Menu Icon

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

A complete idiot

Rutte

Medvedev

Musk

 

 

 

 

“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 …

 

 

 

 

Scott

kookaburra

Surf

 

 

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