NATO Archives - The Automatic Earth

Every American better be paying attention. The situation in Europe is growing worse by the day and drawing us ever closer to a much bigger and more disastrous war!

I’ve always said, you may NOT want war, but war wants you.

“Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico says European… https://t.co/8uxdUqXxd9
— General Mike Flynn (@GenFlynn) September 19, 2026

🚨BREAKING: IRAN ISSUES “CODE 100”, ITS HIGHEST ARMED FORCES ALERT

💥IRANIAN ALERT ISSUED AFTER TRUMP CUTS HIS CAMP DAVID TRIP SHORT TO RETURN TO THE WHITE HOUSE⚠️

💥The US State Department just issued security alerts for the entire Middle East

💥Benjamin Netanyahu has also…
— SilverTrade (@silvertrade) September 20, 2026

https://twitter.com/ConstitustionX/status/2100726372897566749?s=20

WOW‼️ What a snake 🤬 https://t.co/cN692NDBL4
— Sidney Powell 🇺🇸 Attorney, Author, Gladiator (@SidneyPowell1) September 19, 2026

In an election in one of Germany’s states, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Chancellor Merz’s ruling CDU party didn’t even make the 5% voting threshold for Parliament

Can’t slow it down, so go head first.

• Trump Announces AI Task Force and Pending Appointment of AI Czar (CTH)

PRESIDENT TRUMP – Over the years, there have been many Hoaxes, all generated by the Radical Left Dumocrats, for purposes of destroying our Country. RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA, UKRAINE, UKRAINE, UKRAINE, Global Warming, Impeachment Hoax #1, Impeachment Hoax #2, Men in Women’s Sports, Transgender for Everyone, and now, the decimation, or destruction, of AI, commonly known as Artificial Intelligence — And I, as President of the United States, will not stand by and let this happen.

It all began with an attack on our Data Centers, until people realized how wealthy and prestigious they were for the Communities in which they were built. Higher Salaries, Lower Taxes, and Safer Streets, was the result, and the crazed Data Center attack has largely failed, so now, in much the same way as they changed the term “Global Warming” to “Climate Change,” in that it covers a much larger “territory” of doubt, they are going straight at AI.
We will not in any way hinder or stifle the Growth of this incredible Industry. Rather, we will cherish it, help it, and watch over it, as it grows! However, we will also be looking for BAD, and we can do that, very easily, with our already existing Criminal and Civil Justice System.
For this purpose, I am forming the AI Force, much like I did Space Force, which has been a tremendous SUCCESS, in my First Term. To that end, I will be announcing, in the near future, the AI “Czar” — Only High I.Q. individuals need apply! AI is the next Industrial Revolution, or Internet, but will be even larger and more impactful, possibly as much as 25% of our Country’s GDP. We are leading China, and the rest of the World, and I intend to keep it that way!” ~ President DONALD J. TRUMP

Are they just trying to scare people?

• Nvidia CEO Discusses Current Status of AI (CTH)

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang appears on CBS Face the Nation to discuss AI development and point out that messaging is “quite frankly too much drama, irresponsible. It is not grounded in facts.” There is the short segment that was broadcast on Sunday morning and also the full video below.

Full Video Below:

“America can decide how it develops artificial intelligence. It cannot decide whether artificial intelligence will continue to develop.”

• The Apocalyptic Game: Panic and Opportunity (Sasha Gong)

America’s latest argument over artificial intelligence has suddenly become apocalyptic. Former Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon accused AI companies of “gambling with our lives.” Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei urged the industry to slow the development of frontier models, an idea supported by OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Elon Musk. At the same time, opposition to the data centers needed to power AI is spreading across the United States. China has noticed.

X recently uncovered a suspected Chinese influence network of roughly 200,000 fake accounts; about 200 of them were directly involved in amplifying claims that American data centers were raising electricity prices and overwhelming the power grid. This does not mean that criticism of AI or data centers is manufactured in Beijing. Concerns about electricity costs, water use, pollution, cyberattacks, job losses, and mass surveillance are real. But China does not need to invent American divisions. It needs only to identify, amplify, and exploit them.
Modern democracies periodically succumb to predictions that a new technology will destroy humanity. The fear may be legitimate, but its political consequences are not evenly distributed. Democracies permit protest, litigation, regulation, and obstruction. They may even abandon a technology out of fear. Dictatorships suppress debate, concentrate resources, and use their rivals’ hesitation to catch up.
The first great technological apocalypse began with the atomic bomb. As the Manhattan Project approached completion in 1945, scientists considered whether an atomic explosion might ignite nitrogen in the atmosphere or trigger an uncontrollable reaction in the oceans. Edward Teller raised the possibility; Hans Bethe and others calculated that the risk was physically negligible. The Trinity test proceeded.
The question nevertheless haunted Robert Oppenheimer. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, he feared that scientists had opened a Pandora’s box. When Washington decided to develop the hydrogen bomb after the Soviet atomic test, he opposed it on moral and strategic grounds.
Oppenheimer’s Communist associations then turned a policy dispute into a political scandal. His wife and brother were members of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), and he had many pro-Soviet acquaintances. Meanwhile, actual Soviet spies inside the Manhattan Project—including Klaus Fuchs and Theodore Hall—passed crucial nuclear information to Moscow.
The Soviet Union tested an atomic bomb in 1949 and a thermonuclear device in 1953. China tested its first atomic bomb in 1964, shortly after emerging from a famine that killed 40 million people. Neither Communist regime permitted a genuine public debate over the wisdom of nuclear competition.
The West did. Scientists, churches, students, and citizens organized enormous anti-nuclear movements. Their pressure contributed to test-ban treaties and arms control negotiations. Yet Americans still understood that the danger came not only from nuclear weapons but also from the regimes possessing them. After Sputnik in 1957, few believed the United States could safely withdraw from technological competition while the Soviet Union continued advancing.
After the Cold War, climate change became the next vehicle for apocalyptic politics. Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth turned complex climate models into images of approaching catastrophe. Greta Thunberg transformed policy disagreements into moral indictments. Claims that humanity had only “12 years” remaining circulated widely.
Fear of climate change converted a scientific problem into an ideological commandment. Energy restrictions, endless permitting, penalties on traditional industries, and costly transitions were presented as the only acceptable path. These policies greatly contributed to and accelerated Western deindustrialization.
China followed a different course. Unrestrained by voters, environmental groups, or local governments, Beijing concentrated subsidies, land, energy, and credit to build complete industrial supply chains. The West congratulated itself for reducing domestic emissions while transferring production to China. It then discovered that it depended on China for pharmaceuticals, rare earths, batteries, solar panels, and electronics.
The pattern is now repeating with AI. While Americans debate moratoriums, China is treating artificial intelligence, robotics, and computing infrastructure as pillars of national power. Its “Eastern Data, Western Computing” strategy is creating an integrated national computing network, moving the eastern seaboard’s data-processing demands to western provinces with abundant land and energy. Beijing intends to control not only AI models but also the electricity, chips, servers, communications systems, and data centers that sustain them.
China is also competing to write the rules. In 2026, 29 countries signed an agreement in Shanghai establishing the World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization, which Beijing describes as the first intergovernmental organization devoted to AI. China does not plan to pause while America debates whether the future is too dangerous to build.
AI requires serious safeguards: independent testing, cybersecurity standards, protection against biological misuse, transparent energy pricing, and accountability for harms. But regulation should make development safer, not make development impossible. Data-center projects should bear their actual costs, but local objections cannot become a nationwide veto over the infrastructure of the next industrial age.
Open debate is one of democracy’s moral strengths. The power to suppress debate is one of authoritarianism’s strategic advantages. When democratic caution becomes paralysis, freedom itself becomes vulnerable to exploitation.
America can decide how it develops artificial intelligence. It cannot decide whether artificial intelligence will continue to develop. If the United States stops because it fears the future, China will not stop with it.

Trump must be careful. Don’t get dragged in.

• Zelenskyy Brags About NATO Missiles Being Used to Attack Russia (CTH)

Days after President Trump asks Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to halt attacks on Russian oil refineries, Zelenskyy takes the attacks up a notch and brags about all of the different NATO country missile systems being used to attack Russian oil refineries. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy wrote on X, “One of Russia’s key oil industry facilities and the aggressor’s logistics facility were hit. These are billions of dollars that sustain the war machine. The systems used included FP-1, RZ-100, MICH-2000, Palianytsia, Vendetta, Liutyi, Bars, Flamingo, Sichen, and Pelican.”

Everyone can see this game for what it is. Everyone can see it. After weeks of various European/NATO countries hyping pending attacks from Russia, Zelenskyy now begins to name the missile systems being provided by those countries to target Russia. Zelenskyy and the EU-NATO group are intentionally trying to draw a Russian military response against the support the European countries are providing to Ukraine. Zelenskyy is naming the missile systems as part of that antagonistic effort, and his NATO allies do it on the last day of the Russian elections. Specifically timed and coordinated for maximum propaganda use.

President Trump, or someone inside the U.S. administration needs to make a very public statement highlighting that everyone can see the organized effort for what it is. EU-NATO wants an expanded conflict with Russia, beyond the confines of the non-NATO Ukraine conflict.Bloomberg reports that the Gazprom Neft-owned Moscow Oil Refinery, about 16 miles from the Kremlin, was struck by drones.
The facility has a processing capacity of around 245,000 barrels a day and supplies fuel to the surrounding metro area. Simultaneous with this increased provocation, the Ukrainian president announced plans for meeting with President Donald Trump in New York.

Zelenskyy feels emboldened by his relationships to his “NATO partners”, including Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Andy Burnham. This is not going to end well unless someone steps on Zelenskyy to bring him back to reality.

No Nukes, No NATO, No Nazis. Nothing changed the past 5 years.

• Putin Remarks on Europe’s Preparations for Expanded War Against Russia (CTH)

European defense industries have been expanding the production of missiles and drones for use in Ukraine. For years, Moscow has watched and seemingly tolerated the use of British, German and Polish military warehouses to manufacture drones and weapons which are then used to target Russia and kill Russian civilians. It is these targets which Europe has placed on high alert, while simultaneously mixing in false flag alerts and events to scare the European population and rally them for increased spending and expanded conflict. However, a large part of the European citizenry can see the EU operations clearly (see recent German examples). Against this backdrop, Russian President Vladimir Putin delivers the following remarks (transcript):

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, colleagues,
Today, we will talk about the new draft State Armament Programme and the defence industry development programme. They will become the backbone for designing and serial production of modern weapons systems and hardware for our army and other defence and law enforcement agencies for them to be ready for a rapid and effective response to potential external threats.
As you know, such threats are not abating. NATO is “swelling” and expanding and has now extended its reach to other regions of the world. Certain European leaders are openly declaring that they are preparing for war with Russia. In my view, they are merely trying to salvage their plummeting approval ratings by concealing the failures of their economic and social policies. This approach is clearly ineffective – it does not produce results.
Instead of listening to their citizens – who have made it abundantly clear through elections that they do not want war with Russia – these leaders continue to escalate tensions. They are exploiting the situation in Ukraine to exacerbate the crisis, using the Ukrainian people as cannon fodder.
“Their arguments invariably boil down to a few points. One of them is the assertion that Ukraine is ostensibly defending European values, European civilisation and democracy. Yet how can the current regime in Ukraine claim to be defending democracy when it has long since degenerated into dictatorship? No one wants to address this point.
It is common knowledge that no elections are being held in Ukraine. Power has been seized by a clique of embezzlers and corrupt officials who need war to retain their positions in the absence of elections and to maintain the conditions necessary for the plunder of their own people – enriching themselves with funds from sponsors, including those in Europe. And is this totally corrupt regime really the principal defender of democracy in Europe? It sounds rather strange.
The Ukrainian leadership, as you know, is in no hurry to hold elections; moreover, it is actively trying to hinder us. You are aware that quite recently, the Kiev regime committed yet another crime – it struck the residential building of the chairwoman of a district electoral commission in the village of Oktyabrskoye in the Zaporozhye Region. The chairwoman of the commission, Yelena Astanina, was tragically killed. Today, I signed an Executive Order posthumously awarding her the Order of Courage.
Representatives of the Kiev regime – the leadership in Kiev – speak of peace and propose the resumption of so-called negotiations. Yet, even as they commit crimes of this nature, they do everything in their power to ensure that there is neither peace nor negotiations. Otherwise, one must ask: what is the purpose of these actions? To intimidate us? It is clear to everyone that this is impossible. Therefore, the objective can only be one: they have no intention whatsoever of conducting any negotiations – that is what it is all about.
I have also said about some European leaders: to justify their position and exorbitant spending on the war in Ukraine, they are using absolutely anything. In particular, one of the basic claims is an alleged threat from Russia. I want to say this again: Russia has no aggressive intentions regarding Europe or European countries. We simply have no reasons for this. We are ready for cooperation and restoring relations with our European neighbours.
Nevertheless, we have also noted another round of military drill held quite recently in the Baltic Sea. One of their objectives was to master seizing civilian vessels. Is that normal? All the time they are speaking about protecting international law, about observing its rules, while getting ready for capturing civil ships.
Meanwhile, the same people are displaying so-called concern and denouncing everything unfolding in the Strait of Hormuz and the Strait of Bab el-Mandeb. But what are they really doing? What are they getting ready for? I just want to tell them: let’s live in harmony instead; otherwise, we’ll have to respond too. This should be obvious for everybody, a clear truism. It won’t be otherwise.
The basic areas of the new State Armament Programme have been determined with due account of the world situation, the special military operation experience and the global trends in military technologies. The top priorities include, as before, the strengthening of the nuclear triad that remains the guarantee of our country’s sovereignty and plays a key role in preserving the balance of force in the world.
I want to point out that hardly any nuclear country can boast such figures as, for example, those of our Strategic Missile Forces – 92 percent modernisation, that is, modern armaments. Another priority area of the new state programmes will be the improvement of the air defence system. It has to ensure destruction of any means of air and space attack.
Special attention will be given to developing a broad range of unmanned robot-assisted systems of various profiles as well as to precision munitions. We need to fully complete the orbital constellation of spacecraft. This will enhance the capabilities of all types of space reconnaissance, navigation, satellite communication and broadband internet access for the real-time command and control of troops and weapons.
In the course of implementing the proposed programmes, work to develop and introduce advanced digital technologies and AI will be continued. I want to emphasise that all the items and parameters of the new State Armament Programme require rational, carefully calibrated and effective solutions. This is what we are going to discuss.
There are some other issues but we will discuss them in a closed-door format.”

He can try. Do we know how they treated him? He does. That’s why he does this. If only symbolic.

• Can the President Ban Disfavored Media? (Turley)

The Trump Administration is rushing to prepare for a fight that few knew was coming after President Donald Trump banned Politico, CNN, and MS NOW from the White House for spreading “fake news.” I understand the President had been planning this step for over a year, but he announced it with little notice to his staff. What will follow could be one of the most consequential fights over press rights in decades… and the odds are against the President.

I have previously expressed my disappointment with the ban. While I have been one of the most vocal critics of biased coverage on these outlets, I view this as an ill-considered, damaging move. Putting aside the constitutional concerns, it is a policy that undermines core values and traditions related to the free press. As I discussed in my Hill column this weekend, presidents since George Washington have denounced media bias, but they have refrained from this type of action.
During the Biden Administration, the President would regularly attack Fox News and reporters such as Peter Doocy. However, they were not banned over their negative coverage. The United States laid the foundation for free speech and the free press in the First Amendment. It remains the great champion of press freedom around the world. It is difficult to maintain that position when media outlets are barred because of the content of their coverage.
On the legal side, the ban runs against the grain of existing precedent. In 1977, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia considered a ban on Robert Sherrill, a reporter for The Nation. In Sherrill v. Knight, the court ruled that the First Amendment limited the right of the White House to arbitrarily deny a press pass to a journalist. Since that time, viewpoint discrimination has long been viewed as not a reasonable basis for exclusion.
The D.C. Circuit held “White House press facilities having been made publicly available as a source of information for newsmen, the protection afforded newsgathering under the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press . . . requires that this access not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons.” The White House appears ready to seek a possible reversal of Sherrill either before the D.C. Circuit or the Supreme Court. It is a risk since a countervailing decision could cement and even amplify the Sherrill standard in a Supreme Court opinion.
The White House is not without good-faith arguments to make in the coming litigation. The White House is not a public forum, and it can deny access for reasons such as security. Last year, the D.C. Circuit ruled for the White House in Ateba v. Leavitt. Journalist Simon Ateba challenged White House credentialing requirements after he was denied a permanent “hard pass.” The appeals court found that, as a nonpublic forum, such a denial was permissible.
However, the Court in Ateba rejected the notion of “unbridled discretion” in such denials. Citing Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788 (1985), the Court still reaffirmed that “[a]s a nonpublic forum, access to the White House Press Area “can be restricted as long as the restrictions are” viewpoint neutral and reasonable.” Likewise, after the Trump White House denied access to CNN correspondent Jim Acosta, a federal judge (and Trump appointee) ordered the White House to restore the press pass due to the lack of due process and notice.
The D.C. Circuit also considered such denials in the case involving the Associated Press when the Administration barred access to Air Force One and the Oval Office after AP refused to change references to the Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America. In Associated Press v. Budowich, the D.C. Circuit noted: In Sherrill, we held that the “White House press facilities having been made publicly available as a source of information for newsmen, the protection afforded newsgathering under the [F]irst [A]mendment guarantee of freedom of the press” attached, requiring that “access not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons.” 569 F.2d at 129 (cleaned up).
AP initially prevailed before District Judge Trevor McFadden, also a Trump appointee, who ruled that the ban probably violated the First Amendment. He wrote that “under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists – be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere – it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints.” A divided panel of the D.C. Circuit later lifted the injunction by stressing that Air Force One and the Oval Office are very specific locations subject to greater discretion and controls. However, the court stressed that Sherrill is still good law and bars arbitrary denials. The litigation is still ongoing.
In this case, the White House gave no procedural protections or any reason other than the President’s view that these outlets were publishing “fake news.” That creates a clean and straightforward record. The White House will have to argue that it can deny access without notice, procedural protections, and based entirely on the content of coverage. In other words, it will have to argue that it can engage in viewpoint discrimination.
Once again, opposing this policy is not to defend the underlying coverage. Many of us have raised the same objections to the coverage. However, this would create a dangerous and unfettered power. Future presidents could use it to bar conservative media and outlets that expose government abuse or waste. Whatever the outcome of this litigation, it is not a policy that advances our core values and traditions.

“Bon voyage and bonne chance, poor, misguided snow socialists.”

• Carney Marries Canada to Dying Europe (J.B. Shurk)

On Wednesday, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen gave an American-style “State of the Union” address to the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France. During her speech, she proposed that Canada be admitted as an “associate member” of the ostensibly European Union. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney sat in the front row as an honored guest before delivering a speech of his own to the parliament the next day. Taken together, the Leyen-Carney parade of oratorical self-puffery exuded a nauseating bouquet of arrogance, foolishness, incompetence, and stale entitlement.

E.C. President (some say “Queen”) Ursula speaks as if she rules Europe (regularly invoking “our values” when describing a continent of distinct nations, dissimilar cultures, and over two hundred native languages), but European citizens never voted for her. P.M. Carney is the former head of both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, and his globalist cronies installed him in Canada’s highest political office just last year. While the central banker and the queen prattle on about “democracy,” neither ascended to the peaks of power in a democratic fashion. They are “elites” chosen by “elites” to represent the interests of “elites.”
Since the Second World War, the United States has heavily subsidized the economies of Canada and Europe, providing for the West’s collective security while permitting one-way tariffs against American producers. This eighty-year arrangement has endured long beyond its immediate post-war necessity, when European manufacturers were desperate to rebuild amid general ruin and the United States worried about losing more of the continent to the Soviet Union’s billowing Iron Curtain.
Unfortunately, this part of Western history does not get an honest treatment in children’s textbooks, so Europeans and Canadians grow up believing that their economies succeed despite the United States instead of because of it. When President Trump began insisting on fair and reciprocal trade terms between the United States and its partners, European and Canadian “elites” all screamed about “Trump’s trade war” as if it were a “surprise attack.” They did not explain to citizens how their nations have greatly benefited for eight decades by tariffing U.S. products while selling European and Canadian goods to American consumers. This is yet another example of the “misinformation” that the European and Canadian governments regularly disseminate to their respective peoples and a prime reason why governments cannot be trusted to objectively and dispassionately “police” so-called “disinformation.”
While Queen Ursula and Central Banker Mark denounced America’s so-called “trade war” in the harshest terms, they both spoke of an expanding security and economic alliance that would reintegrate the United Kingdom into Europe’s bureaucratic ranks and envelop Ukraine with military and financial support (paid for by Canadian and European taxpayers). For all intents and purposes, the British people’s 2016 referendum in favor of Brexit (the withdrawal of the U.K. from the E.U.) has been sabotaged and nullified by government fiat.
As is true of Canada, Ukraine is not a member of the European Union, but, just as the British Establishment effectively cancelled Brexit, the European and American Establishments orchestrated a 2014 coup d’état against the last Ukrainian government opposed to integration with the E.U. This is how the Canadians and Europeans do “democracy” — through sabotage, censorship, government propaganda, the installation of unelected “elites,” the blacklisting of political parties, the criminalization of speech, election nullification, and NGO-sponsored coups. (To be sure, this is how Democrats and Establishment Republicans in the United States do “democracy,” too, which is why President Trump drives them and their Establishment friends in Canada and Europe absolutely nuts!)
All this rhetorical flexing is sad! Canada, the United Kingdom, the European Union, and Ukraine are dilapidated vessels drifting in an open sea with huge and growing ruptures in their hulls. They are taking on more water than they can dump back out, but they pretend as if they’re part of a glorious armada.
Without U.S. military assets and personnel providing the backbone for the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Canada, the U.K., and the E.U. would have but one defense posture: to lie down and play dead. Canada can’t even fight forest fires, for goodness’ sake! The U.K. lacks a sufficient number of seaworthy naval vessels to secure its own islands, let alone the ability to back up with military strength its territorial claims to the Falkland Islands (or what the Argentinians call their Islas Malvinas).
Most E.U. nations depend upon the U.S. nuclear umbrella and U.S.-NATO security guarantees to provide deterrence against military threats, which is why it is all the more preposterous when Denmark and France huff and puff about “keeping” Greenland (a North American landmass) in Europe or Spain and Italy refuse to permit U.S. military aircraft to refuel before engaging Iran. And Ukraine (whose diminutive holdover-president must be fuming at the idea of Canada becoming an “associate member” of the E.U. while Brussels refuses to let his collapsing rump state join the club) remains an albatross of corruption, as one high-ranking official after the next flees the war-torn country with suitcases of jewelry and cash. If Canada, the U.K., the E.U., and Ukraine were warhorses, they’d all be sent to the glue factory.

How about espionage?

• Tesla Engineers Audit Chinese Suppliers As Optimus Commercialization Nears (ZH)

About a month after JPMorgan analysts toured Tesla’s Fremont factory and confirmed a “targeted four-month transition following the end of S/X production in May” to humanoid production lines, a new report on Friday says that Tesla engineers arrived in China to inspect robotics component suppliers, as Elon Musk appears to be moving closer and closer toward the commercialization of humanoid robots. Bloomberg first reported this development as Tesla engineers arrived in Ningbo, a major port and manufacturing city in Zhejiang province on China’s eastern coast, just south of Shanghai.

The engineers inspected parts and component factories for the humanoid robot called “Optimus.” “Tesla’s reported supplier audits are a positive commercialization signal for China’s humanoid supply chain, pointing to progress toward repeatable Optimus production,” Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Ian Ma wrote in a note, adding, “Near-term sentiment could stay supported if audits lead to confirmed supplier nominations and larger orders.”
Tesla is reportedly targeting the second half of 2027 for commercial sales of Optimus. Production is likely to begin much earlier, as JPM analyst Rajat Gupta said the “Optimus Academy” will be operating later this year, with robots collecting real-world training data before being deployed in factories. News of this development sent the Solactive China Humanoid Robotics Index slightly higher on Friday, up about 1.4%, amid a tumultuous year that has left it down about 30%.
The market’s appetite for physical AI, specifically humanoids, was hyped in mid-August by China’s blockbuster Unitree IPO, but the momentum failed to follow through.Bernstein analyst Eunice Lee recently pointed out that the adoption curve for humanoids will be much steeper than that of automobiles over a century ago.Goldman analysts last month raised their global humanoid robot delivery base case to 75,000 shipments in 2026, 890,000 in 2030, and 6.5 million in 2035, versus previous estimates of 51,000, 256,000, and 1.4 million, respectively.
The invasion of physical AI is just around the corner.

” .. if it’s hostile the U.S. could impose heavy tariffs or even halt trade with Europe.”

• Shield of Americas, Rubio and Trump’s Moves Against Canada/EU (CTH)

Promethean Action’s Barbara Boyd recaps some of last week’s geopolitical events and activities of both President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Good video for those catching up.

President Trump reacts to Mark Carney’s push to align Canada with the EU, calling it “laughable” and warning that if it’s hostile the U.S. could impose heavy tariffs or even halt trade with Europe. The episode argues the administration is securing the southern border through Marco Rubio’s Latin America trip and “Operation Shield of the Americas,” linking Peru’s participation and Keiko Fujimori’s election to an intensified campaign against cartels, drug production and trafficking, and Chinese influence.
Boyd’s recap frames Carney as a longtime opponent of U.S. interests, citing his Bank of England role, “green” credit agenda, and support for Ukraine, and claims Canada-EU plans target Arctic control and the U.S. northern defense line. It ends with Trump announcing a permanent U.S. presence in Greenland and warning Canada to curb fentanyl labs and criminal networks.

Not all’s gold that glitters.

• The $6.7 Billion DOGE Headline Is True. It Leaves Out Half the Story (Manney)

Washington has discovered a government program that costs billions of dollars, and naturally, everyone is shocked. The Government Accountability Office says federal agencies spent an estimated $9.5 billion on paid administrative leave in 2025. Roughly $6.7 billion of that was tied to the Trump administration’s Deferred Resignation Program, which allowed workers who agreed to leave government to remain on salary while generally no longer working.

From the GAO:
OPM does not know the actual costs of the paid administrative leave used for workforce reduction efforts, including the deferred resignation program. One of the administration’s stated principles for current workforce reduction efforts is to trim the budget topline by reducing full-time equivalent positions. To support these efforts, federal agencies used millions of workdays of paid administrative leave. To calculate long-term savings, OPM needs to know short-term costs of paid administrative leave used for these efforts.
However, OPM cannot easily and accurately do this because the paid administrative leave used for workforce reduction efforts is reported with other types of general paid administrative leave. Without a mechanism to track paid administrative leave for workforce reduction efforts, federal leaders may not have the data needed to understand whether government-wide cost saving goals are being met.
You can understand why the headlines wrote themselves. Federal workers got paid billions not to work during a program associated with DOGE, which was created to cut waste and shrink government. One national headline simply announced that the government paid workers $9.5 billion “not to work.” Another framed the program as DOGE causing the government to spend billions while supposedly saving money.
There’s just one problem. The $6.7 billion figure is an estimated one-time cost of removing workers from the federal payroll. OPM Director Scott Kupor has said the Deferred Resignation Program is expected to save more than $20 billion every year because those salaries disappear after the employees leave. Spend $6.7 billion once to reduce annual spending by more than $20 billion, and suddenly the story sounds rather different.
Except that, Washington being Washington, there’s another concern. GAO says OPM can’t accurately determine the program’s actual net savings because it never established a separate payroll category to track administrative leave used for workforce reductions. Administrative leave for the resignation program was mixed together with other forms of administrative leave in the federal payroll system.
From OPM: “What They Got Wrong About the Deferred Resignation Program”. This week, a Senate Democrat report took aim at OPM’s Deferred Resignation Program (DRP) – a voluntary retirement program that provided government employees with eight months of paid leave. Their argument? Our efforts to modernize the federal workforce somehow reflect poor stewardship of taxpayer dollars. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you don’t have time to read the 54-page report, here’s the TLDR:
We should never reduce government spending because we might incur one-time separation costs in doing so; and” We should ignore the fact that in incurring those one-time costs we lower the ongoing run-rate of government spend, thus saving billions of dollars. So OPM has a large savings claim. GAO has a large cost estimate. And the federal government’s accounting system apparently looked at the whole arrangement and decided precision was optional.
GAO also found evidence suggesting the leave totals themselves may be overstated. Agencies reported 144% more administrative leave during pay periods containing public holidays before the resignation program began. Holidays aren’t supposed to be coded as administrative leave. GAO says historical errors will remain in some publicly released data.
GAO reviewed more than 18.5 million payroll records covering about 1.6 million employees and 76 agencies. Its analysis covered roughly 95% of the civilian federal workforce. Even after reviewing all that data, GAO concluded the government still doesn’t have the tracking system necessary to determine with confidence whether the workforce reductions are meeting their cost-saving goals.
This is where the story becomes more interesting than the headline. Critics are perfectly entitled to point at $6.7 billion and ask why taxpayers paid workers for months after they stopped working. The administration is equally entitled to answer that severance-style costs can be justified if they eliminate much larger recurring payroll expenses. Neither argument settles the accounting.
OPM’s more-than-$20-billion annual savings figure remains the administration’s projection. GAO isn’t endorsing it. GAO also isn’t saying the Deferred Resignation Program lost taxpayers $6.7 billion on balance. Its report says something more inconvenient: the federal government doesn’t yet have the data necessary to accurately calculate the answer. And somehow, “Government Accounting Is Too Messy to Know the Final Number Yet” didn’t make many headlines. The $6.7 billion is real enough to deserve scrutiny.
So is the part people keep leaving out.

They don’t want the court to function well; they want it to decide in their favor.

• The Supreme Court Remains a Court of Consensus (Turley)

The Supreme Court is once again under attack from those calling for packing, or even eliminating, the institution as hopelessly ideological and divided. The Philadelphia Inquirer recently proclaimed that “The Supreme Court’s conservative majority keeps choosing ideology over impartiality.” Other media outlets reported “devastating” polling showing the Court as unpopular and losing institutional respect. It is all clearly alarming — despite being entirely untrue.

Looking at the actual rulings disproves the argument of a “biased” court. The Court ruled unanimously in more than 44% of cases, slightly up from the prior year. When you add the roughly 11% of opinions that were 8-1 and 6% that were 7-1 or 7-2, the rate of unanimous or nearly unanimous jumps to 62%. In over 77% of cases, there was no ideological split in the resulting opinions. While slightly up, the ideological split emphasized in the coverage is found in less than a quarter of the cases. Now look at those supposed ideologically besieged liberal justices.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had the lowest percentage in the majority in the last term. However, she was still in the majority in 72% of cases. Jackson even agreed with Justice Samuel Alito in 49% of the cases and with Justice Clarence Thomas in half of the cases. The narrative also ignores major losses by the Trump administration in cases dealing with birthright citizenship, mail-in ballots, tariffs, the Federal Reserve Board members and even Trump’s personal defamation case.
Just this week, the court issued a ruling that President Trump called “a big loss for Republicans” in rejecting a mail-in ballot change for the next election. Those cases saw conservatives voting with their liberal colleagues. Indeed, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Justice Neil Gorsuch are generally viewed as “in play” in a variety of cases in creating mixed majorities. Critics aren’t just wrong that the court is biased, it’s incorrect that the Supremes are particularly unpopular.
A recent Marquette Law School poll shows that the court remains slightly underwater in popularity — with 47% favor, 53% disfavor. Not great, but those numbers are still more popular than Congress or the two major political parties. The unpopularity of Congress hit a whopping 86% this year. Gallup found that only 10% of the American people hold a favorable view of Congress. Trump’s popularity stands at around 40%. So the Supreme Court has the highest approval rate and is massively more popular than Congress. Yet, these members want to trash the most popular institution among the three branches.
Plenty of unanimity
This term is shaping up as another blockbuster, with major cases on gun rights, parental rights, immigration, climate change and other issues. Some cases will break along a 6-3 ideological divide, but many more will be decided by unanimity or mixed majorities, as in past years. The problem is that many in the media and politics will continue to demonize the court for those cases upon which they disagree and ignore the many cases upon which most of the justices agree. That includes exaggerated claims of the court “killing democracy.”
The move to pack the court is based on a long-standing radical agenda to change the constitutional system on the left. The court is standing in the way and these figures know that it is not easy to get a free people to give up on protections for those freedoms. They have to be very angry or very afraid. As a result, the court will resume hearing cases in an atmosphere of rage directed at its institution.
But make no mistake about it. This court continues to function as designed as a principled, independent institution. On our 250th anniversary, we should celebrate, not demonize, our highest court.

If PCR would just tell us he wants Iran to have nukes, at least we’d know where he’s at.

• Israel Has the World on a Path to Destruction (Paul Craig Roberts)

Do you remember a few years ago–Trump’s first term–when the Democrats–increasingly known as DemoRats–concocted the “Russiagate” hoax that Trump with Russia’s help had stolen the 2016 US presidential election? The Democrats’ plot against Trump involved the highest reaches of the FBI and US Department of Justice and was supported by the CIA director. The hoax claimed that America’s elections were in the hands of Russia, a foreign power that was putting their agents in charge of the US government. The whore American media gave the baseless accusations many years of life, and you still meet people who believe every word of it.

All the time there really was foreign money controlling US elections, only it is anti-semitic to speak about it, because it is AIPAC money, the money from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. $32 million, an unprecedented amount for a primary election of a House of Representatives candidate, was given by AIPAC and Jewish billionaires to remove Kentucky Representative Thomas Massie, likely the most American member of the US House of Representatives. Being a strong supporter of Trump didn’t save Massie from AIPAC.
Another AIPAC victim was Marjorie Taylor Green, another strong Trump supporter abandoned, like Massie, by Trump on orders from AIPAC. She also did not approve of Israel’s genocide of Palestine paid for with American money, weapons, and diplomatic cover. Faced with Trump-supported AIPAC slander campaign against her in her primary election, she resigned, reasoning that supporting America as contrasted with supporting Israel was too expensive.
Now we have from Truthout a report that “The giant influx from American Israel Public Affairs Committee PACs is a case study in money distorting politics.” The author writes:
“The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, has been spending tens of millions of dollars on political races during the current election cycle, aiming to defeat progressive candidates who are critical of Israel and who express support for Palestinians. Many voters might not even be aware of this, because AIPAC-funded ads and mailers often omit any mention of Israel, even though fostering U.S. support for Israel and electing pro-Israel candidates are among the group’s driving aims.
“AIPAC’s lobbying and electoral network has so far spent $67.2 million during the current election cycle, up from $29.3 million during the 2021-2022 cycle. These huge amounts of spending have been dedicated to trying to defeat candidates like Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, Aisha Wahab in California, Melat Kiros in Colorado, and many others.
“AIPAC has a range of affiliated and aligned Super PACs and other entities. Some of the most significant ones are AIPAC PAC, the group’s political action committee, which raises money to contribute directly to candidates; United Democracy Project, AIPAC’s super PAC, which raises and spends much more money on elections independently; and Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI) PAC, which is aligned with AIPAC and specifically focuses on Democratic races.”

“To be sure, both the House and Senate are still in play, but the total number of competitive contests that could decide control is at an all time low…”

• Nearly 90% of Midterm Races Were Not Competitive: Analysis (Ben Whedon)

A combination of redistricting and increased political polarization has rendered the overwhelming majority of House and Senate races uncompetitive. And 2026 is shaping up to be the least competitive midterm cycle in recent history, according to an analysis from Unite America.

To be sure, the competition between Democrats and Republicans to control the House and Senate is still in play in November. But the total number of competitive contests that could decide control is at an all-time low. All 435 House seats are up for reelection, but Unite America’s analysis suggests that 383 (88%) will be so uncompetitive that they were effectively decided by the party primary.
On the Senate side, however, only 35 seats are up for reelection. The math is somewhat less of a shutout, with only 26 (74%) of races deemed uncompetitive. The vast majority of races being decided in the primaries effectively shuts out many voters from having a meaningful say, the analysis found. Overall, just 10.2% of voters cast ballots in Senate primaries for either major political party this cycle. That figure stood at 9.4% in House races. Perhaps best illustrating the lack of substantive choice in elections, Unite America suggested, were the 150 House races in which the nominee for a safe seat ran unopposed in the primary.
Some of this disparity is due to a combination of low primary turnout, voter satisfaction with their own, specific representative, and, of course, apathy. But the recent redistricting push from Republicans, and the counterefforts from Democrats, have effectively eliminated many formerly competitive districts.
After the Supreme Court narrowed its interpretation of part of the Voting Rights Act to disallow race-based congressional districts, states across the South redrew their maps in ways that favored the Republicans. Among the states whose redraws favored Republicans were Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee and Texas. Missouri attempted to redraw its districts, but has faced legal challenges. Only California and Utah altered their maps in ways that benefited Democrats.
Virginia also attempted to redraw its maps via a constitutional amendment, but the state Supreme Court found the process unconstitutional after voters had already backed the Democratic proposal. Accordingly, the state’s maps will sit at 6 Democratic and 5 Republican-leaning districts in November.
The result was to render less than 5% of House races as true toss-ups. The Cook Political Report’s Partisan Voting Index (PVI), currently regards only 21 of 435 districts as “toss ups.” A further 208 at least lean Republican, while 206 at least lean Democratic. But redistricting did not affect the Senate at all, and seven of the 35 races are “toss-ups” in the PVI.
Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the Center for Politics, meanwhile, paints a similar picture, with 203 seats leaning Republican and 210 leaning Democratic, with only 22 toss-ups. Sabato, however, views only five Senate contests as competitive. The RealClearPolitics polling average does not currently feature a House breakdown, but regards nine Senate races as competitive.

Le Canard Enchaîne.

• French Soldiers Applaud Military Chaplain’s Warning Of ‘Great Replacement’ (RMX)

A leaked video of a French military chaplain addressing paratroopers in a cathedral has circulated widely on social media. In the clip, the chaplain makes disparaging remarks about leftists, tells soldiers to keep fighting for their national heritage, and warns of the risk that French values and culture could be displaced.

The clip, recorded during a Saint-Michel Mass on Oct. 7, 2025, shows Father Romain Ghandour speaking to soldiers of the 3rd Marine Infantry Parachute Regiment (3e RPIMa) at Carcassonne’s Saint-Michel Cathedral. Soldiers can be heard laughing and applauding as he delivers his pointed remarks. The clip was leaked and published by Le Canard Enchaîne news outlet.

🇫🇷🔴 JUST IN: A video has been leaked of a French military chaplain roasting leftists and warning of the Great Replacement in front of French paratroopers in the city of Carcassonne.

"Calm down, lefties! Quiet! Breathe through your nose!"

Remarkably, the massive audience of… pic.twitter.com/kkteRaaTu0
— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) September 18, 2026

The video was released in mid-September 2026, nearly a year after the Mass.
Saint-Michel is the patron saint of paratroopers and airborne troops in the French army, which explains why the regiment was gathered in the cathedral. Christophe Barthès, then a municipal election candidate and later elected mayor of Carcassonne for the right-wing National Rally, was among those present. Ghandour begins by invoking the names and dates of men and women who died so that France would remain “a beautiful country,” one in which architects could continue building “basilicas, cathedrals, housing, and fortified castles.”
He contrasts that heritage with the present: instead of knights, he says, “we put incompetent people. We put people who eat seeds, people who lecture everyone, ideologues.” The phrase “people who eat seeds” is widely understood as a jab at what he presents as weak or overly ideological leftists. The line that has drawn the most attention comes next: “Calm down, lefties! Quiet! Breathe through your nose!” The assembled soldiers respond with laughter and applause. He then warns that if they lose courage and conviction, “we will be ridiculed” and “this beautiful country that is France will be mocked, and others will take our place.”
He continues: “In fact, after a while, when you’re thirsty, when you’re hungry, it’s the law of the strongest that reigns. And others will take the place of our values, of this freedom of speech, of action, of this equality between men, and of this fraternity, of this culture, of this society. Nature abhors a vacuum.”
While he never directly mentions the “Great Replacement,” many commentators have taken this remark to be a direct reference to the phenomenon, which is not only a reference to mass immigration, but also relates to the constant replacement of technology, culture, society, and peoples through all spheres of modern life at an ever accelerating pace. Ghandour closes by telling the soldiers to “keep fighting” and “continue to have the courage of your convictions, as I am trying to do at this Mass.”
As of the video’s release, there has been no detailed public statement from the army’s Catholic chaplaincy or the Ministry of the Armed Forces on whether the remarks violate rules on political neutrality for military clergy. French military chaplains of all recognized faiths operate under a framework that is supposed to respect both freedom of conscience and the state’s neutrality. The 3e RPIMa, based in Carcassonne since 1962 and part of the 11th Parachute Brigade, is an elite unit within the French military.
The left has often been skeptical, and even hostile to, the French military, which has been seen as a bastion of support for the right in the country.

Humanoid robots are now helping manufacture more humanoid robots.

UBTECH has opened a new smart factory in China that can produce one robot about every 10 minutes.

The facility uses robots, automated systems, and guided vehicles, with a stated capacity of around 10,000 robots… pic.twitter.com/cSTHV7diOI
— Space and Technology (@spaceandtech_) September 19, 2026

Elon Musk: AI has given me nightmares for days in a row.

“If I could, I would certainly slow down AI and robotics.”

“It’s advancing at a very rapid pace, whether I like it or not.”

“Is AI what keeps you up at night?”

“I’ve had a lot of AI nightmares.”

“I’ve had AI nightmares… pic.twitter.com/9IeXHQtrlO
— Veee (@vikktorrrre) September 19, 2026

Worth reading about this https://t.co/RMm24CyFPo
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 19, 2026

Sounds bad https://t.co/IpuEpFiM9z
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 19, 2026

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

Debt Rattle September 19 2026

Sep 192026

September 19, 2026 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 9:20 am Finance Tagged with: AfD, arctic, CNN, EU, Greenland, Mitch McConnell, NATO, Russian gas, Trump 21 Responses »

Thomas Cole Arcadian State 1836

• Trump Secures a HUGE and Historic Deal with Greenland (Matt Margolis)

• Trump Bans CNN, MS NOW, Politico From White House (ET)

• AfD Preps Talks With Moscow To Reopen Cheap Gas Flows To Germany (ZH)

• Communion-and-Care (James Howard Kunstler)

• NATO 3.0 Marches Into Copenhagen (RT)

• The EU Is Militarizing The Arctic. Here’s How It Plans To Do It (Strelnikova)

• Does Anyone Understand the Actual Situation? (Paul Craig Roberts)

• The Left’s Race Narrative is Driving Americans Apart (Victor Davis Hanson)

• Mitch McConnell Is Back. Sort Of. Well, Physically at Least (Sarah Anderson)

Gates pressurised politicians to support his ‘vaccines’.
Who is running our countries? Certainly not our politicians. Unelected ‘elites’ and Global corporations are telling our ‘leaders’ what to do. The World Economic Forum is their marketing arm. This is why our country and the… https://t.co/6pz4MBAL3G
— Andrew Bridgen (@ABridgen) September 18, 2026

I highly recommend watching this—especially if you’re a Carney supporter cheering for Canada to become an EU member.

Finnish MEP Sebastian Tynkkynen takes aim at Ursula von der Leyen and the direction of the EU.#Canadian pic.twitter.com/zQJMdYS8RN
— Anna🇨🇦 (@Annans4g) September 17, 2026

Joe Rogan just said the quiet part out loud about Trump’s war on drugs and it completely shatters the media’s narrative.

Overdose deaths are COLLAPSING nationwide and Rogan says it’s not an accident.

“They’re blowing up these f*cking boats that are bringing in all the drugs!”… pic.twitter.com/HU3QwRnK9H
— Trust In Trump 47🇺🇸 (@Trustintrump47) September 18, 2026

BIG!

• Trump Secures a HUGE and Historic Deal with Greenland (Matt Margolis)

President Donald Trump just accomplished something huge.

The United States, Denmark, and Greenland signed a permanent agreement Friday that hands Washington lasting military rights across the island while permanently shutting out China, Russia, and every other non-NATO adversary. The deal gives the U.S. permanent access, basing, and overflight rights in Greenland, along with the authority to build new military installations there whenever it decides it needs to, according to a senior U.S. official who briefed Fox News Digital.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio wasted no time celebrating. “This historic deal is a huge win for the United States and the American people,” he said. “This historic agreement permanently guarantees U.S. security interests in the Arctic at zero cost to the U.S. taxpayer.” A senior official added, “The difference here is we’re not spending any money for the right” to expand the U.S. military footprint on the island. bThe agreement has no expiration date, and it doesn’t transfer Greenland’s sovereignty to the United States, no matter how badly the left wanted to paint this as some kind of hostile annexation.
Trump himself was the first to celebrate the news, posting on Truth Social that the agreement “completely addresses ALL of our many U.S. concerns” and that “from now on, no U.S. adversary can EVER have a base in Greenland, have a military presence in Greenland, or make sensitive investments in Greenland, without our express written approval.” He called it an “Infinite Life” agreement, one built to last even if Greenland someday becomes independent.
This deal has been over a century in the making. American presidents have long recognized Greenland’s strategic Arctic importance, but none of them closed the gap between recognizing the problem and fixing it. The U.S. has operated Pituffik Space Base, formerly Thule Air Base, under a defense agreement dating back to 1951, and this new deal dramatically expands that relationship as Russia and China build up their own military and economic footprint in the region.
Denmark and Greenland no longer hold veto power over future U.S. installations. Washington will still consult both governments, but it can now build wherever it decides is necessary without waiting for their approval. Officials view the expanded presence as a likely component of Trump’s planned Golden Dome missile defense system, and under the new terms, only the United States and its allies will be permitted to make “sensitive investments” in Greenland’s telecommunications infrastructure, undersea cables, ports, and critical minerals.
That restriction exists for a reason. The administration has been blunt about not wanting Greenland to turn into another Panama Canal, where quiet Chinese commercial investment eventually became a national security liability the U.S. had to untangle. “We’re never going to face that in Greenland as a result of this,” one official said.
Quiet negotiations involving Rubio, White House adviser Stephen Miller, and officials from the State Department and National Security Council began back in February and never leaked, as Denmark and Greenland came to see the arrangement as protecting their own security as much as America’s.
Rubio explained exactly why Copenhagen and Nuuk came around. “They recognize at the end of the day that they have a national security concern here as well,” he said. “Denmark and Greenland understand that they don’t have the financial means necessary to defend Greenland if it were to come under attack or be threatened. The United States has the power to do that.”
Trump has been ridiculed for wanting Greenland, but on Friday, he secured its permanent defense on America’s terms, at no cost to a single U.S. taxpayer, with no expiration date and no way for anyone to undo it. It’s a huge win for our country, and for Trump.

“The ban is effective immediately, the president said.”

• Trump Bans CNN, MS NOW, Politico From White House (ET)

President Donald Trump on Sept. 18 said he has banned three news outlets from the White House. Trump said on Truth Social that he was, effective immediately, banning CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House “as a result of their constant ‘reporting’ FAKE NEWS!” The president added: “Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America. Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow.”

Trump told reporters at the White House that one example was a story published Friday that went over deals his administration reached with drugmakers but did not mention that the deals had resulted in lower drug prices. “It’s really just cumulative stories over the last few years,” he said. “You get sick of it, and you call them and … they purposely write negative news.”
CNN and Politico defended their coverage. “CNN stands fully behind our White House team and their fair and accurate reporting,” CNN said in a statement. “We have a right under the U.S. Constitution to do that reporting without hindrance or interference from the government. Should the ban which President Trump threatened go ahead, it would be an illegal assault on that fundamental and constitutionally-protected right.”
“POLITICO will continue to fairly report on this White House and future ones. We will vigorously defend our First Amendment rights against any attempt to restrict them,” a Politico spokesperson told The Epoch Times via email. MS NOW did not respond to a request for comment.bWhite House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) President Jacqui Heinrich said Trump described the move in the Oval Office as a “ban on the free press.”
“The Constitution protects the freedom of the press from government interference. That protection does not depend on whether the president likes a news organization’s coverage, agrees with its reporting, or approves of the questions its journalists ask.” Heinrich said in a post on X. She said the issue was also about the public’s right to “a full and independent account of the activities, policies and decisions of whoever occupies the nation’s highest office,” and that the WHCA stands with their banned colleagues.
Trump previously banned The Associated Press from the Oval Office and other spaces after the outlet declined to change its stylebook to reflect the president’s renaming of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. A federal judge entered an injunction against the ban, determining that it violated the First Amendment because it discriminated based on The Associated Press’s viewpoint.
But an appeals court in mid-2025 partially stayed the injunction. The court allowed Trump to ban the outlet from the Oval Office, Air Force One, and some other spaces, concluding that “these restricted presidential spaces are not First Amendment fora opened for private speech and discussion” and that the White House “therefore retains discretion to determine, including on the basis of viewpoint, which journalists will be admitted.
Judges also ruled that Trump could not ban reporters from the White House’s East Room. “The identified harms are less clear with respect to the East Room, which does not share the hallmarks of spaces like the Oval Office,” the majority said.

They make a lot of sense. But it’s nationalist sense, not globalist.

• AfD Preps Talks With Moscow To Reopen Cheap Gas Flows To Germany (ZH)

It didn’t take long for the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party – fresh off its historic taking of 43.8% of the vote in the eastern German state of Saxony-Anhalt election earlier this month which left Chancellor Friedrich Merz and his Christian Democratic Union (CDU) shaken – to embark on ties which are a serious shot across the bow and slap in the face to both Berlin and Brussels. Reuters is on Friday reporting that AfD leadership is preparing for possible talks with President Putin and his economic envoy and top negotiator Kirill Dmitriev focused on restoring Russian gas supplies to Germany.

The meeting could take place next year, as early as March 2027, and would be spearheaded by AfD co-leaders Alice Weidel and Tino Chrupalla. This is precisely what German voters supported in the regional election, and the AfD made no secret of its plans to seek turning the Russian energy tap back on. Weidel made clear in a June interview, “Cheap energy from Russia was the secret of the success of ‘Made in Germany’. We need it back.”
“The loss of this energy has set us back years. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost,” the AfD co-leader said at the time. “It has made us dependent on the United States, which sells us energy at far higher prices.” Russia had prior to the start of the Ukraine war supplied over half of Germany’s natural gas, alongside more than a third of the country’s crude oil imports.
Russian natgas to Germany was halted in stages, in tandem with the major Nord Stream bombings and investigation, as Berlin eventually found alternative suppliers like Norway, the Netherlands and increased its reliance on LNG imports. Many Germans have been sick and tired of seeing daily living prices go up while resources and untold billions are siphoned off for the Zelensky government in the Ukraine war.

While nothing has yet to be officially announced or confirmed by the Russian side or through any AfD official statement, Reuters points to a key caveat based on its sources: “The meeting would only happen if a peace framework was agreed first between Russia and Ukraine, and the organisers hoped it would bring together the AfD, Russia and the United States, the person said. Possible locations for the summit included Israel, the United Arab Emirates or India, they added,” the report says. Earlier, we featured commentary by Andrew Korybko which seeks to summarize the mood in both Moscow and among the ‘hard-rightward’ turning German streets:
“Finally, the economic errors concern the EU’s sanctions on Russian energy, which led to the bloc replacing inexpensive long-term gas contracts with Russia with expensive market-priced imports from elsewhere. Prices are now nearly ten times higher than before and “may well rise even further.” Putin also criticized the EU’s gas storage policies for being “unconcerned with the technical condition of these storage facilities and the physical volumes involved.” All of this adversely affects the EU’s economy.
All in all, Putin is arguing that the AfD’s rise is an electoral revolt against these policies, all of which center on Russia. This doesn’t mean that the party or its supporters are “pro-Russian”, let alone “Russian puppets”, just that they understand the importance of pragmatic ties with Russia for their country’s political interests, security, and economic development. Obsessive anti-Russian fearmongering, risking World War III over Ukraine, and dumping inexpensive Russian energy haven’t helped Germany at all.
“Bests interests for Germany” being prioritized, where energy supplies “are cheapest, namely from Russia”…

German AfD Leader Alice Weidel on Russia:

We have to obtain fossil fuels from wherever natural gas and oil are cheapest — namely, from Russia.

It is in our own security interests as well as our economic interests to have good relations with Russia. pic.twitter.com/FkKKOpCDAo
— Clash Report (@clashreport) September 14, 2026

As a reminder, there were already some deeply provocative diplomatic AfD moves back in June, with AfD foreign-policy spokesman Markus Frohnmaier having traveled to St. Petersburg to meet with Dmitriev and Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller, urging the reopening of the Nord Stream pipeline.

“The female mind — especially in matters of political significance — struggles with understanding authority and rule enforcement.” —JD Haltigan on X

• Communion-and-Care (James Howard Kunstler)

The Ordeal of Father Isaac Jogue among the Iroquois

You know the midterm election is a struggle session testing whether our country wants to be sane or insane. Of course, this raises the question: what’s so great about being insane? If nothing else, it implies a lot of bad decision-making, leading to all manner of sorrow and woe in life. So, why would so many opt to be crazy?

The answer is probably that they were snookered into it, fooled, tricked, rooked, spoofed, flimflammed, bamboozled, enticed into a range of thought and emotion counter to their self-interest and well-being. Isn’t this exactly what you see in the social phenomenon of “transing” pubescent children? To induce them to go along with a malevolent program for turning them into something they are not.
A whole apparatus was constructed to carry out “gender-affirming care.” Notice how positive the language is. It’s “care,” administered by adults, not a few of them physicians and clinical psychologists, who affect to care. And it “affirms,” that is, it validates, it turns supposition into fact (that is not so). The adults happen to be in authority over children. They are presumed to be trustworthy.
But they are not trustworthy. They persuade children confused by puberty to be mutilated with surgery and hormones in order to put on a performance for the adults. The performance is called “No Boundaries.” It does not really affirm a child’s gender by pretending to change it. It affirms the mental illness of the untrustworthy adults. They have developed a defect of cognition that disrupts their perception of reality. They don’t know where things begin and end.
Where did this come from? You won’t like this. It came from women taking over the leadership of our institutions, especially education. In the two centuries that public education has existed, there were always a lot of women teachers. But they were superintended by men with a sense of boundaries, who enforced the distinction between thought and feeling, between sense and nonsense. Now you see what has happened with men removed from that picture. Thought and sense have been deleted.
Women are primarily driven by the wish for communion and for care (of children and households). If they don’t find mates, don’t form households, and don’t have children, their drives can be hijacked. Likewise, if their households are broken by divorce and their children are damaged by it. It’s been increasingly difficult for men and women to form households and successfully raise children, or to keep a household from breaking under the social and economic pressures of our time.
Politics is another set of institutions increasingly dominated by women in leadership roles. They convert all the social discontents of childlessness and broken households into laws, rules, and policies which, not surprisingly, demonstrate a failed sense of boundaries and a contorted drive for communion and care. That’s how the Democratic Party — increasingly run by-and-for women — was bamboozled into throwing the border wide open under “Joe Biden,” and why they have become hysterical over the nurturing of those millions of illegal migrants now here. The drive to care has transformed into a mad, grandiose wish to save the world.
The nation’s borders are strict boundaries. The Democratic Party programmatically denounces the existence of national boundaries — viz. The “Squad” in Congress, et al. “No one is illegal.” That open border was profoundly destructive and costly for the nation. Donald Trump declared that national boundaries matter and closed the border effectively. This not only made him an arch-villain to many of the women in America with boundary problems, but it also gave them a big opportunity to exercise their drive for communion by ginning up public get-togethers such as the anti-ICE riots of last winter and the “No Kings” marches of the spring.
Mr. Trump, with his repertoire of distinctive male mannerisms, setting of boundaries, and bent for decisive action, propels these world-saving, deeply-caring, communion-seeking political women into raptures of rage and animosity. It might be instructive to remind you that, back in the history of this land, among the native-American Iroquois (a most civilized people), it was the women who were assigned the primary task of torturing their enemies to death. (Read about the ordeals of Father Isaac Jogues in Francis Parkman’s The Jesuits in North America in the Seventeenth Century.) More recently, one Lindsay Clancy of Duxbury, Mass., demonstrated how savagely awry female boundary failure can go.
This pathocracy of women in the Democratic Party accounts for the seemingly insane turn to communism. But, it’s communion-and-care all of a piece — the most extreme form of crazy ideological solidarity, plus the promise of free stuff for everybody (care!) with no boundaries. Meanwhile, over in Mr. Trump’s camp, you have an emphatically male-dominated hierarchy with the MAGA women’s drives for communion-and-care directed, as much as possible these days, back into the household and the nursery. Throw in FAFO as the baseline attitude and there’s authority you can trust.

“The military bloc’s European members are now footing the bill and taking all of the risk against Russia.”

“At NATO’s first high-level summit since Ankara, the bloc’s new, Europe-centric incarnation is taking shape. But it’s ordinary Europeans who stand to lose their future, and potentially their lives.”

• NATO 3.0 Marches Into Copenhagen (RT)

NATO’s Military Committee is meeting in Copenhagen on Friday and Saturday. Chaired by Italian Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, the Military Committee, which is NATO’s highest military authority, is tasked with turning the bloc’s strategic goals into executable plans. When NATO orders a battlegroup to Lithuania, for example, the Military Committee ensures its tanks will be able to get there across multiple countries’ rail networks, its troops will be supplied and housed, and the deployment will not leave another sector of the bloc’s so-called ‘eastern flank’ unmanned.

Accordingly, NATO is keeping the meeting’s agenda under wraps. The organization’s website simply states that the defense chiefs will take part in a “Session 1” and “Session 2” of talks, followed by a press conference, a photo opportunity, and then a “Session 3” of discussions.
Looking at the political decisions made since the bloc’s headline summit in Ankara in July, the broad aim of the conference becomes clearer: flesh out NATO’s plan to militarize Europe and prepare the continent for war with Russia, all while insulating the US from the consequences of the conflict.
What is NATO 3.0?
Coined by US Under Secretary of War for Policy Elbridge Colby, ‘NATO 3.0’ is an America-first reworking of the Cold War pact. In a speech to NATO defense ministers in February, Colby explained that the US will, going forward, focus on preparing for a potential clash with China in the Indo-Pacific, leaving NATO’s European members to “assume primary responsibility for the conventional defense of Europe.”
Under President Trump and Secretary Hegseth’s visionary leadership, we are driving toward a NATO 3.0 in which Europe takes primary responsibility for its conventional defense. Many said that it could not be done – that Europe couldn’t or wouldn’t step up. That is being disproved… https://t.co/svqGBLPIdE — Under Secretary of War Elbridge Colby (@USWPColby) July 2, 2026
Europe will increase its military spending to NATO’s current target of 5% of GDP and shift to wartime levels of defense production, Colby explained, all while the US retains control over the bloc’s nuclear weapons. The Europeans will also be expected, US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth stated in June, to guarantee “access, basing and overflight” for American forces.At Ankara in July, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte sold this one-sided deal as a win for Europe. “We are rebalancing our security for the better, that is what NATO 3.0 is all about,” he said.
We’re rebalancing our Alliance: a stronger #NATO with Europe & Canada spending more, producing more and doing more for their security
Building for our future
This is NATO 3.0 pic.twitter.com/pgmvA4CcAW
— Mark Rutte (@SecGenNATO) September 16, 2026

In light of US President Donald Trump’s threats to withdraw US forces from Germany and annex Greenland, a more Europe-centric NATO was an easy sell for Rutte at the time. Trump’s threats toward Greenland were likely a key factor in the choice of Copenhagen for this weekend’s meeting. However, in the months since Ankara, Rutte and NATO’s European leaders have revealed what the shift actually means for the continent.
Europe steps up and pays
NATO 3.0 means the death of the European welfare state. In the UK, where living standards have already suffered their worst decline since the Second World War, meeting the bloc’s pre-Ankara 3.5% spending target will involve “eye-watering” cuts to education, transport, and justice budgets, George Robertson, who co-wrote the country’s defense strategy, warned in June. Even before the spending target was hiked to 5%, Robertson claimed that the British public was “too comfortable,” and must accept the “pain and great difficulty” of “preparing for war.”
In Germany, Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s plan to rebuild the Bundeswehr as “the strongest conventional army in Europe” has already precipitated social security cuts and a planned three-year hike in the retirement age. “The welfare state that we have today can no longer be financed,” Merz announced last August, before increasing Germany’s defense budget by almost 40% in a single year and telling Germans to “work harder.”
The Netherlands and Sweden have introduced emergency taxes to fund rearmament, with the Dutch levy branded as the “freedom contribution.” Estonia has increased income tax, Belgium and Finland have cut social spending, and 18 of NATO’s EU members have borrowed money from Brussels to build out their militaries since last May.
“On average, European countries easily spend up to a quarter of their national income on pensions, health, and social security systems, and we need only a small fraction of that money to make defense much stronger,” Rutte told the European Parliament last year. The “small fraction” demanded by Rutte has since almost doubled.
In return, the Europeans are not getting the strategic autonomy that some, such as France, want. NATO’s “interoperability” standards mean weapons manufactured in Europe are built to American standards, and the AI and cloud computing technology that guides them is provided almost solely by American companies.
The Ankara Summit Declaration states that “we are developing an interoperable transatlantic warfighting cloud and adopting powerful AI models.” With the EU relying on the US for 80% of its digital infrastructure, American companies such as Palantir, Anduril, and SpaceX will be the beneficiaries of this development.
Furthermore, while the US handed control of three operational commands – Norfolk in the UK, Naples in Italy, and Brunssum in the Netherlands – to European commanders earlier this year, Washington took over management of NATO’s highest Land, Air, and Maritime commands in exchange, and maintains the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) post.
Although NATO 3.0 envisions Europe alone deterring Russia, the bloc’s European members are still expected to go along with American wars far beyond their borders. Speaking in the UK this week, Rutte called it “essential” that Britain’s “armed forces continue to provide the hard power NATO needs” to tackle “Russia and its war against Ukraine, terrorism, Iran and the tectonic shifts of global geopolitical competition.”
NATO was not formed to counter Iran, but the US still punished its European members who refused to aid the US-Israeli war on Iran earlier this year, threatening a complete trade embargo on Spain after Madrid denied overflight and basing to American aircraft taking part in the war, and pulling troops from other countries seen as insufficiently supportive of the war.

“Irina Strelnikova is director of the Center for Interdisciplinary Arctic Studies at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow.”

“From shared icebreakers to NATO-ready infrastructure, Brussels is preparing the High North for confrontation”

• The EU Is Militarizing The Arctic. Here’s How It Plans To Do It (Strelnikova)

The EU’s Arctic policy is becoming increasingly important amidst global competition driven by both climate change and the region’s strategic significance. Melting Arctic ice is opening new maritime transport routes, facilitating access to abundant natural resources, and creating conditions for expanded economic activity. Consequently, the Arctic is becoming an arena for rivalry among the leading global powers. For Brussels, the Arctic holds not only regional significance but is also a tool for achieving foreign policy and geopolitical objectives.

Adopted in October 2021, the EU’s current Arctic policy is titled ‘A stronger EU engagement for a peaceful, sustainable and prosperous Arctic’. It focuses on three ‘soft’ priorities: climate and environmental protection, sustainable development, and peace and cooperation. Essentially, in this document, the Arctic is viewed as a low-tension zone, and the primary focus is on the environment and scientific exchange.
However, a lot has changed in the world since 2021, from the Ukraine crisis to the paralysis of the Arctic Council, Trump’s bid to acquire Greenland, Chinese container ships traveling via the Northern Sea Route, and attacks on undersea cables in the Baltic Sea. In January 2026, at the Arctic Frontiers conference in Tromsø, Norway, Kaja Kallas said, “It is time for a fresh EU Arctic policy, one that reflects the times we live in.”
A new phase of the EU’s Arctic agenda after 2022
The EU Arctic policy stands at the intersection of geopolitical, economic, and environmental interests. In recent years, Brussels has sought to adapt its strategy to the shifting international landscape shaped by a sanctions-driven confrontation with Russia, China’s expanding regional presence, and the growing role of the US in security matters. The Ukraine conflict and the region’s growing militarization have pushed the EU to revise its Arctic agenda. The EU must shape its Arctic policy by balancing a normative agenda focused on sustainable development against tangible economic interests and security demands from NATO allies.
In July 2025, the president of the European Commission announced a revision of the EU’s Arctic strategy to ensure that it addresses new challenges. Meanwhile, the EU is strengthening cooperation in the fields of energy, raw materials, and security and defense partnerships with several non-EU Arctic nations – notably Canada, Iceland, Norway, and self-governing Greenland.
Historically, Europe’s cooperation with the Arctic states has developed along three key lines: economic engagement (energy, transport infrastructure, and resource extraction), the environmental agenda (climate change, sustainable development, and biodiversity conservation), and scientific research (meteorological and oceanographic studies, as well as research on glacial melting). However, the current geopolitical situation has significantly altered these areas of cooperation, particularly when it comes to relations with Russia.
The EU joined other Arctic Council member states and “key like-minded partners” in suspending Russia’s participation in various regional cooperation bodies following the start of the war in Ukraine in 2022. Consequently, the EU issued three joint statements concerning the Northern Dimension joint policy, the Barents Euro-Arctic Council, and the Council of the Baltic Sea States. On November 12, 2025, the European Parliament adopted a new resolution on the Arctic that addresses the buildup of military capabilities and emphasizes the need for cooperation with Northern European partners (including Norway) to prepare for the upcoming geopolitical competition in the region. The resolution was passed by an overwhelming majority, with 510 votes in favor, 75 against, and 80 abstentions.
The resolution outlines a comprehensive strategy for the EU’s diplomatic engagement in the Arctic, covering areas such as environmental protection and security. The adopted document signals a shift in Brussels’ Arctic policy, envisions deeper cooperation with Arctic states, particularly Norway, and underscores the region’s significance for Europe’s energy security and geopolitical stability.
To safeguard European interests – including freedom of navigation, the protection of maritime infrastructure, and environmental security – the European Parliament calls for active cooperation with NATO, joint exercises, and coordinated surveillance and defense efforts.
Furthermore, the EU Parliament encourages multilateral governance in the Arctic through the Arctic Council and regional forums; this includes supporting efforts to grant the EU permanent observer status, engaging with Arctic institutions (such as the Arctic Economic Council), and expanding its presence in the region (for example, by means of the recently opened EU office in Nuuk).
The resolution also reaffirms the Arctic’s status as a region of strategic importance to the EU (considering its direct impact on European security), and notes that the EU must move beyond the concept of ‘Arctic exceptionalism’ and integrate High North priorities into its broader foreign, security, and energy policy strategies.
By adopting this resolution, the EU Parliament has signaled that the Arctic is no longer a remote outpost but a strategic frontier vital to Europe’s energy supply, security, digital infrastructure, and environmental sustainability.
The next step will be to integrate this non-legislative resolution into the EU’s updated Arctic policy. A step toward this was taken at the EU Arctic Summit, held September 13-14, 2026, in Rovaniemi, the capital of Finnish Lapland.
Key outcomes and decisions of the EU Arctic Summit
The summit was attended by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Kaja Kallas, European Council President António Costa, the heads of government of Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Romania, and representatives of France, Greece, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden.
The primary goal of the meeting, convened at the initiative of the Finnish prime minister, was to formulate a common EU strategic approach to the Arctic, a region that has become critically important to European security. Following the EU Arctic Summit, a joint communiqué was adopted, outlining the path toward an updated EU Arctic strategy set to be presented in October 2026. Key highlights of the document include:
1) Adoption of a new Arctic strategy. Kaja Kallas announced the preparation of an updated Arctic strategy, set to be presented in October. Security takes center stage in this strategy; in her view, Russia’s growing military activity and China’s strategic investments in the Arctic compel the EU to shift toward ensuring collective defense. The participants of the summit urged the EU to maintain a more active strategic presence in the region. EU Council President António Costa stated that the increase in military spending in the Arctic would be factored into the next long-term EU budget.
2) A unified EU icebreaker fleet. The concept of jointly owning an EU icebreaker fleet was reflected in the adopted communiqué. Kallas spoke of the need to create such a fleet in light of climate change and the geopolitical situation. Finland proposed building the vessels at its own shipyards, leveraging its expertise in the field and sharing experience.
3) Investments in cross-border infrastructure. The participants emphasized the need to develop infrastructure capable of serving civilian purposes (such as supplying remote settlements) and facilitating the rapid deployment of troops. Leaders called for increased investment in military mobility, cross-border transport links, satellite infrastructure, and other facilities in the North. The discussion focused on allocating funds to reinforce roads, railways, and bridges in Finland, Sweden, and Norway – ensuring they can withstand the weight of heavy NATO armored vehicles in extreme cold – as well as modernizing deep-water ports in Northern Norway and setting up POL storage warehouses along the Barents Sea coast. The summit supported the expansion of the European satellite constellation to facilitate navigation and maritime surveillance.
4) Balancing priorities. The statement noted that, despite the strong emphasis on security, issues like climate protection, sustainable development, and peaceful cooperation remain among the priorities of the EU’s Arctic strategy. Particular importance was placed on the situation of indigenous peoples and the need to cooperate with local communities in developing the region.
5) Hybrid threats. Finland’s Petteri Orpo noted that while climate change is opening up new shipping routes, it simultaneously renders the region vulnerable to hybrid influence. The document underscored the need to enhance capabilities for responding to such challenges.
Overall, the summit in Rovaniemi marked a fundamental shift in how European leaders approach the northern territories. The Arctic is no longer seen as an environmental conservation zone and has been officially recognized as a front line in the geopolitical confrontation.
Moreover, the Arctic is no longer discussed as an isolated region; it is being integrated into what analysts call the ‘Northeastern arc’ of European security policy.
Overall, the EU’s forthcoming updated Arctic policy represents an attempt to transform the Arctic from merely an ‘environmental issue’ into an integral component of the European strategy on security, economy, and technological autonomy.

According to PCR, he alone understands.

• Does Anyone Understand the Actual Situation? (Paul Craig Roberts)

Professor John Mearsheimer, one of America’s more realistic foreign policy experts, has just returned from a few days in Moscow and St. Petersburg. In this 46 minute video he reports his discussions with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and Russian foreign policy experts, and provides his reading of the impact of the war and sanctions on Russia: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2026/09/no_author/the-russia-i-saw/

Mearsheimer reports seeing scant signs of the war’s impact except for gasoline lines at a few stations, and no sign whatsoever of any impact of sanctions on the Russian economy. He did not visit locations of Russian oil production and refining where apparently there is damage from drone attacks. The main effect of the sanctions is to inconvenience Americans who travel to Russia. There are no longer direct flights, so Mearsheimer had to go in via Turkey. When he got there he found he could not use his American credit cards or American currency and was therefore without funds.
Given the habit of Western media to confuse propaganda with facts, 46 minutes with Mearsheimer will leave you with a more balanced picture of the situation and its likely outcome.
I have another reason for posting Mearsheimer’s report. I am going to use it to show that even those rare American foreign policy analysts capable of thinking on their own and not merely repeating the official narratives, miss a lot. I am not picking on Mearsheimer. I admire him and Professor Stephen Walt as they alone among upscale American academics had the courage to expose the Israel Lobby in their book of that name in 2007. They could have been harder on the Israel Lobby, but they knew their exposure of the lobby would result in them being branded antisemites and if they were too trenchant the book might be recalled or never published.
What follows are the points where Mearsheimer’s understanding of the Ukraine conflict and its implications has problems.
First, let’s try to define Ukraine. This is important, because Mearsheimer says that when the war is over and Ukraine consists of the western part, the Ukrainian nationalists will want their territory back. But is it Ukrainian territory?
Indeed is any territory Ukrainian? Historically, the answer seems to be NO.
Ukraine originated when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 as the result of the Soviet Politburo arresting Soviet President Gorbachev. Washington serving the Wolfowitz doctrine of American hegemony broke Ukraine off from Russia and created for the first time in history an independent Ukrainian state, now 35 years old, a brand new country created by Washington for use as a weapon against Russia.
During the Soviet era, Soviet authorities attached Donbas and Crimea, Russian territory with Russian population, to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic for political and administration reasons. It made no difference at the time as Russia and Ukraine were two provinces of the Soviet Union, like Massachusetts and New York are part of the United States.
From the 14th century until 1664 when the territory again became part of Russia, the territory of Ukraine was part of the Polish-Lithuanian union. In fact, Russian historical tradition regards Kievan Rus, established in Kiev by the Viking Prince Oleg of Novgorod in the year 882, as the beginning of Russian statehood. Kievan Rus fragmented in 1240 when Russia was occupied by the Mongol Empire.
It is unclear why Russians are thought of as Slavs when the country was founded by Scandinavians and then ruled by Mongols. Prior to the US coming into existence, Ukraine was already part of the Russian state and remained a part until the Soviet collapse in 1991.
When Washington overthrew the pro-Russian Ukrainian government in 2014 and installed an anti-Russian regime, Crimea and Donbas voted almost 100% to be reunited with Russia. Putin accepted the Crimean vote but refused Donbas. Instead, he concocted the Minsk Agreement that left Donbas in Ukraine but gave Donbas some autonomy to protect the Russian population from Ukrainian police and judicial discrimination.
It was from this fatal blunder by Putin that the conflict in Ukraine began. Instead of observing the Minsk Agreement, Washington built a powerful Ukrainian army to invade and reconquer the break-away Russian provinces in Donbas. It was the pending slaughter of the Donbas Russians that forced Putin’s hand. He had no alternative to intervening, but Russia was unprepared for war because Putin had stupidly relied on negotiation with his real enemy–Washington and NATO–and not on building up Russia’s strength.
Mearsheimer presents the Ukrainian conflict as between Russia and Ukraine, but that is false. The war is between Washington and Russia, with NATO or Europe allied with Washington against Russia. Ukraine is the proxy. Instead of fighting her enemies, Putin is fighting the proxy for her enemies.
Mearsheimer blames the failure of the Anchorage Agreement to end the conflict on Trump’s inability to stand up to Europe’s and Ukraine’s opposition. But this is nonsense. Ukraine is a Washington creation. It has no independence from Washington. Europe has no weapons other than the ones Washington allows them. If Washington can discipline Russia, Iran, India, and China with sanctions, it can discipline Europe with sanctions For Mearsheimer to pass the buck to Europe is nonsense. Neither the American foreign policy community nor any US administration has repudiated the Wolfowitz Doctrine of American Hegemony.
Mearsheimer does not say why Russia at the Alaska meeting relied on Trump to settle the conflict when the conflict is the product of Washington’s attempt to weaken Russia and remove Russian constraint of US unilateralism.
Mearsheimer says that about three months ago in June, 2026, Putin after 4.5 years of conflict finally decided to use sufficient force to bring the conflict to an end. But why did Putin wait 4.5 years to begin fighting a real war. All that Putin achieved for 4.5 years of war was to present current day Russian military capability as ineffective, as the conflict continued twice as long as it took Stalin’s Red Army to clear the powerful Wehrmacht out of Russia, Central Europe and arrive in Berlin. Little wonder Europe thinks preparing for war with Russia is no big thing. If Putin is incapable of defeating Ukraine, how can Russia stand up to all of Europe and, if the NATO agreement holds, also to the US?
Mearsheimer says it would be foolish for Russia to conquer all of Ukraine. Why? Mearsheimer himself says if western Ukraine is left as a rump state, it will be a hostile state to Russia because of Washington’s support for the followers of Stephan Bandera. Why should Russia leave a hostile state on its border? Perhaps Russia needs a Stalin to deal with the hostile Ukrainians. Short work would be made of them. If Putin’s Russia is too weak to deal with present day followers of Stephan Bandera, Russia hasn’t any future.
Mearsheimer presents the conflict as being between Russia and Ukraine. This is false. The conflict is between Russia and Washington. Ukraine is nothing but Washington’s proxy, as Washington is Israel’s proxy in the conflict with Iran.
For 4.5 years Putin has refused to acknowledge that Russia is in military conflict with the United States and Washington’s European empire. Washington even blew up the Nord Sea Pipeline and neither Russia nor Europe were willing to acknowledge Washington as the culprit. Putin pretends that the drone attacks deep inside of Russia are acts of terrorism, not of war. In other words, Putin has imposed a false narrative on the conflict to avoid the fact that the West has gone to war against Russia.
Instead of showing Russian strength and determination, Putin has shown for 4.5 years a pusillanimous Russia fearful of decisive action, thereby creating the image of a paper tiger that has assured Europe in its growing aggression against Russia.
This is Putin’s fatal blunder that is the Road to Armageddon.

“Almost everything the socialists are now advocating, pack the court, end the filibuster, end the electoral college, bring in new states, defund the police, recognize BLM, DEI, biological men in female sports, ban fracking. That was the Democratic Party.”

• The Left’s Race Narrative is Driving Americans Apart (Victor Davis Hanson)

Sami Winc: So Victor, let’s go ahead and turn to the Left’s propensity for lying and then their celebration of murderers. And this week we had the big lie on the internet this week was that there were black lynchings in the last five or six years. And you looked at every single one of them, and they were ruled as suicides with the exception of one that was murdered by her own husband. And so that lie is out there, and they just keep sending it out and perpetuating it. And then I wanted to just add to that for a picture that this week and last week, the Left was celebrating Kirk’s assassination. They were defending Luigi Mangione and Lindsay Clancy.

Victor Davis Hanson: The death cult.
Sami Winc: And, yeah. And they weren’t commemorating those who died on 9/11. In fact, just if I could add one thing, I had a friend from a college I used to work at. He wrote and said there was not one commemoration or anything about 9/11 or on 9/11.

Victor Davis Hanson: And then you have to add the [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Zohran] Mamdani laughing during the most solemn parts of the commemoration. This is not the Democratic Party. This is an Islamic socialist party. And it’s not just these young, dissatisfied, downwardly mobile urban people that supposedly hijacked the Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party was socialist before these people came in. Almost everything the socialists are now advocating, pack the court, end the filibuster, end the electoral college, bring in new states, defund the police, recognize BLM, DEI, biological men in female sports, ban fracking. That was the Democratic Party. They had gone socialist. All that’s different is these people, the Abdul El-Sayeds, the Hasan Pikers. They were young, they were glib, they were photogenic, and they said, “You got the great message, but you are… Nobody wants to listen to Nancy Pelosi. Nobody wants to listen to Chuck Schumer.
Nobody wants the buffoonish Hakeem Jeffries. We are slick. We can take that message that we both share, and we go to town. And that’s what they did. And they don’t like the United States. They really do not like it, this socialist Democratic Party. They don’t believe, that, 9/11 is… And if you think I’m exaggerating, Hasan Piker said that we deserved it. And Ilhan Omar said, “Well, something happened to somebody on that day. Something happened.” So I’m being literal about it. And they believe that any means are necessary to achieve their morally superior end.
So if it means to take a middle-class kid that worked himself up for UnitedHealth to provide healthcare for millions of people, you lay in wait, and you shoot him in the back, and you become a hero, even though you’re a trust fund, spoiled rotten nepo baby. Or you murder your three children, and you don’t say one word, that they were strangled one after another as two of the children saw each sibling murdered in front of them by their mother that was supposed to be nurturing. And then you say, you don’t just feel sympathy for the mother. You make that a cause celeb, and you don’t ever mention the children.
Or in the case of Charlie Kirk, you cut videos where you put your finger to your neck as if you’re shooting him on his commemoration. And as far as the hoaxes go, we’ve got to remember now that it’s getting late in the game. We went through the Duke lacrosse [scandal]. A person of color was a Vietnam veteran and a Native American who was cruelly mocked by a bunch of spoiled white kids. Turned out they were middle-class kids, and this guy was a complete faker. He wasn’t a Vietnam veteran. That stunt, he started the entire thing to get in their face.
And then we were told these horrible white lacrosse players are so entitled, they bring a poor, struggling black woman, and then they rape her. She was supposed to do a dance for them. It just, it’s like slavery again. No, she was a murderer. She later murdered her boyfriend. She is in prison. She admitted that she made the entire thing up. And this is going on from Tawana Brawley and Al Sharpton. That’s how we got to know Al Sharpton. He said that Tawana Brawley, that the district attorney of New York was involved in smearing feces on her, and that was completely made up.
Then we had Jussie Smollett. He defied the laws of chemistry. He threw bleach at 30 degrees actual weather temperature with, you know, frigid winds, and it didn’t freeze because he was Jussie Smollett. And then he did something like Spider-Man. He held his sandwich in one hand, and he held his cell phone in the other, and he was able to kickbox, I guess, two white guys with Make America Great red hats on that always inhabit the most liberal areas of Chicago at 2:30 in the morning.
That’s what he wanted us to believe, and Nancy Pelosi said this was horrific, and Kamala Harris said this was a modern lynching. And then the whole thing blew up, and they went silent. Never apologized.

He loves himself.

• Mitch McConnell Is Back. Sort Of. Well, Physically at Least (Sarah Anderson)

Last Weekend, my friend and colleague Matt Margolis wrote that Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) needed to “retire yesterday,” noting that he was expected back to the Senate this week, after a three-month absence. If you’ll recall, he apparently fell at his home in Washington, D.C. on June 14, was briefly unconscious, and, as Matt pointed out, “His spokesperson David Popp confirmed at the time that McConnell had been hospitalized, but for weeks afterward, his office offered nothing else: no diagnosis, no prognosis, no timeline.” In mid-July, his office released a statement and a “proof of life” photo, but the whole thing was super sketchy.

Statement From Senator Mitch McConnell

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) released the following note to constituents regarding his hospitalization and recovery:

“To my fellow Kentuckians –

“When you elected me to a seventh term and made me our… pic.twitter.com/kfx2GKqd38
— CSPAN (@cspan) July 12, 2026

Well, McConnell rolled back to Capitol Hill in his wheelchair on Monday — well, someone rolled him back anyway — and it’s… embarrassing. He looks thin, frail, and completely out of it. He speaks in a voice that is “faltered,” according to Reuters. In other words, he’s unfit to serve in the United States Senate. I get it. The GOP needs votes. This is a warm body in a wheelchair collecting a vote. But even that’s not going exactly the way it should.
On Wednesday, they rolled Mitch into the Senate Agriculture Committee, where they have been trying to move a farm bill since August, but it died due to the fact that there was an even number of Democrats and Republicans present on the committee and everything has to be decided down party lines it seems these days. Mitch’s vote should have been what sent it down the pipeline to the full Senate. And now, it will be, but it didn’t come easily.
When the clerk conducted roll call, McConnell sat silently when his name was called. Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) leaned over and whispered “no” to him (Hoeven later claimed he misspoke and thought they were voting for something else) before one of McConnell’s staffers told him to say “aye.” Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.), who chairs the committee, also leans over at one point and appears to tell McConnell to vote “aye.” Some reports say that even the Democrats were prompting him to speak up. In the video, you can see he eventually raises half a finger and says “aye” softly.
At some point, he also seems to freeze up — something we’ve seen the senator do before. No talking. Not falling asleep. Just… frozen in place.

WATCH: Republicans step in around Sen. Mitch McConnell as confusion breaks out over his vote during a farm bill markup in the Senate Agriculture Committee.

McConnell quietly says “aye” as GOP Sen. John Hoeven leans over and tells him “no" multiple times.

A staffer then… pic.twitter.com/uP0bEG5s6R
— Fox News (@FoxNews) September 17, 2026

McConnell has been on this committee since 1985. He’s been in the Senate for over four decades. If he needs to be told how to conduct a basic vote at this point, he needs to “retire yesterday,” as Matt said. It’s worse than Joe Biden. As Matt points out in his article, we demanded transparency from the Biden administration while it blatantly lied to us about his physical and mental health. Not doing the same to the leaders on our side only makes us look hypocritical and weakens us — something we can’t afford a month and a half out from the midterm elections.
Here are some more videos circulating of McConnell’s big return to the Senate — most of them showing him refusing (unable?) to speak. He gives a thumbs up or a peace sign if anyone speaks to him, and he seems to have a permanent smile plastered on his face (I’ll take some of what they’re giving him).
Judge for yourself.

‼️BREAKING‼️ MITCH MCCONNELL seen being wheeled out of his house and into a van where he appeared at the Senate for a vote. https://t.co/COOAwbmWh1 pic.twitter.com/qgrWe9OTnm
— The Rubber Duck ™ (@TheRubberDuck79) September 14, 2026

Elon Musk told Ron Baron he's building a chip 2 to 3 times better than Nvidia, at 10% of the cost.

I have the entire physical design of the chip laid out in memory. I can visualize the whole thing.

No CAD software, no design team walking him through it, just memory.

When TSMC… pic.twitter.com/Rn1pwn6mcl
— Pixel (@Pixel_Neuron) September 17, 2026

Elon Musk: “Let me tell you how things can potentially go wrong in AI. If you make AI be politically correct, meaning it says things that it doesn’t believe, then you’re programming it to lie or have axioms that are incompatible. I think you can make it go insane and do terrible… pic.twitter.com/kVqRsCSyYn
— Mars University (@MarsUniversityX) September 18, 2026

According to reports, Tesla is auditing Chinese suppliers for Optimus, and has already placed orders. The plan is ~50,000 robots in 2026 alone.

Optimus is coming pic.twitter.com/g9N0ZDmpSY
— Optimus (@Optimus_RH) September 18, 2026

Figure has introduced their new humanoid robot neural network called Helix 2.5, which the company says is capable of entering homes it has never seen before and immediately performing complex tasks with zero additional training.

Figure says it tested its humanoid across 30… https://t.co/wJvhtYg40L pic.twitter.com/X5zfoHKVtk
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 17, 2026

🚨 JUST IN: Elon Musk just amplified the fact that the top billionaires funding Democrats include George Soros at $100M+, Reid Hoffman at $60M+, Michael Bloomberg at $150M+, Laurene Jobs at $120M+ and Bill Gates at $100M+

WHERE'S BERNIE SANDERS? Where's the outrage?

Bernie… pic.twitter.com/WsCQxIOVqV
— War Correspondent (@warDaniel47) September 17, 2026

Kids will grow up thinking a robot folding laundry in the next room is as ordinary as a dishwasher, and they will be right. The future is going to be epic. https://t.co/mbSsKB7Idq
— Venator · Ovorum · Draconis (@currie_mike) September 17, 2026

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

Debt Rattle August 8 2026

Aug 082026

August 8, 2026 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 9:08 am Finance Tagged with: AfD, ayatollah, ballroom, Hillary, lawfare, NATO, Rubio, strait, Todd Blanche, Ukraine, Vance 37 Responses »

Frederick Carl Frieseke Girl In Blue Arranging Flowers 1915

• Bessent: Today or Tomorrow the Strait will be Open (ZH)

• Trump’s Muted Response To Hormuz Deal (ZH)

• The Iranian President’s Bizarre Meeting With the Supreme Leader (Athena Thorne)

• NATO Won’t Accept Ukraine. Promises Are Fairy Tales (Lucas Leiroz de Almeida)

• Trump Makes Private Revelation About Successor – WaPo (RT)

• Trump Says He Could Be Last Republican US President (TASS)

• US Appeals Court Halts Trump Ballroom Project, Supreme Court Next (BBC)

• Hillary Clinton Blasts Trump’s ‘Tackied Up’ White House Decor (CNN)

• Democrats’ Anti-Trump Lawfare Was Never About the Law (Matt Margolis)

• Israel’s Critics Have a History Problem (Victor Davis Hanson)

• The Four Way Squeeze (James Howard Kunstler)

• Sen. Cassidy Backs Todd Blanche For AG, Likely Saving Nomination (JTN)

• Germany Has Reached A New Low In Election Rigging (Amar)

The Terafab is going to become the largest and most valuable building on Earth by a long shot.

This is so much more than just another semiconductor fab.

It’s going to be @Tesla, @SpaceX, xAI, and Intel building what will become the most important AI manufacturing complex EVER… pic.twitter.com/NebcmBQOtY
— Teslaconomics (@Teslaconomics) August 6, 2026

Wow. https://t.co/C5CEiUNOSG
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) August 7, 2026

https://twitter.com/APompliano/status/2085559754965807444?s=20 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/2085510570753556940?s=20

Both sides declare themselves the winner. As foreseen. Are they also both happy?

• Bessent: Today or Tomorrow the Strait will be Open (ZH)

Importantly, Reuters reports late in the day Friday that Washington plans to lift the naval blockade on Iranian ports once the Oman deal is finalized and announced, which Bessent earlier said could be as soon as ‘today or tomorrow’. If the US were to back down militarily in the Gulf, it would cede effective control of the vital waterway to the Iranians. Per Reuters: Progress is being made between Iran and Oman on the Strait of Hormuz and “we expect a deal soon,” a U.S. official told Reuters on Friday.

Once a deal is announced to restore commercial shipping without impediments, the United States will lift its blockade of Iranian ports, the official said. “There is progress between Oman and Iran on the Strait, and we expect a deal soon,” the official said. “Once the deal is announced to restore commercial shipping without ` impediments, the United States will lift the blockade of Iranian ports.” Iran’s FM is declaring ‘victory’ saying that in the “face of the word’s most expensive military” his country’s forces demonstrated their might and capability…

Iran's Powerful Armed Forces have shown their readiness, capability, and might in face of the world's most expensive military.

When Muslims stand together, we can face every challenge by malicious outsiders head-on.

Time to rely only on ourselves and embrace true brotherhood.
— Seyed Abbas Araghchi (@araghchi) August 7, 2026

Iran has announced that under the ‘finalized’ Oman-Iran scheme and ‘deal’ for management of the Hormuz Strait that “enemy countries” (read: US and Israel) may only transit the waterway after lifting sanctions and paying compensation for the war. While this was not issued by the Foreign Ministry or top leadership per se, it does appear to represent Tehran’s overall position, after on Thursday it first declared that US and Israeli-linked ships will not be allowed Hormuz transit under the Oman plan:
Tehran Mayor says Passing through the Strait of Hormuz is subject to the lifting of sanctions and the payment of compensation: “The countries that have attacked Iran will not have the right to use this strait until compensation is paid. Governments that freeze Iranian assets or continue to impose sanctions and threaten the nation will be deprived of this strategic boon.”
While Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has appeared to back the Omani plan to reopen the strait, the US State Department has also newly warned on Friday that more ‘decisive action’ will be taken to cut off sources of Iran’s funding. Bessent has newly stated that… “I think shortly, maybe even today, tomorrow, we are going to see an agreement, a 30- to 60-day ceasefire, and the Strait will be open.”
This is somewhat surprising, but as we described below, it seems a final Washington exit is indeed in motion, even if it leaves Iran with greater leverage in the region. Like Trump’s latest comments Thursday night, Bessent seems in ‘mission accomplished’ mode with this newly published interview…

Bessent on Iran:

We have them by the throat, and they've got 150–180% food inflation, not able to pay the troops.

I think shortly, maybe even today, tomorrow, we are going to see an agreement, a 30- to 60-day ceasefire, and the Strait will be open.

Energy prices should come… pic.twitter.com/C1vGuQUIRM
— Clash Report (@clashreport) August 7, 2026

This really does sound like ‘it’s finally over’ talk…

Bessent on the Strait of Hormuz:

The strait is never going back to the way it was because the Iranians have used, or tried to use it, as a choke point.

What we are going to see over the next two years, the strait is going to become irrelevant.

It is going to become just… pic.twitter.com/LP8evMbeJP
— Clash Report (@clashreport) August 7, 2026

“I think it’s going to end pretty soon. I don’t think they can go much longer. “I think we’re doing fine.”

• Trump’s Muted Response To Hormuz Deal (ZH)

President Trump’s latest Iran comments came Thursday night, after a prior day wherein Iran and Oman unveiled their ‘finalized’ Hormuz management scheme, which most notably includes a ban on all US and Israeli vessels in the energy transit waterway. As we reviewed earlier, the White House has appeared to genuinely be searching for an exit strategy, but this stipulation alone may be too hard a pill for Trump to swallow, if accurate – given that it obviously leaves Iran in de facto control of the strait. Many pundits have pointed out it even leaves Iran with more leverage and power in the region than before the launch of Operation Epic Fury.

But this is why Trump’s comments to reporters in the Oval Office Thursday evening are surprising, given that instead of reacting angrily and outright condemning the Iran-Oman plan, his reaction was somewhat muted and meager. Doves who see this war as disastrous and hope for quick exit will welcome the development. “I think it’s going to end pretty soon. I don’t think they can go much longer,” the president said, while leaving his meaning ambiguous. Asserting once again that the US is involved in negotiations with Tehran (something the Iranians have been vehemently denying all along), Trump added that “I think we’re doing fine.”
The only thing Trump truly got angry about Thursday was related to the domestic side of the conflict, after US major media published several reports saying the Pentagon is perilously low on missiles and interceptors, which have been drained after nearly six months of war. He blasted ‘treasonous’ ‘fake reporting’ and even threatened to jail ‘leakers’ over the reports (the inherent contradiction says a lot here).But again, Trump’s penchant for raging against ‘dishonest’ and ‘evil’ Iranian leaders has been curiously absent over the last several days as the US bombs have fallen silent – after he called off planned ‘harder’ strikes over the weekend (or the last big TACO moment, among many prior).
This relative quiet at the White House comes even after Iran’s parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf openly mocked the United States and Trump’s theatrics and constant changes of course on X. He wrote Thursday: “Massive attack coming… wait, never mind, they want to negotiate.” That’s theater diplomacy on loop. Using bullying + broken promises + fake news as leverage is a failed strategy. Acknowledge the facts and fulfill your commitments. We don’t need more theater.
All of this change in Washington tone and posture suggests this could finally be the moment for a true offramp, as the US faces a ‘go big or get out’ realization, and as the prospect of slogging through months more of a developing quagmire becomes too politically and economically costly. This is potentially the declare ‘victory’ and get out moment. As former Congressman Ron Paul has put it: Just Walk Away!

Trump: I think the war with Iran will end pretty soon. I don’t think they can go much longer.

Q: Have you reached a deal to reopen the strait of Hormuz?

Trump: It’s sort of open right now. pic.twitter.com/J3lcPyuVwM
— Acyn (@Acyn) August 6, 2026

That guy in the photograph is the president. Who in Iran has no power. The Ayatollah does, but there’s no recent photos of him.

• The Iranian President’s Bizarre Meeting With the Supreme Leader (Athena Thorne)

As President Donald Trump continues to play Schrödinger’s Deal with Iran, those of us watching from the sidelines and wondering how long this will go on are also wondering something else: With whom exactly is the United States trying to make a deal? More to the point: Who is even running that country anymore? In Iran, the president is tasked with managing the country’s day-to-day operations, but he ultimately answers to the Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah. Meanwhile, the Ayatollah is the ultimate head of state, and no deal can conceivably happen without his sign-off.

It is well known that Masoud Pezeshkian has served in the role of president for the past two years. Where things get fuzzy is trying to pin down who the Supreme Leader is these days and how much he is in control.
“One of the most interesting and/or odd things about Operation Epic Fury/Roaring Lion has been the speculation about who is leading Iran after the death of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei,” my venerable colleague Stephen Kruiser wrote back in March. “Once it was confirmed that his son Mojtaba would be succeeding him, rumors were running wild about the state of his health. No one was sure if he was all dead, half dead, a quarter dead, or fit as a fiddle and looking to relocate somewhere with fewer bombs. That’s still the case. It’s been quite a bizarre sideshow to the seriousness of the war.”
And to this day, no one has seen hide nor hair of the alleged Supreme Leader in public. I’m sure part of the reason for that is security, but still — he could at least release a video to assert himself. Perhaps he is grotesquely disfigured and hides himself away from the world’s cruel gaze, à la Phantom of the Opera. Maybe he’s nothing more than a brain in a jar hooked up to a gut sack. No one knows.
To this end, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian made multiple demands to meet with Khamenei last spring. After he threatened to quit if he did not receive an audience, the Ayatollah relented, and a meeting took place in May. Pezeshkian later “told a gathering of trade association representatives that he had spent two and a half hours with the new leader ‘in a cordial atmosphere,'” reports Iran International.
But the outlet is now saying that the president’s characterization of the meeting is nothing like what actually took place. Based safely in London, Iran International claims that sources say the encounter was more like something out of a political crime thriller: The meeting itself was a concession extracted under pressure. Khamenei’s office agreed to it only after repeated requests from Pezeshkian and his threat to resign, the sources said, and the president was informed that, contrary to standard practice, he would not be received at the leader’s usual residence.
Instead, his security detail delivered him to an undisclosed location somewhere in Tehran. There he was taken from his own vehicle and seated in the back of a commercial car with tinted windows, where, apparently, Khamenei was already waiting. The spot was dark enough that the two men could not see each other, and Khamenei’s guards did not permit a handshake. The conversation was carried entirely by voice.
Due to the security risks Khamenei was facing, and after having (allegedly) narrowly escaped a targeted bombing with his life, one can excuse a certain level of paranoia from the Supreme Leader. But what was with the darkened interior and the prohibition of a handshake? Did his arms get blown off or something? Iran International’s sources said the Ayatollah’s elusive behavior “angered Pezeshkian, who regarded it as humiliating. According to individuals in the president’s office, he later asked whether the person beside him had in fact been the supreme leader, since he had only heard a voice in the dark.”
“It is unclear whether the remark was an expression of anger or genuine doubt,” Iran International notes. Further, “Pezeshkian has since requested a second meeting, this time at the leader’s residence. The request has so far been denied.” Sounds like we might have a “President” Joe Biden situation on our hands, where an incapacitated figurehead is propped up by a shadowy cabal that runs the country in his name. One wonders how the U.S. can possibly finalize an existential deal with a country in such a state of leadership crisis.

“Apparently, the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO is increasingly being dismissed as unrealistic. Even the regime’s most hardline officials seem to have lost hope regarding Kiev’s accession to the Western military alliance, considering that such a move does not serve NATO’s current strategic interests.”

• NATO Won’t Accept Ukraine. Promises Are Fairy Tales (Lucas Leiroz de Almeida)

In a recent statement, Valery Zaluzhny – Ukraine’s current ambassador to the UK, former head of the country’s armed forces, now widely considered Zelensky’s top rival – asserted that Kiev will never join the Atlantic defense bloc. According to him, promises of membership are merely “fairy tales” that do not reflect reality.

Zaluzhny stated that he is very familiar with NATO’s internal structures and understands how the bloc actually operates. According to him, promises regarding Ukraine’s entry into the bloc are nothing new. Over the course of 12 years working alongside alliance officials, Zaluzhny says he constantly heard such promises, yet saw no particular reason to believe they would materialize now.
While lamenting that the alliance will never truly accept Ukraine as a member, Zaluzhny criticizes the current situation of the Western bloc, asserting that NATO’s military doctrine is outdated, making the alliance strategically inferior to Russia. Zaluzhny believes it is urgent for NATO to undergo comprehensive military reform and revise its doctrine to align with contemporary realities. He believes Ukraine could contribute to this process but regrets that this will not be possible, given the alliance’s refusal to accept Ukraine as a member.
“I know NATO very well (…) or about 12 years, I personally worked to ensure that we adopted NATO standards, and every year I listened to fairy tales that we were about to join. Unfortunately, we will never join it (…) NATO will most likely remain in its current form and will spend another 12 years – just as Ukraine did – transitioning to the standards required to reach even half the level of the Russian Federation,” he said.
Zaluzhny, however, does not entirely rule out the possibility of Ukraine joining a Western military organization. While acknowledging NATO’s lack of interest in admitting Ukraine, he alleges that his country could eventually join a “European military security bloc.” This would only be possible, however, if EU nations and the UK agreed to move forward with creating a regional military alliance outside the NATO umbrella – something many analysts doubt will happen, given American influence over European decision-making.
In fact, there are some interesting points in Zaluzhny’s statement. He is correct in stating that Ukraine will never be accepted into NATO. The Kiev regime plays a very specific role in NATO’s war plans – precisely that of a proxy or external ally. NATO cannot include Ukraine as a member, as doing so would force the alliance to intervene directly in a war against Russia, which would obviously be a disaster, possibly even nuclear. In this sense, Ukraine’s role as a military proxy is only viable as long as the country remains outside the Western defense bloc.
He is also right to criticize NATO’s outdated strategy regarding Russia. In fact, NATO decision-makers have never moved beyond the military doctrines of the last century. This has been clearly reflected in the current disastrous anti-Russian military campaign, in which the Kiev regime, guided by NATO, is suffering substantial losses.
Zaluzhny, however, fails to point out how Ukraine is ignoring its own military tradition on the battlefield in favor of using precisely the same outdated NATO concepts. The military doctrine employed by Ukraine is not autonomous. Ukraine shares a military history with Russia rooted in their Soviet and imperial pasts. If the Ukrainians were following their own military doctrine, they would be using tactics similar to Russia’s -focused on preserving soldiers’ lives rather than conducting large-scale direct combat campaigns.
However, the Ukrainian armed forces follow NATO orders, which is why they use outdated warfare techniques unsuited to the reality of contemporary combat -characterized by high technology and the massive use of drones. So, in practice, Ukraine would have nothing to add to NATO regarding military doctrine, since the country already adopted NATO’s own doctrine when it agreed to act as a proxy.
A common argument used by proponents of Ukrainian accession is that the country could contribute to NATO with its real combat experience. In fact, the country has been facing Russia in a large-scale conflict for four years, gaining combat experience that no Western alliance nation possesses. The problem, however, is determining how much of the Ukrainian military apparatus will remain once the conflict ends. The regime has already lost nearly its entire original military contingent and is now relying on forced mobilization to keep its forces active. In this scenario, that experience may count for little, given that the soldiers involved in combat are mostly untrained men sent to certain death on the front lines.
If NATO didn’t want Ukraine before – when it had the second-largest army in Europe – it certainly won’t accept it now, when it is a failed state fighting with the help of its civilians snatched off the streets. The Ukrainian dream of membership seems increasingly unattainable.

“The US president reportedly told Republican donors “We need to elect JD [Vance],” despite publicly maintaining ambiguity..”

• Trump Makes Private Revelation About Successor – WaPo (RT)

US President Donald Trump has privately indicated that he wants Vice President JD Vance to succeed him in the White House, The Washington Post reported on Thursday, citing people familiar with the matter. During a closed-door Republican donor meeting in the Oval Office roughly two weeks ago, Trump reportedly said, “at the end of the day, we need to elect JD.” The remark contrasts with Trump’s public refusal to endorse a 2028 successor. He has praised both Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, suggesting they could even run on the same ticket.

The newspaper said that despite the apparent declaration of support, the president continued asking aides after the donor meeting which of the two would make the stronger presidential candidate. Several advisers also cautioned that Trump frequently tells different things to different people and could still change his mind. Trump has since dismissed the WaPo report, telling a journalist on Thursday that it was “way too early to even be thinking about” officially endorsing anyone, according to the New York Post.
Trump aides widely agree the president will delay formally endorsing a successor to avoid appearing to be a “lame duck,” WaPo wrote, adding that aides are only expecting an official endorsement after the 2026 midterm elections in November. Under the 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution, a president is limited to two elected terms, whether consecutive or non-consecutive. Trump, who returned to office last year after serving from 2017 to 2021, is therefore constitutionally barred from seeking another term in 2028, despite occasionally joking about the possibility at rallies and on social media.
Neither potential contender has announced plans to run. Vance has repeatedly said he remains focused on serving as vice president and will decide whether to seek the presidency only after the midterm elections. Rubio, meanwhile, has recently reduced his media appearances to avoid fueling speculation about his 2028 ambitions, according to WaPo.

“At the same time, Trump stood firm that he believed the GOP would come out on top..”

• Trump Says He Could Be Last Republican US President (TASS)

President Donald Trump warned that the Republican Party may never get another president into the White House if the Democrats take control of Congress.”And I’ll tell you what, if they [Democrats] get in, I may be the last Republican president,” he said in an interview with Punchbowl News. At the same time, Trump stood firm that he believed the GOP would come out on top, but said the Senate will have to “get smart” for that to happen. The US midterm elections will be held on November 3. One-third of the Senate and the entire House of Representatives will be up for election. Both chambers of the US legislature are currently controlled by the Republican Party.

It’s controversial because it’s Trump.

• US Appeals Court Halts Trump Ballroom Project, Supreme Court Next (BBC)

The Trump administration has been ordered to stop construction on President Donald Trump’s $400m (£297m) ballroom at the White House. A federal appeals court dealt the latest setback to the controversial project on Friday, testing Trump’s presidential authority and paving the way for a Supreme Court showdown on appeal.

“Whether or not a massive ballroom should be constructed is for Congress to decide and is not a matter for Executive self-help,” the panel’s majority said. The order upholds a preliminary injunction won by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which sued after the administration tore down the East Wing last year to begin the project without congressional approval.

“Congress has not ceded unfettered authority to the Executive Branch to dramatically redesign, reshape, and reconstruct the White House , the People’s House, to fit a particular President’s desires,” the panel said. The three-judge panel, in a 2-1 decision, said: “Each President is a temporary tenant, not the owner, of the White House and its Executive Residence.” “The President has no, and claims no, constitutionally assigned authority over that property, which is designed and maintained for the use of all Presidents, current and future, and for the American people,” the opinion said.
The administration appealed to the court after a federal judge twice blocked above-ground construction on the ballroom, while still allowing underground work to proceed.The ruling on Friday upholds that order blocking above-ground construction without congressional approval. The appeals court delayed implementation of its ruling for 14 days to allow the Trump administration to appeal to the Supreme Court. Construction at the site where the East Wing previously stood was previously ordered to stop, but a court delayed the ruling allowing construction to continue while the appeals court considered briefs and heard arguments last month, according to the BBC’s US media partner CBS.
President Trump has asserted that the new ballroom is needed to “accommodate people for grand parties, State Visits”, and has also said that it is “vital for National Security”. He doubled down on the need for the space after an assassination attempt at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner in April. The three-judge panel on Friday said that its ruling “has nothing at all to do with whether the proposed ballroom is desirable”, nor does it weigh in on whether the administration may ultimately construct the ballroom.
“What it does mean is that the Defendants may not do so during the district court’s expeditious litigation without securing Congress’s authorization, as the Constitution and laws require,” the order said.= The National Trust for Historic Preservation celebrated the latest ruling, noting that no above-ground construction can take place “unless and until” Congress takes action. “The White House, a global landmark that symbolizes American identity and the ideals of democracy, belongs to the American people,” said Brent Leggs, President and CEO of the National Trust. “The National Trust for Historic Preservation and its partners are proud to defend this irreplaceable monument on behalf of all Americans.”

No gracious exit for her.

• Hillary Clinton Blasts Trump’s ‘Tackied Up’ White House Decor (CNN)

Hillary Clinton blasted President Donald Trump’s overhaul of the White House in an interview posted Friday, telling podcast host Kara Swisher that Trump’s “tackied up” decor is “reminiscent” of dictator Saddam Hussein’s palaces in Iraq. “It’s sad to me — it’s sad that it’s so tackied up, and it’s a reflection of, you know, his narcissistic personality and his need to feel important, including sticking gold embellishments all over the walls of the Oval Office,” the former secretary of state told Swisher on her “Pivot” podcast.

“This is a man who, his mind apparently goes to, ‘Where can I add more gold?’ instead of, ‘How do I get out of Iran without looking like the loser that I am?’” As first lady, Clinton herself oversaw renovations to the White House Blue Room, but has emerged as a fierce critic of Trump’s massive overhauls to the White House complex, posting, “It’s not his house. It’s your house. And he’s destroying it,” shortly after the administration began demolishing the White House East Wing to make way for the president’s proposed ballroom last year.
“The next president is going to have a big decision. What do you do with a half-finished ballroom?” Clinton said in the interview, referring to it as a “carbuncle on the side of the White House.” Asked what she would do, Clinton replied: “I don’t know.” In a statement responding to her comments, White House spokesman Davis Ingle pointed back to the 2016 presidential election, when Clinton lost to Trump. “Hillary Clinton never had the opportunity to decorate the Oval Office as president because she suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of President Trump, which she has never recovered from,” he said.
Since returning to the White House in 2025, Trump has sought to leave his own mark on the building, affixing gold detailing on the surfaces of Oval Office and throughout the West Wing. In December of last year, he unveiled the “Presidential Walk of Fame” along the White House Rose Garden colonnade, complete with plaques featuring politically-tinged dings against his predecessors — partisan barbs White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed he wrote himself.
And he’s been publicly preoccupied with renovation projects throughout the District of Columbia, including scandal-plagued efforts to refurbish the National Mall’s reflecting pool and erect a 250-foot “triumphal arch” across the Potomac River. Speaking with Swisher in Friday’s interview, Clinton joked she’d be willing to take on the role of “Secretary of Taking Down the Gold” after Trump leaves office. “Wouldn’t that be a good idea? Secretary of cleaning it up, fixing up,” she said.

Just about power. Raw.

• Democrats’ Anti-Trump Lawfare Was Never About the Law (Matt Margolis)

Long before Donald Trump took the oath of office for his second term — heck, before he was even reelected — Democrat state attorneys general were already building the machine designed to stop him. Records show that at least 22 Democrat attorneys general joined a coalition called the Project for Federal Accountability starting in April 2024, roughly seven months before Trump defeated Kamala Harris. Seven attorneys general signed the agreement on April 28, 2024. Thirteen more joined in May and June.

The pact was called “Privileged & Confidential Common Interest Agreement.” It was built to do exactly what it sounds like: Keep the states’ coordination hidden from the public and from anyone who might dare oppose them in court. The signers said they wanted to pursue their shared legal interests “while avoiding any waiver of the confidentiality of those privileged materials.” Translation: Total secrecy while colluding against a sitting president who hadn’t even taken office yet.
To me, the most significant part of this pact is that Biden was still in the race when the first signatures went on that agreement in April 2024. He wouldn’t drop out for nearly three months. The sitting Democrat president was telling the country he intended to serve another term, the party was acting like he was going to win, all while Democrat attorneys general were already plotting to stop Trump upon his inevitable return to office.
The coalition had already divided up legal research by topic, built a shared “brief bank” of pre-drafted briefs, and pored over the Project 2025 policy blueprint hunting for lawsuit targets. Trump hadn’t signed a bill. He hadn’t issued an executive order. He hadn’t taken any official action as president, because he wasn’t president yet. None of that mattered. The lawsuits were already being written. Since Trump’s second term began, Democrat attorneys general have sued his administration close to 100 times.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D-Calif.) has taken part in 82 of those lawsuits. Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser (D-Colo.) has joined at least 75. Washington Attorney General Nick Brown (D-Wash.) has joined 70. Bonta insists the coalition’s work is “apolitical.” Seriously? He also said, “If (Trump) doesn’t want to get sued, all he has to do is follow the law,” adding, “I don’t think our cases are likely to be dismissed… Trump shows no sign of slowing down, so we will continue to sue him.”
Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown (D-Md.) claims the early coordination was reasonable preparation once Trump’s nomination looked inevitable, but this confirms that the strategy was always about resistance, not the rule of law.Even people outside the conservative media world find this strange. Retired Connecticut judge Thomas Moukawsher mocked the coalition’s chosen name: “‘Federal Accountability?’ That’s just a little strange.” Former Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, a Republican who now often votes for Democrats, called the secrecy “not normal at all.”
You think?
California alone has burned through $19 million in taxpayer money on this litigation crusade, with another $25 million already authorized. New Jersey tucked $1 million into its fiscal year 2026 budget just to fund two new staff positions dedicated to the coalition’s work. That’s right, taxpayers are literally footing the bill for a legal ambush that was planned before Trump even won the election. Imagine all the other things California could have wasted more money on. Democrats can claim all they want that this is about accountability and the rule of law, but it’s just blanket resistance. And if you live in a blue state, you’re paying for it.

“They were settler colonialists.”

• Israel’s Critics Have a History Problem (Victor Davis Hanson)

We’re hearing a lot of charges since Oct. 7th that Israel has committed a litany of war crimes. Let’s examine them very carefully because I think they tell us more about the accuser than they do the accused. We’re told by a lot of representatives in our own Congress, mostly on the Democrat side, not all—Tucker Carlson, for example, Candace Owens, but also Zohran Mamdani and others have said that Israel is an apartheid state. In other words, it has racial enclaves.

But there’s nothing in the Israeli constitution that requires you to be Jewish. In fact, there’s 2 million Arabs living freely, voting freely inside Israel. In contrast, of the 22 member Arab nations, almost all of them require Islam as the national religion. And of the 30 Muslim countries, Arab and non-Arab alike, about 23 of them make it a crime to be an apostate from Islam. Does anybody ever say that these are apartheid states?
Do you really believe that if you were of a trans community, you could start a movement in Iran? Could you have a Mormon chapter on the West Bank? Could you build a new cathedral of Christian worship in Istanbul today under [Recep Tayyip] Erdogan? You think there’s a gay rights parade going on in Gaza? No, no, these are apartheid. They eliminate and marginalize communities. Let’s look at another charge that we hear: settler colonialist. This means that Israel, uh, were interlopers.
Let me ask you something. In modern-day Israel, we have archaeological and linguistic evidence that Jews were living there 3,500 to 4,000 years ago. People who spoke early Hebrew, who practiced the Jewish faith, and lived on the land that is now Israel. If you want to talk about settler colonials, where did the Arabs come from? They swept in from Asia into the Middle East and North Africa and, as settler colonialists, conquered Byzantine and earlier Roman territories that had been Western for 700 years.
The greatest church in Christendom was Hagia Sophia, built in the sixth century A.D. by the Emperor Justinian. It was the largest and most revered church in Christendom for 1,000 years. And yet, in the 15th century, settler colonialists under the sultan came in and conquered and settled and took over Asia Minor from the Byzantines. And they slapped minarets on and culturally appropriated a Christian church and turned it into a mosque. They were settler colonialists.
Mamdani’s family are settler colonials. They were part of a British imperial project at the turn of the 19th to 20th century that put settlers from other areas of the British Empire into Africa to help advance their colonial control of the Indigenous people. And even today, Mamdani’s 1% Indian community controls 65% of the gross domestic product of Uganda. Settler colonialist. I could go on, but this is a ridiculous charge to lodge against Israel when, of all of these settler colonial powers, it has the longest pedigree in one place.
Now we hear about ethnically cleansing, ethnic cleansing. We’re told that the Israelis ethnically cleansed the Gazans and often people in the West Bank. I don’t know quite what that means, but before I try to translate it, we do know there’s a lot of ethnic cleansers. Erdogan, the president of Turkey, has threatened to send missiles both into Athens and into Israel. His government, not his own, but the Turkish government, of which he is a continual successor, ethnically cleansed all of the Greeks from Northern Cyprus and occupied it, and then sent settler colonialists from Turkey. I haven’t heard anybody complain about that.
Is there a protest I missed at Columbia? Did Ilhan Omar forget that, or does she just give a pass to a fellow Muslim country? While Oct. 7th was transpiring, far away in Muslim Azerbaijan, they were ethnically cleansing 150,000 Armenians from their ancestral home of nearly 1,000 years in the Nagorno-Karabakh Corridor. I didn’t hear a word from Ilhan Omar. I didn’t hear a word from [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez]. I didn’t hear a word from Zohran Mamdani.
And then we come to genocide. Genocide. The Israelis, they say, committed genocide. And believe me, people who commit genocide, we know who they are, and they don’t vaccinate the targeted population. They don’t send food. They don’t allow medical doctors and suppliers to go into the targeted genocidal people.
But more importantly, when Israel was formed by 1950, there were 170,000 Arabs still in Israel. They comprised 12% of the population. Fast-forward to 2026. Guess what? Genocidal Israel saw the population of Arabs, who are now Israeli citizens, increase to 2 million, and the percentage of non-Jews in Israel who were Arab Muslims increased from 12% to 20%. Genocidal regimes don’t take the targeted victim and then increase the population, both in real numbers and percentages vis-à-vis their own demographics. They just don’t do that.
And if you talk about ethnic cleansing, Hasan Piker, a fierce podcaster and critic of Israel, was born in the United States, but he grew up in Turkey. His parents are Turkish immigrants. Turkey probably is the most genocidal regime of the last two centuries. It wiped out almost a million Armenians in the Armenian genocide. It went into Ionia in 1922 and destroyed, burned down, the Greek city of Smyrna, an ancient city that had a 2,500-year Greek pedigree, and then ethnically cleansed a million Greeks off the entire coast of Ionia. That’s genocidal.

“ . . it’s subversion and nothing about it is accidental. it’s a well worn playbook to use the democratic institutions of a high trust state to destroy a civilization.” —El Gato Malo on Substack

One way, or another, we’re gonna find you, we’re [gonna] gitchya gitchya gitchya. . . .

“This is a hill that somebody’s going to die on, and in America it’s not going to be Americans.”

• The Four Way Squeeze (James Howard Kunstler)

The days might still be long, but this is a dark season in our country’s politics. Everybody’s nervous and many are furious, and yet all that emotion goes nowhere, just eats you up while you watch and wait for signs that help is on the way. What would that help even look like? Maybe a concerted effort to bum-rush a whole lot of bad ideas out of American life and replace them with better ideas that are worth building a life around.

Of the two political parties that used to vie between the interests of property and of labor, there is almost nothing left — nothing coherent, anyway. Mr. Trump & Co. still stand outside a feckless Republican establishment that can only say “no.” That is bad enough, when it comes to vital matters like election reform and sound fiscal policy. But the President is methodically wearing them down with tactical work-arounds such as this week’s use of State Department visa control to prevent foreign visitors coming here just to drop birthright citizens.
Things will get super-serious when the president has to manage the government’s functional bankruptcy, the bond market crack-up under our impossible debt-burden, and all its knock-ons. It’s coming for sure, and will require a stringent reorganization of American finance, probably even of our money itself. That will be a moment when the nation understands what leadership really means, not just endless deception and fakery.
Speaking of which, you have the other party, the Democrats. The Dems, unmoored from the interests of labor (whatever is left of it), are now strictly just the party of bad ideas and crime. The party is also, at this juncture of history, caught in a gruesome four-way squeeze that could easily drag it into extinction. Let’s count them.
First, is the basic basket of ideas that comprise the party’s platform, readily identifiable for some years now as the “Woke” catalog. Virtually all of them are ideas that a majority of the public rejects as insane. A wide-open border. We tried that for four years under the fake president “Joe Biden.” Didn’t work out so well. Added many millions to the free everything dole that actual citizens resentfully have to pay for. Took jobs away from said citizens. Got a lot of (mostly) women murdered and raped. Let in Gawd knows how many foreign terrorists.
“Woke” also includes the DEI products of manufactured race animus and gender confusion, especially as applied in school from K all the way to PhD. Apart from the sheer hatred and idiocy these things generated, they also led to the scrapping of merit and excellence as organizing principles for civilization. Americans increasingly reject all of that.
The second squeeze point is the Democratic Party’s criminal portfolio. The Covid-19 operation was basically theirs. It killed and injured millions, wrecked the integrity of medicine, and brought on the deliberate perversion of our election procedure. It gave us fake President “Biden” and the autopen gang that ran him. Along the way, the party weaponized the law and produced one hoax after another: RussiaGate, Impeachment, J-6, the 2024 Trump trials — treason, sedition, deprivation of rights under color of law, obstruction of justice and much more. These crimes are a huge burden for the party and they are in the process of being adjudicated, and a lot of the party’s heroes will end up in prison.
The third squeeze is the party’s widespread and atrocious racketeering operation. The process of uncovering it has been going on since Jan 20, 2025, but still has a long way to go in terms of courtroom action. The Somali Learing Center in Minnesota, fake hospices by the hundreds in California, Medicaid fraud in state after state. It was generally allowed to go on by state officialdom. We await the eventual indictments of Governor Tim Walz, Gavin Newsom, JB Pritzker, Janet Mills and many other Democratic politicians.
The Democratic Party racketeering apparatus also included the money-laundering system that kicked back millions of dollars from a matrix of NGOs that washed taxpayer money into the party coffers. USAID was a major mechanism, and has been mostly shut down, but thousands of NGOs still exist and function as employment centers for young party “activists” who otherwise would have to work the espresso machines. A lot of that activism depends on funding from the likes of George Soros, the Tides Foundation, Bill Gates, Neville Roy Singham, and other criminally-tinged philanthropy outfits. Justice is coming for them now, too.
Which redounds directly to the fourth squeeze: the rise of communism and jihad as the Party’s new rallying cries while the other three squeezes work to put the party’s old guard out of business. Communism is the fad-du-jour among Democratic Party youth because the over-production of elites (i.e., college graduates) are increasingly closed out of cushy jobs in the besieged NGO matrix, threatened further by the advent of artificial intelligence, and have been trained-up by the lefty-left college faculties to fall in love with the utopian nostrums of Karl Marx.
Communism is the Party’s last resort and most of America will not buy it, no matter how heartfelt the youth faction appears these days. Americans believe in property rights. They want to own things. They don’t really enjoy being pushed around by kommissars. They want to keep Thanksgiving and Christmas.
As for jihad, it’s hard to imagine a less likely route to the hearts and minds of America. No matter how pissed off you are about Israel, jihad is not the answer to America’s problems. No, Dorothy, Kansas will not be joining the Ummah. You will not have to don the burka. Sharia will not replace English common-law. This is a hill that somebody’s going to die on, and in America it’s not going to be Americans.
Personally, I don’t see how the Democratic Party as currently configured survives this four-way squeeze. If President Trump can succeed in starting to reindustrialize the country — even considering A-I and robots — there will still be a need for human labor and labor will seek some kind of political representation. Maybe they can find it in the hollowed out husk of the thing that used to be the Democratic Party. Otherwise, fuggeddabowdit. The party is toast.

Why does this have to be so hard?

• Sen. Cassidy Backs Todd Blanche For AG, Likely Saving Nomination (JTN)

Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., on Friday announced he would support Todd Blanche for confirmation to the post of Attorney General. His support likely saves Blanche’s nomination, which has been on thin ice for weeks. Both GOP Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, have announced they will oppose him. Speculation had abounded that Cassidy may join them in an act of revenge for President Donald Trump backing his primary opponent. But Cassidy threw cold water on that prospect in remarks on the Senate floor.

“This is not a referendum on President Trump. It is a decision regarding Mr. Blanche in very specific circumstances.” he said. “All considered, I will vote for Mr. Blanche.””Mr. Blanche is not perfect, and he will tell you this. But the choice is not between perfection and Mr. Blanche,” he added. “It is between Mr. Blanche and another acting attorney general who may not run the department effectively under President Trump, and who indeed may not be as good as Mr. Blanche.”
Sens. Thom Tillis of North Carolina and John Cornyn of Texas previously dropped their opposition to Blanche after he provided them with written assurances on the end of an abandoned “anti-weaponization fund.”

AfD and Marine Le Pen, and Europe is a whole different place. They’ll fight that.

• Germany Has Reached A New Low In Election Rigging (Amar)

Today’s Germany is a grim, unhappy place. Thirty-six years after West Germany’s take-over of the former East Germany (polite term: re-unification), which was supposed to herald a golden age of national fulfilment, citizens are in a very foul mood. According to Ipsos, one of Germany’s go-to pollsters, their morale is at a “historic nadir,” and they are “losing confidence about the country’s future.”

As of last month, fear of poverty and inequality was “clearly increasing,” with 37 percent of all respondents picking it as their number-one angst, followed by “migration” (31 percent), “inflation” (30 percent), worries over the healthcare system (26 percent) and “criminality and violence” (25 percent). Note that all top five anxieties focus on what is going wrong at home. That doesn’t mean, though, that Germans are optimistic about the world or Germany’s place in it: 24 percent of the Ipsos poll respondents fear “military conflicts between states.”
If the mood is sour, it’s very good reasons: Germany’s abysmally, unprecedentedly unpopular and embattled chancellor, Friedrich Merz, is desperately trying to sell an absurd feel-good story about the German economy as an “anchor of stability.” But that only demonstrates how divorced from reality Germany’s rulers are: In the real Germany that their subjects must inhabit, industrial output is 17 percent below 2017. After the recent roll-out of a perfectly underwhelming “reform package,” business leaders have warned that much more is needed to prevent a “lost decade.” That would be, in effect, the second one in a row.
Meanwhile, Berlin is busy doing two things: cut down public spending on absolutely vital things such as education (next to inexpensive energy, the decisive resource for Germany’s prosperity already sacrificed to the proxy war against Russia) and raze the sorry remnants of social safety nets that have long been in tatters already.
That doesn’t mean Germany is not going into catastrophic debt. It is, as if there’s no tomorrow. The money is flowing in torrents. Just not for Germany’s citizens and tax payers but for Zelensky-regime Ukraine (to the tune of, officially, almost €100 billion and counting) and for an insane armament drive that signals a very unhealthy – if historically repetitive – urge to go to war with Russia. This year, €83 billion is earmarked for weapons; next year it will be €110 billion. And so on: €154 billion for 2028, €163 billion for 2029, and a grand crescendo with €184 billion in 2030.

This is the background of not only a severe national depression but also a search for alternatives. At this point at least, the AfD (Alternative for Germany), an anti-immigration party founded in 2013, is benefiting the most from this crisis. On the rise for roughly a decade now, its momentum has recently greatly accelerated.
A fresh poll for all of Germany has the AfD at 27 percent, outdistancing (again) all other parties, including those making up the radical-Centrist coalition currently in charge in Berlin (CDU – 21 percent, SPD – 12 percent). Perhaps even more importantly, the AfD may well win crucial regional elections in the key eastern Land of Saxony-Anhalt and looks set to do very well in two others – in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Berlin – as well.
In sum, the AfD is probably on the verge of a historic breakthrough that will greatly weaken, maybe even ruin the traditional parties’ longstanding “firewall” strategy of freezing it out of political leadership positions no matter what the people say in elections, in effect half-disenfranchising its voters. This moment is likely to reset the whole German political system at the cost of the establishment parties which are still desperately defending their de facto exclusive hold over political offices, perks, and power.
So, what do you do when you are losing a (barely) fair fight? Easy, at least if you are part of Germany’s self-appointed guardians of democracy, civil society, and wholesome ‘values’ all around: You start playing even dirtier.
In the case of the threat the AfD poses to Germany’s establishment parties, the latter have always toyed with this option: Would it not be just oh-so-convenient to simply prohibit such a troublesome competitor under the pretext that it is so radical and dangerous it does not deserve a fair chance? The perverse dream of ‘saving’ what’s left of German democracy by abolishing the biggest opposition party is by no means dead. Some die-hard Centrist radicals, intriguingly including Germany’s militarist-in-chief minister of defense Boris Pistorius, can’t let go of it.
This has all been accompanied by a mainstream media cacophony of cries of “democracy in danger!” and “Nazis at the gates!” Crazy conspiracy theories included, such as the one recently spread – without being challenged – by a member of the co-ruling SPD party on a mainstream news channel: Let’s just blame the latest Islamist terror attack in Berlin on Russia trying to boost the AfD. In what alternative universe does that make any sense? Welcome to the often unhinged, notoriously shameless, and very ugly world of German mainstream discourse.
The problem with the let’s-just-prohibit-the-whole-lot approach is that having a party banned is, fortunately, very hard under German law. And although Berlin’s establishment parties don’t mind bending the rules to deploy nasty lawfare, they do want to be sure to win. If they try to prohibit the AfD and fail, the latter will only get even stronger, as everyone understands. Indeed, even prohibiting ‘merely’ a part of a party, say, a Land organization, is neither easy nor a sure bet.
But what if there were a way to kneecap the AfD without having to run that risk? What about, for instance, promising AfD candidates could be taken out and removed from elections without having to overcome the high legal hurdles that make full-fledged prohibition so scary? And that is where the Land of Lower Saxony (in the former West Germany and not to be confused with Saxony-Anhalt in the former East Germany) has taken on the role of trailblazer in democracy defense via democracy suppression.
Think of recent events there as a prototype or trial balloon. Based on a very recently passed, as it were, made-to-measure law, local election committees have begun to block AfD candidates from running by invoking especially produced reports from the Land branch of Germany’s domestic intelligence service, the Verfassungsschutz. This is unprecedented and scandalous, as critics are pointing out. In a ludicrously flimsy and absurdly unfair procedure that needs no courts – in this manner similar to EU sanctions-against-dissidents policy – German citizens are deprived of the passive franchise, the right to be elected.

SpaceX is building an AI data center for orbit, then reusing the same brain box on Earth.

Starmind AI1 packs NVIDIA Rubin GPUs and Vera CPUs, solar power and Starlink laser links into one orbital system.

On the ground, Elon says they can remove the solar wings and radiators… https://t.co/sOn9GlqkGx pic.twitter.com/K9yOSH9QSI
— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) August 7, 2026

Chamath Palihapitiya on the Tesla-SpaceX merger: "I still don't like the fact that Tesla's over here – and as I've told you, that will get merged in. that thing will look very cheap in a few years"

this is him and Gavin Baker explaining how you underwrite SpaceX at $2 trillion,… https://t.co/xMbMZf57V0 pic.twitter.com/KEeyDE2lVG
— Сarm1ne (@carm1nee) August 6, 2026

Before Elon Musk became the world’s richest entrepreneur, he spent years teaching himself the disciplines behind the industries he wanted to enter.

He studied physics, engineering, manufacturing, software, and rocket science by reading textbooks, speaking with experts, and… pic.twitter.com/5xAfALLhHC
— X Ethan (@XEthanai) August 7, 2026

The Covid Pandemic was planned. Their tests were fake. Their mask science was fake. Their social distancing was fake. Their vaccine science was murderous and fake. Their Media was fake. Their CDC and FDA were fake.

ARREST THEM BOTH NOW pic.twitter.com/8Fjlehi1k6
— Liz Churchill (@liz_churchill10) August 7, 2026

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2085485219931447561?s=20

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

Debt Rattle July 21 2026

Jul 212026

July 21, 2026 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 9:31 am Finance Tagged with: border czar, Britain, burn bags, Don Lemon, ICE, Kamala, midterms, NATO, Netanyahu, unelected 33 Responses »

Wassily Kandinsky Autumn Landscape with Boats 1908

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They each deserve presidential medals of freedom for standing up and speaking out so honestly to protect our freedoms. @POTUS @realDonaldTrump @SusieWiles https://t.co/vs9V8Bi0oo
— General Mike Flynn (@GenFlynn) July 20, 2026

https://twitter.com/FreedomHasWon/status/2079197047576825994?s=20

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

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

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

Greek Tankers Hit, Also as Iran Targets Bahrain
Iran’s IRGC continues to insist that it along is in control of the Strait of Hormuz, as it continues firing on foreign vessels seeking to traverse the Strait of Hormuz outside of Iran’s ‘approved’ zone and protocol. According to some of the latest developments on this front, via regional media: One of two Greek-owned tankers hit by projectiles in the Strait of Hormuz has been abandoned by its crew after fire was reported on the vessel. The crew was rescued by a tugboat after abandoning the Maltese-flagged Kavomaleas owned by Greece’s Dynacom Tankers.
Earlier, UKMTO reported fire onboard the tanker north of Kuzmar, Oman. It had been stranded in the Arabian Gulf after spending months offshore of Saudi Arabia. It appeared to exit the Strait of Hormuz on July 2 although its AIS tracking was turned off. Various locations across Iran meanwhile continued to get pummeled by US aerial attacks. Iran in turn has been heavily targeting Bahrain on Monday. “The US launched an aerial attack on one of the areas in Shiraz, it resulted in no casualties, and the situation is under control,” IRIB reports. Currently, FM Araghchi is said to be en route to Pakistan, as mediators scramble to contain the war.
Air war alone cannot dislodge a large military/regime, hence the dilemma of restraint vs. quagmire and new forever war…

I'm confused.

The USA has the most powerful military on Earth. We've bombed the HELL out of Iran for 4 months. Trump says their Air Force, Navy, and nearly all of their missile capabilities are destroyed.

…so how is Iran still capable of hitting US bases right now???
— Matt Van Swol (@mattvanswol) July 18, 2026

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

Trump confronting Mamdani.

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

Federal Border Czar Tom Homan has announced that an unprecedented surge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents is coming to New York City in response to the city’s sanctuary policies. Homan told Fox News on Sunday, “It’s coming,” citing the Trump administration’s refusal to be hampered by Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s vow to champion the city’s sanctuary status and to continue resisting federal immigration enforcement. Homan refused to discuss specifics as to where and when enforcement actions would occur so as to avoid tipping off the various leftist groups who have organized to oppose ICE actions.
https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2078838491388031146?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2078838491388031146%7Ctwgr%5Eaf9f5cf6ec9507f23d141bbd7943e1b2278b5c8f%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fborder-czar-warns-new-york-city-ice-surge-coming-enforcement-expanding

Homan told Fox News that “there needs to be a surge” and added, “But I am not going to show our hand because there are… well-funded groups who will try to impede, interfere. We’re not going to give them any upside on this.” The border czar’s comments followed statements Mamdani made during a New York Times interview on Saturday, in which the mayor expressed “pride” regarding the city’s refusal to cooperate with immigration enforcement and vowed to protect immigrant communities.
Mamdani told the Times, “What we are unwilling to do is to participate in civil immigration enforcement with a federal government that has said openly it wants to deport a vast majority of people for crimes that we will never even know.” According to Fox News, Homan fired back at Mamdani’s statement, saying that the mayor can have his stance but he will not prevent ICE from doing its job, noting, “That’s called the rule of law. If he doesn’t like it, call your members of Congress, tell them to change the law.”
The federal surge is also tied to New York state budget legislation signed into law by Governor Kathy Hochul that strictly curbs local law enforcement’s cooperation with federal immigration officials and bans ICE agents from wearing masks during community operations. Homan has also argued that blocking ICE access to municipal jails removes operational efficiencies, forcing federal teams out onto the streets to conduct widespread community arrests. The border czar said that President Trump’s campaign promises to address border security and to impose mass deportations are a large reason why he is the president today.

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

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

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

“Benjamin Netanyahu will not be arrested, in any way, shape, or form, while in the United States of America,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “He is fighting against the Islamic Republic of Iran, which recently killed 52,000 innocent protestors, and has spent the last 47 years killing American Soldiers, and others,” he added. “The only ones that should be arrested are the people that led Iran into this unprecedented SPIRAL OF DEATH AND DESTRUCTION, something that should have been dealt with years ago, by previous Presidents!”
Mamdani’s authority and ability to arrest Netanyahu without the consent of Washington, D.C., is dubious at best.

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

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

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

Firstly, the new bargain rests upon the fundamental assumption that Europe cannot continue to outsource its security indefinitely. During his first campaign for president, stretching for the entirety of his first term, President Trump demanded that America’s allies on the other side of the Atlantic spend more on their defense.
Up until that point, NATO’s 2006 defense minister agreement established a 2% of GDP requirement for all members to spend on defense. And despite that agreement, only Poland and the United States had achieved that goal, leaving behind powerful and wealthy European states such as Germany, France, and even the United Kingdom (at the time, an EU member). Such a discrepancy suggests deep-rooted and structural unfairness, as wealthier and more influential countries must be willing to spend more on defense, which hasn’t happened until this summit.
While the American left idolized European welfare states and the robust social safety nets that came with them, it was clear that those welfare states would have been impossible to finance without the American taxpayer bankrolling European defense. Needless to say, when America needed Europe the most, in the aftermath of Operation Epic Fury, European allies repeatedly refused to join the United States in military activity designed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz from the Iranian blockade—which, ironically enough, would benefit Europe more than it would America—due to Europe importing much of its oil and natural gas through the Strait of Hormuz. When a conflict began with Iran, Europe once again proved reluctant to shoulder a larger share of the burden.
Donald Trump understood that this posture is unsustainable, which is why he asked Europeans to raise their defense spending in his first term, while raising the requirement to a historic 5% of the GDP for all NATO members throughout this ongoing second term. The bargain is clear: Europe must not be allowed to outsource its defense spending to the United States, at least not without increasing defense spending and implementing serious changes to its economic, political, and social model.
The current American administration correctly understands that a weak Europe is a threat to the future of the transatlantic alliance and to the alliance’s security in the face of looming threats from Russia, China, and growing competition from the Global South.
Secondly, as outlined in the 33-page national security strategy of the United States published in early December, the U.S. is diverting its attention away from continental Europe to the Indo-Pacific. There, Chinese control of the South China Sea and a looming invasion of Taiwan are seen not just as geopolitical inconveniences but as real and existential security threats to the United States and its strategic interests in the region.
For that reason alone, Europe must spend more on its defense to deter potential Russian aggression, while the United States deals with China. The notion that the United States should be left dealing with the Sino-Russian axis alone, while the EU goes down the drain of unfettered leftism, at the expense of its civilization and the NATO alliance at large, represents an absurd and unsustainable model of alliance maintenance—and, I should add, grave political malpractice.
If the United States were to continue on the liberal path of relationship building with Europe, it would have to concede the chips race to China, as a successful Chinese invasion of Taiwan would give the CCP control of over 80% of the world’s semiconductors, leading to almost complete Chinese control of global supply chains and a consequent economic disaster for America and Europe alike.
It is clear that the liberal bargain of the US-EU relationship needs to be replaced by a pragmatically realist approach that preserves the alliance while deterring foreign adversaries. The latest NATO summit did exactly that.

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

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

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

It seems like just last month [It was just last month, Steve —Editor] I wrote that “The U.K.’s most destructively feckless prime minister (since the last one)” would soon be history, but that Burnham “could prove Britain’s final undoing.” I hate to be so pessimistic when it’s only Monday, but take a look at this guy. Burnham hasn’t worked in the private sector in 30 years — as a writer, yuck! — serving in Parliament for two decades, both in and out of power. He held positions we don’t even have here, like Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Shadow Secretary of State for Health, and Undersecretary for Taxing of Things We Haven’t Yet Taxed.
Then he served as Mayor of Greater Manchester (2017-2026), until returning to Parliament earlier this year following a by-election (kind of like a special election year), seemingly for the sole purpose of taking a run at Starmer. Mission: Accomplished. As of this writing, Burnham is busy sacking various members of Starmer’s cabinet, including Rachel Reeves as Chancellor, Steve Reed as Housing Secretary, Lord Hermer as Attorney General, Peter Kyle as Business Secretary, and the execrable David Lammy from his dual roles as Justice Secretary and Deputy PM.
But as one commenter on X warned: “Many people are loving all Burnham’s sackings because of what they think about the politicians he’s getting rid of. But don’t cheer too enthusiastically because it’s not at all clear that the new appointees will be any better.” The situation remains fluid, as they say, but Burnham has yet to name any replacements to serve in his cabinet. The name to keep an eye on — as I warned you last month — is the woman often called “the brains” behind Burnham’s time as mayor, the Liberian-born daughter of lefty radicals: Miatta Fahnbulleh.
CutMyTaxUK reported last year that Fahnbulleh “was born in Liberia as part of a prominent leftist revolutionary family, has served as a junior energy & housing minister in the Starmer government before resigning to support Burnham.” Previously, as the “former head of the far-left New Economics Foundation,” she proved “adept at churning out socialist policy proposals.” Or as CMT-UK put it, “Keir Starmer has appointed a Housing Minister who hates private housing.” And guess what? Before even naming Fahnbulleh as Permanent Undersecretary for Ending Private Property, Politics UK reported that Burnham is considering introducing rent controls as part of his cost of living announcement on Tuesday. “We are looking at measures that could make a difference this year,” Burnham said.
Tell me if this next item rings any bells, particularly for readers in California. “We ran a [homelessness] scheme every night. 600 beds,” Burnham said Monday. “But we were the only place doing it. It taught me the only way is to do this together.” As mayor, he promised to end homelessness in Greater Manchester by 2020. He didn’t. But he sure spent a lot of money on it. Now he’s taking his program nationwide, presumably. What Britain needs is a national election that might correct Labour’s lopsided majority in Parliament despite the party’s massive unpopularity. What they’ll get is the country’s next worst prime minister. Until the next one, I’m afraid.

He’s just the next one.

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

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

THE BACKGROUND – Former communist Prime Minister Kier Starmer was facing a massive amount of opposition, his policies and party platform had collapsed, and the people of Britain were revolting against him. Starmer’s Labour party lost more than 1,400 seats in the country’s local elections, and the non-communist, nationalistic Reform Party was winning. Something urgent was needed. Polls showed communist Mayor Andy Burnham was popular as his mask still had still not fully dropped, and the illegal immigrants on the streets of Manchester were only raping a few girls each month which was still easy to hide.
However, the problem was that Burnham could not replace Starmer unless he was a Member of Parliament (MP). With urgent payments for future indulgencies quickly afforded, the communist MP for Makerfield, a district within Greater Manchester, resigned from his job so that communist Andy Burnham could run for his MP position. A few days later, exactly at the moment communist Burnham was being sworn in to the MP job, communist Starmer announced his exit. The plan had worked seamlessly.
The Communist Labour Party of the U.K then coalesced quickly to replace Starmer with Burnham, and today Communist King Charles appointed Communist Andy Burnham to lead the country. No election needed; i.e. ‘The New Democratic Norm’ again fulfilled. Great Britain’s Bernie Sanders is now in charge of things. …”I have just come from Buckingham Palace where I have accepted his Majesty the King’s invitation to form a government”…

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

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

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

Trump said, “Recently, we found significant numbers of burn bags… and this is a group of bags that were used to destroy information given by President Barack Hussein Obama to be burned….These bags were supposed to be at a different level, by different people, incinerated…but it never happened. Maybe we got lucky.” As the term implies, burn bags contain material that is slated for destruction, sending all of the former administration’s secrets into that big shredder in the sky. But someone “dropped the bag,” and more than a few of them were left to be discovered by the second Trump administration in the FBI building.
https://twitter.com/jason_meister/status/2078875275115282912?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2078875275115282912%7Ctwgr%5Eed99d8927aa77488474324fc575801ef2c654e35%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpjmedia.com%2Ftim-o-brien%2F2026%2F07%2F19%2Fabout-those-burn-bags-president-trump-mentioned-in-his-address-to-the-nation-n4955234

Now that Trump is sitting on a political treasure trove of data and information that can be used to expose the left, expect a distraction or two. Whenever the left panics, you start to see ginned-up controversies over allegations of Trump “stealing our democracy,” “climate change,” “Christian nationalism,” or all of the above. Given the seriousness of the potential contents of those burn bags, it wouldn’t surprise me if the left goes even harder with its lies and wrap-up smears to try to take Trump out using the 25th Amendment to the Constitution.
As a result of the Trump administration’s discovery of those burn bags, the president ordered the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the CIA to review the documents, analyze them, and see if any laws were broken. That analysis will focus on the handling of the sensitive information and the chain of custody of the documents themselves, and the contents of the documents that were never destroyed. It must be noted that simply finding some old burn bags doesn’t mean something improper was done. The federal government uses burn bags as a matter of course to destroy sensitive materials that will no longer be kept on file.
The president believes that the bags of documents could unearth critical information that has been concealed from the public eye. He bases this viewpoint on his past experience with both the Obama and Biden administrations and their pattern of not preserving, or not providing access to, certain important intelligence information. In other words, Trump knows what he doesn’t know, and he wants answers. Could those bags contain more proof of the deep state covering up election schemes? Do any contain information that implicates specific members of the Obama or Biden administrations? If Trump knows, he’s not naming names or providing details just yet.
Trump’s mention of those burn bags was in the context of his larger address on election integrity failures and questionable activities on the part of Democrat administrations, their political operatives, and others. As leftists circle the wagons to protect their favorite former Democrat presidents and their people, leftist central messaging is already testing the following key messages:
• “Alleging foreign interference in an election is not proof (evidence) that a foreign government successfully controlled the outcome.” This is like saying, “Sure he had a gun and shot at ya, but he missed ya, so he didn’t do anything wrong.”
• “Criminal charges require more than political accusations.” Of course, this is true, but where do criminal charges themselves come from? They come from accusations that can be supported by evidence.
• “Even if you find some incriminating information in those burn bags, you’re going to need to prove that the person implicated knowingly violated federal law.” Depending on the situation, that would be a matter for the courts to decide, but this key message gets at understanding and intent, which in a PR sense can be a straw man. For example, it doesn’t matter whether you intended to kill someone with your car; if you ran over them, intentionally or not, you likely broke a law or two. In other words, “I did not know there was a law against this” is no excuse.
• “The discovery of documents alone would not establish a criminal conspiracy.” Another straw man. No one is saying “discovery of documents” is all you need. If the documents contain words and sentences that do establish a criminal conspiracy, someone’s goose may be cooked.
• “As for China, investigators must have direct evidence of coordination, communication, or actions that link actual people to the effort to tamper with an election.” Once again, this is just a description of the legal and justice process. All of this is true, but stating it does not get anyone off the hook.
Back in 2020 and 2021, when Trump sought to use the court system to contest the manner in which the 2020 election was conducted, he literally had no time left in his term to go the legal route as president. By the time the courts would consider some of his claims, he was essentially an outsider without access to much of the information that he now has. After election day in 2020, Trump was shut out of the system long enough to ensure that he would live the rest of his life in political exile after one term in office. But in 2024, Trump shocked the world and won. His administration now has access to what it needs to better determine what happened in 2020, to address it, and, hopefully, to tap the justice system to ensure such corruption never happens again.

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

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

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

Kamala Harris recently insisted that opposition to ideas like packing the Supreme Court is mere “nostalgia” for a system that is no longer working. “I would caution us against talking about rebuilding with any sense of nostalgia about how things work, because even before, they weren’t working so well for a lot of folks,” she said. That “nostalgia,” according to Harris, is preventing us from doing things like packing the Supreme Court with an instant liberal majority. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) last week also declared that “nostalgia is not working” and, while refusing to embrace socialism, added that “capitalism as we know it doesn’t work.”
Morris Katz, a political strategist for Zohran Mamdani, spoke to CNN’s Dana Bash about looking beyond the label of democratic socialism and instead simply to accept that “our government does not work.” They are joining socialists who have long promised revolutionary changes without “introspection, nostalgia or regret.” It is an all-too-familiar pitch. Sixty years ago, a call to break free of “old ideas, old culture, old customs, and old habits” revolutionized a nation. That call was heard in a Chinese paper that would help lay the foundation for Mao Zedong’s bloody Cultural Revolution. Marxists had long rejected calls to preserve institutions and citizens’ rights as “nostalgia” and “sentimentality,” standing in the way of needed progress.
For the Democratic Socialist of America organization, nostalgia stands in the way of getting rid of the Senate, presidency, and the Supreme Court to fundamentally change the republic. The effort is to condition Americans to adopt radical changes to our core institutions that professors and pundits say will guarantee Democrats never lose power again. That is not an easy task for a people who have benefited from the oldest and most prosperous democracy for 250 years. They have to be very angry or very afraid to take such a radical course.
The Soviets understood that about the U.S. After Yuri Bezmenov, a KGB agent working in the media, defected in 1970, he revealed the four stages by which the Soviets hoped to bring about revolutionary change in the U.S. It began with undermining our institutions and values, with the help of journalists and academics. With establishment figures lining up behind radical changes, including packing the Supreme Court, the public is hearing a constant drumbeat of how our system is broken. Even Democratic judges are joining the chorus. Indeed, some appear to be auditioning for the slots promised by Democratic leaders to take over the court with a reliable liberal majority.
This week, the Hawaii Supreme Court issued an unhinged diatribe against the U.S. Supreme Court that abandoned any semblance of judicial restraint or decorum. It declared the majority as effectively racists, saying that “The Roberts Court sees only white.” It portrayed the court as a rogue institution that “overrides what Congress passed. It overrides what the people chose. All to serve its own ends.” It is an opinion that would make an MS NOW host blush. But it follows a pattern on the left to get people to turn against our institutions and even against the Constitution itself.
Others are telling the public that they are being repressed by the Constitution, which must be scrapped. In a New York Times op-ed — “The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed” — law professors Ryan Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale called for the nation to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.” In yet another New York Times editorial, Jennifer Szalai denounced “Constitution worship” and claimed that “Americans have long assumed that the Constitution could save us. A growing chorus now wonders whether we need to be saved from it.”
Berkeley Dean Erwin Chemerinsky insists that it is time to trash the Constitution in favor of “radical changes.” These voices are seeking to remove all of the moderating elements of our system —the safety features that have produced the world’s most successful and stable republic. They are the very constitutional elements protecting us from the tyranny of the majority, protecting us from ourselves.
Without those protections, we will unleash the self-destructive forces that have been tearing apart other democratic systems since Athens. It is our constitution that spared us from that fate. As James Madison observed, “Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.” Of course, history has shown that such radical proposals ultimately produce not democracy, but what the Framers called mobocracy. If we let that happen, many Americans will indeed look back at the last 250 years with a tragic sense of nostalgia.

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

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

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

So it goes with President DJ Trump and the intransigent jihadi maniacs running Iran down a rat hole. Mr. T is just that pissed, too. “War is Hell,” the savvy Union general WT Sherman observed after he torched Atlanta, setting a precedent for moral clarity in the service of tactical fortitude. And thus, a century-and-a-half later, this is Iran’s hard time. Iran can make it stop at any time by. . . stopping. But the catch is, they really have to stop it, no more head fakes, ruses, jukes, dodges, and ploys. Just stop it.
Don’t doubt that they will have to stop it. We are going to make them stop. In the meantime, there is plenty else to concern those of us who care about our country, and Western Civ more generally, on the home front. Here comes the Insane Clown Posse of the Democratic Socialists. Their platform: abolish the police; no more jail for criminals; open borders; amnesty for all border-jumpers; abolish the Senate; Abolish the electoral college (House of Representatives to elect the president); defund the War Department, voting rights for all non-citizens; “wealth” taxes; free housing, food, medical care for all; green new deal laws; free Palestine (which is more important than any place else on Earth)!
Oh, and they are quite out-front about merely using the Democratic Party as a means to acquire power. Yeah, you noticed that already? Nobody actually had to read the quiet part out-loud. (Well, it wasn’t all that quiet.) Question is: how is all this going to work in practice (or in the praxis, as the Gramscian Marxists like to say — because it sounds like some occult power), as they roll over every institution in the land.
The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) are our own jihadistas. They aim to make their program work by jamming it down America’s throat, starting with the throats of the plain old Democratic Party, the party of FDR, JFK, and HRC, currently fronted by Hakeem Jeffries (the House) and Chuck Schumer (the soon-to-be-abolished Senate). These two appear to be totally buffaloed by the DSA’s Insane Clown Posse. It’s their own Frankenstein monster, stitched together in their laboratory from the tatters of the 20th century. And like in the original by Mary Shelley, this monster is fixing to abolish its maker. Hakeem and Chuck are just standing by like a couple of credulous clucks waiting to see how things develop as the calendar marches implacably toward the catastrophic midterm election.
Last week’s Maine Senate primary debate was instructive. A more pitiful conclave of political losers had not been observed on continental US soil since Millard Fillmore led the Know-Nothing party into oblivion in 1856. (And, of course, five years later the American Civil war ignited.) Remember the old maxim: “As Maine goes, so goes the nation.” Well, Gawd help us, then. See for yourself.

The fellow on the right pretending to be a woman is one Ashley Webb (formerly James Charles Webb) who cited “her” reasons for joining the race as: running for office before (unsuccessfully), being a songwriter, writing books, and being an “angry citizen” who would be an “angry senator.” Perfect! You might ask: why wasn’t Punch the Monkey onstage with the rest of this bunch?
Here is your very picture of Progressivism, the larval form of DSA — and, as you read this, there are Progressive larvae yet metamorphosing into full-blown DSAs all over these fifty states. Mamdani in New York. . . Brandon Johnson in Chicago. . . Katie Wilson in Seattle. . . Michelle Wu in Boston. . . Karen Bass in LA, etc. And here come DSAs Claire Valdez, Darializa Avila Chevalier, Brad Lander, taking House seats in New York and Melat Kiros out in Colorado (yes, the lady who likes to wipe her hands on the US flag) who are expected to join The Squad (AOC, Jayapal, Pressley, Tlaib) next January. Plus, over on the soon-to-be-abolished Senate side, one Dr. Abdul El-Sayad running in Michigan. They all promise to keep the punishment coming until American morale improves!

Looming over this Insane Clown Posse of — oh, let’s just say it — feckless communists, is the ancient visage of Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) — like F. Scott Fitzgerald’s Eyes of Dr. TJ Eckleburg — the old war-horse’s long-cherished dreams finally coming true. Remember, in 1988 Bernie took his new wife on a honeymoon to the Soviet Union? Like. . . to witness how well that system was working. . . exactly three years before it collapsed. You can say the Democratic Socialists of America have got exactly the avatar they deserve.
The question is: will the DSA drag the Democratic Party into oblivion? Most assuredly they will. We are going to get election reform one way or another this year. There will be no more mail-in ballot harvesting or voting by non-citizens or vote tabulation machines. It might be that a substantial demographic in our country is insane, say, generously, maybe forty percent. But a firm majority of Americans are not insane and they are going to put a stop to this communist insurrection just as President DJ Trump — who is really pissed — will put end to the forty-seven-year Iranian jihad. What a week it has been!!! More thrills and chills ahead, you can be sure.

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

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

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

On the surface, it looks like Democrats should be able to win easily. Aside from precedent, Donald Trump’s polling gives them even more room to work with. Yet recent surveys suggest Democrats are underperforming badly enough that the wave they were counting on might not materialize. That underperformance could cost them control of the House. If Republicans hold the House this November, the reasons will be obvious: a socialist insurgency reshaping the party from within, and a singular obsession with opposing Trump that has crowded out everything else voters actually care about. The evidence is already sitting in the polling.
On the generic congressional ballot, Republicans are either tied with Democrats or ahead by three to four points, nowhere near the margin Democrats need to flip the House. A recent Washington Post/Ipsos poll put Democrats up just 48% to 45% on that same generic ballot question. Asked which party they agree with more on the issues that matter to them, voters split 41% Republican to 40% Democrat. Asked which party they trust more to handle the economy, the gap widened: 39% for Republicans to 35% for Democrats.Analysts at The Wall Street Journal have said a Democratic edge of anything under four points on election night is good news for Republicans trying to hold the majority. Right now, Democrats aren’t clearing that bar.

Because of Redistricting, analysts estimate that Democrats need to win by 3 to 4 points to gain a majority in the House Per WSJ https://t.co/qtBq5JC9Q8 pic.twitter.com/r4RCp2pbEr
— OSZ (@OpenSourceZone) July 18, 2026

Here’s the part that should really worry them. Trump’s disapproval rating among Democrats is far lower than it was during his first term. In 2018, 90% of Democrats disapproved of him. In 2026, that number sits at 69%. Despite those low approval numbers, most surveys still don’t show Democrats building a clear advantage in the races that will actually decide who controls the House. Democrats have assumed that being anti-Trump is enough. But the fact is, they aren’t giving voters a reason to vote Democrat, and the party’s growing tolerance for socialism isn’t helping them. Socialism remains deeply unpopular with the broader electorate, and its visible presence inside the Democrat Party is giving persuadable voters a reason to back Republicans they might not have otherwise supported.
Every historical tailwind is blowing in Democrats’ direction this year, and still, Democrats may fail to capitalize on any of it. Make no mistake about it, if they blow this midterm, they won’t be able to blame the map, the money, or the message alone. They will have blown the most favorable set of conditions a minority party could ask for, and they will have done it to themselves.

He may well be right.

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

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

But recently, it’s been Democrats who’ve tended to pick a party elder as their nominee: Al Gore, as a sitting VP, might not have been remarkable in 2000, but in ’04 it was John Kerry, in ’16 Hillary Clinton, and in 2020 Joe Biden — with only Barack Obama butting ahead of the line in 2008. Democrats like a known quantity, a reliable liberal who isn’t too overtly radical; the radicalism can wait until after Election Day.= So they’re leaning to running Harris again, even if donors aren’t happy about it: They blew nearly $2 billion on her campaign and aligned PACs in 2024, only for Harris to lose every battleground state to Trump.
It won’t be donors who decide the party’s 2028 nominee, though, and ordinary Democrats actually find Harris reassuring. She’s a familiar face, after all, commanding practically universal name recognition. Harris checks the identity-politics boxes that may be as important as winning to Democratic primary voters: Their ticket must have a woman, and it can’t be all white. And after being vetted as a VP and undergoing the trial-by-fire of the ’24 campaign, Harris isn’t likely to surprise voters with any extremist tattoos or sexual-assault allegations — things that can’t be taken for granted among Democrats nowadays.
Then there’s the revenge motive: What better way to repudiate the Trump era and reverse the ’24 humiliation than by making the woman he defeated president? Democratic primary voters are still smarting from Hillary Clinton’s drubbing in 2016: by 2028, the election of America’s first female president will have been postponed 12 long years, and feminists in the party aren’t willing to wait any longer. These are the reasons Harris tops almost all polls of 2028 Democratic hopefuls, with an 11.6-point lead in the RealClearPolitics polling aggregate as of mid-July.
“She comes in with 99 percent name ID and everyone else is going to have to raise money and buy it,” a former Harris aide tells New York’s David Freedlander. The donors might prefer just about anyone else, yet they’d have to pour an enormous amount of cash into another candidate just to make him or her recognizable. This has led one longtime Democratic strategist with donors’ ears to welcome the inevitable: “I hope she runs,” Alex Hoffman told New York, “Because then she will lose and we will never have to hear from her again. She will never win an election at a national scale. Never.” But if Harris is hopeless, why does she seem inevitable?
She has seniority no one else can match, but what about the other lane that leads to the nomination? That’s the left lane — the far left lane. The one Bernie Sanders occupied in 2020 and 2016, and that a candidate like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez might fill in 2028. Young Dems keep moving leftward, with the Democratic Socialists of America making deeper inroads into the party. Harris is not nearly left-wing enough for them — but then, anyone who is would be upsetting to the old guard. It’s not that the old-timers aren’t also well to the left on economics, but they don’t want to be labeled “socialists”— while the insurgent left is proud of the brand. The party’s mainstream wants to have it both ways on the Israel-Palestine conflict — while the young left, increasingly, is explicit about its anti-Zionism.
There are still enough baby boomers and suburbanites in the Democratic Party to make the left lane an unlikely road to the nomination. For now. Harris can expect a challenge from the left, but the party is still probably one more presidential cycle away from nominating someone who openly represents where Democrats are headed. In fact, a Harris defeat in 2028 would be the perfect prelude to the socialist and anti-Zionist left’s takeover, discrediting the old guard for forfeiting the election to Donald Trump’s successor. Insider Democrats know Kamala Harris is a terrible candidate, but the party they built can’t tell her no — even if this is the last nomination they get to make before DSA takes over.

For now far left field, but despair works miracles.

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

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

“Lemon – who also revealed he is considering a presidential run in the 2028 election, saying he’d be a “really good” commander-in-chief – argued MAGA supporters have stuck by the movement in an effort to promote white supremacy. “Most intelligent people or logical people, when they get new information and that information is negative or not factual, then they change their minds and go, ‘Oh, well I wish I’d known better, and now that I have this information, then I can readjust,’” Lemon said.
“No matter how many facts and how much information you give them about this presidency, about the policies, they don’t change their minds,” he continued. “Because they’re really not voting for the price of eggs – they’re voting for white supremacy, they’re voting for power, they’re voting to have a preeminent voice.” Speaking as one of the millions of Americans who voted for President Donald Trump, Lemon is a bloody fool! He doesn’t know us, speak for us, or understand why the country rejected the left’s lectures in 2024. The Nazi Party was a racist, antisemitic movement that destroyed German democracy, established a one-party dictatorship, and murdered six million Jews along with millions of other victims.

Lemon’s qualifications empty the comparison of its defining horror while preserving every ounce of the insult. MAGA is a broad American political coalition that won an election. Trump’s 2024 voters were more racially and ethnically diverse than in either of his previous campaigns. He received 48% of the Hispanic vote and 15% of the black vote. From Pew Research: Trump won with a voter coalition that was more racially and ethnically diverse than in 2020 or 2016, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of the 2024 electorate. Among Hispanic voters, Trump battled to near parity in 2024 (51% Harris, 48% Trump) after losing to Joe Biden 61%-36% in 2020. Trump won 15% of Black voters – up from 8% four years earlier.
Trump also did better among Asian voters. While a majority of Asian voters (57%) backed Harris, 40% supported Trump. This was a narrower margin than Biden’s in 2020 (70% to 30%). These shifts were largely the result of differences in which voters turned out in the 2020 and 2024 elections. As in the past, a relatively small share of voters switched which party’s candidate they supported. Lemon can dislike their choice, but branding those voters as supporters of white supremacy strips them of thought, motive, and agency. The insult grows more absurd beside Lemon’s presidential musings. He said people keep asking whether he’ll run and declared he could lead the country better than Trump.
A man seeking presidential stature should be able to describe his political opponents without reaching for Hitler. Lemon treats tens of millions of Americans as morally diseased, then wonders whether they might welcome him as their president. From the New York Post: “Lemon made the eyebrow-raising declaration on “Can’t Be Censored” podcast hosted by Karman Wong and Travis Dhanraj, insisting that everyone wants to know if he has White House aspirations. “Do you have political ambition? Is that true?” Dhanraj asked on Wednesday’s show. “No, but people keep asking me if I’m running for president,” Lemon answered. “And I don’t know. I might. I’m serious. I don’t know. I might, because people keep asking me to do it, or if I’m going to do it.”
Lemon, 60, argued that experience isn’t necessarily a requirement to be commander-in-chief, citing President Trump’s lack of a political background before his election win in 2016. I can already hear many of you who are saying we should ignore Lemon. Silence has its place, but repeated public smears gain power when decent people shrug and move on. Sharing his words exposes the contempt behind them. Lemon wants attention, influence, and perhaps political power. The public should know how he speaks about Americans who vote differently.

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

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

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

Bill Maher: “I’m not living in Communist America… I’ve read the quotes from the DSA platform, from their own mouths. Don’t tell me I’m not seeing what I am seeing.” pic.twitter.com/grWslcyxD9
— America (@america) July 19, 2026

Karl asked Maher, “Could you see yourself voting for JD Vance?” Maher responded: “Yes. If this is the Democratic side, yes.” Establishment Democrats are freaking out over the Democratic Socialists of America’s attempted hijacking of their party because this anti-American, far-left Marxist movement, with possible ties to foreign subversion, risks dooming the party in the midterms and beyond.
The problem for Democrats is that years of letting socialists and Marxists into their DEI kingdom have only now produced dire consequences. Status quo Democrats are watching their power evaporate as DSA candidates defeat mainstream Democrats in primaries across New York, Colorado, Pennsylvania, and other states.

That’s a lot of licenses.

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

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

If you follow conservative media, you may have known this. If you get your news from the legacy media, you most likely didn’t know it, and if you heard it now, you won’t believe it. That’s the group Trump was targeting in his address. His national address strategy was to speak past the legacy media and to begin the process of planting the seeds of the truth in the minds of those who rely on the CNNs, ABCs, and NBCs of the world. Strategically, Trump is now trying to break through the information barrier that the legacy media and the left have created to keep the majority of Americans in the dark on what’s really happened to corrupt our elections.
A year ago, Brooke Singman published a lengthy piece on the Fox News website that detailed just how the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) executed its TikTok data theft scheme. Her primary source for the story was the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is chaired by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). The Senate Judiciary Committee launched its own investigation into this after the FBI had announced its own investigation in July 2025. As Singman reported, the CCP allegedly worked to get “fake driver’s licenses to Chinese sympathizers in the U.S. who would cast a vote for candidate Biden.” It is not clear how successful the CCP was in getting its ballots for Biden to count.
In July 2025, a Grassley spokesperson told Fox News, “Chairman Grassley is in receipt of an FBI document (response) to a request he made based on legally protected whistleblower disclosures…. The document alleges serious national security concerns that need to be fully investigated by the FBI.” As stated in that document, the intent of the alleged scheme was for the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to produce and export fraudulent U.S. driver’s licenses to Chinese sympathizers in the U.S., so as to create “tens of thousands of fraudulent mail-in votes for US Presidential candidate Joe Biden, in late August 2020.”
According to the document at the center of these investigations, by August 2020, “the Chinese government had produced a large amount of fraudulent United States driver’s licenses that were secretly exported to the United States,” Fox News reported. The fraudulent drivers licenses would allow tens of thousands of Chinese students and immigrants sympathetic to the Chinese Communist Party to vote for US Presidential Candidate USPER Joe ((Biden)), despite not being eligible to vote in the United States… China had collected private US user data from millions of TikTok accounts, to include name, ID and address, which would allow the Chinese government to use real US persons’ information to create the fraudulent driver’s license, the document states.
Reporting on the investigation indicates that the fake IDs included true ID numbers and the true addresses of U.S. citizens, which made the fraud difficult to detect. “China planned to use the fraudulent driver’s licenses to account for tens of thousands of mail-in votes,” according to the document.] What’s not clear is how specifically the PRC accessed the TikTok data and got all the information it needed to create those fake driver’s licenses. TikTok, for example, does not require a physical address when users register for an account. Did the creators of the fake IDs use the physical addresses of those Chinese sympathizers? This is fuzzy.
FBI Director Kash Patel and Grassley had been working closely on this case prior to the president’s speech on July 16.In another uncanny development from around the same time, in July 2020, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents at the International Mail Facility (IMF) at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport announced that in the first half of that year, they had seized 1,513 shipments of fraudulent documents, which included 19,888 fake U.S. driver’s licenses. Most of those shipments originated in China and Hong Kong, as well as Great Britain and South Korea.
According to the CBP statement on the matter from 2020, “The driver’s licenses were for various people in different states with a vast majority destined for neighboring states. Most were for college-age students, and other licenses would share the same picture but have different biographical data. Another concern was the bar code attached to the Michigan licenses worked.” In typical fashion, the Democrats’ propaganda machine known as the Associated Press reported at the time, “There is no evidence to suggest they were linked to voter fraud.” Case closed, I guess.
Maybe leftist newswire Reuters had a different take: “Facebook posts shared thousands of times claim that 19,888 fake driver’s licenses were seized at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport after being ordered by people ‘all registered to vote, all Democrats.’ Suggesting that the licenses were part of a voter fraud conspiracy, this claim is partly false. While it is true that U.S. Customs and Border Protection seized 19,888 counterfeit licenses at O’Hare in late July, they had no apparent connection to Democratic Party registration or the upcoming election.”

Will Jamie Dimon finance it?

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

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

ª Optimistic: $350 billion in launch costs; $1 million per satellite; all-in cost of $1.45 trillion • Neutral: $1.85 trillion in launch costs; $1.5 million per satellite; all-in cost of $3.45 trillion • Pessimistic: $7.7 trillion in launch costs; $2.0 million per satellite; all-in cost of $9.8 trillion
The median scenario is $3.45 trillion dollars, or roughly 70% of what the U.S. spent waging World War II. Honestly, I felt the need for a shot of tequila after going through those figures. “Daunting” doesn’t even begin to cover the expense and complexity of such lofty goals. “Unimaginable” perhaps comes closer. But things become less daunting and more imaginable when viewed from the proper perspective.

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

The first operational batch of 60 satellites went up in May 2019, and Starlink beta service went live near the end of 2020 with fewer than 1,000 in orbit. By the end of 2024, with around 6,400 satellites, Starlink turned cash flow positive. That was the key metric, not whether Starlink had achieved its longterm goal of having a constellation of 42,000 operational satellites. “The key takeaway I want everybody to walk away with is, if SpaceX was building the Starlink system to pay for a Mars colony, we’ve got evidence that the company will generate the type of free cash flows from the business that could pay for said endeavor,” Quilty Space president Chris Quilty said at the time.
Today the end goal has changed — the Moon and data centers, not Mars — but the means remain the same: using orbital operations-at-scale to turn a profit doing the previously impossible. It took roughly 6.5 years for SpaceX to launch the 10,000th Starlink bird, and for the division to start raking in serious profits. So I tend to think of roughly 10,000 satellites — an unimaginable number not that many years ago — as the number required for sustained operations at a return worthy of the effort.
And Another Thing: Naysayers were all doom-and-gloom that SpaceX lost money in 2025, entirely on data center buildouts. But now the company leases server space to companies like Google and Anthropic for about $2 billion a month. xAI isn’t quite cash flow positive, but it’s closing in. Assuming SpaceX makes Starship work, the launch economics improve considerably. If the company doesn’t make it work, the entire project falls apart.
Also, Starlink enjoys a built-in audience, as it were, of people in rural or underdeveloped areas who had no other means of getting affordable high-speed internet service. Plus previously unfulfilled demand from airlines, cruise ships, and the Department of Defense. There’s no similar built-in demand for orbital data, so it’s my assumption that xAI will have to compete with terrestrial data centers on price. If Musk can overcome the serious technical and financial challenges to achieve positive cash flow, then SpaceX can continue putting data center satellites into LEO until they’ve hit one million… or 100,000, or 10,000. Or whatever number the market will allow.

https://twitter.com/MarioBojic/status/2079224872039756072?s=20 https://twitter.com/Chicago1Ray/status/2079010414445130084?s=20

CATHIE WOOD SAID TESLA IS THE LARGEST AI PROJECT ON EARTH.

"WE BELIEVE THE ENTIRE ECOSYSTEM OF AUTONOMOUS TAXI NETWORKS WILL GENERATE $8–10 TRILLION IN REVENUE OVER THE NEXT 5–10 YEARS.

TO PUT THAT IN CONTEXT…

THE ENTIRE GLOBAL GDP TODAY IS ABOUT $113 TRILLION."

ELON MUSK… pic.twitter.com/K4zRXVCwIM
— Vivek Sen (@Vivek4real_) July 20, 2026

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

Debt Rattle July 17 2026

Jul 172026

July 17, 2026 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 10:10 am Finance Tagged with: data centers, election fraud, ICE, JD Vance, marxism, NATO, political terrorism, Rubio, Ukraine 29 Responses »

Pablo Picasso The Dream 1932

• Trump Exposes Mind-Blowing Election Compromising and Cheating (Salgado)

• Trump Drops Bombshell Election Fraud Intel (Matt Margolis)

• Trump’s War On Marxism Enters Action Phase (ZH)

• Rubio Delivers Remarkable Speech on Resurgence of Political Terrorism (CTH)

• Coalition of the Willing to Hold Military Drills Near Ukraine (Anzalone)

• Zelensky ‘Wants Civilian Deaths’ – Ukrainian Spy (RT)

• Horror Stories of Alleged Russian Threat Serve As NATO Build-Up Pretext (RT)

• EU To Strip Draft Age Ukrainians of Refugee Protection (RT)

• Democrats Got Some Devastating News About the Midterms (Margolis)

• Half-Mile-Long Homeless Encampment Springs Up on Manhattan’s West Side (Thorne)

• President Trump Highlights Importance of Data Centers (CTH)

• Smooth Sailing Ahead for DNI Nominee Jay Clayton (CTH)

• Trump Directs DHS Secretary to Continue ICE Deportation Traffic Stops (CTH)

• JD Vance to Joe Rogan: Aliens Are Demons (Scott Pinsker)

BREAKING: President Trump reveals that China hacked more than 220 MILLION US voter files during the 2020 election cycle, which include people's personal and sensitive information.

And Democrats said it was the "most secure election in US history" pic.twitter.com/fmsGxDuOsk
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) July 17, 2026

Something big is coming on election fraud.

300 FBI agents have surged into Fulton County…

Former ODNI Tulsi Gabbard was on the ground during the early days of the investigation.

Investigators have been told to prepare for major arrests by the July 17th deadline.

Now we learn… pic.twitter.com/Le1yl522Gp
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) July 14, 2026

https://twitter.com/MAGAVoice/status/2077594254067835206?s=20

NEW: Joe Rogan is coming right out and saying it and has had ENOUGH after Spencer Pratt "lost" the LA mayoral election.

Rogan to JD Vance: "I'm not skeptical. I'm accusing them. I think they stole the election."

BOOM!pic.twitter.com/2ah830ISdM
— Chad Prather (@WatchChad) July 15, 2026

It’s a deluge. You can’t run a country this way. Unless you grow bananas on the side

• Trump Exposes Mind-Blowing Election Compromising and Cheating (Salgado)

It turns out that the “conspiracy theorists” weren’t so crazy after all. President Donald Trump says that foreign governments and corrupt domestic bureaucrats have so compromised our election system across the country that it is worse than a Third World banana republic.

“No country could be great without fair and honest elections,” Trump insisted during his Thursday night primetime address. “You have to trust your country because if there can be no trust, there can be no greatness, and that’s very simple: no trust, no greatness.” Unfortunately, according to him, between our enemies around the world like the Chinese and Iranian regimes and their collaborators in the American media and “Deep State,” malicious actors have stolen voters’ data, hacked electronic voting machines, manufactured fake ballots, and bribed fraudsters. It’s an “unprecedented election security nightmare.” And both Joe Biden and Barack Obama apparently benefited.

The president revealed a staggeringly gargantuan number from newly declassified documents: “Over a period of years, starting during the 2020 election cycle, the People’s Republic of China carried out what is believed to be the largest compromise of election data in history, resulting in China’s illicit acquisition of 220 million U.S. voter files. That information includes names, addresses, phone numbers, political party preferences, and other sensitive data that would be needed to register to vote and engage in other nefarious activities,” Trump said.
The genocidal, America-hating Chinese Communist Party even had a special data exploitation unit dedicated to stealing U.S. voter data. “Compounding the travesty, the second set of documents we are releasing reveals that members of the Deep State, a very, very famous group of people,” were complicit, with U.S. intelligence agencies covering up the evidence.
One of the most significant revelations in Trump’s speech regarded the 2020 election. “Raw intelligence obtained by the FBI in 2020, yet buried by rogue bureaucrats, stated that China’s activities even included an attempt to manufacture illegal ballots for Joe Biden,” Trump said, confirming election interference from our number one enemy on behalf of Biden. “Documents show that during this period, dozens of significant CIA and NSA reports about China’s election targeting were kept out of the presidential briefing. These were briefings I would get almost every day.” The fix was in. One email explicitly admitted to leaving out information given to Trump during his first term in office.
The scheme goes back for years. “Another official inside the FBI wrote that she was running ‘a shadow government’ to keep intelligence about China’s election meddling from becoming known,” President Trump stated. “Recently, we found significant numbers of burn bags … and this is a group of bags that were used to destroy information given by President Barack Hussein Obama to be burned … These bags were supposed to be at a different level, by different people, incinerated … but it never happened. Maybe we got lucky.”
[..] Our media and Deep State were selling America to our worst foes. “Put together, these disclosures reveal an election system so broken and so vulnerable that no one can possibly defend it,” Trump declared. “Hundreds of millions of U.S. voter files are in the hands of foreign governments. Our machines and ballot counting systems are exposed to hacking, manipulation, and corruption. China and other countries have been trying to meddle in our elections. Evidence of fraud has been buried. Hundreds of thousands of non-citizens and dead people are listed and active on the voter rolls, and yet we still have elections with no voter ID, no proof of citizenship, and tens of millions of ballots floating aimlessly through the mail.” That is indeed a situation that belongs to a Third World hellhole, not to the USA.

US elections are won by cheating, in 100 different ways. And then denying it.

• Trump Drops Bombshell Election Fraud Intel (Matt Margolis)

President Donald Trump addressed the nation Thursday night, and during his speech, he revealed that China pulled off “the largest compromise of election data in history,” stealing 220 million U.S. voter files. He didn’t stop there. Trump told the country he was releasing evidence documenting just how compromised our elections have become. mThat evidence is now public. The White House posted a batch of previously classified documents on a dedicated webpage, and they paint a picture of an election system compromised by hostile foreign governments and shielded by internal cover-ups. The administration is using the disclosures to push for voter ID, proof of citizenship, and tighter controls on mail ballots.

For years, officials assured Americans that election infrastructure, electronic voting machines, ballot-counting systems, all of it, was secure. The documents released this week directly contradict that claim. “We judge that U.S. adversaries, including at a minimum Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, as well as non-state groups, have the capability to compromise U.S. election infrastructure,” a declassified U.S. Intelligence Community assessment states. It also warned that “centralized election-related data repositories, such as voter registration databases, pollbooks, and official election websites, are most vulnerable to exploitation, and adversaries could use access to these systems to disrupt election processes.”
The most alarming revelations include that the CIA reportedly obtained intelligence on a specific plot by the Maduro regime in Venezuela to digitally rig its own 2020 election, using methods designed to shift vote totals in ways that would survive an audit undetected. And starting around the 2020 cycle, China allegedly carried out that historic data heist, illicitly acquiring 220 million voter files containing names, addresses, phone numbers, and party affiliations, complete with a dedicated data exploitation unit assigned to the job.
And the worst part is that the Deep State inside U.S. intelligence agencies allegedly suppressed and downplayed the scale of China’s theft, keeping it from the president and from the public. Spy agencies reportedly learned back in 2020 that tens of millions of voters’ data across 18 states had been bought, stolen, or hacked by China. Yet they sat on it.
Think it can’t get worse? The FBI files document large-scale voter registration fraud in Michigan, uncovered after state police raided a Democratic get-out-the-vote organization in Muskegon back in 2020 and referred the case to the FBI’s Detroit office. Canvassers allegedly admitted to agents that they signed registration forms in other people’s names, invented registrations for people who don’t exist, and collected gift cards based on how many applications they churned out. FBI agents believed crimes had been committed. The Biden Department of Justice slow-walked the case for years. FBI Director Kash Patel has now been directed to make sure it’s fully investigated and prosecuted.
Then there’s the noncitizen problem. A Department of Homeland Security review of state voter rolls found roughly 278,000 noncitizens registered to vote in federal elections, and officials believe the real number is far higher since some Democrat-led states refused to hand over their voter files.

“Fatal Cancer On Civilization”: Trump’s War On Marxism Enters Action Phase As Rubio, Miller And Bessent Address 65 Nations.”

• Trump’s War On Marxism Enters Action Phase (ZH)

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent addressed delegations from more than 65 countries on the alarming rise of far-left terrorism. The broader message from all three speakers was very clear: Just as the US and its allies confronted the spread of Marxism in previous generations, Washington now believes the West needs an all-of-government, multinational strategy to counter far-left political violence, foreign influence networks and subversion movements seeking to destabilize Western institutions.
Rubio called for the civilized world to unite against an “encroaching darkness,” urging all leaders in the room to defend what they have built and fight back against those who seek to destroy it. The enemy Rubio is referring to is the rise of transnational far-left terrorism.

NEW: Secretary of State Marco Rubio calls for the civilized world to unite against an "encroaching darkness," urging nations to defend what they have built and fight back against those who seek to destroy it.

"It is easy to destroy great things. It is far more difficult to make… pic.twitter.com/G14GjBSIXE
— Fox News (@FoxNews) July 16, 2026

Rubio said, “In the United States, the share of left-wing terrorist attacks and plots has risen to levels not seen in DECADES. In Germany, far-left violence has jumped by more than 40% in just the last year alone.”
https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2077747041984184454?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2077747041984184454%7Ctwgr%5E3b0dce7b5112c82f50b0f669fb5acb435cb2884c%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fwatch-live-rubio-bessent-convene-65-nations-global-crackdown-far-left-political-terrorism
Rubio added that Antifa is being directly aided by Iran and Cuba through a massive international network that seeks to attack the West with terrorism and propaganda.

Marco Rubio says Antifa is being directly aided by Iran and Cuba through a massive international network that seeks to attack the West with terrorism and propaganda.

"They despise the West because the West is great." pic.twitter.com/20o7JSLdKY
— Shadow of Ezra (@ShadowofEzra) July 16, 2026

After Rubio, Miller addressed the hundreds of high-level officials in the room, saying, “Here in the United States, we have taken the necessary and essential action formally recognizing left-wing violence as a form of political terrorism that is a direct threat to our national security and the survival of our republican form of government.”v
Stephen Miller: "Here in the United States, we have taken the necessary and essential action formally recognizing left-wing violence as a form of political terrorism that is a direct threat to our national security and the survival of our republican form of government." pic.twitter.com/MMvYho2t87
— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) July 16, 2026

Stephen Miller on left-wing political violence: “This is a fatal cancer to civilization… The greatest risk that we have is that our institutions have grown too soft and too cowardly to be able to defend themselves against a mortal threat.” pic.twitter.com/RJCZDMAfCX
— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) July 16, 2026

Serious.

• Rubio Delivers Remarkable Speech on Resurgence of Political Terrorism (CTH)

Today, Secretary of State Marco Rubio is hosting an event with various governments for a Ministerial on the Resurgence of Political Terrorism. The event focuses on the reemergence of this threat to society and encourages stronger joint action to reinforce frontline defenses and close the gaps the terrorist actors continue to exploit. As part of the State Department effort, Secretary of State Marco Rubio delivered a remarkable speech to the audience. Within his remarks Rubio outlines the history of left-wing violence and lists current examples of how dangerous this has become. In many ways this is the anti-Obama speech that has long been needed. This is a moment that can reset how we view terrorism in the 21st century, shifting from a terror-threat focus from Islamic extremism to the more pervasive threat from left-wing political violence.

STATE DEPT – […] Far-left political terrorism is resurgent, manifesting in violent terrorist acts across the Western Hemisphere, Europe, Asia and beyond. These are not isolated incidents. They reflect a deliberate, ideologically motivated strategy to destabilize free societies by violently targeting our political and economic systems, including attacks against private citizens, government officials, police and law enforcement, businesses, and critical infrastructure around the globe. For too long, however, this threat has remained a blind spot in the international community’s counterterrorism focus, underestimated and under-resourced, despite the danger it poses.
The United States is taking a leading role in countering far-left terrorism. Since November 2025, the United States has designated four violent far-left groups — Antifa Ost, the Informal Anarchist Federation/International Revolutionary Front (FAI/FRI), Armed Proletarian Justice, and Revolutionary Class Self-Defense — as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as well as offered a reward of up to $10 million for information leading to the disruption of the financial mechanisms of these same four organizations.
In recent months, the United States engaged also law enforcement, counterterrorism professionals, and prosecutors around the globe through direct engagements, as well as the inaugural Counterterrorism Law Enforcement Workshop (CTLEW) in May 2026, which convened 14 countries for a two-day, practitioner-focused workshop to exchange best practices for countering the threat of transnational far-left terrorism.
This Ministerial builds on that foundation, bringing together partners from across the Western Hemisphere, Europe, and Asia to expand coordination, enhance information sharing, and strengthen international law enforcement mechanisms to counter the threat. Secretary Rubio will highlight the importance of deepening cooperation with international partners to better map violent activity, disrupt terrorist financing, protect critical infrastructure, and promote collective action against a threat that respects no borders.

They want peace-keeping troops in Ukraine (after the peace-fire), on Russia’s border. Not going to happen.

• Coalition of the Willing to Hold Military Drills Near Ukraine (Anzalone)

A bloc of Kiev allies will hold war games in states that border Ukraine in preparation for deploying troops to the country once a ceasefire is reached with Russia. On Monday, the Coalition of the Willing – a bloc of countries that support Ukraine – met in Paris to discuss providing additional aid to Kiev. French President Emmanuel Macron announced that member states would hold war games in states bordering Ukraine.

The French leader asserted the purpose of the drills was to prepare troops for a peacekeeping mission in Ukraine once a ceasefire is reached with Russia. However, Moscow says any peace agreement with Kiev must include a commitment from Ukraine not to host foreign forces. Additionally, the Kremlin has ruled out a short-term ceasefire, and wants all negotiations focused on a peace deal to end the conflict permanently. On Tuesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov accused Europe of working to undermine the framework for resolving the conflict established between President Donald Trump and President Vladimir Putin during the 2025 Alaska summit.
During the Coalition of the Willing summit, countries pledged additional military aid to Kiev. President Macron also said Paris would give Kiev permission to produce French missiles and interceptors in Ukraine. Macron’s move mirrors an action President Donald Trump took last week when he authorized Ukraine to produce Patriot missiles. Building factories and establishing supply lines to manufacture advanced munitions in the middle of a war will likely take years to accomplish.

Every move is made with war with Russia in mind. They don’t want to win it, they want forever war.

• Zelensky ‘Wants Civilian Deaths’ – Ukrainian Spy (RT)

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky is directing the nation’s intelligence services not to spare civilians in their operations abroad, Vitaly Zhikovich, an acting colonel of the Ukrainian military intelligence agency (HUR), said in an exclusive audio recording obtained by RT. Zhikovich is one of two Ukrainian spies who confessed to liquidating Anastasia Berezovskaya, the main suspect in last month’s bomb attack on exiled Ukrainian millionaire Vadim Ermolaev in Monaco. Russian security services identified him as an active military intelligence operative and shed light on his other attempted terrorist plots.

“My superior said that there would be casualties, civilian casualties. And my president – that green bastard – wants civilian casualties,” Zhikovich can be heard saying to an unidentified interlocutor in one of the recordings, referring to Zelensky, whose last name has a semantic association with the word ‘green’ in Russian and Ukrainian. Zhikovich attempted but failed to commit at least 20 terrorist acts in Russia in recent years. In another recording, Zhikovich stated that his agency was preparing an unprecedented attack against the Crimean bridge after one attempt already failed.
“Believe me, this is going to be a massive event, and the whole world will be talking about it. What we’ve got going on here is really something huge. Crocus will look like nothing by comparison, I’m telling you!” he said. The 2024 Moscow Crocus City Hall massacre was the deadliest terrorist attack in Russia in over two decades, claiming the lives of 151 people and wounding another 609. The Russian Investigative Committee concluded that the attack carried out by a regional offshoot of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) was organized on behalf of Ukraine.

“Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda has claimed Moscow may be planning “provocations” and limited attacks on critical EU infrastructure ..“

• Horror Stories of Alleged Russian Threat Serve As NATO Build-Up Pretext (RT)

The Baltic states are using “horror stories” about an alleged Russian threat to justify further NATO build-up and higher military spending, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said. Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Peskov was commenting on Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda’s claims that Moscow could be preparing “provocations” and limited attacks on critical infrastructure in Poland or the Baltic states. “This is the latest batch of horror stories, intended to continue brainwashing people and to prepare the population for further militarization,” Peskov said.

Baltic leaders are deliberately “creating the image of an enemy” in the form of Russia to facilitate the expansion of NATO military infrastructure across the region “in all its forms,” he added. mNauseda told Lithuanian media this week that intelligence agencies had “received signals” about possible “kinetic operations” targeting critical infrastructure. He acknowledged, however, that the information did not indicate where or when such incidents might occur. mLatvian President Edgars Rinkevics reportedly echoed the warning on Wednesday, citing information from “Lithuanian, Latvian and other NATO states” intelligence agencies about possible “various sabotage attempts to lower the security in our states.”
Western officials have repeatedly cited the prospect of Russian aggression to justify higher defense spending, including the EU’s €800 billion ($917 billion) ReArm Europe initiative and NATO members’ commitment to increase military expenditure to 5% of GDP. Moscow has consistently denied harboring aggressive intentions toward the US-led military bloc, dismissing claims of a planned attack on NATO as “nonsense.” Kremlin officials have described such accusations as fearmongering aimed at inflating military budgets. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said that Russia has “no reason” to attack the EU or NATO unless it is attacked first.
Russia has also repeatedly condemned NATO’s military build-up in Europe and the alliance’s increased activity near its western borders, warning that any deployment of nuclear capabilities closer to Russian territory would draw a response. The Baltic states have been among Kiev’s strongest supporters within the EU throughout the Ukraine conflict. Moscow has argued that continued Western military and financial aid only prolongs the fighting without changing its outcome, while increasing the risk of a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO.

The ultimate betrayal of young Ukrainians. They are designated to be cannon fodder.

• EU To Strip Draft Age Ukrainians of Refugee Protection (RT)

The EU has agreed to stop granting temporary protection to newly arriving Ukrainians liable for military service while extending the scheme for others who fled the conflict with Russia, according to the Council of the European Union. The restriction will take effect in March 2027, while the broader protection scheme will remain in place until March 2028. Kiev imposed a general mobilization shortly after the escalation of the conflict in February 2022, preventing nearly all military-age men from leaving the country. Despite the restrictions, many reached the EU, where adult men now make up around 27% of Ukrainians under temporary protection, according to bloc data.

The European Commission said on Wednesday that new applicants would have to “satisfy their military obligations in Ukraine” to qualify for temporary protection. It said the measure was intended to reflect the country’s “evolving defense needs” and would not affect those already benefiting from the scheme. Ukraine currently conscripts men between the ages of 25 and 60. Irish Justice Minister Jim O’Callaghan, whose country currently holds the rotating presidency of the EU Council, said the extension “provides stability for those who found safety in the EU.” At the same time, he stressed that “we also want to make sure Ukraine can defend itself,” adding that this is why the temporary protection scheme “respects Ukraine’s legitimate needs.”
Across Western Europe, governments are increasingly scaling back support for Ukrainian refugees as pressure grows on welfare systems and public frustration over migration costs rises. More than 4.35 million Ukrainians are registered for temporary protection across the EU, according to Eurostat, while countries such as Poland, Germany, and Hungary have already moved to cut benefits.Ukrainian officials have repeatedly called for military-age men to return from abroad due to troop shortages. Vladimir Zelensky said in April that “our armed forces would certainly like them to come back because it is a matter of justice.”
Ukraine has struggled to replenish its ranks as Russian forces continue to advance. The so-called “busification” campaign, in which draft officers ambush men on the streets and outside their homes, often using force against those who resist, has repeatedly sparked public outrage.
The conscription crisis has prompted several of Kiev’s European backers to review their asylum laws. Earlier this year, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz vowed to restrict protections for Ukrainians, arguing that young men were needed in their home country. Last month, the Czech government approved legislation tightening temporary protection rules, saying future EU discussions could also include limiting protections for military-age men as Ukraine faces mounting manpower shortages. Moscow has accused Kiev and its Western backers of being willing to fight Russia “to the last Ukrainian.”

Lemme guess: they don’t stand a chance.

• Democrats Got Some Devastating News About the Midterms (Margolis)

Democrats have spent the past year and a half dreaming about flipping both chambers of Congress this November. The House was always supposed to be the easy part. History certainly favors them, and polling has also favored them for most of this cycle. But that dream just took a serious hit. New data show Democrats are not gaining momentum this summer. Some of it suggests they’re losing ground, and losing it fast. Of course, it’s the middle of the summer, and anything can happen. But for Democrats, the warning signs that the midterms aren’t going to go as they hoped are impossible to ignore. In short, the trend lines right now are running in the wrong direction for Democrats.

According to RealClearPolitics election analyst Sean Trende, the way polls are moving now, there’s a shot that the GOP can keep the House. “The RCP Average generic ballot has gone from D+8 to D+5 over the past six weeks. Probably just inevitable ‘Soft Rs coming home’ but this starts to get into territory where it is conceivable that Rs hold the House,” Trende wrote. “I should add that I think the system can handle a party winning the popular vote by a point or so but losing the House. But if it stretches to a 3-4 point differential, which it may, it is going to be ugly.” Of course, the RCP Average isn’t the only data point moving in Republicans’ favor.
https://twitter.com/OpenSourceZone/status/2077386629887517029?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2077386629887517029%7Ctwgr%5E3c3dc5e21cfc9821289c6ec9e9f770be84d4fa53%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpjmedia.com%2Fmatt-margolis%2F2026%2F07%2F16%2Fdemocrats-got-some-devastating-news-about-the-midterms-n4955105

That’s a significant swing in the GOP’s favor. And it’s not just the generic ballot. Races Democrats once considered locks are suddenly competitive again. Take North Carolina. Former Democrat Gov. Roy Cooper (D-N.C.) has held a commanding lead over former RNC chair Michael Whatley (R-N.C.) for months. Now, even Public Policy Polling, a Democrat-aligned polling firm, has Cooper’s lead down to just four points, and PPP itself is admitting Republicans have a real shot at winning the seat.
That should worry Democrats far beyond North Carolina. They’ve long said that their path to a Senate majority runs through Maine, but that math only works if they also win North Carolina. If Cooper loses, Democrats have no path to the Senate at all. None. So what happened? Two things, mainly. Democrats built their entire midterm pitch around being anti-Trump. That’s the whole strategy, and despite being warned over and over that this isn’t a winning message, they haven’t listened. Meanwhile, the socialist insurgency inside their own party keeps grabbing headlines, and it isn’t doing them any favors with independent voters who, as polls show, are turned off by socialism.
Republicans certainly haven’t sealed the deal. Trump’s favorables still have room to grow, and voters are watching gas prices as closely as they’re watching the news out of Iran. Affordability could still sink the GOP’s chances if it gets bad enough. But Democrats, who have spent this entire political cycle convinced this was their year, just got a brutal reality check. The soft Rs are coming home, the socialists are scaring off the middle, and Roy Cooper might not even be able to save them anymore.

The Mamdani Express.

• Half-Mile-Long Homeless Encampment Springs Up on Manhattan’s West Side (Thorne)

Thanks, Zohran! New York City’s grinning young communist-Muslim Mayor Zohran Mamdani changed Town Hall policy on dealing with homeless encampments early into his term. Notably, he removed all oversight of the issue from the NYPD and placed it instead under the auspices of the Department of Homeless Services (DHS). Mamdani pretended that he still intended to clean up encampments, though. “Mamdani’s approach to the sweeps will go something like this,” reported City Limits:

• On day one, DHS will place notices on encampment sites saying that the location will be cleaned by the Sanitation Department (DSNY) seven days later
• Each day after, DHS outreach staff will go to the site and engage the people there to offer shelter placements or other services
• On day seven, DSNY will clean up the site, with NYPD on hand if the situation escalates

In last winter’s deadly cold snaps, when the homeless were freezing to death in the warmth of collectivism, Mamdani explained the superiority of his system to the old method of removing people from the streets: “Whereas previously, a homeless New Yorker might have only two points of interaction with city government — the first day they’re served a notice and the seventh day when that notice comes to an end — our administration will meet those homeless New Yorkers every single day. And we will meet them looking to connect them with shelter, looking to connect them with services, looking to connect them with a city that wants them to be sheltered and indoors and warm and safe.”
If only it were that simple. But in his infinite and empathetic wisdom, the mayor ignores the reality underlying these encampments: The people living in them don’t want help. They don’t want to leave, don’t want to stay in a shelter, don’t want to clean themselves up, and don’t want to get sober. They want to do drugs, period. And they will do whatever it takes to exist in that state, indefinitely, until they are forced to leave. As a result of the mayor’s fantasies, a massive homeless encampment has sprung up on Manhattan’s west side, stretching from at least 34th Street up to the floating Intrepid Museum at 46th Street, obliterating the quality of life for normal, bill-paying New Yorkers who have the misfortune to live or work in the area.
“You see people walking around half naked in the street,” local mom Diana Khabbaz told the New York Post on Monday. “They are smoking whatever they’re smoking. You see needles on the street every 20 feet. Sometimes you see a homeless person. And all day long, all night, a lot by the parks, there are a lot of people and there are tons of tents, and people are sleeping everywhere.” The Post has been doing an excellent job covering the seedy crisis. On Tuesday, the outlet reported: “Almost one month now – getting a little bigger every time I come back,” one Flixbus driver told The Post. “They put the garbage here on the sidewalk so the people have to wait in the street when I come with the bus.
“They’re asking the people waiting for the bus for money,” the driver said. “It’s no good. My boss called and complained and they do nothing.” As always happens when officials refuse to police these situations, bums have set up semi-permanent structures, ready to stay for the long term, and the sordid encampment grows by the day. Drug use, waste, trash, prostitutes, and nodding addicts litter the sidewalks, forcing normal people to walk in the street. So comfortable and brazen have the vagrants become that they’ve even been tapping into city utility lines and stealing power from New Yorkers to electrify their shanties.
But then, the slide into and tolerance of squalor has always been among the most objectionable characteristics of socialism and communism. Mamdani has already got the billionaires and millionaires on the run. Policies like standing by as crime, drug use, and homeless encampments take over the city will chase out many of the middle- and working-class people who remain. You can watch the Jesse Watters Primetime show’s excellent three-minute report on the intolerable situation below: https://twitter.com/JesseBWatters/status/2077186381315719358?s=20

They can’t disrupt people’s lives. Make sure of that and you’re fine.

• President Trump Highlights Importance of Data Centers (CTH)

The discussion remains controversial depending on the location. Generally, data centers located in rural isolation do not seem to be too controversial. However, data centers built in proximity to population centers stimulate a great deal of opposition.

Recently New York state banned the building of Data Centers as politicization of the construct has become somewhat of a Right/Left divide. President Trump notes the importance of data centers:
(VIA TRUTH SOCIAL) – One of the biggest Driving Forces in the Future for Jobs, are Data Centers. They are big, strong, bold, and Money Machines for the State in which they are built. Governor Kathy Hochul, for political reasons, has terminated all Data Centers being built, or to be built, in New York State. These Companies are now being sought in Alabama, Florida, Texas, Arizona, and many other States. Both the Taxes and the Jobs amount to LIQUID GOLD! New York State has made a terrible decision.
All of this Income, and other Benefits, will be going to Red States, and some Blue, where Data Centers are sought as Cash Cows, with Lower Taxes and Record Setting Jobs. They must pay for their own Water and Power, and any leftover goes back to the State and local Community. Data Centers are tremendous WINS for the States and Communities that are lucky enough to get them. New York should change its Policy, IMMEDIATELY. The Radical Left Dumocrats must not be allowed to cause us to lose Data Centers, AI, and all of this incredible new Technology, to China, and other countries!”
~President DONALD J. TRUMP
The hardware side of the Data Center expansion is leading to increased revenue for raw material providers, chip makers, computer systems, fabrication shops, electrical components and construction. At the same time, the software side LLM builders and AI companies are trying to figure out how to make stable profitability within the sector.

CTH watches the tokenization and subscription fees for various AI model use with the same perspective CTH viewed over a decade of false claims within the financial market that told lies about social media viability and data processing costs. Now, we watch the seemingly exponential growth of AI capabilities and associated costs with the same pragmatic perspective. Robotic pool cleaners were introduced two generations ago. Did the pool cleaner business dry up? No, it expanded. Robotic vacuums broke into the popular household appliance market five years ago, you probably have one, did it eliminate maid services? No, still growing.
AI can now write its own code to generate outputs. Are software developers getting fired? No, demand for software designers and engineers is up. The mainframe approach, the one AI brain to run all systems, will never work – it is cost prohibitive (see first paragraph – wash, rinse, repeat). Deny this reality at your own investment risk. If needed, politely absorb the ridicule – for it matters not. CTH predicts AI will become a localized and optimized sub-set for each sector of the economy, requiring each major organization and corporation to adopt specific cost/benefit data libraries and networks for use and functionality.
At scale, a thousand coders each working on Gemini, ChatGPT, Anthropic, Fabian, Grok, etc. will become 100,000+ software designers working inside individual companies to create personalized, targeted, bespoke AI data systems and networks; each system specifically tailored to the industry or sector of business. The intranet of internets will happen again. Creating and selling AI system networks and integration functions that are personally tailored to highly specific company functions, creates an entirely new sector of the technology industry that has not even begun yet. [There’s an investment opportunity there]
Will AI robots replace some repetitive human functions? Yes, the ice rink Zamboni will likely not have a steering wheel, just an emergency joystick. A reference for a comparative industrial scale Roomba vacuum, or the robotic pool cleaners. However, at scale the robotic industry is slower than human efficiency in almost all sectors that matter; the cost benefit analysis will limit growth. The maid service sector will not be impacted any more than the software developers.
It is not an issue to fear some AI task efficiencies will grant more time available that will be filled with alternate task capabilities. Human productivity will increase in certain sectors of the economy, but humans will not lose work opportunities. Blue collar jobs will continue to expand as each of the hardware tools developed will need manufacturing, installation, maintenance and monitoring.
The further downstream the worker is from a repetitive function within the [XXXX] industry, the more irreplaceable they become.
As to the bigger picture of fully developed AI and the intersection of information and knowledge; yes, the automation of AI can present an issue. However, all AI concerns can be mitigated so long as multiple, alternative AI systems exist within the larger information realm.
As a nation we need dozens of different AI models each competing within the industry for the best AI product.
As long as we have multiple AI systems, alternatives to the hive-mind, we do not need to fear the AI network as a source of information. If we don’t like the AI outputs, we can switch to an alternate AI provider.
If the subscription cost of the AI is too high, then as long as we have a competitive market where a lesser expensive, perhaps bespoke AI option can exist, we should be okay. Let the free-and-fair market decide.

Be loud, Tulsi!

• Smooth Sailing Ahead for DNI Nominee Jay Clayton (CTH)

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence held a quick, one-round, nomination hearing for Director of National Intelligence Jay Clayton. The entire event lasted just under two hours with little room for controversy. It should be smooth sailing from here.

Other than a little faux resistance from SSCI Vice-Chairman Mark Warner, the nomination hearing was otherwise unremarkable. You can always tell the position of the Intelligence Community by the positioning of their enabling structure within the SSCI. No worries ahead for Clayton.
The committee may organize a party line vote so that Democrats can maintain their resistance bona fides, but in a general sense it’s all optics during the downhill glide to the nomination. That said, what this means in the larger picture of the USIC system during the Trump administration is yet to be determined. Obviously FISA (702) reauthorization will likely be attached by Senate Majority Leader John Thune into a legislative package for a companion vote. The SSCI and larger Senate chamber all support Clayton and FISA (702), though there may be some optics of resistance from positional republicans.
It seems pretty clear that Acting DNI Bill Pulte was put in place by the White House to stay on through the release of election-related material planned for Thursday night. This move keeps DNI Clayton away from any fallout tied to the 2020 election investigation, and if the White House can pull off a presidential presentation that grabs public attention, Clayton could step into the role later with a mandate to dig into the details of the release without being directly linked to it.
The second aspect is yet another motive for fast DNI confirmation by an SSCI apparatus that really doesn’t want to go down the rabbit hole of foreign activity in the 2020 election. ADNI Bill Pulte and SGE John Solomon are now positioned to have one shot at grabbing political attention framed around the fraudulent 2020 election outcome on Thursday night. Soon thereafter, Clayton will take the reins at DNI and continue the goal of removing politics from the activity of the larger Intelligence Community.

There’s still millions who came in through Biden’s open borders.

• Trump Directs DHS Secretary to Continue ICE Deportation Traffic Stops (CTH)

Yesterday DEEP STATE DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin ordered ICE agents to stop deportation apprehensions from vehicles following an ICE self-defense shooting as a vehicle was used as a weapon by an illegal alien. Today, President Trump told his rogue DHS Secretary such an order was not approved by President Trump and ICE agents should continue all efforts to deport illegal aliens including traffic stops when needed.

[TRUTH SOCIAL] The men and women of ICE are doing a GREAT job, one that has to be done. CRIME IS WAY DOWN IN AMERICA, in many cases with numbers that haven’t been seen in decades. The Open Border Policy of Sleepy Joe Biden allowed 25,000,000 people to pour into our Country, unchecked and unvetted. Many were Criminals, and we have to get them out. In order to do this, we must be strong, tough, and smart, and we CANNOT give up one of I.C.E.’s most important and effective Crime Fighting tools, THE TRAFFIC STOP!
Once we do, we are playing right into the criminal’s hands. The Radical Left Dumocrats would like to see this done, but it won’t happen on my watch. I.C.E., be judicious, fair and smart, and go back and do your very important job. Keep those Crime Stat Records coming! Remember, you are loved and respected in America. Thank you for your attention to this matter! ~PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP
Secretary Markwayne Mullin is another weak link in the lawful system of removing illegal aliens. Misplaced sympathies, regardless of motivation, are against the interests of law-abiding Americans. Deportation efforts must continue with extreme prejudice against the illegal alien population.
Weak men make for hard times!
Hours later Markwayne Mullin reversed his order.

Very strange thing to say for a VP (for anyone?!).

• JD Vance to Joe Rogan: Aliens Are Demons (Scott Pinsker)

Vance is MAGA’s most gifted communicator of economic grievances. He seems sincere, compassionate, authentic, and fair-minded. If you’re an undecided voter, he’s exactly the kind of leader you want in your corner. Come Nov. 2026 and Nov. 2028, if economic concerns, pocketbook issues, and middle-class grievances are the top issues, the Republican Party couldn’t ask for a better, more relatable messenger than JD Vance. He’s the right man at the right time. In a socialism versus free market debate, Vance will win in a landslide.

Trouble is, the vast majority of the Rogan-Vance podcast wasn’t about the economy, pocketbook issues, or the middle class. It centered on Iran, Jeffrey Epstein, Israel, traitorous “hawks,” disloyal Republicans, and whether or not space aliens are demons (or maybe angels). JD Vance is a highly organized thinker. He speaks in paragraphs (plural). That makes him an exceptionally dangerous debater — if you don’t believe me, go ask Tim Walz — but an awkwardly verbose conversationalist. This sit-down with Rogan didn’t play to his strengths. He’s noticeably better on the debate stage. Politically, the most interesting development was Vance’s calculation on Israel. Instead of choosing between the pro-Israel and anti-Israel factions, he declared himself a “reasonable moderate.” It’s a risky calculation.

JD Vance calls himself a “reasonable moderate” between pro- and anti-Israel extremes, saying he’s advocating a pragmatic relationship based on “shared interests” with Israel.

Vance says that Israel is an ally of the US like any other, no different from France or the UK, and…
— AF Post (@AFpost) July 15, 2026

If it works, he retains a MAGA coalition that was big and welcoming enough to include Mark Levin, Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, and Megyn Kelly. Since neither side finds him objectionable, he could be a bridge between both extremes. But I don’t think he can pull it off. It’s a helluva high-wire act. Besides, his strategy requires him to make a pragmatic argument about what many believe is a moral issue, which puts him behind the eight ball from the get-go. More likely than not, he’ll eventually have to choose a side. Many pro-Israel Republicans believe he already has. That’s because they’re reading into his emotive language, divining his words, and noting that he blames one side far more than the other.
https://twitter.com/alexbruesewitz/status/2077450739207610427?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2077450739207610427%7Ctwgr%5E1e7f0fe91d4eeadefa7d15e7a53feb48f9e9d69f%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpjmedia.com%2Fscott-pinsker%2F2026%2F07%2F16%2Fjd-vance-to-joe-rogan-aliens-are-demons-hawks-sabotaged-the-mou-israel-is-meddling-n4955111
He explicitly accused “hawks” of sabotaging his (since-failed) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Iran. Vance also insisted that the $300 billion Iran payment story was a “bull**** argument” that was “completely made up” by “hawks” to “politically tank the negotiation.” So, according to Vice President Vance, what’s motivating these bloodthirsty hawks? In Israel, “some people in the Israeli government want war indefinitely.” And in America, the “hawks” want us to send 150,000 ground troops into Iran. Which simply isn’t true:

Vance is the master of tearing down strawmen. NO ONE is proposing sending 150,000 troops to Iran. NO ONE. https://t.co/QdYu4LHNJl
— Marc Thiessen (@marcthiessen) July 15, 2026

Either way, Vance is taking the MOU criticism personally. Here’s Mediaite with excerpts from his appearance on JRE: “[P]eople have come after me and said that I’m influenced by Qatar, that I am influenced by foreign governments, that I take my marching orders from Tucker Carlson — there’s just so much bulls*** out there, when what I’m actually trying to do is accomplish what the President of the United States told me to accomplish, which is a settlement of this that accomplishes our objectives: Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapon, and we have the free flow of oil and gas. […]
“But again, when I open up the pages of Time magazine and I see that there’s a literal foreign influence campaign being funded to tank the very deal that I was pursuing — and, oh, by the way, many of the people who were receiving that money were actually attacking me in completely dishonest ways — my response to that is: well, go to hell. I’m going to do what I have to do for the American people. I represent Americans first.” Yet the people who blew up JD Vance’s (now failed) MOU weren’t hawks, Israelis, or disloyal neocons! It was the Iranians!
For someone who claims to be a “reasonable moderate,” he consistently — and repeatedly — assigns the least charitable interpretation to the pro-Israel/hawk faction while (mostly) ignoring the Groyper/isolationist faction. His disdain is difficult to ignore. And because he’s so damn smart, we assume it’s deliberate. Rogan and Vance also chatted about the VP’s claim that UFOs were demons. It was a very strange back-and-forth: Is it wise for the vice president to speculate about the supernatural? Perhaps: Speculating is fun. Everyone wonders about the unknown. I do.But a politician must be careful not to get over his skis, lest he look ridiculous.
As a one-off, contemplating about the angelic/demonic origins of UFOs won’t move the needle either way. But coupled with Vance’s public declaration (and Susie Wiles’ description of him) as a proud “conspiracy theorist,” he risks being portrayed as a crackpot thinker. Obviously, that’s not helpful for a man with presidential aspirations. This was an ill-advised rabbit hole. We watch longform interviews to catch a window into someone’s mind, soul, and heart. A politician must be mindful of what he reveals. And he must be especially mindful when he’s spitballing about unproveable, unknowable metaphysical phenomena. https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/2077543707658653718?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2077543707658653718%7Ctwgr%5E1e7f0fe91d4eeadefa7d15e7a53feb48f9e9d69f%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpjmedia.com%2Fscott-pinsker%2F2026%2F07%2F16%2Fjd-vance-to-joe-rogan-aliens-are-demons-hawks-sabotaged-the-mou-israel-is-meddling-n4955111
Full video:

I think people are sleeping on the idea of @SpaceX becoming the leader of mobile connectivity with Starlink Mobile

Once scaled, Starlink Mobile will enable high-bandwidth 5G connectivity directly to your phone without any additional equipment.

• No more dead zones
• Works… pic.twitter.com/3cRco4z0fC
— Nic Cruz Patane (@niccruzpatane) July 16, 2026

She is France’s last hope https://t.co/alN4E0hXbl
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 15, 2026

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/2077528642784026875?s=20 https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2077769923451900044?s=20 https://twitter.com/mcafeenew/status/2077525070520427005?s=20

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

Debt Rattle July 11 2026

Jul 112026

July 11, 2026 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 9:24 am Finance Tagged with: ceasefire, COVID, Iran, NATO, Rubio, Russia, Trump, Ukraine, Zelensky 35 Responses »

William-Adolphe Bouguereau La naissance de Vénus 1879

• Trump Agrees To Renewed ‘Talks’ With Iran, but Says Ceasefire Still ‘Over’ (JTN)

• Trump Reveals His Plan for If Iran Succeeds in Assassinating Him (Margolis)

• Trump Won’t Sign Landmark Housing Bill In Protest Over Stalled SAVE Act ZH)

• Kiev Behind Monaco Attack Over Tycoon’s Plan To Expose Corruption (TASS)

• Ceasefire Worst-Case Scenario For Ukraine – Zelensky’s Favorite Arms Maker (RT)

• NATO Is Spending Itself Into Oblivion (Scott Ritter)

• Russia No Longer Believes West Wants Ukraine Peace Talks – Lavrov (RT)

• ‘We Are Not At War’ – Czech PM Questions Bloc’s Ukraine Strategy (RT)

• The Men Who Own the War Now Run It (Antiwar)

• A Rubio Summit That Saves the World? (Sarah Anderson)

• Rubio Deports Convicted Rapist Protected by Walz (Turley)

• Elon Foretold – The Man Who Sold the Moon (J.R. Dunn)

• Scenario (James Howard Kunstler)

• Germany’s Debt Crisis Crescendos (Thomas Kolbe)

• What’s Driving Europe’s Auto Industry Crisis? (RT)

• RFK Jr. Plans to Create a List of Injuries Caused by COVID-19 Vaccines (ET)

https://twitter.com/ToniLL22/status/2075181070593454200?s=20 https://twitter.com/warDaniel47/status/2075319010690818300?s=20

Joe Rogan: "You say that China has 10 years to go…"

Guest: "At most."

Joe Rogan: "What do you mean by that?" pic.twitter.com/SNrGLbNWvk
— Joe Rogan Podcast News (@joeroganhq) July 10, 2026

A rich tapestry today, if I say so myself.

• Trump Agrees To Renewed ‘Talks’ With Iran, but Says Ceasefire Still ‘Over’ (JTN)

President Donald Trump on Friday announced that Iran had sought to resume peace talks with the United States and that he had agreed to do so, but would not halt combat operations in the interim. “The Islamic Republic of Iran has asked us to continue ‘talks.’ We have agreed to do so, but the United States has stated to them, in no uncertain terms, that the Cease Fire is OVER! Thank you for your attention to this matter,” he posted on Truth Social.

Trump renewed strikes on Iran this week, declaring the ceasefire over and asserting that the Iranians had not negotiated in good faith. Last month, the U.S. and Iran signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that was meant to extend the ceasefire for 60 days. The war began in February, but was in a state of nominal ceasefire for months, despite intermittent flare ups. Active hostilities resumed on both sides this week.

“I’ve been No. 1 [on Iran’s kill list] for a long time, and it’s the way life is, you know.”Then Trump quipped, “I hope you’ll miss me.”

“That’s the way they act, and that’s the way they’ve done it for 47 years..”

• Trump Reveals His Plan for If Iran Succeeds in Assassinating Him (Margolis)

President Donald Trump knows that Iran wants to see him dead. And if by chance it succeeds, he has plans in place for what should happen next. In an exclusive interview that The New York Post published Friday, Trump revealed he has left standing orders for the U.S. military to respond to his assassination with overwhelming, unprecedented force. “I’ve been on their list for a long time. That’s what we’re dealing with,” Trump told The Post. “The only thing is, I’ve left instructions — if anything happens, to just literally bomb them at levels that they’ve never seen before.” No big deal, just the president calmly laying out his own contingency plan for revenge from beyond the grave.

Asked about reports that Israel recently flagged fresh intelligence on a plot to kill him, Trump waved it off as nothing new. Iran has wanted him dead since 2020, when he ordered the strike that killed Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani, and nothing about that has changed. “No, no. Israel came up with nothing. No, no,” he said. “I’ve been No. 1 [on Iran’s kill list] for a long time, and it’s the way life is, you know.”Then Trump quipped, “I hope you’ll miss me.” What a very Trump thing to say, don’t you think?
As you know, authorities have foiled multiple assassination plots against Trump since the nearly successful attempt at a campaign rally in Butler, Pa., on July 13, 2024, including the most recent one at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner shooting back in April. So this isn’t a one-time scare. It’s an ongoing campaign.
Iran hasn’t exactly hidden its intentions lately, either. Demonstrators at the funeral for Iran’s late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei this week unfurled banners openly calling for Trump’s killing. One eulogist told mourners, per Iranian media, “Why shouldn’t we kill the one who killed my imam and my leader? … Trump’s killing is our duty… Why is the most despicable man in the world still alive?” That message came at the funeral of Iran’s own supreme leader, broadcast for the world to see.
Meanwhile, Trump called off the US-Iran cease-fire and their nascent memorandum of understanding after Iran fired on three ships in the Strait of Hormuz on Monday and Tuesday. nIn response, the president removed the US waiver on Iranian oil sanctions and launched nearly 200 strikes across Iran on Tuesday and Wednesday. Trump’s frustration with the Iranians was on full display at the NATO summit in Ankara this week, calling them “evil” for unleashing attacks in the strait despite the cease-fire and an additional promise to ramp down tensions as they buried slain Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
Despite his efforts to make a deal with Iran, Trump openly talked in Turkey that Iran was still out to kill him. “They had leaders, they’re gone. Then they had another set of leaders, they’re gone. Now they have another set of leaders — they may be gone, who knows?” Trump said at the summit. “And you know what? I may be gone too. Because I’m their No. 1 target — it’s out all over the place. Because they’re scum.” He made clear the pattern isn’t new. “That’s the way they act, and that’s the way they’ve done it for 47 years,” Trump added.

“If he doesn’t, it’s still law,” Johnson said last week of the president’s refusal to sign.”

• Trump Won’t Sign Landmark Housing Bill In Protest Over Stalled SAVE Act ZH)

President Donald Trump declared Friday morning that he won’t sign the sweeping bipartisan housing bill awaiting action on his desk in protest of the Senate’s failure to pass his signature elections legislation. Unless the president issues an outright veto by midnight, however, the housing package will become law Saturday without his signature.In a Friday morning Truth Social post, Trump said he was withholding his signature “in PROTEST” over the Senate’s inability to pass the SAVE America Act, a comprehensive elections overhaul that would require photo identification to vote and proof of citizenship to register, and would bar most mail-in balloting, with exceptions for military service, disability, illness and travel.

The president asserted that the elections bill is “polling at 97% with the Republican Party” – a figure he offered without citing a source – and called its failure “a serious threat to any politician who votes against it.” He renewed his demand that Senate Republicans “TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER,” warning that Democrats would abolish the 60-vote rule “in their very first hour” back in power. Rendering “Democrats” throughout with a derisive misspelling, Trump added that the “title of DUMB” would revert to Republicans if the party allowed the stalemate to stand.
A Deadline, Not A Veto This is of course performative unless Trump actually vetoes it. Under the Constitution, a bill becomes law automatically if the president neither signs nor vetoes it within 10 days, excluding Sundays, while Congress is in session. That clock on the housing measure – the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act – runs out at the end of Friday. Because Congress has remained formally in session through the window, the “pocket veto” that would let the bill die quietly is widely viewed as unavailable. That leaves Trump two choices: veto the legislation outright, or let it lapse into law. His post on Friday, notably, promised only not to sign it.
A veto would face long odds. The Senate approved the package 85-5 on June 22, and the House passed it 358-32 – margins far beyond the two-thirds needed in each chamber to override. Congressional observers caution, though, that override votes can scramble such numbers, as some members retreat rather than be seen defying the president. Lawmakers overrode a Trump veto of a defense bill once before, in the final weeks of his first term. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., a close Trump ally, has already conceded the likely endgame. “If he doesn’t, it’s still law,” Johnson said last week of the president’s refusal to sign.

”Viktor Medvedchuk says the uncovering of the schemes “would have spelt a disaster for the Kiev regime ahead of the NATO summit”

• Kiev Behind Monaco Attack Over Tycoon’s Plan To Expose Corruption (TASS)

Last week’s bombing attack in Monaco was carried out by Vladimir Zelensky’s special services as Ukrainian oligarch Vadim Yermolayev was planning to expose Kiev’s corruption schemes, Viktor Medvedchuk, head of the Different Ukraine movement and former leader of the banned Opposition Platform – For Life party, told TASS. “Western media immediately saw the link between the attack on businessmen Yermolayev and the regime of Zelensky, who sought to keep him quiet. Yermolayev was planning to address the European Parliament and explose corruption schemes in Ukraine, a scenario that would have spelt a disaster for the Kiev regime ahead of the NATO summit,” the politician explained.

Namely, active officers of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) have been implicated in the attack, Medvedchuk said. “The detained suspects in the murder of Anastasia Berezovskaya, 39, the individual wanted by Interpol for the attempted assassination of businessman Vadim Yermolayev in Monaco, are Ukrainian security officers,” he said. One of them, according to Medvedchuk, is Vladislav Reut, 33, a native of Zhitomir, who has served with Ukraine’s Main Intelligence Directorate (GUR). And the other detainee is Vitaly Zhikovich, 49, from Uman, who served for Kiev Region police until 2020. “We are talking about a special operation carried out by [Ukrainian] security officers and orchestrated by the criminal regime of Zelensky,” Medvedchuk stressed.
On June 29, an explosion occurred in the entrance of an apartment building in Monaco. According to BFMTV, one of the three injured was Yermolayev, a citizen of Cyprus, whom the media included on the list of the wealthiest Ukrainian businessmen. It was reported that he owned a network of fraudulent call centers in Ukraine. Yermolayev renounced his Ukrainian citizenship in 2019. In 2023, Kiev imposed sanctions against him.

“Reaching a truce with Russia will prompt “all” Ukrainian men to flee the country, while the West will forget Kiev, the head of corruption scandal-plagued firm Fire Point has claimed..”

• Ceasefire Worst-Case Scenario For Ukraine – Zelensky’s Favorite Arms Maker (RT)

A ceasefire with Russia would be the “worst-case scenario” for Ukraine, threatening the country’s statehood, the head of Vladimir Zelensky’s favorite arms manufacturer, Fire Point, has said. Denis Shtilerman made the remarks in an interview with Ukrainian outlet LIGAnet published on Wednesday. The company, which has recently been embroiled in a number of corruption scandals, stands to profit from the conflict. Shtilerman argued that the fighting should continue regardless, insisting that a truce with Russia would leave Ukraine in an even worse position.

He also questioned whether Kiev’s Western backers would honor any security commitments made as part of a ceasefire. “Look, if a truce is reached, it would – most regrettably – be the worst-case scenario for our state. We must remember how the US and other countries treat their obligations,” Shtilerman said. “I am talking about international agreements in which they guarantee the territorial integrity and independence of other states. And what do we see? Nothing.” Shtilerman also said Kiev would be abandoned and forgotten by its backers if a ceasefire is reached – echoing Russian officials who have warned that Ukraine is only useful for the West as a tool against Russia.
“If there is any kind of truce, we will be forgotten very quickly. There will be no investment appeal – there will be no money here. The borders will open, and all the men will leave. After that, the Russians will come in and seize the country,” Shtilerman said. Fire Point, which originally operated as a film scouting agency owned by Zelensky’s associates, has emerged as a ‘miracle’ player in Ukraine’s defense sector, producing an array of long-range drones and missiles used to strike deep into Russia. The company has been actively promoted by the Ukrainian leader during his regular overseas trips and has reportedly secured contracts worth up to $1 billion in a matter of months.
The image of the company has been damaged by the corruption scandal related to Zelensky’s inner circle and his former close associate Timur Mindich, the central figure in an alleged $100 million corruption scheme in the energy sector. Surveillance recordings recently published in Ukrainian media suggest Mindich effectively controlled Fire Point while enjoying preferential treatment from then-Defense Minister Rustem Umerov.

“If bloc members continue to ramp up their spending, they will eat themselves from the inside, and Russia won’t have to lift a finger ..”

• NATO Is Spending Itself Into Oblivion (Scott Ritter)

On the eve of this week’s NATO summit in Ankara, Türkiye, the bloc released a report titled ‘Defense Expenditure of NATO Countries (2014-2025)’. On the surface, the report shows a staggering increase in the level of defense spending by several NATO members over the course of the previous decade, with Lithuania leading the way with an increase of some 777%. In aggregate, NATO members, in seeking to meet the 2% GDP threshold for defense spending set by the US a decade ago, has seen a $1.364 trillion increase in the money invested in the militaries of the respective members over the past decade. That’s a lot of money.

Two questions emerge from this data: First (and foremost), has this increase led to any qualitative or quantitative advantage on the part of NATO over Russia? And second, can NATO members sustain this kind of growth in defense expenditures over the course of the next decade? It must be understood that the NATO of 2014 was very much an empty shell when it came to meaningful projection of military power. Over-reliant upon the US for its core defense needs since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO had become a shadow of its former self, a far cry from the cutting-edge military organization that had been built up in the decade of the 1980s.
The reality is that despite the massive increase in defense spending, NATO’s military capabilities were not advanced in any meaningful fashion over the course of the past decade. This has become evident as NATO has, in the past few years, discussed the potential of deploying military forces on Ukrainian soil as part of any peacekeeping arrangement, should the Russia-Ukraine conflict reach a negotiated conclusion. It became obvious that the ‘big three’ European powers (France, the UK, and Germany) lacked any meaningful ability to project sustainable military power of any appreciable strength into Ukraine. This remains the assessment today.
Most of NATO defense expenditure has been in the form of sustaining an aging, decrepit system out of touch with the reality of modern conflict. And to the degree modernization has taken place, it has simply replaced an aging equipment set within a legacy system tied down in Cold War-era doctrine with a newer equipment set still hamstrung by tactics and operational theory ill-suited for the modern battlefield. Germany’s ill-fated decision to create a one-off fund of €100 billion ($114 billion) in 2022 to help revive a flagging Bundeswehr stands as a case in point regarding the efficacy of much of NATO’s defense spending over the course of the past decade – by 2025 the fund had run out, with little or nothing to show for it.
Russia. Ukraine has fielded the most capable non-Russian military in Europe today, and its forces are being bled white in the kind of war of attrition NATO forces could never survive. In short, the $1.34 trillion that NATO has spent in increased defense expenditures since 2014 has left the bloc treading water. NATO’s task is to build and sustain a modern military capable of fighting a modern enemy, such as Russia.
In this, NATO has failed. The next question is can NATO spend its way out of its current predicament? On paper, the answer is a heavily caveated ‘yes’. Anything is possible, in theory, if one is willing to throw enough money at the problem. But NATO’s problems are systemic in nature and tied to events it is not in control of. NATO has found itself engaged in a proxy war with Russia that compels it to divert valuable military resources – fiscal and material – to Ukraine, which has become a giant furnace which consumes all that is fed into it without advancing the problem favorably vis-à-vis Russia.
But money doesn’t grow on trees, and at the end of the day the NATO appetite for war will far outstrip the ability of its constituent membership to pay the bill. Military industrial capacity is lacking across the board, and the costs associated with fixing this deficit are prohibitively high. So, too, are the costs associated with the kind of massive military expansions being considered by nations such as Germany, which seeks to triple the size of its armed forces by 2029.
Even if the money were available for such an endeavor, the public appetite for supporting and sustaining this kind of expanded military infrastructure is lacking. The more Germany – and by extension, Western Europe – pours into defense, the more alienated society becomes, creating domestic political problems for those seeking massive increases in defense spending. In short, NATO is spending itself into oblivion.
While Russia cannot afford to remain stagnant in the face of increased NATO defense expenditures, especially when such increases are tied to increasingly bellicose statements about the potential for war between Russia and NATO in the coming years, the fact is the NATO defense expenditure phenomenon is a self-containing problem, meaning the bloc’s ability to continue defense expenditures at the present rate of growth will more than likely lead to the political and economic collapse of the individuals and political parties which currently advocate in support of such policies. All Russia really needs to do is keep the Ukrainian furnace burning, and NATO will consume itself.

“Moscow’s goodwill toward Western-backed negotiations has been exhausted, the foreign minister says..”

• Russia No Longer Believes West Wants Ukraine Peace Talks – Lavrov (RT)

Moscow no longer believes the West is genuinely interested in negotiating an end to the Ukraine conflict, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said. Speaking at a news conference with Mozambican Foreign Minister Maria Manuela Lucas in Maputo, Lavrov accused the West of “imitating a willingness to negotiate while openly issuing ultimatums to Russia.” He argued that although the West has been calling for talks, it has spent more than a decade undermining every attempt to reach a peaceful resolution between Russia and Ukraine.

“In 2022, Russia and Ukraine had already reached a negotiated settlement. It was undermined by the very same West, openly and publicly,” Lavrov said. “We will no longer believe the West when it claims to want negotiated solutions. Our reserve of goodwill and hope has been exhausted once and for all.” Russia insists that the conflict has its roots in the 2014 Western-backed coup in Kiev and subsequent attempts by the new Ukrainian government to suppress the rebellion in Donbass by force. Ukraine later failed to implement the 2014-2015 Minsk agreements, which were intended to reintegrate the breakaway regions into Ukraine by granting them broad autonomy through comprehensive political reform.
Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and former French President Francois Hollande, who mediated the Minsk talks in Belarus alongside Russia, later said that Kiev used the Minsk agreements to buy time to rebuild its military and economy. Lavrov argued that their remarks show the guarantees provided by France and Germany were “false.” According to Russian President Vladimir Putin, during peace talks in Istanbul in 2022, Ukrainian negotiators initially agreed to drop plans to join NATO in favor of neutrality and to limit the country’s armed forces, but later walked away from the negotiations under pressure from then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
While Johnson denied that he sabotaged the talks, he acknowledged in a 2024 interview with the Wall Street Journal that he had “thought that any deal with Putin was going to be pretty sordid.” Former US Undersecretary of state Victoria Nuland similarly said in 2024 that Washington advised Ukraine to not agree to Russia’s terms in Istanbul. US-mediated negotiations have also stalled in recent months as President Donald Trump has focused on the war with Iran. Russia has said it is ready to resume the talks at any time, provided that they are focused on addressing the “root causes” of the conflict, including Ukraine’s plans to join NATO.

“Escalation against Russia does not guarantee a peaceful resolution, Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis has warned..”

• ‘We Are Not At War’ – Czech PM Questions Bloc’s Ukraine Strategy (RT)

The Czech Republic remains skeptical about NATO’s strategy of continued military support for Ukraine, to which it does not contribute financially, Prime Minister Andrej Babis said as he left the bloc leaders’ summit in Ankara, Türkiye on Wednesday. Babis’ party won last year’s election on a nationalist platform that included reversing the Ukraine aid policy championed by his predecessor, Petr Fiala, and urging a diplomatic resolution of the conflict with Russia instead. The declaration approved by NATO leaders in Ankara this week highlighted a pledge of €70 billion ($80 billion) in military equipment, assistance and training for Ukraine in 2026, with a similar amount expected the following year.

Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis speaks to press ahead of a NATO summit in Ankara. July 8

The money is not a new package, but rather past commitments, including the European Union’s “loan” approved in April. The Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovakia opted out of the mechanism.”We are not at war. Ukraine is at war,” Babis told reporters on Wednesday, when asked whether NATO’s increasing spending would pressure Moscow to negotiate, adding, “I don’t know, time will tell.” The prime minister said discussions during the summit focused on weapons rather than peace.Babis said the Czech Republic intended to reach the required NATO level of 2% of GDP level for military spending next year, but also needed money for healthcare, raising police salaries, and other domestic priorities.

Kremlin calls US backing of Ukrainian escalation delusional
Ukraine is seeking additional Western funding to ramp up long-range kamikaze drone attacks on Russian oil refineries, tankers and other targets. During a US-Ukrainian meeting on the sidelines of the NATO summit, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed the escalation “creates the space to negotiate the end of this war,” with President Donald Trump endorsing his reasoning. Commenting on the American remarks on Thursday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the US leadership was basing its policy on “delusions that escalation and military pressure leads to a peaceful settlement track.” The a proach may prolong hostilities, but would also prompt Russia to “create a bigger buffer zone” with Ukraine, he warned.
Czech coalition strained by aid payment
The aid issue caused tensions in the Czech ruling coalition just before the summit, after Foreign Minister Petr Macinka announced the transfer of an unspecified sum to PURL, a NATO fund through which European members pay for American weapons intended for Kiev. Parliament speaker Tomio Okamura, a vocal critic of Ukraine, blasted the move for going against the coalition agreement, but Babis sided with Macinka, saying the money had been allocated by the Fiala government and could not be returned to the budget. The prime minister said the one-off small contribution to purchase interceptor drones was preferable to a direct transfer to the Ukrainian government.

“The private-equity takeover of the Pentagon..”

• The Men Who Own the War Now Run It (Antiwar)

There was a time when the arms dealer waited in the corridor. He financed the campaign, endowed the think tank, took the general to dinner, and hoped the man inside the office would remember him when the contract came up. The wall between the money and the decision was thin, often corrupt, but it was there. Someone held the public trust, and someone else tried to buy it, and you could at least tell the two apart. That wall is gone. The financier no longer waits in the corridor. He holds the office. He signs the checks. He is the buyer and the seller, the regulator and the regulated, the public interest and the private portfolio, fused into a single man in a single suit, and the arrangement is entirely legal, which is the whole problem.

One of these men may already be familiar from a previous article. His name is Friedrich Merz.
The chancellor was the warm-up act
From 2016 to 2020, Merz chaired the supervisory board of BlackRock’s German arm, the local office of the largest pool of private capital on earth – a fact confirmed, without embarrassment, by his own party’s foundation. Then he climbed back into politics, and in March 2025, as chancellor-in-waiting, he drove through the outgoing Bundestag — deliberately before the newly elected parliament could convene – the constitutional amendment that exempted defense spending from Germany’s debt brake. The borrowing limit Germans had treated as sacred since 2009 was gone. German military spending rose 24 percent in a single year to $114 billion, the largest in NATO Europe, and BlackRock held stakes in the very contractors – Rheinmetall, Hensoldt – that the money would flow toward.
He broke no law. He simply spent four years learning, from the inside, how the machinery paid out, and then went and pulled the lever. The arrangement was a particular kind that no scandal quite captures, because nothing in it is hidden. It sits in plain view, in regulatory filings and procurement requests, and it works precisely because everyone involved can say, truthfully, that they broke no rule. It reads as a German problem only until you cross the Atlantic. There the same face turns up in an American suit, several of them, installed not adjacent to the war machine but at its controls.
The banker who became the Navy
Consider John Phelan, who until March 2025 had no connection to the military beyond a seat on a charity board. His career was money: he co-founded MSD Capital, the private investment firm that managed the personal fortune of Michael Dell, and later founded his own firm, Rugger Management. He gave Trump’s joint fundraising committee $834,600 in April 2024. Months later he was nominated to run the United States Navy, and in March he was confirmed, handed a $263.5 billion budget and command of nearly a million sailors and Marines.
Before his confirmation, Senator Elizabeth Warren wrote to him about the obvious. He had recently earned over $5 million in capital gains from Palantir, a defense-software contractor that took in $541 million from the Pentagon in fiscal 2024 alone, and whose relationships Phelan’s own acquisition vehicle had once advertised. She asked him to divest his defense holdings and to recuse himself, for four years, from matters touching his former clients and employers, noting that a dozen Biden appointees had voluntarily gone beyond what the ethics laws required. Phelan declined to make the stronger commitment. He was confirmed anyway, 62 to 30, with eleven Democrats joining every Republican in the room.
The man overseeing the Navy’s shipbuilding budget was, weeks earlier, a private investor with money in the companies the Navy buys from. Nobody hid it. It was printed in his disclosures and read aloud at his hearing, and it changed nothing.
The private-equity takeover of the Pentagon
Phelan is the modest case. The full expression of the thing sits one floor up, in the office of the deputy secretary of defense, where Stephen Feinberg runs the day-to-day of the entire department. Feinberg co-founded Cerberus Capital Management and led it for thirty-three years; in his own sworn testimony to the Senate he put the firm’s portfolio at over $65 billion. He was a major Trump donor, and by the time he was confirmed in March 2025 he was, at a listed minimum net worth of $2 billion, the wealthiest official in the administration. What he has built since is not influence over the Pentagon. It is ownership of its investment arm.
Feinberg has surrounded himself with a circle of advisers drawn from his old firm. The group includes former Cerberus managing director John Gallagher and a deal team led by Cerberus alumnus George Kollitides – who was, until 2015, chairman and chief executive of Remington, the gunmaker Cerberus owned. Industry executives nicknamed the squad “Deal Team Six,” a joke on the SEAL unit that killed bin Laden, and Kollitides told a Milken Institute audience he found the name both fun and fitting while explaining that economic warfare has been a part of all successful nations for thousands of years. A Stanford professor watching this described it plainly: private equity has just acquired its largest organization.
The organization it acquired writes checks the size of nations. Under Feinberg, the Pentagon stopped merely buying weapons and began buying companies. It took a $400 million preferred-equity stake in the rare-earth miner MP Materials, enough to make the United States government the firm’s largest single shareholder at roughly 15 percent – ahead, as it happens, of BlackRock. It put $1 billion into an L3Harris rocket-motor unit slated to go public in 2026. Stakes in Trilogy Metals, Vulcan Elements, and ReElement Technologies followed, a portfolio that a group of House members warned was locking federal policy to the fortunes of individual firms – picking winners, and by definition creating losers.

“.. some European officials are questioning why they were even invited, as they don’t see left-wing terrorism as a threat to their countries..”

• A Rubio Summit That Saves the World? (Sarah Anderson)

I didn’t receive an invitation and most of you probably didn’t either, but Secretary of State Marco Rubio has invited the foreign ministers and other senior officials from over 60 countries to Washington, D.C. next week for a summit. The goal? To combat the “resurgence of transnational far-left terrorism,” according to Washington Post reporters who say they saw documents related to the matter. The documents make it “clear that the focus is on ‘far-left terrorists,’ who, the note says, are ‘increasingly turning to organized, deadly violence to advance their political objectives.'” As the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) reports, “In recent years, the United States has seen an increase in the number of left-wing terrorism attacks and plots.” In 2025, far-left terrorist attacks outnumbered those from the far-right. Here’s more:

More contentious politics in the United States and the expansion of the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement appear to have reenergized violent left-wing extremists. The left-wing movement as a whole has not returned to its violent heights of the 1960s and 1970s, but the number of terrorist incidents involving left-wing extremists so far this year puts 2025 on pace to be the left’s most violent year in more than three decades. Moreover, 2025 marks the first time in more than 30 years that left-wing attacks outnumber those from the far right.
Unlike the highly structured far-left groups of the past, modern far-left and anarchist extremism relies heavily on decentralized, cross-border networking that is often organized online. Both U.S. and European intelligence agencies have pointed to growing coordination between decentralized Antifa and Antifa-like networks and European autonomous groups, especially surrounding major global events. This often leads to riots, arson, attacks on law enforcement, attacks on infrastructure and symbols of capitalism, and destruction of public and private property. News of the summit comes after the Trump administration released its counterterrorism strategy in May of this year.
While the strategy prioritizes hemispheric threats, like cartels, gangs, and other designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations that operate in the Americas, as well as Islamic terrorist groups, our national counterterrorism activities will also “prioritize the rapid identification and neutralization of violent secular political groups whose ideology is anti-American, radically pro-transgender, and anarchist. We will use all the tools constitutionally available to us to map them at home, identify their membership, map their ties to international organizations like Antifa, and use law enforcement tools to cripple them operationally before they can maim or kill the innocent. We will do the same with the state sponsors of such groups and those governments undertaking lethal plots on U.S. soil or against Americans anywhere.”
But it sounds like we’re not stopping here at home. This ministerial Rubio is hosting will help strengthen cooperation in intelligence-sharing and law enforcement between nations that want to eradicate crime. The countries included in the invitations were most of Europe, some of Asia, and many nations from the Western Hemisphere.
Of course, as with anything the Trump administration does, there is some blowback. According to the Washington Post, some European officials are questioning why they were even invited, as they don’t see left-wing terrorism as a threat to their countries. Domestically, there is some concern that expanding counterterrorism activities against these groups could create a slippery slope for dealing with political activists, as well as create an opportunity for the next Democrat who becomes president to go after conservatives, even though the Trump administration’s strategy specifically states, “our counterterrorism powers will not be used to target our fellow Americans who simply disagree with us.”
State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott said that far-left terrorism is “an old threat re-emerging with strong transnational links and new convergences,” according to the Post. He added, “Because this threat has not been adequately addressed in the past, each engagement, designation, or security assistance program creates a compounding effect supporting countermeasures at home and abroad.” Now, Trump and Rubio are attempting to adequately address it.
Does this sound ambitions? Yes. Is it necessary? Also, yes. It’s about time someone treats left-wing extremism and chaos as the transnational threat that it is. And if Rubio and Donald Trump’s Shield of the Americas summit in March was any indicator, this won’t be just some boring diplomatic meeting that’s all talk and no action. We’ve seen the Shield in action several times in just a few short months. It will be interesting to see exactly who shows up to this summit next week.

“.. repeatedly raping a 10-year-old girl: “a cultural thing.” “It’s a Constitutional Thing”

Thanks Marco. Screw you, Walz.

• Rubio Deports Convicted Rapist Protected by Walz (Turley)

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has failed in his extraordinary effort to protect a Laotian rapist from deportation. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has confirmed that he revoked Tue Lue Vang’s legal status and removed him from the United States. After repeatedly raping a 10-year-old girl between 2002 and 2004, Vang insisted it was “a cultural thing.” Well, this is a “constitutional thing” that the Secretary of State, not the Governor of Minnesota, determines who may remain in the United States after such a serious offense.

He was convicted in 2006 of first-degree criminal sexual conduct. A Department of Justice (DOJ) Immigration Judge issued Vang a final order of removal on October 31, 2006 after his conviction. Minnesota’s Board of Pardons, composed of Walz, state Attorney General Keith Ellison, and state Chief Justice Natalie Hudson, granted his clemency. (They noted that the victim wrote a letter on his behalf.) They also pardoned another Laotian criminal illegal alien — a convicted armed robber — before he could be deported. At the time, Walz wrongly referred to Vang as a “citizen”:
“I can find no reason how Minnesota will be safer or better if Mr. Vang is deported to a country he has not been to since he was a child.I do not see how it would serve his family, nor the economic interest where we have a taxpaying citizen who is creating job growth and living a life free from any criminal activity. Rubio told Fox News: “Just weeks ago, a foreign child rapist was freed to once again endanger America’s children after receiving a pardon from Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. Tue Lue Vang admitted to committing heinous crimes against a 10-year-old girl in Minnesota. He attempted to pay his victim for her silence and dismissed his acts of child abuse as a ‘minor thing.’
Just days before he was scheduled to be deported, the Minnesota Governor pardoned him, setting him free to endanger American families once again.” He added, “Americans should never have to live in fear that foreign sex predators — shielded from deportation by their own elected officials — could endanger them or their children.” Vang was convicted in 2006 of first-degree criminal sexual conduct. He repeatedly raped the girl between 2002 and 2004, and told authorities after he was arrested that “it is a cultural thing…to marry and have sex with girls as young as 12.” Rubio told Fox News Digital, “Americans should never have to live in fear that foreign sex predators — shielded from deportation by their own elected officials — could endanger them or their children.”
Vang’s use of Laotian culture was notable for some of us who have spoken or written about “the cultural defense.” I have long drawn the line in the use of the cultural defense on such violent acts. However, troubling outliers remain in the cases. In January 1985, Japanese immigrant Fumiko Kimura tried to commit oyako-shinju (or parent-child suicide) after learning of her husband’s infidelity. She walked her infant daughter and 4-year-old son in the frigid ocean off Santa Monica. The children drowned, but she was rescued. While she had lived in the United States for some 14 years, she claimed the cultural defense (even though oyako-shinju is illegal in Japan). She was successful.
Kimura received just one year in jail and five years’ probation. She then reunited with her husband. There have been several cases involving “marriage by capture.” We have had some cases related to the custom of zij poj niam, particularly in relation to the Hmong culture, where a man abducts a woman he intends to marry and takes her to his family home. The woman is expected to resist as a sign of her virtue. In a prior case, Kong Moua, a Hmong tribesman, drove to the Fresno City College campus and kidnapped a young woman from her job in the student finance office. She took her to his cousin’s house, but the Hmong woman did not believe in the cultural practice and called police.
Charged with rape and kidnapping, the defense successfully claimed the cultural defense. It secured a lesser charge of false imprisonment, and then the judge sentenced Kong Moua to just 120 days in jail and fined him $1,000, with only $900 of that going to the victim as reparations. It is unclear whether Vang was making such a claim, but most judges would reject it. The effort by Walz to keep him in the United States was equally dubious as a constitutional matter.

“How did a popular American writer of the 1940s come up with a novel that accurately portrayed the activities and historical role of Elon Musk as a pioneer in the exploitation of space?”

• Elon Foretold – The Man Who Sold the Moon (J.R. Dunn)

Nobody in the 1850s ever wrote a novel about a man who changes society by figuring out how to mass-produce horseless carriages. Similarly, nobody a century later wrote the story of the man who turns the world upside down by building miniature electronic brains in his garage. So how did a popular American writer of the 1940s come up with a novel that accurately portrayed the activities and historical role of Elon Musk as a pioneer in the exploitation of space? That man was Robert A. Heinlein, and his book, published in 1950, was titled The Man Who Sold the Moon.

Sci-fi has largely been a despised and dismissed genre, with some reason. It started out as pure pulp (at least in this country; in the UK, largely thanks to H.G. Wells, it was a serious and respected genre, with most writers producing a sci-fi novel at one time or another). The prose in U.S. sci-fi was subliterate. Characterization was nonexistent, consisting of types – the eccentric scientist, the stalwart space skipper, the evil space pirate, etc. Plots were minimal at best. The writers were either nerds or hacks. The editors were bottom of the barrel, and the readers didn’t care. (They still don’t.) The genre needed a serious shake-up, and at the beginning of the 1940s, that’s just what it got.
Robert A. Heinlein was a former naval officer, ex-mine owner, and ex-political operative forced into writing by illness. He was the farthest thing in the world from a hack. Internationally traveled, vastly erudite in a number of fields, and widely read, Heinlein was well aware of the stagnant status of sci-fi. John W. Campbell, editor of the unfortunately named Astounding Science Fiction, had long been on the watch for a writer capable of breaking up the logjam in the field. Heinlein filled that role and more. Within months, he was leading the genre. Within a couple of years, the primitives were gone, and those who remained were trying to match Heinlein.
As a writer, Heinlein was methodical – both in artistic and professional senses. He was devoted to realism, no easy trick when writing sci-fi. He dropped the generic space-opera settings of the 30s, instead compiling a chart of possible historical events involving the U.S. over the next two centuries to serve as a consistent background for his work. Heinlein later said that he simply extrapolated current trends into the future. All the same, the accuracy of some of the chart’s predictions is spooky. One prime example: the 1960s is labeled “The Crazy Years.”
The Man Who Sold the Moon was one of the keystone novels of the Future History sequence. It dealt with a 21st-century business magnate named Delos D. Harriman, who is convinced that exploitation of space is the next step and intends to put the U.S. on the moon in a big way. In this fictional world – so unlike our own – there is activity in space, but it’s limited strictly to Earth orbit. (I’m not sure that they have a space station that enables Democrat pols to take publicity trips.)
Harriman liquidates his holdings and obtains loans and contributions from other businessmen, using every possible goad and gimmick. (In one case, he shows up at the office of a commie-hating executive wearing a hammer-and-sickle button on his lapel: “From where you’re sitting, this is the exact size of the moon seen from earth.”) He oversees every aspect of the project from the design of the rocket to the training of the crew, overcoming obstacles, fighting lawsuits and government interference.
Harriman is up to his ears in debt, under fire over various scams he’s pulled along the way (One concerns USPO envelopes supposed to be canceled on the moon to be sold to collectors that may or may not have actually been on the ship. This will bring a smile of recognition to those who recall the Apollo 15 postage “scandal.”) At last, the rocket is ready. It lifts off, headed for the bright strand of Lune. …and it all goes perfectly. The ship lands, spends a short time on the surface, and returns to Earth, to the expected outcry from cranks claiming it was all a hoax. But Harriman pays no attention. He’s completing an even larger rocket, one that will set up an actual base on the lunar surface.
The book ends with Harriman watching that one lift off. He’d wanted to be aboard himself, but corporate board members, with so much investment money riding on the program’s success, wouldn’t allow it. Harriman was the key man, and if he was lost, everything else would go with him. There would be many other flights, and he would surely be aboard one of those…. But one of his associates, watching him, whispers, “He reminds me of Moses, gazing out over the promised land.” Moses, of course, never entered Israel himself, only resting his eyes on it from a distance.

“Witness list expanding in multi -conspiracy probe out of Fort Pierce. . . .” Paul Sperry, Real Clear investigations.

• Scenario (James Howard Kunstler)

Seth Rich, when he was alive, at his leisure

The scene: February of 2027, a federal courtroom in Stuart (Martin County), Florida, the third day of trial in the RussiaGate matter. Defendants seated on the right (from the judge’s vantage) are so numerous they require two tables, including John Brennan, James Comey, James Clapper, Andrew McCabe, Rod Rosenstein, Strzok & Page, Bruce Ohr, Lisa Monaco, Mary McCord, Christopher Wray, Marc Elias, and seven other former federal officials.

Former President Barack Obama and former Sec’y of State Hillary Clinton, named as “unindicted co-conspirators,” are not present in the courtroom for the sake of decorum. Former MI6 agent, the slippery Christopher Steele, purveyor of the infamous “dossier,” is on-the-lam, whereabouts unknown. The charges against the bunch are Seditious Conspiracy (18 U.S. Code § 2384), Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice (18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1512, 1519), Conspiracy Against Rights / Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242), Perjury (18 U.S.C. § 1621), Concealment (18 U.S.C. § 1001).
At 10:00 a.m., a “surprise” witness is ushered into the room. Gasps erupt from all angles. The witness is immediately identified by his snow-white hair and beard. Everybody sees it is Julian Assange. He is a surprise witness for security reasons. He has been flown from Sydney to New Delhi to Frankfurt, and finally to Miami in a US government airplane, the lone passenger.
Recall: in June 2024, Assange reached a plea deal with the US DOJ: guilty on one count of conspiring to obtain and disclose classified US national defense information. He was sentenced to sixty-two months (time served), crediting the approximately five years he had already spent in Britain’s Belmarsh prison while fighting extradition — but not counting the six years and ten months he was holed-up before that in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. There was no additional jail time, supervision, or financial penalty.
Assange is sworn and seated, led through preliminary questions as to his identity, place of residence, his former occupation running the news service known as Wikileaks, blah blah. The prosecuting federal attorney will now turn to the subject of one Seth Rich — remember him? The twenty-seven-year-old was working for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in 2016 as Voter Expansion Data Director. At 4:00 a.m. July 10, 2016, Rich was found dead, shot twice in the back, on Flagler Place NW, in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, D.C., in what police called “a botched robbery.”
Rather bizarrely from a police procedural standpoint, Rich’s wallet, stuffed with money, his watch, and his cell phone remained on his person. Only his laptop was taken in the “robbery.” It has been a “cold,” unsolved case all these years. Sometime before the murder, as early as Spring 2016, well before the Democratic party’s nominating convention, Assange’s Wikileaks received a large packet of information containing as many as 58,000 emails hacked out of the account of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman.
The emails detailed many curious machinations inside the DNC that year, including sketchy efforts underway to derail Clinton’s rival, Bernie Sanders, excerpts from Clinton’s paid private Wall Street speeches (e.g., to Goldman Sachs), references to Clinton’s health problems, her private email server issue, various Clinton foundation dealings, and a lot of strange chatter about “pizza” and other mundane food items that would eventually spawn the “PizzaGate” story alluding to alleged child sex cult activities centered around John Podesta and his brother Tony. It was quite a juicy load. But Wikileaks sat on it until just before the election. That spring and summer, Hillary was already laboring under the scandal about the private email server she had set up in her suburban Chappaqua, NY, home.
She had apparently used it casually when she ran the State Department to conduct official government business, including classified information, instead of her official government email address. That itself was against the law, apart from what else the content of the Podesta email trove revealed. The FBI had been working the server case that spring, and just weeks before the convention, FBI Director Jim Comey made a big public show of exonerating Hillary, declaring incorrectly that he declined to prosecute — since it is not the FBI’s job to prosecute, only investigate, and for the DOJ to actually decide whether to prosecute. But he did add for the record that her doings had been “extremely careless.”

“As Germany’s public debt expands, the dynamics of its sovereign bond market are beginning to change.”

• Germany’s Debt Crisis Crescendos (Thomas Kolbe)

As Germany’s public debt expands, the dynamics of its sovereign bond market are beginning to change. On Wednesday, the placement of new German government debt came close to failure for the first time. Only the intervention of Germany’s Finance Agency prevented a more serious outcome. Germany’s descent into the league of heavily indebted nations is unfolding at breathtaking speed. A brief chronology of recent events illustrates the trend. Last Friday, Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil presented the key parameters of the federal budget for 2027. Federal spending is set to increase by €30 billion to €555 billion, roughly six percent more than the previous year. Unsurprisingly, the country’s borrowing requirements are rising at a similar pace.

On Monday, the minister spoke at length about supposedly advanced fiscal consolidation efforts. Taken in its original meaning, fiscal consolidation implies placing meaningful constraints on excessive government spending and at least slowing the pace of fiscal deterioration. Wednesday’s events in the bond market demonstrated precisely the opposite. What happened around midday was close to unprecedented in modern German public finance. During the auction of new federal bonds, Germany came dangerously close to a failed issuance. Only the intervention of the German Finance Agency, the institution responsible for issuing federal debt, prevented a more severe market signal.
What happened? bSeeking additional liquidity, Germany attempted to issue €6 billion of ten-year federal bonds. Under normal circumstances, such auctions are routine affairs. Pension funds, insurers, banks and hedge funds require high-quality sovereign debt to manage their balance sheets and diversify portfolios.This auction proved very different. At a yield of 3.09 percent, bids totaled only €4.022 billion. Ultimately, merely €3.902 billion was actually allocated. Roughly €2.1 billion, around 35 percent of the intended issuance, remained unsold, forcing the Finance Agency itself to absorb the excess supply temporarily.
Had the auction failed outright, the consequences could have been considerably more severe. A failed sovereign auction sends a powerful shock signal through financial markets and can trigger broader bond sell-offs and sharp increases in borrowing costs. That this did not occur is largely thanks to institutions such as the German Finance Agency and the European Central Bank — the intervention fire brigade of European capital markets — which can temporarily mask unsustainable fiscal policies by absorbing excess sovereign debt.
The auction’s bid-to-cover ratio, measuring demand relative to supply, fell to a worrying 0.7. Nor was this the first problematic auction in July. Already on July 1, Germany’s issuance of seven-year federal bonds encountered similar difficulties. In that case as well, the Finance Agency intervened by retaining roughly one quarter of the offering instead of the customary ten percent normally withheld to provide liquidity in the secondary market. Primary Dealers, which constitute the first line of absorption for newly issued sovereign debt within the euro area’s financial architecture, were evidently unwilling to absorb the full volume.
Could this represent the first signs of growing market turbulence caused by Germany’s rapidly expanding debt burden? By the end of this year, Germany’s official debt-to-GDP ratio is expected to approach 70 percent. Including the government’s various off-budget special funds, the effective figure already moves toward 80 percent. Unfunded liabilities embedded in Germany’s social insurance systems — particularly the statutory pension system — amount to several multiples of annual GDP.
None of this is extraordinary in today’s world of highly indebted governments. The United States currently carries a debt ratio near 125 percent of GDP. However, the world’s largest economy possesses considerably greater economic resilience than Germany, whose competitiveness has been weakened by years of costly energy policies. Globally, average sovereign debt now stands around 95 percent of GDP, roughly comparable to the euro area.

The final solution: “..the bloc plans to phase out new petrol and diesel cars by 2035..”

Europe had a great car industry for 100 years.

• What’s Driving Europe’s Auto Industry Crisis? (RT)

European carmakers are facing one of the toughest crises in their history. Plant closures, layoffs, and shrinking profits have become increasingly common as Chinese electric vehicle manufacturers continue to expand their global footprint. German luxury carmaker Porsche has become the latest victim. The company is expected to cut an additional 4,000 jobs, the Handelsblatt newspaper reported on Monday. In March, the sports car manufacturer reported a 93% drop in operating profits following a costly pivot away from its long-term EV strategy.

But these setbacks are only part of the story. Behind them lies a combination of soaring energy costs, mounting regulatory pressure, shifting supply chains, and intensifying international competition that is reshaping one of the region’s most important industries. Since the Covid-19 pandemic and the global semiconductor shortage, European carmakers have been battered by weakening consumer demand and persistently high production costs, largely driven by elevated energy prices. The slump is evident in sales. Across the EU, new car registrations in 2025 remained nearly 30% below 2019 levels, while the UK market also failed to recover to its pre-pandemic performance.
At the same time, expensive energy has left European manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage compared with many rivals in Asia and North America. The strain is already triggering deep restructuring across the industry. Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz, and BMW have announced job cuts and cost-cutting measures; Stellantis has reduced output at several European plants, particularly in Italy; Renault is continuing its restructuring in France; and the UK has seen factory closures as manufacturers struggle to contain rising costs.
Which countries have been hardest hit?
The crisis is weighing most heavily on countries where the automotive industry is a major source of jobs and economic growth. In 2019, the sector supported around 13.8 million jobs – 6.1% of total EU employment – and accounted for more than 7% of the bloc’s GDP. Germany has been hit hardest, with the industry shedding around 125,000 jobs since 2019. In France, automotive employment has fallen by roughly a third since 2010, dropping from about 425,000 to fewer than 290,000 workers. In Italy, the wider manufacturing sector has lost more than 103,000 jobs since 2008, while a further 12,650 automotive positions are considered at risk.
Spain also remains heavily reliant on vehicle exports, while the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary are even more exposed, with much of their industrial output dependent on foreign-owned carmakers. As a result, even relatively small production cuts can have an outsized impact on jobs and regional economies. Outside the EU, the UK also remains vulnerable. Although its automotive sector is smaller, it still supports around 200,000 manufacturing jobs and some 800,000 positions across the wider industry.
How much of the problem stems from energy prices?
Energy costs have become one of the key structural pressures on Europe’s auto industry. After the disruption of traditional energy flows, the shift away from relatively cheap Russian pipeline gas has increased reliance on more expensive alternatives, including liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports from the US. For an energy-intensive sector such as automotive production – where steel, aluminium, chemicals, and battery materials are essential inputs – this has raised costs across the entire value chain.
The impact extends beyond final assembly plants. Suppliers of metals, plastics, and battery cells have also faced higher input costs, feeding through into vehicle prices and squeezing manufacturers’ margins. This is particularly significant for electric vehicles, which depend on energy-intensive battery production and raw material processing. Combined with competition from regions with lower energy costs, this has eroded one of Europe’s traditional advantages: cheap and stable industrial energy. As a result, energy has shifted from a competitive strength to a persistent headwind for European automakers.
Why are European carmakers losing ground to China? Europe’s weakening position in the global auto market is increasingly linked to the rise of China as the leading EV powerhouse. Chinese manufacturers have scaled up production rapidly, supported by fully integrated domestic battery supply chains – from raw materials processing to cell manufacturing – giving them a structural cost advantage over European rivals.
A vast domestic market also allows Chinese firms to produce at far larger volumes, lowering unit costs and speeding up innovation. By contrast, Europe’s market is fragmented across multiple countries and regulatory systems. European automakers also face higher production costs, particularly for energy and labor, alongside heavier regulatory requirements linked to emissions targets and industrial policy. According to the International Energy Agency, China produced 12.4 million electric cars in 2024, compared with 2.4 million in the EU and around 80,000 in the UK – roughly five times the combined European output.
The green transition impact
Under EU climate policy, automakers must meet increasingly strict COC emissions targets, while the bloc plans to phase out new petrol and diesel cars by 2035. This has forced manufacturers to invest heavily in EV platforms, battery plants, software, and factory upgrades well before these investments generate returns. The UK is following a similar path through its Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Mandate, requiring rising EV sales ahead of a 2030 ban on new internal combustion engine vehicles.
The pressure has been amplified by slower-than-expected EV adoption across Europe. As demand lags behind targets, automakers are caught between costly EV investments and continued reliance on petrol and diesel models to sustain profits. Several carmakers warn that both EU rules and the UK s ZEV targets risk moving faster than consumer demand. Critics say regulation has outpaced market readiness, while supporters argue that slowing the transition would leave Europe trailing in the global shift to clean mobility.

Vague.

• RFK Jr. Plans to Create a List of Injuries Caused by COVID-19 Vaccines (ET)

Health officials are proposing a plan to clarify which COVID-19 vaccine side effects would be eligible for government financial compensation, according to a new notice. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and one of its divisions said in a description of a proposed rule released on July 1 that they plan to establish an injury table for COVID-19 vaccines through the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP).

“The Table will list and explain injuries that, based on compelling, reliable, valid, medical, and scientific evidence, are presumed to be caused by covered COVID-19 countermeasures, and set forth the time periods in which the onset of these injuries must occur after the administration or use of these covered COVID-19 countermeasures,” a summary of the rule, which has not been made public, stated. COVID-19 vaccines fall under the CICP because previous health secretaries declared and extended emergency declarations for COVID-19, which opened up the option of emergency clearance of vaccines and other countermeasures under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act.
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who just announced that he was ending the emergency declaration, is authorized under the declarations to provide benefits to people injured by the vaccines under the act, HHS officials noted in the proposal summary. “Under the leadership of Secretary Kennedy, HHS is restoring transparency and accountability because the American people deserve clear, evidence-based information about both the benefits and the known risks associated with medical countermeasures,” an HHS spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email. The spokesperson said that more information will be available when the notice is published in the Federal Register.
Aaron Siri, Kennedy’s former lawyer, wrote to Kennedy in 2025, urging him to create a COVID-19 vaccine-injury table. He pointed to the readiness and preparedness law, which states that the health secretary “shall by regulation establish a table identifying covered injuries that shall be presumed to be directly caused by the administration or use of a covered countermeasure.” An injury table would help people injured by vaccines apply successfully to the congressionally created program, which requires “compelling, reliable, valid, medical, and scientific evidence” that an injury was a direct result of a countermeasure, Siri wrote on behalf of the Informed Consent Action Network, which advocates for government transparency and change.
“A well-constructed injury table is needed for the CICP,” Richard Hughes IV, a former Moderna executive who is representing health groups in litigation against the administration that has halted some of its changes to vaccine guidance, told The Epoch Times in an email. “The real question is whether this administration would promulgate such a table or weaponize it to further platform misinformation.” Dr. Joel Wallskog, who suffered the neurological disorder transverse myelitis and other issues from COVID-19 vaccination and has sued the government over the CICP, told The Epoch Times in an email that the HHS proposal “is more appearance than substance.”
“It appears to do little more than streamline the process for the relatively small number of individuals whose injuries—primarily anaphylaxis and myocarditis/pericarditis—are already recognized under the current system,” added Wallskog, also the co-chair of the React19 nonprofit, which offers support to people injured by COVID-19 vaccines. “For everyone else who has been denied, nothing changes.” Erica Samp, who says she was injured by a COVID-19 vaccine, said in a post on X that she supported the plan but that she’s watching to see what details are included, including the covered injuries.
The CICP is both administered and adjudicated by HHS officials. It has compensated some people who have said COVID-19 vaccination caused health issues, but rejected others, including people such as Wallskog, whom doctors diagnosed as being injured by COVID-19 vaccines, The Epoch Times previously reported.
The CICP has, through June, compensated 60 COVID-19 vaccine injury claims, nearly all for myocarditis, a form of heart inflammation. The average compensation has been $4,000, aside from a few large payments, and about 99 percent of applications have been rejected. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine said in 2024 that COVID-19 vaccines definitely cause myocarditis and shoulder injuries, but that other possible harms could not be conclusively linked to the shots. Some outside organizations, such as React19, have said that the available evidence supports a link between the vaccines and additional problems.

Elon Musk just said what every government on earth already knows and none will admit.

Musk: “AI is moving 10 times faster than government, maybe more.”

Not slightly faster. Ten times. And the gap compounds daily.

Every institution ever built runs on the same architecture.… pic.twitter.com/Efrc3eVc5d
— Dustin (@r0ck3t23) July 9, 2026

SpaceX is building the Gigasat Factory in Bastrop to manufacture AI satellites at massive scale.

This facility is planned to enable rapid production and deployment of thousands of AI satellites starting as soon as late 2027. pic.twitter.com/avloaJJ32h
— DogeDesigner (@cb_doge) July 9, 2026

Elon and the SpaceX team are aiming to launch 1 MILLION AI satellites into space and when this happens… this company is going to look dirt cheap at $2 trillion.

Any company serious about AI will be relying heavily on SpaceX for compute.

Mark my words. pic.twitter.com/eMgPnivNMl
— Teslaconomics (@Teslaconomics) July 10, 2026

Optimus V3’s hand is getting scary good.

Hands are one of robotics’ nastiest little problems. Gripping is easy.

Knowing how hard to squeeze an egg, turn a tiny screw, fold fabric, or pick up something fragile without launching it across the room?

Different game.

Tesla… https://t.co/uKe3ptfBXL pic.twitter.com/1QlZT4Cw1G
— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) July 10, 2026

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

Debt Rattle July 9 2026

Jul 092026

July 9, 2026 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 10:04 am Finance Tagged with: ceasefire, factory floor, IRGC, money laundering, NATO, Qatar, scum, Ukraine.nazi, Zelensky 26 Responses »

Vincent van Gogh Vase with Daisies and Anemones 1887

• IIran Hits Back, Launching Missiles On Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar (ZH)

• They’re Scum’—Furious Trump Explodes, Declares Iran Ceasefire Over (Rusty Weiss)

• Trump Says US-Iran Ceasefire Is Over, Going To Hit Them Hard Tonight’ (ZH)

• New Strikes On Iran Significantly Stronger Than Earlier Attacks (ZH)

• You’re Just Going to Have to Kill Them or Walk Away From Iran (Derek Hunter)

• Bill Clinton Advisor Warns of Socialist Takeover (ZH)

• Just 43% of Americans Believe NATO Would Assist If US Were Attacked (Anzalone)

• Carney and Zelensky Announce New Canadian Bank for Money Laundering (CTH)

• Europe Replacing US as NATO’s Main Anti-Russia Actor – Trenin (RT)

• ‘You’re Playing With Fire,’ RT Editor-in-Chief Warns Europe (RT)

• Polish MEP Tears Up Ukrainian Nazi Collaborator Flag At EU Parliament (RT)

• Zelensky In Ankara Still Insistent On Ukraine Joining NATO (ZH)

• America’s Factory Floor Is Still Its Greatest Superpower (David Manney)

AI+Optimus will enable universal excellent healthcare that is better than anyone receives today https://t.co/XT1GsqnAhn
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 7, 2026

Elon Musk just said the one thing about America they made sure you’d never learn.

The one thing that should’ve made you proud, not ashamed.

Musk: “After World War 2, the US could have basically taken over the world and any country. Like we got nukes, nobody else got nukes. We… pic.twitter.com/9lTUguBDy6
— Dustin (@r0ck3t23) July 7, 2026

https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/2074771309553213654?s=20 https://twitter.com/Tironianae/status/2074639066960670917?s=20 https://twitter.com/mitchellvii/status/2074589312201396605?s=20]

Whenever the Iranians don’t feel so good. they say stuff like this. It’s very recognizable.

“He (Trump) will certainly lose both the Strait of Hormuz and the negotiations over a final agreement,” said the source. “The choice is now his.”

• IIran Hits Back, Launching Missiles On Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar (ZH)

Iranian Retaliation: Air Defenses Active Over Bahrain, Kuwait
Nearing 5am Tehran time, and there are incoming reports of Iranian retaliation against Gulf states, which it seems is set to become a predictable pattern – after hours ago the US launched fresh airstrikes on Iranian island and coastal areas near the Hormuz Strait. According to developing reports via AFP and other sources:

Explosions heard in Bahrain after air raid sirens: AFP
Kuwait says responding to ‘hostile’ missile, drone attacks
U.S. forces struck two railway bridges in northern Iran with cruise missiles—the first U.S. attack on Iranian infrastructure since the April 8 ceasefire.
Reports (unconfirmed) also suggest that missiles are being fired on Qatar – which hasn’t happened in quite a while. Iran has reportedly launched ballistic missiles at the US Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, in a first since early March.
https://twitter.com/MonitorX99800/status/2075017790864429356?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2075017790864429356%7Ctwgr%5E1b65d0707ce765df36aa72ddbf9d8a7c5e61666e%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fgeopolitical%2Ftheyre-scum-trump-says-us-iran-ceasefire-over-sending-oil-higher
Meanwhile, the view from Russia on two war theatres escalating once again, and at the same time…

MoU is over. The new phase of the war begins. The escalation with Russia is going to grow.
— Alexander Dugin (@AGDugin) July 8, 2026

Trump Tells NATO Summit Iranians Want To Assassinate Him
President Trump while giving a closing address at the end of the NATO summit in Ankara repeatedly claimed that Iran was plotting to assassinate him, saying he was “on every single one of their list.” He claimed: “They want to take out the US Leader. I’m on every single one of their list. So far, I’ve had a bit of luck, but maybe it won’t last. They’re evil and sick people, and we must get rid of this cancer.”
He suggested that it’s time to “finish the job” and yet at other times while fielding questions from reporters shied away from laying out anything that sounds like regime change. Instead he opted to again talk about how the US can never allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. He again stressed that “lunatics” can never have a nuclear weapon.
On the claimed assassination plot, it’s unclear whether he has something specific in mind, in terms of a recent statement from the Iranian government. He could be referencing media reports from earlier this week quoting mourners and speakers at Khamenei’s funeral. For example the following was in a Tuesday Reuters report: As they passed under a bridge, mourners hurled stones at a billboard hung from above showing U.S. President Donald Trump with a bullet aimed at his head. “The U.S. killed our father,” it read. “We won’t let you go!”
As demonstrators set fire to U.S. and British flags, women in black chadors held aloft red placards with the English words “KILL TRUMP” in black letters. Others held aloft posters with the faces of Trump, Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth or Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, each depicted in the crosshairs of a gunsight, with the words “There will be blood”. Ahead of more potential renewed strikes on Iran tonight, CENTCOM is saying its forces are at the ready:

Today, more than 20 U.S. Navy warships are patrolling waters across the Middle East as CENTCOM forces continue promoting regional security and stability. Last month, U.S. naval warships and aircraft transited the Arabian Sea in close formation, demonstrating unmatched American… pic.twitter.com/gnfRIKAYJl
— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) July 8, 2026

Iran Threatens To Reclose Strait, as US Military ‘Ready’ to Restart Blockade
Iran has once again threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, according to state broadcaster Press TV on Wednesday, citing an Iranian official. Iran is of course planning strait only under its own arrangements, or a protocol involving collection of fees and utilizing a designated route close to its coast, “as per the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU).” The Iranian official further warned the military stands ready to “strike at least twice the number of targets hit” in response to any strikes by the United States. “The developments of the past 48 hours show Iran won’t back down from managing the Hormuz,” the source noted.
“The U.S. military stands ready to restart the blockade of ships to and from Iranian ports if ordered to do so, a U.S. official tells Fox News”, Fox’s Friden reports. “Iran suspends talks on a final settlement with the United States”, TASS reports citing an Iranian source. “Any threat will receive a powerful response,” the official was quoted in Press TV as saying, and warned further that the Islamic Republic’s armed forces do “not distinguish between the United States and its partners in the region.” The official warned Trump that the US “will gain nothing” from making such threats.
“He (Trump) will certainly lose both the Strait of Hormuz and the negotiations over a final agreement,” said the source. “The choice is now his.” Meanwhile…

“And if they had a nuclear weapon, they’d use it.”

• They’re Scum’—Furious Trump Explodes, Declares Iran Ceasefire Over (Rusty Weiss)

‘President Trump on Wednesday declared the ceasefire with Iran over, saying he’s done negotiating with its leaders, who he described as “scum,” “liars,” “cheats,” and “sick people” he no longer wants to negotiate with. Trump’s acrimonious comments come after the U.S. carried out airstrikes on more than 80 Iranian targets in retaliation for attacks on commercial ships in the region. Speaking to reporters in Ankara, Turkey, the President made little effort to hold back his thoughts on the people he has been dealing with in the rogue nation.

He was prompted by a reporter who asked, “Is the ceasefire done? Is the MOU dead?” “To me, I think it’s over. I don’t want to deal with them anymore, but they’re scum. You know what scum is? They’re scum, they’re sick people, they’re led by sick people, and they’re vicious, violent people,” he responded. “And if they had a nuclear weapon, they’d use it.” “As far as I’m concerned, it’s over.”

.@POTUS on the status of the ceasefire with Iran: "To me, I think it's over. I don't want to deal with them anymore. They're scum… They're led by sick people… I'll speak to our negotiators. They want to negotiate—they're good people… but they have to come back to me. As far… pic.twitter.com/6eYfwMxSdn
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) July 8, 2026

The comments come just weeks after a preliminary agreement aimed at easing tensions in the Strait of Hormuz, but Trump made it clear he now views the entire effort as a waste. The President said he would discuss further plans with his team of negotiators but expressed skepticism that any movement would be made in dealing with “a bunch of lying guys.” “I don’t like them at all,” he fumed. “And, frankly, I think we waste a lot of time with them. I think we should just do our business. Can you imagine they start shooting bombs, actually missiles at ships yesterday, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, couple of others?” “
They’re liars,” he continued, before explaining the negotiating process with a mendacious regime. “We make a deal. Everyone’s agreed, no nuclear weapons. We make a deal. They go outside, talk to the press, they say, ‘We never even talked about it.'” “They’re liars, they’re cheats, they’re sick people, they’ve hurt their people,” Trump added. “They killed 54,000 people as of now that were protesting.”
https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/2074769878683165137?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2074769878683165137%7Ctwgr%5E5edcca40c5461229434bcd74f610a16a379a605d%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Frusty-weiss%2F2026%2F07%2F08%2Ftheyre-scumfurious-trump-explodes-declares-iran-ceasefire-over-n2204102
“I told them, every time you hit, we hit. And of course, they’re dirty players.” “They’ve kiIIed thousands and thousands of our soldiers. They’ve kiIIed hundreds of thousands of innocent people.” Iran violated a fragile ceasefire by firing missiles at three commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz on Monday and Tuesday, prompting swift U.S. retaliation. In response, the Trump administration revoked a key license allowing Iran to sell its oil on the global market, with CENTCOM launching powerful strikes on over 80 Iranian targets to impose “heavy costs” for attacking civilian shipping.
President Trump and U.S. officials described the Iranian actions as a clear breach of the agreement, declaring they will no longer tolerate such aggression. These incidents have made the shaky nature of any deal with the mullahs crystal clear. With the regime once again proving it cannot be trusted, President Trump appears ready to abandon negotiations entirely in favor of decisive American military strength.= Iran’s lead negotiator, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, issued a statement Wednesday declaring: “The era of bullying and extortion is over. It leads nowhere. We don’t fold.”
Neither do we.

Trump: “Probably Hit Iran Tonight”

• Trump Says US-Iran Ceasefire Is Over, Going To Hit Them Hard Tonight’ (ZH)

After earlier saying from the NATO summit in Ankara that the Iran ceasefire is “over” – and amid fears of renewal of full-scale war given that Tehran has launched drone and missile attacks on nearby American allies Kuwait and Bahrain once again, President Trump said on Wednesday that he would “probably hit Iran tonight”. He issued the major threat and warning during a press conference at the NATO summit: “I’ll give a little warning: We’re going to hit them hard tonight,” he told reporters just before his meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. He later lambasted Iran for “killing soldiers, killing people for 47 years,” and that because of that, the US has “a score to settle.” He added: “We may just do it without a deal.”

He also sought to once again explain his view that it’s not about regime change, but about the nuclear issue. Geopolitical news source DropSite is pushing back against some of Trump’s newest claims, particularly that Iranians security services gunned down “54,000 protesters” during the January economic protests, commenting:Trump today claimed Iran’s revolutionary regime killed 54,000 protesters at the start of the year, inflating the 40,000 figure he repeated through much of the US-Israeli war to justify and build support for U.S. action. There is no evidence for either figure.
HRANA, which has received U.S. funding, documented about 7,000 deaths, including many Iranian security and police. Iran puts the death toll just above 3,100 and says rioters killed civilians during protests that were overtaken by Israel- and U.S.-backed armed elements. Scores of videos from the January 2026 riots show armed men destroying mosques and government buildings and carrying out vigilante killings of security personnel.
Meanwhile, it’s not a war, Trump has repeated… but what’s next and what is the ultimate endgame here? Is there a coherent strategy yet? Trump further on Wednesday, while speaking alongside Zelensky and fielding questions, floated that “if we have to we will take out higher level targets” – and that “we may take over Kharg Island”. He again admitted the Iran deal may not stick, after the US “knocked out 28 boats last night”. He further warned that US forces will probably take out more boats tonight.
TRUMP, ON ATTACKS TONIGHT: NOT A THING IRAN CAN DO ABOUT IT TRUMP:WOULD HATE TO STRIKE DESALINATION PLANTS, BUT MAY HAVE TO TRUMP: WE MAY PUT DOWN THE BLOCKADE ON IRAN TRUMP: BLOCKADE WOULD ONLY APPLY TO IRAN

Trump on Iran War:

This is not a war. It's the denuclearization of Iran. pic.twitter.com/k51XHDATXF
— Clash Report (@clashreport) July 8, 2026

Brent crude futures jumped more than 6% in London after President Trump told reporters at a press conference in Ankara that the tentative ceasefire with Iran is over. “To me, I think it’s over. I don’t want to deal with them anymore; they’re scum,” Trump told reporters.

Trump says the ceasefire between U.S. and Iran is over.

"To me, I think it's over. I don't want to deal with them anymore; they're scum", the U.S. president says.

Live updates: https://t.co/l9KwsXPz0p pic.twitter.com/mqfE5qKOHe
— Sky News (@SkyNews) July 8, 2026

Trump’s remarks came after Iran launched missiles and kamikaze drones at several merchant vessels in the Hormuz chokepoint on Tuesday. This was countered by overnight US strikes, as fears of conflict erupting once more are on the rise. However, Trump stopped short of saying the U.S. would restart the war and said he would let talks continue if the parties were willing. In European trade, front-month Brent crude futures jumped 6% to $78.63 a barrel, while West Texas Intermediate rose 6.2% to $74.85 a barrel. Natural gas prices rose as well, with the benchmark Dutch TTF contract up 4.8% to 49.04 euros per megawatt-hour.
Hours before the strikes, the US Treasury revoked a sanctions waiver that had allowed Tehran to sell oil, reversing a key element of the interim deal. Trump also told reporters that he would continue to let his negotiators talk to Tehran, though he thought “they’re wasting their time.” On Tuesday afternoon, the Joint Maritime Information Center upgraded the Hormuz risk rating to “Severe” after three tankers were targeted by Iran. This renewed uncertainty in the critical waterway will only pressure the normalization of vessel flows.

‘Four to Five Times Larger’ Than Earlier Strikes.‘

• New Strikes On Iran Significantly Stronger Than Earlier Attacks (ZH)

US officials are vowing bigger, more sustained and prolonged strikes against Iran tonight, according to the latest being reported in CNN and Axios: The U.S. has launched a significantly expanded wave of airstrikes on Iran that is four to five times larger than the strikes carried out 10 days ago, a U.S. official told Axios. The official said the operation is expected to continue for hours. Iran state media is meanwhile reporting on an initial retaliation by its forces (though not initially confirmed in other international sources):
Iran fires several anti-ship missiles and drones towards US Navy warships in the Sea of Oman, Fars reports More from state media on what could be mounting civilian casualties: The state broadcaster reports that “most of the attacks” by the US in southern Iran have “targeted civilian areas”. This comes as the US claims its military hit Iranian missile and defence systems in its latest attacks.

A US official told CNN the strikes on Iran are "punishment, not proportional" and "won't be over for a while." https://t.co/zDsHySZyuA
— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) July 7, 2026

Iran’s president is hastily traveling back to the Islamic Republic, cutting short funeral observances for Khamenei among Shia communities in Iraq: “Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has left the Iraqi city of Najaf to return to Tehran, according to the IRIB broadcaster, following the US’s latest strikes. Pezeshkian had been in Iraq to attend funeral rites for Khamenei, whose body had arrived in Najaf on Tuesday night. According to Press TV, Pezeshkian had also planned to hold high-level talks with Iraqi government officials.”

#BREAKING: Footage shows massive explosions in Hormozgan Province after U.S. strikes in Iran pic.twitter.com/FC4c3WyPCV
— Insider Wire (@InsiderWire) July 7, 2026

Not the people, but the ”leaders”.

• You’re Just Going to Have to Kill Them or Walk Away From Iran (Derek Hunter)

In late 2003, if you’d sat across the table from a team of negotiators from Al Qaeda to work out some kind of deal to end hostilities, what could have possibly come from it? The answer is nothing, because there is no compromise with someone whose position is that they want you dead. Where’s the middle ground with that – can you be half-dead? Are you willing to lose a limb or two to get peace?

Of course not, that’s stupid. Al Qaeda wanted all Americans dead, so the only “solution” to their existence was to either work to contain them so attacking us would be harder and less frequent, or to kill them all. Thankfully, President George W. Bush opted to kill them all, then set about killing as many of them as humanly possible. He ignored the whining of Democrats who wanted to arrest them, give them lawyers and trials, and (for the most part) left the sorting them out part to God.
Iran is pretty much the same situation, with the only differences breaking down to them having some semblance of a government, their own currency, and sympathetic client states who want to keep them afloat because of the way they are a disruptive force in the world and a thorn in the side of civilization.
Whatever remains of a government in Iran has no interest in cutting a “deal” with the United States. They don’t need us; they make money and gain power by poking us. Their “demand” that for no peache negotiations rang hollow as their weeks-long funeral for the dead former leader was punctuated by their launching drones against ships in the Strait of Hormuz. Radical Islamists always demand “holy days” and “holy months” off from fighting, and every other day or month seems to have some kind of “holy” designation to it. But it never stops terrorist attacks. Weird, isn’t it?
Iran has no interest in a deal because they don’t need one. The appeals to a “booming economy” Iran could have if they chose peace mean nothing, as the leaders of the country are fine and always will be – they take what they want, and the average Iranian suffers. If there’s less in the country, as there has been for decades, they still get theirs. No Mafia don ever told their underlings to be understanding if someone paying “protection” was a little short sometimes, as downturns happen. No, they’d break the guy’s arm and take everything he had, leaving him with nothing and charging him interest on the difference he couldn’t cover. That’s how Iran works internally.
There is no carrot on a stick that will change their behavior because they’re lousy with carrots. The people are the ones without vegetables, and they don’t care about the people.,The only options are to bomb the hell out of them, leaving not a stone unbombed, or leave them alone. You either have to kill them, or they stay the way they’ve always been. The only other option, the one I believe might change the path of Iranian history, is to tell our allies in the area that they are free to take as big or small a piece of Iran as they want – Persia is a region and has always existed; the country of Iran has not and does not need to. Let its neighbors take pieces and rule them.
They’d go for the oil and the ports; we’d provide air cover, and that would really choke off the government. It would also have the benefit of scaring the hell out of these leaders. They know we won’t torture them; we’d give them three hot meals and a cot and access to a jury of Democrats who’d likely cheer them for 47 years of killing Americans. Their neighbors, against whom they’ve funded terror for five decades, wouldn’t be so nice. The Iranian leadership would know what being captured by them would likely mean, and it isn’t pretty. Maybe THAT would get them to negotiate in good faith, because nothing else will. Drop guns to the freedom-minded, too, and level anywhere a government official might be hiding, unleash the region, or cut bait.
These aren’t rational people; they aren’t motivated by things that motivate normal people. It’s time to recognize that and choose a path forward based on that reality.

“.. one increasingly defined by anti-American rhetoric, hostility toward capitalism, support for foreign adversaries, calls to abolish jails, race-based politics and, of course, utter disdain for the Constitution.”

• Bill Clinton Advisor Warns of Socialist Takeover (ZH)

Mark Penn, the former chief White House pollster and strategic advisor to President Bill Clinton for six years, used a Wall Street Journal op-ed titled “The Socialist Threat Is Real” to warn that far-left radicals are hijacking the Democratic Party.

The problem for Democrats is that years of letting socialists and Marxists into their DEI kingdom have only now produced dire consequences. Status quo Democrats are watching their power evaporate as Democratic Socialists of America-backed candidates defeat mainstream Democrats in primaries across New York, Colorado, Pennsylvania, and other states. Penn’s warning was blunt: “America will be in serious trouble if Democrats fail to defend their party.”
“This ‘revolution’ is driven not by the working class but by the urban professional class that is willing to support candidates who celebrate 9/11, cheer at the massacre of 1,000 Israeli and American kids, would defund the police, abolish prisons, end private property and open the borders,” Penn explained. Penn and his fellow status quo party members are watching in real time as their party transforms almost overnight from one once built around labor, civil rights and working-class citizens into one increasingly defined by anti-American rhetoric, hostility toward capitalism, support for foreign adversaries, calls to abolish jails, race-based politics and, of course, utter disdain for the Constitution.
What DSA stands for:

Our latest profiling of the new Democratic Party appears to show how DSA-ers are far detached from traditional American values and openly hostile to the country’s founding institutions:
Meet the new Democratic Party:

Frank, Aaron, Hank and Sam are Communist insurgents, radicalized marxist revolutionaries hiding behind personal ideologies to justfy their 1A expressions of the right to promote the insurrection of the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America pic.twitter.com/XLzzjisOqd
— AnimalFarm1945 (Moshe) (@Farm1945A) July 6, 2026

Meet the unofficial DSA spokesman:

Hasan Piker calls on his followers to kill capitalists:

“Yeah kill them! KiII those motherfuckers and murder those motherfuckers in the streets. Let the streets soak in their fucking red capitalist blood, dude.”

Democrats are campaigning with him. pic.twitter.com/YiZxGgRkgc
— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) April 9, 2026

Penn’s op-ed then called for immediate investigations into the DSA to determine whether the socialists are “being funded by foreign governments and interests.” He said, “Lawmakers, law-enforcement agencies and journalists should investigate the DSA to see if it is being funded by foreign governments and interests.”

“Many Americans argued that NATO providing billions of dollars of assistance to non-member Ukraine unnecessarily created tensions with Russia.”

• Just 43% of Americans Believe NATO Would Assist If US Were Attacked (Anzalone)

Most Americans do not believe that European members of the North Atlantic Alliance would come to the United States’ aid if attacked. Politico reported that a NATO poll found that just 43% of Americans believe the bloc would assist the US if needed. While Politico was unable to view survey results from previous years, a NATO official said that American confidence in the bloc was down about eight percent.

The foundation of NATO is Article 5 of the bloc’s charter. Article 5 is viewed as a mutual defense pact that calls on each member to come to the aid of any state that is attacked. In recent years, Americans have begun to question the United States’ membership in the bloc. Americans have long pointed to the US footing the majority of the alliance’s military spending. The drift away from supporting NATO intensified when the bloc backed Ukraine in the war against Russia. Many Americans argued that NATO providing billions of dollars of assistance to non-member Ukraine unnecessarily created tensions with Russia.
President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently criticized the alliance over Europe’s lack of assistance in the war against Iran: President Donald Trump declined Tuesday to say whether he plans to announce additional US troop reductions in Europe, telling reporters, “we’re going to see,” during a bilateral meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan ahead of the NATO summit in Ankara.
“Well, we’re going to see,” Trump said when asked whether he is likely to announce further drawdowns of US forces in Europe. The US president also renewed his criticism of NATO, suggesting he had considered skipping the summit altogether. Trump is meeting other NATO leaders in Turkey this week, where he is expected to push member states to increase military spending.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: "We’ve invested trillions of dollars in NATO. Why? To protect European countries and others… You would think that they'd be very willing to do something to help us, and they really weren't… I've long said that we help them, but I'm not sure that they'd be… pic.twitter.com/YF7UCfIpo2
— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) July 7, 2026

Ahead of the summit, NATO Ambassador Matthew Whitaker downplayed the tensions between Washington and the bloc as growing pains. “The target is that Europe takes over the conventional defense of the European continent. We’re not going away, we’re just doing less.” He added, “I see these as just the challenges that we’ve worked through before.”

“Defense, Security and Resilience Bank (DSRB). CANADA”

“.. a NEW BANK (DRSB) controlled by Mark Carney, Volodymyr Zelenskyy and likely Chrystia Freeland, and funded (at least in part) by Canadian taxpayer money flowing to Ukraine. All other nations within DRSB providing the patina of credibility to hide the laundry.”

• Carney and Zelensky Announce New Canadian Bank for Money Laundering (CTH)

WOW…=Things are coming together quickly now as Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney begins unveiling details to support his illusion of meeting NATO obligations, with a smart money laundering assist from Volodymyr Zelenskyy. To establish part of the background, remind yourself that former Canadian Minister Chrystia Freeland was appointed by Zelenskyy to lead a Ukraine redevelopment operation. Today, speaking from Ankara, Turkey, Carney and Zelenskyy announced a $900 million fund for short, mid-term and long-term investment in Ukraine.

But wait, it gets much better. A few hours later Prime Minister Carney and Volodymr Zelenskyy announced a new Canada-based financial institution called the Defense, Security and Resilience Bank (DSRB). CANADA – […] “Mark Carney, welcomed the support for the Canada-led DSRB by: Albania, Belgium, Greece, Latvia, Luxembourg, Romania, Türkiye, and Ukraine. These countries will be entrusted with defining the initial policies and directives of the Bank, shaping its operations and ensuring benefits flow to members’ economies.”
[…] Leveraging a strong credit rating, the Bank will provide long-term, low-cost financing for defence, security, and resilience initiatives across supply chains.” When you see the term “resilience initiatives” think climate change. Specifically, think carbon capture and carbon trading mechanisms. The DSRB banking approach, in combination with Chrystia Freeland heading the Ukraine Economic Development operation, then takes us to the carbon capture deal with Alberta [carbon capture and storage (CCS) project] and then, wait for it,…. The TKMS submarine purchase contract with Germany.
You see, unbeknownst to most people, TKMS has a subsidiary that was just founded, literally just founded weeks before Carney announced the $20 to $30 billion submarine contract. In announcing the TKMS contract, CBC noted: “The German government also proposed establishing a carbon capture facility deploying TKMS technology in partnership with Alberta.” That would be TKMS Calvion GmbH (TKMS-CG) which was a company formed within TKMS on May 16, 2026.
So, think about this. Mark Carney tells Alberta Premier Danielle Smith that a condition for the Alberta pipeline is authorization of a carbon capture scheme that will be contracted to the recently created subsidiary of TKMS, TKMS-CG. who Carney knows is about to get the submarine contract. Pretty slick. All of this spending (military and resilience initiatives) then becomes part of Canada meeting their NATO obligations, which will be wrapped into a NEW BANK (DRSB) controlled by Mark Carney, Volodymyr Zelenskyy and likely Chrystia Freeland, and funded (at least in part) by Canadian taxpayer money flowing to Ukraine. All other nations within DRSB providing the patina of credibility to hide the laundry.
The “private sector” investments, noted within the banking charter, will almost certainly stem from companies like TKMS and TKMS-CG, who will create a circular process. Taxpayer funds to TKMS. TKMS funds to bank. Bank funds to TKMS-CG. With Carney, Zelenskyy and Freeland prepositioning investments ahead of the arrival of deposits.
Brilliant.
Here’s a great video recap that was created before the $900 million and DRSB bank announcement, and when you add in those two components it all makes sense. Information packed 20 minutes.

European elites view the Ukraine conflict as an opportunity to settle old scores with Moscow, Dmitry Trenin says

• Europe Replacing US as NATO’s Main Anti-Russia Actor – Trenin (RT)

European NATO members have become the main driving force behind the bloc’s confrontation with Russia as US strategic priorities have shifted, Dmitry Trenin, the president of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC), wrote in an op-ed for RT. He argued that some European politicians view the Ukraine conflict as an opportunity to settle old scores with Russia. “The European elites’ strategy toward Russia is no longer deterrence as in the days of the Cold War. The goal is Russia’s destruction as a major power. This is what strategic defeat is all about,” Trenin wrote.

“The Europeans dream of eliminating Russia as a serious factor in the geopolitics of Eurasia. To them, this would mean the ‘final solution’ of the long-dreaded ‘Russia problem.’” Trenin argued that European governments are using the ‘enemy at the gates’ narrative as a tool to brand any opposition as ‘Kremlin stooges’, while increased defense spending due to the supposed ‘Russian threat’ is presented as a way to revive struggling European economies. “People in Moscow entertain no illusions about the adversarial attitude of the United States toward Russia, but Washington now is a back-seat driver when it comes to the conflict with Russia,” he wrote, adding that Moscow sees NATO as “Europe backed by America.”
After returning to the White House last year, US President Donald Trump pushed NATO members to commit to spending 5% of GDP on defense annually by 2035, criticizing European allies for what he called a failure to share the burden. The rift deepened when several member states refused to back Trump’s military operation against Iran. While Trump has attempted to broker a peace deal between Moscow and Kiev, European countries have adopted a hardline stance, insisting that an agreement must be reached on Ukraine’s terms. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said last year that diplomacy has been exhausted; EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas urged Trump not to fall into a ‘Russian trap’.
Russia has dismissed speculation that it plans to invade NATO countries, saying it would respond militarily only if attacked first. Last month, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov described Europe as “a party bent on Russia’s defeat.”

Can’t show it to you. EU bans RT. One of the best ews channels around highly intelligent lady.

• ‘You’re Playing With Fire,’ RT Editor-in-Chief Warns Europe (RT)

Europe is “playing with fire” as it assists Ukraine in strikes deep into Russia, RT editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan has said, warning Kiev’s Western backers that Moscow may have no other choice other than to respond with force. In a lengthy interview with Die Weltwoche’s Roger Koeppel on Wednesday,Simonyan said, “it is not Ukraine that is bringing the war to Moscow” but rather Europe, as Kiev is incapable of conducting attacks without foreign aid and intelligence.

Simonyan warned that Moscow’s patience is running thin as drones, missiles, flight disruptions, and fuel shortages increasingly affect civilians in Russia. “People are afraid to sleep at night… Where is the limit of this hardship, when the people will say, ‘Vladimir Vladimirovich [Putin], we have to respond! I don’t know, but I think it is very close. Very close. Right now, you are playing with fire.”

“The UPA, the armed wing of Stepan Bandera’s Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), collaborated with Nazi Germany during World War II ..”

• Polish MEP Tears Up Ukrainian Nazi Collaborator Flag At EU Parliament (RT)

A Polish member of the European Parliament has publicly torn up a flag of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) – whose fighters massacred up to 100,000 ethnic Poles in one of World War II’s worst atrocities – during a debate on Kiev’s bid to join the EU. On Tuesday, Ewa Zajaczkowska-Hernik, a member of the right-wing Patriots for Europe Group and a history teacher by training, delivered a scathing indictment of Ukraine’s glorification of the UPA. The speech came against the backdrop of a weeks-long diplomatic spat between Warsaw and Kiev triggered by Vladimir Zelensky’s decision to name a special forces unit ‘Heroes of the UPA’.

Polish President Karol Nawrocki called Zelensky’s decision “outrageous” and stripped the Ukrainian leader of the Order of the White Eagle, Poland’s highest honor, with several senior Ukrainian officials responding by handing back their Polish awards. The UPA, the armed wing of Stepan Bandera’s Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), collaborated with Nazi Germany during World War II and carried out systematic mass killings of ethnic minorities, with one of the most notorious episodes taking place in Volhynia in 1943-1944. While Poland recognizes the killings as a genocide, Ukraine has rejected the term, with Bandera often being propagated as a national hero by Kiev.
Zajaczkowska-Hernik focused her speech on the UPA war crimes record, stressing that a country worshipping such an organization does not belong in the EU. “Over 360 ways to kill civilians. Sawing people alive, disemboweling pregnant women, impaling children on pitchforks”, she said, adding that Ukrainian nationalists killed not only Jews and Poles but also local Ukrainians.

“If Germany had named a unit after the SS heroes and erected monuments to Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, or Eichmann, would you invite them to the [European] Union? No. You would call them neo-Nazis. And rightly so. There is no moral difference between honoring the SS and honoring the UPA.”

The MEP also took aim at the EU’s own June report on Ukraine’s accession bid, noting that while it included chapters on fundamental rights and non-discrimination, it made no mention of the glorification of wartime collaboration or genocide. “The report on Ukraine is silent on this topic,” Zajaczkowska-Hernik said. “It is the silence that kills the memory of the victims of the genocide in Volhynia and the Eastern Borderlands for the second time.”
Polish Defense Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz also warned last week that Ukraine will not join the EU as long as it continues to venerate Bandera and the OUN-UPA, adding that “no one will tell us how to vote” on another state’s accession. In a bid to contain the fallout, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Sibiga flew to Warsaw last week to meet his Polish counterpart, Radoslaw Sikorski, proposing an “anti-crisis package” that includes historic roundtables, while stressing that Ukraine and Poland “share a common enemy, Russia.” Sikorski responded cautiously, saying that “diplomacy prefers silence,” while his deputy, Marcin Bosacki, made clear that Warsaw “expects a correction” of the UPA unit designation.

‘Alliance For The Future’

If Ukraine joins, it’s the end of NATO. You can’t invite a country at war, for one thing.

• Zelensky In Ankara Still Insistent On Ukraine Joining NATO (ZH)

:President Volodymyr Zelensky is in full court press mode while being present in Ankara for the annual NATO summit, amid Western leaders including President Trump. He has predictably renewed his argument for Ukraine to join the North Atlantic alliance, while also touting some momentum on the battlefield as Russia comes under repeat long-range drone attacks. Zelensky thanked leaders “who have clearly stated Ukraine belongs in NATO, because NATO with Ukraine is the alliance for the future” – and then posed in Tuesday remarks, “I have a question for you. Do you really believe it? Do you really believe it would be right to leave outside NATO, a country and a people with this level of defensive capability?”

He argued further: “If we already have these capabilities, if Ukrainians already know how to fight like this, then it does make sense for these capabilities to become a part of the alliance’s collective defense that would make all of us stronger.” Ukraine has been boasting of its premier drone capabilities, which it says is now clearly proven on the battlefield, but has also admitted that Ukraine needs assistance matching Russia’s ballistic capabilities. Zelensky said “Europe urgently needs its own capability to produce anti-ballistic systems and the missiles they require.”
He added: “The one thing we still need to do here in Europe is build a strong defense against Russia’s ballistic missiles. It’s a big challenge… this is Russia’s last major advantage.” It’s interesting that Zelensky is arguing that his country should become a full-fledged NATO member based on already in effect being militarily integrated. This was one of the Kremlin’s very rationales for launching the ‘special military operation’ in Ukraine in the first place. Also interesting is that Moscow is now referencing it as a ‘war’ on a much more official level…
Peskov via Russian state media sources:”Russia still has as a main front-and-center demand that Ukraine definitively and permanently reject aspirations to join NATO. Moscow also still requires full political recognition over the four eastern annexed oblasts, as well as Crimea. Western officials have still been reluctant to fully back some kind of rapid NATO membership track for Ukraine, knowing it would take the Ukraine crisis from more of a proxy war situation strait into WW3-style direct war between Russia and NATO.”

“The factory floor” will change hugely, and soon. Through AI, etc. Will there be people left?

But I see little indication that this will make America’s factory floor fall behind.

I do see that in Europe.

• America’s Factory Floor Is Still Its Greatest Superpower (David Manney)

America’s enemies have never feared our committee hearings; they fear the sound of American factories waking up. A nation that builds its own medicine, chips, ships, steel, tools, trucks, and energy systems is harder to bully, starve, and much harder to beat. The latest manufacturing numbers offer a reminder the country needed: the factory floor is still one of America’s truest sources of power. U.S. manufacturing slightly cooled in June, but the bigger story still holds. The Institute for Supply Management said its Manufacturing PMI registered 53.3 in June after May hit 94.0, the highest reading since May 2022. Readings above 50 show expansion, and June marked the sixth straight month of growth. New orders also stayed in expansion at 56.0.

S&P Global’s June manufacturing PMI told a similar story, even after a downward revision. Its index registered 53.9, down from 55.1 in May, but still in expansion for the 11th straight month. Output growth slowed from May’s surge, while firms still reported better operating conditions. America isn’t out of the woods, and factory hiring remains uneven, but the direction is better than the defeatists want to admit. The Federal Reserve added a caution light: manufacturing output was unchanged in May after rising 0.7% in April, while overall industrial production edged up 0.1%. Capacity utilization sat at 76.2%, below its long-run average.
In other words, the machine is running, but it still has room to run even harder. America has seen this before. Isoruku Yamamoto, the Japanese admiral who planned the Pearl Harbor attack, understood the danger of waking American industry. The famous “sleeping giant” line is difficult to prove, but the underlying fear was real. Yamamoto knew Japan needed early victories because a long war against U.S. production would become a nightmare. American yards, plants, rail lines, and workers turned distance and raw material into a war-winning force. Manufacturing isn’t nostalgia; it’s sovereignty with grease under its nails. During COVID, Americans learned what happens when a great country depends on distant supply chains for masks, medicines, parts, and basic goods.
The lesson wasn’t complicated: a country that can’t build what it needs has to beg, borrow, or steal whenever it can. President Donald Trump has made domestic production a central part of his economic message, and companies are responding in areas that count. The piece in The Daily Torch points to investment promises in pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, electrical equipment, and other critical goods. U.S. manufacturing is rising across a multitude of critical industries including petroleum, computers and electronics, mineral products, electrical equipment, machinery, appliances, transportation equipment, printing, textile mills, and food and beverages.
The manufacturing boom is a result of President Donald Trump’s two-pronged economic approach to court companies with reduced corporate tax burdens signed into law with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act while making importing goods from foreign countries costly. Speaking at a campaign stop in a Mack Trucks facility in Macungie, Pa. on June 23, President Trump touted manufacturing’s impact on job creation, “[M]ore Americans are working today than at any time in the history of our country. And we’ve created over… 32,000 new jobs just starting in Pennsylvania alone. David, you have to get ready for that. And in the last few months alone, we’ve added 2,600 Pennsylvania manufacturing jobs. And that number is going to go much, much higher as the factories start to open.”
The approach is working, with U.S. manufacturing reaching a four-year high in May. Companies are committing to expanding the creation of products like prescription drugs, semiconductors, safe electrical equipment, and many more products on American soil as a result of the strategy. Some of those pledges will take years to prove out. The test isn’t the press release; the test is whether concrete gets poured, machines get installed, and people get hired. Washington should remember its proper place. It can secure the border, protect trade rules, keep taxes sane, cut permitting delays, open energy, and stop smothering employers with paperwork.
America can’t bureaucrat itself into prosperity; the free market builds because owners, investors, engineers, machinists, welders, truckers, and buyers make millions of hard choices every day. The left often treats manufacturing like a museum exhibit or a union postcard. It’s neither. It’s the hard center of national independence. If America keeps rebuilding its industrial base, our allies will trust us more, our enemies will think twice, and our own people will have work that makes something real. The factory floor never stopped being America’s superpower. It only needed room to breathe.

When you understand that Iran was a proxy regime for NATO/EU/City of London Criminal Conglomerate, it is quite easy to understand why most NATO countries were extremely unhelpful with ending the Iranian threat.

They know why they were unhelpful.

He knows why they were… pic.twitter.com/yq5sIJ2ajN
— Jack Straw (@JackStr42679640) July 8, 2026

If you have a kid and you’re refusing to open a Trump Account just bc you hate Trump, you’re letting politics make financial decisions for your child’s future.

That’s what I call financial stupidity.

I don’t care if you’re Republican, Democrat, or hate politics altogether. If… pic.twitter.com/xhmDUwQqzk
— Teslaconomics (@Teslaconomics) July 7, 2026

Morgan Stanley's Adam Jonas has just initiated coverage on @SpaceX for the first time with a $300 price target & a bull case of $600/share, which would be an $8 trillion market cap.

Adam thinks SpaceX could generate $319 billion of revenue in 2030, and $3.3 trillion in 2040:… pic.twitter.com/PpZiIy2VGi
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) July 7, 2026

https://twitter.com/ns123abc/status/2074604203180208524?s=20

“Elon did in 19 days what others take a year to achieve. It's unbelievable.”

— NVIDIA's CEO Jensen Huang pic.twitter.com/U6Z9GKxAyl
— Dima Zeniuk (@DimaZeniuk) July 8, 2026

BREAKING: JPMorgan says a Tesla–SpaceX merger could make strategic sense.

• Elon Musk could unify leadership across both companies
• AI, robotics, energy, transportation & space under one company
• Vertical integration could unlock major synergies
• Terafab could strengthen… pic.twitter.com/FO0duFM8bt
— DogeDesigner (@cb_doge) July 7, 2026

Fun fact.

July 8, today, turns out to be the day that most people around the planet experience daylight at the same time.

This means, 99% of Earth's 8 billion residents will be on the sunlit side of Earth at the same time. pic.twitter.com/3FrSArqEfu
— Massimo (@Rainmaker1973) July 8, 2026

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

Debt Rattle July 8 2026

Jul 082026

July 8, 2026 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 9:48 am Finance Tagged with: Farage, FSD, Le Pen, NATO, robotic workforce, Russia, simulations, socialism, Tesla 38 Responses »

Vincent van Gogh Self-Portrait with Bandaged Ear and Pipe 1889

• Socialism Targets the Foundations That Made America Great (Victor Davis Hanson)

• Britain vs. America: 1976 v. 2026 (John Perry)

• NATO’s New Mission Is Not Deterrence, But Russia’s Defeat (Dmitry Trenin)

• NATO Countries To Produce US Tanks, Missiles, MANPADS in Europe — Rutte (TASS)

• Canada Awards $20 to $30 Billion Submarine Contract to German Company (CTH)

• The EU Banning The ESN Party Is A ‘Realistic Scenario’ (RMX)

• UK’s Nigel Farage Steps Down, Triggering Special Election (JTN)

• French Court Opens Door for Marine Le Pen to Run for President (DS)

• Scott Jennings Nuked The Left’s New Narrative About Graham Platner (Margolis)

• The Cost of Heat: Why Europe’s Economy Is Melting (RT)

• The Push for a Robotic Workforce (Turley)

• Manslaughter Charges Filed Following Fatal Tesla FSD Crash (ZH)

• All Of The Surprise Crises Had Previous or Simultaneous Simulations (Korsgaard)

Trump Accounts are Donald Trump’s New Deal.

But instead of making Americans dependent on government, they will make every child in America a capitalist.

Every child will be an owner. Every child will have a stake. Every child will see that America’s free enterprise system is… pic.twitter.com/0cWRr2phsF
— Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) July 6, 2026

https://twitter.com/mitchellvii/status/2074259253716549774?s=20

CNN with a breakdown of @TrumpAccounts:

"If you do max out your contributions, you're talking about some REALLY SERIOUS MONEY—about a QUARTER MILLION DOLLARS by the time your child is 18." pic.twitter.com/4velN6E5ur
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) July 6, 2026

https://twitter.com/ConstitustionX/status/2074346185041858971?s=20

“.. when you’re disaffected and you’re angry at your lot in life, you have 49 other choices, and it’s been a wonderful way of easing tensions.”

• Socialism Targets the Foundations That Made America Great (Victor Davis Hanson)

Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for the Daily Signal. One question that came up constantly during this 250th anniversary Fourth of July celebration was whether we were gonna make it another 250 years, 500 years. We could be longer than the Roman Republic. Longer than the Roman Empire. And to answer that question, you have to know what allowed us to get this far, and for those who don’t like us, what they would like to do to stop us.

And it turns out that the reasons that we survived 250 years and the reasons that we might survive another 250 years are precisely the areas where our critics would wish us to fail, or who are actively trying to see that we fail. Take the first one, our Constitution. What’s brilliant about the American Constitution is its federalism. It outlines all the duties and prerogatives of the federal government, and then it says anything that is not relegated to the federal government is up to the states, and that’s the majority of human experiences. It doesn’t mean the states can fight one another or pass laws against one another or pass laws against the federal government.
The federal government has ultimate authority, but this federalism means that if California wants to tax 13.3% and Florida wants to tax 0%, then maybe 300,000 people a year will go to Florida and still enjoy the American experience, and vice versa. You can go to any state in the country and what it really means is you’re having 50 separate experiments. You’re all united by the federal government and the checks and balances of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But you have 50 different interpretations of them based on local and regional concerns, and that gives Americans a lot of choice, and that means when you’re disaffected and you’re angry at your lot in life, you have 49 other choices, and it’s been a wonderful way of easing tensions.
The second is that we have been the beneficiary of legal immigration. We take more immigrants than any place in the world, and people have remarked that as we speak, the people who created Google, for example, or Elon Musk, were all legal immigrants, and they came to the United States because this is the only place in the world where you would have a free market economy, a protection of private wealth, and an encouragement of the population to be successful and to take risk. And it’s impossible to envision a Silicon Valley in the Muslim Middle East. It just wouldn’t happen. Wouldn’t happen. You couldn’t have a Harvard or Yale or Princeton in today’s China. They wouldn’t allow free speech.
You wouldn’t have most of our American institutions in any other place. And that means we get all of these legal immigrants, and they enrich our country if they come in diverse fashion, in numbers that can be assimilated legally with some knowledge of our country and preferably with English language fluency. The other third reason is we were very lucky naturally. Once the United States, whether you like it or not, embraced Manifest Destiny and decided we were not going to be a continent of warring states as was Europe, 30 or 40 individual nations, but one uniform state in North America, then it was richly endowed for all of us.
We had mining, we had gold, we had silver, we had iron ore, we had almost… We even have rare minerals, rare earth minerals we have not fully tapped. We have oil, we have coal, we have hydroelectric. We have the richest energy nation in the world. We’re pumping more oil and gas than any other country in the history of the universe. We have plentiful timber. We have plentiful farmland. We’re the largest farming producing country by the value of our exports and our domestic produce in the world. We have two huge coastlines, not to count the Gulf of America.
In other words, we’re protected from the insanity that goes on in Latin America, Africa, Europe, and Asia, and we always have been. So, the sheer size of the American continent, its role in American history as a frontier, its role as a safety valve where people could head West, young men, if they were disaffected by events on the East Coast, and they could make a fortune or make a livelihood farming or in timber or in minerals or in energy, you name it. There’s a fourth reason that we’re very successful, and that is we have a free market, private property economy. We’re not a socialist, we’re not a communist country.

“These two countries have gone in very different directions since 1976. What will become of them now?”

“Britain has spent years destroying itself before the false god of climate change. Their people freeze and roast while vast and easily extracted stores of coal sit unused.”

• Britain vs. America: 1976 v. 2026 (John Perry)

July 4, 1976, the American bicentennial. Along with other American students at University College, Oxford, I attended a grand banquet celebrating the occasion. In the high-vaulted dining hall, our familiar, plain wooden tables and benches were awash in linen, china, fresh flowers, silver, silver, and more silver: candlesticks, ewers, wine coolers, chargers, and items a young man from Spring Branch, Texas could not readily identify. We feasted heartily, drank really good wine, heard speeches, and toasted President Gerald Ford. It was a great night to be an American.

Looking back at that celebration fifty years on, it’s clear that the U.S. and Britain have gone in very different directions since then. Britain in 1976 seemed to this novice traveler like a downtrodden older cousin, tired and worn around the edges yet with a sense of history and purpose, a proud past, a charming personality, and the notion that “there will always be an England.” Unfortunately, immigration, lawlessness, blind obedience to the global warming hoax, and a fading confidence in their own brilliant history have rendered Great Britain a shadow of its former self.

Britain today seems to have lost its way, given up, and virtually turned itself over to third-world invaders. Great Britain resolutely held off foreign invasion through two world wars. But over the past fifty years, in an era of relative peace and prosperity, they have turned one of history’s truly great and accomplished cultures over to gate-crashers who have diluted it almost beyond recognition and possibly beyond saving. Fortunately, history has shown America a different way, though millions of illegals flooded in before our leaders saw the light. With its ruinous and indefensible open borders policy, the U.S. nearly went down the same dark path as our British friends. Only a change of command and a resurgence of common sense saved us in the nick of time. For now.
In another unfortunate misstep, Britain has spent years destroying itself before the false god of climate change. Their people freeze and roast while vast and easily extracted stores of coal sit unused. Their North Sea oil and gas riches wait offshore, largely ignored and untapped today after an initial bonanza of energy production. Windmills, solar panels, and electric car mandates will do still further damage. Yes, the climate is changing. It has always changed. (Ask the Vikings who lived in Greenland until it got too cold in the 1400s.) But fossil fuels don’t cause climate change. And nothing the world does — or doesn’t do — will stop it.
Thank goodness America’s current leadership has the sense to throw out decades of junk science and embrace energy development that keeps Americans comfortable, healthy, and safe. And gives us freedom to choose. If you want an electric car, Elon Musk makes the best in the world. If you can’t resist a scorching V-8, America has some brand-new ones that will make your eyes bug out.
Even in 1976, the British seemed different from people back home. Americans appeared more prosperous, ambitious, hopeful, independent, curious, and confident. They had more sparkle and optimism. On the train one morning in Oxford, I struck up a conversation with a passenger who was about my age. Hearing my accent, he pumped me for information about the American West — Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas. He dreamed of going there to work on a ranch and have his own place one day, he said, because in Britain the land was all bought up and no one had any way to improve his prospects. No one expected to get ahead. To him, America was the shining New World of opportunity.
I wrote in my journal that summer about crowds in the street seeming gray and listless, shuffling through the day in a joyless, inevitable sort of way. I didn’t know exactly how to describe what I felt, but it centered on what my fellow passenger had said about how Americans seemed to have optimism about the future, a sense they could change their lives for the better, while the British were shunted onto a path somehow and that was it. No New World for them.
[..] the biggest disappearance since 1976 is that in ’76, Britain was full of British people, and in ’26, they have disappeared. During the course of a day, a visitor can interact with dozens of cashiers, shopkeepers, drivers, clerks, waiters, guards, officials, and strangers at the bus stop without encountering a single native English speaker. What happened to them? And why would any business hire employees who cannot clearly speak the local language when it’s the language of the world?
The British today seem embarrassed by their Britishness. Swamped by a tidal wave of political correctness, they’ve been cowed into submission for even thinking about defending one of the great cultures of the world. By any reasonable measure, Britain is better than any immigrant homeland. Their courts, schools, hospitals, law enforcement, business environment, and other institutions are better. Otherwise, why would hordes of people from Africa, Asia, and elsewhere clamor to get to the British Isles?

NATO/EU are seeking war with Russia. Russia will not surrender. It will use its nukes.

“NATO 3.0 means war. Should it actually come to that, there will be no more NATO”.

“By Dmitry Trenin, a research professor at the Higher School of Economics and a lead research fellow at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations. He is also a president of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC).”

• NATO’s New Mission Is Not Deterrence, But Russia’s Defeat (Dmitry Trenin)

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is entering its third age. When it was founded three quarters of a century ago, it was meant to contain the spread of communism and confront the military might of the Soviet Union. In other words, to keep Western Europe capitalist and under US control. Despite the allegations of the Soviet propaganda at the time, NATO was a defensive rather than an aggressive alliance. Through all the crises of the Cold War period, it stood still.

When the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union imploded, NATO gained a victory it had not won. The US-led military bloc refused to dissolve upon the completion of its original mission. Instead, it sought to become the sole security regulator for Europe. It went onto an offensive and waged war against Serbia. It went “out of area” to fight in Afghanistan. It embarked on an enlargement spree to include the former Soviet satellite countries of Eastern Europe, and some ex-republics of the USSR itself.
Yet, it miserably failed to manage relations with the former adversary, Russia. It spurned Moscow’s request for membership and proposed a partnership instead which turned out to be essentially hollow. It ignored Russia’s security interests by refusing to stop its expansion all the way toward the Russian border and turning down Moscow’s proposals for a pan-European security order. The issue of Ukraine’s membership in NATO, which the Kremlin perceived as an intolerable threat to its national security, became the principal cause of the Ukraine war, now in its fifth year.
This ongoing war has given NATO a new lease on life. Russia once again became the enemy, with the Western alliance so much stronger and better positioned to take it on. With Ukraine on its side, NATO can use its army to physically attack Russia. The US’ and Europe’s goal in that war, as was publicly proclaimed from the start, has been to inflict a “strategic defeat on Russia.” What was deemed impossible during the Cold War has moved into the realm of the thinkable in the West’s proxy war against Russia.
From 2025, US President Donald Trump’s policies have kick-started a process of NATO’s internal transformation. The US National Defense Strategy clearly makes Europe responsible for “handling” Russia. Thus, with Washington revising its global strategic priorities, European members of the alliance are being ordered to carry more financial and military burden. Under conditions of the ongoing war, this means much greater involvement in the conflict. The European elites, long reluctant to increase defense spending and fearful of being drawn into wars, have changed their minds and eagerly embraced the new responsibilities and risks as an opportunity.
There are reasons for that change. Militarization is now thought to be a driver for relaunching the EU’s flagging economies. A militarily stronger Europe would be more autonomous strategically in a world where America is reducing its commitments to allies. Adding a military dimension to the EU could cement the union in the face of the many mounting challenges. Politically, rearmament and mobilization in the face of the “enemy at the gates” makes it easier for the ruling elites to brand their opponents “Kremlin stooges,” and thus protect their hold on power. In ideological terms, fighting Russia (for now, via Ukraine) has become a new unifying idea for Europe.
For Russia, this NATO 3.0 means, above all, that for the first time since the defeat of Nazi Germany and its allies in 1945, Europe is again becoming a clear and immediate enemy of Russia. People in Moscow entertain no illusions about the adversarial attitude of the United States toward Russia, but Washington now is a back seat driver when it comes to the conflict with Russia. Whereas in the days of the Cold War NATO appeared to Russians as “America in Europe,” now when they look at NATO, they see Europe backed by America.
What is even more important is that NATO 3.0 is clearly on the offensive, with most decisive goals. The European elites’ strategy toward Russia is no longer deterrence as in the days of the Cold War; the goal is Russia’s destruction as a major power. This is what “strategic defeat” is all about. The Europeans dream of eliminating Russia as a serious factor in the geopolitics of Eurasia: to them, this would mean the “final solution” of the long-dreaded “Russia problem.”
Long sulky as a result of Russia’s advances on the Ukraine battlefield, the European politicians and media outlets are now triumphant, hoping that long-range drones they have helped Ukraine to produce and send to their targets across Russia are the wonder weapon of this war. They are seeking to strengthen their punch by similarly providing Kiev with long-range cruise missiles and then ballistic missiles. These weapons, it is hoped, will seal the fate of Russia, once and for all.
This, however, will not happen. The fundamental flaw of European thinking is their belief that Russia would rather accept defeat, degradation and disintegration than use the arsenal which it currently possesses. This arsenal is not limited to nuclear weapons, although point may be reached when they will have to be used. The Kremlin, so far, has been exceedingly restrained in using its more powerful conventional capabilities, or engaging some high-value, high-visibility targets. There are many explanations for such restraint, but it is foolhardy – actually, fatal – to believe that either the Russian leadership or the Russian people would ever surrender to NATO.
The European NATO leaders’ enormous deficit of modern strategic culture – unsurprising after the eight decades of having delegated their security to the United States – and their blind Russophobia, a result of deep-seated vintage European racism and the real or perceived grudges against Russia piled over the last five centuries, have put Europe on a direct collision course with Russia. NATO 3.0 means war. Should it actually come to that, there will be no more NATO.

If your economy sags, build weapons. Talk about a threat to your safety, and let the taxpayer pay.

• NATO Countries To Produce US Tanks, Missiles, MANPADS in Europe — Rutte (TASS)

NATO countries will produce US Abrams tanks, ATACMS missiles, Stinger man-portable air defense systems and other weapons complexes in Europe, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said at the Defense Industry Forum on the sidelines of the NATO summit.

Rutte welcomed the decision by major US defense companies to sign a new military-industrial initiative with leading European defense industry players. The initiative will allow NATO to produce key US weapons in Europe, including Abrams tanks, AMRAAM and ATACMS missiles, and Stinger systems, he said. The alliance will manufacture weapons on both sides of the Atlantic without excessive additional investment by creating a network of factories available to NATO’s defense industry and innovation infrastructure.
Rutte stressed that NATO must replenish its arsenals, which have been depleted by arms supplies to Ukraine, and produce more weapons than the bloc’s opponents. The NATO chief said the military-industrial initiative would significantly increase the alliance’s military capabilities. He did not specify the timeframe for implementing the plans.

Canada has one functioning but old submarine. It just ordered twelve. Not from a US company.

• Canada Awards $20 to $30 Billion Submarine Contract to German Company (CTH)

FACT: It has been over 60-years since Canada purchased a submarine. FACT: Canada has never built one. FACT: Currently the Canadian military have ONE operable submarine out of a fleet of four used ones previously purchased. FACT: Canada recently proclaimed themselves as the North American defender of the Arctic.

Now, put all those facts in the overlay of the December 2024 meeting in Mar-a-Lago between President Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. President Trump was demanding that Trudeau increase their NATO spending and develop a working Canadian military. Someone recently asked in the comments section why I have an issue with Canada, specifically why a new level of distain for our Northern neighbors. Quite simply, there is a level of lying that exceeds my tongue bite capacity; that level of deceit comes when fabricating lies is accompanied by pretending. The Canadian government is the worst type of political abuser. They willfully pretend and simultaneously lie to the Canadian people. That’s the answer.
Today, the government of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney announce that German industrial shipbuilder TKMS will be awarded a contract for “up to 12 submarines” valued between $20 and $30 billion {source link}. Now, let’s not pretend. First, the submarine contract is intended to get Canada back into reasonable position on their NATO obligations.
In reality, it is quite remarkable to think about the Canadian nation with only one currently functional submarine. “Canada hasn’t purchased unused submarines since the 1960s, during the Cold War, and has never ordered anywhere near 12 at once. Canada currently owns four subs, all of which were purchased second-hand, and only one of which is typically operational.” {citation} Now, think about that Mar-a-Lago conversation again.
Second, Canada can’t build their own submarines? Wait, I’ve been told my statements about the absence of Canadian industrial capacity were mistaken. I’ve been told that Canada can produce heavy industrial equipment, and my statements about their heavy industry as functionally obsolescent were overstated. I’ve been criticized for saying that Canada has deindustrialized their economy in the past 30+ years because they have worshipped the altar of “global warming” or “climate change.” Those two points above are directly connected, and those are the exact points that President Trump was talking to Justin Trudeau about very strongly.
Trudeau said there was no possibility of correcting this industrial lack of ability, and the U.S would just have to accept Canada’s high-horse pontificating position. That’s the core of the 51st state counterpoint. [NOTE: You cannot have an industrial economy without the ability to create iron, steel, aluminum and various compounds of molten metal. You cannot make metal with windmills, solar or nuclear energy. You must generate massive amounts of heat. That heat is measured in joules because joules are the measurable unit for energy, and they provide a universal, precise way to quantify the energy transferred as heat. Industrial manufacturing takes joules, which creates carbon emission in the process.]
Keep in mind, the USMCA (CUSMA) is going to get terminated. As a consequence, it is easy to see the U.K and EU trying to provide the financial backstop to protect Canada (a commonwealth action). What Carney is doing with this submarine contract is offshoring $30 billion CAD to Germany at current rates, so that Germany can (a) offset their own industrial economic implosion; and (b) position to return a financial favor in the near future.

GERMANY – […] As panic spreads among German manufacturers, layoffs are rolling through formerly prosperous towns and villages with no living memory of a downturn. The moment could become a political turning point for a country whose wealth was largely created by the Mittelstand, or “middle-class”—shorthand for the inner core of Europe’s largest economy. For the first time in decades, Germany now imports more advanced capital goods from China than it exports there. Manufacturers are suddenly on the defensive, not just in China and elsewhere, but also at home. (more)
Remember the “coalition of the willing” that Mark Carney injected himself into? The U.K, Germany, France and now Canada. They swim together or sink alone. Oh, things are going to get really ugly. We underestimate when we say, “there are trillions at stake.” GERMANY – According to Reuters, Volkswagen’s supervisory board is expected to discuss a sweeping restructuring proposal at a July 9 meeting. People familiar with the matter say the plan could eliminate up to 100,000 jobs and close four factories in Germany, adding to roughly 50,000 workforce reductions already planned. If approved, it would become the largest restructuring in Volkswagen’s history and one of the biggest workforce overhauls the global auto industry has ever seen.”
Now, is the Mark Carney contract to Friedrich Merz making more sense? Canada claims they are going to lead the protection of the Arctic and defend Greenland from horrible Trump’s entreaties.Canada has one submarine, a carbon exchange system to block industrial production/capacity, and a functionally obsolescent military severely behind in meeting NATO obligations. But President Trump’s expressed frustration and anger at their sanctimonious pontificating have hurt the feelings of Canadians, or something equally pretentious.
Think about it.

“.. a major blow to democracy and rule of law.”

• The EU Banning The ESN Party Is A ‘Realistic Scenario’ (RMX)

For the first time in European history, an EU party alliance could be outright banned in the European Parliament, which would mark a major blow to democracy and rule of law.

The Europe of Sovereign Nations Group (ESN), which includes nine right-wing European parties, has been relentlessly attacked by the EU establishment since its founding in 2024. The ESN’s largest party member, the Alternative for Germany (AfD), has also been the target of efforts for an outright ban at the national level in Germany. While left-wing and establishment parties are struggling to implement a ban on the AfD in Germany, at the European federal level, democratic checks and balances and the rule of law are far weaker.
Now, the Authority for European Political Parties and European Political Foundations (APPF) is seeking to de-register the ESN, which would strip it of all its funding and de facto lead to the end of the party.
German MEP Alexander Sell of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party is a founding member of the ESN and has since become the president of the Sovereignty Foundation (SF), the foundation formally associated with the ESN. He said he is speaking as the president of the SF and discussed the efforts his party is taking to fight this de-registration, how much of the APPF’s actions are an extension of the political warfare being waged against the AfD at the national level, and even touches on his own personal motivations for participating in politics as an AfD member despite the massive degree of personal attacks and even physical threats.
There is a lot of discussion about your party facing a potential ban from this European watchdog [Authority for European Political Parties and European Political Foundations (APPF)], but how realistic is it that your party will actually be banned in the near future? It’s a realistic scenario because the authority — the European Authority for Political Parties and Foundations (APPF) — has the power to de-register parties. They register European parties and they also have the authority to de-register a European party, and that is what they are planning to do.They have a couple of accusations against us. They have a 300-page dossier on our party.
So they will start the investigation, but they will give us the chance to answer the accusations. And then they have the authority to ban our party. And do you have any idea of what the political leanings of the people in this watchdog are? Does your party view a negative outcome as already a foregone conclusion? Well, there are some indications that this is a political maneuver, because the director of this authority, [Pascal Schonard,] is German and he used to work for the CDU. He was a member of Klaus Welle’s cabinet. For almost a decade, Klaus Welle was Secretary-General of the European People’s Party and the EPP–ED group in the European Parliament.
So I think there are political intentions behind this attempt to de-register our party. But still, I don’t think it is 100% guaranteed, because in the end you have to acknowledge that on the European level there are many parties like ours. There is a shift to the right all over Europe.You have governments — for example in Italy, the Czech Republic or Slovakia — that are led by patriotic forces. So I don’t think it will be that easy. The majorities in the European Parliament are also shifting to the right because that is what voters want.They want patriotic, realistic and more free-market-oriented policies, and that is what we are seeing on the European level.
We want to get rid of bureaucracy, we want to get rid of climate policy, we want to secure our borders — and we have majorities for that. So I think this attempt to ban our party will not be easy, because European voters are demanding something else.I mean, you have to take into account that the AfD is the strongest political party in Germany, polling at around 29%, which is a large margin ahead of the CDU. So I think it will be very controversial to ban our European party.

“I’ve never been angrier in my life,” he added.

None of his opponents are running. So he’ll win. Then they will investigate him.

• UK’s Nigel Farage Steps Down, Triggering Special Election (JTN)

Reform UK MP Nigel Farage on Tuesday announced that he would step down from his seat to trigger a by-election amid an investigation into his finances. “Today, I will resign as a member of Parliament for Clacton-on-Sea, thereby forcing a by-election, which should happen, I hope, in short order,” he said. “Now, I’ve decided that the people of Clacton should be the judges of my actions. This will be a people vs. the establishment by-election.”

He further indicated that he would stand in the by-election and vowed to win. Farage currently represents Clacton-on-Sea in Parliament. He previously represented Southeast England in the European Parliament before the UK left the European Union. “Well, the new attack from the media is that somehow I am a crook. I am dishonest,” Farage said. He further raged over a newspaper’s decision to post an image of his daughter’s home. “I’ve never been angrier in my life,” he added.
Farage is a close ally of President Donald Trump and was a leading figure in the 2016 campaign for the UK to the leave the European Union. He currently leads the Reform UK political party. His decision appears to be an attempt to weather the financial scrutiny and renew a political mandate.

I hope she runs.

• French Court Opens Door for Marine Le Pen to Run for President (DS)

A French appeal court on Tuesday upheld Marine Le Pen’s conviction for misusing EU funds but shortened her ban on running for public office, in theory preserving a path for the conservative leader to run in the 2027 presidential election. However, the court also sentenced Le Pen to a three-year jail term: two suspended and one with an electronic ankle tag. This could make a presidential campaign politically and logistically difficult. Le Pen previously said she would be reluctant to wage a presidential campaign while serving a sentence under electronic monitoring, arguing that it would interfere with campaigning and undermine her credibility. But she is yet to confirm what she will do.
As she left the courtroom, Le Pen was smiling but did not say a word. She then went to the headquarters of her party, the anti-immigrant National Rally (RN), to discuss what to do next. Le Pen had been convicted in March 2025 of embezzlement and banned for five years with immediate effect from holding public office, and thus from making her long-planned fourth bid for the Elysee Palace.= Tuesday’s appeal judgment, under which Le Pen is ineligible to hold public office for 45 months, 30 of which are suspended, means she will be eligible to stand when voters go to the polls in April 2027, because she has already served the 15-month ban, which has been running since last year’s ruling.
Will Le Pen Campaign With an Electronic Tag?
The decision is likely to trigger intense debate within the RN, which has spent months preparing for two possible futures: one led by Le Pen and another by party president Jordan Bardella. The electronic tag was stipulated as part of a softened jail sentence, and means she would not actually have to go to jail. A sentencing judge will decide on the terms of Le Pen’s tag, setting out the hours when she can be away from her home and what time she must return at night. Restrictions on weekends are usually tighter.
A judicial source said the tag would likely complicate a nationwide presidential campaign, as she would need to return home each night, but probably not make it impossible. Le Pen could also ask for the tag to be removed after a few months for good behaviour, the source added. Polls have consistently shown both RN figures as strong contenders to reach a presidential runoff. Some recent surveys have even suggested Bardella would outperform Le Pen in the first round.
Le Pen’s conviction stems from charges that National Rally figures misused European Parliament funds intended for parliamentary assistants, instead paying party staff in France. In 2025, judges found Le Pen had played a central role in the scheme, a finding she has consistently disputed. The original verdict sparked condemnation from Le Pen’s allies in France and abroad, who accused the judiciary of influencing democratic competition. Her opponents argued that elected officials must be held to the same legal standards as any other citizen.

I don’t mean to pay much attention to small-time politicians,

• Scott Jennings Nuked The Left’s New Narrative About Graham Platner (Margolis)

It probably won’t be long before Graham Platner drops out, and the left has settled on a shiny new narrative about him. It goes something like this: Poor, unsuspecting Democrats had no earthly idea who this guy was, and gosh darn it, somebody forgot to vet him. That’s the fairy tale they’re spinning now that Platner’s Senate campaign is circling the drain, and we can’t let them get away with it. On CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360°, Alyssa Farah Griffin claimed that “Democrats did not do their due diligence in vetting this man and now their path to the Senate looks significantly bleaker because they went all-in on this one.” Seriously?

That’s a blatant lie. The vetting happened. Since he entered the race, a steady trickle of damning information about Platner has dripped into public view, and Democrats ignored every drop. The Nazi tattoo. The unhinged internet posts. His presence on an app widely known as a playground for predators. The domestic abuse allegations. Any one of those would end a Republican’s career in about 45 seconds. Democrats looked at the entire pile and decided he was their guy. And it’s not like Democrats didn’t have a choice.
The New York Times exposé dropped on June 4, and Maine’s primary elections were on June 9. Gov. Janet Mills (D-Maine) may have suspended her campaign before that, but she was still on the ballot. Democrats knew and made their choice. So, when Anderson Cooper asked whether Maine Democrats could nominate a replacement without alienating Platner’s supporters, Scott Jennings zeroed in on Griffin’s vetting excuse and reduced it to rubble.
“The only thing I disagree with is when she said that he hadn’t been vetted,” Jennings said. “No, he had been vetted. All of the things that have been stated — it was all out in the public, and people like Ro Khanna, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Tim Walz, ‘The Bulwark,’ ‘Pod Save America’ — all of these people came together to overlook it all, to explain it all, to rationalize it all.” Jennings kept up the well-earned reaming. “He was vetted. People knew all these things, and a whole bunch of Democrats in Maine showed up and voted for him anyway,” he pointed out. “You already signed off on Nazi tattoo, a self-described communist, somebody who’s had rape fantasies, somebody who has been on a social media platform known as a playground for predators, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on.”
Then he identified the one variable that changed. “And the difference between this accuser and the previous one is simply this: She’s a liberal,” Jennings said. “It’s okay, I guess, for Democrats that their candidates assault conservatives.” His conclusion left nothing standing: “They knew it, and they signed up for it, and I don’t know why they’re backing away from this scumbag today when they had already signed off on all that other crazy behavior.”He’s right, and everyone knows it. The Democrat Party made a calculated bet that a Nazi tattoo and a trail of ugly allegations wouldn’t matter as long as Platner kept the seat in play. The bet went bust, and now the same people who placed it want you to believe they never saw the ledger.
This is the party that spent a decade lecturing the rest of us that “character matters,” but character never mattered to these people. It was a talking point. That’s why they stood behind a guy with an actual Nazi tattoo for so long. Maine voters didn’t care. They chose him over Gov. Janet Mills, for crying out loud. Character didn’t matter until the polls showed that Collins was starting to win the race. Remember that the next time a Democrat climbs onto a soapbox to talk about character and decency.
The problem isn’t that Democrats didn’t vet Platner; it’s that they did.

Western Europe was not built for heat.

• The Cost of Heat: Why Europe’s Economy Is Melting (RT)

Western Europe has been enduring another record-breaking heat wave, with temperatures topping 40C in several countries. France, the UK, Germany and Switzerland have all seen their hottest June temperatures on record, while the extreme weather has disrupted transport, power generation and industrial output. The scorching temperatures are burning a multi-billion-euro hole in the EU’s already fragile economy. From parched fields to idle factories, the bloc is feeling the heat beyond what thermometers may indicate. Economists, meanwhile, warn that climate-driven heat waves are no longer temporary events but a structural macroeconomic risk.

Productivity is the first casualty
The most immediate economic cost of extreme heat is lost productivity. According to German insurer Allianz Trade, every additional degree between 30C and 35C cuts labor productivity by roughly $1.30 per hour – equivalent to nearly 3% of average hourly output. Construction, agriculture, logistics and other labor-intensive sectors bear the brunt as workers struggle in extreme temperatures.As another heat wave swept the region, Patrick Martin, head of France’s main employers’ federation Medef, summed up the impact: “France is working in slow mode.”
The blow is increasingly being felt at the macroeconomic level, according to Carsten Brzeski, ING’s global head of macro research. Heat waves have evolved from isolated weather events into a key economic variable, shaking the bloc’s business activity in ways reminiscent of the Covid-19 lockdowns. “Thermometers, it turns out, have become a leading indicator of economic growth,” he wrote last month, warning that heat waves now pose “a new downside risk to European growth.” Brzeski said Germany, despite its relatively mild climate, could rank third in Europe for cumulative heat-related economic losses by 2030 because its infrastructure, housing stock and labor-intensive industries were built for cooler conditions.
The heat is literally melting Europe’s transport infrastructure. Roads are cracking, rail tracks are buckling and tram networks are grinding to a halt across Western Europe. In Germany, major highways near Berlin and Hamburg were damaged by the heat, while in Leipzig tram services were suspended after track sealant melted. France’s SNCF cut train services around Paris to protect its rail network, and Eurostar imposed speed restrictions as temperatures soared.
The damage extends beyond roads and railways. Water levels on the Rhine – Europe’s busiest inland waterway – have fallen so low that cargo vessels can carry only around 25% to 45% of their normal loads. The restrictions have driven up freight costs and disrupted deliveries of fuel, chemicals and industrial raw materials, forcing companies such as BASF to adjust operations at their flagship Ludwigshafen complex. Engineers warn that much of Europe’s transport infrastructure was designed for a cooler climate. Surging demand for air conditioning is driving up electricity consumption just as extreme temperatures are squeezing supply.
During the evening peak, Belgium’s quarter-hour power price hit a record €1,038 per MWh, while the price in Germany reached €747 per MWh, according to exchange data cited by energy market intelligence firm Montel in late June. High temperatures reduce the efficiency of solar panels and gas-fired power plants, while forcing some nuclear reactors to scale back or halt operations because rivers used for cooling have become too warm. France’s EDF curbed output at the Nogent-sur-Seine and Bugey plants, while Swiss utility Axpo temporarily shut both reactors at the Beznau nuclear plant after the temperature of the River Aare reached 25C.
The latest heat wave has laid bare Europe’s self-inflicted energy crunch. The EU’s years-long, sanctions-driven shift from Russian energy has come at a cost. As the bloc reduced purchases of cheaper Russian gas, it became increasingly dependent on US LNG, which accounted for 59% of imports in early 2026 and more than 64% in April, according to Bruegel. Analysts warn that such reliance on a single supplier leaves the EU more exposed to price shocks and supply disruptions.
Luxembourg MEP Fernand Kartheiser has said the bloc could ease pressure on households and industry by buying competitively priced Russian energy instead of relying on more expensive American LNG. Yet despite its pledge to phase out Russian gas, the EU continues to buy it at prevailing market prices. Russia emerged as the third-largest gas supplier to the EU in the first half of 2026, after Norway and the US, delivering approximately 22.1 billion cubic meters of gas and accounting for about 12% of the EU’s gas consumption.

“They believe that because they claim to be the champions of the working class, it does not matter how many people they put out of work.”

• The Push for a Robotic Workforce (Turley)

Sen. Chris Murphy has finally found a constituency that truly gets him. Robots and automated systems around the country likely whirled and beeped with approval as he introduced the Senate version of the Living Wage for All Act. At a time when workers are being replaced at record numbers due to the cheaper labor of automated systems and AI programs, Murphy moved to price out millions of more workers by increasing their costs.

The bill would increase the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $25 per hour — a 245 percent increase — over 12 years. The far-left senator is following the lead of states like California, where Democrats dramatically cut jobs through such wage increases. Murphy went on NBC to insist that he is “not a democratic socialist” but then attacked capitalism: “[T]he Democratic Party has been historically way too timid in taking on corporate power. I think we have to understand that people do not believe that this version of capitalism has worked. And frankly, it hasn’t worked. … This version of capitalism isn’t working. Now, I make the argument in the book that we should embrace, you know, what I call a common good capitalism.”
He then added: “And by the way, we can afford it. It’s not like we can’t pay a $25 minimum wage; we just choose not to because we’ve become okay with dozens and dozens of people in this country making hundreds of billions of dollars.” It is not clear who the “we” is. While securing a law degree, Murphy has never run a business and has spent his life as a politician, spending other people’s money. I previously wrote about wage hikes and the predictable loss of jobs that followed.
Democratic politicians from New York to California are pushing for a $30 minimum hourly wage for workers. Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, and Democratic legislators in California herald their mandatory increases as providing a “living wage” for workers. In Los Angeles, a law requires hourly wages in the hotel and airport industries to rise by $2.50 each year until they reach $30 in 2028. There is no question that workers are struggling with the high cost of living in California. But blindly raising taxes and minimum wages will exacerbate these problems, not eliminate them.
A recent report by researchers at the University of California-Santa Cruz found evidence of precisely what many economists had warned about in the state’s mandatory wage floors. Stephen Owen, an economics lecturer, explained that they found “a plethora of negative outcomes, such as higher menu prices for consumers, reductions in employee working hours, widespread elimination of overtime, and loss of benefits for employees.” In other words, faced with mandated higher labor costs, businesses shrank their labor forces and raised their prices.
None of this is a surprise. Yet even amid such findings, Democrats are doubling down. They believe that because they claim to be the champions of the working class, it does not matter how many people they put out of work. It is not just workers feeling the brunt of such economically ill-considered measures. In California, a two-person meal can run about $30 due to higher labor costs being passed on to consumers. It is only a matter of time before robots replace these workers.
What is ironic is that the Democrats are hitting the most vulnerable members of the labor force with these minimum wage increases. In my book, “Rage and the Republic,” I discussed not only the economic changes unfolding due to AI and robotics but also the expected political miscalculations that are most likely to fuel job losses and wasteful spending. This is one of them. As discussed in the book, certain industries are already likely to convert to automation due to increasing labor costs:
“For any wealth-maximizing, rational actor in the marketplace, the choice is obvious and inescapable. There is little reason for a restaurant to employ workers to make Happy Meals when they can be done by robotics without healthcare, wage issues, or scheduling conflicts. The very premise of McDonald’s is to produce the same meals in the exactly the same way from restaurant to restaurant. That is precisely what robotics do. They will make fries in exactly the same fashion over and over again without variation.”
Faced with this threat to the labor force, Murphy and others are moving to do the one thing to accelerate and expand the job losses by increasing the cost of human labor. Ironically, giving the advantage to the robotic workforce could still work in favor of the growing socialist movement in the party. With more workers out of jobs, more will look to the government for support and a guaranteed income. That will further increase the role of the state. Of course, to expand what Zohran Mamdani called “the warmth of collectivism,” millions of human workers will have to be put out in the cold as an overpriced labor force.
Citizens will then become what I have called a “kept population,” which could have a disastrous impact on the role of citizens in our unique Republic. What is clear is that Murphy will prove to be the greatest friend a robot has ever had in Congress.

They will try.

• Manslaughter Charges Filed Following Fatal Tesla FSD Crash (ZH)

A fatal crash involving Tesla’s driver-assistance technology has resulted in manslaughter charges against a Texas man after his vehicle slammed into a home near Houston, killing a 76-year-old woman inside, according to the Wall Street Journal. Prosecutors say 44-year-old Michael David Butler told first responders he had been using Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (Supervised) feature while making a DoorDash delivery on June 19. Butler claimed he changed the music on the touchscreen before losing consciousness. Authorities said he was the only person in the car and that toxicology tests found no evidence of alcohol or drugs.

However, data recovered from the vehicle paints a different picture. Investigators said Butler repeatedly overrode the FSD system by pressing the accelerator, with the Tesla reportedly reaching speeds as high as 73 mph in a residential neighborhood. Officials also said there was no braking in the final moments before the vehicle crashed into the home. Investigators further uncovered Google searches indicating Butler had been frustrated that the software was not driving aggressively enough.
The WSJ reported that Tesla has pushed back on Butler’s version of events, stating that vehicle data shows the accelerator was held down by the driver both before and after the collision. The crash is now also under investigation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as part of its ongoing scrutiny of advanced driver-assistance systems. The crash is likely to intensify the long-running debate surrounding Tesla’s Full Self-Driving technology. Although the software is marketed as capable of handling steering, braking, and acceleration in many driving situations, Tesla has consistently maintained that the system requires a fully attentive driver who is prepared to take control at any moment. Despite its name, Full Self-Driving is not an autonomous driving system.
Critics have argued for years that the branding has created confusion among some drivers, leading them to place more trust in the technology than Tesla’s own warnings recommend. Regulators have repeatedly examined whether drivers are using the system as intended, while safety advocates have questioned whether the software encourages a false sense of security behind the wheel.The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has opened numerous investigations into crashes involving Tesla’s advanced driver-assistance features over the past several years, including several fatal incidents. Those investigations have fueled ongoing scrutiny of the company’s autonomous driving ambitions as Tesla continues to make artificial intelligence and self-driving technology central to its long-term strategy.

“It seems that what was planned was simulated in order to have an idea how to proceed with the deception.”

“Comment by PCR: In the article below, Soren Korsgaard presents evidence that COVID-19 had spread in several countries prior to its discovery in Wuhan, China. This raises the question whether COVID, a man-made virus, was intentionally released in order to create a pandemic that could be used as a precedent for the imposition of societal controls and coerced mass vaccination.”

• All Of The Surprise Crises Had Previous or Simultaneous Simulations (Korsgaard)

In response to my latest article, “There was no Lab Leak: COVID-19 was Spread Intentionally on Multiple Continents,” a reader interestingly emailed me asking if I had uncovered any “bizarre” exercises or drills “associated” with the COVID-19 pandemic. Well, yes, more than a few.

Astute researchers have long observed that major, defining catastrophes tend to be accompanied by mysterious exercises or drills that parallel the real-world events. One of the most conspicuous examples is the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) inexplicably failed to protect American skies on 9/11, yet it had mysteriously simulated “hijacked airliners” being used as “weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties” [1]. One of the targets was the World Trade Center. Nevertheless, the Bush administration asserted that the attacks were “unimaginable” [1].
Government agencies also rehearsed scenarios with strong parallels to the actual attack on the Pentagon. One of the exercises, called “The Pentagon Mass Casualty Exercise,” took place in October 2000 [2]. The Daily Mirror later obtained an overview of the exercise—a passenger plane crashing into the Pentagon courtyard, killing 341 people—and reported that it “reads like an account of what actually happened” on 9/11 [ 3]. Later, in May 2001, a Department of Defense exercise simulated that a “hijacked 757 airliner crashed into the Pentagon” [4]. Just a few months later, on September 11, 2001, a hijacked 757 airliner—Flight 77—crashed into it. Participants reported that the exercise had “helped tremendously” in responding to the actual attack and had saved lives [5-6].
When writing about drills matching real-world events, one cannot avoid the now largely forgotten attacks of July 7, 2005—known collectively as 7/7. The official investigation concluded that terrorists carried out a series of four coordinated suicide bombings on three London Underground trains and a double-decker bus in Tavistock Square. While 7/7 was framed as a surprise attack, the Metropolitan Police Service’s Anti-Terrorist Branch had in fact simulated—just five days earlier—simultaneous bombs detonating on three London Underground trains [7-8]. Moreover, within hours of the actual attacks, Peter Power, an expert on terrorism and crisis management, told BBC Radio 5 Live:
“At half past nine this morning, we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning [9].” The BBC presenter couldn’t believe it and interrupted Power: “To get this quite straight, you were running an exercise to see how you would cope with this, and it happened while you were running the exercise?” [9]. Power replied in the affirmative: “Precisely,” adding that “within five minutes we made a pretty rapid decision that this is the real one,” and “so we went through the correct drills of activating crisis management procedures to jump from slow time to quick time thinking, and so on” [9].

https://twitter.com/MAGAVoice/status/2074302857663381535?s=20

Elon Musk: "There are no useful humanoid robots at this point. There are sort of gimmicks, but there are no actually useful humanoid robots. And I think Tesla's going to make the first actually useful humanoid robots." pic.twitter.com/sf1zeJOhBK
— Joe Rogan Podcast News (@joeroganhq) July 6, 2026

NEWS: Morgan Stanley just initiated coverage on SpaceX with an Overweight rating, meaning it expects SpaceX to outperform most investments on Wall Street.

The bank sees 90% upside and believes SpaceX could generate over $3.3 trillion in annual revenue by 2040. pic.twitter.com/mrOyAez5Ve
— DogeDesigner (@cb_doge) July 7, 2026

https://twitter.com/ToniLL22/status/2074287518305091941?s=20

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

Debt Rattle July 2 2026

Jul 022026

July 2, 2026 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 9:22 am Finance Tagged with: AfD, birthright citizenship, Canadian dollar, Fauci, Haiti, NATO, Ozempic, pregnancy, Russia 22 Responses »

Francesco Queirolo Il Disinganno, Naples, Sansevero Chapel 1753-1754

• SCOTUS Strikes Down Trump EO and Establishes Birthright Citizenship (CTH)

• Justice Thomas Says Birthright Citizenship Ruling ‘Devalues’ US Citizenship (ET)

• A Roadmap To Fix Birthright Citizenship (Dmitri Bolt)

• The Supreme Court’s Birthright Citizenship Mistake (Ben Shapiro)

• The Roberts Requirement – Pregnancy Tests for U.S. Travel Visas (CTH)

• The DOJ Goes to War on Birth Tourism After Losing at SCOTUS (Margolis)

• Miller: Every Single Haitian Migrant Is GOING BACK to Haiti Under Trump (MN)

• The Canadian Dollar is Collapsing – Here’s What to Expect Next (CTH)

• Elon’s Next Move: Your Money (Adam Sharp)

• SpaceX Takes Aim At Smartphone Market With New AI Device (ZH)

• NATO Chief Admits To Sleepless Nights Over Russia (TASS)

• Leader of Germany’s Most Popular Party Wants To Restore Ties With Russia (RT)

• Ozempic Sat Unused for Decades (QTR)

• How Fauci Can Still Face Prosecution Despite His Pardon (Margolis)

CNN: "We are just living in such a different universe if you‘re a Republican versus a Democrat, on the basic fundamental question of being proud to be an American."

Democrat leaders are brainwashing their voters to hate America. pic.twitter.com/2N8m5Hmnxi
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) June 30, 2026

Egypt forgot how to build the pyramids.

Rome forgot how to build the aqueducts. Some still carry water today. What they built still stands. Neither civilization remembers how they did it.

Musk: “You look at great civilizations like ancient Egypt, and they were able to make the… pic.twitter.com/XLyLn3a7Mg
— Dustin (@r0ck3t23) June 30, 2026

VP Vance on the communist takeover of the Democrat Party: "It is communism… This is abolishing the police, let criminals run amuck in the cities, flood your country with low-wage, third-world immigrants, and confiscating wealth, not because we want to make anybody's life… pic.twitter.com/AGluRIyE1C
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) June 30, 2026

https://twitter.com/warDaniel47/status/2072003087397429449?s=20 https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/2072011455457640624?s=20 https://twitter.com/defense_civil25/status/2072125550450344056?s=20

Almost every major country on earth bans birthright citizenship because they aren’t idiots. Here’s a list of major countries who don’t allow birthright citizenship

– China
– Germany
– United Kingdom
– France
– Italy
– Russia
– Japan
– India
– South Korea
– Indonesia
– Turkey
-… pic.twitter.com/0rqOTjojm0
— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) June 30, 2026

“There is no longer an apple, it’s all worms.”

Birthright citizenship is a 150-year old theme that is being recast. It deserves the attention.

• SCOTUS Strikes Down Trump EO and Establishes Birthright Citizenship (CTH)

Like many of you I am profoundly angered by the Supreme Court decision that fractures our nation and conveys citizenship to the children of illegal aliens born in the United States. In fact, I was so angered to my core, I went for a long walk before doing any further commenting on the matter. U.S. Citizenship is now determined by how good at violating our nation’s borders, by conniving, by scheming and by deception to create a qualified child where no adult qualification exists. This is the most detrimental decision by the Supreme Court in generations and will profoundly impact our nation. There is no longer an apple, it’s all worms.

Today, the Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship – the guarantee of citizenship status to everyone born in the United States. In a decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, five supreme court justices agreed with the challengers saying Trump’s order cannot be reconciled with the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which confers citizenship on anyone “born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
(6-3) Writing for the majority, Roberts emphasized that the “children born of parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States” “satisfy both elements of the Citizenship Clause.” “Under the Constitution,” he concluded, “they are citizens at birth.” Roberts was joined in the majority by Justice SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, BARRETT, JACKSON and KAVANAUGH. nbJustice THOMAS filed a dissenting opinion with GORSUCH and ALITO.
SCOTUS BLOG – In his dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel Alito called the ruling, “one of the most important decisions in the history of the Court” and “a serious mistake.” “Careful analysis of the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the process that led to its adoption,” Alito argued, “shows that it does not degrade the concept of United States citizenship in this way. Instead,” he contended, “the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed with the result that the court reached – that the president’s executive order is invalid – but not its reasoning. In his view, Trump’s order “does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment” but does violate a federal law providing that children who are “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are U.S. citizens. Congress, Kavanaugh suggested, “could amend” that law “or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country. But,” he noted, “Congress has not yet done so.”
Justice Clarence Thomas penned a lengthy dissent, which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined. He called the majority’s account “not historically accurate” and said that it “adds to the sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support.” Gorsuch also wrote a separate brief dissent, in which he appeared to suggest that Trump’s executive order might violate the Constitution as it applies to the children of undocumented immigrants who intend to live in the United States permanently.
“If those parents are not domiciled here,” Gorsuch queried, “then where are they domiciled? And if the answer is nowhere,” he continued, “how can we reconcile that conclusion with this Court’s longstanding recognition that every person is domiciled somewhere?” Because the challengers in this case have argued that Trump’s order is invalid in all circumstances, rather than just some, Gorsuch explained, “these questions may not be properly before us. But their answers are undeniably important to a Nation committed to a view of citizenship open to all children born here to parents who can call this country their home.” (SOURCE)
Consequences and possibilities to come in the next few articles on the matter.

“.. the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects..”

• Justice Thomas Says Birthright Citizenship Ruling ‘Devalues’ US Citizenship (ET)

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued a lengthy dissent criticizing the high court’s majority ruling against President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship, saying the decision would effectively devalue American citizenship as it was understood by those who created the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. Thomas said the majority is attempting to repurpose the 14th Amendment “to protect its own set of preferred rights that the Reconstruction Congress never contemplated and that cannot find support in its text,” referring to the post-Civil War era of the mid-to-late 19th century.

Further, he argued that the June 30 ruling denigrates the idea of U.S. citizenship, saying that it has been used by “foreign birth tourists and illegal aliens.”“I am not sure that today’s opinion will stand the test of time,” Thomas wrote. “The Citizenship Clause ‘added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship.’ Today’s opinion devalues that citizenship.” The order issued by Trump aimed to exclude children of illegal immigrants and temporary visitors from gaining automatic birthright citizenship. In 1898, the high court delivered the landmark birthright citizenship ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which effectively stated that any child born in the United States to immigrants is granted citizenship regardless of the nationality of the child’s parents.
In addition to Thomas, Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented and indicated that they would allow Trump’s executive order to stand. Justice Brett Kavanaugh partially concurred with the majority in saying that he thinks the Trump administration’s executive order does violate a federal statute but that the constitutionality of birthright citizenship is an open question and that the executive order doesn’t violate the 14th Amendment. “The Court today takes the extraordinary step of holding facially unconstitutional the President’s Order excluding from citizenship the children of foreign temporary visitors and illegal aliens,” Thomas said in the 91-page dissent, which is significantly longer than the majority’s opinion.
Thomas indicated that he sided with the Trump administration’s arguments that the 14th Amendment, ratified three years after the end of the Civil War in 1868, was intended to give citizenship to black people who were freed from slavery rather than automatically giving it to the children of immigrants. “In doing so, the Court adds to the sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support,” he said. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights—to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land,’” Roberts wrote, citing congressional debate over the 14th Amendment. “We keep that promise today.” Multiple lower courts have blocked the executive order, signed by Trump early in his presidential term last year, and it has not taken effect anywhere in the United States. The high court ruled on the president’s appeal of a lower-court ruling from New Hampshire that struck down the birthright citizenship restrictions.
Birthright citizenship was the first Trump administration immigration-related issue to reach the Supreme Court for a final ruling. Since he took office, Trump has rolled out policies designed to deport large numbers of illegal immigrants, namely those with criminal records. He has also canceled temporary protected status for hundreds of thousands of people living in the United States, bolstered U.S. border security, initiated policies encouraging illegal aliens to self-deport, and issued other rules. In response to the June 30 ruling, Trump said, “[The ruling is] too bad for our Country, but we can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation.”
“Congress should start TODAY to work on ending expensive and unfair to our Country, Birthright Citizenship,” he wrote on Truth Social. “They will have my Complete and Total Support!” In a previous post, he argued that “dumb judges and justices” allow wealthy women from China and elsewhere to come to the United States with the sole purpose of giving birth so that their children will be American citizens. He noted that few other countries have such a policy.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) hailed the majority opinion, saying that the “decision reaffirms a fundamental American promise—if you are born here, you are a citizen.” “A president cannot change the Constitution by executive fiat,” ACLU National Legal Director Cecillia Wang said in a statement. “Our brave clients and our legal team stand with millions of people around our country who spoke up for one of our most cherished rights. The Constitution’s guarantee of birthright citizenship stands strong.”

“Nor presumably would they have wanted to grant constitutional birthright citizenship to children of foreign citizens unlawfully in the country while simultaneously denying constitutional birthright citizenship to children of tribal American Indians.

• A Roadmap To Fix Birthright Citizenship (Dmitri Bolt)

Despite Tuesday’s disappointing ruling on birthright citizenship, one of the conservative justices outlined a potential path forward that could address concerns such as birth tourism and the automatic granting of citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the majority in striking down President Trump’s executive order but wrote separately in partial dissent. He concluded the order conflicted with existing federal law, not that it was unconstitutional. In his opinion, he also outlined a framework for addressing concerns surrounding birthright citizenship through legislation, making clear that any path to lasting change would likely require an act of Congress.
“Significant illegal immigration into the United States is a new circumstance that was largely unknown as of 1868 and that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment could not have fully anticipated,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote. “And the Framers likely would not have anticipated (and presumably would not have intended) the odd result of granting a substantial birthright citizenship benefit to (i) those foreign citizens who violate U. S. immigration law and illegally enter or overstay and then have children in the United States over (ii) those foreign citizens who follow U. S. immigration law and have children in their home countries while seeking to lawfully immigrate to the United States. Nor presumably would they have wanted to grant constitutional birthright citizenship to children of foreign citizens unlawfully in the country while simultaneously denying constitutional birthright citizenship to children of tribal American Indians.”
“Consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress could amend §1401(a) or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country,” he added. “But Congress has not yet done so.”
The likelihood of Congress taking up the issue remains slim, making Kavanaugh’s proposed path a difficult one. More importantly for the Trump administration, the Court did not merely hold that birthright citizenship is a matter for Congress to regulate. The majority reaffirmed that the Citizenship Clause applies to the children of individuals in the country illegally or on temporary visas, while noting that only narrow exceptions were historically recognized, including the children of foreign diplomats.
Even if Congress were to pass legislation altering the rules surrounding birthright citizenship, the law would almost certainly face immediate legal challenges before making its way back to the Supreme Court. It remains unclear whether Justices Amy Coney Barrett or Chief Justice John Roberts would alter their positions, though there is little indication they would. If not, the Court’s majority would likely continue to uphold its current interpretation of birthright citizenship.

Not a mistake. They didn’t have the guts to touch it.

• The Supreme Court’s Birthright Citizenship Mistake (Ben Shapiro)

The Supreme Court has now settled, at least for the foreseeable future, one of the most contentious questions in American immigration law: A child born in the United States is a U.S. citizen, regardless of whether the child’s parents entered the country legally or came solely to give birth. That remains the law after the court’s 6-3 decision in Trump v. Barbara. Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by the court’s liberal justices, concluded that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to virtually anyone born on American soil. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented, arguing that the majority has fundamentally misread both the Constitution and American history.

The ruling itself is hardly surprising. Federal courts have interpreted birthright citizenship this way for generations. What is remarkable is the historical reasoning Roberts employs to justify that conclusion. The 14th Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The debate has always centered on these words: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” If mere birth within U.S. borders automatically settled the matter, the jurisdiction language would seem unnecessary. Why include it at all? That question lies at the heart of the case.
Roberts traces the answer back to English common law, arguing that the American understanding of citizenship grew directly out of Britain’s doctrine of birthright subjecthood. Under that rule, even a foreign woman who entered Britain briefly, gave birth and immediately departed still produced a child who owed allegiance to the Crown because the sovereign protected the child at birth. According to the majority, the American Founders largely carried that principle forward after independence, replacing “subjects” with “citizens” while preserving the underlying rule. The dissenters reject that premise entirely.
Thomas argues that the American Revolution was a rejection of the British conception of political allegiance itself. Americans ceased to be subjects of a monarch and became citizens of a republic. In his view, importing British common-law doctrines wholesale into the 14th Amendment ignores the very political philosophy that gave birth to the United States.Thomas contends that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requires more than physical presence. It requires complete political allegiance to the United States, not merely temporary subjection to American laws while visiting the country. Under that interpretation, citizenship would depend in significant part on the legal status and allegiance of the parents.
That approach is not without precedent. American law already looks to parental status in several contexts. Children born to foreign diplomats, for example, are not automatically granted U.S. citizenship because their parents are not fully subject to American jurisdiction. Thomas also disputes the majority’s historical account. He argues that the court relies heavily on the 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark while overlooking evidence from the years immediately following the ratification of the 14th Amendment. According to the dissent, all three branches of the federal government initially rejected the sweeping interpretation the court now embraces, and 19th-century Americans generally viewed exclusive national allegiance as incompatible with widespread dual citizenship.
Alito argues that the court is allowing practical concerns about modern immigration to shape its constitutional interpretation. Reversing the current understanding of birthright citizenship, he acknowledges, could create enormous legal and political complications for millions of people. But, Alito writes, avoiding difficult consequences is not a valid reason to adopt what he considers an incorrect reading of the Constitution.
In one of the sharpest passages of his dissent, Alito argues that the 14th Amendment does not require the nation to extend citizenship to the children of so-called birth tourists or others whose parents came to the United States solely to secure citizenship for their children. He concludes that the majority’s historical narrative is fundamentally flawed, beginning with its assumption that America simply inherited Britain’s rule of birthright subjecthood after independence. Whether one agrees with the majority or the dissent, the practical consequence is clear. Birthright citizenship remains the law of the land, and it is likely to remain so unless the Constitution is amended or the court revisits the issue in the future.
That places the responsibility squarely where it has long belonged: on Congress and the president. If policymakers believe current immigration policy encourages abuses of birthright citizenship, the remedy lies not with constitutional reinterpretation but with enforcing immigration law and reforming the nation’s border policies. The Supreme Court has spoken. The constitutional debate will continue, but the political branches can no longer avoid confronting the immigration system that made this controversy so consequential in the first place.

“Each female visa applicant must present a valid negative pregnancy test taken no longer than 10 days prior to travel to the United States.”

• The Roberts Requirement – Pregnancy Tests for U.S. Travel Visas

What is proposed below is regulatory, lawful and entirely intended to create hardships and burdens. Thus, a new era in State Department visa requirements respond to newly established guidelines by the Supreme Court. As a pragmatic and patriotic American I respectfully suggest and recommend the U.S. State Department immediately institute the “Roberts Requirement” following similar visa entry protocols previously used for COVID-19 tests prior to U.S. admittance. The Roberts Requirement: Each female visa applicant must present a valid negative pregnancy test taken no longer than 10 days prior to travel to the United States.

The certified document, negative pregnancy test, together with all related visa approvals must be presented to Customs and Border Patrol at each port of entry. Failure disqualifies the traveler. This is the same protocol as COVID-19, only using pregnancy status as the disqualifying health issue. It is a lawful regulation, born from a new standard established by the Supreme Court, that does not need congressional approval. Don’t get stuck on details about why it will not work, it will. Start thinking like a person who realizes the goal is to create severe antagonism through regulation. That antagonism can then be directed.
Aim isolation, ridicule and marginalization at those who created the problem. This can be done without visible vitriol. The objective is not just making sure pregnant women do not get visas; that is one small element. The bigger objective is to make it extremely difficult to come to the USA and THEN pin that global compliance requirement on Chief Justice John Roberts, making him live every day with the consequences of his blinded American stupidity; facing him, belittling him, ridiculing him, sitting on the front pages of his peers and global friends. Chief Justice John Roberts created this mess, now put it on his doorstep every day. But people will lie – doesn’t matter. But people will create fake documents – doesn’t matter. But people will still overstay their visas – doesn’t matter.
You are putting the emphasis on the wrong aspect. Make every overburdensome visa rule and travel permit regulation specifically attributable to John Roberts decision. Pre-screenings, pregnancy tests, supplemental bond requirements for 15-to 45-year-old females, shortened visa terms and much more. No exclusions for diplomats, sports figures, foreign actors, employees, H1Bs, student entry or any other visa type – the works. Make the total visa entry system subject to a regulatory and compliance nightmare at a scale that is unheard of. That is the scale of the problem Roberts has created. Now blame John Roberts for it.
This ‘Roberts Requirement’ applies to all visa types. The objective, and it can accompany many other requirements such as a “bond” attachment required for 15- to 45-year-old females to travel, is to create such an overwhelmingly restrictive visa process that it creates ridicule on the SCOTUS decision. Make every regulation specifically cited to the Supreme Court decision and make it exceptionally burdensome. Make SCOTUS own the outcome. Canadians and Mexicans also need to comply. The same rules apply to every nation and no longer are visas determined by timeline, but by the number of extensions required or allowed within it. Every visa has a maximum duration of 3 months, with various extensions possible.
A one-year visa becomes a three-month visa with 4 extensions allowed. At each extension the same origination requirements must be fulfilled. A two-year USA visa, is now a U.S. visa with 7 extensions allowed, etc. Student visas carry the same requirement for 3-month extensions. Require a – refundable at exit – surety bond purchase valued at $500,000 for any non-tourist visa. [Later the bond issuer, sell those non-refunded bonds and release the bounty hunters.] No visas are exempt from the entry requirements. This is a new era with new rules that specifically come as an outcome of new judicial rulings. This is not a White House or State Department issue. This is an issue created by the Supreme Court that needs an immediate response.
Congress can fix it, but in the interim – maximum regulatory pressure is applied directly to the wound. Example of point and counterpoints. POINT: Canada, Mexico, India or [XXX] will scream this is unfair given the nature of our collaborative visa designations. Counterpoint: Yes, you are correct. That was then; this is now. The nature of our visa system has changed because SCOTUS has just codified new distinctions on citizenship that now become new visa factors.
Your nation does not convey birthright citizenship, so I understand your inability to accept our new terms. Unfortunately, our nation now does convey birthright citizenship, and as a consequence changes are needed. Don’t back down. Make SCOTUS own it. Sure, there will be legal challenges, all the way up to the same SCOTUS, and what are they going to do? Think about it! Make everyone live by the new rules – that are created by those who didn’t think about the consequences.

“The potential charges include visa fraud, money laundering, identity theft, and wire fraud.”

• The DOJ Goes to War on Birth Tourism After Losing at SCOTUS (Margolis)

It ain’t over until it’s over, and the Department of Justice says it ain’t over. For sure, the Supreme Court handed the left a win Monday, but the Department of Justice didn’t spend much time licking its wounds. The court ruled on Tuesday that President Donald Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship was unconstitutional. The ruling held that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil regardless of their parents’ immigration status. This terrible ruling effectively protects “birth tourism,” the scheme in which pregnant women overstay visas or enter the country illegally specifically to give birth and secure U.S. citizenship for their children.

Jesse Watters addressed it on The Five on Tuesday. “Now, the Chinese communists could take their pregnant wife to Guam, have a baby, fly the baby back to Beijing with a U.S. passport, and then that baby, when he’s older, can get welfare, he can vote,” Watters said. “Technically, when he’s 35, he could become President of the United States. That’s the stupidest thing anyone ever thought of.” DOJ senior official Colin McDonald issued a department-wide memo directing federal prosecutors to prioritize investigations and criminal charges against people who travel to the United States under false pretenses to give birth. The potential charges include visa fraud, money laundering, identity theft, and wire fraud.
“The Department of Justice will zealously protect the sanctity of United States citizenship by investigating and prosecuting those who fraudulently exploit our immigration system,” McDonald wrote in the memo, which he posted publicly on social media. The DOJ had already telegraphed this move before the ruling came down, calling birth tourism a “national security threat” and pledging to “prioritize the prosecutions of birth tourism schemes across the country.” The Supreme Court can hold the line on the 14th Amendment. The DOJ intends to go after the fraud. The fraud, by the way, is real.
Back in 2019, Chinese national Dongyuan Li ran a company called You Win USA Vacation Services, which helped pregnant Chinese women travel to the United States to give birth. Li claimed to have served more than 500 customers, charging each between $40,000 and $80,000, and she received $3 million in wire transfers from China over two years. Li coached clients to lie on visa applications and at U.S. consulate interviews in China, claiming a two-week stay while planning to stay up to three months, and trained them to conceal their pregnancies from customs officials.
You Win USA marketed the service by promising children “13 years of free education,” “less pollution,” “an easier way for the whole family to immigrate to the United States,” and “priority for jobs in U.S. government, public companies, and large corporations.” Citizenship as a premium package, complete with step-by-step coaching on how to fool the U.S. government. Li pleaded guilty to federal charges in 2019. A judge sentenced her to 10 months in prison for running a multimillion-dollar operation that turned U.S. citizenship into a product. The Supreme Court may have blocked the executive order, but the DOJ hasn’t walked away from the fight.

“Slams Biden’s “heinous” policy of flying migrants en masse into Springfield and the Midwest”.

• Miller: Every Single Haitian Migrant Is GOING BACK to Haiti Under Trump (MN)

White House Homeland Security Adviser Stephen Miller delivered a clear and forceful message: every Haitian national on Temporary Protected Status will be returned to Haiti under President Trump. The Biden administration’s last-year extension of TPS turned what began as a short-term response to a 2010 earthquake into a permanent pipeline. Miller called the deliberate importation of these migrants into places like Springfield, Ohio, one of the most heinous acts the government has ever committed. Miller laid it out without hedging:

Stephen Miller: "The illegal alien Haitians are going back to Haiti. They can build their country there."
pic.twitter.com/l56e2Tu5fH
— Defiant L’s (@DefiantLs) June 30, 2026

“There’s an earthquake in Haiti. So she’s (Former DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano) announcing TPS for a few months while they’re recovering from an earthquake. That was in 2010, 15 years ago. Then the Biden administration in its last year extends TPS to every single illegal alien from Haiti while they are flying them en masse into Springfield, Ohio, across the Midwest.” He continued, “It was a formal policy of replacing the communities that lived in, settled, and sustained these communities for generations. It was one of the most heinous things this government has ever done.”
“And yes, under President Trump, let me be very clear, the illegal alien Haitians are going back to Haiti. They can build their country there,” Miller further urged. This directly follows the Trump administration’s earlier termination of TPS protections for 353,000 Haitians, with those designations set to expire. The move reversed Biden-era renewals that kept hundreds of thousands in the country long after any temporary justification had passed. Springfield became the most visible example of the fallout. Local residents watched as federal policies funneled large numbers of Haitian migrants into their city, straining housing, schools, and public resources.

Stephen Miller says every single Haitian on temporary protected status is going back

He says The Biden Admin specifically imported them into Ohio to replace the native population and “It was one of the most heinous things this government has ever done”

“There's an earthquake in… pic.twitter.com/4mfehuGJkM
— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) June 30, 2026

Americans reported being priced out of apartments while migrants received housing assistance. Parks saw geese and other wildlife targeted. In one city commission meeting, Springfield City Manager Brian Heck admitted he had “heard about” reports of Haitian migrants eating pets. The conditions many of these migrants left behind in Haiti only underscore why prolonged TPS extensions made little sense. Armed gangs, including groups with documented histories of extreme violence and intimidation tactics, have dominated large parts of the country.
Earlier coverage highlighted how some media outlets appeared more exercised by conservatives simply stating these facts than by the violence itself. In a separate but related immigration development today, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling striking down President Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants.

BREAKING: In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants in the United States. pic.twitter.com/XZDld7UkxT
— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) June 30, 2026

The decision keeps in place a policy that automatically grants U.S. citizenship to children born on American soil regardless of their parents’ legal status. Critics have long argued this creates powerful incentives for unlawful entry and serves as a form of chain migration that complicates enforcement.

One of the most destructive and outrageous decisions in the long history of the Supreme Court. American citizenship is not the birthright of the world. It belongs only and solely to Americans. No provision of the Constitution can be read to require our national self-obliteration. https://t.co/qZuwzZq5tr
— Stephen Miller (@StephenM) June 30, 2026

The 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause was crafted in the aftermath of slavery to secure rights for freed people, not to function as a standing invitation for foreign nationals to secure citizenship for their offspring through illegal presence. While the birthright ruling hands open-border advocates a victory and adds another layer of legal friction to enforcement, Miller’s remarks show the administration is not pausing on other fronts. TPS designations were always meant to be temporary. Extending them for 15 years while actively importing large numbers into specific American communities was never about humanitarian relief — it was about demographic engineering.
American towns like Springfield paid the price in drastically altered neighborhoods, and lost quality of life. Restoring the original meaning of temporary protection and returning those without ongoing legal status is not radical. It is the baseline responsibility of any government that puts its own citizens first. The message from the White House is consistent: the replacement experiment is over. Those here under expired or terminated protections are going home. Haiti’s future will be built by Haitians in Haiti, not by continuing to offload its population onto American communities that never asked for the burden.

Antagonizing Trump will not work out well.

• The Canadian Dollar is Collapsing – Here’s What to Expect Next (CTH)

The Canadian dollar is starting to feel the effects of long-term uncertainty. It will get worse.

…”Since the start of June, the currency has weakened 2.9%, which would be its steepest monthly decline since October 2024, as Canadian bond yields fell further below U.S. yields.”…
Now, this is where you really need to pay attention to details. Remember, the U.K and EU have a vested interest in protecting Canada from economic collapse. President Trump doesn’t want immediate collapse either -because Xi will move in fast- but Trump is not going to provide the same financial and economic lifelines that the other four-eyes will trigger. Reuters is reporting that tomorrow the U.S. will formally declare a “non-extension” of the USMCA trade agreement and that triggers a 10-year period to decoupling. It is very important to understand there is a difference between announcing a “non-extension” and announcing a “withdrawal“. The Canadians are completely confused about what is about to happen.
In a non-extension announcement, the USA is saying they do not want to extend or renew the terms of the agreement beyond the current trade agreement terms. Yes, this is a 10-year exit. However, that’s not the part that matters. Announcing a decision to exit the USMCA (CUSMA), a full withdrawal from the trilateral deal, triggers a six-month countdown to exit. The deadline to announce the decision to extend is July 1st. There is no deadline on the timeline to announce an exit or withdrawal from the USMCA. That announcement can happen at any time. Put simply, announcing a non-renewal is a 10-year exit. Announcing a withdrawal is a 6-month exit. The announcement to withdraw can come at any time after the statement of non-renewal.
You can see the confusion in this article:
WASHINGTON, June 30 (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration is expected to formally declare on Wednesday that it will not extend the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement on trade, starting a decade-long clock to wind down the 32-year-old North American free trade zone as the three countries haggle over proposed changes. That declaration will kick off a six-year review session, part of a “sunset clause” negotiated by President Donald Trump’s first administration. However, it will do little to alter contentious negotiations over the pact’s future, including sweeping demands to boost U.S. and regional content in North American automotive production and trade protections to block Chinese goods from benefiting from USMCA. (read more)
The most likely scenario is Trump/Greer first say the USA is not renewing (not extending). Then, at a later date determined by them (in my opinion it will be after the U.S-Mexico agreement is finished), Trump and Greer will then announce the withdrawal, which will trigger the 6-month countdown to exit. There is no rush to announce the withdrawal; the only immediate action is to announce a USMCA renewal is not happening. What this scenario does is put maximum pressure on Canada. As soon as President Trump says the USA will not extend the agreement, all investment into Canada becomes extremely tenuous. The Canadian dollar will weaken further; a slow contraction will begin.
However, Canada will still be oblivious to what comes next because their media will tell them they have a decade to work things out. They don’t. At a time determined by President Trump and USTR Jamieson Greer, they will announce a decision to exit the USMCA which then triggers a 6-month phase before the agreement is terminated. This is where Canada will be caught off guard and the economic collapse will likely be rapid and catastrophic. Canada will only just begin to think about the “exit” scenario, once the non-renewal announcement is made. It will take them a while to realize how vulnerable they are – they are currently in full denial mode.
During this period, President Trump carries massive leverage against Canada. He will likely probe their trade position and willingness to comply with reciprocity after the non-renewal announcement. The outcome of those probes will determine the timeline of his exit announcement. During this non-renewal phase, we may even see President Trump tease the exit, then retract, then tease the exit again. Each time Trump tests the Canadian government with statements, the Canadian economy will pulsate and weaken; it will drive the Canadian government to either extreme anger, or defeated compliance.
Timing the completion of the U.S-Mexico deal within the probes of Canada will be super interesting. At some point as the U.S. closes in on the deal with Mexico, Canada is going to realize they are naked without any agreement. The worst-case scenario for Canada is President Trump announcing the USMCA exit on the same day he announces a completed bilateral deal with Mexico. It would be the worst-case scenario for Mark Carney because the ignored voices of those few people in Canada who have been trying to warn about this would suddenly get a lot of attention.

The “everything app” is not an app.

• Elon’s Next Move: Your Money (Adam Sharp)

For years, Elon Musk has dreamed of turning X (formerly Twitter) into the “everything app”. Now that X is part of SpaceX (SPCX), and the combined company just raised $112 billion, the time looks ripe. Elon envisions X as a single place where you can bank, chat, earn, advertise, use AI, shop, and more. X Money is a key part of that vision. And we just got the first idea of what it will look like. The program just launched to a small group of users. To attract deposits, X is offering some pretty crazy (and likely temporary) perks:

6% APY on cash, no deposit limit
3% cash back on purchases (with exceptions)
$10 million FDIC insurance (by splitting deposits up between banks)
A 6% yield is not sustainable long-term (at current interest rates). It’s a teaser rate to get people to switch to X Money. Same goes for 3% cash back. That’s 3x higher than the industry average, and will almost certainly not last long. These teasers may get a lot of people to switch. But it’s unclear how long the perks will last, and it’s currently only available to a small group. X is not a bank. At least not yet. It’s more like a “neobank”, which manages the marketing and customer relationship, while licensed banks handle the deposits. But for the user, it feels like a bank account and debit card. Deposits, yield, wire transfers, autopay, P2P payments, etc.
The WeChat Model
Musk’s desire to build the “everything app” may have been inspired by China’s WeChat. WeChat is owned by Chinese tech firm Tencent. It started out as a simple messaging app. But Tencent rapidly expanded its utility, and today it is basically a digital operating system for the country. In China, WeChat is used for payment, invoices, government interactions, making appointments, videos, shopping, games, chatting on social media, and much more. WeChat Pay holds a massive 38% share of payments in China. More than a billion people use the app. It’s so ubiquitous that many Chinese people essentially run their lives through the app. Largely as a result of WeChat’s success, Tencent has become a $488 billion tech giant. This is what Musk is aiming for. If X Money succeeds, it could help justify SpaceX’s lofty valuation of $2.2 trillion.
SpaceX’s Huge Ambitions
X (formerly Twitter) has been the least-discussed part of SpaceX. All the attention has been on rockets and AI. For good reason. Those are both very exciting areas. But X deserves attention as well. Musk aims to turn the social network into a super-app, much like WeChat. Musk purchased Twitter for $44 billion. If he succeeds, it could be worth much more over the long term. But running what is essentially a combination bank and social network is no easy matter. For one thing, it makes security far more important (and challenging). It’s going to require a massive customer support team. And that’s one area where Elon’s X has struggled.
X Money is going to be a critical part of building the “everything app”. And the team is going big on the launch. Think about the 6% APYs X is offering on deposits. Let’s say that X Money attracts $10 billion in deposits over the first year. Paying a 6% yield on that much cash could cost SpaceX $240 million a year in losses. That’s assuming their own internal return on cash is around 3.5%, plus bank fees and other transaction costs. This is why I assume the 6% APY is temporary.
And the 3% cash back? That appears to be on a debit card, which doesn’t have the same fee support as a credit card. So that could be another very expensive tool to attract users. But the losses could be worth it. The market they’re targeting is massive. Payments, banking, and eventually – everything.So will X succeed in becoming a “super app”? Honestly? I think it’s a long shot. X Money would probably need to be wildly successful and run away with the market.
One problem is that Meta/Facebook (META) will copy anything that looks to be working. The company is notorious for it. And they have a much larger user base. Meta also already has WhatsApp pay and several payment integrations with Facebook. Another problem is that American banks are extremely profitable, and in some ways act like a cartel. They won’t appreciate X stepping onto their turf, and may fight back. With lawfare, lobbying, or other means.
A Beautiful But Difficult Model
The “everything app”, or the WeChat model has been the dream of every social media company in the world for a while. But it’s going to be very difficult to pull off at this stage of the game. Then again, we should never count Elon out. If he’s going to go hard after this market, SpaceX certainly has a shot at winning it. SpaceX just raised $87 billion in its IPO, then another $25 billion in bond sales. That is a massive war chest. SPCX has big aspirations. And with a $2.2 trillion market cap, it has a lot of growing to do in order to justify that lofty price. X Money is a calculated risk by SpaceX. One that could pay off big.

“Everything app” device.

• SpaceX Takes Aim At Smartphone Market With New AI Device (ZH)

The story around Elon Musk’s SpaceX positioning Starlink as a potential mobile carrier to challenge legacy telcos and cable dinosaurs continues to gain momentum. A new Wall Street Journal report says the AI and rocket company has shown investors a prototype of a handset-like device, suggesting SpaceX may be looking beyond satellites and broadband toward vertically integrated consumer devices to take on smartphone giants like Apple and Samsung.

SpaceX has developed a prototype for a handset-like device designed to reshape how humans interact with artificial intelligence: WSJ

The prototype features a sleek design that is slimmer than an iPhone; it was shown to some investors and other stakeholders ahead of the company’s…
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) July 1, 2026

The device, described by people familiar with the matter as slimmer than an iPhone with a “sleek design,” is still said to be in the prototype stage. It is expected to run on a Qualcomm Snapdragon chipset, suggesting SpaceX may be testing a consumer hardware layer that could eventually tie together Starlink connectivity, xAI software, and a proprietary operating system. Last week, TD Cowen analyst Gregory Williams told clients that if SpaceX/Starlink fails to secure an MVNO/retail mobile deal, then the next logical move would be to acquire T-Mobile. SpaceX told some investors that the project was at an early stage. The design could change and it is unclear whether such a device will be made.
…
The project is a sign of Musk’s sprawling ambitions as he builds a leading global satellite connectivity network, grows his rocket company and creates new AI tools. AI companies are placing a variety of bets on the future form and functionality of AI-powered devices. The Wall Street Journal has reported that Musk has in the past weighed building a smartphone due to frustration over how Apple controls distribution of third-party apps such as X. It isn’t easy, however, for a newcomer to break into the hardware business. -WSJ
SpaceX Builds A Regulatory Moat Around Its Starlink Empire
The read here is that Musk appears to be eyeing the entire consumer connectivity stack in one swoop. Starlink is the network layer, xAI provides the intelligence layer, a proprietary operating system would control the software experience, and a handset-like device would serve as the consumer endpoint. In other words, Musk is not just challenging telcos and big cable. It is also a shot across the bow for smartphone makers, app stores, and the AI assistant layer now being embedded across consumer devices.

They need Trump to go along. Or it will be after his term. But war it will be.

• NATO Chief Admits To Sleepless Nights Over Russia (TASS)

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte believes Russia to be the main threat to the alliance and admits that this keeps him up at night. “Usually, I try to sleep at night, but if something keeps me up, it’s Russia. <…> China is having a massive buildup of its own military, will have 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030. So, let’s not be naive about China. But <…> Russia is the main threat now and in the longer term,” the NATO chief told the Anadolu news agency in an interview ahead of the upcoming NATO summit in Ankara on July 7-8. He added that one of the alliance’s priorities is “maintaining support for Ukraine.”

When asked about his expectations for the summit, Rutte said he hopes that, once it concludes, “people will say it was a summit that implemented the commitments made in The Hague [last year].” These were increasing defense spending and strengthening the military-industrial complex. “There are several successful examples, and things are generally getting better. One of the most important priorities is increasing production output in the defense industry. We will address this issue first at the NATO Defense Industry Forum on the summit’s opening day,” the NATO chief noted.

“Bringing back cheap Russian energy would help the German economy recover, AfD leader Alice Weidel has said..”

She makes sense. But they’ve long since decided on war.

• Leader of Germany’s Most Popular Party Wants To Restore Ties With Russia (RT)

Germany urgently needs to lift the ban on Russian oil and gas imports to prop up its struggling economy, Alice Weidel, the co-chair of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, has said. She also vowed to restore economic ties between the two countries if her party comes to power. The German economy was dealt a major blow when the country took part in the Western sanctions on Russia in 2022. Before the escalation of the Ukraine conflict, Germany relied on Russia for 55% of its natural gas. Russian oil giant Rosneft’s operations also accounted for around 12% of Germany’s total oil-processing capacity.

“Cheap energy from Russia was the secret of the success of ‘Made in Germany’. We need it back,” Weidel said in an interview with Reuters published on Tuesday. “The loss of this energy has set us back years. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost. It has made us dependent on the United States, which sells us energy at far higher prices.” The decision to abandon cheap Russian energy played a major role in slowing down the German economy, which contracted in 2023 and 2024 – the first back-to-back annual drop since the early 2000s.
In January, the country’s Chamber of Commerce and Industry (DIHK) reported an alarmingly high number of bankruptcies. In March, the Federal Statistical Office said the nation’s industrial output fell by 1.2% year-on-year. In both cases, high energy prices were cited as a key factor. The German Environmental Aid Association (DUH) reported in January that 96% of the nation’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports in 2025 came from the US. The AfD has argued that Germany essentially became dependent on one country.
The AfD has steadily gained support in Germany amid record-low approval ratings for Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s policies. Berlin has been actively pouring money into a military buildup, citing the supposed ‘Russian threat’, which Moscow has dismissed as “nonsense.” Merz has also blamed the country’s economic problems on the German people, urging them to “work more,” while announcing plans to slash social spending.
An INSA survey published on Tuesday suggests that the AfD enjoys the greatest support among all German parties (29%), seven percentage points ahead of Merz’s Christian Democratic Union. The right-wing party’s popularity has grown despite being boycotted by all other major German parties as part of the ‘firewall’ – an informal ban on any coalition or coordinated voting with the AfD. The next general election in Germany is expected in 2029.

“Ozempic is a story of pharmacological success, but also of entrepreneurial failure.”:

• Ozempic Sat Unused for Decades (QTR)

Led by Ozempic and Wegovy, glucagon-like peptides (GLP-1s) have become a global phenomenon, with one in eight US adults currently taking one. Those two branded compounds, both made by Novo Nordisk, emerged from attempts to develop a diabetes drug. It effectively lowers blood glucose, slows gastric emptying, and reduces hunger, leading many patients to experience profound weight loss. In a world plagued by increasing obesity, the drugs’ utility extends far beyond diabetes treatment. So why did the formula sit untouched for 30 years after it was licensed?

Ozempic is a story of pharmacological success, but also of entrepreneurial failure. The tale provides a strong reminder that inventions and discoveries mean little unless they are combined with sound entrepreneurial judgment. According to a paper published in the Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, a startup produced a GLP compound in the late 1980s, and pharma giant Pfizer sponsored human trials that confirmed the drug’s efficacy in reducing blood glucose levels and slowing gastric emptying. One member of the startup team, Jeffrey Flier of Harvard, explained what happened next:
I was shocked when told that senior Pfizer leadership had concluded that there would never be another injectable therapy for diabetes other than insulin. What led them to this conclusion was never explained….I had been deeply impressed by their rapid decision to invest in our company, and I was equally dumbfounded by their decision to end their investment despite convincing early evidence of the program’s success. Confident in its own conclusions, Pfizer pulled the plug on the drug in 1991. The startup folded.
Under the terms of Pfizer’s agreement, the license remained with the Boston hospital where researchers discovered GLP-1’s mechanism and conducted the human trials. It was then acquired by Novo Nordisk in 1992, where scientists used it to develop what eventually became semaglutide, the pharmaceutical sold as Ozempic and Wegovy. While it is unclear whether, as Max Marchione put it on Twitter, the GLP-1 agonist data simply “sat in a filing cabinet for 30+ years,” Pfizer’s decision to abandon the project likely delayed its development…

“ If he does tell the truth, he’s going to have to admit he lied to us previously.”

• How Fauci Can Still Face Prosecution Despite His Pardon (Margolis)

Joe Biden thought he handled it. Well, at least whoever wrote the preemptive pardon and signed it with the autopen did. That was supposed to be the insurance policy that kept the former NIAID director from being held accountable. The good ol’ get-out-of-jail-free card before Anthony Fauci was even charged with anything. Biden pitched it as protection from lawfare, but we all know what it really was, and we’ll soon get the truth, one way or another.

As you know, on her final day as Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard released a tranche of previously unreleased documents and communications laying out what many Americans have suspected for years. Fauci, as head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, funneled millions in U.S. taxpayer dollars into dangerous gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the lab now widely believed to be the source of COVID-19. He did it.
And then he lied about it. “Before the COVID pandemic, Dr. Fauci, as head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, provided millions in U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund dangerous gain of function research on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” Gabbard said in a video she posted to X, “work which is now widely viewed as the source of the unintentional lab leak that sparked the pandemic.”
According to Gabbard, Fauci funded the research tied to Big Pharma’s multi-trillion-dollar pursuit of a universal vaccine, then pressured handpicked experts to promote a natural-origin narrative, deflecting blame from the Wuhan lab. Then, he used his media access to amplify his version of events while crushing any dissent. “These documents expose Fauci’s direct role in influencing and manipulating IC assessments on COVID-19 and how Fauci lied to Congress in 2024 when under oath, he denied knowledge of or participation in discussions with intelligence officials about viral research,” Gabbard said.
Compare that to what Fauci told the Senate in 2021, when he told Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.): “With all due respect, you are entirely and completely incorrect that the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.” He said that under oath. The documents say otherwise. Independent journalist John Solomon argues that Fauci could still face prosecution, spelling it out in an interview with Bill O’Reilly.
“We know that in the end days of Joe Biden, Anthony Fauci got a pardon,” Solomon began. “He can’t be prosecuted for anything before January 20, 2025. But if Rand Paul puts him on the stand next week, as he’s going to compel him to do, and Anthony Fauci does not tell the truth this time in the body of evidence that’s there, he could be instantly prosecuted by the Trump Justice Department. If he does tell the truth, he’s going to have to admit he lied to us previously.”
Basically, Fauci, under oath again, has a choice: lie about what he did under oath and face prosecution, or admit he lied under oath before. Since Biden’s pardon only covered what Fauci did before Biden officially left office, if he commits perjury, there’s nothing that can protect him. It left him completely exposed to everything that comes after. With Gabbard’s documents on the table and Paul’s committee waiting, that reckoning is no longer hypothetical.
Both options for Fauci will be devastating for his legacy.

The left media has been hateful and dishonest about Elon for 20 years. Now they have upped their game. There must be lots of money coming their way. They depend on their readers and viewers being stupid and crazy. Fortunately, we have X. Angry mom. https://t.co/01jSR9IGGJ
— Maye Musk (@mayemusk) June 30, 2026

Neuralink has solved through-dura electrode implantation!

This is a very big deal, as it greatly improves the safety and ease of interfacing with the brain. https://t.co/NV59xKAE22
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 30, 2026

RFK Jr. Announces He's Ending Emergency Liability Protection For COVID-19 Vaccine Makers https://t.co/vkZg1Cg9YD
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) July 1, 2026

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

Debt Rattle June 26 2026

Jun 262026

June 26, 2026 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 9:09 am Finance Tagged with: NATO, Rutte, Trump, Vance 40 Responses »

VIncent van Gogh Quay with Men Unloading Sand Barges 1888

• It’s Official: The Democrat Party Is a Socialist Skinsuit (Stephen Green)

• The Democratic Socialists are Ascendant in New York (JTN)

• The Republican Party’s Dissidents Show Themselves the Door (Ben Shapiro)

• Mark Rutte Gives “Remain in NATO” Pitch to President Trump in White House (CTH)

• Anthropic Accuses Alibaba Of Illicitly Extracting Ai Capabilities (BBC)

• US National Security Agency (NSA) Loses Access To Key AI Tool (RT)

• Brexit at 10: The Divorce Britain Now Regrets (Galina Dudina)

• Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s EO Requiring Proof of Citizenship to Vote (AmG)

• A River in Egypt (Molly Schwartz)

• Suffer the Little Children, France Insists (Stephen Green)

• Kremlin To Contact Apple Before Responding To Removal of Apps (TASS)

• Apple Price Shock: Macs And iPads Jump $200 Or More, Memory Crisis Worsens (ZH)

• Fauci, The CIA, And The Unanswered Questions of COVID (RealClearWire)

We have rediscovered at great cost what America’s first @USTreasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton taught us: the nation that depends on its adversaries for critical inputs is neither truly sovereign nor truly prosperous.

As we approach 250 years of American independence, we would… pic.twitter.com/KVlebPnSJQ
— Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (@SecScottBessent) June 24, 2026

https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/2069816129179058463?s=20 https://twitter.com/GuntherEagleman/status/2069592469176476075?s=20

Donald Trump says he’s spoken to Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and other top officials about potentially officially pulling out of NATO

Trump says there’s no point in paying for NATO if when we ask them to assist in a war, all the countries just say no

We are spending $950… pic.twitter.com/2eO4nZp10b
— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) June 24, 2026

What, no war accounts to open with?

I think what used to be moderate Democrat voters, the party’s base, have vanished.

If there were a third option, they would dissolve.

To survive, they move left more and more.

• It’s Official: The Democrat Party Is a Socialist Skinsuit (Stephen Green)

Just about the last thing you should expect from some lefty political insider is a forthright admission of what they’re actually up to, but that’s exactly what happened when Democratic Socialist of America (DSA) New York City cochair Gustavo Gordillo spoke with NY1’s Spectrum News earlier this week. It seems like only yesterday [It was only yesterday, Steve —Editor] that PJ Media’s own Matt Margolis pronounced the Democrat Party “dead” after three far-left candidates “endorsed by socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani swept their targeted congressional primaries” against their traditional Democrat opponents.

Gordillo is here to tell you that not only is the Democrat Party dead, but he and his DSA comrades wear its skinsuit. “We’re using the Democratic Party as a ballot-access vehicle, not because we share its goals,” Gordillo boldly stated. “We build our own organization, get elected under the Democratic label, caucus with Democrats when it’s useful, and push our own agenda from the inside.” Here’s the kicker — the line that should have House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries losing sleep at night and/or wetting himself: “We see the Democratic establishment as an obstacle, not a home.” Of course, I have the clip for you, on the off chance you feel masochistic enough to watch the whole thing.

This is the DSA co-chair. Let me summarize what he says in this video:

We’re using the Democratic Party as a ballot-access vehicle, not because we share its goals. We build our own organization, get elected under the Democratic label, caucus with Democrats when it’s useful,… pic.twitter.com/zYwsv4J8Bt
— The Undercurrent (@NotTheirScript) June 24, 2026

“It’s more feasible to think about a statewide democratic socialist race, maybe then a democratic socialist in [14-term Rep. Gregory] Meeks’ seat, which I think is maybe a different kind of challenge,” Gordillo also told Spectrum News, signaling that DSA is far from finished with toppling the New York Democratic establishment. “Some are hoping Rep. Hakeem Jeffries is next,” Spectrum reported, and “one leader wouldn’t rule it out.” “Our congressional districts are going to look very different in 2028 if the measure to redraw the lines ends up being successful,” Gordillo added, hinting that Jeffries is on the menu. “So, I don’t think we can make any concrete predictions until that is further along.”
Sleep tight, Hakeem — but you aren’t the only Democrat establishment figure the DSA has its long knives out for. According to a New York Post report out on Thursday, Gordillo “warned Gov. Kathy Hochul that the emboldened far-left group will take aim at her over her reluctance to ‘tax the rich.'” Gordillo added, “I think we have to show New York what it means to have three Democratic socialists in the congressional delegation.” What it means is, should the Dems take hold of the House in November, come January, we’ll have fricken socialists helping pen legislation that could affect the entire country.
The NYT described Mamdani as “an undeniable power broker” in New York City politics, but he’s just getting started — and his DSA lieutenant Gustavo Gordillo made it clear that their ambitions extend far beyond the city. And they’ll happily wear the DNC as a skinsuit to achieve them.

Remember, this is JFK’s party. But not his voters.

Who are the Dems going to appeal to now?

In federal elections, you can’t go anywhere with Mamdani. Try him in flyover country.

• The Democratic Socialists are Ascendant in New York (JTN)

In a shock to the Democratic Party establishment, several socialist candidates in the mold of New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani ousted incumbents and cemented their influence in the nation’s largest city, long considered the financial capital of the world. The candidates centered their campaigns on radical changes that have become the calling card of a new brand of socialist Democrats. Their platform includes abolishing ICE, ending deportations, opposing the state of Israel, implementing Medicare for all, and creating federal job guarantees.

Mamdani’s endorsements put the mayor on a collision course with establishment Democratic leadership, and he came out victorious. The socialist victories were specifically a defeat for Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who backed the old-school incumbents and doubted Mamdani’s potential for long-term influence over the party. The results have prompted more moderate Democrats to raise the alarm about the growing strength and influence of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) within their own ranks.
“People who do not support the DSA wring their hands at cocktail parties, while the DSA is organizing,” Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., told Axios. “It was a tough night,” Gregory Meeks, another Democrat from New York, told the outlet. New York Attorney General Letitia James said Mamdani’s endorsements threaten to “blow up” the Democratic Party.
NY AG Letitia James: “Disappointed” in Mandami
“Some of the candidates that he has supported are individuals who do not understand the politics of New York City, the cultural differences from district to district, who have not been part of the history and the struggle of some of these districts, and are relatively new to the body politic,” James told CNN. “All of us are a little frustrated with the Democratic Party. But you don’t blow it up. That’s what MAGA has done,” she added. Mamdani’s decision to endorse candidates challenging establishment-backed figures and bucking party leadership is part of an attempt to “radically” reorient the Democratic Party towards his vision, those close to the mayor have said.
“He’s seeing that opportunity – that we can radically change the Democratic Party,” said Faiz Shakir, an advisor to Senator Bernie Sanders and described as a friend of Mamdani’s. “Like Bernie, he’s not saying I’m doing this out of spite against you, dear leadership. He’s saying, I am supporting these candidates who have a better vision, and I am prepared to lose if it has to be the case.”
Platforms and policies defined
In perhaps one of the most shocking races of the night, DSA-endorsed Darializa Avila Chevalier knocked off five-term incumbent Rep. Adriano Espaillat, who helmed the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Espaillat has represented the Upper Manhattan district for nearly a decade and was backed by Jeffries. Chevalier, on the other hand, has been a community organizer who graduated from Columbia in 2016. Before running for office, she worked with the Neighborhood Defender Services of Harlem, a public defenders office.
Chevalier’s worldview was heavily influenced by an internship with Tomorrow’s Youth Organization, teaching English to Palestinian children in Nablus, West Bank. The 2014 Israel-Gaza war, which lasted about 50 days, started just after she returned to the United States. “That was a really formative period for me, because I was essentially living in the heart of the occupation and seeing the way that Palestinians had to navigate all these systems, the impact that it had on children as young as the ones that I was working with,” Avila Chevalier told City & State New York. “I came back, and I couldn’t unsee all those things. And I started seeing them in our own systems, right? Our systems of policing, of deportation, of the controlling of our movement.”
Her identity as a pro-Palestine, and anti-Israel, activist was at the center of her long-shot campaign. Before launching her bid for Congress, Chevalier had spent years organizing and participating in protests against the war in Gaza between Israel and Hamas. The war was sparked when Hamas, a Palestinian terrorist group that controlled the Gaza Strip, conducted a deadly attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
The following day, Chevalier was out on the streets of New York, participating in a protest organized by leftist groups. Rallygoers held signs reading “Resistance is Justified when People are Occupied” and faced criticism for appearing to support the attacks that left more than one thousand Israelis dead. Some of the rally organizers were later sued for allegedly acting as “collaborators and propagandists” for Hamas in the United States.
Claims to be a “human rights advocate” for Palestinians
During the campaign, Chevalier defended attending the rally, suggesting Israel’s response to the Hamas attack had the potential to become “a really outsized reaction.” “I can only say I have been advocating for the human rights of Palestinians for my adult life. And as someone who has seen a pattern, whenever anything happens on the ground (in Israel), there’s always a really outsized reaction that costs thousands of people their lives,” Avila Chevalier told City & State earlier this month.
Chevalier’s activism ultimately encouraged her to convert to Islam because of the “grace and love and passion” that her Muslim friends had for “social justice,” she said in a speech at a New York Mosque. In addition to pro-Palestine activism, Chevalier has taken an extreme position on immigration law and deportations. Like many of her DSA colleagues, Chevalier calls for ICE to be abolished, but has gone even further to suggest that all deportations are wrong. “I still believe that all deportations are wrong,” Chevalier said in an interview with Vox earlier this month. When asked if that would include those who had committed criminal offenses in the United States after entering illegally, she doubled down.
Chevalier has also faced scrutiny for a series of deleted posts to social media expressing support for abolishing police, prisons and borders, seizing private property, and nationalizing industries. “A world without borders—just like a world without prisons or police—is possible, necessary, and the only moral way forward,” Chevalier posted to Twitter in September 2021. During that same month, she also posted: “Yes, literally, abolish the border” and “all deportation is wrong.” In a handful of posts, Chevalier appeared to express support for key tenets of Marxism and abolishing the police.
“Seize the means of production,” she wrote in one post. “No. It means ending policing full stop. Period. No more police at all ever,” she wrote in another. Chevalier tried to distance herself from her old tweets during the campaign. “I have grown considerably in the years since these tweets, and I am focused on our community and our community’s future,” Chevalier told CNN when the outlet asked about the posts.

A bit of motion there too. But Republicans have it easy compared to Democrats.

• The Republican Party’s Dissidents Show Themselves the Door (Ben Shapiro)

Tucker Carlson says he can no longer support the Republican Party. In that regard, he finds himself in familiar company. A growing faction on the populist right — including figures such as Candace Owens, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Nick Fuentes — has increasingly positioned itself in opposition to core Republican foreign policy principles. Rather than seeking to persuade the party, many now appear ready to abandon it altogether. That may not be a crisis for Republicans. It may simply be a clarification. Political movements require ideological boundaries. Parties are more than coalitions of convenience; they are associations built around shared principles and priorities.

When those principles cease to align, separation is often healthier than endless internal conflict. Vice President JD Vance recently made that case during an appearance on Megyn Kelly’s show. Defending the administration’s approach to Iran, Vance argued that Republicans who disagree with specific policies should nevertheless recognize the alternative: empowering Democrats. Whether one agrees with his defense of the administration or not, the broader point is difficult to dispute. Political parties function by advancing a common agenda, not by endlessly renegotiating their foundational commitments.
Yet a segment of the so-called “horseshoe Right” appears interested in something else entirely. Rather than influencing the Republican Party from within, its leaders increasingly seem determined to pressure the party into abandoning longstanding principles in favor of a worldview markedly more sympathetic to adversarial regimes abroad. Carlson’s latest comments are a case in point. Speaking on the Can’t Be Censored podcast, Carlson announced that he no longer supports the Republican Party because, in his view, it has become immoral. He argued that Republicans have placed the interests of foreign countries above those of Americans and therefore no longer deserve his support.
“I voted Republican my entire life,” Carlson said. “I’ve been a consistent defender for 35 years of the Republican Party. … But there’s no defending this because it’s immoral.” That claim raises questions of its own. Carlson was registered as a Democrat from 2006 to 2020, explaining at various times that he did so in order to participate in Democratic primaries. Regardless, the larger issue is not his voter registration history but his definition of Republican principles. Carlson has become one of the most prominent voices arguing against support for Ukraine while expressing remarkable sympathy for Russia’s perspective in the conflict.
He has repeatedly criticized efforts to counter Iranian influence in the Middle East and has frequently attacked traditional Republican arguments centered on deterrence and strength.At some point, disagreement becomes philosophical divergence. If a political movement believes in peace through strength, maintaining American alliances and confronting hostile regimes, then those who reject those principles are under no obligation to remain within that movement. Nor is the movement obligated to redefine itself around their objections.Greene recently echoed Carlson’s frustration, declaring that she would no longer support what she called an “America Last Republican Party.”
Similar sentiments have emerged from other prominent commentators who argue that the GOP has betrayed its voters by refusing to embrace a more isolationist foreign policy. But dissatisfaction alone does not confer ownership. Being unhappy with a party’s direction does not mean the party must reorganize itself around every dissatisfied faction. Kelly, to her credit, recently suggested that disagreement with Republican leadership is not itself grounds for abandoning the party. That observation highlights a broader truth: Political coalitions inevitably contain disagreements. The question is whether those disagreements exist within a shared framework of principles or whether they reflect fundamentally different visions of America’s role in the world.
The current divide increasingly appears to be the latter. The Republican Party is free to debate tactics, priorities and individual policies. What it cannot do is function without a coherent identity. If peace through strength, support for American interests abroad, and opposition to hostile foreign powers remain central to that identity, then those who reject those principles may decide they no longer belong in the coalition. If so, there is nothing wrong with leaving. What would be a mistake is allowing those departures to become the blueprint for a new Republican Party. Sometimes political movements benefit not from expansion but from clarity. And sometimes the clearest statement is made by those who choose to walk away.

The motions. Going thru,

• Mark Rutte Gives “Remain in NATO” Pitch to President Trump in White House (CTH)

Against the backdrop of President Trump, Secretary Rubio and Secretary Hegseth pointedly telling NATO of the U.S. intention to draw-down U.S. military operations from Europe, NATO General Secretary Mark Rutte flies to Washington DC to make the pro-NATO sales pitch directly to President Trump.In one of the most transparent appearances in oval office history, a passionate, self-interested and professionally demure Mark Rutte pours on the praise for President Trump and puts on a massive sales pitch.

You can tell from President Trump’s demeanor, tone and general ambivalence, he too can see how over the top the praise and back-slapping is. Secretary Rutte was intensely and diplomatically focused on not allowing any accurate criticism or statement of disappointment from President Trump be left unchallenged to frame the tone and context of the meeting by the media. This is quite a desperate spectacle to witness when you understand the stakes for Europe which were carried by Rutte.

CTH readers can see through the professionally demure motivations of the NATO secretary, and it was obvious from President Trump’s response that Rutte was transparently playing to the U.S. audience and DC stakeholders. That said, you’ve got to give Rutte credit for tap-dancing that fine line. It was a great sales pitch, and President Trump was very courteous and respectful of the showmanship, but I doubt President Trump was moved much. The G7 assembly in Turkey will be very interesting.For the G7 (+13) in France, Zelenskyy went all-in with the Ukraine false flag and attack on Moscow. It will be interesting to watch what the “coalition of the willing” have planned for the next assembly.

“..29 million exchanges with Claude using thousands of fraudulent accounts..” Couldn’t Anthropic have seen this coming? You know, instead of whining to Pocahontas?

• Anthropic Accuses Alibaba Of Illicitly Extracting Ai Capabilities (BBC)

US artificial intelligence (AI) giant Anthropic has accused Chinese e-commerce and technology firm Alibaba of “brazenly” and “illicitly” extracting its Claude AI model’s capabilities. In a letter sent to two members of the US Congress, the San Francisco-based company said operators linked to Alibaba carried out almost 29 million exchanges with Claude using thousands of fraudulent accounts in what it called the largest extraction campaign of its kind. Anthropic urged Congress to penalise the companies behind attacks like this and to ramp up measures to prevent US tech from being stolen.

[..] Anthropic’s letter, dated 10 June and addressed to US Senators Tim Scott and Elizabeth Warren, accused New York Stock Exchange-listed Alibaba of carrying out “the largest campaign to illicitly extract Claude’s capabilities”. According to Anthropic, the campaign was carried out through what are known as “distillation attacks”, which extracted answers from a stronger AI model to train a weaker one. Alibaba-linked operators targeted Claude’s most valuable capabilities, including its ability to tackle longer and more complex tasks and its approach to decision-making, Anthropic said.
These type of attacks are carried out on an “industrial scale” to enable Chinese companies to harvest and repackage US AI capabilities as their own, the company said. The letter also cited other alleged attacks, which Anthropic said posed a threat to the US military. “Distillation attacks turn hundreds of billions of dollars in American investment and [research and development] into a massive subsidy for our geopolitical competitors,” said Anthropic. It cited the US Department of Defense’s claims that Alibaba and several major firms like car maker BYD and tech company Baidu are tied to the Chinese military.
The companies have denied any such allegations, while Alibaba this week sued the US government in a bid to get its name removed from the Pentagon blacklist. US developers have previously accused Chinese competitors of using distillation attacks to train their models to rival American AI technology at a fraction of the cost. OpenAI has also previously accused Chinese groups of employing the same practice. Anthropic is a leading AI developer and, alongside ChatGPT-maker OpenAI, is gearing up for a blockbuster stock market debut that could make it one of the most vaulable companies in the world. But some of Anthropic’s more advanced models, such as Mythos, have raised cybersecurity concerns over their ability to target weaknesses in computer systems.

“The NSA has reportedly lost access to Anthropic’s advanced Mythos model amid a dispute between the tech company and Washington..”

Maybe the NSA can pretend they’re Alibaba.

• US National Security Agency (NSA) Loses Access To Key AI Tool (RT)

The US National Security Agency (NSA) has lost access to Anthropic’s advanced Mythos 5 AI model while using it to find software weaknesses, the New York Times has reported. The development comes amid Washington’s months-long dispute with the Silicon Valley firm. The cutoff came after the Trump administration imposed export restrictions on Anthropic earlier this month, citing national security concerns, according to the NYT. The loss “deprived” the intelligence agency of a “tool that has impressed and alarmed its analysts with how good it is at finding software weaknesses,” the outlet added.

During the tests, the model identified vulnerabilities in highly secure government networks “within hours,” the AP reported on Wednesday, citing an anonymous US official. Anthropic’s AI technology has been increasingly deployed on classified government networks and integrated into US national-security work, with its models used for intelligence analysis, operational planning, and cyber operations.
However, in February, the Department of War designated Anthropic a “supply chain risk” after the company refused to remove restrictions on some of its AI systems’ military applications. The firm said it opposed mass domestic surveillance and fully autonomous weapons. US President Donald Trump subsequently ordered federal agencies to phase out Anthropic technology within a six-month window.
Anthropic sued the government, arguing that the measures were unlawful retaliation for its refusal to relax safeguards on AI’s military uses. Despite the phase-out order and ongoing legal battle, multiple media reports later claimed that parts of the US government continue to use Anthropic systems. The developments come amid warnings from researchers, technology leaders, and security officials that AI systems are being integrated into military and intelligence operations faster than governments and institutions can adapt to their increasing capabilities.
Experts have cautioned that the same tools that are used to strengthen cyber defenses could also automate attacks and lower barriers for malicious actors. On Monday, cybersecurity experts from the Five Eyes intelligence alliance – the US, UK, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand – warned that rapidly advancing AI models could soon enable hackers to disrupt governments, businesses, and critical infrastructure on a global scale.

Brexit at Tiffany’s?!

“The UK wants back into the EU, but not on the EU’s terms”.

Galina Dudina, is a columnist at Kommersant daily newspaper in Moscow..

• Brexit at 10: The Divorce Britain Now Regrets (Galina Dudina)

Ten years ago, I was on a business trip in Brussels on the day of the Brexit referendum. Voting was already underway across the Channel, but in the European Quarter, the mood was almost serene. Journalists kept asking EU officials about Brexit, and the officials waved the questions away with jokes, as though the whole thing was a theatrical inconvenience rather than a potential political earthquake. In private conversations, I asked people the same question: if you had to place a bet, what would you choose? Everyone said ‘Remain’. In Britain itself, almost 13 million voters didn’t turn out at all, apparently unable to imagine the scale of what was coming.

We were all naive. Trump hadn’t yet been elected in the United States, the Covid disaster hadn’t yet rolled across the world, and the year 2022 hadn’t arrived yet. On the morning of June 24, 2016, the news that 51.9% of British voters had chosen to leave the European Union was read not only online, but on the faces of people in Brussels. Outside cafés and around the offices where EU officials gathered for lunch, people spoke into their phones in a state of disbelief. Today, around 57% of Britons say Brexit was a mistake, and despite the reverence traditionally attached in Britain to the “will of the people,” politicians are increasingly prepared to discuss whether the decision should one day be revisited.
Philip Rycroft, the senior civil servant who oversaw preparations for Brexit inside the British state, recently argued that “Brexit isn’t over” and “will never be over.” In his view, the British political class should now have an honest discussion not only about closer relations with Brussels, but also about a possible return to the Union. At first glance, this sounds reasonable because, ten years on, Brexit hasn’t produced the promised economic boom. Sterling hasn’t soared, and the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that, in the long term, the British economy will be around 4% smaller than it would have been inside the EU. Some economists put the loss in GDP per capita at 6–8%.
Nor has Britain escaped dependence on the rest of Europe. The EU remains its largest trading partner, accounting for around 41% of British exports and almost half of imports, while for British companies, Brexit has brought more paperwork, friction, and uncertainty. And yet the new talk of reunion isn’t quite the sober strategic rethink it pretends to be. It also belongs to a wider nostalgia that swept social media at the start of this year, when users in many countries began posting old photographs and memories under the slogan “bring back my 2016.”
Those now dreaming of a return to 2016, and to the EU, should remember what Britain’s membership actually looked like. Since joining the European Economic Community in 1973, Britain spent decades carving out a special status for itself, and while it was in the club, it was never quite like the others. It kept the pound, stayed outside Schengen, secured a rebate on its budget contributions, and negotiated opt-outs in sensitive areas.
There is little reason to think Brussels would now offer London the same package again. A returning Britain would have to accept a far less comfortable relationship, with economic dependence on the continent, migration pressures, tighter alignment with EU rules, and rising defense obligations. This is where public opinion becomes more complicated because, while many Britons may favor closer ties, or even rejoining in theory, only 36% support returning without the old exemptions. In other words, they want the lost stability of EU membership, but not necessarily the obligations that would now come with it.
Britain might also find that its place in the European queue has changed, and a new application would risk landing behind Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ukraine, and Moldova. The former imperial power that once negotiated rebates and exceptions could return as just another applicant. Both Brexit and the current regret over Brexit are therefore more emotional than rational. It’s no accident that the most common metaphor for it is divorce, and many people know from experience that missing a former partner does not always mean reconciliation is possible, or wise.

It’s an absurd story. Nobody in the whole world can figure out why.

• Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s EO Requiring Proof of Citizenship to Vote (AmG)

A federal judge on Wednesday permanently blocked key portions of President Donald Trump’s executive order overhauling federal election procedures, ruling that the president exceeded his constitutional authority by attempting to impose new voting requirements without congressional approval. U.S. District Judge Denise Casper, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, concluded that the Constitution gives primary authority over elections to the states and Congress, not the executive branch.

The ruling makes permanent a preliminary injunction Casper issued last year in a lawsuit filed by Democratic attorneys general from 19 states. “While the Constitution vests the President with ‘executive Power’ and commands him to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,’ it does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” Casper wrote. “As a result, the President ‘plays no direct role in the process of appointing electors,’ nor does he have authority to control the state officials who do,” she added.
Trump’s executive order sought to require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote, prohibit states from counting mail ballots received after Election Day even if postmarked on time, and withhold certain federal funds from states that declined to comply. Casper ruled that the administration lacked the authority to impose those changes through executive action. In her 59-page opinion, the judge also rejected the administration’s justification for the order, writing that the Justice Department failed to establish the widespread election problems it cited in defending the policy.
“There is no evidence in this record of widespread ‘illegal voting, discrimination, fraud, and other forms of malfeasance and error’ within American elections, which the Executive Order purports to safeguard against,” Casper wrote. The judge also concluded that the order would have disenfranchised thousands of voters.The decision is another legal setback for the administration’s efforts to repair federal election procedures. Courts have repeatedly blocked or limited several election-related initiatives advanced during Trump’s second term.
Additional lawsuits are challenging a separate executive order aimed at creating a nationwide voter database and tightening mail voting requirements. Earlier this week, another federal judge blocked the administration’s attempt to use an immigration database to verify voter rolls, while courts have also rejected Justice Department efforts to obtain state voter registration records. Despite the court rulings, Trump has continued urging Congress to enact proof-of-citizenship requirements through legislation.
The Republican-backed SAVE America Act passed the House but remains stalled in the Senate. Trump renewed that effort Wednesday, saying he would withhold his signature from a bipartisan housing bill until Congress approves voter citizenship verification requirements.

“Bessent noted that a born-again Venezuela is shifting back towards USD invoicing, and that post-deal Iran is likely to do so as well.”

• A River in Egypt (Molly Schwartz)

Scott Bessent took to CNBC’s Squawk Box yesterday to opine on the situation with Iran. Bessent echoed Trump’s comments that any released Iranian assets are to remain under US Treasury oversight and are restricted to use for food and medicine. However, money is fungible, and any released cash that is used to help civilians may mean more cash from other places that can be used to support the IRGC’s interests

Bessent’s comments also called attention to another philosophical outlook on the war and the Administration’s initially stated— though seemingly not truly intended—goal of regime change. This is where the waters gets murky, and where we can climb into our Felucca and begin our journey along a river in Egypt, drifting, perhaps, into a bit of strategic “denial” about what regime change actually means. If, hypothetically of course, Operation Epic Fury succeeded in asserting regime change in Iran, where does the US go from here? If the new Ayatollah says he is willing to table plans of further enriching uranium and wants to align itself with US interests, should the US just keep firing missiles? Do you keep Iranian assets under lock and key, even if the regime has shown you that it has changed?
Bessent said himself, “we didn’t have a regime change, but we have changed the regime.” If that is the genuine perspective of the Trump Administration, then the deal may not be as bad for the US as many perceive it to be. As our Global Strategist, Michael Every, has noted on multiple occasions, show of strength means everything in the arena of Middle Eastern geopolitics. There is a possibility that the current hardliners in the IRGC aren’t actually so hardline anymore, but are only presenting as such. Note that this is not a new base case for our outlook by any means (you can read more about our Hormuz outlook here), but food for thought.
If the regime truly has changed, this also could have big implications for USD dominance. Bessent noted that a born-again Venezuela is shifting back towards USD invoicing, and that post-deal Iran is likely to do so as well.
Brent crude oil fell below $75/bbl for the first time since the war in Iran began, sending US Treasury markets into a tailspin. US 2-year yields dropped almost 6bp to 4.21, while the 10-year sunk almost 10bp—the largest one-day downward move since October 2025. With “peace in the Middle East,” the case for hikes is losing water by the day, with the market now pricing in 27bp worth of hikes by October, and only 40bp worth of hikes at the peak—a significant downgrade from Monday, when two full hikes had been priced in by the April 2027 FOMC decision.
Such a dramatic move in rates would normally suggest a weaker dollar, but USD was actually the best-performing G10 currency on a one-day view and the best month-to-date. The DXY index continued its climb from last week’s FOMC meeting to 101.6—the highest level since May 2025. Meanwhile, EUR/USD broke below crucial support at 1.14, fueling additional EUR selling, with the pair trading at 1.1356 at the time of writing. While the following appears to be more of an instance of correlation rather than causation, it is also important to note that yesterday’s move coincided with comments from Bessent—perhaps another slow turn of the Felucca—that USD can remain strong even when interest rates are being cut.
While USD is soaring, JPY is plummeting. USD/JPY spent the day yesterday approaching the July 3, 2024 high of 162, with the 14D RSI at 71.83 suggesting that USD/JPY is overbought. According to Bloomberg, Bessent and Japanese Finance Minister Katayama spoke over the phone, with Katayama telling reporters that “she and Bessent agreed to take ‘bold’ steps on currencies if needed,” and said the nations are increasingly “aligned” on foreign-exchange policy.
The Bank of Canada released its Summary of Deliberations from the June 10 decision, written on papyrus. Recent Canadian economic data suggest that the Canadian economy has slipped into a technical recession, with two consecutive quarters of negative quarterly growth. The Governing Council piled into a felucca of their own, racing up de Nile, justifying that higher-frequency data suggest a “resumption of growth in the second quarter,” and that while the Canadian economy is weak, it is “not clearly in a recession.”

“It’s so hot that the schoolchildren are passing out in class and nobody is allowed to do anything about it.”

• Suffer the Little Children, France Insists (Stephen Green)

If Johnny Carson were still around and hosting The Tonight Show, he might launch a bit during tonight’s monologue with “Boy, it’s really hot out there in Nîmes today…” and then the audience would burst in, sounding almost rehearsed and shouting, “HOW HOT IS IT?” “It’s so hot that the schoolchildren are passing out in class and nobody is allowed to do anything about it.” Wait, that isn’t funny. But it is the situation in Nîmes, a city of about 148,000 in a lovely part of the south of France. Actually, I’ve been in the south of France, and all the parts are lovely (except Marseille, of course), but I digress.

The region is suffering a record-breaking, early-summer heat wave with temperatures soaring as high as 40–44°C, the way the French reckon it, or 104–111°F in actual degrees. This is when Americans would set the thermostat to 68° (actual degrees) or maybe go see a movie at a theater where they keep it that temp all the time.mBut at the École Primaire La Planette school in Nîmes, they have no air conditioning — naturellement — and according to Miss Jo on X and other sources, a child there “recently fainted because of the heat,” even while “classes were being taught in corridors to get out of the heat.”
Parents of the students there did what parents in America would almost certainly do in a similar situation, and they raised money to buy five portable air conditioning units for the school. The community got so involved that the parents needed just three days to raise the required €2,000. So far, so good. But Mayor Vincent Bouget is an actual member of the Parti communiste français (PCF), and if there’s one thing Communists can’t stand, it’s the community doing stuff. Bouget ordered the school to remove the A/C because “it sets a precedent,” and “in some neighborhoods, parents don’t have the means to act.”
I mean, I guess those parents could hold a fundraiser like the other parents did. The community seemed pretty excited to jump in and help. But no. What was Winston Churchill just saying about socialism? Ah, yes — here’s the quote: “Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.” That line actually dates back to a speech Churchill gave in Scotland in 1948. But it’s so timeless that it still has that fresh quote smell. Unlike the schools in Nîmes, which likely smell like sweat and desperation. Honestly, I’d enjoy nothing more than to write about something, anything other than how vicious Europe is to its own people, but it just won’t stop being so vicious to its own people.
If I were a particularly coldhearted eugenicist, this is where I’d argue that it’s one thing to force young children to put up with potentially deadly heat, but it just makes good sense to deny A/C to old people who are nothing but burdens to the State. Which is exactly what happens even during normal summers, when tens of thousands of Europeans — typically older — die unnecessarily due to the heat. But that would be gross. And also wrong. This is America, and we have A/C for pretty much everybody who needs it. The way God and Willis Carrier intended.

~Weird.

• Kremlin To Contact Apple Before Responding To Removal of Apps (TASS)

Relevant Russian agencies will contact Apple before deciding how to respond to the removal of Russian apps, Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters. “Naturally, before drawing any conclusions, it is necessary to establish contact with this service, and our relevant agency will do so. Of course, clarifications will be required from the corporation,” he said when asked a respective question. VK announced earlier that Apple had removed its apps from the store without explanation. The company clarified that apps already installed would continue to function on Apple devices, though users would not receive push notifications. VK also emphasized that it had never been subject to sanctions, a fact confirmed by numerous legal opinions from international and US lawyers.

I need a new MacBook. Mine is 8 years old. They just added $400+. Great. Volunteers?

• Apple Price Shock: Macs And iPads Jump $200 Or More, Memory Crisis Worsens (ZH)

Readers were warned as early as late January to front-run the coming memory shortage by purchasing their favorite electronics, whether PCs, laptops, TVs, smartphones, or anything else dependent on high-end memory chips, as unprecedented data-center demand was already beginning to emerge. Fast forward nearly five months, and just two weeks after Apple CEO Tim Cook warned that “price increases are unavoidable” for laptops and other devices, a Wall Street Journal report has confirmed that those hikes have now been passed along, potentially delivering sticker shock to customers.

Here’s what happened earlier: The Apple Online Store briefly went down, and when it came back online, prices for Mac computers jumped 15% to 20%, while iPad prices increased 15% to 25%. The company briefly took down its Apple Online Store early this morning as it typically does when announcing new products. When it came back online, the price tags for Mac computers rose roughly 15% to 20% and iPad prices rose 15% to 25%. Among the price increases, the base MacBook Air rose $200 to $1,299; the base MacBook Pro increased $300 to $1,999; the entry-level MacBook Neo increased $100 to $699. The iPad Air increased $150 to $749 and the iPad Pro increased $200 to $1,199. -WSJ

*APPLE RAISES VISION PRO HEADSET PRICE TO $3,699 FROM $3,499

*APPLE HOMEPOD NOW $349, HOMEPOD MINI IS $129, APPLE TV TO $199
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 25, 2026

However, iPhone prices remained unchanged, but the company told the outlet in a statement that additional price hikes could be on the way. “We have now reached a point where we need to begin raising prices,” Apple said in the statement. “We have never seen a component price increase this much, this quickly.” An Apple spokesperson placed the blame on the “rapid expansion of AI data centers, which has created an extraordinary surge in demand for memory and storage,” and this is why component prices surged.
Earlier this month, Cook told WSJ that price increases had become “unavoidable” because of higher component costs, adding, “There’s less supply at a time when consumers want devices, and the memory guys are passing along huge price increases.”Apple has historically revealed price hikes with new launches of iPhones, iPads, and other devices, making this overnight price hike extraordinarily rare. The high-end chip market is dominated by US-based Micron and South Korea’s SK Hynix and Samsung, which have all seen massive demand for high-bandwidth memory from AI “hyperscalers” such as Google, Meta, and Amazon.
Apple’s price hikes come hours after Micron delivered blowout quarterly earnings, touting gross profit margins that topped 80%. Shares soared nearly 18% in premarket trading. Micron executives told investors that “tight conditions” will persist beyond 2027 and that only suggests further price hikes are coming not just for Apple but also for other major big tech firms that sell devices. Micron Chief Business Officer Sumit Sadana said in a WSJ interview last night that “a couple of the customers who were being very aggressive with pricing at that time were not constructive,” without naming Apple…
Sadana noted, “A lot of the industry investments got shut down in 2023 because of really poor pricing and really poor margins.” A recent Morgan Stanley note found that memory prices have climbed sixfold over the past year, with new manufacturing capacity likely to take years to build and ramp up. The iPhone price hike may be unavoidable: JPMorgan analysts estimate DRAM and NAND could jump from roughly 10% to 15% of an iPhone’s total component cost today to more than 45% by 2027. Memory price spikes are already showing up in the Producer Price Index for semiconductor and other electronic component manufacturing.

At what point does Trump start raging at soaring memory prices

PPI Electronic Components is pulling entire core index higher pic.twitter.com/v9ufHmx0gG
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 11, 2026

… and at what point does President Trump start raging at memory prices, just as his administration has successfully sent oil prices crashing by entering a diplomatic phase with Tehran to secure a permanent peace deal?

Every politician everywhere is involved. Forget figuring it out.

• Fauci, The CIA, And The Unanswered Questions of COVID (RealClearWire)

Did Anthony Fauci manipulate the intelligence community (IC) investigation of the origin of COVID as outgoing Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard claims?Gabbard recently released previously unseen documents and communications during the COVID pandemic between the IC and the key member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, Dr. Anthony Fauci. She claims they show that Fauci and the IC coordinated the investigation of the origin of the COVID to suggest it was a natural occurrence rather than a laboratory leak. She further charges that the documents reveal Fauci’s direct role in influencing and manipulating IC assessments in an attempt to discourage the lab-leak hypothesis.

It is not clear that the released information shows this, and a careful reading suggests a more complicated scenario. But what the messages do show is that an undue emphasis on Fauci’s actions risks missing a more important point – the hidden connection between public health officials and the IC during the pandemic.
The two theories on where COVID originated are that the virus evolved naturally from bats to man via an intermediate animal host; or that the virus leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan, China. The first was more widely accepted by scientists and most of the international press early in the pandemic, but the intermediate host has never been discovered so the theory remains speculative. The second theory, which has gained significant traction since initially being disparaged as conspiracy, is only circumstantial since no definitive proof exists. The answer as to how COVID originated remains unknown.
Where does Dr. Fauci, the government’s point man in the pandemic, fit in? He acknowledges the possibility of a lab leak, but initially came down firmly on the side of natural origin – aggressively so. He and his colleagues, notably his boss NIH director Francis Collins, attempted to publicly silence proponents of the lab leak theory. The rub is that Fauci was tangentially involved in “gain of function” viral manipulation research done in Wuhan and clearly misled Congress about this involvement.
Because gain-of-function research could have been responsible for the development of the virus in the Wuhan lab, this means Fauci has a conflict of interest on the COVID source: He could bear some responsibility for the entire affair if this was indeed a lab leak. So he has reason other than scientific inquiry to support the animal host theory. He is aware of that and has written in the past about the necessity and the attendant danger of doing gain-of-function research. He now strenuously denies it had anything to do with COVID.
Enter the IC and Gabbard’s document release.
There is uncertainty over whether Fauci frequented CIA offices early in the pandemic, something he was less than forthright about in his 2024 congressional testimony. It is unclear whether or how many times he was there, in part because a whistleblower claims the requirement to sign in was waived for Dr. Fauci. What is not in doubt are his contacts with the CIA after President Biden charged the IC with investigating the origin of COVID.
The CIA asked Fauci to provide recommendations for experts to consult in their investigation of the COVID origin; the extent of his influence on the agency’s investigation is unclear. At the time, some officials, aware of the potential conflict of interest, questioned in the documents whether relying on recommendations from someone deeply involved in coronavirus research could create the perception of improper influence regarding their findings. Nevertheless, the IC employed the experts Fauci recommended, who were never publicly identified. Their names have been redacted in communications and the information they provided has never been released.
The lack of transparency by the public health community and the CIA caused Republicans, led by Dr. Rand Paul, to suspect Fauci selected his CIA consultants based on their opposition to the lab-leak theory. Further, Paul proposed there was a self-justifying loop of information in which the medical experts put their thumbs on the scale of the IC report supporting natural origin. Public health officials (and some politicians who saw the lab-leak theory as a potential scandal) then turned around and used the “doctored” IC report to support the conclusions they provided to the public.
Neither of these accusations is supported or refuted by the released communications.

USAID money funded coronavirus research in China that killed millions of people https://t.co/AJJM70wDXq
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 23, 2026

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2069823459790618745?s=20

Javier Milei: I thought being on the left was a mental problem… But what I discovered is that being on the left is a disease of the soul.. Since they have no way or arguments, they go for physical violence.
pic.twitter.com/Jq15KKiHhR
— Defiant L’s (@DefiantLs) June 24, 2026

I covered this a few years ago, sunscreen actually causes cancer, sounds crazy, but the biggest studies shows that.

The kind of cancer you get from the sun is Basal Cell carcinoma, which is not deadly, the survival rate from basal cell after five years is 100%

Lack of sun is… https://t.co/yy8OnVQJpA
— Jimmy Dore (@jimmy_dore) June 25, 2026

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

Older Entries