Jean-François Millet The Angelus 1857
Amish
https://twitter.com/Nichole05507742/status/1914675572762140682
https://twitter.com/matt_vanswol/status/1914679392632033447
https://twitter.com/JimFergusonUK/status/1915003832062431232
Collum
Who gives these twisted the bastards the right to do this? pic.twitter.com/iT5xwZbtz7
— Dave Collum (@DavidBCollum) April 23, 2025
Moon
On September 16, 1969, a press conference was held for the 3 NASA astronauts returning from their mission to the Moon.
"Everyone expects to see 3 heroes full of enthusiasm and happiness after the wonderful mission completed." pic.twitter.com/mRPkNVZNeZ
— illuminatibot (@iluminatibot) April 22, 2025
66
Only 66 years from first flight to landing on the Moon in 1969.
Here we are, 76 years later cannot yet return to the Moon. We should have been on Mars by now. https://t.co/Oo3DhxLrAl
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 23, 2025
40% of covid deaths are diabetics
https://twitter.com/toobaffled/status/1914932641180090504
The key to peace now is getting Europe out of the way. Trump can do that, but does he want that fight? Then again, does he have a choice?
• Trump Excoriates Zelensky For Rejecting Crimea Proposal For Peace (ZH)
Trump vs. Zelensky Round Two? Tensions initially looked to have cooled after the Zelensky-Vance-Trump February 28 verbal blow-up and showdown at the Oval Office (see clip below), but the spat is heating up once again, and is fast getting personal. President Trump has slammed President Zelensky in a Wednesday post on Truth Social, saying of the Ukrainian leader, “if he wants Crimea, why didn’t they fight for it eleven years ago when it was handed over to Russia without a shot being fired”… and “He can have Peace or, he can fight for another three years before losing the whole Country.” The fiery denunciation appears in direct response to Zelensky the day prior rejecting Washington demands that Ukraine be ready to formally recognize Russian sovereignty over Crimea. Trump continued, “It’s inflammatory statements like Zelenskyy’s that makes it so difficult to settle this War. He has nothing to boast about!”
The White House has this week been making it clear that the United States is ready to walk away from the peace process if it doesn’t have willing partners. All of this pressure seems aimed squarely at Kiev, given also Vice President Vance’s Wednesday remarks while in India. “We’ve issued a very explicit proposal to both the Russians and the Ukrainians, and it’s time for them to either say yes or for the United States to walk away from this process,” Vance told the press pool while on the trip. “The only way to really stop the killing is for the armies to both put down their weapons, to freeze this thing and to get on with the business of actually building a better Russia and a better Ukraine.” Freezing the war now would certainly give Russian forces a huge advantage, given the immense territory in the East they now hold.
Trump in the fresh social media post further demanded that now is the time to “GET IT DONE” – referring to achieving a lasting settlement. And he coupled this with another swipe at Zelensky, saying the man has “no cards to play” – which has been a US admin theme going back to February. “I look forward to being able to help Ukraine, and Russia, get out of this Complete and Total MESS, that would have never started if I were President!” – Trump concluded in the post. Trump is clearly not happy in the wake of Zelensky’s Tuesday remarks wherein he asserted that Ukraine will not legally recognize Russia’s occupation of Crimea under any circumstances,
“There is nothing to talk about. This violates our Constitution. This is our territory, the territory of the people of Ukraine,” Zelensky told reporters. But Trump is now calling this out as essentially BS – saying that no, this is the very thing in question that must be talked about if the war is to end. On a practical level, Russia is never going to give up Crimea regardless, given it has long been the historic home of the Russian Navy’s Black Sea fleet, and has an overwhelming Russian-speaking population. Will Zelensky respond to this latest dressing down by Trump? His PR handlers are likely urging him not to. The last time this happened in the wake of Zelensky’s visit to the White House, the US cut off weapons supplies and intelligence-sharing to Kiev for several days. But this spat and sparring could blow up further yet. Zelensky expressed hope that he could meet with Trump while in Rome for the Pope’s funeral on Saturday, but this is now looking less likely.
“We have a better understanding of that now because we’ve actually spoken to them after three years of not speaking to them..”
• US Gained ‘Better Understanding’ Of Russia’s Stance On Ukraine – Rubio (RT)
Washington has gained a much better understanding of Russia’s position on the Ukraine conflict following the recent series of bilateral talks, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said. Rubio made the remarks on Wednesday in an interview with The Free Press, saying the US has been seeking to grasp what the Russian position is. “We have a better understanding of that now because we’ve actually spoken to them after three years of not speaking to them,” he stated. Ties between Moscow and Washington all but collapsed following the 2022 escalation of the Ukraine conflict under then-President Joe Biden. Since returning to the White House in January, President Donald Trump has distanced himself from Biden-era policies, pushing for a rapid resolution to the conflict and a reset in bilateral relations. The two sides have held several rounds of high-level talks in recent months.
Voicing hope for a peace deal, Rubio emphasized there’s “no military end” to the ongoing hostilities. “We have to be frank. Russia’s not just going to roll over Ukraine and take the whole country. And Ukraine’s not going to push them all the way back to where they were before 2014,” he stated. “We’ve done our best,” Rubio told the outlet. “This is not our war. We didn’t start this war. We’re trying to help everybody end it,” he said, expressing hope to “bring the two sides closer.” Rubio was expected at a high-level Ukraine meeting in London on Wednesday with UK, US, French, German and Ukrainian diplomats. However, later Rubio and Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff decided to skip the event. The UK Foreign Office later confirmed to AFP that the foreign ministers meeting had been indefinitely postponed, adding that “official level talks” will continue but behind closed doors. As part of a reported “final offer” to end the Ukraine conflict, Washington had planned to present a proposal in London recognizing Crimea as Russian “de jure” and acknowledging Moscow’s control over the Lugansk and Donetsk People’s Republics, as well as Kherson and Zaporozhye Regions.
The plan was also said to include the lifting of some sanctions against Russia and opposing NATO membership for Ukraine. On Tuesday, Vladimir Zelensky rejected any discussion of recognizing Crimea as Russian. Trump warned on Wednesday that Zelensky risked losing the entire country if he continued to stall talks. Moscow has maintained that the status of Crimea – which joined Russia in 2014 following a referendum held after the Western-backed coup in Kiev – and the four other former Ukrainian regions that voted to join Russia in 2022, is not up for negotiation. Russian officials also insist that any peace agreement must address the “root causes” of the conflict. President Vladimir Putin has also said that a viable ceasefire would require Western nations to stop arms deliveries to Ukraine.
Ukraine -and Europe- chooses to forget they just lost a war.
• Vance Ramps Up Pressure On Ukraine With Peace Plan That ‘Sharply Favors Russia’ (ZH)
Vice President JD Vance while traveling in India on Wednesday issued some new and provocative remarks on the prospect of Ukraine peace, and Washington’s demands related to ending the war. The NY Times headlined is coverage of Vance’s new remarks by somewhat disparagingly calling it a “Plan for Ukraine That Sharply Favors Russia” — given that it calls for ‘freezing’ the front lines, which would leave Russian forces in control of the majority of the Donbass region in Eastern Ukraine. The Vice President reiterated to reporters that the United States would “walk away” from engaging in a peace process if both Ukraine and Russia refused to accept the American terms. The NY Times concludes, “But President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine was clearly the target.”
“We’ve issued a very explicit proposal to both the Russians and the Ukrainians, and it’s time for them to either say yes or for the United States to walk away from this process,” Vance told the press pool. “The only way to really stop the killing is for the armies to both put down their weapons, to freeze this thing and to get on with the business of actually building a better Russia and a better Ukraine.” Here is the brief list of basics that Washington is demanding for its outline of peace: —a “freeze” of territorial lines in the three-plus year war —no path to NATO membership for Ukraine —formal recognition of Russia holding Crimea But it was only yesterday that Ukraine’s President Zelensky said he has rejected the possibility of ceding over Crimea, after the Trump administration reportedly offered this ‘gift’ to Putin of US recognition of Russian sovereignty over the strategic peninsula which has long been home to the Russian navy’s Black Sea fleet.
According to Ukrainian media: Ukraine will not legally recognize Russia’s occupation of Crimea under any circumstances, President Volodymyr Zelensky said during a briefing in Kyiv on April 22. “There is nothing to talk about. This violates our Constitution. This is our territory, the territory of the people of Ukraine,” Zelensky told reporters. Zelensky added, “As soon as talks about Crimea and our sovereign territories begin, the talks enter the format that Russia wants – prolonging the war – because it will not be possible to agree on everything quickly.” Kiev has also recently accused Moscow of using negotiations as a smokescreen, also coming off the 30-hour Easter truce, which saw both sides accuse the other of many violations.
Commenting further of Vance’s fresh remarks, the NY Times writes, “It was the first time a U.S. official had publicly laid out a cease-fire deal in such stark terms and the comments appeared designed to increase pressure on Ukraine, which has long refused to accept Russia’s claims on its lands, particularly in Crimea.” Ukraine is meanwhile telling its Western backers that it is “ready to negotiate, but not to surrender.” According to fresh words of Ukraine’s vice PM Yulia Svyrydenko, “There will be no agreement that hands Russia the stronger foundations it needs to regroup and return with greater violence. A full ceasefire—on land, in the air, and at sea—is the necessary first step. If Russia opts for a limited pause, Ukraine will respond in kind.”
The EU’s story is Russia will invade all of Europe if Ukraine does not get unlimited support. They will cruelly impoverish their own people for it. Unless these people call a halt to that.
• EU Refusing To Lift Russia Sanctions For Peace – Reuters (RT)
The EU has firmly rejected the idea of easing Ukraine-related sanctions against Russia before peace negotiations are concluded, Reuters reported on Wednesday, citing sources. Last week, the US shared with EU officials proposals aimed at facilitating a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. The initiative reportedly outlined potential terms to end the conflict, including the easing of sanctions on Moscow in the event of a lasting ceasefire. Brussels, however, “staunchly opposes” Russia’s request to lift EU sanctions before peace talks are concluded, Reuters wrote, citing European diplomats. Another sticking point is the US proposal to recognize Russian sovereignty over Crimea – a suggestion the outlet described as a “non-starter” for both the EU and Kiev.
The EU’s stance is reportedly seen as diminishing the chances of any breakthrough in the peace negotiations, prompting senior US officials to skip a high-level meeting in London on Wednesday held for discussing the Ukraine conflict. The gathering was due to include top diplomats from the UK, US, France, Germany, and Ukraine but ended up being downgraded to involve lower-level officials. Both special envoy Steve Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio are skipping the event. The US delegation is instead being led instead by General Keith Kellogg, another envoy of US President Donald Trump focused on Ukraine. Last month, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen declared the EU would not lift its sanctions against Russia for as long as the Ukraine conflict continues.
Also in March, the EU rejected a Russian demand to lift sanctions on Russian Agricultural Bank as part of the Black Sea ceasefire initiative discussed between Moscow and Washington. During the talks in Saudi Arabia, Russia and the US agreed to work toward reviving the Black Sea Grain Initiative, which, according to the Kremlin, would include the removal of Western restrictions against the agricultural bank and other financial institutions. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov responded that the EU’s refusal to lift sanctions on Russia demonstrates the bloc’s reluctance to end the Ukraine conflict. “If European countries don’t want to go down this path, it means they don’t want to go down the path of peace in unison with the efforts shown in Moscow and Washington,” he said at the time.
The war industry has conquered Europe in record time.
• Where Have Europe’s Pacifists Gone – Who Once Opposed NATO? (van den Ende)
Where are they now—Europe’s pacifists? Why do they no longer gather in Belgium, in Brussels, NATO’s headquarters, where large demonstrations against the alliance once took place? These protests, led by pacifists, denounced NATO, war, militarization, and nuclear arms. The Belgian newspaper Le Soir recently posed an intriguing question: Why have the pacifists vanished? “The arms race has begun,” the article argues. “Like its European neighbors, Belgium is preparing to significantly increase military spending this year—without facing any opposition.” “We keep our word,” declares Francken, Belgium’s former Defense Minister. “Belgium will become a solidary ally with extra defense budgets for personnel, equipment, and infrastructure.” He claims the spending will also boost jobs and innovation. Belgium, after all, is a NATO founding member, alongside the Netherlands.
Some Belgian (former) pacifists have reacted sharply to the government’s plans: “Retirees must accept lower pensions, unemployment benefits are being slashed, the sick languish in poverty, nurses earn less and work longer for diminished pensions, hospitals lose subsidies—all to enrich that corrupt Zelensky gang in Kiev.” The same measures, they note, are being imposed in the Netherlands. But as the article points out, criticizing NATO now invites ridicule. Or does it go further than mockery? Across Western Europe—Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany—and in the Baltic states and Poland, dissent is met with more than scorn. People are arrested, elections are overturned, and societies drift toward totalitarianism—or worse, a resurgence of militarism and fascism unseen since 1945.
Europeans once insisted America should not meddle in their affairs. But it’s too late for that. EU governments, radicalized by waning U.S. interest in Europe, have already been co-opted. They should have spoken up years ago, when it became clear Europe was being used to wage wars in distant lands its citizens barely knew. Instead, they absorbed refugees (often unwillingly) and fell under what some call American colonization. Yet America wasn’t entirely wrong. In Munich last February, Vice President J.D. Vance called Europe a “totalitarian society,” singling out Germany. I can confirm his assessment was accurate—but it barely scratched the surface. The reality is far worse and deteriorating daily. Consider these examples: • A 16-year-old German girl was expelled from school by police for posting a pro-AfD TikTok video featuring the Smurfs (the right-wing party’s color is blue). • An AfD politician was fined for stating that migrants commit more gang rapes than German citizens. (The court didn’t dispute her facts but ruled they incited hatred.)
Germany once had a robust pacifist movement. In the 1970s and 80s, activists—many from what is now the Green Party (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)—protested NATO and nuclear weapons. Today, those same Greens, led by Annalena Baerbock and Robert Habeck, champion war and arms shipments. Their party program declares Germany must lead Europe, offering a “global counterweight” to China and Russia. The anti-war, anti-NATO movement has been absorbed into a party now pushing for war—especially against Russia, as Baerbock’s rhetoric makes clear. Or take a 2023 case where the EU’s High Representative expressed concern over “extrajudicial sentences against Serbs” who protested NATO in Kosovska Mitrovica. Kosovo’s Foreign Minister defended the arrests, claiming police had “clear evidence” the demonstrators participated in an “attack on NATO.”
So where have Europe’s pacifists gone—the ones who marched against war, militarization, and nuclear arms for decades? The Friedrich Naumann Foundation (banned in Russia) claims to have the answer. In an article, they declare: “The end of pacifism (as heard in a Bundestag debate) was historic. Hopefully, it marks the end of a moral and political error.” Has pacifism become a “political mistake”? Millions who oppose war have been misled for years by their own politicians—like the Greens, who traded peace for militarism. The world is upside down, yet Europe’s docile masses seem content as their pensions fund weapons. New Eastern Europe takes it further, arguing “Pacifism kills.” The outlet claims: “The problem isn’t pacifism itself, but its manipulation for purposes contrary to its ideals. While pacifist appeals to Russia (the aggressor) are justified, targeting Ukraine or both sides aids Moscow.”
In short: Pacifism helps Russia. The “hippies” of the 1960s live in a fantasy where peace is impossible, Russia is the villain, and Europe must defeat it. The campaign against pacifism mirrors the EU’s push for militarization. Europe is silencing pacifists—and dissidents—just as pre-WWII Germany did under fascism. New laws are emerging. In Germany, the proposed CDU/CSU-SPD coalition plans to “fight lies,” per their “Culture and Media“ working group. If you “lie” by government standards—say, by advocating peace with Russia or denying its “aggression”—you risk jail, fines, or online erasure. “The deliberate spread of false claims isn’t covered by free speech,” they assert.
Le Soir asked: Where are the pacifists? They’re still here—for now. But once Germany’s new government takes power, once the digital ID and CBDC (mandatory across Europe) launch this October, protests—online or in streets—will be surveilled. Small demonstrations in Germany and Amsterdam show resistance lingers. But soon, fear will silence them: fear for jobs, pensions, benefits, even children.
PCR keeps wanting Putin to erase Ukraine. He’ll do it only if forced to. He may well be.
• There Will Be No Ukrainian Peace Deal (Paul Craig Roberts)
There cannot be a peace deal when President Trump only proposes that Russia keep Crimea, which Russia did not take in war but in an unanimous vote of the population in Crimea to be reunited with Russia from which Crimea had been torn. Trump has not included in the deal Russian Donbas, which also voted to be returned to Russia or the other Russian areas that Russian forces have liberated and have been reincorporated into Russia. In other words, so far, other than Crimea, President Trump has offered President Putin none of the former Russian territory that is now again part of Russia herself. Is the implication that Putin must hand back to Ukraine the territory from which Russian soldiers have driven out Ukrainian soldiers? So Putin’s 3+ years of war was all for nothing?
Zelensky himself, treated by Trump as Ukraine’s leader despite the fact that Zelensky’s term has expired and he is no longer legally or constitutionally the president of Ukraine, states that he will not even discuss recognizing Crimea as Russian territory: Crimea “is our territory, the territory of the people of Ukraine. We have nothing to talk about on this topic.” To understand how absurd Zelensky is, consider that Crimea is the home since the 1700s of the base of Russia’s Black Sea Navy, Russia’s access to the Mediterranean. As Zelensky appears to have a veto, even Trump’s partial concession to Russia has no chance. Trump threatens that he will walk away from the negotiations. That w0uld be a good thing if he takes American weapons and money when he goes.
Zelensky would be left to deal with Putin, perhaps an easy task as Putin and Lavrov continue to bleat for negotiations, neglecting their responsibility to win a war that has gone on for far too long drawing in the US and Europe. It seems Zelensky is relying on Britain and France to send their troops to continue the fight against Russia. The French president is talking about extending France’s nuclear umbrella to include Ukraine. Putin and Lavrov seem to prefer a negotiated deal to a military victory. Would the Kremlin accept a deal that requires Russia to give up battlefield successes won at a large cost in Russian life, the life of young men lost and gone and unavailable to create needed Russian population? Is it Putin’s hope for a Great Power Agreement that has prolonged the conflict?
A great power agreement happens only among great powers, but President Putin has convinced the West that Russia is irresolute, averse to using force, and only wants a negotiated settlement to the conflict with Ukraine, for which Putin will pay almost any price, no matter the humiliation. Russia’s inability to bring a war with Ukraine to a victorious conclusion after more than three years of fighting negates any recognition of Russia as a great power as far as the West is concerned. Even Britain and France feel confident to fight Russia. Several of the NATO countries are saying that they are preparing for war with Russia. The Baltic states are even interdicting Russian shipping. Putin’s conduct of the war has convinced the West that he is irresolute and averse to fighting. The choice facing Putin is: Surrender or win a victory and impose the peace.
“Recent data shows the Chinese economy tilting even further away from consumption toward manufacturing. China’s economic system, with growth driven by manufacturing exports, will continue to create even more serious imbalances with its trading partners..”
• Bessent Calls For ‘Reforms’ Among ‘Bretton Woods Institutions’ (ZH)
Days after Scott Bessent dazzled JP Morgan with closed-door comments (aka not Main Street) that the tariff standoff with China is unsustainable, the US Treasury Secretary is set to deliver comments on Wednesday at the IIF Global Outlook Forum regarding the state of the global financial system as the Trump administration seeks to tamp down rhetoric over China. According to a copy of Bessent’s prepared remarks, he is set to tell the IIF that “America First does not mean America Alone,” and that the IMF must prioritize economic and financial sustainability. He is calling for IMF and World Bank reforms after “mission creep,” i.e. non-economic goals such as climate change and social justice, but that the Trump administration wants to work with them.
“Going forward, the Trump Administration will leverage U.S. leadership and influence at these institutions and push them to accomplish their important mandates,” Bessent said, adding “The United States will also demand that the management and staff of these institutions be accountable for demonstrating real progress.” Bessent – who blamed persistent U.S. trade deficits on foreign policy decisions that promote excess saving and low wages abroad, added that “The architects of Bretton Woods recognized that a global economy required global coordination,” and called for “key reforms to ensure the Bretton Woods institutions are serving their stakeholders—not the other way around.” He also encouraged “security-aligned trade,” suggesting that U.S. security partnerships should influence economic alignment – a strategic counter to China’s Belt and Road.
China Rebalancing Bessent also said that China “is in need of rebalancing.” “Recent data shows the Chinese economy tilting even further away from consumption toward manufacturing. China’s economic system, with growth driven by manufacturing exports, will continue to create even more serious imbalances with its trading partners if the status quo is allowed to continue. China’s current economic model is built on exporting its way out of its economic troubles. It’s an unsustainable model that is not only harming China but the entire world. China needs to change. The country knows it needs to change. Everyone knows it needs to change. And we want to help it change—because we need rebalancing too.” According to an anonymously sourced (of course) report by the WSJ minutes before Bessent’s speech (and which was immediately denied), the Trump administration “is considering slashing its steep tariffs on Chinese imports—in some cases by more than half—in a bid to de-escalate tensions with Beijing.”
President Trump hasn’t made a final determination, the people said, adding that the discussions remain fluid and several options are on the table. One senior White House official said the China tariffs were likely to come down to between roughly 50% and 65%. The administration is also considering a tiered approach similar to the one proposed by the House committee on China late last year: 35% levies for items the U.S. deems not a threat to national security, and at least 100% for items deemed as strategic to America’s interest, some of the people said. The bill proposed phasing in those levies over five years. -WSJ. Bessent’s comments also come after President Donald Trump softened his tone on the unfolding trade war between the world’s two largest economies – to which China’s foreign ministry spokesman, Guo Jiakun replied “our doors are wide open.”
According to Tuesday comments by Trump, “very high” tariffs on Chinese imports will “come down substantially, but it won’t be zero.” “I think we’re going to live together very happily and ideally work together, so I think it’s going to work out very well,” Trump told reporters at the White House. Trump notably excluded China from a pause on “reciprocal” tariffs that were extended to other trading partners in order to allow them time to negotiate – blaming China’s retaliatory actions for its exclusion. The China tariffs include a 125% reciprocal tariff on top of Trump’s original 20% tariff related to the fentanyl trade. Combined with pre-existing Section 301 tariffs, some Chinese goods face levies as high as 245%.
“..Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency cost-cutting initiative, which Bessent claimed has failed to deliver on its promises.”
• Musk and Bessent Had ‘WWE Fight’ In White House – Axios (RT)
Tech billionaire Elon Musk and US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent were involved in a heated shouting match inside the White House last week, reportedly trading expletives and personal insults during a confrontation over leadership of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), according to Axios. The incident reportedly unfolded in the West Wing on Thursday within earshot of President Donald Trump and visiting Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. The two men argued over Trump’s recent decision to name Gary Shapley, Musk’s preferred candidate, as acting IRS commissioner – a move that blindsided Bessent, who had lobbied for his deputy, Michael Faulkender. “It was two billionaire, middle-aged men thinking it was WWE in the hall of the West Wing,” one witness told Axios on Wednesday.
Musk reportedly accused Bessent – a former partner at Soros Fund Management and the founder of Key Square Group – of being a “Soros agent.” Bessent “roared” back, at one point allegedly shouting “F**k you,” to which Musk replied, “Say it louder.” The clash did not escalate into physical violence, but was loud enough to be heard in nearby offices, according to multiple sources. Witnesses said an aide had to physically step in between the two men to prevent the situation from intensifying. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt downplayed the incident, telling the New York Times that “disagreements are a normal part of any healthy policy process,” and that “ultimately, everyone knows they serve at the pleasure of President Trump.” Bessent ultimately came out on top, with Shapley replaced by Faulkender just days after the appointment. “Trust must be brought back to the IRS, and I am fully confident that [Deputy Secretary] Michael Faulkender is the right man for the moment,” Bessent said on X Friday afternoon.
“Gary Shapley’s passion and thoughtfulness for approaching ways to create durable and lasting reforms at the IRS is essential to our work, and he remains among my most important senior advisors at the [US Treasury] as we work together to rethink and reform the IRS.” The altercation highlights long-standing tensions between Musk and Bessent dating back to the presidential transition, when Musk unsuccessfully pushed for Howard Lutnick to lead the Treasury Department. Trump instead appointed Bessent and nominated Lutnick to head the Commerce Department. Since then, Musk and Bessent have clashed repeatedly over personnel and policy, including Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency cost-cutting initiative, which Bessent claimed has failed to deliver on its promises.
Bookkeeping.
• Judge Orders Correction Notices For Fired Probationary Workers (ET)
A federal judge ordered the Trump administration to provide laid-off federal probationary employees with a written notice stating that they were not terminated for performance reasons but that it was part of a government-wide termination effort. U.S. District Judge William Alsup also ordered Acting Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Charles Ezell not to tell agencies to terminate “any federal employee or group of federal employees.” The judge wrote on April 18 that the firings of probationary workers followed an OPM template that states they were fired for job performance reasons. “Termination under the false pretense of performance is an injury that will persist for the working life of each civil servant,” wrote Alsup, who is based in San Francisco. “The stain created by OPM’s pretense will follow each employee through their careers and will limit their professional opportunities.”
The latest directive from the judge is part of a lawsuit that was filed by labor unions and nonprofits contesting the mass firings of thousands of probationary workers in February under President Donald Trump. Probationary workers are typically new hires or employees who were recently promoted and who must serve a trial period of one to two years before they receive full-term, or permanent, employment. “If a particular termination was in fact carried out after an individualized evaluation of that employee’s performance or fitness, the Chief Human Capital Officer (or equivalent) of that agency may instead submit … a declaration, under oath and seal, stating so and providing the individual reasoning underpinning that termination,” Alsup also wrote, setting a May 8 deadline to do so.
On April 8, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked an earlier order from Alsup that required the administration to return to work some of the terminated probationary federal employees who were terminated. The justices were responding to the Trump administration’s emergency appeal of Alsup’s ruling.
“Does the university really want to get in a fight with the Trump administration and then bring all of this information about their endowments; their lack of intellectual diversity; their segregation; their lack of due process for people who undergo inquiries or accusations; their separate racial graduations, safe spaces, theme houses; the use of student loans? ”
• Harvard: Take the Trump Deal, Before It’s Too Late (Victor Davis Hanson)
We’ve talked about higher education before, but now it’s come into sharper focus with the Trump administration’s deadlock with Harvard University over its unwillingness or inability—whatever term we like to use—to meet the administration’s demands that it ensures an antisemitic-free campus that does not allow people to disrupt classes. It doesn’t use race, after the Supreme Court decision that went against Harvard and said that affirmative action was no longer legal. Columbia had the same type of disagreement, other campuses are. I don’t think it’s a wise thing for them to get into a fight with the federal government. If they are dependent on federal funding, these big private marquee universities—Columbia, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, Duke—and they want federal money, then the federal government is going to ask for some transparency. And we, the public, really don’t know much about it.
It’s like a rock, a traditional rock on moist ground. You don’t wanna turn it over because there’s going to be things underneath there that you would better not—it would be better not to be seen. And that’s what the public is going to learn about higher education. Now, what do I mean? I mean loans. These universities are raising tuition higher than the rate of inflation. And that started when the federal government said, “We will ensure these loans for students.” Once that happened, the moral hazard shifted away from the university. So, they have been gouging students for room and board. I’ll give you an example. Hillsdale College, its room, board, and tuition is about $45,000 a year. It takes no money. Harvard gets about $9 billion in total. Its room, board, and tuition is about $95,000. Same with Stanford.
They’re about double what Hillsdale charges. And one of the reasons is that they’re so dependent on federal money and therefore they can spend like drunken sailors. Remember, of that 1.7, about 10%, 8% are nonperforming and about maybe 14% are late. The public doesn’t know all that. But they’re paying for it—especially kids, the half of the cohort 18 to 30 that’s not going to college, they’re subsidizing this university boondoggle. The second thing is the university doesn’t really obey the first 10 amendments of the Constitution. If you get accused of particular crimes as a student, faculty member, let’s say, sexual harassment or untoward speech, hate speech—whatever the term they use—it’s very unlikely you’re going to get Fourth and Fifth, maybe Sixth Amendment protection.
That is, you’re not going to have an open hearing. You’re not going to be tried by a jury of your peers. You’re not going to necessarily have legal counsel. You’re not necessarily going to know who your accusers are. The affirmative action ruling by the Supreme Court outlawed the use of race in admissions. And we have civil rights statutes that also do that. But the universities do something funny. They have safe spaces. They have theme houses. And they have auxiliary graduations. But the common denominator, they’re predicated on race. So, a black theme house, a Latino theme house has almost very few people. Nobody would want a European, so-called white theme house or an alternate white graduation. And you would say, “Why not, Victor?” Because it would be considered racist, I suppose. But at Stanford, only 22% of the student body is white. Are they going to say, “Well, we’re one of the minorities now. Why don’t we do this?” That’s where it will lead if you enhance tribalism.
There’s no intellectual diversity. The National Association of Scholars did a study not long ago. They found not one of the 133 faculty members at Bryn Mawr was a Republican. At Williams, I think they found one or two. They found a lot of elite universities where there was nobody who openly acknowledged that they were a Republican. There are a couple of other things that are disturbing too. And that is the universities get individual faculty grants—Department of Energy, National Institutes of Health. And usually, in most private foundations, the university is not following their model. What I mean is, a private scholar at a think tank, they might deduct 15% for the use of the phone or office that they would get out of that federal grant. But universities like Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, they can go from 40% to 50% to 60% and they’re relying on that multimillion-dollar—I guess we’d call it—price gouging from the federal government.
And finally, these universities don’t have multimillion-dollar endowments anymore. They have multibillion-dollar—$30 billion, Stanford $53 billion. And they’re predicated—the income—on that. And sometimes they get almost 10%. They’re very good in investing. This $5 or $6 or $7 or $4 billion a year in income is tax-free, for the most part. Tax-free. And that’s predicated that they’re nonpolitical, they’re nonpartisan. But when you look at the makeup of the faculty and the use of race and gender, contrary to federal law, you can see they’re very partisan.
So, let me just sum up. Does the university really want to get in a fight with the Trump administration and then bring all of this information about their endowments; their lack of intellectual diversity; their segregation; their lack of due process for people who undergo inquiries or accusations; their separate racial graduations, safe spaces, theme houses; the use of student loans? I don’t think they want to do that. The public would be shocked. And it’s a losing proposition. If I were the presidents of these major universities, I would do this: I would make a deal with the Trump administration. And I would welcome it because then I would tell my radical students, “You can’t wear a mask. I’d like you to, but the federal government won’t let me.” Or, “We can’t have racially segregated dorms anymore, theme houses. I’d like to, but it’s against the law.” And that would be their way out. Is that going to happen? I don’t think so. And I think we’re going to see some accountability. And the universities are not going to like the consequences.
For misusing funds, after having done just that, what, 50 years? Makes little sense. But they sure got rid of him in record time. The Great Reset.
• World Economic Forum Opens Probe Into Founder as Klaus Schwab Resigns (DS)
Klaus Schwab, the founder and chairman of the World Economic Forum, resigned on Easter Sunday amid a whistleblower report about alleged misuse of Forum funds, and the globalist organization’s board voted to launch an independent probe into allegations against him. “Following my recent announcement, and as I enter my 88th year, I have decided to step down from the position of Chair and as a member of the Board of Trustees, with immediate effect,” Schwab said in a statement Sunday. Schwab, 87, had previously announced that he would step down as the Forum’s chairman, and the Forum would launch a succession process to be completed by January 2027. The whistleblower report sped up that timeline. A Schwab family spokesperson denied the allegations in the whistleblower report, which claimed Schwab asked subordinates to withdraw thousands of dollars from ATMs on his behalf and used Forum funds to pay for private, in-room massages at hotels.
The report also alleged that Schwab’s wife, Hilde, a former employee of the organization, scheduled “token” meetings in order to justify luxury holiday travel, billing the Forum. The report also repeated concerns about how Schwab treated female employees, warning that his leadership allegedly allowed instances of sexual harassment and discriminatory behavior to go unchecked in the workplace. The Forum had previously investigated these concerns and disputed them. The World Economic Forum Board of Trustees met Sunday to accept Schwab’s resignation. Sources close to the matter told The Wall Street Journal that Schwab asked the board not to investigate the whistleblower report, but the board opened the probe, anyway. The Forum had been shaking up its leadership in recent weeks in response to a previous board probe into its workplace culture. Forum CEO Børge Brende said that investigation did not substantiate the allegations against Schwab.
This turmoil comes amid a growing global backlash to the World Economic Forum’s globalist vision. Newly-inaugurated President Donald Trump addressed the Forum’s annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 23. In his speech, the president condemned the previous administration’s policies, which echoed the Forum’s advocacy. “What the world has witnessed in the past 72 hours is nothing less than a revolution of common sense,” Trump said. “My administration is acting with unprecedented speed to fix the disasters we’ve inherited from a totally inept group of people and to solve every single crisis facing our country.” Among other things, he touted his withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord—which the World Economic Forum supports—and his moves to “abolish all discriminatory diversity, equity, and inclusion nonsense”—another ideological initiative the Forum wholeheartedly backs.
Outgoing President Joe Biden awarded George Soros, the Hungarian American globalist billionaire, the Presidential Medal of Freedom. As I wrote in my book, “The Woketopus: The Dark Money Cabal Manipulating the Federal Government,” Soros-funded groups infiltrated and advised the Biden administration, pushing it in a globalist direction. In addition to the Paris agreement and DEI programs, the World Economic Forum has advocated a host of social and political changes that critics say would empower elites at the expense of personal freedom and economic progress. Schwab co-wrote the book, “COVID-19: The Great Reset,” published in July 2020, which outlines how the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted social and economic systems and calls for sweeping changes “to create a more inclusive, resilient, and sustainable world going forward.”
Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts traveled to Davos, Switzerland, for the Forum’s annual meeting in 2024, and condemned its globalist advocacy. He faulted the World Economic Forum for claiming that climate change poses an existential threat to humanity, that illegal immigration is positive, and that there is no public safety threat in large American cities. “I will be candid and say the agenda that every single member of the administration needs to have is to compile a list of everything that has ever been proposed at the World Economic Forum and object to all of them wholesale,” Roberts said, speaking as a leader of America’s conservative movement. “Anyone not prepared to do that and take away this power of the unelected bureaucrats and give it back to the American people is unprepared to be part of the next conservative administration.”
“The phrase “Maryland Dad” is said with the same reverence by the media as “Honest Abe.”
• The Left’s Mount Rushmore (Al Perrotta)
Carved into the stone of the Black Hills of South Dakota, four faces look down upon this great nation: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, and Theodore Roosevelt. Four American heroes, revered, respected, and representing the noblest aspirations of the American people. The gentleman farmer-turned-general who took down the most powerful army in the world, then shepherded the newborn nation through its infancy. The folksy woodsman who freed a race of people and ensured the United States would move forward as one. The inventor, political philosopher, genius whose poetry turned a statement of independence into a declaration more powerful than any weapon against tyranny the world has ever known. The brash adventurer whose swagger and smarts best captures the can-do American spirit. This is America’s Mount Rushmore.
Sadly, today’s Left and it appears the entire Democratic Party have carved in recent days their own Mount Rushmore: Luigi Mangione, Karmelo Anthony, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, and Mahmoud Khalil. A cold-blooded killer who shot a father of two in the back because he didn’t like the American health care system. A cold-blooded killer who allegedly stabbed a fellow teenager in the chest because he felt challenged and disrespected. An illegal immigrant, MS-13 gang-member, alleged human trafficker, who happened to be put back on the wrong plane back to his home country. And did we mention he’s an accused wife beater? An operative of a terrorist organization that promotes the genocide of Jews, who led violent protests against Jewish students … a guest in our country, who allegedly lied on his visa application. These are the Left’s new heroes. This is the Left’s new Mount Rushmore. (Sorry, George Floyd. You’re yesterday’s news.)
Approximately 3 million people a year visit Mount Rushmore. Visitor numbers for the Left’s Mount Rushmore aren’t quite that. Yet. But you did have a U.S. senator travel 2,000 miles to visit Abrego Garcia, with a gaggle of House Democrats soon following. You did have thousands visiting the courthouse holding pro-Hamas Columbia University student Khalil, and tens of thousands gathering around the country to protest his arrest. You did have over 13,400 people visiting the GiveSendGo site of Anthony, dropping enough coin to afford Anthony to not only pay his bail, but rent a $900,000 crib for his family and a hot new ride for himself. Over $455,000 raised because he stabbed a white kid in the chest. And you have countless women gathering at the courthouse to support and swoon over Mangione, the accused killer of UnitedHealth CEO Brian Thompson, like he is the freshly single member of a boy band.
Like the original Mount Rushmore, you can buy souvenirs for the Left’s Mount Rushmore. Don’t want a T-shirt of Jefferson, Washington, Lincoln, or Roosevelt? You can get a St. Luigi T-shirt, mugs, and hats. Etsy’s full of “Free Mahmoud Khalil” T-shirts. A website was set up to sell Anthony swag. The phrase “Maryland Dad” is said with the same reverence by the media as “Honest Abe.” Mangione’s motto “Deny, Defend, Depose” is the Left’s new “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” This isn’t even about Mangione, Abrego Garcia, Anthony, or Khalil. Killers are going to kill, terrorists are going to terrorize, and gangbangers are going to gangbang. They no more earned the adoration than Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, and Roosevelt carved their own faces on Mount Rushmore. This isn’t even about the small fringe drawn to the worst among us. Even serial killers get love letters.
This is about the mindset of the Left that tears down statues of our Founders but lifts up lowlifes. Who throw their lot in with Maryland Dad to spite the Orange Man. Who declare that because America’s a racist nation it’s OK for a black kid to plunge a knife into a white kid. How is it that despite the carnage MS-13 has done in the state of Maryland, one of its senators, Chris Van Hollen, went to El Salvador on our dime in a failed bid to win Abrego Garcia’s release? And even after the Department of Justice dropped a load of documents from the Prince George’s County Police Department’s gang unit further proving Abrego Garcia’s MS-13 ties, after the Tennessee Star reported how he was pulled over in 2022, suspected of human trafficking, after documents were released where his wife swore he repeatedly beat her, Van Hollen vowed to continue to fight for his release. And indeed, met with him Thursday for a tropical sit-down as cozy as anything you’d see on “The Bachelor.”
“I can’t remember the last time that people who voted on Election Day — the majority, uh, plurality of them — were Democrats.”
• New Poll Data Confirms the Democrats’ Worst Fears (Margolis)
Can you believe it? The Democrats, once the supposed champions of the working class, have exposed themselves as nothing more than elitist snobs who couldn’t care less about real Americans. Recent polling has confirmed what conservatives have known all along: the Democratic Party is now the domain of overeducated, snobby, wealthy liberals who look down on anyone who doesn’t share their “enlightened” worldview. Remember when Democrats at least pretended to care about the working class? Those days are long gone, replaced by a woke agenda that caters to the most unhinged elements of society. Now, they’re more interested in slobbering over MS-13 gangbangers than addressing the real concerns of everyday Americans.
Democratic strategist Doug Sosnik didn’t sugarcoat the situation during a conversation with Mark Halperin on 2WAY. The latest poll numbers, he explained, confirm what many on the Left have feared for months: the Democratic Party is in serious trouble. In a blunt, unflinching analysis, Sosnik laid out a series of hard truths that paint a grim picture of the party’s standing with American voters and underscore just how deep the erosion has become. First, Sosnik pointed to the seismic shift in party affiliation. “The electorate in 2024 was 6% less Democratic than compared to four years ago,” Halperin noted, asking if that level of movement was historically significant. Sosnik didn’t mince words: “The shift is significant, but more importantly… I can’t remember the last time that people who voted on Election Day — the majority, uh, plurality of them — were Democrats.”
He continued, “It shows a real erosion for the Democratic Party,” noting that many of the Democrats who backed Biden in 2020 simply didn’t show up this time around. That drop-off was made even more glaring when coupled with the latest favorability ratings. “Lowest net favorable rating since the ’90s,” Halperin remarked, prompting Sosnik to outline a trifecta of disasters driving the collapse in support: inflation, immigration, and cultural arrogance. On the economic front, Sosnik admitted, “We had the worst inflation in America since the early 1980s.” He added that by the time Election Day arrived, “everything… was on average 20% higher than when Biden took office.” That kind of economic pain, Sosnik argued, doesn’t just dent a party; it shatters its credibility.
But the damage didn’t stop there. Immigration, Sosnik said, became both a practical problem and a symbol. “There’s a concern that people, uh, for their own personal… safety and security… the immigration issue was sort of both a real problem for Democrats, but also… a proxy for just a general sense that there was a lawlessness with a Democratic administration.” That perception of disorder extended into the cities, where “these big cities around America that were largely… governed by Democrats” seemed unable — or unwilling — to maintain control.” Then came the cultural disconnect, the sense that Democrats had abandoned everyday Americans in favor of elite ideologies.
“A lot of people in America in the middle of the country thought Democrats were looking down on them,” Sosnik said bluntly. He attributed part of that disconnect to “how they talked, issues they cared about, all the DEI programs.” The result? A broadening sense among voters that Democrats “weren’t competent to govern.” Taken together, the conversation was less a diagnosis than an autopsy. The Democrats aren’t just facing a messaging problem; they’re grappling with a wholesale rejection from swaths of the electorate they once considered safe. The warnings have been mounting for years. Now, with favorability cratering and voters fleeing, the party is watching those warnings come to life.
Biggest success story of the Trump team so far is probably Bobby Kennedy. And he’s got much more. He‘s also got a formidable team with guys like Bhattacharya and Makary. Who somewhat ironically became visible because of the Covid disaster.
• HHS, FDA Announce Phase-Out Of All Artificial Food Dyes (ZH)
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s quest to “Make America Healthy Again” grew far more substantial on Tuesday, with the announcement that the federal government will eliminate all petroleum-based synthetic food dyes by the end of 2026. The announcement came at a Washington DC news conference, with RFK Jr joined by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Marty Makary and National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya. The podium was flanked by “MAHA Moms” and their children; the moms are a coalition of outspoken advocates of the Trump administration’s health agenda.
Kennedy framed the move against artificial, petroleum-based dyes using forceful language: “For too long, some food producers have been feeding Americans petroleum-based chemicals without their knowledge or consent. These poisonous compounds offer no nutritional benefit and pose real, measurable dangers to our children’s health and development. That era is coming to an end. We’re restoring gold-standard science, applying common sense, and beginning to earn back the public’s trust. And we’re doing it by working with industry to get these toxic dyes out of the foods our families eat every day.”
The first two dyes in the crosshairs are Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B. The FDA is initiating a process to revoke their authorizations “within the coming months.” The FDA will also pressure food producers to eradicate Red No. 3 earlier than Jan 15, 2027. The Biden administration had already set that deadline for its removal from foods and beverages, after long-running concerns about its potential to cause cancer and interfere with hormonal functions. The FDA will also pursue the removal of the remaining six previously-approved petroleum-based dyes by the end of 2026.
Here’s a small sampling of foods these artificial dyes are used in today:
Blue No. 1: M&Ms, blue sports drinks
Blue No. 2: Cereals, candy
Citrus Red No 2: Enhancing the color of real orange rinds
Green No. 3: Mint candy, Sour Patch Kids
Orange B: Hot dog and sausage casings
Red Dye 40: Flamin’ Hot Cheetos, M&Ms, sports drinks, cereals
Yellow No. 5: Mountain Dew, Froot Loops, Doritos
Yellow No. 6: Reese’s Pieces, Cheetos,
Red Dye No. 3: Drinks, cakes, cookies, frozen desserts, frosting, icing“For the last 50 years, American children have increasingly been living in a toxic soup of synthetic chemicals,” said Makary. Justifying the sweeping change, the former Johns Hopkins surgeon pointed to a Lancet study that found artificial colors cause “increased hyperactivity” in a study of 3-year-olds and 8- and a 9-year-old children. He also cautioned that there’s more to America’s health problems than petroleum-based food dyes: “There’s no one ingredient that accounts for the child chronic disease epidemic. And let’s be honest, taking petroleum-based food dyes out of the food supply is not a silver bullet that will instantly make America’s children healthy, but it is one important step.”
Democrats Begin Chugging Artificial Food Dyes To Protest RFK https://t.co/pM0nnhDt0v pic.twitter.com/xCQkkJkkwP
— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) April 22, 2025
” Nenner also thinks the US dollar is going to be okay and will not fall much more—for now. By the way, Nenner says he is up 40% so far in 2025.”
• Depression Cycle Arrives in 2025 & 2026 – Charles Nenner (USAW)
Renowned geopolitical and financial cycle expert Charles Nenner is not only predicting a big war cycle but a depression coming by the end of 2025 and into 2026. It’s not caused by the Trump tariffs; it’s just part of the cycle that Nenner follows. When does this big downturn start? Nenner explains, “In the next few months . . . and the end of this year will be a down year. 2026 will also be a down year. It’s going to be very serious. I wrote last year I expect the S&P to go down to 4,000. So, from 6,200 to 4,000 if you are in bad stocks, you could lose 50% of your money, and to get that back, you have to make 100% on what is left of your money. Then we can have a bounce and go lower again. If you look at the list of brokers, 99% are positive. They were talking about the S&P going to 6,800, and then they changed their minds when it came down.”
Nenner is predicting a down year for the stock market this year, but look out in 2026. Nenner says, “It will be much worse in 2026 because the cycles in 1928 and 1929 are in the same position as 2025 and 2026.” Can it shoot through 4,000 on the S&P? Nenner says, “Most definitely, I think so, yeah . . . we expect a bounce from there before it goes down again.” Beyond that, Nenner has long called for a DOW at 5,000. It’s nearly 39,000 today. Nenner says, “I calculated it at 5,000, yes, and I have not calculated it for the S&P.” That is pretty bearish, and before people pooh-pooh what Nenner is saying, listen to his logic on this subject.
Nenner explains, “Let’s take one simple assumption. If there is a big war between China and Tiawan, do you think the market goes up? Do you think there is a chance of it – 50/50? So, there is a 50/50 chance only based on this idea the markets are not going to do well. . . . Of course, China wants to take over Tiawan. . . . There is no history that it does not belong to China. . . . If US gets in a war with China, it will lose. . . US lost 15 out of 15 war games in simulated war with China.” Nenner still likes gold for the long term and has been predicting it’s rise. On silver, Nenner says, “Silver is behind, but starting in May, we expect silver to start catching up—finally.” Nenner thinks interest rates are still in a long-term trend up, but there can be pullbacks. Nenner also thinks the US dollar is going to be okay and will not fall much more—for now. By the way, Nenner says he is up 40% so far in 2025.
“.. imagine China providing free doctors to the whole planet, free tutors to every child on the planet, and using, essentially, free goods and services to spread their political philosophy.”
• Why U.S. Must Win AI Race Against China – Khosla (ZH)
Venture capitalist Vinod Khosla has issued a grave warning, declaring that the United States is in a do-or-die AI race against China, with the specter of worldwide communist ideology looming if America falters. Khosla cautioned that failing to lead in AI could allow China’s authoritarian regime to impose its oppressive vision globally. “There’s another kind of risk I worry about even more” Khosla told X interviewer Mario Nawfal. “China can use AI in cyber warfare or physical warfare on the battlefield, but the one I worry about even more is the economic power that AI will give a nation that moves fast and wins the race.”
“Once you have economic power, I think it’s trivially easy by 2030 to imagine China providing free doctors to the whole planet, free tutors to every child on the planet, and using, essentially, free goods and services to spread their political philosophy.” Khosla, who co-founded Sun Microsystems and later became one of OpenAI’s earliest backers through his venture capital firm Khosla Ventures, went a step further by [calling] China’s possession of powerful AI a potentially deadly threat to the world. “The biggest risk is AI in Chinese hands—or any bad hands. The more powerful the entity, the bigger the risk,” the Indian-American technologist said. “If somebody used a nuclear weapon, it’s verifiable. AI, when used, may not be verifiable.”
.@vkhosla: "The biggest risk is AI in Chinese hands."
"If somebody used a nuclear weapon, it's verifiable. AI, when used, may not be verifiable."pic.twitter.com/z1azm2xsgo
— Josh Caplan (@joshdcaplan) April 23, 2025
President Donald Trump has made it a key priority for the U.S. to dominate AI. In January, Trump signed an Executive Order titled “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence,” aimed at solidifying U.S. dominance in AI by revoking what his administration deemed restrictive policies from President Joe Biden’s 2023 AI Executive Order. Trump’s order rescinded Biden’s framework, which emphasized oversight, risk mitigation, and equity, including requirements for companies to share safety test results with the government and address AI’s potential for discrimination. Instead, Trump’s directive prioritizes deregulation, calling for AI systems free from “ideological bias or engineered social agendas” to boost innovation, economic competitiveness, and national security.
It mandates a 180-day AI Action Plan, led by key advisors like AI and Crypto Czar David Sacks, to streamline policies and eliminate bureaucratic hurdles. Trump has promoted a $500 billion joint venture between OpenAI, Oracle, and SoftBank, which he described as “the largest AI infrastructure project in history.” The initiative aims to construct a nationwide network of data centers across the United States. “China is a competitor and others are competitors. We want it to be in this country,” Trump said at the White House announcement, joined by OpenAI’s Sam Altman, SoftBank’s Masayoshi Son, and Oracle’s Larry Ellison. “We have to get this stuff built,” the president added. “They have to produce a lot of electricity and we’ll make it possible for them to get that production done very easily at their own plants.”
Fully unprovoked.
• Ukraine Complicit in 2014 Massacre: European Court of Human Rights (Kuzmarov)
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ordered the Ukrainian government to compensate the victims of a May 2014 arson attack on the Trade Unions Building in Odessa. The attack was carried out by fascist thugs who were empowered in the U.S.-NATO-backed Maidan coup in Ukraine. Some 42 people were killed during the burning of the Trade Unions Building and 170 more were injured. The victims were mainly anti-Maidan activists who supported the legitimate Ukrainian government led by Viktor Yanukovych that was overthrown in a February 2014 coup. A lawsuit was filed with the ECHR in Strasbourg by relatives of 25 of the arson victims, along with three survivors of the massacre, who were awarded a total of 114,700 Euros in compensation. One would have a hard time finding anything about the ECHR ruling in the U.S. and Western media.
Even supposedly left-wing and alternative outlets like Democracy Now and The Intercept have ignored the story along with more mainstream outlets. The only reports I could find were written by Jason Melanovski in the World Socialist Website (WSWS) and Kit Klarenberg in The Grayzone. The ECHR’s findings were especially significant because of its heavy anti-Russia bias. The court found that Ukrainian government officials were aware of the violence that far-right storm-troopers were preparing, and that, in addition to doing nothing, purposely withheld fire and emergency services as the Trade Unions Building was burning. (1) Later, they actively engaged in a cover-up. The cruelty of the perpetrators was apparent as they were captured on video physically attacking people who had jumped out of the Trade Unions Building to escape the flames and were badly injured.
A pregnant woman in the building was strangled with an electric cord and left with a swastika drawn from her blood on the wall. (2) Right-wing thugs surround leftist who escaped the Odessa Trade Unions Building during the fire. Afterwards, the man was savagely beaten, but he survived. [Source: 2mayodessa.org] The video and photos showed Ukrainian riot police standing by, doing nothing to stop or prevent the savage violence being carried out by the right-sector Banderites. The inadequacy of the Ukrainian government investigation was apparent in the fact that on-site inspection of the burned out Trade Unions Building only began two weeks after the massacre. The Trade Unions House remained freely accessible for 17 days afterwards, giving malicious actors plenty of time to manipulate, remove or plant incriminating evidence.
Serious omissions were noted in the securing and processing of forensic evidence. Some essential evidence had never been examined, and some examination reports had only recently been issued or remained pending eight years after the events (3). According to the Russian newspaper Pravda, the Odessa massacre was set in motion when right-sector radicals who valorized Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera attacked a tent camp in Kulikovo Pole in Odessa. These radicals were under the command of Andriy Parubiy, the pro-Nazi head of Kyiv’s national defense and security bureau at the time, who had been dispatched with 500 armed members of the Maidan Self-Defense militia to Odessa on the eve of the massacre (4). Odessa was one of the centers of resistance to the Maidan coup. Located near Transnistria, home to a Russian military base, it is the last major seaport of Ukraine, along with Nikolaev and Mariupol, and hosted Ukraine’s Black Sea Fleet.
The geopolitical website Katehon noted that the loss of Odessa would have cut off Ukraine from the sea, and that geostrategic considerations explain why Ukrainian neo-Nazis were given a carte blanche to intimidate the population of Odessa and carry out the Trade Unions Building massacre with impunity. The Katehon analyst wrote that “the agonizing death of more than 100 people, for which none of the perpetrators have been punished, was primarily a tool of intimidation. Following the massacre on May 2nd in Odessa, the pro-Russian movement was virtually destroyed.” (5) Prior to the massacre, Odessa residents had been collecting signatures for holding a referendum on the federalization of Ukraine and giving the Russian language state status after Ukraine tried to impose the Ukrainian language on the entire region.
[..] Intelligence specialist Gordon Duff wrote in The Intel Drop that the Odessa massacre was not an isolated event but a blueprint for a litany of atrocities that followed. These included:
• The firing by Ukrainian security forces on May 9, 2014, on peaceful protesters in Mariupol who were against the Maidan coup;
• The Ukrainian army’s shelling of homes, schools and hospitals in Sloviansk in June 2014 and carrying out summary executions and torture;
• The ambushing of a convoy of civilians trying to flee Luhansk in August 2014; and
• Ukraine’s firing of rockets at a city bus in Donetsk, resulting in the death of 13 civilians in January 2015.[8]According to Duff, NATO personnel were on the ground during many of the above operations, advising and directing Ukrainian forces. Additionally, Duff wrote that:
• CIA cash from Afghan heroin trafficking was funneled into Ukraine and paid for weapons, training and Banderist paramilitaries.
• The staging for the Odessa and other massacres was done at the CIA rendition site in Poland, a massive 11,000-hectare facility where Ukrainian radicals were trained in torture, psychological operations and guerrilla warfare.
• Indoctrination of Banderist units took place in Gladiator Schools, financed through GOP campaign funds laundered via a major casino-owning family deeply involved in human trafficking through Macau.
DMSO
https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1914905633360318560
RFK
https://twitter.com/NicHulscher/status/1915054512252866990
2008
https://twitter.com/DiedSuddenly_/status/1914862355256693061
Fico
https://twitter.com/SaiKate108/status/1914951702404587544
Twins
NEW: The Australian "In-Sync Twins" give an update on their mother after she came face to face with a carjacker.
Fantastic.
The twins also told a story about the time they were separated for over two weeks.
They also answered questions regarding their "romantic"… pic.twitter.com/NDfoyBTe5o
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) April 22, 2025
Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.
