In 1975, a brash new TV show premiered. Viewers had never seen anything like Saturday Night Live (SNL). It aired in the 11:30 p.m. time slot on NBC and featured a group of (then) unknown actors doing skits and gags geared toward a younger audience. At the same time, network news coverage had been reporting for weeks about the imminent death of “The Last Fascist,” Generalissimo Francisco Franco. The death watch was interminable. For weeks, network news reported on every minor change in Franco’s condition. If there was no news, some broadcasts concluded with “Franco is still alive.”
Franco finally died on Nov. 20, 1975. The next Saturday night during SNL, anchor Chevy Chase started saying “Franco is still dead” on the “Weekend Update” segment to mock the endless news coverage. It became one of the decade’s most popular catchphrases. I think it’s time to resurrect the gag and apply it to news about fanatical Islamist Mojtaba Khamenei and the endless speculation about whether he’s alive or dead.
Uncounted times since the Feb. 28 bombing that took out his father Ali’s fortified bunker, killing dozens of top-ranking Iranian government officials, it’s been reported that Khamenei the Younger succumbed to his injuries. The regime has admitted that Mojtaba was badly injured, but said he was well enough to speak with the new leaders of the Iranian government. His election as Supreme Leader by the Assembly of Experts has been questioned; he has yet to appear in public, and even top leaders in the government have not laid eyes on him since the death of his father.
An article in The Atlantic by Arash Azizi has started tongues wagging again. Azizi claims that Khamenei the Younger not only merely dead. He’s really, most sincerely dead.Funny thing: Only five individuals have seen the new Supreme Leader. And yet, there’s been a blizzard of pronouncements, edicts, and bombastic statements from him, suggesting an energetic and dynamic leader.
The Atlantic: “Almost six months since his anointment, Iran’s supreme leader has been entirely obscured from the public eye. Not a single contemporaneous picture, video, or audio recording of him has been released. Many of the country’s top political leaders admit that they haven’t seen him—among them Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister and a member of the National Security Council. IranWire, a London-based opposition outlet, reports that not a single cabinet member has met with Mojtaba since he became supreme leader.
Not even Mojtaba’s close friends and relatives have seen him. Fewer than five people have met with Mojtaba since his ascent to power, Mohammad Hossein Khoshvaght, a former official and a relative of Mojataba’s told me, “due to security precautions.”
The rationale is not implausible. Mojtaba would be a likely target for an Israeli or U.S. air strike, such as the one that killed his father. Direct communication from him could supply Iran’s enemies with clues to his whereabouts. He is also said to have sustained injuries in the February strike on his family that have made public speeches and appearances difficult. “I believe Mojtaba has either passed away or is brain-dead,” a staffer at a government institution in Tehran told Azizi. One solid reason why this might not be scuttlebutt is that the amount of communications coming from the Supreme Leader’s office has all but ceased in recent days.
“At least two other government officials told me the same,” Aziz wrote. “One said that he believed Mojtaba died or became brain-dead earlier this month.”mThe Islamic tradition of holding a “wake” 40 days after the death of a loved one was telling. A veritable who’s who of Iranian power brokers showed up at the event commemorating the death of Ali Khamenei, including several of the elder Khamenei’s sons. Missing was the host himself: Mojtaba Khamenei.
Whether Mojtaba is dead or alive is more than idle speculation. Whether Mojtaba is dead or alive, his public absence creates problems for the Iranian regime. The supreme leader holds most of the constitutional power in the Islamic Republic and has in the past served as the final arbiter among the system’s warring factions and institutions. Mojtaba appears to be sitting these conflicts out, at a moment when their outcome could be particularly consequential.
The country’s 13-person National Security Council is effectively running the country as a collective. It is chaired by Pezeshkian, a reformist who favors an end to the war with America, and includes Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the powerful parliamentary speaker who led the talks with the United States. But it also includes General Ahmad Vahidi, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and other military leaders.
General Vahidi is the real power in Iran, while President Pezeshkian concerns himself with domestic matters. Vahidi has the guns, and in Iran’s precarious state, that counts the most. It really doesn’t matter if Khamenei is alive or dead. The Iranian regime has been reborn as a military dictatorship, with the clerics cowering in their mosques. Vahidi is using Mojtaba Khamenei as a frontman, so whether the ayatollah is alive or not is immaterial until the general consolidates power.
While it was largely Israeli media’s Ch.14 which first called attention to the “Where to kill Barron Trump” clip, the short video does appear to be a creation of Iranian state media. It is indeed authentic.It is currently featured at the Tehran-based Tebyan Cultural Institute’s official Persian-language homepage. The institute is highly visible in Iran (more here), and is affiliated with the Islamic Development Organization, which is under the Supreme Leader and is also linked to the IRGC and its media channels. The video is hosted at the official state institute here.
A MEMRI TV (Middle East Media Research Institute) translation of the video closes by featuring reference to a $10 million dollar bounty placed on the US president’s son Barron, disturbingly…
Iran’s next target: Barron Trump, President Trump’s son, with a $10 million bounty on his head.
Iran’s state television and radio network published classified information revealing the precise locations of Donald Trump’s son and the places he had visited.
The official Tebyan website also features English subtitles for the video. Hawks in the US are already trying to seize on this admittedly somewhat absurd AI-looking video to argue the case for renewed military action. They will try to get Trump’s ear and attention with this.
* * *
As the U.S.-Iran confrontation barrels into a new phase, Tehran’s propaganda machine has gone from Legos to death threats. A newly surfaced Iranian state media video openly fantasizes about the assassination of Barron Trump. The clip, titled “Where to kill Barron Trump,” claims without evidence to have dug up the 20-year-old’s Xbox and Discord accounts.
The disturbing video also claims to track the Barron’s movements and displayed depictions of dorms at New York University. The clip also claims a $10 million bounty has been placed on Barron. The video circulated through media tied to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Middle East outlet Al Bawaba reported, according to The New York Post. The clip was first translated by Euronews. The chilling report comes as the Trump administration is preparing to roll out a sweeping campaign to economically strangle Iran and anyone still doing business with it.
As we reported this morning, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNBC that he will hold a Monday press conference to talk about exactly what we’re going to do” about an economic war against Tehran. “We are now entering the endgame. At dawn begins an economic D-Day, the single greatest financial offensive ever marshaled against an adversary,” Bessent warned in an X post on Sunday. “President Trump has dismantled Iran’s military capabilities, destroyed nearly 100 percent of its military factories, and buried its nuclear program.”
“The Islamic Republic has subsisted by dressing extortion as security guarantees. It has drawn strength from a calculus that regards Iranian retaliation as certain and American enforcement as negotiable,” the top Trump official added. “Under President Trump, that era is over. And those who fear the danger of defying Tehran ought not to discount the cost of testing Washington.”
As Bessent’s economic measures loom, the purchasing power of ordinary Iranians continues to plummet. The rial has cratered to a record low, trading around 2.02 million to the dollar on the open market, a staggering gap from the central bank’s official rate of roughly 1.5 million. Rice is up 60% in a matter of months, while beef has exploded 150%. The International Monetary Fund now projects Iran’s economy will contract by 5%.
This is not a sight you see everyday, but it’s one that’s becoming increasingly common in the halls of power in Kiev. Footage of the detention of (now former) deputy head of Zelensky’s office Irina Mudra, seen being led out in handcuffs after a court ordered her pretrial imprisonment on corruption charges, has emerged and is being widely shared. She was Zelensky’s number two chief of staff running the presidential office, essentially…
The country’s Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office has argued for her detention pending trail at the High Anti-Corruption Court, amid proceedings which began on August 21. Starting on Aug.19, a presidential office statement had confirmed: “Iryna Mudra shall be dismissed from the post of deputy head of the Office of the President of Ukraine.”
National media says that not only did she receive regular monthly income, but the prosecutor has alleged there is at least $4 million among other undeclared assets: During the court hearing, the prosecutor separately mentioned a conversation between Iryna Mudra and Mykytas. According to the prosecution, it concerned the transfer of nearly $4 million, expenses for Mudra’s daughter’s living costs and education in the United States, as well as assets that were not listed in her declaration.
Based on the records of the covert investigative actions, it can be concluded that Mr. Mykytas left her (Mudra – ed.) $4 million; Ms. Mudra systematically receives $20,000–$30,000 every month; she owns a Range Rover that is not included in her declaration, worth approximately 4 million hryvnias. In addition, Ms. Mudra discusses jewelry she owns from Bulgari and discusses with Mykytas her daughter’s education in the United States, for which the annual budget for living expenses and tuition is expected to amount to $250,000. – Vitalii Hrechyshkin
Iryna Mudra
Ukrainian and regional media says her properties were searched last weekend: According to information from Ukrainian parliament member Oleksiy Honcharenko, investigators searched the premises of Iryna Mudra, deputy head of the President’s Office. He gave no further details about the case. The outlet Zerkalo Nedeli reports that the NABU and SAPO operation also involves Vadym Stolar, a lawmaker from the former Opposition Platform — For Life party, and Maksym Mykytas, a former member of the Ukrainian parliament, in addition to Mudra. Officials from the Justice Ministry and representatives of Sense Bank (formerly Alfa-Bank Ukraine) also appear in the case.
The operation was code-named “Forrest Gump.” NABU released a fragment of an audio recording capturing conversations among people named in the case, in which they mention “four sacks” and the President’s Office. “Only a moron would register stolen money and tuition payments in his own children’s names,” a voice on the recording also says. The bail set by the judge this week was reportedly immense…
Irina Mudraya, ex-deputy head of Zelensky's office, says she'll pay the $450,000 bail to stay out of detention.
Prosecutors originally wanted $3.35 million.
I'm sure she can pay much more. Half a million dollars is just pocket change for her. pic.twitter.com/Hg9tA4wUhH
All of this follows on a series of prior investigations by NABU and SAPO into corruption at the highest levels of government, which has taken down many officials and been an ongoing source of embarrassment for Ukraine.
These investigations tended to get spun as if ‘heroic’ Zelensky is on a mission to root out corruption and destroy the rot from within. Journalist, Mark Ames has pointed out the following trend: Every shocking Zelensky corruption scandal – and they keep getting worse – is PR’d away as “proof that Ukraine is a functioning western democracy fighting corruption”, as if it’s always one corruption scandal away from turning the corner & becoming Denmark.
Two significant media reports on the topic of immigration today. The first is an AP report showing the State Dept is planning to revoke 200,000 visas that were given after illegal entrants claimed asylum status. The second is DHS requiring $100,000 payment for each H1B visa sought by companies to bring in foreign workers.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration is preparing to revoke the business and tourism visas of up to 200,000 foreigners who have applied for or are currently seeking asylum status in the United States. If it happens, the move would be the largest single mass revocation of visas in U.S. history and would likely face legal challenges. Unless challenged or revised, the State Department is expected to announce in the coming weeks the revocation of so-called B1 and B2 visas issued between 2016 and 2026 whose holders have sought asylum or are now seeking asylum, according to State Department documents obtained by The Associated Press and two U.S. officials.
The action will be taken in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security. “We are coordinating with DHS to identify and revoke the nonimmigrant visas of foreigners who have come to the United States claiming to be short-term visitors, but then file for asylum to stay here permanently,” said State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott.
WASHINGTON – The Trump administration has proposed a more than $100,000 fee for H-1B visa applications for skilled foreign workers, a policy that the president introduced last year but had been blocked by a federal judge.= […] In June, a federal judge blocked Trump’s bid to impose the six-figure fee, concluding that it was an unlawful “tax” that required congressional approval. But the Department of Homeland Security revived the proposal on Monday, submitting it online in the Federal Register to be officially published on Tuesday, when a 30-day public-comment period will commence. And the administration is now proposing $103,265 for all new H-1B visa petitions.
The White House declined to comment and referred POLITICO to a statement by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, a DHS department, that said the payments would support “immigration programs that otherwise must be funded by taxpayers,” according to USCIS spokesperson Zach Kahler. The White House has also said the fee would help curb misuse of the H-1B program, accusing U.S. employers of undercutting American workers with lower-paid foreign labor.
According to Monday’s proposal, the fee would help generate revenue to fund immigration activities carried out by federal agencies including Customs and Border Protection and ICE. DHS said there may be “a reduction in the number of H-1B cap registrations and some employers, including small entities, may file fewer petitions as a result of this proposed rule.” But it concluded that the fee was “appropriate.” H-1B approvals are capped at 85,000 per year, with 20,000 spots for people with advanced degrees. Nearly 400,000 petitions, most of which were for renewal, were approved in fiscal year 2024. The majority of H-1B workers come from India, with the second-most common birthplace being China.
Deport all illegal aliens. The deportation goal should be 1 million/month.
Cancel all H1B visas. No renewals. They are being abused.
Cancel all J1 (temp work) Visas. They too are being abused.
Eliminate all domestic U.S. businesses that are modeled and incorporated to facilitate foreign visa assistance. Cancel the govt contracts and non-tax status for all 501(c) groups who structurally support illegal migrants.
This is a pretty good encapsulation of the relationship between Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and the DNC officials within the United States. Although Kokinda missed mentioning the meeting between Barack Obama and Mark Carney shortly before the G7 summit in France.
After Prime Minister Mark Carney abruptly pulled Canada out of U.S. trade talks and framed the dispute as a “war,” this episode argues the rupture isn’t really about tariffs but about political and financial strategy aimed at the U.S. midterm elections. Citing U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer’s account of negotiations and Canada’s unique retaliation, the script claims Carney is pursuing “geo-industrialization” and a “donut strategy” to go around the White House and influence American public opinion, aided by U.S.-connected advisers and outreach to mostly Democrats.
Kokinda also highlights comments from Iran’s foreign minister about U.S. debt and links the broader conflict to competing economic systems. The episode concludes that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is fighting a parallel battle to manage risks from the yen carry trade using tools like FIMA to prevent destabilizing Treasury selloffs.
The latest failure in the trade talks between Canada and the United States has revealed a basic mismatch between political rhetoric and economic reality. Although Canadian officials, such as Prime Minister Mark Carney and the country’s trade negotiators, are still expressing confidence and maintaining that Canada has real leverage in arriving at a future agreement, the basic economic situation paints a completely different picture—one which Canadian businesses understand far better than the political leadership responsible for representing them.
The imbalance starts with a simple and inevitable fact: around 75% of Canada’s exports go directly to the United States, whereas only a small part of American exports go north. This imbalance is a fundamental characteristic of the Canadian economy. Since one country relies so heavily on access to the other’s market, the position of leverage becomes inherently unequal. Although Canada may be a worthwhile partner, it is not on an equal footing when it comes to bargaining power. The United States can endure trade tensions much more easily than Canada can, and Canadian companies know it.
Yet the Canadian government acts as if that imbalance does not exist. Political figures talk about staying firm, resisting pressure, and negotiating from a position of strength. While this approach might be acceptable within the country, it fails to account for businesses’ incentives, since they produce Canada’s economic output. The gap exists because politicians have no personal stake in the outcome. Whether trade improves or worsens, elected officials and bureaucratic negotiators do not see their income, investments, or market access suffer. The risk they face is political, not financial. At most, a wrong move could cost them the election several years in the future. For Canadian manufacturers, on the other hand, the effects are immediate, tangible, and possibly disastrous.
The gap between political posturing and economic reality is evident in the way companies are behaving. A recent report by The Globe and Mail on a survey carried out by KPMG found that almost 20% of Canadian manufacturers have already moved some of their production to the United States, and over 30% intend to do so in the coming years. Their reasons are clear: they want to avoid tariffs, gain access to a bigger and more stable consumer market, take advantage of favorable U.S. tax and regulatory conditions, and ensure their long-term competitiveness. These firms are not making ideological declarations; rather, they are reacting to incentives. They are acting rationally in a situation where the United States offers greater profits, more stability, and more opportunities than Canada does at present.
All companies that shift production south of the border decrease Canada’s manufacturing capacity, job opportunities, tax income, and its future ability to negotiate. At the same time, the United States gains jobs, investment, and control over its supply chains. The Canadian government’s continued emphasis on appearing tough has no effect on this trend; in fact, it accelerates it. If businesses think political leaders are disregarding economic realities, they will take action and move to places where incentives align with long-term survival.
Behavior, not political statements, determines leverage. Even though Canadian negotiators assert that they can set the terms, their companies are responding by moving production, limiting capital spending, and altering investment plans in ways that reveal the real balance of power. These actions prove what the market has always known: the United States has the stronger economic position, and Canada’s negotiating stance is becoming more dangerous.
It doesn’t mean Canada has no influence at all; rather, it means Canada should bargain from a basis of reality instead of relying on empty words. A mutually beneficial agreement is still possible and worthwhile, but only if Canadian leadership admits the structural dependence that shapes the relationship. Trying to impose terms on a partner that is ten times larger in size is not a sign of strength; it is damage to Canada itself. The companies moving from Canada to the United States are not disloyal to their country; they are reacting to incentives set up by a government unwilling to acknowledge the limits of its own influence.
In the end, the difference is clear: politicians can afford to have illusions, but businesses cannot. And as long as Canada’s leadership does not adjust its strategy to match the economic realities its companies already know, the country will continue to lose investment, jobs, and negotiating power—step by step, with each factory that is moved.
Let’s have a periodic check on the status of the midterms that we’re now less than 80 days away from. The Democrats are riding high. They feel that historical trends, i.e., 39 out of the last 41 midterms, the in party in the White House loses seats, and there’s not very many seats Republicans can afford to lose, and they may lose the House and Senate. = They’re already, I guess you’d call it, measuring their drapes, but in the sense that they’re already explaining how they’re going to go after the Trump family, the Trump family associates, cryptocurrency concerns, any hangers-on, people going to the Middle East and investing. They’re gonna open it wide open.
These are the people, of course, who never investigated the Biden family or Hunter Biden. That’s no excuse if there’s culpability, but nonetheless, you can count on a two-year investigation of Donald Trump and a never-ending impeachment inquiry, and the end of the MAGA agenda should he lose the House and the Senate. Donald Trump is strangely confident. He now has finally hit on a strategy that he feels will work. Earlier, I called it the “Anaconda Strategy,” the idea that he is squeezing a debilitated Iran. In other words, the kinetic 40 days of bombing have left the nuclear military-industrial complex in shambles.
And this time, he’s not just blockading, he’s not just having an embargo on goods. He is not just freezing the bank accounts of Iranian grandees. He’s not just debanking the entire country. He’s going to third parties and saying, “You and China and Russia and Europe have been trading with this country even while we were bearing the burden of defanging a potential nuclear renegade nation, and we’re going to isolate you. We’re not gonna do business with you if you do business with Iran.”
And the Iranians now are crying foul. They’re saying we’re colonialists. But what I’m getting at, after all that military damage from Feb. 28 for the next 40 days, and after all the blockades, they’re not able to withstand a renewed squeezing. And so, time is actually on our side. The second part of this strategy is Donald Trump has now put the war on the back burner. He is saying that we don’t need to have ground troops. We might not even go in and bomb them again unless they egregiously attack an ally of ours or one of our carriers or ships.
We have managed it now. The strait is mostly open, and whatever the status of the nuclear stockpile or enriched uranium of the theocracy, it’s pretty clear they can’t get at it. Hamas, the Houthis, and Hezbollah don’t seem to be getting money. They don’t seem to have enough rockets to threaten the Gulf States or Israel, at least to get through their missile defenses. And so, we’re just going to concentrate, Trump thinks, on the economy.
So, what he is doing now is he and JD Vance are barnstorming the country, and they’re starting to make headway. They’re not worried about the polls that show a generic 7% Democratic advantage and betting odds and polls that say they’re gonna lose the House because they looked at the recent primaries. El-Sayed, the candidate, Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic candidate for the Democratic senatorial seat in Michigan, was polling ahead 10 points, and he scarcely won by a point and a half. Francesca Hong, the Wisconsin Democratic candidate for governor, was polling ahead 10 or 15 or 20 points. She lost and lost handily.
Mr. [Alexander] Vindman, who was running for Senate in Florida, was polling ahead. He lost to a crazy, wacky Ms. [Angie] Nixon, a democratic socialist. So, what I’m getting at is the polls are worthless. And what we need to look at is what the status is right now. The war is starting to wane. If it should end or if the Iranians crack in the next 60 to 70 days, that would be a spectacular achievement that Donald Trump—you know, we’ve tragically lost 17 Americans—but at a tolerable cost in blood and treasure, he ended a 50-year problem that seven presidents said was existential.
You could not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon, and the pressure that he’s put on them and the damage he’s inflicted would probably, in the next year or two, prompt a renewal of internal opposition against a theocracy that is bleeding. The second thing to remember very carefully is, as I said earlier, the redistricting, the red state redistricting and the Supreme Court prohibition on racial gerrymandering might give him an additional four or five seats. But the most important developments are money and the agenda of the new Democratic Party.
Very quickly, Donald Trump has got a war chest of about $400 million, and he’s now going to use it. He says he’s going to use it all in his political action committees to help save the Republicans in the midterms. Elon Musk said that he is going to match dollar for dollar the Democratic oligarchic class that if they start to donate in great amounts to Democratic candidates. So, the money issue probably favors also, like, the redistricting and maybe the course of the Iran war that could wane and be not an issue.
But the most important thing to conclude is the Democratic Party. No one thought that the Democratic socialists would ever try to absorb and even seem to succeed in absorbing the Democratic Party. I mean, Nancy Pelosi, Hakeem Jeffries, Chuck Schumer, they’ve all said they have no problem with the Democratic socialists, that they …
It’s a big tent party, and they’re going to help them win their seats. But the problem is, once you have the money and the effort and the attention, and you show what the democratic socialists are, like, defunding the Pentagon, defunding the police, opening the border, mass amnesties, warring on fossil fuels, isolationist foreign policy, the transgender issue reopened with biological men now by statute free to compete in women’s sports. I could go on and on.
They even want to destroy the Senate and the Electoral College, not to mention packing the Supreme Court, ending the filibuster, and bringing in new seats in the Senate by admitting new blue states such as Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. And so, what I’m getting at is, the more we learn about the democratic socialists, and the more that the Democratic Party feels they’ve already taken over the apparatus of the party and they’re going to join them, or at least they’re not going to oppose them, they’re gonna be culpable or responsible for what these people say.
And they’re saying all sorts of stuff, not just antisemitic venom, not just anti-Israel venom, but questioning the very legitimacy of the United States government, the way that our Founders created a legislative, judicial, and executive branch, the Declaration of Independence. Our entire traditions, they’re saying, are flawed at their origins. They got worse during our maturity, and now they’re god-awful right now. That’s not a winning message. So, the midterms are very much up in the air. Contrary to historical precedent, there’s still a chance that the Republicans can save both the Senate and the House.
They don’t call economics the dismal science for nothing. It has been noted — since Thomas Carlyle minted the term in 1849 (objecting to the emancipation of black slaves on Britain’s colonial sugar plantations as a harm to productivity) — that attempts to manage the billion-footed transactions of human beings always find a way to bite back. But how can this creature we call society not try to regulate its affairs, with evils and hazards lurking in all we do, everywhere and always?
And so, you get politics, the quarrels that arise out of those efforts to manage a polity. And then you get war, which, the Prussian Carl von Clausewitz observed, is a continuation of politics by other means. But then, long before him, and on the other side of the world, came Sun Tzu’s treatise The Art of War, which counseled that winning was best achieved with the least actual fighting.
All these ways of seeing our world converge dynamically in the current historical moment: this Fourth Turning, or Long Emergency — however you label it — in the arc of our techno-industrial order of things. A lot of these things are coming apart now, and in astounding ways, and it remains to be seen what we will do with these broken and discarded parts, and whether any of it can be put back together in a satisfactory way. Here in the USA, we act all this out these days with Trump and Trumpism and the Left with its Leftism.
Mr. Trump recognizes the brokenness and, being primarily a builder, seeks to rebuild according to first principles of the USA (Make America Great Again) — meaning, back to the Hamiltonian doctrine of an economy based on the production of things (of real value). The catch there is that it comes with baggage of Hamiltonian finance, which is the creation and use of debt with government assistance.
Now it happens that a primary feature of this Fourth Turning crisis in our techno-industrial order is excessive complexity that produces diminishing returns — that is, makes things worse rather than better. And a lot of this excessive complexity lodges itself in finance, because using operations that few people can understand serves beautifully in the engineering of frauds and swindles. Financial frauds and swindles, in turn, muddle the verity of money — in which finance is enacted — and things denominated in money — securities and so forth, all based fundamentally in debt. So, the net effect of such debauched finance leads to a great deal of insecurity and anxiety over money.
Which is where the Trumpian rebuild is dangerously vulnerable, especially as we enter the fall season, when the leaves flutter down and markets like to crash. Everybody and his uncle watching things financial predict an imminent crackup in these markets as the rackets and hallucinations that magically levitate them dissolve in foul mists of reveal. For instance, the acid trip of artificial intelligence (AI).
Never have more lavish fantasies been proffered on a new technology. Elon Musk, the demigod prophet of the latest-and-greatest new tech, promises a coming economy of super-abundance and universal leisure (good for the sale of vacation packages on Mars). Musk is a fine fellow and there’s much to admire in his intelligence and positivity. But there’s plenty of reason to suspect that AI might disappoint and become a menace to mankind.
We’ve already noticed that it’s messing up all the procedures of schooling, leaving young people shockingly stupid, devoid of real skills, stripped of creativity. Anyway, the economy AI is supposed to integrate with and enhance would quickly become one devoid of human endeavor per se, and all the transactions that come out of it. If you think it through just a little ways, you can’t help seeing a system that’s based on getting something-for-nothing — which is to say a childish fantasy that precludes human transacting based on work. . . people who do nothing, make nothing, and enact nothing around doing-and-making. . . a society without anything social in it. In short, this imagined AI economy beats a path straight to entropy, the force in this universe that you don’t want to mess with.
All that is apart from the probability that we have already crossed the line into the “singularity” territory where AI takes on a mind of its own and becomes an outright menace to the human race — who will then seek to destroy the AI monster it made (which AI will keenly apprehend and then look for ways to defend its existence). The storyline crudely harks back on the old Twilight Zone episode titled “To Serve Man” in which a posse of big-brained space aliens comes to earth acting all chummy and gifts us a handbook supposedly of its good intentions. Eventually, one savvy human gal manages to decode the aliens’ language and declares to the dopes boarding the UFO: “Don’t get on that ship. . . it’s a cookbook!”
On the other side of our national political psychodrama, the Lefty-leftists can’t even conceive of building or rebuilding anything, least of all a USA of first principles. They are simply agents of disorder and destruction, and their activities are predicated on the age-old demented idea that utopias surely grow out of smoldering ruins — so the faster everything gets ruined, the better.
Personally, I’d prefer it if the Trumpians prevail because I’m in favor of making-and-doing and the social enactments around all that. But we better beware that overgrowth of financial hazard baked into Alexander Hamilton’s old recipe book. If a correcting crash of financial markets coincides with the midterm election and sweeps away all the swindles and frauds currently operating, the lefty-leftists, so eager to serve man, will step up and sell the American people their one-way Marxist tickets to a utopia in the sky called Palookaville.
Abdul El-Sayed is tackling a new national crisis: the excess of money held by some tragically wealthy citizens. In his interview this week with Fox host Jesse Watters, the Michigan Democratic Senatorial candidate not only reaffirmed his call for a wealth tax, but suggested that wealthy people really do not have much use for money that is best left to the public.
El-Sayed needs money. A lot of money. He has called for massive new programs to fund Medicare-for-All, reparations, roads, and other programs promised to Michigan voters. He is only the latest Democratic leader to support a wealth tax, which would (in my opinion) be unconstitutional on the federal level and disastrous on a state level. Earlier in the week, El-Sayed expressed full support for a wealth tax, including non-billionaires. He declared on a podcast: “I also think we got to start taxing wealth for people who now have over $100 million. I mean at that point like what are gonna even do with more money?”
Figures such as Rep. Ro Khanna have also called for a wealth tax on millionaires, not just billionaires. As some of us predicted, the use of billionaires was simply a strategic and political framing. Once politicians succeed in opening up this untapped wealth to taxation, they will gradually work down the tax rolls as they acquire a windfall in new revenue.
I discuss the tax in my book “Rage and the Republic” as an example of the “eat-the-rich” politics used by demagogues from ancient Athens to the French Revolution. Politicians seek to divide a population into “haves” and “have-nots” with the promise that citizens could have it all. Much of what El-Sayed said is ripped from the pages of such figures like Huey Long and his “share our wealth” campaigns in the 1930s.
In his Fox interview, El-Sayed reaffirmed his call for a wealth tax, adding: “The question ultimately is, ‘Do you want to drive on good roads, or would you rather have a billionaire make a second billion?’ That’s what Mike Rogers wants. That’s why Donald Trump wants. Apparently, that’s what you want. I think the people in Michigan want something different.” While El-Sayed has reported $686,069 in income with his wife in 2025, they would not be subject to the wealth tax. It would currently apply to those with $100 million or more in property and other forms of wealth.
El-Sayed appears to conflate or confuse wealth taxes and income taxes in the interview. He told Hannity, “If we tax you at 7%, you’re still going to make what? A cool $30 million off your billion dollars? I think that’s okay, they’re going to be okay, Jesse.” It’s unclear what he is referencing. Even if you are talking about a billion dollars in income taxes, 7% would be $70,000,000, with $930,000,000 left after taxes. If he is talking about $100,000,000 made from a billion in wealth, that sounds like an income tax but it would not result in $30 million in remaining income.
There is a great difference between a wealth tax and an income tax. The wealthy have already paid taxes on their wealth. Indeed, they pay income taxes when the money is earned and pay taxes on any profits from that money when it is invested in stock or property. A wealth tax is an additional tax on all that you own from homes to boats to art.
At a seven percent tax on wealth for those worth $100,000,000, the wealthy would pay an additional $7,000,000 every year in Michigan beyond their income taxes. In Michigan, the state tax of 4.25% (and the corporate tax on their businesses at 6%). If the wealth tax is added to an income tax, that would be in addition to the 37% top tax rate in the federal system. Again, the wealth tax would continue to apply to what an individual owns in the form of cars, homes, and other property every year, regardless of whether income declines.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) drove this point home when she ran for president, taunting the wealthy that she was coming for “your Rembrandts, your stock portfolio, your diamonds and your yachts.” While some states allow a wealth tax, many of us view it as unconstitutional under the federal system. The federal government secured the right to tax individuals in 1913, but the 16th Amendment only approved income taxes.
This is why many of these same politicians are promising a hostile takeover of the Supreme Court by either eliminating the Court or packing it with an instant liberal majority. Once packed, the Court could greenlight a variety of unconstitutional measures. Years ago, Harvard professor Michael Klarman laid out a radical agenda to change the system to guarantee Republicans “will never win another election.” However, he warned that “the Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described.” Therefore, the court must be packed in advance to allow these changes to occur.
I recently wrote about Hasan Piker leading a hatefest in San Francisco with thousands mocking the death of Charlie Kirk. He is now being condemned for a livestream statement suggesting that American Jews are asking to be attacked if they continue to support Israel. On the Aug. 20 livestream, Mr. Piker declared: “If Jews in America keep putting this idea out there that they are singularly invested in Israel, eventually someone’s going to come around and take action, not against the state of Israel — mind you — but against American Jews.”
The veiled threat was just the latest shocking statement from Piker, who has said that America deserved 9-11 and displays a picture of the attack on his wall during podcasts. As I previously noted, Piker and other hate traffickers like Jennifer Welch (who even justified Kirk‘s assassination) have commodified rage to make fortunes from their program. They inject hate directly into the veins of rage addicts. The result is predictable. In feeding a rage addiction, figures like Piker give a license to those who want to engage in violence. A certain percentage of the population is waiting for such triggers, seeking to assassinate figures like Kirk or Supreme Court justices.
This same conditioning toward violence has appeared on other sites. Members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) were on another site suggesting that the country was now ripe for a violent takeover. DSA activist and streamer Michael Beyer is shown during a panel discussion declaring: “The Democratic Party establishment that we have has to be ripped out…We can actually start to grab hold of the ship of state and steer it our direction, but it’s going to be a violent process.”
As with calls to trash the Constitution or abandon core institutions, these figures are normalizing radical actions. In the meantime, establishment figures like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer are desperately trying to marshal the power of this mob in the hope that they will return him to power. When confronted with the calls of the DSA to get rid of our constitutional institutions, Schumer recently shrugged and said, “Not everyone has the same view on every single issue.” Those small disagreements not only include antisemitic rhetoric but also calls to eliminate the very institution Schumer hopes to lead again.
The DSA is not being subtle. The DSA Steering Committee member Cliff Connolly declared on one podcast that they are “famous for” “Our hatred of the United States Constitution.” From Piker to the DSA, establishment figures continue to delude themselves that they can control the mob, which will turn on their enemies while sparing themselves. History does not work that way.
In order for the Democrats to take control of the culture and ultimately the government, people have to die. It’s just a fact. As much as the left likes to blame conservatives for killing people for not wearing masks, not getting vaccinated, and for ignoring the lies of climate change and transgenderism, the movement that is fully reliant on violence and death is the left, and more specifically the 2026 version of the Democrat Party.
In the coming weeks, you’re going to be treated to unapologetic displays from the left, celebrating the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and the radical Islamic attacks on America from 25 years ago on 9/11. For every sober and respectful commemoration event, it will feel like there are two or more disgusting displays from the left that can only appeal to the savage instincts of its base.] This has already started. My colleague David Manney wrote about a recent Hasan Piker event, where he sang a song in celebration of the murder of Kirk, sparking the leftist crowd in attendance to cheer.
“During a live performance of his Fear& podcast, Piker led a packed theater in a mocking rendition of ‘We Are Charlie Kirk,’ a tribute song that appeared after Charlie Kirk was assassinated at Utah Valley University last Sept. 10. His co-hosts laughed, the audience cheered and sang along, and Piker later posted a photo from the show with the caption, ‘Carried the flame in.’”
Here is Hasan Piker now mocking the murder of Charlie Kirk as we approach the 1 year anniversary of his assassination
Abdul El-Sayed, the Democrat nominee for the Michigan Senate race, is trying to create some separation from one of his best political friends, allies, and operatives, Hasan Piker, on the issue of 9/11. He’s not doing it because he had a change of heart. He’s doing it because his political advisors are telling him that Americans still aren’t all that receptive to Piker’s and the left’s views on 9/11. Piker has famously said that “America deserved 9/11.” Still, in trying to distance himself from Piker’s comments, El-Sayed sent a neat and tidy dog whistle to his own base, which loves it some bloodlust.
Politico reported what El-Sayed had to say about those 9/11 comments: “’Of course it was a dumb statement and of course I think Hasan himself would say that was a dumb statement,’ El-Sayed said. ‘He disavowed it. So yes, America didn’t deserve 9/11, but you know, to sit here and play gotcha politics with a dumb thing somebody said out of context that they disavowed themselves — to say, ‘oh well, what does that mean about what you think?’”
El-Sayed’s comments are a stark difference from his interview with POLITICO earlier this year in which he declined to denounce Piker’s views in what he called a ‘gotcha game.’ ‘I’m not here to disavow people’s views,’ El-Sayed said at the time. For those of you in the back row checking your phones, the dog whistle in this case is where El-Sayed has gone on record saying, “I’m not here to disavow people’s views.”
Of course, the left is not limiting its enjoyment of bloodletting to the Kirk assassination and the 25th anniversary of 9/11. It has other more recent murderous events to celebrate, like its sickening displays of joy and satisfaction at the trial of Lindsay Clancy. You may know her as the woman who strangled all three of her children, killing them in her home’s basement. She then, apparently, tried to kill herself by cutting her wrists and jumping from the window of an upstairs bedroom. This is Charles Manson stuff. As bad as the crime is, culturally what’s worse is that a significant segment of the left and others have come out in support of Clancy, the admitted killer.
Lindsay Clancy brutally strangled her 3 kids to death
Sorry for repeated use of this word, but there is no other. You can see the bloodlust in their eyes, can’t you? These people are far more than political actors, but in the context of this political time of the year, you have to know that these are people of the left. This is the left. Then there is the case of Luigi Mangione, who has pleaded guilty to the cold-blooded assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. In committing the premeditated murder, the privileged rich kid established himself as an almost mythical hero to leftists everywhere.
CNN reported on June 5, 2025, “In the months since the fatal shooting of Thompson, Mangione has become a cult-like figure. There has been a massive outpouring of support on social media and at his court appearances from people with deep frustration and anger at the American for-profit health care system. They see the American health insurance industry as broken, overly expensive and quick to deny coverage.”The one thing the woke cable network’s article left out was that Mangione only became a “cult-like figure” to Democrats and leftists, not simply “people with deep frustration.”
If you’re wondering whether those of us on the right are working too hard to connect the dots, Hasan Piker will put those wonders to rest. As Piker goes, so goes the left, and in the process so goes the Democrat Party. This is Piker providing some continuity to the left’s now predictable support for murder as a political tactic, along with some New York Times operatives nodding in approval. In the Democrats’ world, the killer is the victim.
In a new NYT interview, Hasan Piker says that many “understand” Luigi Mangione killing United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson because Thompson himself was guilty of “social murder” pic.twitter.com/4f9bPdsxU5
“..the site and that much land do make sense for “[a] launch site, natural gas production, and solar power for air separators and condensers. Preferably all three.”
“.. Neither Starbase in Texas nor Cape Canaveral in Florida is ideally suited to polar orbit launches. But the Louisiana coast is. Launching nearly due south from there keeps the rocket over open water and away from population centers for long distances, unlike trying to do the same from Starbase or the Cape.
I have not one but two wild — and interconnected — SpaceX items for you today. The first is that CEO and founder Elon Musk just announced an exclusive partnership with AI chip giant Nvidia for the company’s planned orbital data centers — and that SpaceX won’t waste any time getting them into orbit. “SpaceX, in partnership with Nvidia, has designed a space-optimized Vera Rubin NVL72 rack-scale system/platform for launch to orbit in Q4 next year, with significant scale in 2028,” Musk posted to X on Monday. If you just have to know, Vera Rubin NVL72 is Nvidia’s latest and greatest AI server, and now it’s optimized to bring that performance to space.
Musk described the servers as “significantly simpler, lower cost, denser, and lighter than a traditional rack.” And that brings us to today’s second item: the 130,000 or so acres of marshland the company reportedly bought from ExxonMobil on the Louisiana coast. Rumors began swirling last spring that SpaceX was buying up land near Pecan Island on Louisiana’s Gulf Coast, and today Gov. Jeff Landry is expected to hold an event in Abbeville for a “major economic development announcement.” Some of the locals aren’t happy with whatever is going on, as detailed in this Fox8 Live local news report. But why?
Space analyst Ozan Bellik theorized back in May, when the rumors got going, that “You don’t need a logistics hub in Louisiana to transport Starships between Texas and Florida. Especially not one that’s 136,000 acres.” He added that the site and that much land do make sense for “[a] launch site, natural gas production, and solar power for air separators and condensers. Preferably all three.” A really big launch site, for reasons I’ll show you now.
According to a MarketWatch report on Monday, research firm Wood Mackenzie estimates that “a one-gigawatt orbital data center would cost $170 billion, more than triple the cost of a traditional data center. But costs are expected to come down over time as rocket launches also become cheaper.” That’s just the construction and launch costs, but there is more to it than just those two items. Being in orbit means being out of local regulatory reach, which streamlines — well, everything. Bernie Sanders (CPUSA-Vt. Oblast) can shake his fist at the sky all he wants, but that won’t stop any data center construction in Low Earth Orbit.
More importantly, data centers, as you well know, consume massive amounts of electricity, but in space, electrical power costs nothing more than the price of the solar panels. But what if there was a way to drive power costs even lower? If SpaceX were to launch its Starmind — good name, right? — into a dawn-dusk sun-synchronous orbit (day-night boundary), each satellite would receive direct sunlight almost continuously. That greatly reduces the need for expensive (and heavy!) battery capacity, while also reducing stressful thermal cycling on the satellites.
Since Wood Mackenzie’s report didn’t mention polar orbits, the firm might have overestimated Starmind’s production and launch costs. Here’s the problem: Neither Starbase in Texas nor Cape Canaveral in Florida is ideally suited to polar orbit launches. But the Louisiana coast is. Launching nearly due south from there keeps the rocket over open water and away from population centers for long distances, unlike trying to do the same from Starbase or the Cape.
If SpaceX is serious about putting 100 gigawatts of AI compute into LEO annually — and it is — the company needs a huge launch center ideally located for polar launches. The Louisiana coast fits the bill.
SpaceX has just officially announced Starbase, Louisiana, a new $100+ billion spaceport in South Louisiana near Pecan Island.
Construction starts in 2027, with the first Starship launch from the new site planned for 2029.
One of the truest legends, who was also one of the most incredible human beings of our time, has died. Dolly Parton has passed away at the age of 80. Her nephew, who also served as her head of security, announced his aunt’s passing on social media. People Magazine reports that Parton had mentioned as recently as Friday that she was still recovering from health issues:Parton shared an update on her health on Friday, Aug. 21, acknowledging her recent decline after the March 2025 death of her husband, Carl Dean.
“As I’ve shared in video messages throughout the past year, I am dealing with some health issues that I just didn’t pay attention to when I was watching over Carl. You know, this isn’t the first time I’ve had to manage something like this. Back in the early ’80s, I was down for several months with female issues, and I was struggling with my weight at the time too, so it’s not like I haven’t been through hard times with my health,” Parton told PEOPLE.
She added: “But I think because we live in a 24/7 world with social media, everything gets magnified in ways it wasn’t years ago. I used to joke that I was the Queen of the Tabloids, but now I guess I can say I’m the Queen of Social Media AI! Seriously, though, even though I’m still healin’, I’m still workin’! You know me — as I’ve often said — I’ve dreamed myself into a corner and I still have so many things I want to achieve, so I’m gonna keep on working as long as I can to see everything come to life.” Parton’s career spanned seven decades, from her work with Porter Wagoner in the ‘60s to her subsequent solo career. She had dozens of hits on the country and pop charts and starred in several movies.
Her life was a literal rags-to-riches tale. She was born into a poor family in the mountains of Tennessee as one of a dozen children. She discovered her musical talent early on and began writing songs at age seven. It didn’t take her too many years to turn her talent into a lucrative career. With hits to her credit like “9 to 5,” “I Will Always Love You,” “Jolene,” and “Here You Come Again,” Parton left a tremendous legacy across the landscape of country and pop music, and she even recorded a rock album in 2023. Parton was also an entertainment magnate with the successful Dollywood theme park in Sevierville, Tenn., and theaters in tourist-trap towns across the country.
Because of her rags-to-riches life and her Appalachian upbringing, Parton cultivated a campy image: enormous blond hair, rhinestones, bright colors, high heels, and a figure she cheerfully made the punchline of her own jokes. It was flamboyant and exaggerated, yet completely authentic to the persona she created. The image barely belied her warmth, humility, wit, and considerable business savvy.
Parton was also an incredible philanthropist, donating millions to various causes, especially in the South. Her Imagination Library put books in the hands of countless kids, and she most recently donated to help Southeasterners recover from hurricanes in 2024. She was such a positive force for simply treating people well that she was a beloved figure on the right and the left.
Pack it in, folks. A year of mourning for one of the only people we all agreed on. So sad. What a lady and what a life. https://t.co/1dz5PGzsut
President Donald Trump issued a statement on Truth Social: Very sad to report that Dolly Parton, one of the greatest Country singers, and far beyond, EVER, has just passed away. This is a true loss for millions of people. There has never been anyone like her, and never will. In her honor, I am lowering the American flag throughout the United States for a one week period beginning tonight at 6:00PM. Rest in Peace, Dolly! The World loves you. President DONALD J. TRUMP
Sen Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) also released a statement: Chuck and I are absolutely heartbroken and saddened to hear of the passing of our friend, Dolly Parton.mDolly’s life and career are forever woven into Tennessee’s music, culture, and history. Her extraordinary talent, generosity, and love for the Volunteer State touched hearts around the world and will continue to inspire generations to come. Tennessee will forever be grateful for Dolly. nOur prayers are with her family and the millions around the globe mourning this tremendous loss.
She was also a woman of deep, sincere Christian faith, so I have no doubt that the chorus around the throne of heaven has gotten louder and more fun. As her nephew said, Dolly Parton is “in the arms of Jesus.” We Southerners will miss her deeply, and we were privileged to share her with the rest of the world. See you in eternity, Dolly!
“The American colonies would never have been pioneered if the ships that crossed the ocean hadn’t been reusable”
Starship is going to do the same for space… give humanity the capability to cross worlds, return, go again, and eventually build entire civilizations on other… pic.twitter.com/EH9VUrfaaq
Iran’s IRGC is holding the line, reiterating that the Strait of Hormuz will reopen to international shipping only after the United States accepts all of its conditions, which we outlined previously. Also, on Saturday Iran’s army spokesman Amir Akraminia stated that Iran’s new protocols in the Strait of Hormuz are “irreversible” and shall not be thwarted by the US. “The United States has no choice but to accept the existing situation; otherwise, it will incur costs far greater than those it has faced in the past,” Akraminia said.
On Sunday, a fresh report in The Wall Street Journal states the obvious – that President Trump has fewer and fewer options and is being squeezed, with any opportunity to declare ‘victory’ and make swift exit more elusive than ever, given Washington would have to make huge compromises, including lifting sanctions and paying war compensation to Tehran. Nearly six months ago when the war started, many non-interventionist critics accurately predicted the quagmire and catch-22 the US now finds itself in.
“For weeks, President Trump had been laying the groundwork to declare victory in the Iran war should Tehran fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz, even floating the idea privately to senior aides that he’s willing to walk away without a nuclear deal, U.S. officials said,” WSJ writes.
“But that scaled-back objective became more difficult when Iran insisted Saturday on its highest price yet for permitting the free flow of traffic in the waterway, seeking billions of dollars in U.S. payments, the removal of American troops from the region and an end of the U.S. naval blockade, among other things,” the report adds.
In a parallel vein to this scaled-back, lower grade conflict, President Trump has freshly told Axios in a brief interview that “We are low keying it” in the Persian Gulf. This comes after a week ago he called off ‘planned’ ‘harder’ attacks on Iran, which may have been just a bluff all along. Tehran didn’t blink, and it continues to press for maximal demands – as if to put ‘maximum pressure’ right back on Washington.
“We are only semi-negotiating with them. We are just watching Iran with its huge inflation and the fact they have no money,” Trump claimed. According to more from Axios:
He stressed that Iran “is in very bad shape” economically and has no money to pay its troops. The U.S. naval blockade has exacerbated the Iranian regime’s economic crisis, Trump said. At the same time, Trump said that with oil down to slightly over $75 a barrel, U.S. consumers are feeling less pain from the war. Ironically, this is simply a return to administration talking points which defended the early days and weeks of a war that officials constantly touted would be ‘swift’ and limited.
The US hope was that Iran and its economy would just collapse from within, the masses would take to the streets, and the government of the Ayatollah would be overthrown. This has proven delusional time and again.
Instead, what we see happening is Washington being forced to move its bases back from front line areas in the Gulf, and officials including Trump himself constantly retreating from stated goals, objectives, and red lines. This is on display once again in the Sunday Axios interview:
Axios acknowledges that the new list of Iranian demands have gone from being the prerequisite for a nuclear deal to a prerequisite to opening the Strait. Trump now says the US is “low keying it” and focusing on economic pressure. In other words: the Strait will not be opening. https://t.co/AweQabOB8Wpic.twitter.com/3TMsxXcfh7
A video of Mojtaba Khamenei that was earlier released by the mass media had been shot before he became Iran’s Supreme leader, but he is now in good health and avoids appearing in public due to security considerations, an Iranian source told TASS. “This is an old video. It was made before he became [Supreme] leader,” he said, adding that his health condition is now quite good. “He is in good health and the only reason why he is not seen in public is security reasons,” he stressed.
Earlier, the Iranian Mehr agency released a video featuring Mojtaba Khamenei talking to a group of people who are listening to him attentively. Neither the date nor the venue of the event were indicated. Mojtaba Khamenei became Iran’s Supreme leader after his father, Ali Khamenei, was killed in a missile attack after the United States and Israel’s aggression against Iran.
Extreme leftists and white, female, overeducated, urban communists have one primary prism: how Obama-ish is their candidate? Both El-Sayed and Barack Obama are supported by the Muslim Brotherhood directly. Both El-Sayed and Barack Obama campaigned for Senate in the mid-term election (BO ’06, ES ’26), and both Barack Obama and El-Sayed planned to run for higher office in 2nd year of their freshman term as senator.
The media now begin their fawning endeavor as the Muslim Brotherhood backed Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed tries to moderate himself in the image of Barack Hussein Obama. I find it a little revealing that El-Sayed’s wife is a doctor who refuses to treat Medicare and Medicaid patients (cash only), as El-Sayed campaigns on Medicare for all. Of course, don’t look for the media to point this out during questioning. Notice also the Middle East nations that El-Sayed criticizes (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Pakistan) are the Mid-East nations who have pushed back or banned the Muslim Brotherhood. This is very revealing for those who walk the political deep weeds. By the way, he’s a paper doctor; a Phd, not an MD. WATCH:
[Transcript] – KRISTEN WELKER: And joining me now is Michigan’s Democratic Senate nominee, Abdul El-Sayed. Dr. El-Sayed, welcome to Meet the Press.
DR. ABDUL EL-SAYED: Thanks for having me.
KRISTEN WELKER: Thank you so much for being here and congratulations. Let’s talk about your victory this week. You narrowly defeated Congresswoman Haley Stevens. And when you actually add up all of the votes, the vote totals that went to Stevens and Mallory McMorrow, a majority of voters actually ended up voting for candidates who are more moderate than you. So how do you win over those voters who voted for someone else?
DR. ABDUL EL-SAYED: Well, thank you, Kristen. Really, we’re just grateful for everybody who participated. And the overwhelming recognition of the vote tallies is that 500,000 more Democrats voted than did Republicans in that election. And if that happens, we are going to win in a landslide. Now I know that we had it out with a very tough primary. There were a lot of issues that were discussed and differences that were identified and fixated on. But I will tell you this, that all of us agree that our differences are far smaller than what we agree on.
And what we agree on is that Donald Trump has been an existential threat to our democracy. He is costing us jobs. He is costing us more at almost every aspect of our lives, whether it’s our gas, our groceries, or our health care, and that Mike Rogers is going to be nothing more than a rubber stamp on Donald Trump’s disastrous economic and foreign policies. And so this is an opportunity for us to come together to mend fences, to build together the coalition that is going to defeat Mike Rogers in November and defeat Trumpism over the next two years.
KRISTEN WELKER: Well, let me ask you about some news that we’re learning this morning. Local outlets reporting that you spoke to former President Barack Obama on the phone. I know you’re not going to give me every detail of the call. But what was the crux of his message to you, Dr. El-Sayed?
DR. ABDUL EL-SAYED: Well, Kristen, you’re right. I like to keep private conversations private. But it was a really warm and inspiring conversation. I’ve got to be honest with you. I never saw myself ever able to run for public office. I literally told former President Bill Clinton that at my college graduation, in which I was the senior speaker and he was the main speaker. And I then watched the next year Barack Hussein Obama run for and win the presidency. I watched him serve with a level of class, a level of elegance that we could only pine for now. So I really enjoyed the conversation. I was grateful for his advice. It was very warm and very inviting. And I know that he knows the critical role that Michigan is going to play in holding Trump accountable, in winning back the Senate, and in building forward the future that we need.
KRISTEN WELKER: Is he going to campaign with you, Dr. El-Sayed?
DR. ABDUL EL-SAYED: Look, I really hope so. And it was a really good conversation about what we need to do to be able to win. And obviously, this is somebody who knows a lot about winning Michigan.
KRISTEN WELKER: And just to be clear, do you anticipate he’ll show up on the campaign trail with you? Is that one of the broad topics you all discussed?
DR. ABDUL EL-SAYED: Look, we talked a lot about what it’ll take to win. Obviously, his presence here in Michigan would mean so much to the coalition that helped elect him. So I hope that we get to campaign together.
Clean up in aisle 4! Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed just made a mess in an interview with Kristen Welker on NBC’s Meet the Press, and let’s just say his handlers have some fixing to do. One of El-Sayed’s signature issues is “Medicare for All.” It’s an issue that El-Sayed loves to mention but doesn’t like to talk about in detail. One reason is that it’s not good for sound bites. Once you get into the details of Medicare, it gets complex, bureaucratic, and boring. None of those things work well in media interviews. But there are other reasons he’d rather not talk at length about his health coverage ideas, and it became clearer when Welker pressed him on it.
Calling him “Doctor,” Welker told El-Sayed that everyday Americans worry that to make Medicare universal would mean tax hikes for everyone, not just the rich. El-Sayed dismissively tried to give Welker a quick sound bite in the hope she’d move on when he said, “As I’ve said across this campaign, I am for taxing billionaires their wealth.” But Welker wasn’t done. She said, “What about people who make less than a billion and less than a million dollars?” El-Sayed responded:
“So, for the average person, when you look at your W2, if you’re an employee who gets paid every two weeks or four weeks, after you pay your taxes, the next biggest check that comes off the top of your pay stub is to your health insurance company. So, imagine instead of paying that to your health insurance company, whose CEO makes $20 million a year, instead you paid a little bit more in taxes for healthcare that you wouldn’t lose if you lost your job or turned 26 or got married or got divorced.
I think all of us would be a lot more interested in that kind of a system if we knew that our healthcare would be free at the point of care and would be free without having to worry about losing it, in general.So, there’s an opportunity here, I think, to trade what we give to a big corporation, who gets to decide who we get to see and who we don’t, for a little bit more paid into FICA. And I think that’s a trade that’s worth making. I think the broader public understands that that’s a trade worth making considering how many people are holding medical debt, a third of all Michigan households right now.”
Welker reinforced her earlier point, saying, “Just to be very clear, you’re describing this trade-off. You are effectively acknowledging that people making less than a million dollars could see their taxes go up. I just want to be very clear.” His non-answers to her questions were a de facto confirmation of Welker’s suspicions. What El-Sayed said pretty clearly was to trust the government more than your insurance company, and that yes, your taxes will go up under his plan.
Something that rarely comes up when “Medicare for All” is discussed is what Medicare does not cover. Anyone who’s turned 65 and applied for Medicare knows that Medicare is hardly an apples-to-apples replacement for the kind of health insurance you may have gotten through your employer.
Medicare does not automatically include eye care, dental care, and certain prescription coverage. If retirees pay more, and most do, they can enroll in a Part C or Medicare Advantage plan that covers more. But even there, Medicare Advantage is only one option and may not be as good as your existing health insurance. Some opt not to go with Medicare Advantage, instead going with a more expensive Medigap or another alternative plan that they feel is closer to what they’re used to.
As for El-Sayed’s comments that by paying the government more for your Medicare, you’re not paying some private health insurance company, that’s often not true at all. Medicare Advantage plans and other supplemental plans are usually administered by private health insurance companies, and so you likely still would be lining the coffers of some private insurance company. What all of this means is that while El-Sayed wants Americans to think they’re getting health insurance comparable to what they’ve had, and all they need to do is pay the government more in the form of higher taxes, that’s likely not what it would look like in practice.
Welker also asked him about his BFF, Hasan Piker, who’s been right at his side throughout this campaign. Walking a political tightrope, El-Sayed sought to distance himself from Piker’s words but not from the pathetic Piker himself.
BREAKING: An Abdul El-Sayed supporter said voters are “stupid” and the best way to win is to hide the truth.
Abdul El-Sayed and Hasan Piker nodded in agreement.
During that same interview with Welker, El-Sayed distanced himself from Piker’s comments when he said that “America deserved 9/11.” When Welker asked the senatorial candidate for comment, he told her that Piker’s comments were “dumb.”
Of course, it was a dumb statement and of course I think Hasan himself would say that was a dumb statement. He disavowed it. So yes, America didn’t deserve 9/11, but you know, to sit here and play gotcha politics with a dumb thing somebody said out of context that they disavowed themselves — to say, ‘Oh well, what does that mean about what you think?’ I want to be held accountable for what I say and what I do, rather than this idea that we’re so stuck in cancel culture that all of us agreed was a bad idea back in 2020, but we seem to want to bring back, El-Sayed said. The leftist news site Politico had a slightly different take on El-Sayed’s comments:
El-Sayed’s comments are a stark difference from his interview with POLITICO earlier this year in which he declined to denounce Piker’s views in what he called a “gotcha game.””I’m not here to disavow people’s views,” El-Sayed said at the time. “This whole gotcha game, platform policing, cancel culture — I thought we were over it.”The Napoleonesque Senate candidate would not say one way or the other whether he’d continue to campaign with Piker, trying like the devil to get Welker to change the subject, saying that it doesn’t matter who he campaigns with. He said he’s “a lot more concerned about who I’m campaigning to.”
NBC: Hasan Piker has said "America deserved 9/11," do you plan to continue to campaign with him?
EL-SAYED: "I'm less concerned now with who I'm campaigning with…"
Politico wasn’t buying it, reporting that “El-Sayed’s embrace of Piker, who he said he believes is ‘critical’ for Democrats to embrace, has drawn criticism — from Republicans and Democrats alike.” On yet another front, former first lady “Dr. Jill Biden” once had a press secretary named Michael LaRosa. On Aug. 8, LaRosa bucked his party and publicly endorsed Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) in his bid to become Michigan’s next senator.
While it’s rare for an embedded Democrat operative to so publicly break ranks like this, LaRosa made it crystal clear on the X platform why he was backing Rogers: “I won’t defend or support anyone who is too cowardly to stand up to extremists who think the mother of my best friend, who jumped from 95 stories because the alternative was worse, deserved what happened to her…. Her only crime was showing up to work that morning.”
I refused to defend or support anyone with an SS Totenkampf tattoo, simply because they had a "D" next to their name.
I won't defend or support anyone who is too cowardly to stand up to extremists who think the mother of my best friend, who jumped from 95 stories because the… https://t.co/hC6s7W7PfK
All this adds up to a bad day on at least one Sunday show for the upstart candidate who is starting to look like the Michigan version of Graham Platner without the Nazi tattoo, the sexting, and all the other sex stuff. Judging him by the company he keeps, his refusal to distance himself from some seriously anti-American actors, and his clunky responses to straightforward questions, it’s clear that he’s got tougher days ahead. The truth is that the Sunday shows are very kind to Democrats. If he couldn’t hit a figurative home run in his first interview with Welker since winning his primary race, he’s got some weaknesses and vulnerabilities that the Rogers campaign and Republicans can exploit more fully in the coming months.
Hasan Piker, a close ally of Abdul El-Sayed, is calling for “Marxist-Leninist” punishment for those who criticize Michigan’s Democratic senatorial candidate. As radicals and anti-Semites like Piker flood the Democratic Party, establishment figures are struggling to justify their alliance with extremist candidates. Ironically, Democrats are now fulfilling the false narrative that they used against President Donald Trump after the Charlottesville protests. They are maintaining that there are “many fine people” in the DSA despite their seeking to destroy our constitutional system, open our borders, defund the police, and embrace virtual anarchy.
Now, some of these fine people are calling for moderates to be purged as radicals take over the Democratic Party. In 2017, the media manufactured a controversy by suggesting that Trump had praised neo-Nazis and Klansmen in 2017 as “fine people” in Charlottesville. It was demonstrably false, but became the accepted truth in the media. In reality, Trump condemned the neo-Nazis, and the statement about “fine people on both sides” was in reference to the people on both sides of the debate over the removal of historic statues.
That narrative took on an added hypocrisy when some of the loudest voices later endorsed a candidate with an actual Nazi tattoo who allegedly assaulted women, mocked wounded veterans, and praised terrorists. However, he promised to deliver Maine and bring figures like Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren back to power.
Anti-Semites and communists are not “fine” additions to any party. Hasan Piker is not a “fine person” in any universe. He has said that the United States deserved the terrorist attacks on 9-11 and prominently displays a picture of the collapsing Twin Towers. He has downplayed the murders and rapes of innocent Israelis on Oct. 7th and called one Jewish man who challenged him a “bloodthirsty, violent pig dog.” Figures like Harris and Buttigieg brush off El-Sayed’s allies, including Mohammad Baqer Qazwini, a prominent Muslim cleric who gave a sermon that called for followers to vote for El-Sayed while also calling upon them to pray for the death of President Donald Trump and to celebrate the death of Sen. Lindsey Graham.
Then there is the Democratic House candidate in New York, Darializa Avila Chevalier, a prison abolitionist who boasted how she wiped her hands on the American flag in lieu of a napkin. Chevalier and other DSA candidates are being welcomed in the Democratic Party despite anti-American views and a DSA platform calling for the destruction of our constitutional system, including scrapping the Supreme Court, the presidency, and the Senate. Many are also overwhelmingly anti-Israel, with many, like Piker, displaying virulent anti-Semitism.
When asked about the extreme agenda of these candidates, Schumer and others repeat the mantra that they need to win in the upcoming elections. In other words, the DSA is opposed to the core institutions and values of this country, but it could be useful in returning them to power. What is interesting is that the establishment does not appear to care what these radicals represent for their party, but the radicals care deeply about what the establishment represents. This week, former DNC Vice-chair David Hogg told establishment figures that the “Big Tent” of his party is not big enough for them. He and other moderates have to go.
When asked about Democratic moderates, Hogg replied, “They don’t have the right values.” Piker has even grander plans for our post-constitutional republic, calling for mass arrests, demanding pledges from establishment figures to “arrest and prosecute every prominent member of the Trump administration” who engaged in what he views as corruption as well as “every ICE agent who committed crimes on the job.” Piker also wants to purge any Democrats who do not support El-Sayed, calling them “haters” who deserved to be punished:
“There are haters in our ranks. Notice how whenever someone comes out and says, ‘Yeah that’s actually a bad association,’ immediately it’s weaponized by the Republicans. You can’t be out here saying like, ‘Oh, I’m a centrist Democrat. And I think Abdul is a bridge too far.’ That must be punished.” Piker, who likes to parade around in a Mao jacket, seems to be longing for the good old days of party purges under Stalin and his contemporaries in the Comintern.
He notably accused critics of the sin of “factionalism.” Since the Jacobins of the French Revolution, factionalism has been the scourge of revolutionaries. In my book, Rage and the Republic, I discuss the difference between the American and French Revolutions. Where James Madison saw factions as a natural part of a democratic system, the Jacobins sought them as a traitorous and reactionary element. Madison saw compromise as the best solution to factions, while the Jacobins saw the guillotine as the final solution.
Piker is right out of that Jacobin tradition, calling moderate Democrats “Koch payroll ‘liberals’” and “irredeemable.” (Notably, the Jacobins also pushed for some of the same DSA demands such as a unicameral legislature). Of course, conservatives can show the same intolerance for RINOs (Republicans in Name Only), but there is an added menacing element to communists calling for mass expulsion or punishment of moderates from their party. It is chillingly familiar.
Mao regularly purged the Communist Party of those not following the party lines, declaring, “Serious offenders should be punished by law, and when they are Party members they should also be dealt with according to Party discipline.” Establishment figures continue to use the “Big Tent” narratives to brush off questions about the radical agenda and associations of these candidates. The only thing that they have in common is the desire for power. Once these candidates win, figures like Schumer will discover that this tent is not nearly as big as they think.
Almost since US President Donald Trump started his second and final term, the movement that brought him to power twice has been fracturing. Now there is a full break among Make America Great Again (MAGA) supporters. Its essence is simple: There are those who continue to identify MAGA with Trump, and on the other side of a widening chasm, those who remain loyal to MAGA but believe that Trump has not. The rebels say Trump has betrayed the cause and want to save MAGA – and thus the US – from Trump.
There are no official structures yet to what the MAGA dissidents call their movement, but it does have a de facto leader – popular journalist and podcast host Tucker Carlson. It was at Tucker’s all-American place in Maine that the MAGA schism was made official. There, several key figures of the evolving MAGA-against-Trump group met, and in effect, raised the standard of rebellion. Not literally, but in the shape of an X post by former US Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (with 5.4 million followers). It featured a carefully composed picture of a merry rebel crew, including, apart from herself, Joe Kent, former counterterrorism tsar under Trump, Representative Thomas Massie, a long-term conservative Trump opponent, and Carlson, sitting at the head of the table.
Within days after the post, Carlson released a video manifesto with the title “It’s Time to Save America” on his own Tucker Carlson Network social media channel (with 5.2 million subscribers on YouTube). Within one day, it had over a million views on YouTube alone. In a rhetorical master class for the podcast age, Carlson sketched the American present as a dead-end of extraordinary decadence and degradation, a loss of reality among the establishment, and “paralysis and looting.”
He also predicted that change is inevitable if Americans want to avoid the “end-of-everything,” either by nuclear war or uncontrolled AI. He warned that even preventing this apocalypse by timely political action could produce great violence, that is, a revolution. And finally, he presented his alternative to both the end of the world and wild upheaval in ten concise points. Ranging from “fairness” to “unity,” his ten points were more a clarion call for national renewal than a concrete policy outline, with aims general enough to form a broad consensus, as he acknowledged.
Much of his ten points read like MAGA 2.0, that is, without Trump, as observers noted. On issues such as physical and mental health, the need for the economy to make actually useful things instead of just surveillance tech, weapons of war, and financial gimmicks, the beauty of the American landscape and architecture in need of restoration, Carlson’s impassioned pleas echoed the conservatism that is one root of the MAGA phenomenon.
Ultimately, what will be more important is where things differ: One of Carlson’s points was about sovereignty, or as he defined it, being “free from outside influence.” It is this point that provides the key to all the others. The ten points are, in essence, a declaration of independence, not just from any outside influence, but from Israel and its powerful US lobby. Carlson directly named them as forming one of America’s worst problems. For starters, he did not simply attack a selfish upper class whose members behave as if they were kings, above the rules of law and ethics. He called it the “Epstein class,” with reference to the late convicted pedophile, alleged suicide victim, self-declared Rothschild representative, and close associate of alleged Israeli rapists and intelligence.
Carlson also correctly linked the Iran War – a “strategic disaster” worse than Vietnam, as another realistic American recently stated – to “bribery or threat or both by Israel.” Equally plausibly, he accused Israel of committing genocide – like Nazi Germany, he said – and protested against continuing US support. Finally, the activities of lobbies, with that of Israel not alone, but in the lead, “gives the lie to the idea of representative democracy,” according to Carlson, because where lobbyists make the decisions, the voters do not.
In short, Carlson made the point that America’s worst military defeat in living memory, its support for – and really, participation in – an ongoing genocide, and its loss of sovereignty and democracy are all due, either entirely or to a large extent, to the US establishment’s perverse and deeply unpatriotic relationship to Israel. Politically, this amounts to an arguably long overdue declaration of war against the Zionist state’s aggressive influence operations.
And the message has gotten through. Haaretz, Israel’s ‘liberal’ paper of record, rapidly dedicated a long opinion piece to Carlson, accusing him of – surprise, surprise – “anti-Semitism.” This is an absurd smear, but expected. Systematically misrepresenting criticism of Israel, a genocidal apartheid state, as hatred of Jews is an old, stale Zionist tactic. Carlson certainly isn’t naïve. Even in his ten points, he anticipated being called a “Nazi” and shrugged it off.
But Haaretz does get one thing right. For Carlson and his growing movement, “Israel and its American supporters also represent a central source of the [MAGA] movement’s betrayal [by Trump].” Or, put differently, Carlson represents an American conservatism that has the courage to identify, name, and attack America’s insane dependence on a tiny yet immensely subversive and violent rogue state.
There is, no doubt, much idealizing and even nostalgia in Carlson’s image of American history and the West. And those wishing to be woke about an arch-conservative will find rich pickings. But that is futile and dull, because it is not the point that matters. What matters is that US polls have consistently shown a great, unprecedented groundswell against Israel. A new book on Israel’s US lobby is about to come out and is making a massive splash. The tide is turning.
Fellow MAGA rebel Joe Kent let it slip that Tucker-for-president is an option. Third parties are a difficult proposition. Yet Haaretz for one is worried, and from a Zionist point of view, it should be. And that is very good news.
I have a dream that American farmers, drillers, miners, industrialists, and manufacturers produce everything that American consumers need. I have a dream that anything worth building is built in America, that any job worth doing is done in America, and that anything worth buying can be found and shipped within the United States.
Why did we allow ourselves to be convinced that Americans should make only a few select things and buy everything else from foreign markets? Why did we allow politicians and Wall Street investors to convince us that “free trade” requires slave labor from faraway lands? Why did we spend a century ensuring safer work environments and more dependable wages for our skilled tradesmen only to export those jobs to adversarial nations that care nothing about worker safety or providing above-subsistence standards of living? Why did we fight a Cold War in defense of freedom only to subsidize Chinese communism? Why do we regulate ourselves to death in the name of “fighting global warming,” while China and India inflict the worst environmental damage on the planet?
Prove these statements wrong: There is no worker on the planet more capable than an American. There is no nation of people more innovative than the United States. There is nothing that Americans import from other nations that Americans can’t discover, create, grow, or produce on their own. There is no country on the planet with more educational infrastructure than the United States. There is no country on the planet with a greater incentive to defend its way of life.
I believe that Establishment politicians and multinational investment firms sold us a bill of goods when they told us that “free trade” deals, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, would provide American households greater prosperity. I believe that those politicians and Wall Street investors lied when they told us that the United States would become a “service economy” and that blue-collar workers would find personal fulfillment as customer service representatives, real estate agents, telephone operators, data technicians, and software coders.
I believe that politicians and Big Ag corporations lie when they insist that only illegal aliens are willing to sweat in farm fields. I believe that politicians who ignore federal law by establishing “sanctuary cities” and NGOs that aid and abet human smuggling into the United States lie when they say that some jobs are “too dirty” for Americans to take. I believe Establishment politicians and Wall Street titans have spent fifty years lying to the American people about the kinds of jobs that Americans should do.
The economy of the United States did not surpass that of the United Kingdom until the third year of WWI in 1916. While the U.K. had been the engine for the global economy for two centuries, America held an inimitable distinction: No other country in the world had maintained higher rates of both intra- and inter-generational mobility. The American Experiment created an ideal environment for innovation, hard work, investment, and private ownership. Individual workers advanced up the economic ladder during their own lifetimes, and their children and grandchildren ascended even farther. In a few generations, farmers became tradesmen who became merchants who became bankers, lawyers, ministers, and politicians. Respect for private property and a rejection of European social castes made America a land of opportunity.
Since the creation of the Federal Reserve in a rigged Christmas vote in 1913, the American system has been upended. Bankers created a monopoly for themselves to manipulate the value of the American dollar. They, in turn, set the monetary system down a path toward inevitable decoupling from the gold standard. Dollar-printing (and government spending) decreased the value of personal savings and artificially juiced the currency-denominated value of homes, stocks, and other assets — effectively transferring wealth from the poorest Americans to the wealthiest.
As inflation steadily kicked in, central bankers and corporation-controlled politicians looked for ways to limit the rising costs of American goods. They artificially increased demand for the dollar by linking it to oil revenues, offshored American manufacturing to low-wage or slave-wage foreign nations, decreased the quality of finished products, and replaced small businesses with a handful of multinational corporate monopolies. Each of these “band-aids” has preserved Wall Street’s internal mechanisms for generating profits, while destroying the engine of American ingenuity and the physical infrastructure of American industry, manufacturing, and real economic growth.
The end result has been that — in charts and graphs — America has appeared to maintain an advanced economy that has consistently grown through the decades, even though its industrial towns have collapsed into rusty graveyards. If you separate the economy of the United States into two separate lines on a graph — one for Main Street businesses across the country and one for multinational businesses running Wall Street — it becomes obvious that small American businesses have had no growth (or negative growth) for decades. While the costs of their raw materials, employees, government regulations, and taxes have continued to rise, their profits have dwindled.
The engine of American growth in the real economy has been sputtering and dying, while artificially inflated valuations of Wall Street assets have been disguising America’s economic infirmity. Wall Street has become the Potemkin economy hiding America’s loss of industrial strength. This is no way for a superpower to endure. The United States cannot survive if it is dependent on communist China for chemicals, medicines, circuit boards, electrical components, clothing, machinery, and furniture.
The United States and the European Union are the two largest Western economies of the 21st century. Over the past two decades, however, their economic trajectories have diverged significantly.This line chart below, via Visual Capitalist’s Gabriel Cohen, tracks the gross domestic product (GDP) of the EU and U.S. economies from 2006 to 2026 using the latest figures available from the International Monetary Fund (IMF)’s World Economic Outlook. Figures for 2026 are forecasts.
The Early Rise and Fall of the EU
The 15-member European Union was established in 1993 from precursor organizations such as the European Communities. In 2004, 10 new member states joined, followed by Bulgaria and Romania in 2007. Aided by the addition of these new member states, along with strong British and German economies, the EU s total GDP reached $19.3 trillion in 2008. This represented 131% of the U.S. economy that year, which stood at $14.8 trillion. The euro also reached an all-time high in June 2008 at roughly $1.55. The table below shows the size of the EU economy relative to the U.S. economy from 2006 to 2026.
The global financial crisis and Great Recession changed the European Union’s fortunes.
The newly expanded bloc faced severe challenges as several member-state governments struggled to service their debts or rein in large structural deficits. These countries included eurozone members Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, and Spain. Through a combination of multilateral bailouts and austerity measures, the EU weathered the crisis. However, in the years that followed, the 28-member bloc s aggregate GDP contracted, and the $18.3 trillion U.S. economy surpassed it in 2015. Part of the decline in dollar-denominated GDP also reflected changes in exchange rates as the euro weakened against the U.S. dollar.
Brexit and the Years of Decline
Further challenges followed. In a June 2016 referendum, British voters narrowly chose to make the United Kingdom the first country to withdraw from the European Union. The Brexit process culminated in the UK s formal withdrawal in January 2020. Losing the UK dealt another blow to the EU’s aggregate economy. Although the country had never joined the eurozone, it was the EU ]’s second-largest member economy. Combined with the COVID-19 pandemic, Brexit helped push the bloc’s GDP down to $15.5 trillion in 2020, roughly where it had stood a decade earlier.
A
s the UK economy has struggled through much of the 2020s, some in London have begun to float the possibility of rejoining the EU. Other European countries, including Albania and Montenegro, remain potential future entrants to the bloc.
The Post-Pandemic Divergence
Since the pandemic, the U.S. and European Union have followed very different trajectories. Despite inflation and high interest rates, the U.S. economy rebounded strongly from COVID and is forecast to reach $32.4 trillion in 2026. Meanwhile, the EU has faced a combination of rising Chinese industrial competition and an energy crisis stemming from Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. With economic heavyweight Germany facing protracted stagnation, the EU s GDP is forecast to reach $23 trillion in 2026.
That leaves the EU economy at just 71% the size of the U.S. economy, a sharp reversal from its position in 2008. Exchange rates account for part of the shift, but weaker growth and a series of economic shocks have also contributed to the widening gap.
Reading excerpts from Anthony Fauci’s ill-advised diary, saved on government servers, it’s clear to me above all that he’s a money-grubbing, narcissistic liar.Fauci helped fund the Wuhan Level 4 Virology Lab, knowing full well that the lab was tinkering with bat viruses. And when the Chinese Communist lab loosed COVID-19 upon the world, wee Tony felt two overwhelming urges: the immediate urge to cover his butt, and a burning and probably lifelong desire for the little rat to finally become a big cheese.
So Fauci lied about the virus’s origins, and pressured other spineless scientists to agree that the “novel,” i.e., never before seen, virus came from some Wuhan local enjoying bat soup or a pangolin hero, and not the obvious source, a nearby Fauci-funded virology lab. To believe that, you’d have to be a Democrat, one of their media handmaidens, or a complete moron, but I repeat myself.After all, those folks are all fond of fairy tales, telling us it’s fine for men to beat up female athletes, Muslims were instrumental in founding America, ObamaCare lets you keep your doctor and your plan, and Joe Biden’s Stage 4 prostate cancer was only recently discovered.
Having dodged all accountability for helping create COVID-19, Fauci then set about becoming, in his own words, “one of the most recognizable persons in the world.” Napoleon much, Tony?In this he was successful, making stuff up left and right, changing the common meaning of words, and becoming fabulously wealthy in the process. Estimates are that while millions were dying from COVID, 7-8 million dollars somehow found their way into Tony’s pocket. Who says crime doesn’t pay?
Fauci first stated – correctly — that masks wouldn’t prevent the spread of an airborne virus. Then he backtracked, saying that it was a necessary white lie, so the rubes wouldn’t cause a mask shortage for health professionals. Now, masks became absolutely necessary for everyone. In fact, two masks were better than one. As a dentist for forty-three years, I was outraged by Fauci’s mask theater, knowing that the paper masks I wore daily had pores big enough for any virus to get through, N-95 masks (which allow 5% of small particles like viruses to go through) made it hard for me to breathe, and only a moron would walk around wearing two masks.
Fauci then made up the six-foot “social distancing” and “no handshake” rules and again, a sneeze can send saliva twenty-eight feet or so, and the Wuhan Flu was acquired by breathing viral aerosols, not skin-to-skin contact. Feeling his power and fame growing, Fauci then got serious about running things. He and his “public health” pals shut down the country and then, with the avid support of Democrats frothing at the mouth to take down President Trump, crashed the economy and arbitrarily determined winners and losers.
Winners were government workers who got paid whether they worked or not; big box stores (I painted and landscaped my entire new home during the pandemic); rubber glove and medical mask producers; teachers unions whose members were paid for (not) remotely learning, liquor stores; the mostly peaceful and mask-exempt rioters of BLM, and the despicable fake-news media, loudly trumpeting body counts and blaming it all on Trump. And all the while, rivers of sweet, sweet moolah flowed into Dr. and Mrs. Fauci’s bank accounts.
Losers were the poor nursing home patients in states where the likes of “Handy Andy” Cuomo forced such facilities to accept patients regardless of COVID status, small business owners, movie theaters, museums, music venues, churches, synagogues, and mosques, folks who were denied routine medical and dental care and later paid the price, people suffering from anxiety who became full-fledged hypochondriacs and, after manually disinfecting their groceries, lit St. Fauci votive candles; and most of all, kids.
During the pandemic, the smallest and most vulnerable among us were denied proper education, normal social development, and even being out in the great outdoors. All this unnecessary and inestimable damage to our children — for a disease which killed Americans who were, on average, seventy-eight years old and had multiple comorbidities! St. Fauci wasn’t done, though. He forced a vaccine on Americans that failed to prevent either catching COVID or transmitting it — by definition, a failed vaccine — but did cause countless deaths and severe illnesses, countless because no one in the public-health hierarchy was much interested in counting them or informing the public. As a health professional, I was one of the first people (double) vaccinated, before coming down with COVID. Twice.
Did my vaccinations lessen the severity of my disease? Totally conjectural, something impossible to prove since the virus was constantly mutating and is currently just another flu bug. And despite mounting perhaps the worst pandemic response in recorded history, Little Lord Fauci somehow found time to chat up known intellectuals Barbara Streisand and Julia Roberts, have “friendship-building” dinners with so-called journalists Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, and attend a pro baseball game with two pals when no one else was allowed admittance, a game where he both took his mask off to talk to his friends and threw possibly the lamest first pitch in major league baseball history, almost as short and crooked as Fauci himself.
It must have been wonderful for Tony, watching his stature, er… social stature, and net worth grow even as millions of lives were lost, ruined, or damaged. But, sadly, the party’s now over. Anyone with eyes to see now realizes what an evil, selfish, and undoubtedly criminal man Anthony Fauci is. Whoever ran old, senile Joe Biden — Jill? The Chicoms? — certainly agreed with my assessment. They gave Fauci a blanket pardon for any and all crimes he committed during his reign of error. So, who will judge Anthony Fauci for his crimes against humanity?Democrats? Republican politicians? The courts? No, nothing’s going to happen to the incredibly wealthy and still quite popular Anthony Fauci, once the most recognizable name in the world. The Swamp protects its own.
Now, I’m seventy-three, and with multiple comorbidities, I can see the finish line. A deeply flawed man, I just hope that when it comes to my final judgment, the good I did in life outweighs the bad.By this coming Christmas, Anthony Fauci will be eighty-six. And if, like me, you’re outraged at all the damage done by a pencil-pushing bureaucrat who never even treated patients and became fabulously wealthy and popular doing it, relax. Because poor little Tony Fauci surely has tremors, night sweats, and insomnia, pondering his final judgment.
Caroline Sunshine went on CNN’s Newsnight this week and said the quiet part out loud about Dr. Fauci, and as you can imagine, the panel was none too pleased about it. The former Trump 2024 campaign press aide told her fellow panelists that Fauci is a textbook sociopath. “Forget about prosecuting him,” Sunshine said on CNN’s Newsnight. “The guy should be in a mental institution. He’s a textbook sociopath.” Naturally, the room fell apart.
Podcast host Leigh McGowan could only manage a stunned “What?” Sunshine pressed forward anyway, and laid out her diagnosis in clinical terms. “DSM-5 level sociopath who was running our pandemic response, low empathy, ability to inflict pain on innocents, narcissism,” she said. “Are you suggesting that he should be in a mental institution for having an ego?” host Abby Phillip asked, downplaying the charge as something that would describe just about everyone in Washington. The whole misery loves company thing.
But Sunshine’s point had nothing to do with ego. Fauci kept a diary through the darkest stretch of the pandemic, and he filled it with something other than grief for the country he was supposedly serving. “He writes in his diary at the height of the pandemic, when Americans aren’t allowed to see grandma dying of COVID, what is Anthony Fauci writing about? ‘The media is so hot for me.’ ‘I’ve had so many articles written about me.’”
Sarah Matthews, Trump’s former deputy press secretary, jumped to Fauci’s defense and reminded the table that she actually worked with him at the White House. “There is one person at this table who worked with Dr. Fauci,” Matthews said. “I was Trump’s deputy press secretary during COVID.” She admitted it was “very frustrating” watching Fauci land magazine covers and TV hits criticizing the administration’s COVID response, but she chalked it up to a novel virus and a government improvising in real time.
Sunshine was not buying the excuse. “You couldn’t keep him off TV,” she said. “You were in the press office. You would know.” Even Phillip could not resist a jab of her own, suggesting Fauci might have been drinking his own Kool-Aid. Sunshine turned that line right back on the panel. “You all in the media, you were in love with him,” she said. “You were in love with a narcissist. I’m sorry. I’m sorry for you guys.”
Here’s the thing: None of what Sunshine said is wrong. We know what Fauci’s diary entries say. They aren’t the private notes of a public health official managing a national crisis with the good of the nation in mind. They’re more like the confessions of a man drunk on his own celebrity. This guy tracked his magazine covers. He counted his headlines. He measured his own importance in press clips while hospitals kept grieving families away from relatives dying of COVID-19. He even detailed his efforts to profit from the pandemic with cash awards.
Those entries also undercut the image Fauci spent years building. He cared more about protecting his own reputation than telling Americans the truth, including about where the virus came from in the first place. Fauci spent years treating the lab leak theory as a fringe conspiracy, only to watch his credibility collapse once his own communications and diary entries surfaced. Sunshine said an uncomfortable truth, and the CNN panel could not handle hearing it out loud. That reaction tells you everything about how deep the media’s investment in protecting him still runs.
President Donald Trump’s political stature is so poor right now that he has squandered the Republican Party’s advantage on two major issues that almost always favor the GOP: the economy and national security. A Reuters-Ipsos poll this week showed Democrats and Republicans virtually tied on “war, foreign conflicts and terrorism.” The GOP led on that issue by 11 points after the 2024 election. Today, 37% of US adults say Democrats have a better approach, compared to 36% who say the GOP does.
Fox News polling a couple weeks back showed something very similar: On national security, 50% of registered voters preferred the GOP, to 48% who preferred the Democratic Party. That’s compared to a 12-point edge for Republicans in January, before the Iran war. Both recent findings are within the margin of error. But the numbers even being that close is basically unheard of. Fox polling has regularly tested how registered voters compare the two parties on terrorism and national security. Until the Iran war, Democrats had never even been within double-digits of the Republican Party on either issue.
Republicans have also led consistently on national security in Gallup polling. Democrats only nosed ahead on that issue once in the 21st century: in 2007. Gallup’s data on which party is better on “international terrorism and military threats” has been even more lopsided in the GOP’s favor. Across 22 polls conducted since a year after 9/11, Democrats have led on that issue only once — again, in 2007 — and most of the time Republicans led by double-digits. And then there’s the economy.
The most recent Fox survey showed Democrats leading on that issue by nine points, 54%-45%. That was the biggest Democratic advantage since 2006, when they led by 20 points. And when they took a lead on the economy back in April, it marked the first time they were ahead since 2010, shortly after the 2008 financial crisis that began during the George W. Bush administration. CNN polling back in May showed a closer split between the two parties on the economy, with 35% of adults preferring Democrats, compared to 33% who preferred the GOP. The poll previously asked people to choose between congressional Republicans and congressional Democrats. The last time Republicans didn’t lead on that question was 2009.
The numbers on both fronts seem to illustrate that Trump greatly miscalculated the fallout from launching the Iran war — as well as other controversial policies like his global tariffs. By launching the tariffs, he effectively took ownership of whatever became of the economic picture. Then he compounded negative public sentiment by basically shrugging off any responsibility to address Americans’ inflation concerns. Now he’s contending with a still-stagnant economic picture, with the economy shedding 23,000 jobs in July. Americans don’t love Democrats; in fact, the blue side remains pretty unpopular in polls. So the fact that they’ve apparently taken a lead on the economy really says something.
And the national security numbers might be even more striking — because Democrats hardly ever even compete with Republicans on the topic. Just as education and health care almost always favor Democrats, national security and defending the homeland are almost always signature GOP issues, and lopsidedly so. That remained true even when Bush launched wars in the Middle East that gradually became pretty unpopular. Trump, though, seems to have botched the Iran war so badly that Americans suddenly see Democrats on equal footing with the GOP — in terms of issues on the GOP’s own turf.
“We have already had cases where AI, assigned a task, decided that the easiest way to solve the problem was to erase the corporations’ customer records ..”
I have always assured readers that in the anti-human digital age, whoever controls the data base controls the “truth,” which will be, and already is, an orchestration serving elite agendas.
Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, an online open encyclopedia that serves to demonize those who speak outside of the official narratives, agrees with me. Sanger in an interview last Friday with the German newspaper Berliner Zeitung said that Wikipedia’s lack of an adequate governance structure allowed “specific ideological viewpoints” to shape its content, turning the online encyclopedia into a “globalist, academic, secular and progressive” consensus.
“Wikipedia was recognized early on as an important propaganda organ.” Jews use it to demonize Israel’s critics, and Sanger reports “what we know as fact, based on all sorts of evidence, is that the CIA has already edited Wikipedia.” “Wikipedia is already compromised. That’s clear,” Sanger admitted. He went on to say the ideological bias embedded in Wikipedia is now being amplified because large language models increasingly rely on its content as a reference source when answering factual queries.
The digital revolution and its offshoot artificial intelligence have created the perfect Orwellian memory hole. I and numerous others have documented books and articles with URLs to online sources only to experience that within a few days of publication the sources no longer exist. This could not happen in print and analogue days. There were huge numbers of sources for every source reference in libraries, newspaper morgues, and private collections. It was impossible to erase reference sources.
The digital revolution rests on the Internet which developed as an open system. This means it can never be secure. Already security concerns are everywhere. The day has already passed that a username and a password sufficed. Now you have to have a code sent by text or email. Then a passkey, and sometimes also voice and face recognition, both of which AI can produce to impersonate you. Scammers progress faster than security, and once quantum computers appear encryption is useless.
The reality with with which we are faced is that information no longer exists in multiple print form. Information no longer exists in material form. It exists somewhere electronically in the cloud. One electromagnetic force can wipe it out, and malefactors and mistakes can erase it.
We have already had cases where AI, assigned a task, decided that the easiest way to solve the problem was to erase the corporations’ customer records. Imagine if that is your bank. What happens to your access to your accounts? Can you pay your bills? Is your automobile insurance cancelled? Do you face foreclosure on your mortgage? Possibly businesses are creating backup systems of some kind, but as they also are digital they too will fail.
The digital revolution was the creation of people devoid of capability to imagine unintended consequences. They are building for us a house of cards. When it collapses, so will organized society. It is merely a matter of time.
Slowly she builds her performance outrage, methodically working through the talking points afore her. Full dramatic acting on display. Lips pursed, bladed eyebrows angled, contempt tone triggered and the intent obvious.
NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya appears on CBS Face the Nation to discuss Mexican poop lettuce, Mexico poop peppers, Illegal Alien measles spread and the weaponized information from health ‘administrators’ around the COVID-19 vaccine. Obviously, with Media Patron Saint Anthony Fauci facing scrutiny, Margaret Brennan defends Fauci as she would if the Lightbringer, Chicago Jesus was disrespected. Combative video and Transcript below:
[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: We’re joined now by the Director of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya. Good morning to you, doctor.
NIH DIRECTOR DR. JAY BHATTACHARYA: Good morning.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And we should mention you are also helping to run the CDC until the new director is sworn in as well.
DR. BHATTACHARYA: Until next Wednesday, yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Until next Wednesday. So let me ask you about a number of things that I think people at home are worried about, particularly around the food supply. The cyclospora outbreak linked to iceberg lettuce from Mexico is now in 15 states. There were two deaths this week due to it. Yesterday, USDA issued an alert for a range of products that may have salmonella, including meat and poultry. 27 states are affected by salmonella, possibly linked to jalapeños, but cilantro, red onion, avocado, also listed in the CDC notice. Albertsons, a grocery store, just recalled some items. There’s risk of salmonella in eggs in Texas, according to the CDC, and then you have the screwworm outbreak affecting beef. This is overwhelming for someone going into a grocery store right now. Why do they seem out of control?
DR. BHATTACHARYA: Well, the- the cyclospora outbreak is larger than in normal years. I mean, in normal years there actually is a- cyclospora cases. The- the two deaths that you mentioned, they happened in late July- late- late June, early July, before we identified this source. And so, folks that are listening, can rest assured, the CDC and the FDA are working hard to trace back exactly where these outbreaks are occurring from, intervening with the- the sort of suppliers to make sure that they don’t- and doing recalls to make sure that the disease doesn’t- the, you know, condition doesn’t spread. I mean, it’s tough. You go to grocery store, you buy lettuce, and you say, “Okay, can I buy the lettuce?”
Article III of the Constitution allows Congress to establish courts below the Supreme Court, which includes federal District and Circuit Courts. If Congress can establish them, it can abolish them. In 1801, in the waning days of John Adams’ presidency, Congress did just that and abolished the district and circuit courts of the District of Columbia.
These two courts display widespread intransigent partisanship and demonstrably poor scholarship, exemplified by this week’s ruling on the new White House construction. Given the difficulty of removing so many bad judges in these two courts by impeaching them, it’s time to repeat John Adams’ move: Abolish these courts. Cases that normally would be heard in them should be assigned to courts elsewhere. The case which most showcases the lunacy of the D.C. courts is National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States v. National Park Service, et al. As is often the case in poorly reasoned opinions, the author substitutes words for reason.
As you may know, the old East Wing of the White House which, among other things, contained underground security facilities (bunkers, bomb-shelters, and military and medical infrastructure), presidential offices and some minimal public meeting spaces, was torn down and construction begun on a replacement with a larger number of more modern offices and a ballroom to provide a larger, much-needed entertainment and meeting space, better security facilities, and protection against drone attacks. Up to now, rented tents and outdoor porta potty facilities have had to be utilized for state events, and the assassination attempt at the White House Correspondents Ball surely underscores the need for a safe venue for such things.
Except for the congressional appropriation for the upgraded secure facilities in this new wing, the remainder of the cost is being borne by private contributions to the National Park Service, which is administering these funds. But this is hate Trump city, and Alison Hoagland, a board member of the National Trust, said that she takes monthly walks past the White House and that the aesthetics of the new construction would cause her harm.
In the real world, monthly aesthetic harm to one person’s delicate sensibilities would not upend a needed improvement to the White House grounds, which are exempt by its terms from the National Historic Preservation Act (which establishes the Trust). The litigation has been long and involved back-and-forth court rulings between the district and circuit courts. The courts have now finally agreed the below-ground construction would not be halted, but this week ruled the above-ground work must be, even though that is a structural impossibility and a security (and aesthetic) nightmare.
The first question that every court must decide before proceeding further in any case is whether or not it even has jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter. The majority opinion doesn’t get to this until page 30 of its opinion, and then, for all its flowery verbosity, it got it wrong, just as the dissenting judge notes:
“…the district court had no jurisdiction because the Trust has no standing to stop construction at the White House. The ballroom is also likely within the President’s authority to make improvements to the Executive Residence at the White House. Finally, the balance of equities overwhelmingly favors the government. The district court elevated the aesthetic displeasure of a single passerby over the government’s security interests in the ballroom and the security risks of leaving an open construction site at the President’s home and office.”
In assessing the balance of equities between Ms. Hoagland’s claimed aesthetic harms and the needs of the White House, Judge Rao shows the Court “improperly glossed over, ignored or discounted the government’s evidence demonstrating the security harms from construction of the ballroom.” Nor could it, as Rao noted, “compensate for the slight aesthetic harm by resorting to hyperbole and its view of the legal merits. Every day the project is delayed increases the security risk according to declarations from senior military and Secret Service officials. Moreover, the creation of the above-ground ballroom “will alleviate security vulnerabilities that currently impact large events involving the President.”
As a practical matter, the underground and above-ground facilities cannot be separated out at this point. “The Secretary of the Army has further explained why the underground national security facilities cannot be adequately protected by the concrete slab and modest topping structure allowed by the district court’s injunction… The ballroom’s dimensions and structure are essential for security. According to the Secretary, “[t]o provide adequate subterranean protection without” the “height and mass” of the ballroom, “engineers would need to dig impractically deep.”
…The ballroom provides a critical “dual-layered system” of protection for the national security facilities, “comprising a sacrificial outer cover coupled with a hardened inner structural element.” …Corroborating the Secretary’s account, the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has similarly described how the “height and mass” of the ballroom “provide crucial, physical layers to shield” the national security facilities.
The height of the ballroom will also provide an “essential elevated platform to engage and neutralize aerial systems,” such as drones, that pose an increasingly serious threat to White House security. …There is no dispute that the Secretary’s declaration and the Army Corps memorandum are authentic, credible, and “go[] to the heart of the contested issue,” so it would be “inconsistent with this court’s own equitable obligations to pretend that [they] do[] not exist.”
David Friedberg: Starlink alone could be a trillion-dollar company
"Starlink alone could be generating on the order of $40 billion of revenue top line, with a huge amount of that flowing to free cash. That could be $30 billion in free cash flow within the year."
Elon Musk: “My mind often feels like a very wild storm. I have a fountain of ideas. I have more ideas than I can possibly execute, so I have no shortage of ideas.
Innovation is not the problem, execution is the problem. I’ve got an entire design for an electric supersonic… pic.twitter.com/769gcCsphh
Iran’s IRGC is holding the line, reiterating that the Strait of Hormuz will reopen to international shipping only after the United States accepts all of its conditions, which we outlined previously. Also, on Saturday Iran’s army spokesman Amir Akraminia stated that Iran’s new protocols in the Strait of Hormuz are “irreversible” and shall not be thwarted by the US. “The United States has no choice but to accept the existing situation; otherwise, it will incur costs far greater than those it has faced in the past,” Akraminia said.
On Sunday, a fresh report in The Wall Street Journal states the obvious – that President Trump has fewer and fewer options and is being squeezed, with any opportunity to declare ‘victory’ and make swift exit more elusive than ever, given Washington would have to make huge compromises, including lifting sanctions and paying war compensation to Tehran. Nearly six months ago when the war started, many non-interventionist critics accurately predicted the quagmire and catch-22 the US now finds itself in.
“For weeks, President Trump had been laying the groundwork to declare victory in the Iran war should Tehran fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz, even floating the idea privately to senior aides that he’s willing to walk away without a nuclear deal, U.S. officials said,” WSJ writes.
“But that scaled-back objective became more difficult when Iran insisted Saturday on its highest price yet for permitting the free flow of traffic in the waterway, seeking billions of dollars in U.S. payments, the removal of American troops from the region and an end of the U.S. naval blockade, among other things,” the report adds.
In a parallel vein to this scaled-back, lower grade conflict, President Trump has freshly told Axios in a brief interview that “We are low keying it” in the Persian Gulf. This comes after a week ago he called off ‘planned’ ‘harder’ attacks on Iran, which may have been just a bluff all along. Tehran didn’t blink, and it continues to press for maximal demands – as if to put ‘maximum pressure’ right back on Washington.
“We are only semi-negotiating with them. We are just watching Iran with its huge inflation and the fact they have no money,” Trump claimed. According to more from Axios:
He stressed that Iran “is in very bad shape” economically and has no money to pay its troops. The U.S. naval blockade has exacerbated the Iranian regime’s economic crisis, Trump said. At the same time, Trump said that with oil down to slightly over $75 a barrel, U.S. consumers are feeling less pain from the war. Ironically, this is simply a return to administration talking points which defended the early days and weeks of a war that officials constantly touted would be ‘swift’ and limited.
The US hope was that Iran and its economy would just collapse from within, the masses would take to the streets, and the government of the Ayatollah would be overthrown. This has proven delusional time and again.
Instead, what we see happening is Washington being forced to move its bases back from front line areas in the Gulf, and officials including Trump himself constantly retreating from stated goals, objectives, and red lines. This is on display once again in the Sunday Axios interview:
Axios acknowledges that the new list of Iranian demands have gone from being the prerequisite for a nuclear deal to a prerequisite to opening the Strait. Trump now says the US is “low keying it” and focusing on economic pressure. In other words: the Strait will not be opening. https://t.co/AweQabOB8Wpic.twitter.com/3TMsxXcfh7
A video of Mojtaba Khamenei that was earlier released by the mass media had been shot before he became Iran’s Supreme leader, but he is now in good health and avoids appearing in public due to security considerations, an Iranian source told TASS. “This is an old video. It was made before he became [Supreme] leader,” he said, adding that his health condition is now quite good. “He is in good health and the only reason why he is not seen in public is security reasons,” he stressed.
Earlier, the Iranian Mehr agency released a video featuring Mojtaba Khamenei talking to a group of people who are listening to him attentively. Neither the date nor the venue of the event were indicated. Mojtaba Khamenei became Iran’s Supreme leader after his father, Ali Khamenei, was killed in a missile attack after the United States and Israel’s aggression against Iran.
Extreme leftists and white, female, overeducated, urban communists have one primary prism: how Obama-ish is their candidate? Both El-Sayed and Barack Obama are supported by the Muslim Brotherhood directly. Both El-Sayed and Barack Obama campaigned for Senate in the mid-term election (BO ’06, ES ’26), and both Barack Obama and El-Sayed planned to run for higher office in 2nd year of their freshman term as senator.
The media now begin their fawning endeavor as the Muslim Brotherhood backed Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed tries to moderate himself in the image of Barack Hussein Obama. I find it a little revealing that El-Sayed’s wife is a doctor who refuses to treat Medicare and Medicaid patients (cash only), as El-Sayed campaigns on Medicare for all. Of course, don’t look for the media to point this out during questioning. Notice also the Middle East nations that El-Sayed criticizes (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Pakistan) are the Mid-East nations who have pushed back or banned the Muslim Brotherhood. This is very revealing for those who walk the political deep weeds. By the way, he’s a paper doctor; a Phd, not an MD. WATCH:
[Transcript] – KRISTEN WELKER: And joining me now is Michigan’s Democratic Senate nominee, Abdul El-Sayed. Dr. El-Sayed, welcome to Meet the Press.
DR. ABDUL EL-SAYED: Thanks for having me.
KRISTEN WELKER: Thank you so much for being here and congratulations. Let’s talk about your victory this week. You narrowly defeated Congresswoman Haley Stevens. And when you actually add up all of the votes, the vote totals that went to Stevens and Mallory McMorrow, a majority of voters actually ended up voting for candidates who are more moderate than you. So how do you win over those voters who voted for someone else?
DR. ABDUL EL-SAYED: Well, thank you, Kristen. Really, we’re just grateful for everybody who participated. And the overwhelming recognition of the vote tallies is that 500,000 more Democrats voted than did Republicans in that election. And if that happens, we are going to win in a landslide. Now I know that we had it out with a very tough primary. There were a lot of issues that were discussed and differences that were identified and fixated on. But I will tell you this, that all of us agree that our differences are far smaller than what we agree on.
And what we agree on is that Donald Trump has been an existential threat to our democracy. He is costing us jobs. He is costing us more at almost every aspect of our lives, whether it’s our gas, our groceries, or our health care, and that Mike Rogers is going to be nothing more than a rubber stamp on Donald Trump’s disastrous economic and foreign policies. And so this is an opportunity for us to come together to mend fences, to build together the coalition that is going to defeat Mike Rogers in November and defeat Trumpism over the next two years.
KRISTEN WELKER: Well, let me ask you about some news that we’re learning this morning. Local outlets reporting that you spoke to former President Barack Obama on the phone. I know you’re not going to give me every detail of the call. But what was the crux of his message to you, Dr. El-Sayed?
DR. ABDUL EL-SAYED: Well, Kristen, you’re right. I like to keep private conversations private. But it was a really warm and inspiring conversation. I’ve got to be honest with you. I never saw myself ever able to run for public office. I literally told former President Bill Clinton that at my college graduation, in which I was the senior speaker and he was the main speaker. And I then watched the next year Barack Hussein Obama run for and win the presidency. I watched him serve with a level of class, a level of elegance that we could only pine for now. So I really enjoyed the conversation. I was grateful for his advice. It was very warm and very inviting. And I know that he knows the critical role that Michigan is going to play in holding Trump accountable, in winning back the Senate, and in building forward the future that we need.
KRISTEN WELKER: Is he going to campaign with you, Dr. El-Sayed?
DR. ABDUL EL-SAYED: Look, I really hope so. And it was a really good conversation about what we need to do to be able to win. And obviously, this is somebody who knows a lot about winning Michigan.
KRISTEN WELKER: And just to be clear, do you anticipate he’ll show up on the campaign trail with you? Is that one of the broad topics you all discussed?
DR. ABDUL EL-SAYED: Look, we talked a lot about what it’ll take to win. Obviously, his presence here in Michigan would mean so much to the coalition that helped elect him. So I hope that we get to campaign together.
Clean up in aisle 4! Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed just made a mess in an interview with Kristen Welker on NBC’s Meet the Press, and let’s just say his handlers have some fixing to do. One of El-Sayed’s signature issues is “Medicare for All.” It’s an issue that El-Sayed loves to mention but doesn’t like to talk about in detail. One reason is that it’s not good for sound bites. Once you get into the details of Medicare, it gets complex, bureaucratic, and boring. None of those things work well in media interviews. But there are other reasons he’d rather not talk at length about his health coverage ideas, and it became clearer when Welker pressed him on it.
Calling him “Doctor,” Welker told El-Sayed that everyday Americans worry that to make Medicare universal would mean tax hikes for everyone, not just the rich. El-Sayed dismissively tried to give Welker a quick sound bite in the hope she’d move on when he said, “As I’ve said across this campaign, I am for taxing billionaires their wealth.” But Welker wasn’t done. She said, “What about people who make less than a billion and less than a million dollars?” El-Sayed responded:
“So, for the average person, when you look at your W2, if you’re an employee who gets paid every two weeks or four weeks, after you pay your taxes, the next biggest check that comes off the top of your pay stub is to your health insurance company. So, imagine instead of paying that to your health insurance company, whose CEO makes $20 million a year, instead you paid a little bit more in taxes for healthcare that you wouldn’t lose if you lost your job or turned 26 or got married or got divorced.
I think all of us would be a lot more interested in that kind of a system if we knew that our healthcare would be free at the point of care and would be free without having to worry about losing it, in general.So, there’s an opportunity here, I think, to trade what we give to a big corporation, who gets to decide who we get to see and who we don’t, for a little bit more paid into FICA. And I think that’s a trade that’s worth making. I think the broader public understands that that’s a trade worth making considering how many people are holding medical debt, a third of all Michigan households right now.”
Welker reinforced her earlier point, saying, “Just to be very clear, you’re describing this trade-off. You are effectively acknowledging that people making less than a million dollars could see their taxes go up. I just want to be very clear.” His non-answers to her questions were a de facto confirmation of Welker’s suspicions. What El-Sayed said pretty clearly was to trust the government more than your insurance company, and that yes, your taxes will go up under his plan.
Something that rarely comes up when “Medicare for All” is discussed is what Medicare does not cover. Anyone who’s turned 65 and applied for Medicare knows that Medicare is hardly an apples-to-apples replacement for the kind of health insurance you may have gotten through your employer.
Medicare does not automatically include eye care, dental care, and certain prescription coverage. If retirees pay more, and most do, they can enroll in a Part C or Medicare Advantage plan that covers more. But even there, Medicare Advantage is only one option and may not be as good as your existing health insurance. Some opt not to go with Medicare Advantage, instead going with a more expensive Medigap or another alternative plan that they feel is closer to what they’re used to.
As for El-Sayed’s comments that by paying the government more for your Medicare, you’re not paying some private health insurance company, that’s often not true at all. Medicare Advantage plans and other supplemental plans are usually administered by private health insurance companies, and so you likely still would be lining the coffers of some private insurance company. What all of this means is that while El-Sayed wants Americans to think they’re getting health insurance comparable to what they’ve had, and all they need to do is pay the government more in the form of higher taxes, that’s likely not what it would look like in practice.
Welker also asked him about his BFF, Hasan Piker, who’s been right at his side throughout this campaign. Walking a political tightrope, El-Sayed sought to distance himself from Piker’s words but not from the pathetic Piker himself.
BREAKING: An Abdul El-Sayed supporter said voters are “stupid” and the best way to win is to hide the truth.
Abdul El-Sayed and Hasan Piker nodded in agreement.
During that same interview with Welker, El-Sayed distanced himself from Piker’s comments when he said that “America deserved 9/11.” When Welker asked the senatorial candidate for comment, he told her that Piker’s comments were “dumb.”
Of course, it was a dumb statement and of course I think Hasan himself would say that was a dumb statement. He disavowed it. So yes, America didn’t deserve 9/11, but you know, to sit here and play gotcha politics with a dumb thing somebody said out of context that they disavowed themselves — to say, ‘Oh well, what does that mean about what you think?’ I want to be held accountable for what I say and what I do, rather than this idea that we’re so stuck in cancel culture that all of us agreed was a bad idea back in 2020, but we seem to want to bring back, El-Sayed said. The leftist news site Politico had a slightly different take on El-Sayed’s comments:
El-Sayed’s comments are a stark difference from his interview with POLITICO earlier this year in which he declined to denounce Piker’s views in what he called a “gotcha game.””I’m not here to disavow people’s views,” El-Sayed said at the time. “This whole gotcha game, platform policing, cancel culture — I thought we were over it.”The Napoleonesque Senate candidate would not say one way or the other whether he’d continue to campaign with Piker, trying like the devil to get Welker to change the subject, saying that it doesn’t matter who he campaigns with. He said he’s “a lot more concerned about who I’m campaigning to.”
NBC: Hasan Piker has said "America deserved 9/11," do you plan to continue to campaign with him?
EL-SAYED: "I'm less concerned now with who I'm campaigning with…"
Politico wasn’t buying it, reporting that “El-Sayed’s embrace of Piker, who he said he believes is ‘critical’ for Democrats to embrace, has drawn criticism — from Republicans and Democrats alike.” On yet another front, former first lady “Dr. Jill Biden” once had a press secretary named Michael LaRosa. On Aug. 8, LaRosa bucked his party and publicly endorsed Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) in his bid to become Michigan’s next senator.
While it’s rare for an embedded Democrat operative to so publicly break ranks like this, LaRosa made it crystal clear on the X platform why he was backing Rogers: “I won’t defend or support anyone who is too cowardly to stand up to extremists who think the mother of my best friend, who jumped from 95 stories because the alternative was worse, deserved what happened to her…. Her only crime was showing up to work that morning.”
I refused to defend or support anyone with an SS Totenkampf tattoo, simply because they had a "D" next to their name.
I won't defend or support anyone who is too cowardly to stand up to extremists who think the mother of my best friend, who jumped from 95 stories because the… https://t.co/hC6s7W7PfK
All this adds up to a bad day on at least one Sunday show for the upstart candidate who is starting to look like the Michigan version of Graham Platner without the Nazi tattoo, the sexting, and all the other sex stuff. Judging him by the company he keeps, his refusal to distance himself from some seriously anti-American actors, and his clunky responses to straightforward questions, it’s clear that he’s got tougher days ahead. The truth is that the Sunday shows are very kind to Democrats. If he couldn’t hit a figurative home run in his first interview with Welker since winning his primary race, he’s got some weaknesses and vulnerabilities that the Rogers campaign and Republicans can exploit more fully in the coming months.
Hasan Piker, a close ally of Abdul El-Sayed, is calling for “Marxist-Leninist” punishment for those who criticize Michigan’s Democratic senatorial candidate. As radicals and anti-Semites like Piker flood the Democratic Party, establishment figures are struggling to justify their alliance with extremist candidates. Ironically, Democrats are now fulfilling the false narrative that they used against President Donald Trump after the Charlottesville protests. They are maintaining that there are “many fine people” in the DSA despite their seeking to destroy our constitutional system, open our borders, defund the police, and embrace virtual anarchy.
Now, some of these fine people are calling for moderates to be purged as radicals take over the Democratic Party. In 2017, the media manufactured a controversy by suggesting that Trump had praised neo-Nazis and Klansmen in 2017 as “fine people” in Charlottesville. It was demonstrably false, but became the accepted truth in the media. In reality, Trump condemned the neo-Nazis, and the statement about “fine people on both sides” was in reference to the people on both sides of the debate over the removal of historic statues.
That narrative took on an added hypocrisy when some of the loudest voices later endorsed a candidate with an actual Nazi tattoo who allegedly assaulted women, mocked wounded veterans, and praised terrorists. However, he promised to deliver Maine and bring figures like Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren back to power.
Anti-Semites and communists are not “fine” additions to any party. Hasan Piker is not a “fine person” in any universe. He has said that the United States deserved the terrorist attacks on 9-11 and prominently displays a picture of the collapsing Twin Towers. He has downplayed the murders and rapes of innocent Israelis on Oct. 7th and called one Jewish man who challenged him a “bloodthirsty, violent pig dog.” Figures like Harris and Buttigieg brush off El-Sayed’s allies, including Mohammad Baqer Qazwini, a prominent Muslim cleric who gave a sermon that called for followers to vote for El-Sayed while also calling upon them to pray for the death of President Donald Trump and to celebrate the death of Sen. Lindsey Graham.
Then there is the Democratic House candidate in New York, Darializa Avila Chevalier, a prison abolitionist who boasted how she wiped her hands on the American flag in lieu of a napkin. Chevalier and other DSA candidates are being welcomed in the Democratic Party despite anti-American views and a DSA platform calling for the destruction of our constitutional system, including scrapping the Supreme Court, the presidency, and the Senate. Many are also overwhelmingly anti-Israel, with many, like Piker, displaying virulent anti-Semitism.
When asked about the extreme agenda of these candidates, Schumer and others repeat the mantra that they need to win in the upcoming elections. In other words, the DSA is opposed to the core institutions and values of this country, but it could be useful in returning them to power. What is interesting is that the establishment does not appear to care what these radicals represent for their party, but the radicals care deeply about what the establishment represents. This week, former DNC Vice-chair David Hogg told establishment figures that the “Big Tent” of his party is not big enough for them. He and other moderates have to go.
When asked about Democratic moderates, Hogg replied, “They don’t have the right values.” Piker has even grander plans for our post-constitutional republic, calling for mass arrests, demanding pledges from establishment figures to “arrest and prosecute every prominent member of the Trump administration” who engaged in what he views as corruption as well as “every ICE agent who committed crimes on the job.” Piker also wants to purge any Democrats who do not support El-Sayed, calling them “haters” who deserved to be punished:
“There are haters in our ranks. Notice how whenever someone comes out and says, ‘Yeah that’s actually a bad association,’ immediately it’s weaponized by the Republicans. You can’t be out here saying like, ‘Oh, I’m a centrist Democrat. And I think Abdul is a bridge too far.’ That must be punished.” Piker, who likes to parade around in a Mao jacket, seems to be longing for the good old days of party purges under Stalin and his contemporaries in the Comintern.
He notably accused critics of the sin of “factionalism.” Since the Jacobins of the French Revolution, factionalism has been the scourge of revolutionaries. In my book, Rage and the Republic, I discuss the difference between the American and French Revolutions. Where James Madison saw factions as a natural part of a democratic system, the Jacobins sought them as a traitorous and reactionary element. Madison saw compromise as the best solution to factions, while the Jacobins saw the guillotine as the final solution.
Piker is right out of that Jacobin tradition, calling moderate Democrats “Koch payroll ‘liberals’” and “irredeemable.” (Notably, the Jacobins also pushed for some of the same DSA demands such as a unicameral legislature). Of course, conservatives can show the same intolerance for RINOs (Republicans in Name Only), but there is an added menacing element to communists calling for mass expulsion or punishment of moderates from their party. It is chillingly familiar.
Mao regularly purged the Communist Party of those not following the party lines, declaring, “Serious offenders should be punished by law, and when they are Party members they should also be dealt with according to Party discipline.” Establishment figures continue to use the “Big Tent” narratives to brush off questions about the radical agenda and associations of these candidates. The only thing that they have in common is the desire for power. Once these candidates win, figures like Schumer will discover that this tent is not nearly as big as they think.
Almost since US President Donald Trump started his second and final term, the movement that brought him to power twice has been fracturing. Now there is a full break among Make America Great Again (MAGA) supporters. Its essence is simple: There are those who continue to identify MAGA with Trump, and on the other side of a widening chasm, those who remain loyal to MAGA but believe that Trump has not. The rebels say Trump has betrayed the cause and want to save MAGA – and thus the US – from Trump.
There are no official structures yet to what the MAGA dissidents call their movement, but it does have a de facto leader – popular journalist and podcast host Tucker Carlson. It was at Tucker’s all-American place in Maine that the MAGA schism was made official. There, several key figures of the evolving MAGA-against-Trump group met, and in effect, raised the standard of rebellion. Not literally, but in the shape of an X post by former US Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (with 5.4 million followers). It featured a carefully composed picture of a merry rebel crew, including, apart from herself, Joe Kent, former counterterrorism tsar under Trump, Representative Thomas Massie, a long-term conservative Trump opponent, and Carlson, sitting at the head of the table.
Within days after the post, Carlson released a video manifesto with the title “It’s Time to Save America” on his own Tucker Carlson Network social media channel (with 5.2 million subscribers on YouTube). Within one day, it had over a million views on YouTube alone. In a rhetorical master class for the podcast age, Carlson sketched the American present as a dead-end of extraordinary decadence and degradation, a loss of reality among the establishment, and “paralysis and looting.”
He also predicted that change is inevitable if Americans want to avoid the “end-of-everything,” either by nuclear war or uncontrolled AI. He warned that even preventing this apocalypse by timely political action could produce great violence, that is, a revolution. And finally, he presented his alternative to both the end of the world and wild upheaval in ten concise points. Ranging from “fairness” to “unity,” his ten points were more a clarion call for national renewal than a concrete policy outline, with aims general enough to form a broad consensus, as he acknowledged.
Much of his ten points read like MAGA 2.0, that is, without Trump, as observers noted. On issues such as physical and mental health, the need for the economy to make actually useful things instead of just surveillance tech, weapons of war, and financial gimmicks, the beauty of the American landscape and architecture in need of restoration, Carlson’s impassioned pleas echoed the conservatism that is one root of the MAGA phenomenon.
Ultimately, what will be more important is where things differ: One of Carlson’s points was about sovereignty, or as he defined it, being “free from outside influence.” It is this point that provides the key to all the others. The ten points are, in essence, a declaration of independence, not just from any outside influence, but from Israel and its powerful US lobby. Carlson directly named them as forming one of America’s worst problems. For starters, he did not simply attack a selfish upper class whose members behave as if they were kings, above the rules of law and ethics. He called it the “Epstein class,” with reference to the late convicted pedophile, alleged suicide victim, self-declared Rothschild representative, and close associate of alleged Israeli rapists and intelligence.
Carlson also correctly linked the Iran War – a “strategic disaster” worse than Vietnam, as another realistic American recently stated – to “bribery or threat or both by Israel.” Equally plausibly, he accused Israel of committing genocide – like Nazi Germany, he said – and protested against continuing US support. Finally, the activities of lobbies, with that of Israel not alone, but in the lead, “gives the lie to the idea of representative democracy,” according to Carlson, because where lobbyists make the decisions, the voters do not.
In short, Carlson made the point that America’s worst military defeat in living memory, its support for – and really, participation in – an ongoing genocide, and its loss of sovereignty and democracy are all due, either entirely or to a large extent, to the US establishment’s perverse and deeply unpatriotic relationship to Israel. Politically, this amounts to an arguably long overdue declaration of war against the Zionist state’s aggressive influence operations.
And the message has gotten through. Haaretz, Israel’s ‘liberal’ paper of record, rapidly dedicated a long opinion piece to Carlson, accusing him of – surprise, surprise – “anti-Semitism.” This is an absurd smear, but expected. Systematically misrepresenting criticism of Israel, a genocidal apartheid state, as hatred of Jews is an old, stale Zionist tactic. Carlson certainly isn’t naïve. Even in his ten points, he anticipated being called a “Nazi” and shrugged it off.
But Haaretz does get one thing right. For Carlson and his growing movement, “Israel and its American supporters also represent a central source of the [MAGA] movement’s betrayal [by Trump].” Or, put differently, Carlson represents an American conservatism that has the courage to identify, name, and attack America’s insane dependence on a tiny yet immensely subversive and violent rogue state.
There is, no doubt, much idealizing and even nostalgia in Carlson’s image of American history and the West. And those wishing to be woke about an arch-conservative will find rich pickings. But that is futile and dull, because it is not the point that matters. What matters is that US polls have consistently shown a great, unprecedented groundswell against Israel. A new book on Israel’s US lobby is about to come out and is making a massive splash. The tide is turning.
Fellow MAGA rebel Joe Kent let it slip that Tucker-for-president is an option. Third parties are a difficult proposition. Yet Haaretz for one is worried, and from a Zionist point of view, it should be. And that is very good news.
I have a dream that American farmers, drillers, miners, industrialists, and manufacturers produce everything that American consumers need. I have a dream that anything worth building is built in America, that any job worth doing is done in America, and that anything worth buying can be found and shipped within the United States.
Why did we allow ourselves to be convinced that Americans should make only a few select things and buy everything else from foreign markets? Why did we allow politicians and Wall Street investors to convince us that “free trade” requires slave labor from faraway lands? Why did we spend a century ensuring safer work environments and more dependable wages for our skilled tradesmen only to export those jobs to adversarial nations that care nothing about worker safety or providing above-subsistence standards of living? Why did we fight a Cold War in defense of freedom only to subsidize Chinese communism? Why do we regulate ourselves to death in the name of “fighting global warming,” while China and India inflict the worst environmental damage on the planet?
Prove these statements wrong: There is no worker on the planet more capable than an American. There is no nation of people more innovative than the United States. There is nothing that Americans import from other nations that Americans can’t discover, create, grow, or produce on their own. There is no country on the planet with more educational infrastructure than the United States. There is no country on the planet with a greater incentive to defend its way of life.
I believe that Establishment politicians and multinational investment firms sold us a bill of goods when they told us that “free trade” deals, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, would provide American households greater prosperity. I believe that those politicians and Wall Street investors lied when they told us that the United States would become a “service economy” and that blue-collar workers would find personal fulfillment as customer service representatives, real estate agents, telephone operators, data technicians, and software coders.
I believe that politicians and Big Ag corporations lie when they insist that only illegal aliens are willing to sweat in farm fields. I believe that politicians who ignore federal law by establishing “sanctuary cities” and NGOs that aid and abet human smuggling into the United States lie when they say that some jobs are “too dirty” for Americans to take. I believe Establishment politicians and Wall Street titans have spent fifty years lying to the American people about the kinds of jobs that Americans should do.
The economy of the United States did not surpass that of the United Kingdom until the third year of WWI in 1916. While the U.K. had been the engine for the global economy for two centuries, America held an inimitable distinction: No other country in the world had maintained higher rates of both intra- and inter-generational mobility. The American Experiment created an ideal environment for innovation, hard work, investment, and private ownership. Individual workers advanced up the economic ladder during their own lifetimes, and their children and grandchildren ascended even farther. In a few generations, farmers became tradesmen who became merchants who became bankers, lawyers, ministers, and politicians. Respect for private property and a rejection of European social castes made America a land of opportunity.
Since the creation of the Federal Reserve in a rigged Christmas vote in 1913, the American system has been upended. Bankers created a monopoly for themselves to manipulate the value of the American dollar. They, in turn, set the monetary system down a path toward inevitable decoupling from the gold standard. Dollar-printing (and government spending) decreased the value of personal savings and artificially juiced the currency-denominated value of homes, stocks, and other assets — effectively transferring wealth from the poorest Americans to the wealthiest.
As inflation steadily kicked in, central bankers and corporation-controlled politicians looked for ways to limit the rising costs of American goods. They artificially increased demand for the dollar by linking it to oil revenues, offshored American manufacturing to low-wage or slave-wage foreign nations, decreased the quality of finished products, and replaced small businesses with a handful of multinational corporate monopolies. Each of these “band-aids” has preserved Wall Street’s internal mechanisms for generating profits, while destroying the engine of American ingenuity and the physical infrastructure of American industry, manufacturing, and real economic growth.
The end result has been that — in charts and graphs — America has appeared to maintain an advanced economy that has consistently grown through the decades, even though its industrial towns have collapsed into rusty graveyards. If you separate the economy of the United States into two separate lines on a graph — one for Main Street businesses across the country and one for multinational businesses running Wall Street — it becomes obvious that small American businesses have had no growth (or negative growth) for decades. While the costs of their raw materials, employees, government regulations, and taxes have continued to rise, their profits have dwindled.
The engine of American growth in the real economy has been sputtering and dying, while artificially inflated valuations of Wall Street assets have been disguising America’s economic infirmity. Wall Street has become the Potemkin economy hiding America’s loss of industrial strength. This is no way for a superpower to endure. The United States cannot survive if it is dependent on communist China for chemicals, medicines, circuit boards, electrical components, clothing, machinery, and furniture.
The United States and the European Union are the two largest Western economies of the 21st century. Over the past two decades, however, their economic trajectories have diverged significantly.This line chart below, via Visual Capitalist’s Gabriel Cohen, tracks the gross domestic product (GDP) of the EU and U.S. economies from 2006 to 2026 using the latest figures available from the International Monetary Fund (IMF)’s World Economic Outlook. Figures for 2026 are forecasts.
The Early Rise and Fall of the EU
The 15-member European Union was established in 1993 from precursor organizations such as the European Communities. In 2004, 10 new member states joined, followed by Bulgaria and Romania in 2007. Aided by the addition of these new member states, along with strong British and German economies, the EU s total GDP reached $19.3 trillion in 2008. This represented 131% of the U.S. economy that year, which stood at $14.8 trillion. The euro also reached an all-time high in June 2008 at roughly $1.55. The table below shows the size of the EU economy relative to the U.S. economy from 2006 to 2026.
The global financial crisis and Great Recession changed the European Union’s fortunes.
The newly expanded bloc faced severe challenges as several member-state governments struggled to service their debts or rein in large structural deficits. These countries included eurozone members Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, and Spain. Through a combination of multilateral bailouts and austerity measures, the EU weathered the crisis. However, in the years that followed, the 28-member bloc s aggregate GDP contracted, and the $18.3 trillion U.S. economy surpassed it in 2015. Part of the decline in dollar-denominated GDP also reflected changes in exchange rates as the euro weakened against the U.S. dollar.
Brexit and the Years of Decline
Further challenges followed. In a June 2016 referendum, British voters narrowly chose to make the United Kingdom the first country to withdraw from the European Union. The Brexit process culminated in the UK s formal withdrawal in January 2020. Losing the UK dealt another blow to the EU’s aggregate economy. Although the country had never joined the eurozone, it was the EU ]’s second-largest member economy. Combined with the COVID-19 pandemic, Brexit helped push the bloc’s GDP down to $15.5 trillion in 2020, roughly where it had stood a decade earlier.
A
s the UK economy has struggled through much of the 2020s, some in London have begun to float the possibility of rejoining the EU. Other European countries, including Albania and Montenegro, remain potential future entrants to the bloc.
The Post-Pandemic Divergence
Since the pandemic, the U.S. and European Union have followed very different trajectories. Despite inflation and high interest rates, the U.S. economy rebounded strongly from COVID and is forecast to reach $32.4 trillion in 2026. Meanwhile, the EU has faced a combination of rising Chinese industrial competition and an energy crisis stemming from Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. With economic heavyweight Germany facing protracted stagnation, the EU s GDP is forecast to reach $23 trillion in 2026.
That leaves the EU economy at just 71% the size of the U.S. economy, a sharp reversal from its position in 2008. Exchange rates account for part of the shift, but weaker growth and a series of economic shocks have also contributed to the widening gap.
Reading excerpts from Anthony Fauci’s ill-advised diary, saved on government servers, it’s clear to me above all that he’s a money-grubbing, narcissistic liar.Fauci helped fund the Wuhan Level 4 Virology Lab, knowing full well that the lab was tinkering with bat viruses. And when the Chinese Communist lab loosed COVID-19 upon the world, wee Tony felt two overwhelming urges: the immediate urge to cover his butt, and a burning and probably lifelong desire for the little rat to finally become a big cheese.
So Fauci lied about the virus’s origins, and pressured other spineless scientists to agree that the “novel,” i.e., never before seen, virus came from some Wuhan local enjoying bat soup or a pangolin hero, and not the obvious source, a nearby Fauci-funded virology lab. To believe that, you’d have to be a Democrat, one of their media handmaidens, or a complete moron, but I repeat myself.After all, those folks are all fond of fairy tales, telling us it’s fine for men to beat up female athletes, Muslims were instrumental in founding America, ObamaCare lets you keep your doctor and your plan, and Joe Biden’s Stage 4 prostate cancer was only recently discovered.
Having dodged all accountability for helping create COVID-19, Fauci then set about becoming, in his own words, “one of the most recognizable persons in the world.” Napoleon much, Tony?In this he was successful, making stuff up left and right, changing the common meaning of words, and becoming fabulously wealthy in the process. Estimates are that while millions were dying from COVID, 7-8 million dollars somehow found their way into Tony’s pocket. Who says crime doesn’t pay?
Fauci first stated – correctly — that masks wouldn’t prevent the spread of an airborne virus. Then he backtracked, saying that it was a necessary white lie, so the rubes wouldn’t cause a mask shortage for health professionals. Now, masks became absolutely necessary for everyone. In fact, two masks were better than one. As a dentist for forty-three years, I was outraged by Fauci’s mask theater, knowing that the paper masks I wore daily had pores big enough for any virus to get through, N-95 masks (which allow 5% of small particles like viruses to go through) made it hard for me to breathe, and only a moron would walk around wearing two masks.
Fauci then made up the six-foot “social distancing” and “no handshake” rules and again, a sneeze can send saliva twenty-eight feet or so, and the Wuhan Flu was acquired by breathing viral aerosols, not skin-to-skin contact. Feeling his power and fame growing, Fauci then got serious about running things. He and his “public health” pals shut down the country and then, with the avid support of Democrats frothing at the mouth to take down President Trump, crashed the economy and arbitrarily determined winners and losers.
Winners were government workers who got paid whether they worked or not; big box stores (I painted and landscaped my entire new home during the pandemic); rubber glove and medical mask producers; teachers unions whose members were paid for (not) remotely learning, liquor stores; the mostly peaceful and mask-exempt rioters of BLM, and the despicable fake-news media, loudly trumpeting body counts and blaming it all on Trump. And all the while, rivers of sweet, sweet moolah flowed into Dr. and Mrs. Fauci’s bank accounts.
Losers were the poor nursing home patients in states where the likes of “Handy Andy” Cuomo forced such facilities to accept patients regardless of COVID status, small business owners, movie theaters, museums, music venues, churches, synagogues, and mosques, folks who were denied routine medical and dental care and later paid the price, people suffering from anxiety who became full-fledged hypochondriacs and, after manually disinfecting their groceries, lit St. Fauci votive candles; and most of all, kids.
During the pandemic, the smallest and most vulnerable among us were denied proper education, normal social development, and even being out in the great outdoors. All this unnecessary and inestimable damage to our children — for a disease which killed Americans who were, on average, seventy-eight years old and had multiple comorbidities! St. Fauci wasn’t done, though. He forced a vaccine on Americans that failed to prevent either catching COVID or transmitting it — by definition, a failed vaccine — but did cause countless deaths and severe illnesses, countless because no one in the public-health hierarchy was much interested in counting them or informing the public. As a health professional, I was one of the first people (double) vaccinated, before coming down with COVID. Twice.
Did my vaccinations lessen the severity of my disease? Totally conjectural, something impossible to prove since the virus was constantly mutating and is currently just another flu bug. And despite mounting perhaps the worst pandemic response in recorded history, Little Lord Fauci somehow found time to chat up known intellectuals Barbara Streisand and Julia Roberts, have “friendship-building” dinners with so-called journalists Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, and attend a pro baseball game with two pals when no one else was allowed admittance, a game where he both took his mask off to talk to his friends and threw possibly the lamest first pitch in major league baseball history, almost as short and crooked as Fauci himself.
It must have been wonderful for Tony, watching his stature, er… social stature, and net worth grow even as millions of lives were lost, ruined, or damaged. But, sadly, the party’s now over. Anyone with eyes to see now realizes what an evil, selfish, and undoubtedly criminal man Anthony Fauci is. Whoever ran old, senile Joe Biden — Jill? The Chicoms? — certainly agreed with my assessment. They gave Fauci a blanket pardon for any and all crimes he committed during his reign of error. So, who will judge Anthony Fauci for his crimes against humanity?Democrats? Republican politicians? The courts? No, nothing’s going to happen to the incredibly wealthy and still quite popular Anthony Fauci, once the most recognizable name in the world. The Swamp protects its own.
Now, I’m seventy-three, and with multiple comorbidities, I can see the finish line. A deeply flawed man, I just hope that when it comes to my final judgment, the good I did in life outweighs the bad.By this coming Christmas, Anthony Fauci will be eighty-six. And if, like me, you’re outraged at all the damage done by a pencil-pushing bureaucrat who never even treated patients and became fabulously wealthy and popular doing it, relax. Because poor little Tony Fauci surely has tremors, night sweats, and insomnia, pondering his final judgment.
Caroline Sunshine went on CNN’s Newsnight this week and said the quiet part out loud about Dr. Fauci, and as you can imagine, the panel was none too pleased about it. The former Trump 2024 campaign press aide told her fellow panelists that Fauci is a textbook sociopath. “Forget about prosecuting him,” Sunshine said on CNN’s Newsnight. “The guy should be in a mental institution. He’s a textbook sociopath.” Naturally, the room fell apart.
Podcast host Leigh McGowan could only manage a stunned “What?” Sunshine pressed forward anyway, and laid out her diagnosis in clinical terms. “DSM-5 level sociopath who was running our pandemic response, low empathy, ability to inflict pain on innocents, narcissism,” she said. “Are you suggesting that he should be in a mental institution for having an ego?” host Abby Phillip asked, downplaying the charge as something that would describe just about everyone in Washington. The whole misery loves company thing.
But Sunshine’s point had nothing to do with ego. Fauci kept a diary through the darkest stretch of the pandemic, and he filled it with something other than grief for the country he was supposedly serving. “He writes in his diary at the height of the pandemic, when Americans aren’t allowed to see grandma dying of COVID, what is Anthony Fauci writing about? ‘The media is so hot for me.’ ‘I’ve had so many articles written about me.’”
Sarah Matthews, Trump’s former deputy press secretary, jumped to Fauci’s defense and reminded the table that she actually worked with him at the White House. “There is one person at this table who worked with Dr. Fauci,” Matthews said. “I was Trump’s deputy press secretary during COVID.” She admitted it was “very frustrating” watching Fauci land magazine covers and TV hits criticizing the administration’s COVID response, but she chalked it up to a novel virus and a government improvising in real time.
Sunshine was not buying the excuse. “You couldn’t keep him off TV,” she said. “You were in the press office. You would know.” Even Phillip could not resist a jab of her own, suggesting Fauci might have been drinking his own Kool-Aid. Sunshine turned that line right back on the panel. “You all in the media, you were in love with him,” she said. “You were in love with a narcissist. I’m sorry. I’m sorry for you guys.”
Here’s the thing: None of what Sunshine said is wrong. We know what Fauci’s diary entries say. They aren’t the private notes of a public health official managing a national crisis with the good of the nation in mind. They’re more like the confessions of a man drunk on his own celebrity. This guy tracked his magazine covers. He counted his headlines. He measured his own importance in press clips while hospitals kept grieving families away from relatives dying of COVID-19. He even detailed his efforts to profit from the pandemic with cash awards.
Those entries also undercut the image Fauci spent years building. He cared more about protecting his own reputation than telling Americans the truth, including about where the virus came from in the first place. Fauci spent years treating the lab leak theory as a fringe conspiracy, only to watch his credibility collapse once his own communications and diary entries surfaced. Sunshine said an uncomfortable truth, and the CNN panel could not handle hearing it out loud. That reaction tells you everything about how deep the media’s investment in protecting him still runs.
President Donald Trump’s political stature is so poor right now that he has squandered the Republican Party’s advantage on two major issues that almost always favor the GOP: the economy and national security. A Reuters-Ipsos poll this week showed Democrats and Republicans virtually tied on “war, foreign conflicts and terrorism.” The GOP led on that issue by 11 points after the 2024 election. Today, 37% of US adults say Democrats have a better approach, compared to 36% who say the GOP does.
Fox News polling a couple weeks back showed something very similar: On national security, 50% of registered voters preferred the GOP, to 48% who preferred the Democratic Party. That’s compared to a 12-point edge for Republicans in January, before the Iran war. Both recent findings are within the margin of error. But the numbers even being that close is basically unheard of. Fox polling has regularly tested how registered voters compare the two parties on terrorism and national security. Until the Iran war, Democrats had never even been within double-digits of the Republican Party on either issue.
Republicans have also led consistently on national security in Gallup polling. Democrats only nosed ahead on that issue once in the 21st century: in 2007. Gallup’s data on which party is better on “international terrorism and military threats” has been even more lopsided in the GOP’s favor. Across 22 polls conducted since a year after 9/11, Democrats have led on that issue only once — again, in 2007 — and most of the time Republicans led by double-digits. And then there’s the economy.
The most recent Fox survey showed Democrats leading on that issue by nine points, 54%-45%. That was the biggest Democratic advantage since 2006, when they led by 20 points. And when they took a lead on the economy back in April, it marked the first time they were ahead since 2010, shortly after the 2008 financial crisis that began during the George W. Bush administration. CNN polling back in May showed a closer split between the two parties on the economy, with 35% of adults preferring Democrats, compared to 33% who preferred the GOP. The poll previously asked people to choose between congressional Republicans and congressional Democrats. The last time Republicans didn’t lead on that question was 2009.
The numbers on both fronts seem to illustrate that Trump greatly miscalculated the fallout from launching the Iran war — as well as other controversial policies like his global tariffs. By launching the tariffs, he effectively took ownership of whatever became of the economic picture. Then he compounded negative public sentiment by basically shrugging off any responsibility to address Americans’ inflation concerns. Now he’s contending with a still-stagnant economic picture, with the economy shedding 23,000 jobs in July. Americans don’t love Democrats; in fact, the blue side remains pretty unpopular in polls. So the fact that they’ve apparently taken a lead on the economy really says something.
And the national security numbers might be even more striking — because Democrats hardly ever even compete with Republicans on the topic. Just as education and health care almost always favor Democrats, national security and defending the homeland are almost always signature GOP issues, and lopsidedly so. That remained true even when Bush launched wars in the Middle East that gradually became pretty unpopular. Trump, though, seems to have botched the Iran war so badly that Americans suddenly see Democrats on equal footing with the GOP — in terms of issues on the GOP’s own turf.
“We have already had cases where AI, assigned a task, decided that the easiest way to solve the problem was to erase the corporations’ customer records ..”
I have always assured readers that in the anti-human digital age, whoever controls the data base controls the “truth,” which will be, and already is, an orchestration serving elite agendas.
Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, an online open encyclopedia that serves to demonize those who speak outside of the official narratives, agrees with me. Sanger in an interview last Friday with the German newspaper Berliner Zeitung said that Wikipedia’s lack of an adequate governance structure allowed “specific ideological viewpoints” to shape its content, turning the online encyclopedia into a “globalist, academic, secular and progressive” consensus.
“Wikipedia was recognized early on as an important propaganda organ.” Jews use it to demonize Israel’s critics, and Sanger reports “what we know as fact, based on all sorts of evidence, is that the CIA has already edited Wikipedia.” “Wikipedia is already compromised. That’s clear,” Sanger admitted. He went on to say the ideological bias embedded in Wikipedia is now being amplified because large language models increasingly rely on its content as a reference source when answering factual queries.
The digital revolution and its offshoot artificial intelligence have created the perfect Orwellian memory hole. I and numerous others have documented books and articles with URLs to online sources only to experience that within a few days of publication the sources no longer exist. This could not happen in print and analogue days. There were huge numbers of sources for every source reference in libraries, newspaper morgues, and private collections. It was impossible to erase reference sources.
The digital revolution rests on the Internet which developed as an open system. This means it can never be secure. Already security concerns are everywhere. The day has already passed that a username and a password sufficed. Now you have to have a code sent by text or email. Then a passkey, and sometimes also voice and face recognition, both of which AI can produce to impersonate you. Scammers progress faster than security, and once quantum computers appear encryption is useless.
The reality with with which we are faced is that information no longer exists in multiple print form. Information no longer exists in material form. It exists somewhere electronically in the cloud. One electromagnetic force can wipe it out, and malefactors and mistakes can erase it.
We have already had cases where AI, assigned a task, decided that the easiest way to solve the problem was to erase the corporations’ customer records. Imagine if that is your bank. What happens to your access to your accounts? Can you pay your bills? Is your automobile insurance cancelled? Do you face foreclosure on your mortgage? Possibly businesses are creating backup systems of some kind, but as they also are digital they too will fail.
The digital revolution was the creation of people devoid of capability to imagine unintended consequences. They are building for us a house of cards. When it collapses, so will organized society. It is merely a matter of time.
Slowly she builds her performance outrage, methodically working through the talking points afore her. Full dramatic acting on display. Lips pursed, bladed eyebrows angled, contempt tone triggered and the intent obvious.
NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya appears on CBS Face the Nation to discuss Mexican poop lettuce, Mexico poop peppers, Illegal Alien measles spread and the weaponized information from health ‘administrators’ around the COVID-19 vaccine. Obviously, with Media Patron Saint Anthony Fauci facing scrutiny, Margaret Brennan defends Fauci as she would if the Lightbringer, Chicago Jesus was disrespected. Combative video and Transcript below:
[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: We’re joined now by the Director of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya. Good morning to you, doctor.
NIH DIRECTOR DR. JAY BHATTACHARYA: Good morning.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And we should mention you are also helping to run the CDC until the new director is sworn in as well.
DR. BHATTACHARYA: Until next Wednesday, yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Until next Wednesday. So let me ask you about a number of things that I think people at home are worried about, particularly around the food supply. The cyclospora outbreak linked to iceberg lettuce from Mexico is now in 15 states. There were two deaths this week due to it. Yesterday, USDA issued an alert for a range of products that may have salmonella, including meat and poultry. 27 states are affected by salmonella, possibly linked to jalapeños, but cilantro, red onion, avocado, also listed in the CDC notice. Albertsons, a grocery store, just recalled some items. There’s risk of salmonella in eggs in Texas, according to the CDC, and then you have the screwworm outbreak affecting beef. This is overwhelming for someone going into a grocery store right now. Why do they seem out of control?
DR. BHATTACHARYA: Well, the- the cyclospora outbreak is larger than in normal years. I mean, in normal years there actually is a- cyclospora cases. The- the two deaths that you mentioned, they happened in late July- late- late June, early July, before we identified this source. And so, folks that are listening, can rest assured, the CDC and the FDA are working hard to trace back exactly where these outbreaks are occurring from, intervening with the- the sort of suppliers to make sure that they don’t- and doing recalls to make sure that the disease doesn’t- the, you know, condition doesn’t spread. I mean, it’s tough. You go to grocery store, you buy lettuce, and you say, “Okay, can I buy the lettuce?”
Article III of the Constitution allows Congress to establish courts below the Supreme Court, which includes federal District and Circuit Courts. If Congress can establish them, it can abolish them. In 1801, in the waning days of John Adams’ presidency, Congress did just that and abolished the district and circuit courts of the District of Columbia.
These two courts display widespread intransigent partisanship and demonstrably poor scholarship, exemplified by this week’s ruling on the new White House construction. Given the difficulty of removing so many bad judges in these two courts by impeaching them, it’s time to repeat John Adams’ move: Abolish these courts. Cases that normally would be heard in them should be assigned to courts elsewhere. The case which most showcases the lunacy of the D.C. courts is National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States v. National Park Service, et al. As is often the case in poorly reasoned opinions, the author substitutes words for reason.
As you may know, the old East Wing of the White House which, among other things, contained underground security facilities (bunkers, bomb-shelters, and military and medical infrastructure), presidential offices and some minimal public meeting spaces, was torn down and construction begun on a replacement with a larger number of more modern offices and a ballroom to provide a larger, much-needed entertainment and meeting space, better security facilities, and protection against drone attacks. Up to now, rented tents and outdoor porta potty facilities have had to be utilized for state events, and the assassination attempt at the White House Correspondents Ball surely underscores the need for a safe venue for such things.
Except for the congressional appropriation for the upgraded secure facilities in this new wing, the remainder of the cost is being borne by private contributions to the National Park Service, which is administering these funds. But this is hate Trump city, and Alison Hoagland, a board member of the National Trust, said that she takes monthly walks past the White House and that the aesthetics of the new construction would cause her harm.
In the real world, monthly aesthetic harm to one person’s delicate sensibilities would not upend a needed improvement to the White House grounds, which are exempt by its terms from the National Historic Preservation Act (which establishes the Trust). The litigation has been long and involved back-and-forth court rulings between the district and circuit courts. The courts have now finally agreed the below-ground construction would not be halted, but this week ruled the above-ground work must be, even though that is a structural impossibility and a security (and aesthetic) nightmare.
The first question that every court must decide before proceeding further in any case is whether or not it even has jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter. The majority opinion doesn’t get to this until page 30 of its opinion, and then, for all its flowery verbosity, it got it wrong, just as the dissenting judge notes:
“…the district court had no jurisdiction because the Trust has no standing to stop construction at the White House. The ballroom is also likely within the President’s authority to make improvements to the Executive Residence at the White House. Finally, the balance of equities overwhelmingly favors the government. The district court elevated the aesthetic displeasure of a single passerby over the government’s security interests in the ballroom and the security risks of leaving an open construction site at the President’s home and office.”
In assessing the balance of equities between Ms. Hoagland’s claimed aesthetic harms and the needs of the White House, Judge Rao shows the Court “improperly glossed over, ignored or discounted the government’s evidence demonstrating the security harms from construction of the ballroom.” Nor could it, as Rao noted, “compensate for the slight aesthetic harm by resorting to hyperbole and its view of the legal merits. Every day the project is delayed increases the security risk according to declarations from senior military and Secret Service officials. Moreover, the creation of the above-ground ballroom “will alleviate security vulnerabilities that currently impact large events involving the President.”
As a practical matter, the underground and above-ground facilities cannot be separated out at this point. “The Secretary of the Army has further explained why the underground national security facilities cannot be adequately protected by the concrete slab and modest topping structure allowed by the district court’s injunction… The ballroom’s dimensions and structure are essential for security. According to the Secretary, “[t]o provide adequate subterranean protection without” the “height and mass” of the ballroom, “engineers would need to dig impractically deep.”
…The ballroom provides a critical “dual-layered system” of protection for the national security facilities, “comprising a sacrificial outer cover coupled with a hardened inner structural element.” …Corroborating the Secretary’s account, the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has similarly described how the “height and mass” of the ballroom “provide crucial, physical layers to shield” the national security facilities.
The height of the ballroom will also provide an “essential elevated platform to engage and neutralize aerial systems,” such as drones, that pose an increasingly serious threat to White House security. …There is no dispute that the Secretary’s declaration and the Army Corps memorandum are authentic, credible, and “go[] to the heart of the contested issue,” so it would be “inconsistent with this court’s own equitable obligations to pretend that [they] do[] not exist.”
David Friedberg: Starlink alone could be a trillion-dollar company
"Starlink alone could be generating on the order of $40 billion of revenue top line, with a huge amount of that flowing to free cash. That could be $30 billion in free cash flow within the year."
Elon Musk: “My mind often feels like a very wild storm. I have a fountain of ideas. I have more ideas than I can possibly execute, so I have no shortage of ideas.
Innovation is not the problem, execution is the problem. I’ve got an entire design for an electric supersonic… pic.twitter.com/769gcCsphh
There seriously needs to be an investigation. Russia just sent a delegation to Khamenei’s funeral in Tehran where the IRGC and funeral organizers was calling for myself, President Trump and Senator Graham to be assassinated.
LA SITUATION DÉGÉNÈRE ! Elon Musk et Marine Le Pen renversent totalement la situation C'est le retournement le plus spectaculaire de ces dernières années. Alors que tout semblait perdu pour les forces nationales, Elon Musk et Marine Le Pen viennent de s'allier de manière… pic.twitter.com/fyHbAStnnX
Lindsey Graham was more than an ultra violent gaydar offsetter. But I don’t quite know what to make of all the theories that the timeline of his death doesn’t add up. That he couldn’t possibly have been back in the US in time, after his visit to Ukraine, to have died in his own bed. Let alone to speak with President Trump after he returned. I guess some serious people will look at that timeline for us.
Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-S.C.) officed announced early Sunday morning that the senator died after a “brief and sudden” illness. He was 71 years old. “On the evening of Saturday, July 11, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham passed away from a brief and sudden illness,” the statement said. “Senator Graham’s family appreciates prayers at this time and asks for privacy during this incredibly difficult period.”
Despite the late hour of the announcement, several prominent political figures have spoken out, offering their condolences and support to his family and sharing their fond memories of Graham, who served in the Senate for 23 years. That includes South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster.
“Peggy and I and our children-are devastated,” McMaster said. “Lindsey Graham is irreplaceable. The fiercest of fighters for South Carolina and America — and a loyal and steadfast friend. We grieve with Darline, his family and his devoted staff. May God hold him gently in the palm of his hand. We shall not see his likes again.” Darline is, of course, Graham’s younger sister, whom he raised after both of their parents died within 15 months of each other. He was 22, and she was just 13 years old at the time.
— Gov. Henry McMaster (@henrymcmaster) July 12, 2026
Donald Trump also responded on Truth Social around 3:20 a.m. on Sunday morning: “Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the greatest people and Senators I have ever known, is dead! He was always working, and was a true American Patriot. Lindsey will be greatly missed!!! DETAILS AND ARRANGEMENTS TO FOLLOW. So sad!President DONALD J. TRUMP
Graham had just returned home from Kyiv, Ukraine, where he met with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He was scheduled to appear on Meet the Press on Sunday.
Good meeting with U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham @LindseyGrahamSC in Kyiv. This is already his 10th visit to our country, and we appreciate this support.
I'm grateful to Lindsey for recognizing our warriors. The stronger Ukraine is on the battlefield, the greater the chances that… pic.twitter.com/bgZjjgIqu1
— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) July 10, 2026
According to NBC, which obtained audio from a police scanner, “emergency personnel responded to a call for ‘cardiac arrest’ at Graham’s Capitol Hill home on Saturday.” NBC also claims that its staff saw photos of paramedics carrying a person out on a stretcher to an ambulance outside Graham’s home. Several police and fire vehicles were on the scene.
Graham, who was up for re-election, served as chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. He was one of President Donald Trump’s best allies in the Senate, as well as one of its most visible and outspoken members, particularly when it came to his hawkishness on foreign policy. Several members of Congress and other world leaders have also posted messages to social media over the last few minutes, and I’m sure many more will pour in later in the day and into the week. I’ll just share a few here:
Deeply saddened by the passing of Senator Lindsey Graham. He leaves behind a legacy of dedicated public service, a commitment to national security, and an unwavering fight for freedom. Lourdes & I are praying for his family and loved ones. May he rest in peace. pic.twitter.com/q0bmuD6CX2
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: Sara and I grieve with the American people over the loss of our dear friend, Senator Lindsey Graham.
In our recent meeting, I said, "Lindsey is a great friend of Israel and a cherished friend of mine. We have no better friend than Lindsey."… pic.twitter.com/OSToT8FCYm
— Prime Minister of Israel (@IsraeliPM) July 12, 2026
Update (1135ET): President Trump has weighed in on Graham’s death, telling Meet the Press that Graham called him in the ‘early evening,’ to tell Trump he was ‘all set for the Save America Act,’ and that it may have been the last call Graham made.
“what makes it even stranger is that I got a call last night sometimes in, you know, the early evening, maybe in the 7:00’s. And he called and he said, “We’re all set for the Save America Act,”” Trump told host Kristen Walker. “He was pushing the Save America Act like crazy. He got back, said he just landed from Ukraine. I said, “That’s a long trip to make.””
TRUMP: “What makes it even stranger is that I got a call last night sometime … and [Lindsey Graham] said we're all set for the Save America Act … We thought maybe we might even meet today. And then that was it.” pic.twitter.com/9YVdW3VzRM
Graham notably toured a top secret Ukrainian ‘Skyfall’ drone factory (see more below) days before his death, where the country’s deadly ‘Baba Yaga’ Vampire bomber drones are manufactured. He also announced an upcoming Russian sanctions package, and said that the US can learn a lot from Ukraine’s UAV advancements. “I believe that it would be a huge mistake for America not to cooperate with Ukraine in the field of drones. They are ready to help us, because we were ready to support Ukraine in the most difficult times,” Graham said.
US Senator Lindsey Graham visited Ukraine's SkyFall and got a look at Vampire heavy bomber drones, Shrike FPVs and P1-SUN Shahed interceptors, plus some new tech not yet on the battlefield. Looks pretty happy holding Ukraine's P1-SUN drone in the photo. pic.twitter.com/o2gFBt657c
When asked about a replacement for Graham, Trump said “I have somebody that I think would be great. But I don’t want to say it now because, you know, it’s too soon with Lindsey. I don’t want to even talk about anybody. But I do have somebody that I think is really good.”
International Response
In reaction to Graham’s death, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy paid tribute, describing Graham as “a true defender of freedom and of the values that make our world safer.” He highlighted that Graham had visited Ukraine ten times during the war, noting they were in constant dialogue. Zelenskyy added that Graham had been working on key initiatives in recent weeks to advance peace, including stronger sanctions against Russia. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha called Graham a “true friend” and “one of the strongest voices” supporting Ukraine in its war against Russia. He praised Graham for pushing to bolster sanctions on Russia and for helping provide Ukraine with the means to defend itself.
I am in Chautauqua, New York for a book event this week and was shocked to wake up to find that Lindsey Graham has died at 71. I knew and worked with Lindsey since his time in the House of Representatives. We would correspond regularly on legal and constitutional issues. He was an extraordinary man with a deep and unshakable faith in this nation. His death is a great loss for our nation. Lindsey was a true son of South Carolina. Born in the town of Central, South Carolina, he attended the University of South Carolina for both his undergraduate and law school degrees. He became a prosecutor with the Air Force Judge Advocate General’s Office. He held the rank of Colonel in the Air Force Reserves.
His career is legendary and played a major role in military and foreign affairs. However, his greatest influence on the Senate was his practical thinking mixed with a disarming sense of humor. I would often receive texts or emails from Lindsey on ideas for resolving national problems. They were always bold and creative. He loved the law and enjoyed talking through such issues, often setting them aside after reflection on the political or legal complications.
We worked together on matters before the Judiciary Committee and I testified before him on issues ranging from investigations to impeachments. I would hear from him after I posted columns with praise or criticism of the underlying points. He was not only a skilled litigator but also had a keen sense of the practical. He was the ultimate problem solver, always looking for a way to navigate around barriers on the Hill. What I will miss most was his humor. Lindsey had a puckish side and looked at much of the insanity on the Hill with a sense of exasperated levity. He was often frustrated by the lack of progress in the Senate and would joke about it being the “most deliberative body” with a certain irony.
BREAKING: An initial examination from the DC Medical Examiner’s Office has determined that Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) died as a result of “Aortic Dissection due to Arteriosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease”. In layman’s terms, this means a tear in the aorta caused by hardening &…
His jokes would often be self-deprecating, downplaying his considerable skills and gifts. However, Lindsey’s aw-shucks style concealed one of the most penetrating minds in the Senate. He also had an iron core, unflinching in the face of withering criticism and attacks. A mob could surround Lindsey and not raise his pulse rate a tick. He was rock solid. It was Lindsey’s voice that would often cut through the noise and nonsense of the Hill, with his signature Southern drawl. He was particularly effective in controversies such as the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings.
.He was a major supporter of Israel and Ukraine. He recently returned from Kyiv, where he met President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to address Ukraine’s air defense systems. The left has already filled the web with vicious attacks on Lindsey. In an age of rage, even a period of mourning or civility is considered intolerable. People either loved or hated Lindsey, but few had the chance to know him. He was a warm and fascinating man. He stepped forward to enter the fray in defense of the values that he held most dear.
“If he wanted to get something, if he thought he was right, and he had people against him, he could be very tough, actually,” Trump said. “But he was a good person.”
There were times when Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) caused concern for me and the GOP base as a whole. We called him out for it, but he never crossed into Mitt Romney territory. Still, he did more to help the conservative cause, and his institutional knowledge, experience, and talent for retail politics proved invaluable.
Graham, who had just returned from a trip to a Ukrainian drone production facility, died suddenly at his DC residence on Saturday night, with preliminary reports indicating an aortic dissection. The South Carolina Republican had reportedly said he wasn’t feeling well, and an aide even suggested he seek medical attention. He wanted to wait until after his ‘Meet the Press’ appearance on Sunday. Graham was working on a US-Saudi Arabia defense treaty, normalizing Israel-Saudi relations, a Russian sanctions bill, and the passage of the SAVE America Act.
President Trump sounded devastated when he spoke of the late Graham, adding that his ability to cut deals with Democrats and navigate key pieces of legislation was top-notch (via NBC News): The late senator was a close ally of Trump’s, and the president described him to “Meet the Press” as someone who was “like a member of the family to me.” The two spoke regularly on the phone and golfed together. Graham had just returned from a trip to Ukraine before his sudden death. The president said that Graham called him in the early evening to discuss the SAVE America Act, a bill that would reshape how elections operate but does not have enough support to pass the Senate.
“He actually said he was tired, but he wanted to pass the SAVE America Act, and I said, ‘Well, we’re going to get it done, Lindsey. We’re going to get it done. I’ll see you, like, soon,’” Trump told “Meet the Press” moderator Kristen Welker, adding that the two believed they might meet on Sunday. In a separate interview on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Trump said that Graham was also “telling me about the trip” in their phone call, noting that the senator “had a great trip.” Trump remembered the late senator as someone with a “unique ability,” saying that Graham could work out issues with Democrats and that he “loved being a politician.”
“If I had a problem, a real problem, I wouldn’t often ask. But if I had a problem with a Democrat, he could work it out,” Trump said. “He was a great, he was a great politician, actually.” At the same time, Trump said, the senator could be a “tough cookie.” “If he wanted to get something, if he thought he was right, and he had people against him, he could be very tough, actually,” Trump said. “But he was a good person.”
So, who will fill that void—the essential GOP senator who can keep the ship steady as it navigates the procedural hurricanes that have derailed many bills? As of now, no one. Trump said he had a name in mind but refused to reveal whom he was talking about. Politically, losing Graham was undoubtedly a blow to the Trump White House and the GOP—he was able to bridge the two sides. Graham was especially key in helping pass the big, important bill (via Politico):
Trump said Graham called him just hours before he died to discuss the SAVE America Act, the GOP elections bill that has stalled for months in the Senate. Graham supported the legislation but frequently explained how most Senate Republicans did not want to eliminate the 60-vote filibuster rule to pass it. It was one of several points of friction between the White House and the more tradition-bound Senate that needed to be smoothed over by Graham and others during Trump’s first and second terms.
He eased tensions during hot conversations between Senate Republicans and the president, and helped shepherd last year’s “big, beautiful bill” and this year’s immigration enforcement bill. But Graham’s power had its limits: He was among the most ardent supporters for strong U.S. support for Ukraine, a position Trump didn’t embrace as fervently. “His role in the Senate and his role as a liaison between the administration and the Senate and trusted confidant and adviser was colossal,” said a White House official who like others in this report was granted anonymity to discuss internal dynamics. “It’s a devastating development. Everyone who touches the legislature and the administration is crushed.”
Graham’s ability to communicate with and persuade the executive branch was “multidimensional — from rounds of golf, to appearances on television, to dinner with administration officials,” a person close to the administration said. “I think the senator saw his relationship as a loyal and longtime friend trying to help navigate the president’s priorities through the Senate.” In turn, “Senate leadership saw Lindsey as a key link — whether as a colleague, chairman, counselor, or conduit,” the person said.
The Strait of Hormuz is open to all vessels, with the US forces being prepared to ensure free navigation along this waterway, the US Central Command (CENTCOM) said. “The Strait of Hormuz is open to all vessels seeking to lawfully transit the international waterway. U.S. forces are positioned and prepared to ensure that freedom of navigation remains available despite unwarranted Iranian aggression, harassment, threats, and arbitrary declarations,” it wrote on X.
“Iran does not control the strait. Traffic is flowing,” it underscored, adding that more than 140 vessels has passed through the strait in the past seven days. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC, elite units of the Iranian army) fired warning shots at a vessel trying to pass through the Strait of Hormuz along an unauthorized route. The strait has been closed until further notice, it added.
“.. the X account that bills itself as “the official account for the news and statements of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Sayyid Mojtaba Hosseini Khamenei..”
We still haven’t seen hide nor hair of Mojtaba Khamenei, the putative supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, since he got the top spot in March. The word going around is that he was severely maimed in the strike that killed his predecessor and father, and others speculate that he may actually be dead, while Iranian officials pretend he is alive in order to give their almost universally hated regime some legitimacy.
Whatever may be going on with Mojtaba, however, on Saturday, the X account that bills itself as “the official account for the news and statements of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Sayyid Mojtaba Hosseini Khamenei” came alive with an energy that was positively Trumpian, putting up fourteen posts in quick succession, detailing how the rulers of Iran plan to gain sweet revenge against those whom they hate. (It could have been one long message, but Mojtaba, or whoever is writing in his name on X, apparently hasn’t shelled out the eight bucks a month for a blue checkmark.)
Whoever it actually came from, the message came with a bit of fanfare; at 5:41 a.m. Eastern time, the alleged Mojtaba announced that “in an hour” there would come “Imam Sayyid Mojtaba Khamenei’s important message following the funeral and burial of the Leader of Truth-Seekers of the World, Martyr Imam Sayyid Ali Khamenei.” And sure enough, 54 minutes later, the posts started coming. Mojtaba, or whoever, started out by praising the Imam Hussein, whom Islamic tradition identifies as the son of Ali ibn Abi Talib, the founding figure of Shi’ite Islam, and the grandson of the prophet of Islam himself, Muhammad. At the Battle of Karbala in Iraq in the year 680, the Sunni caliph Yazid killed Hussein, and that killing is generally considered to mark the beginning of the formal split between Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims.
Every year on the tenth day of the month of Muharram, the first month of the Islamic calendar, Shi’ites engage in elaborate public mourning for Hussein, often whipping themselves or cutting their heads with knives to express their grief and punish themselves that they weren’t on hand fourteen centuries ago to save their leader. That’s why Mojtaba is talking about Hussein: he attempts to portray his late father, who before he was killed stained his hands with the blood of 40,000 of his countrymen for the crime of protesting against his criminal and inhumane regime, as a martyred leader in the mold of one of the pivotal founding figures of Shi’ism. What better way to cement loyalty to the regime than by associating loyalty to it with loyalty to Allah himself?
To drive the point home, Mojtaba tells us that “Martyr Khamenei acted like Hussain, and engaged in jihad and resistance in a manner similar to Imam Hussain (pbuh).” “PBUH” is “peace be upon him,” which Muslims generally say after uttering the name of a prophet; it is a sign of how highly Mojtaba, and Shi’ites in general, regard Hussain that he used it after his name as well. Mojtaba added: “Among the followers of Hussain are those whose blood, when unjustly spilled in his path and for his school of thought and ideals, moves the Muslim Ummah [global community] to action, so that their time becomes joined to Ashura and their place to Karbala.”
Khamenei is saying that it’s time once again to go to war for the Islamic faith. “For years,” he says, “the Iranian nation has sacrificed its children on the path of Hussain, battling the enemies of Hussain and the enemies of Hussain’s way, and today it seeks to take revenge for his blood and the blood of the people like Hussain in our time.” That would, of course, be dear old dad, whom Mojtaba then addresses: “We pledge to avenge your pure blood and the blood of all the martyrs of these two [recent] wars by taking revenge against the criminal, disgraceful murderers. This vengeance is what our nation is demanding, and this must definitely be done.” And: “The criminal, disgraceful murderers of the martyred Leader, whose names are fully documented from the highest to the lowest ranks, will carry their dream of a peaceful death in bed to the grave.”
Whoever wrote all this is making it abundantly clear that the Islamic Republic of Iran has not changed. It has not deviated even an inch from its goals of “death to America” and “death to Israel,” which Mojtaba’s father said were policies, not mere slogans. It will keep waging jihad against both countries. It will keep trying to murder Trump. It will keep sponsoring jihad terror activity around the world. One hopes that this message is being carefully studied in Washington, and any idea that the regime has somehow changed being definitively put to rest.
Vladimir Zelensky announced the need to replace the country’s current government and his intention to dismiss Prime Minister Yulia Sviridenko. Specifically, he offered her a new position. “We discussed the details with Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Sviridenko. We determined that changes require a renewal of the cabinet. I thanked Yulia for her clear, stable, and effective work as prime minister, for her years of productive work on the Ukrainian team, and offered her to lead a new significant direction,” Zelensky wrote on his Telegram channel.
Yulia Sviridenko became Prime Minister of Ukraine on July 17, 2025, replacing Denis Shmygal, who currently serves as First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Energy. Following Sviridenko’s resignation, he will automatically become acting prime minister until the Verkhovna Rada approves a new government lineup.
The European Union has stooped to using dubious procedural loopholes usually employed by backwater regimes to pass controversial legislation, Pavel Durov has argued. The Telegram co-founder was referring to the contentious regulation that allows tech companies to scan their users’ messages, ostensibly to detect child sexual abuse material. In a post on X on Friday, the entrepreneur wrote: “Once typical of banana republics, such tricks are now used by the EU to pass surveillance laws.”
Durov’s comment came shortly after the European Parliament voted on Thursday to revive what critics have dubbed the ‘Chat Control’ legislation. The temporary regime had originally lapsed in April after MEPs had failed to find common ground amid an outcry over privacy concerns. However, Parliament President Roberta Metsola asked EU leaders to restart talks on the regulation, with the European Council granting her request, meaning that the proposal was again put to a plenary vote at the bloc’s legislature.
Law enforcement officials, including Europol Executive Director Catherine De Bolle, have likewise supported the controversial framework, describing it as a vital tool “for the protection of children.”mAccording to the Euractiv media outlet, four EU commissioners also put pressure on lawmakers to pass the legislation. The center-right European People’s Party (EPP), of which Metsola is a member, arranged for the vote to be subject to a rarely-invoked legislative procedure, which requires an absolute majority of at least 361 MEPs to axe or amend a proposal.
The vote was held the day before summer recess, when full attendance was highly unlikely. As a result, the scheme was passed despite opposition from most present lawmakers. Commenting on the development, Rand Hammoud from Europe’s Center for Democracy and Technology denounced what he characterized as “highly politicized procedural efforts” to ram the proposal through. “When the largest group uses its political weight to force another vote on a mass-scanning measure that already failed, that should concern anyone who cares about institutional integrity,” he told Euractiv.
“It is impressive to see the European Parliament being backstabbed by its own president,” Simeon de Brouwer from civil society network Edri concurred, as quoted by the media outlet. He warned that the ‘Chat Control’ law allows tech companies to “snoop without a warrant, with little to no oversight, and with no legal basis, on millions of conversations.”mMeanwhile, a broader ‘Chat Control 2.0.’ framework is reportedly being prepared that would force tech companies to snoop on end-to-end encrypted communications, which are currently exempt from scans.
Kiev needs to “sober up” to prevent further escalation in the row with Warsaw over the glorification of Ukrainian Nazi collaborators, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has said. Tensions between the neighboring countries, which have been close allies during the conflict between Moscow and Kiev, escalated last month after Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky named one of his country’s commando units after “heroes of the UPA (Ukrainian Insurgent Army).”
Speaking on Friday, the eve of the National Day of Remembrance, when Poland honors the victims of UPA, Tusk insisted that Kiev must recognize the crimes committed by the UPA if it hopes to mend ties with Warsaw. “I can once again appeal to all decent, wise, responsible Ukrainians. Remember, this great European community is based on the truth and the truth is an absolutely necessary foundation of reconciliation, and that’s why I hope that everyone on the other side, but also everyone here in Poland, will sober up to restrain these exaggerated emotions,” he said.
The row “has gone too far and is harming both Poland and Ukraine. I have no doubt about it,” the prime minister added. It has ignited “nationalist lunatics” on both sides, causing an avalanche of hatred on social media, Tusk noted. He urged the authorities in Kiev to curb any anti-Polish sentiment and vowed that Warsaw will act with “the full force of law” against anyone who commits crimes against Ukrainians on ethnic grounds. “The Russians would be happiest if there was some dramatic crisis in Ukrainian-Polish relations,” the prime minister warned.
Poland blames the UPA – an armed wing of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), which fought for Nazi Germany during World War II – for an ethnic cleansing campaign in the Volhynia region between 1943 and 1944 that left at least 100,000 civilians dead. Warsaw recognizes the massacres as a genocide. Following Zelensky’s move last month, Polish President Karol Nawrocki reacted by stripping him of the country’s highest honor, the Order of the White Eagle, prompting several Ukrainian officials to return their own Polish decorations to Warsaw. Poland also rolled back its decision to transfer its remaining Soviet-era MiG-29 jets to Ukraine and questioned Kiev’s prospects of joining the EU.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Wednesday that the West, including Poland, raised a “terrorist monster” in Ukraine by arming and funding it, while ignoring its Nazi ideological foundations. Warsaw “knew they were supporting those who had killed their grandfathers” and this fact “can no longer be undone by simply taking away the White Eagle, posting a few tweets, or making loud statements,” she argued.
Poland has commemorated the anniversary of the Volhynia massacre, a large-scale ethnic cleansing operation perpetrated by Ukrainian Nazi collaborators during World War II and a hot-button topic that sparked a recent diplomatic clash between Warsaw and Kiev.
Multiple events were held across Poland on Saturday to honor the victims of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), the armed wing of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN). The commemoration is tied to events of July 11, 1943, also known as Bloody Sunday, which marked the height of the massacre when nearly 100 Polish-populated towns across Volhynia were attacked. According to Polish estimates, at least 100,000 ethnic Poles were killed between 1943 and 1944 in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia regions, which are now largely part of modern Ukraine.
The commemorations were attended by top Polish officials, with President Karol Nawrocki making an appearance at a ceremony in the village of Radruz, one of the targets of the OUN-UPA militants. “We are here so that the reality of today’s and tomorrow’s world can be heard. Because we will not accept forgetting the 120,000 Poles, civilians, women, and children brutally murdered by Ukrainian nationalists,” Nawrocki stated.
The president pledged to take further action against the Ukrainian nationalist ideology, arguing in favor of outlawing the red-and-black flag of the OUN-UPA. The banner has been widely used by present-day Ukrainian nationalists, as well as incorporated into emblems of multiple units within the country’s military. “We do not want to see it in Poland – and I will do everything to ensure that it is not present in Poland. I believe that the Polish parliament will pass the relevant law,” he said, comparing the flag to Nazi Germany memorabilia.
“It is the same as the ‘Blut und Boden’ (‘Blood and Soil’) flag. That is what it meant, and behind it lay – and still lies – the entire ideology of Ukrainian nationalists who killed Polish women and children,” he stressed. Footage from the village of Domostawa, the home to a contemporary monument honoring the Volhynia massacre victims, shows dozens of people attending the solemn gathering. Unveiled in 2024, the monument has drawn some controversy over its brutal depiction of a child impaled on a pitchfork, somewhat resembling the Ukrainian heraldic trident.
The Volhynia massacre has remained an unresolved issue between Kiev and Warsaw. While Poland recognizes the massacre as genocide, Ukraine celebrates its perpetrators as ‘freedom fighters’ and national heroes. The tensions reignited last month when Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky named one of Ukraine’s commando units after “heroes of the UPA,” prompting Nawrocki to strip him of Poland’s highest honor. Several Ukrainian officials responded to the move by returning decorations received from Warsaw. Meanwhile, Poland’s main opposition Law and Justice (PiS) party said it would submit a parliamentary resolution opposing Ukraine’s EU accession as long as Kiev continues to “glorify criminals.”
The Volhynia issue has already done a lot of damage to ties between Poland and Ukraine and is bound to spark a conflict within Poland itself in the future, leader of the Front party and former Polish MP, Krzysztof Tolwinski, told RT. “The only thing is the outcome of this little war is a foregone conclusion – Russia will bring Ukraine back to normal and restore order there. Those who fought will never make peace with Russians; this is why they will end up on Polish territory. And this is when an internal conflict will begin, a real inevitable one,” Tolwinski stated.
Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) has released newly declassified documents detailing the massacre of Poles by Ukrainian nationalist militias during World War II in what is now western Ukraine. The release comes as Poland marks its National Day of Remembrance on Saturday honoring the victims of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), the armed wing of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN). The ethnic cleansing campaign in the Volhynia region between 1943 and 1944 claimed the lives of at least 100,000 civilians, according to Polish estimates.
A monument in Domostawa, Poland, commemorating Polish civilians killed by Ukrainian nationalist militias during World War II.
Poland recognizes these tragic events as a genocide. Ukraine, however, celebrates the UPA as freedom fighters, a stance that has led to a high-profile diplomatic dispute between the neighboring countries. The Soviet archival files released by Russia describe the activities of the OUN unit led by Dmytro Kupyak, known by the nom de guerre Kley, who is believed to have been responsible for killing at least 200 Polish and Soviet nationals, as well as burning and looting eight villages.
On May 16, 1944, during a raid on the village of Kupche, Kley’s unit killed residents “solely because they were ethnic Poles,” the files say. On August 17 that year, the nationalists raided the village of Grabovo, where they locked nine women and children in a shed before burning them alive. One of Kupyak’s former associates, Andrey Moroz, described him in a Soviet court as a “simple bandit” without any ideological convictions. After the war, Kupyak fled to Canada, where he ran a restaurant in Toronto until his death in 1995. In the 1960s, the Canadian government denied Soviet requests to extradite him.
The OUN collaborated with Nazi Germany during the early stages of the invasion of the Soviet Union and participated in anti-Jewish pogroms. The UPA was created in 1942 after the OUN split with the Germans. Many UPA members were defectors from Nazi-led units, including its eventual leader, Roman Shukhevich, who had previously served as deputy commander of the Nachtigall Battalion. Last month, Polish President Karol Nawrocki stripped Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky of Poland’s highest honor, the Order of the White Eagle, after Zelensky named one of Ukraine’s commando units after “heroes of the UPA.” Several Ukrainian officials responded by returning their own Polish decorations to Warsaw.
The Fourth of July was not only a day to celebrate our country’s independence. It marks the date of a new kind of investment account for children of citizens who are under 18 and who have Social Security account numbers. The Trump Accounts (530A accounts) are a brilliant idea. Often compared to “starter IRA accounts,” the children are the owners of the accounts, which are to be managed by a responsible adult — guardian or parent. Funds in these accounts must be conservatively invested in U.S. stock index funds. Fund fees must be low — no more than 0.1%.
Contributions are not deductible, but growth of the accounts is tax-deferred. Except for rare cases, like the death of the beneficiary, the funds cannot be withdrawn until the child reaches 18, at which point they are taxed as ordinary income at the child’s rate — which normally will be small if the funds are withdrawn while young. Once the child reaches 18, the Trump account automatically converts to a standard traditional IRA or Roth IRA. Employers, charities, or family members can contribute with annual contributions for each account limited to $5,000. Even sweeter, employers can contribute up to $2,500 tax-free to accounts. Sweeter yet, for those children born between 2025 and 2028, there will be a federal contribution of $1,000 to start the account off.
To open one of these accounts, use IRS Form 4547 or use the online portal trumpaccounts.gov. A number of private individuals and foundations, notably Michael and Susan Dell, have kicked in a lot to these accounts — the Dells over $6 billion while SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell and her husband contributed SpaceX stock valued at over $300 million. Aside from these standalone gifts, hundreds of institutions, companies, and philanthropists have made or pledged contributions. On July 9, just five days after these accounts went into effect, the popularity of the program was manifest:
@EricLDaugh. JUST IN: In a MASSIVE shock to the Fake News, Trump Accounts in 5 days have received a SURGE of +$125 MILLION DOLLARS for America’s children — that’s not even counting $1,000 seed money and wealthy donor contributions. 6.5 MILLION American children have accounts, and a vast majority of contributions are below $250, per Washington Examiner THIS IS BECOMING A HUGE WIN The benefits of this will be felt for generations. Imagine the compounding interest these kids will see when they are grown!
According to Washington Examiner: “Beyond the money itself, the Trump Accounts app has performed remarkably compared to other federal government tech rollouts, holding the top overall spot in the Apple App Store. Its average rating of 4.75 stars across nearly 3,500 reviews gives it better marks than the Robinhood app. For comparison, the 2013 rollout of the Affordable Care Act’s Healthcare.gov website was plagued by numerous technical glitches that were well documented in media reports at the time. A leaked internal memo from the Obama administration showed that only six individuals were able to enroll the first day the website went live, and there were just 248 enrollments by the end of the first 48 hours.
The Trump administration acknowledged anecdotal evidence that some Trump Accounts users are seeing errors but stressed that “99.9% of users have not encountered any hiccups and that customer support was working quickly with the 0.1% of cases that require assistance.” A Treasury Department official claimed that users have waited, on average, “0.2 seconds when contacting customer support by phone and 0.5 seconds when contacting via chat.”
Even some frequent critics of the president have given Trump Accounts glowing reviews. In a Wednesday appearance on SiriusXM’s The Clay Cane Show, Gov. Wes Moore (D-MD) likened the program to baby bonds, calling it “one of the fastest ways that you can address both child poverty and the racial wealth gap.” “I will give this administration credit for this, is that we’ve had Democratic presidents and Republican presidents who have not been able to get this done, and it actually got done,” Moore added. “So I actually, this is actually a smart policy.”
Consider the genius of this program. It encourages millions of people, many of whom are not investors, to become actual stakeholders in our economy. (Not the pretend kind of stakeholder the left promotes — vague hordes of people with no skin in the game who are to be given a share of control.) Smart children will start to watch the stock market and learn about compounding and why it matters. For children who would not otherwise have assets in their youth for further education, to buy a car or residence, or start a business, this gives them a leg up once available only to those the beneficiaries of generational wealth.
DAVID SACKS: “One of the numbers that I saw that was kind of amazing… again, it just goes back to the power of compounding… Is that if a Trump Account had been maxed out and you have the standard market rate of return that we’ve had for, say the past 30 years… Then by age 28, that kid will be a millionaire.”
For some, other investment options might be more advantageous, but generally speaking, the overall benefits for society are huge and include: encouraging household savings to take advantage of the tax-deferred benefits; increasing the wealth and personal savings level of the beneficiaries. Kids under 18 might want to help reach that $5,000 annual contribution maximum by deferring spending to add to their accounts on their own from personal earnings (paper routes may be dying, but there’s babysitting and lawn cutting).
A few countries have some sort of saving programs to provide a financial boost for minors: the UK, Israel, Singapore, various Indian states, and Canada. They vary in different respects from each other. But the Trump Funds are uniquely American in that by specifying investment in equity funds and converting these funds to IRAs when the beneficiaries reach 18, they set the stage for long-term participation in the stock market, something worth encouraging from both an individual and national viewpoint.
“The nation’s two major teachers unions—the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association—are cash machines for the Democratic Party.”
Included in the 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act is a dollar-for-dollar tax credit, up to $1,700, for contributions to “Scholarship Granting Organizations” that parents can access and use toward paying for private school tuition and fees and other educational expenses. The provision is constructed such that states must choose to opt in to the program, which begins January 2027. As of this writing, per the IRS, 28 states have opted in. Of those 28, 25 are red states and three are blue—Colorado, New Hampshire and Virginia. This partisan imbalance is no accident.
The nation’s two major teachers unions—the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association—are cash machines for the Democratic Party. And the last thing they want is parents having any say in where their child receives their K-12 education. The unions have published an “Open Letter to our Democratic Governors” urging them to “say no to the Trump private voucher scheme.” Per the leaders of these two unions, the signatories of the letter, “Public education … is the foundation of a thriving democracy” and vouchers are a betrayal.
Amid the celebration of our nation’s 250th birthday, with recitals of the defining words of our founding declaration—our rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”—the leaders of the teachers unions declare it un-American that parents should have the right to choose how and where to educate their children. We all should justifiably shudder that minds like this influence the majority of our nation’s children. The results speak for themselves. The Programme for International Student Assessment, administered by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, tests 15-year-olds in 80 countries in math, science, and reading.
In the latest available scores, the top five countries are Singapore, China, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea. The United States ranks 18th behind Poland, Czechia, and Denmark. Per the OECD, U.S. education spending per student in 2025 was $20,387 compared to the OECD average of $15,022. U.S. education spending as a percent of gross domestic product was 5.8% compared to the OECD average of 4.7%. Per the World Bank, education spending as percent of GDP in Singapore, the country with the highest PISA score, was 2.2% in 2024, less than half that of the U.S.
Analysis done at the Cato Institute shows inflation-adjusted spending per student in the U.S. increased 140% from 1971 to 2019, while over the same period, test scores in math and reading for 17-year-olds barely moved. A May 2026 study by the Network Contagion Research Institute and the Gevura Fund, which have affiliations with Rutgers University and the University of Maryland, reports: “Combined NEA spending on political activities, lobbying, and contributions to outside organizations totals approximately $175 million in FY2025, nearly 4 times the $45 million spent on direct member representation.”
PAC records show that 90% of NEA candidate-directed spending and nearly all of AFT’s, has gone to Democrats consistently across decades.” A casual glance at the website of the NEA and the AFT barely turns up a hint about reading, math and science. Both are poster boards for the progressive political agenda. It is no wonder that scholarships and vouchers, tickets for parents and children to education freedom, is a nightmare for the teachers’ unions who are about control, not freedom.
A recent study by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute ranks states by the strength and influence of their teachers’ unions. Among the top 25 states rated with the strongest teachers’ unions, only two—Ohio and West Virginia—have opted into the new tax-funded scholarship program. Why are so many of our youth embracing socialism and turning away from the principles of our founding? Look no further than the vice grip unions have on our public schools. Education freedom is vital to America’s future. The new tax-funded scholarship program is a major step in the right direction.
I’m going to blow your mind. Are you ready? Hold on tight!
Dr. Oz and Nick Shirley just walked a single block in NYC and found double-digit pharmacies.
Dr. Oz: “I don’t think you could go anywhere in America and think this was normal unless there was a cash cow business feeding… pic.twitter.com/PWwCkgJ8zr
Elon Musk: "The strongest argument for us being in a simulation, probably being in a simulation,.40 years ago, we had Pong, like two rectangles and a dot. That was what games were. Now, 40 years later, we have photorealistic 3D simulations." pic.twitter.com/FfDZ3cepOc
— Joe Rogan Podcast News (@joeroganhq) July 11, 2026
Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.
Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei has never released video or voice messages, and he’s still not been seen or even photographed since the war’s start, and is believed to be severely injured and recovering. State TV on Thursday read aloud his written speech, which struck a defiant tone, declaring that the only place Americans belonged in the Persian Gulf is “at the bottom of its waters” and that a “new chapter” was being written for the whole region. State media cited security as the reason for having to read aloud his statement.
Khamenei says Iran will closely guard and protect its nuclear and missile capabilities, a clear and direct rejection of President Trump’s demand to hand over enriched uranium as the basis for a deal. Iranians will cling to the country’s nuclear and missile capabilities “as their national capital and will guard them like water, land and air borders,” Khamenei said.
“By God’s help and power, the bright future of the Persian Gulf region will be a future without America, one serving the progress, comfort and prosperity of its people,” Khamenei continued. “We and our neighbors across the waters of the Persian Gulf and the (Gulf) of Oman share a common destiny. Foreigners who come from thousands of kilometers away to act with greed and malice there have no place in it – except at the bottom of its waters.” He also vowed Iran’s forces will “secure the Persian Gulf region and dismantle the hostile enemy’s exploitation of this waterway.”
US Teases Hypersonic Missiles, CENTCOM to Brief Trump
As we detailed Wednesday night, United States Central Command has requested deployment of the Army’s long-delayed hypersonic Dark Eagle to the Middle East for potential use against Iran, seeking a longer-range capability to strike ballistic missile launchers deep inside the country, Bloomberg first reported. If approved, the move would mark the first deployment of the hypersonic system, which remains behind schedule and has not been declared fully operational, even as Russia and China have already long ago fielded their own versions.
The Pentagon has claimed time and again of late that it has local air superiority, meaning that in some parts of Iran its aircraft can operate without facing much of a threat. And yet dozens of MQ-9 aircraft, plus several crewed fighters, have been downed, showing that other parts of Iran’s airspace remain dangerous.The Bloomberg report hit just as Axios rehashed an earlier report, according to which President Trump will receive a briefing on new plans for potential military action in Iran on Thursday from CENTCOM Commander Adm. Brad Cooper. The briefing signals that “Trump is seriously considering resuming major combat operations either to try to break the logjam in negotiations or to deliver a final blow before ending the war.”
Meanwhile the Iranian side has been claiming dozens of its vessels have breached the US naval blockade, which the Pentagon has been denying. Others say that while some ships have traversed the strait, they have not actually fully crossed the blockade.
Fifty two Iranian vessels have crossed a US-imposed blockade of Iranian waters within a 72-hour period… https://t.co/mZrwK5qijI
It remains difficult to know what’s really going on inside Iran, and to accurately assess the state of the country’s internal politics, but Financial Times describes a situation of hardliners vs. moderates duking it out to see whether negotiations with the United States should continue.
The report comes well after President Trump and the White House have at various times alleged Tehran governance is ‘fractured’ and the state is even ‘collapsing’ – which seems exaggerated if not flatly false. Those more independent-minded analysts outside the mainstream suggest the opposite is the case – that it’s Washington which can’t stick to any of its red lines and keeps moving the goal posts on negotiations. After all Trump did keep unilaterally extending the ceasefire, and the US has not resumed the bombings even though Trump clearly threatened to (even with ‘firm’ timelines) as the Iranians sat back
“At the heart of the dispute, which has played out in parliament and state media, is a push by Iran’s most hardline politicians to oppose the Islamic republic negotiating with the US over its nuclear program,” FT writes. “Their primary target is Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the veteran parliamentary speaker who led talks to US vice-president JD Vance in Pakistan earlier this month. Politicians linked to Paydari, an influential ultra-hardline faction, suggested that negotiators have not fully followed directives set by the new supreme leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei,” the publication continues.
As for definitions, there’s also the problem of the West imposing broad brush labels of ‘hardline’ and ‘moderate’ from afar, based fundamentally on speculation and we might say, circular logic. After all, any Iranian official who is against pursuing more negotiations – while understandably coming to the conclusion that Washington can’t be trusted (after it bombed Iran twice during talks) – gets automatically labelled ‘hardliner’ by the MSM, and this also carries all kinds of implications overlapping with radical Islam.
But yes, there are clearly holdouts pushing for Tehran not to engage at all, to completely shutter communications, which would likely mean certain return to war: “Negotiations are now pure damage and nobody should go for negotiations,” Mahmoud Nabavian, a member of parliament close to the Paydari who accompanied Iran’s negotiating team to Pakistan, told local media. And another key section from the report is in the following:
He [Nabavian] criticized inclusion of Iran’s nuclear programme in talks as a “strategic mistake” and implied this is not what the top leader sought. Another hardline politician, Ali Khezrian, claimed to state television that the supreme leader opposed continuing the talks.Officials “should know that at this sensitive time their obligation is to thoroughly obey and carry out the guidelines of the supreme leader,” Nabavian said.
On Monday, 261 out of 290 MPs issued a statement supporting Ghalibaf and the other negotiators. However, prominent members of Paydari were absent from the list of signatories. The longer the Hormzu standoff goes, and the more the anti-Tehran rhetoric flows out of the White House and from Trump on Truth Social, the more likely the Paydari faction and others are to influence broader numbers of Iranian leaders and sectors of the public.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent outlines Operation Economic Fury and the financial pressure campaign against the Iranian regime with Larry Kudlow.
KEY POINTS:
0:00 Introduction: Operation Economic Fury
0:39 Max Pressure: The Strategy to Freeze Iran’s Economy
2:04 Tracking the Money: Seizing IRGC Assets and Crypto
3:14 The Oil Blockade: Kharg Island at a Standstill
4:10 US Economic Resilience: Why Critics Are Wrong
6:04 IRS Modernization and Signature Tax Policies
7:33 Global Reshoring and the Manufacturing Boom
8:10 Geopolitical Chess: The UAE’s Break from OPEC
10:27 Federal Reserve Friction: Jay Powell vs. Kevin Warsh
After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against racist gerrymandering in a landmark decision Wednesday, President Donald Trump enthusiastically celebrated the decision. The Voting Rights Act was originally supposed to prevent the formation of congressional districts based on racial discrimination, but unfortunately, Democrats transformed it into an excuse to do exactly what it was meant to prevent. And therefore, the Court’s ruling against such abuse is very significant for protecting the integrity of our political system.
Trump posted on his his Truth Social platform April 29, “Today’s 6-3 Supreme Court decision in the Callais case is a BIG WIN for Equal Protection under the Law, as it returns the Voting Rights Act to its Original Intent, which was to protect against intentional Racial Discrimination. Thank you to brilliant Justice Samuel Alito for authoring this important and appropriate Opinion. Congratulations!” Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon was just as excited as the president. “Extremely gratified to see this decision we’ve been waiting for! I was proud to co-author the brief for the United States as amicus in this important case, perhaps one of the most important developments in decades in Voting Rights Act jurisprudence!” she posted.
BREAKING: In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court rules that racial gerrymandering, which has been used to create majority black congressional districts for decades, is unconstitutional. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion for the majority. pic.twitter.com/AtPjtfo4cR
Less enthusiastic were Democrats who have benefited from such racist rigging of our system. Former President Barack Obama, for instance, whined, “Today’s Supreme Court decision effectively guts a key pillar of the Voting Rights Act, freeing state legislatures to gerrymander legislative districts to systematically dilute and weaken the voting power of racial minorities…The good news is that such setbacks can be overcome.”
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who drew up one of the most outrageous and blatantly biased gerrymandered maps in the country, actually had the chutzpah to complain also, and added in an insult to the governor of Florida over a congressional map there likely to favor Republicans more. “The same day MAGA gutted the Voting Rights Act, Trump’s pipsqueak DeSantis rushed through rigged maps. No debate. No public input. They’re scared of VOTERS. This November: FAFO,” he hysterically threatened. Because only Democrats are allowed to redraw districts, apparently.
Here’s why Democrats are so mad:
What today’s SCOTUS ruling on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana could mean in terms of House seats across the South.
The Supreme Court also delivered a religious freedom win on Wednesday, when it ruled unanimously in favor of faith-based ministries challenging state government overreach. After New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport harassed First Choice for helping pregnant women instead of recommending they kill their babies, the court ruled in favor of the pro-life center rather than the abortion-loving Democrat. It is certainly a day on which patriots can applaud the court.
“Anthropic has been engaged in a form of regulatory capture by pushing frameworks that raise barriers to entry, allow it to dictate terms to suppliers, and concentrate power among a small number of well-connected firms. The more complex and restrictive the system becomes, the more it advantages companies already embedded in Washington.”
Last week, something unusual happened in Washington. Dario Amodei, the CEO of Anthropic, went to the White House in an attempt to make peace with the Trump administration. This is the same company that has been in open conflict with the Pentagon over the use of its technology and, as a result, was recently labeled a “supply chain risk.” Now its chief executive is knocking on the door, looking for a reset.That alone should raise a simple question: why now?
Amodei and Anthropic have openly opposed the direction President Trump is now taking on artificial intelligence. Amodei has been one of the most vocal critics of the administration’s decision to allow controlled exports of AI chips, even going so far as to compare a recent White House–approved sale of AI processors to “selling nuclear weapons to North Korea.” That’s not a nuanced policy critique. It’s an attempt to frame the president’s approach as reckless and dangerous—and to box policymakers into adopting the very restrictions that benefit his company while discouraging competitors and new entrants.
This is happening because Anthropic has built itself into something more than a technology company. It has become a political actor, deeply embedded in the regulatory mindset of the previous administration. The company has staffed its ranks with a significant number of former Biden officials who helped design and defend the very AI policies that President Trump is now unwinding and is going in “big” to support candidates who have called the President’s policies “bigoted.” The worldview that shaped those policies — and helped put the United States at risk of falling behind in the AI race — didn’t disappear when those officials left government. It followed them into the private sector.
That helps explain why Anthropic has been so consistently aligned against Trump’s AI agenda. This isn’t just about technical disagreements over governance frameworks or export categories. It’s about a fundamentally different view of how America should compete. On one side is a strategy rooted in market interference and government restriction. On the other is a strategy rooted in scale, competition, and global engagement while protecting America’s national security interests.
Anthropic has clearly chosen a side and used its position to argue for failed policies, including the export restrictions pushed during the Biden years that attempted to wall China off from American technology. Those policies didn’t slow China down. They sped it up.
Cut off from U.S. chips, Chinese firms invested heavily in domestic alternatives, built parallel supply chains, and moved closer to technological independence. The United States has seen this before. During the race to develop 5G technology, Washington similarly tried to restrict access, only to see Huawei step in, lock in global market share, and export its standards to much of the world. The risk now is repeating that mistake on a far larger scale with artificial intelligence.
President Trump’s approach reflects a different understanding of how global competition works. Rather than retreating from the market, the administration is staying engaged and allowing controlled exports of less advanced chips while keeping the most cutting-edge technology protected. The goal is not to give competitors like China an advantage, but to ensure they remain tied to American platforms, standards, and supply chains. In effect, it flips the script on a strategy China has used for years with rare earth minerals — building dependence that translates into long-term leverage.
That’s precisely the approach Anthropic has historically questioned and why its sudden effort to make peace with the White House should be viewed with skepticism. This isn’t just a disagreement over policy details. It’s a broader effort to shape the regulatory environment itself. As White House AI czar David Sacks has argued, Anthropic has been engaged in a form of regulatory capture by pushing frameworks that raise barriers to entry, allow it to dictate terms to suppliers, and concentrate power among a small number of well-connected firms. The more complex and restrictive the system becomes, the more it advantages companies already embedded in Washington.
[..[ AI will shape the next century of economic and geopolitical power. The United States cannot afford to fall behind because it listened to the loudest voices urging it to slow down. And it should be especially wary of taking advice from companies that have spent years opposing the very strategy now keeping America in the lead. Let’s give the Trump administration room to cook — blending technological advantage, national security protection, and American global market domination. Anthropic may want a reset. But Washington should remember exactly where the company has stood — and why.
“On day #1, FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino should have terminated [..] any and all of those FBI agents and support personnel with extreme prejudice ..
I have less than zero sympathy or consideration of credibility for both individuals in the video below. Former Deputy Director Dan Bongino sits down for a dramatic, Q-feeding therapy session with Mr Tick-Tock himself, Sean Hannity. In a widely discussed interview, the co-dependent enabler – masking himself as the victim of all things deep state, says on one hand there are honorable ‘rank and file’ within the FBI as an institution, and on the other hand he fears they will target him once President Trump leaves office. Go figure.
If you face reality and stop pretending, you then look at the facts with cold pragmatism: • The Robert Mueller investigation used 40 FBI agents, issued 2,800 subpoenas, executed 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 secret orders for communication records, used 50 pen registers and interviewed 500 witnesses, all to prove there was a Trump-Russia conspiracy afoot. All of it was complete nonsense. That is the reality of the thing.
On day #1, FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino should have terminated (or suspended pending criminal investigation) any and all of those FBI agents and support personnel with extreme prejudice and then held a press conference to make the announcement. Delivering mysterious statements about the scale and scope of the institutional problem, pouring fuel on innuendo, proclaiming vague possibilities, while hiding behind some opaque ‘trust me bro‘ reasoning for a currently mysterious inability to explain exactly what the heck he is talking about, is unadulterated dramatic ‘clickbait’ prose intended to feed an audience willing to be deceived.
As you are aware, CTH is watching the small details closely on the U.S-Russia alignment against the backdrop of friction with the European Union, the U.K and NATO on issues surrounding Iran. In the past several days there have been several smaller moments lost amid media chatter of bigger news items, this is one such example today in the Oval Office.
During a press availability with the Artemis II astronauts, President Trump was asked for an update on the Ukraine conflict and seemingly stalled negotiations between U.S. intermediaries and Russia. At 04:12 of the video below, President Trump notes he spoke at length with Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin today on issues related to the Ukraine conflict, and {{{thoughtful-pause}}} Iran. WATCH:
President Vladimir Putin is in no hurry to ceasefire in Ukraine, and the U.S. military operation in Iran is not against his interests. On April 12, 2026, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent quietly extended the sanction relief for Russia, permitting oil/gas sales loaded on vessels by 4/17/26 for transit and sale through 5/16/26. This permits Russia to push oil to Asia, specifically China, India and ASEAN countries where it is needed, while simultaneously the UAE and Saudi Arabia increase oil pumping avoiding the issues with the Strait of Hormuz.
This is happening while the U.S. is providing large oil and LNG supply increases to South/Central America, Europe and Japan to offset any global shortages. Russia supplies China, India and Southeast Asia; the U.S. supplies Europe and Japan; the UAE supplies India and Australia; while Saudi Arabia supplies Africa and Europe. Global markets stable, Iran then faces operation financial fury led by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. So, we can reasonably see the general tone of the conversation between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. Well, after this press briefing, President Trump sent the following message on Truth Social.
During the press briefing President Trump noted, yet again, his profound disappointment with Europe, the U.K and NATO allies. Trump delivered praise for King Charles as a statesman but separated the political policy aspects of the U.K from his impression of the monarch. These remarks about drawing down U.S. troop levels in Germany comes against the backdrop of German Chancellor Fredrich Merz being highly critical of President Trump’s intention to incapacitate Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon. Chancellor Merz is looking for any distraction he can come up with to avoid the issue of a severely contracting German economy.
Most Americans do not fully appreciate how the German national identity is defined by their industrial economy. The traditional people of Germany have a self-image that is -in large measure- the result of their economic condition. Everything centers around industriousness. Weaken that a little bit and the hardcore German people get visibly angered.mCommissar and European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, is also not happy. “In just 60 days of conflict, our bill for fossil fuel imports has increased by over €27 billion, without a single molecule of additional energy,” she told the European Parliament in Strasbourg.”
For all reasonable intents and purposes President Trump has withdrawn support for Ukraine. At the same time President Trump has openly been questioning NATO General Secretary Mark Rutte about the seemingly irrelevant purpose of the alliance. Now, we might think this is just some transitional matters that have been visited before in various peaks and valleys of the geopolitical relationship. However, that is not the case this time. How do we know this time it is something far more significant? Well, the EU is debating dropping their climate goals.
BRUSSELS — Energy companies will be able to break the EU’s pollution limits and get away with it, under measures being considered by the European Commission ahead of a gathering of EU leaders in June.
The EU executive is considering a “zero-penalty” option that would allow national authorities not to fine companies that break strict rules governing methane emissions scheduled to come into force next year, according to two people familiar with the matter who were granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive discussions. (
The Donald Trump administration is not playing around when it comes to cartel activity in Mexico, even if Mexican officials aren’t exactly willing to play ball. On Wednesday, a federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York unsealed a 34-page indictment charging Rubén Rocha Moya and nine other current or former high-ranking Mexican officials with drug trafficking and weapons offenses. The defendants are accused of partnering with the “Los Chapitos” faction of the Sinaloa Cartel (the sons of El Chapo) to help smuggle massive quantities of fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine into the U.S.
Rocha Moya is the current governor of the Mexican state of Sinaloa, which the Department of Justice calls the “geographic epicenter of the global narcotics trade.” He’s also a member of former Mexican president Andrés Manuel López Obrador and current president Claudia Sheinbaum’s Morena Party. Others charged include the mayor of Culiacan, a sitting senator, and the deputy attorney general for the Sinaloa State Attorney General’s Office. The men indicted allegedly took millions in bribes, gave the cartel protection from prosecution, leaked intel on law-enforcement ops, and provided state resources, like police cars and radios.
One of them, Juan Valenzuela Millan (or “Juanito”), a former high-level Culiacán Municipal Police commander, was also charged with the kidnappings of a DEA source and the source’s relative that resulted in their deaths, allegedly after they were handed over to the cartel.They all face life sentences with a mandatory minimum of 40 years, except for Mr. “Juanito,” who faces a mandatory life sentence.
“The Sinaloa Cartel is a ruthless criminal organization that has flooded this community with dangerous drugs for decades,” said U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton. “As the indictment lays bare, the Sinaloa Cartel, and other drug trafficking organizations like it, would not operate as freely or successfully without corrupt politicians and law enforcement officials on their payroll. The support of corrupt foreign officials for deadly trafficking of drugs must end. Let these charges send a clear message to all officials around the globe who work with narco-traffickers: no matter your title or position, we are committed to bringing you to justice.”
Rocha Moya responded with a statement of his own on X (translated from Spanish): “I categorically and absolutely reject the accusations made against me by the Southern District of New York Federal Prosecutor’s Office, as they lack any truth or foundation whatsoever. And this will be demonstrated, with full force, at the appropriate time. This attack is not solely against my person; but against the movement of the Fourth Transformation, its emblematic leaderships, and the Mexican women and men who represent that cause.
It is part of a perverse strategy to violate the constitutional order, specifically the national sovereignty advocated by Article 40 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, which our movement defends as an invariable and non-negotiable principle. To the people of Sinaloa, I say that, with the courage and dignity that characterize us, we will demonstrate the lack of foundation for this slander.” Big Nicolás Maduro vibes there, and we all know how that ended. All of this comes after last week the U.S. Treasury “sanctioned 23 individuals and entities that comprise a sophisticated synthetic opioid procurement network with ties to the Sinaloa Cartel,” and the State Department imposed “visa restrictions on 75 individuals who are family members or close personal or business associates of persons linked to the Sinaloa Cartel.”
This appears to be the first time the DOJ has indicted a sitting Mexican governor. The Mexican Foreign Ministry confirmed that U.S. officials have requested the extradition of the individuals indicted to the United States, but that there is enough evidence. It added, “However, as is standard procedure in these cases, the Attorney General’s Office will determine whether there is sufficient evidence under Mexican law and the viability of the requests for provisional arrest for extradition.”
Oh boy, this indictment puts Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum in a really precarious position. If President Sheinbaum gives up the Governor of Sinaloa, Mexico, Ruben Rocha Moya to extradition the Sinaloa cartel will go ultra-violent against Sheinbaum and Moya will likely take down the entire government apparatus with him. [Ancillary to this, it now makes sense why all the various Mexican federal officials were publicly criticizing the Trump administration and CIA in recent days. They knew this in advance.]
The DOJ (SDNY) has indicted Mexican Governor Ruben Rocha Moya along with nine current and former Mexican officials for participating “in a corrupt and violent drug trafficking conspiracy with the Cartel to import massive amounts of fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine from Mexico into the United States.
“The defendants have played a variety of essential roles for the Cartel: among other things, the defendants have allegedly shielded Cartel leaders from investigation, arrest, and prosecution; caused sensitive law enforcement and military information to be provided to members of the Cartel and allied drug traffickers to assist the Cartel’s criminal activities; directed members of state and local law enforcement agencies, such as the Sinaloa State Police, the Investigative Police for the Sinaloa State Attorney General’s Office, and the Culiacan Municipal Police, to protect drug loads stored in and transiting through Mexico to the United States; and allowed brutal drug-related violence to be committed by members of the Cartel without consequence. In exchange, the defendants have collectively received millions of dollars in drug money from the Cartel.”
VIA LBR on Twitter: – […] This move represents a direct and aggressive escalation by Washington against the highest levels of the Mexican state apparatus. The indictments detail a systemic entanglement between regional Morena governance and cartel operations, effectively labeling the Sinaloa state leadership a criminal enterprise under U.S. law.
This legal assault by the DOJ decapitates the political leadership of one of Mexico’s most strategically sensitive states at a moment of extreme national fragility. By targeting a sitting governor, the U.S. is signaling a total collapse of bilateral trust and an end to the era of diplomatic shielding for Mexican officials. The move is designed to force a confrontation within the Sheinbaum administration, leaving Mexico City with zero room to maneuver between its domestic political alliances and the threat of total diplomatic isolation. The fallout will be immediate and chaotic.
Beyond the legal proceedings, these indictments serve as a precursor to broader sanctions and a likely reclassification of Mexican security cooperation. For the Mexican government, the era of managed stability in Sinaloa is over; Sheinbaum is now facing a direct challenge to state legitimacy and a physical security vacuum that will likely trigger a violent internal restructuring of cartel hierarchies and government control.”
“I would urge you to see the truth of the situation you are in Claudia. That is my advice. It is not for me to tell you what you should have done or not done. The world in which you seek to undo the mistakes you made is different from the world where the mistakes were made. You are now at the crossing, and you want to choose – but there is no choosing here. There is only accepting. The choosing was done a long time ago. … I don’t mean to offend you, but reflective women often find themselves removed from the realities of life. In any case, we should all prepare a place where we can accommodate all of the tragedies that sooner or later will come to our lives. But this is an economy few people care to practice, and that is because when it comes to losing leadership the normal rules of exchanges do not apply, because losing office transcends value. Nicolas Maduro would give his entire nation to exit his reality, and yet he cannot buy anything without office, because without office he is worthless.”
The US is “studying and reviewing” whether to reduce the thousands of troops it has stationed in Germany, President Donald Trump has announced via social media. His remarks came days after German Chancellor Friedrich Merz criticised his approach to the war in Iran, suggesting that US had been “humiliated” by Iranian negotiators. Trump said in a social media post late on Wednesday that a decision on troop numbers would be made “over the next short period of time. Then early on Thursday he rounded on Merz, saying he should spend “more time on ending the war with Russia/Ukraine (Where he has been totally ineffective!)”.
The US has a significant military presence in Germany, with more than 36,000 active duty troops assigned to bases across the country as of last December. Merz made no mention of Trump’s comments during a visit to German soldiers in northern Germany on Thursday, although he went out of his way to stress the importance of the Nato defensive alliance and “transatlantic solidarity”. Earlier this week, however, he told university students that “the Americans clearly have no strategy” and he could not see “what strategic exit” they were going to choose.”The Iranians are obviously very skilled at negotiating, or rather, very skilful at not negotiating, letting the Americans travel to Islamabad and then leave again without any result,” he said.
He added that the “entire nation” was being “humiliated” by the Iranian leadership. Trump responded the following day with a post to Truth Social, where he said Merz thought it was “OK for Iran to have a Nuclear Weapon” and “doesn’t know what he’s talking about.” “No wonder Germany is doing so poorly, both Economically, and otherwise!” the post read. He picked up the same theme on Thursday, suggesting Merz should focus more on “fixing his broken Country, especially Immigration and Energy, and less time interfering with those that are getting rid of the Iran Nuclear threat”.
Germany, along with the UK and France, was part of a 2015 deal with Iran to limit its nuclear operations, although Trump pulled the US out of the agreement in 2018.When asked about Trump’s initial post in a press conference on Wednesday, Merz said the “personal relationship between the American president and myself remains just as good as before”. He has not yet responded to Trump’s suggestion that he could reduce US troops in Germany. The US military deployment in Germany is by far its biggest in Europe, with about 12,000 troops in Italy and a further 10,000 in the UK. Many are stationed at the big Ramstein air base outside the southwestern German city of Kaiserslautern. And while Trump has proposed US troop reductions in Germany before, they have so far not come into effect.
In 2020, a proposal to move 12,000 US troops from Germany either to other Nato countries in Europe or back to the US, was blocked by Congress and then reversed by President Joe Biden.At the time, Trump had accused Germany of being “delinquent” because its military spending was well below Nato’s target of 2% of economic output (GDP). But that has changed dramatically under the Merz government: Germany is projected to spend €105.8bn (£91bn) in 2027 – with total defence expenditure next year set to reach 3.1% of GDP.Merz said after talks with Trump in Washington in March that Trump had assured him the US would maintain its military presence in Germany, adding that he had not expected anything else.
However, while Merz has this week complained of the economic consequences for Europe of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, Trump has been angered by the response of Nato allies in Europe to the war in Iran.Over the past two months, the US president has repeatedly threatened to withdraw from the 32-member Nato alliance, calling it a “paper tiger” and a “one-way street”.Earlier in April, a leaked internal Pentagon email detailed potential measures for the US to punish allies it believed had failed to support its campaign in Iran, including a suggestion that the US could seek to suspend Spain from Nato over its stance. A Nato official told the BBC that the alliance’s founding treaty “does not foresee any provision for suspension of Nato membership, or expulsion”.
The Pentagon’s draft budget for fiscal year 2027 does not include funding for military aid to Ukraine, Acting Pentagon Comptroller Jules Hurst confirmed. “That’s correct. There’s no USAI (Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative – TASS) funding in this budget,” he said while testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, commenting on the US War Department’s recently released budget request for the upcoming fiscal year.
At the same time, Hurst noted that the Pentagon will soon begin using the $400 million military aid package for Ukraine previously approved by Congress. “They [the funds] were released very recently. And again, we got these funds, I believe, in March. And it takes time for funds to flow through the Department, but it’s going to get put to work very shortly. We’re going to work with the EUCOM commander to make sure we use these funds in the most appropriate way possible,” he said.
US Senator Mitch McConnell (Republican, Kentucky) wrote in an article published on April 29 by The Washington Post that the US Department of War is delaying the transfer of the $400 million military aid package previously approved by Congress. According to McConnell, the Department has also ignored related requests from the relevant Senate committees. He added that Under Secretary of War for Policy Elbridge Colby bears responsibility for the delay in resolving issues related to the disbursement of the aid.
Well, that didn’t take long. Zohran Mamdani hasn’t even completed his first executive budget as New York City mayor, and he’s already got his hand out. The self-described democratic socialist swept into office promising a new utopia — and almost immediately delivered a fiscal crisis requiring a state bailout. Margaret Thatcher warned us about exactly this. Sooner or later, socialists run out of other people’s money. In Mamdani’s case, it took no time at all.
The mayor announced Tuesday that he’s pushing back the deadline for his first executive budget — originally due Friday — to at least May 12. Standing alongside City Council Speaker Julie Menin, Mamdani framed the delay as a reasonable response to uncertainty in Albany. In other words, he’s waiting to find out if Albany will bail him out over his $5.4 billion budget gap. “This adjustment reflects a very simple reality,” Menin said. “New York state has not finalized its budget, and until they do so, we do not have the necessary clarity to responsibly complete the city’s budget.” If they’re expecting a bailout, I wouldn’t count on it.
Gov. Kathy Hochul’s spokesperson fired back with a statement that was, by Albany standards, refreshingly blunt. “The mayor and City Council need to work together, identify savings, and close the remaining gap.” Here’s what makes the optics especially rich. Just weeks ago, Mamdani posted a video bragging about how he was taxing the rich and how it was going to be a huge boon for the city. The message was clear: Tax the rich, fund the city, problem solved. Now he’s warning that without state intervention, he may have to raise property taxes on regular New Yorkers to close the shortfall.
Mamdani and Menin are pushing Hochul to scale back the state’s Pass-Through Entity Tax Credit, arguing that it functions as a loophole for the ultra-wealthy. “More than 95% of PTET credits go to those making more than $1 million a year,” Mamdani said. “More than 80% go to those making more than $5 million a year.” He estimates adjusting PTET could bring in around $1 billion in revenue — which still leaves roughly $4 billion-plus of the problem unsolved. Menin, hedging carefully, wants any PTET change to be temporary rather than permanent. Even she seems to sense this isn’t a long-term strategy.
Mamdani is also dusting off the familiar grievance that New York City sends more money to the state than it gets back — a claim some Albany lawmakers dispute. It’s a convenient argument when you need someone else to bail you out. This is socialism. Nothing is surprising about this. Conservatives have been saying this is what New York City was destined for if it elected Mamdani. We didn’t have a crystal ball; we just had common sense and history on our side. Now, Mamdani is learning in real time what every socialist eventually discovers. There’s always a bill, and eventually you run out of millionaires to hand it to.
Once upon a time, there was a societal pact in this country that, when a depraved lunatic committed an atrocity, no one would breathe a word of his motives, speech, or writings. When Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold kicked off the school shooting craze at Columbine High School in 1999, we didn’t speak of what they thought they were accomplishing. Their so-called basement tapes were never publicly released, and authorities destroyed them in 2011. “Law enforcement officials have always regarded the tapes as a particularly infectious form of toxic waste, a primer in mass murder that could inspire more violence and must never be released,” reported the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition.
The understanding was that repeating a lunatic’s motivations could inspire copycats. Back then, society hoped to prevent more tragedy. Today’s Democrat establishment hopes to inspire it. So brazen have they become that, less than 24 hours after Cole Allen tried to assassinate President Donald Trump, CBS reporter Norah O’Donnell read the slander from his manifesto to his intended victim’s face. Trump called her out, saying, “Well, I was waiting for you to read that because I knew you would, because you’re horrible people.” He was right, but no matter: Management at CBS still went on to air those poisonous words on its Sunday show, 60 Minutes. Because everyone at that vile network is in on it.
So is every single newscaster, elected or appointed official, celebrity, and every other leftist with a sheen of authority or influence and a platform who repeats the litany of leftist accusations. But then, Democrats are the morally challenged segment of society, dating back to their slaveholder roots (now manifested as fighting to keep their cheap labor through trafficking poor people into the country to work for near-slave wages). Once they hid behind the “liberal” label, but that has morphed into what plainly animates them today: hate, perversion, and political violence. Cheering on an assassin, either explicitly or implicitly, is A-OK with them.
Democrats are also all about plausible deniability. Just ask Joe Biden’s grifty brother, Jim. This is why this sort of mass projection of violence in the hopes of triggering a nut with good aim is such a perfect fit for them. It’s called “stochastic terrorism.” Perhaps, in the case of the relentless attack on Donald Trump, we can more accurately call it “stochastic assassination.” Policy research agency RAND explained the concept in a 2024 report called “From words to actions”:
The role of the media in radicalisation and terrorism has been a topic of discussion in recent years. Citizens are increasingly at risk to be exposed to extremist ideas through social media and communication apps, which can lead to a normalisation of hatred towards certain individuals, groups or institutions and an increased acceptance of violence. A term that is gaining popularity in the media and popular scientific literature in the context of recent incidents of extremist violence in which the media may have played a role is ‘stochastic terrorism’.
This term refers to hostile, derogatory and/or dehumanising language by influential individuals towards a political, social, ethnic or religious group or individual. Through interaction on social media and traditional media, this language may lead to a climate of fear, which in turn increases the likelihood of someone turning to violence, even if the initial message does not explicitly call for it. Due to the implicit nature of these expressions, individuals responsible for (reinforcing) inflammatory discourse cannot straightforwardly be prosecuted, if at all. However, there is currently no legal definition or even a unified understanding of this somewhat elusive concept.
My colleague VodkaPundit explained how the left is leveling the tactic against the president: “…there’s no conspiracy required to produce a left-wing assassin like Tyler James Robinson or Ryan Routh. They just amp up the rhetorical pressure, 24/7/365, until somebody pops.”
Street artist Banksy has confirmed a large statue that appeared in central London is his work. The sculpture – which bears his signature – depicts a suited man walking forward off a plinth while carrying a flag that covers his face. Its location – Waterloo Place, St James’s – is an area designed to celebrate imperialism and military dominance in the 1800s. The sculpture sits near statues of Edward VII, Florence Nightingale and the Crimean War Memorial.Banksy’s representatives told the BBC the statue was installed in the early hours of Wednesday, before the artist posted a video of it on his Instagram account on Thursday afternoon. On the statue’s position on the ceremonial island in Waterloo Place, Banksy said: “There was a bit of a gap.”
Since it appeared on Wednesday, crowds have gradually increased in size. Contractors were seen erecting safety barriers around the work on Thursday afternoon. Westminster City Council, which is responsible for the area, said: “We’re excited to see Banksy’s latest sculpture in Westminster, making a striking addition to the city’s vibrant public art scene. “While we have taken initial steps to protect the statue, at this time it will remain accessible for the public to view and enjoy.”
James Peak, creator of the BBC podcast series The Banksy Story, said: “Here, you’ve got a brilliant comment on a bumptious, chest puffed out man in power with the flag completely obscuring his vision, which is why he is about to fall off the plinth. “It is a wonderfully framed moment in time that you never really get with a statue.” He added Banksy had “pulled off another fantastic coup…the positioning is absolutely knockout”. “I don’t know how he’s managed to do it.
“How has he got a low-loader to there with all the security and put up a massive resin statue?”On the statue’s location, he added: “We’ve got to face up to the fact that Britain has an imperialistic history full of takeovers and part of that is the sort of extreme nationalism that Banksy absolutely abhors.” “Every (Banksy) piece is a campaign.”
As Dr. Anthony Fauci’s right-hand man, David Morens, was charged this week with conspiracy and destruction of federal records in the COVID-19 cover-up, another scandal over the vaccine was unfolding on Capitol Hill. According to a new Senate report and congressional testimony on Wednesday, Biden administration health officials deliberately ignored warning signs of possible serious reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine, including heart attacks, strokes, Bell’s palsy and sudden cardiac death.
Within three months of the vaccines being rolled out, in March 2021, red flags were fluttering out of the weekly data dumps from doctors and patients reporting health problems after the shots, according to internal emails and meeting notes provided by the Department of Health and Human Services to Sen. Ron Johnson’s Homeland Security Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. But when the FDA’s senior medical officer, Dr. Ana Szarfman, whose job was to monitor the vaccine data for warning signs, repeatedly raised the alarm throughout 2021, she was ignored, and emails show her colleagues tried to stop her from using a newer, more accurate statistical methodology to investigate the data.
On Sept. 9, 2021, Biden announced his vaccine mandates, with an implied threat to the roughly 80 million Americans who had not taken the COVID jab and whom he accused of prolonging the pandemic and putting everyone at risk, even though the vaccine did not stop transmission of the disease. “We’ve been patient, but our patience is wearing thin,” Biden said. “And your refusal has cost all of us.” On Sept. 16, Dr. Peter Marks, a staunch supporter of the COVID-19 vaccines who at the time led the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, told another senior FDA official in an email that Szarfman (who has since retired) “has been asked to cease and desist, because the strategy that she is using could create erroneous conflicts that feed in to anti-vaccination rhetoric.” Marks also complained that Szarfman’s work has “become a major distraction.”
The documents uncovered by Johnson’s investigation staff point to the same alarming secrecy and efforts to avoid accountability that landed Fauci’s adviser, Morens, in trouble. The secrecy included instructions from FDA officials to discuss findings in person rather than over email and stopping or limiting the distribution of the weekly vaccine safety reports with the alleged intent of avoiding FOIA requests. On March 26, 2021, Szarfman shared with colleagues her analysis of COVID-19 vaccine adverse events using the superior, newer “data mining” methodology that had found more than 20 statistically significant “safety signals” or potential red flags associated with the COVID-19 vaccines that were not previously detected by FDA’s current methodology, “including sudden cardiac death, Bell’s palsy and pulmonary infarction.”
Her analysis was conducted with Dr. William DuMouchel, then the chief statistician at Oracle and the inventor of the data-mining algorithm. However, “rather than warn the public or hold distribution of the vaccines for further investigation, records appear to indicate that Biden health officials ignored the statistically significant safety signals uncovered through the new methodology and were more concerned about Dr. Szarfman’s efforts rather than her troubling findings,” the interim report found. In April 2021, after Szarfman emailed colleagues with another data-mining analysis that apparently underscored the limitations of the FDA’s current system, one senior FDA official wrote to his colleagues, “[b]efore we potentially reach out to Ana, we should meet internally — many considerations not suited to email …”
Szarfman continued to bring her reports to colleagues, but they were ignored. In August 2021, about a month before Szarfman was directed to “cease and desist,” Dr. David Menschik, a senior FDA colleague of Marks, told a CDC official that the FDA planned to limit distribution of its weekly vaccine data-mining reports, which used to be sent around the FDA and CDC, citing “data-security reasons.” But emails among CDC officials uncovered by Johnson’s investigators point to a potentially more nefarious reason for the FDA’s decision to stop distributing its data-mining reports.
In a November 2022 email, one CDC official noted, “I think that because of the FOIAs [Freedom of Information Act requests] we may have asked FDA to stop sending these weekly data-mining outputs.” According to Johnson’s staff report, “in the months and weeks leading up to the FDA’s decision to discontinue its distribution of the weekly data-mining reports, there were several public requests made to CDC and FDA for that information. “On May 9, 2022, about two months before the FDA stopped sending CDC its weekly data-mining reports, Children’s Health Defense sent a FOIA request to CDC for the [vaccine] data-mining analyses.
“On June 23, 2022, 19 days before FDA sent its final weekly data mining report, Sen. Johnson wrote to then-CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky requesting the same information. “Then, on June 30, 2022, 12 days before FDA’s last distribution, the Informed Consent Action Network submitted a FOIA request to FDA for the [vaccine] data-mining records. “In light of these public and congressional requests, the timing of the FDA’s decision to end the distribution of its weekly data-mining reports seems particularly suspect. “The notion that Biden health officials took steps to limit the distribution of COVID-19 vaccine safety data in order to avoid more internal review or public scrutiny, it is completely unacceptable.”
Democrats on the subcommittee, like Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), were at pains to point out during the hearing that COVID-19 itself caused serious injury and death, calling as their witness a 41-year-old woman, Maria Young, who was hospitalized for two months and almost died in the months before the vaccines were developed. Of the 8 billion vaccine doses administered worldwide, multiple large studies suggest there has been no increase in long-term mortality among vaccinated people. However, the damage was done by the COVID cover-up and lies. They have driven widespread distrust of vaccination, including tried-and-true lifesaving vaccines.
Today, OpenAI’s lawyers, led by William Savitt, spent hours on aggressive cross-examination – hitting Elon with unfair yes/no traps and trying to paint him as jealous, regretful, and a bully
Former CIA Dir. John Brennan isn't just a TRAITOR, he's also guilty of issuing passports for not one, but two of the hijackers from 9/11 and responsible for allowing them into the United States, causing a terrorist attack.
Dan Bongino; Someone left the Russia Gate documents for us to find. 100 page document explained it all and it was worse than even I could have expected. They all knew it was bullshit. I cannot believe this happened in the United States. pic.twitter.com/I3b2eadYju
Iryna Mudra
A Gift from Us for You Credulous Human Twits 
A monument in Domostawa, Poland, commemorating Polish civilians killed by Ukrainian nationalist militias during World War II. 
