, not an alternative hegemony in which they are in charge.

American strategists should heed the ultimately positive message coming from Kazan. Not only has the neocon quest for global hegemony failed, it has been a costly disaster for the US and the world, leading to bloody and pointless wars, economic shocks, mass displacements of populations, and rising threats of nuclear confrontation. A more inclusive and equitable multipolar world order offers a promising path out of the current morass, one that can benefit the U.S. and its allies as well as the nations that met in Kazan. The rise of the BRICS is therefore not merely a rebuke to the U.S., but also a potential opening for a far more peaceful and secure world order. The multipolar world order envisioned by the BRICS can be a boon for all countries, including the United States. Time has run out on the neocon delusions, and the U.S. wars of choice. The moment has arrived for a renewed diplomacy to end the conflicts raging around the world.

Read more …

“The longer the Ukrainian leadership, with Western support, keeps scuttling one agreement after another, the less territory remains under its control..”

• Ukraine’s Territorial Losses Are Its Own Fault – Lavrov (RT)

The more agreements with Russia and other parties the Ukrainian government violates, the less territory will remain under Kiev’s control, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has warned. During his speech at the 16th Assembly of the Russian World in Moscow on Saturday, Lavrov reiterated the country’s readiness to search for a diplomatic solution to the conflict with Kiev. According to Moscow, an integral part of the political settlement should be “protecting the rights and freedoms, as well as the legal interests of the Russian people and Russian speakers… alongside ensuring Ukraine’s non-aligned, neutral, and non-nuclear status, and eliminating any and all threats to Russia’s security that may come from within its borders,” he said. “Acknowledging the actual state of affairs on the ground is of paramount importance,” the minister stressed. Lavrov urged Kiev against delaying the launch of substantive negotiations any further.

“The longer the Ukrainian leadership, with Western support, keeps scuttling one agreement after another, the less territory remains under its control,” he warned. “Had they honored their commitments in February 2014, nothing would have happened, and Crimea would still be part of Ukraine. However, they chose to break the agreement because they couldn’t wait to seize power,” the foreign ministry recalled. On February 21, 2014, at the height of the Maidan protests in Kiev, an EU- and Russia-brokered deal to deescalate tensions was struck between Ukraine’s democratically elected president, Viktor Yanukovich and the opposition. However, the coup leaders violated it almost immediately, with the head of state being forced to flee the violence the next day. The regime change in the nation’s capital prompted Crimea to hold a referendum the following month, in which the peninsula’s population voted overwhelmingly to reunite with Russia.

“Had it [the Kiev government] honored the Minsk Agreements in February 2015, Ukraine would have still kept all its territories within its borders, including all of Donbass (Crimea was already gone by that time). They chose not to implement these agreements and not to grant a special status to a portion of Donbass,” Lavrov continued. The Minsk II deal, the guarantors of which were Germany, France and Russia, introduced a ceasefire between the authorities in Kiev and the breakaway regions of Donetsk and Lugansk, and was intended to pave the way for administrative and political reform in Ukraine as well as for autonomy and local elections in the Donbass republics. In December 2022, former Chancellor Angela Merkel and former President Francois Hollande, who helped broker the accord, admitted that it had been nothing more than a ruse to help Ukraine buy time and prepare for a future conflict with Russia.

“Their third chance came up in Istanbul in April 2022,” when Russia and Ukraine last sat at the negotiating table, the foreign minister said. Russia, which initially expressed satisfaction with the results of the meeting and withdrew its forces from the outskirts of Kiev as a goodwill gesture, later accused Ukraine of backtracking on all progress achieved in Türkiye, saying it had lost trust in Kiev’s negotiators. Russian President Vladimir Putin revealed earlier this year that, during the talks in Istanbul, Ukraine was willing to declare military neutrality, limit its armed forces, and vow not to discriminate against ethnic Russians. In return, Moscow would have joined other leading powers in offering Ukraine security guarantees, he said. According to the Russian leader, Kiev withdrew from the talks on the order of its Western backers. “Without a doubt, today looks quite different from April 2022,” Lavrov said, referring to any future negotiations with Kiev.

Read more …

“..holds itself to very high standards, and we strive to live up to our responsibility to deliver the most trusted and impartial news.”

• 101 Staff Members Accuse BBC of Pro-Israel Bias – Media (RT)

Dozens of BBC employees have accused the British state broadcaster of exhibiting pro-Israel bias in its coverage of the Gaza conflict, The Independent reported on Saturday. The newspaper, citing a letter allegedly sent to BBC Director-General Tim Davie, said the appeal was also publicly signed by other media representatives, including broadcaster Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, who previously served as senior minister of state for foreign and commonwealth affairs. The Independent claimed that accusations of partiality were levelled at the BBC by 101 staff members, who chose not to reveal their identities. The letter allegedly highlights a lack of “fair and accurate evidence-based journalism in coverage of Gaza.” BBC employees urged the organization to report “without fear or favour” and to “recommit to the highest editorial standards – with emphasis on fairness, accuracy, and due impartiality.”

The letter allegedly stressed the need to make it clearer in BBC reporting that Israel is preventing foreign journalists from accessing Gaza, and to provide more historical context behind the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Independent quoted an anonymous BBC employee, who signed the letter, as saying that “levels of staff confidence” are unprecedentedly low, with some of colleagues having “left the BBC in recent months because they just don’t believe our reporting on Israel and Palestine is honest.” Another supposedly told the newspaper that they “see that we are losing the trust of audiences across the world.” The unnamed signatory cited headlines that often leave out Israel, in an apparent attempt to deflect blame.

A BBC spokesperson has rejected the allegations of bias, stressing that the broadcaster “holds itself to very high standards, and we strive to live up to our responsibility to deliver the most trusted and impartial news.” Meanwhile, in September, The Telegraph published a report pointing to a “deeply worrying pattern of bias and multiple breaches by the BBC of its own editorial guidelines on impartiality, fairness and establishing the truth.” According to an analysis prepared by a group of lawyers and data scientists, the broadcaster exhibited anti-Israel bias in its output on television, radio, podcasts, websites, and social media over a period of at least four months in the wake of the deadly Hamas incursion into Israel on October 7, 2023. The BBC has dismissed the findings, calling into question the reliability of AI tools employed by the researchers.

Read more …

“..Russia is involved in psy-ops as any country at war would be. That said, so is David Lammy and his ilk and they aren’t only at war with Russia, they’re also at war with the UK and EU populace.”

• UK FM Blames Civil Unrest In Europe On “Russian Disinformation” (ZH)

The majority of official surveys monitoring American and European support for Ukraine are many months old now. The last time we saw a flurry of polling on the issue was this summer and the media has been rather quiet on the issue since. Why? Because public support for the proxy war is in steep decline. The last numbers show that 52% of Americans no longer want additional funding for Ukraine. With Donald Trump increasingly likely to return to the White House in 2025 the Ukrainians are already preparing for steep cuts to military aid (the US provides the vast majority of arms to Ukraine). This leaves the EU to pick up the slack. However, Europe simply doesn’t have the capacity to provide enough military aid to make a difference in the war and is currently discussing schemes to transfer frozen Russian assets to the effort while simultaneously scaling back their own funding. Central EU nations like Germany are already cutting their contributions in half in the coming year.

The decline in aid follows two important factors: Public support for the war in America and Europe is waning. And, Ukraine is clearly losing the conflict with their defensive lines in the east collapsing. Ukraine has received well over $200 billion in the past two years from NATO nations, which eclipses Ukraine’s annual GDP of around $160 billion. In other words, the war cannot continue without NATO. The disconnect between US and European governments vs the desires of the general public could not be more obvious. Even the Washington Post admits: “As they signaled enduring support for Ukraine last week, European leaders worried about how long they can sustain it…” “European leaders promise to support Ukraine as long as it takes, but they are increasingly threatened by public fatigue, a weakening of the political center and the prospect of Trump’s return…”

“More than 20 years into Russia’s war, public fatigue risks taking hold in some countries. Some European leaders are now in politically precarious positions and more constrained in what they can do. And across the continent, parties from the hard right to the hard left are pushing narratives against sending cash or arms…” In the UK and Europe, protests have erupted over a number of problems, most importantly the threat of mass immigration from third world countries and the deliberate agenda to erase traditional European culture. Some of the unrest has also been related to the Ukraine war and ongoing discussions about “conscription” among government officials. The UK Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, is one of many bureaucrats that are trying to lump all civil actions together, labeling them a “threat to democracy.” The narrative also seeks to tie these events to “Russian disinformation.” In other words, according to David Lammy the public is being brainwashed by Vladimir Putin into protesting and this is a strategy by the Kremlin to sow discord within Europe.

The U.K. government sanctioned three Russian agencies and their senior executives this month, accusing them of orchestrating disinformation campaigns and seeking to fuel anti-Ukraine protests across Europe. The Social Design Agency (SDA), Structura National Technologies, and Ano Dialog, alongside their directors, are accused of spearheading a vast malign online network commonly known as “Doppelganger.” The network used deceitful tactics… to mask the truth around Russia s illegal invasion of Ukraine and distract from the true nature of the war, the U.K. Foreign Office said in a statement Monday. Lammy and others claim this constitutes a “threat to democracy” and he says he will take action to shut down all sources of disinformation. To be sure, Russia is involved in psy-ops as any country at war would be. That said, so is David Lammy and his ilk and they aren’t only at war with Russia, they’re also at war with the UK and EU populace.

It should be noted that Lammy is becoming a regular fixture at The Atlantic Council, which has been deeply involved in the escalation of Ukrainian tensions with Russia for over a decade. He is also on the advisory board for the European branch of the Council On Foreign Relations. His relationships with globalist institutions helps to explain his hostility to conservative and anti-progressive movements. As Lammy argues in his recent conference with Ukrainian officials, any sense that allies are not united ‘only benefits Putin.’ Clearly this “unity” must also extend to the civilian population (by force if necessary), otherwise Lammy and his cohorts look rather ridiculous. The tactic of attaching all civil dissent to the schemes of a foreign adversary is a tale as old as oligarchy. It’s a way for governments to negate or dismiss public opposition to policy without losing face, because they can claim all the dissent is astroturf created by malicious foreign agencies.

Read more …

“These are practically 700 people who could have returned to their families in Ukraine..”

• Zakharova: Ukraine Took Back Just 279 POWs, Although 935 Were Offered (TASS)

The Russian Defense Ministry offered to hand over 935 Ukrainian prisoners of war this year, but Kiev took only 279 of them, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said. “This year, the Russian Defense Ministry handed over to the Coordination Headquarters for the Handling of Prisoners of War a proposal to give back 935 Ukrainian prisoners of war to the Ukrainian side as part of exchanges,” the diplomat said in an online news conference. “How many of this number of people do you think the Kiev regime took back? I will emphasize they are its own citizens. Only 279.” “These are practically 700 people who could have returned to their families in Ukraine,” Zakharova went on to say.

“They were simply shrugged off by the Kiev regime, and yet its representatives continue to travel to Canada and around the world and supposedly call on, and negotiate with the international community for mediation efforts and, as [former Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry] Kuleba said, for protection of Ukrainian nationals in Russia.” The spokeswoman called such actions of the Kiev regime “political tourism on the blood of its own citizens, its own servicemen.” “Not those who have been experiencing hatred for years, not the thugs who are ready to kill everyone with weapons in their hands – both Russian citizens and residents of the African continent, as it now turns out, but those whom they literally forcibly mobilized, telling them that Ukraine must be saved, sending them into these human wave attacks. They are not interested in their fate,” Zakharova said.

Read more …

Stuck in the Middle Ages.

• British King ‘Making Millions’ From Secret Property Empire – The Times (RT)

King Charles III and his son Prince William have contracts with UK taxpayer-funded public services, charities, government departments and even a prison, which help them earn millions every year, the Sunday Times has claimed. That’s in addition to the so-called sovereign grant the royals get from the government. In 2023 alone, Charles and William’s “private fiefdoms,” the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall – raised £27.4 million (over $35 million) and £23.6 million ($30 million) respectively for the British royal family, the newspaper found as part of a joint investigation with Channel 4’s Dispatches program. The paper said Saturday that they used the royal addresses to uncover their business contracts and discovered how the duchies are making money “via a series of commercial rents and feudal levies on land largely seized by medieval monarchs.”

Dubbed “Duchy Files,” the investigation claims to have found that King Charles and Prince William “charge for the right to cross rivers, offload cargo onto the shore, run cables under their beaches, operate schools and charities, and even dig graves.” “They earn revenue from toll bridges, ferries, sewage pipes, churches, village halls, pubs, distilleries, gas pipelines, boat moorings, opencast and underground mines, car parks, rental homes and wind turbines,” The Times claims. Some 5,410 landholdings and properties are held by the royal duchies, the investigation claims. For instance, a deal with an NHS foundation trust will reportedly pay the King’s Duchy of Lancaster £11 million ($14 million) over 15 years to rent a warehouse for ambulances. Prince William’s Duchy of Cornwall receives £1.5 million ($1.9 million) a year from the Ministry of Justice for using Dartmoor Prison, The Times claims.

The duchy of the King’s eldest son, the Colonel-in-Chief of the Army Air Corps, also charges the military “for the right to train” on its 67,500 acres of land in Dartmoor. The sum it gets has not been revealed. The estates also rent out over 900 residential homes and farms to tenants, according to the report. The duchies, both established in the 14th century, are operating as commercial landlords, but are exempt from paying tax on their corporate profits, the paper notes. The King and Prince pay income tax voluntarily at the highest rate, 45%. In 2022, the last time King Charles published his tax filings, he paid 25% of the £23 million ($30 million) in duchy profit “because he deducted expenses he considered related to his official duties,” The Times pointed out.

The “Duchy Files” investigation marks the first time that the complete list of property holdings for the two royal estates has been made public, the paper says, adding that even the British parliament was denied access to it. “The ancient property empires that fund the King and the Prince of Wales have remained a closely guarded secret within the royal family and its small circle of advisers for centuries,” it claimed. The two duchies are separate from the Crown Estate, a vast property business owned by the British monarch but run independently. Because of its soaring profits, the taxpayer-funded sovereign grant that pays for official royal duties will rise from £86.3 million ($111 million) in 2024-25 to £132 million ($170 million) in 2025-26.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Whats Ur name?

 

 

Thank you
https://twitter.com/i/status/1852753037242319021

 

 

Performer

 

 

Deer brush
https://twitter.com/i/status/1852760089603813813

 

 

Octopus
https://twitter.com/i/status/1853063328152653966

 

 

Turtle

 

 

Jesus
https://twitter.com/i/status/1852973368519152063

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 Older Entries