Paul Gauguin Tahitians at rest (unfinished) 1891
Bernal
Watch Biden WH advisor Anthony Bernal plead the 5th to questions about Biden’s health, mental acuity, and who made the decisions in the WH.
David Hogg claimed in undercover footage that Anthony was the one running the WH.
Anthony IS the coverup. pic.twitter.com/iSGtgkXdyv
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) July 16, 2025
Lutnick
🚨 HOW MUCH DO YOU REALLY KNOW ABOUT HOWARD LUTNICK?
*He didn’t show up to work in the World Trade Center on 9/11.
*His business partner? Larry Silverstein – the guy who insured the Towers right before they fell.
*He reportedly pocketed $25 million from the American Airlines… pic.twitter.com/QhIIaLXu6O— HustleBitch (@HustleBitch_) July 16, 2025
What do we make of these Yellowstone videos?
My neck of the woods.
Weird 🤔 pic.twitter.com/wuaDwGT95v
— MTKate2.0 (@777katemt) July 16, 2025
Colorado.
The animals exhibit the same behavior as those in Yellowstone, so the advice is to follow the animals.
Follow the animals. pic.twitter.com/OJObZ934DU— Bronze Giant (@RjNol) July 16, 2025
More animals leaving the national park in Yellowstone pic.twitter.com/EvtBUoPpio
— mrredpillz jokaqarmy (@JOKAQARMY1) July 16, 2025
Rhys
BREAKING: Johnson & Johnson Lead Scientist Confesses J&J COVID-19 Vaccine Was 'Not Safe and Effective,' Reveals “Lack of Research” From Rushing to Release Vaccine: “People Wanted It, We Gave It to Them”
“Do you have any idea the lack of research that was done on those products… pic.twitter.com/yEeyXy8toI
— James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) July 15, 2025
“Trump’s famed “art of the deal” may amount to little more than selling junk with a smile. But if so, he’s done it masterfully.”
• Trump’s Ultimatum Isn’t An Ultimatum – and Moscow Knows It (Ryumshin)
US President Donald Trump has finally issued his much-anticipated “important statement” on Russia. For days, speculation swirled, particularly among pro-Ukrainian circles, that the long-awaited U-turn was coming. Trump, they hoped, would finally get tough – perhaps inspired by the increasingly hawkish rhetoric of Senator Lindsey Graham (who, incidentally, is designated a terrorist and extremist in Russia). Even skeptics began to believe that Trump was gearing up to show Moscow “Kuzka’s mother,” a famous idiomatic expression of aggression used by Nikita Khrushchev during the Cold War. But in classic Trump fashion, expectations were dashed. The supposedly “extremely tough ultimatum” turned out to be something else entirely. Trump threatened tariff sanctions against Russia and its trading partners – but scrapped Graham’s extreme proposal of 500% duties.
Instead, he floated the idea of 100% tariffs that would only take effect after 50 days, if he chooses to enforce them, and if Russia fails to strike a deal. Trump also announced new arms deliveries to Ukraine. But these aren’t gifts – they’ll be sold, not given, and passed through European intermediaries. Supposedly, Ukraine will receive 17 Patriot systems. Yet we soon learned the first of these deliveries won’t arrive for at least two months – again, 50 days. And even now, basic questions remain unanswered. What exactly did Trump mean by “17 Patriots”? Seventeen batteries? Launchers? Missiles? If he meant 17 batteries, that’s simply not plausible. The US itself only operates around 30 active batteries. Germany and Israel combined don’t have anywhere near that many available systems. Such a figure would significantly boost Ukraine’s air defenses – but it’s almost certainly exaggerated.
Seventeen missiles? That would be laughable – but not unthinkable. Washington recently sent just 10 Patriot missiles in a “military aid” package so modest it wouldn’t suffice for a single battle. Seventeen launchers? That seems more realistic. A typical battery consists of six to eight launchers, so this would amount to two or three batteries – more than what Germany and Norway have promised to purchase for Ukraine. Yet even the Pentagon can’t confirm the details. And one suspects Trump himself may be fuzzy on the specifics. His role, after all, is to make the pronouncements; others are left to clean up the mess. The so-called “14 July ultimatum” has already become a textbook example of Trump’s diplomatic approach. In fact, a new phrase has emerged in American political slang: “Trump Always Chickens Out” or TACO.
The acronym speaks for itself. It refers to the president’s habit in trade and security talks of making grandiose threats, only to backtrack or delay implementation.This appears to be another case in point. The negotiations are at an impasse. Trump still craves a Nobel Peace Prize. And he’s reluctant to become too entangled in the Ukrainian conflict. So he’s reached for the oldest trick in his playbook: the non-ultimatum ultimatum. This allows him to sound tough while giving Moscow space – and perhaps even time – to act. It also offers cover with his MAGA base, many of whom are frustrated by distractions like Iran or the Epstein scandal and aren’t eager to see America dragged further into Ukraine. The genius of it, from Trump’s perspective, is that it promises everything and nothing at once.
No clear strategy. No detailed demands. Just an open-ended threat backed by ambiguous timelines. It’s pressure without posture. Leverage without leadership. What’s striking is that the White House didn’t even ask Russia to de-escalate. There were no appeals to halt the almost daily strikes on Ukraine or curb battlefield activity. In effect, Russia has been handed a 50-day window – intentionally or not – to do as it sees fit. A quiet concession to the Kremlin? Perhaps. A careless side effect? Possibly. Either way, Moscow gains. America, too, comes out ahead – at least financially. Under the new arrangement, Western Europe picks up the tab for Ukraine’s defense, while US companies get paid to offload ageing equipment.
Trump’s famed “art of the deal” may amount to little more than selling junk with a smile. But if so, he’s done it masterfully. Still, as a political maneuver, the outcome is more uncertain. Trump may believe he’s found the sweet spot between hawks and doves, between NATO allies and nationalist critics. But trying to be all things to all people rarely ends well. Appeasement disguised as firmness satisfies no one for long. And while Trump plays for time, Russia holds the initiative. That’s the real story here.
Trump is trying to resist the fast growing pressure, in the US and Europe, to declare outright war on Russia.
• Trump Has Backed Himself Into A Corner On Ukraine (Proud)
One year after he undertook to end the Ukraine war in one day, and just past six months into his Presidency, Donald Trump has kicked the peace can down the road by fifty days. The ultimatum to President Putin to make peace or face sanctions has practically no chance to changing Russian aims in Ukraine. Backed into a corner, Trump may finally be forced to address Russia’s underlying concerns. In televised remarks on 14 July during his meeting with NATO Secretary General, Mark Rutte, President Trump said, ‘if we don’t have a [peace] deal in fifty days, we’re going to be doing very severe tariffs, tariffs at about a hundred percent, you’d call them secondary tariffs.’ As he was in 2017, Trump also now finds himself hemmed in by beltway politics and unable to deliver a reset in U.S.-Russia relations that he instinctively seems to want.
The Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025 would put in place so-called secondary sanctions on Russia by imposing stiff tariffs of up to 500% against countries such as China and India that inter alia import Russian energy. U.S. lawmakers want to strong arm Trump into forcing President Putin to back down in Ukraine via the back door. But there is a yawn-inducing sense of déjà vu here. The 2017 Countering American Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, signed into law on 2 August 2017, had no impact on Russian policy towards Ukraine, but led to a huge collapse in U.S.-Russia relations. This was illustrated most clearly by the decision to cut U.S. diplomatic staffing in Russia by 755 personnel, meaning among other things, that today it is practically impossible for a Russian citizen to apply for a U.S. visa inside of Russia itself; the U.S. Embassy simply doesn’t have enough staff.
To avoid a repeat of 2017, Trump now appears to be buying himself fifty days in DC to reach peace in Ukraine before he is forced by the Senate to impose secondary sanctions on Russia. The 14 July announcement was therefore about domestic U.S. politics more than about foreign policy. But what Trump has in fact done is to set a clear ultimatum on Russia to reach a peace deal with Ukraine, with no clear commitment to meeting Russia’s specific demands, the key demand being Ukraine’s neutrality and revocation of its NATO aspiration. As an ultimatum, this won’t work, because the additional military support that the U.S. is now offering to Ukraine, paid for by European NATO allies, won’t be sufficient to tip the military balance in Ukraine’s favour.
Additional Patriot missiles and interceptors may well reduce the overall impact of Russian drone and missile strikes on Ukrainian cities. But the military facts on the ground are that Russia continues to gain ground. At several points along the front line, around Pokrovsk, and Kupiansk, towards Konstiantynivka and Siversk, there have been significant recent Russian gains, by the slow attritional standards of this war. As reported by the Guardian in the UK, even some Ukrainian politicians and bloggers have come out to say that fifty days will simply allow Russia to occupy further Ukrainian land. The most interesting point about that report is the revelation that a British mainstream media outlet is reporting oppositionist views from Ukraine, rather than the narrative from Zelensky’s propaganda machine. So, fifty days favours Russia more than Ukraine, militarily.
“In just the first half of this year, Ukraine recorded over 107,000 criminal cases for desertion – 20% more than in all of 2024, and nearly half of the total since the war began.”
• It’s Time, Ukraine: Kiev Braces For A Final Reckoning (Poletaev)
In our previous pieces, we examined Donald Trump’s half-hearted attempts to cast himself as a deus ex machina, descending to end the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Peace did not follow. Trump, boxed in by political inertia, continued Biden’s policy of disengagement while trying to dump the Ukrainian problem on Western Europe – just as we predicted back in January. Its leaders weren’t prepared. While Macron and Starmer formed coalitions of the willing and delivered lofty speeches, Germany quietly picked up the tab. Berlin, under its new chancellor, has shown more flexibility, but the broader Western European strategy remains unchanged: keep Washington bankrolling Ukraine at all costs. That plan is now crumbling. Trump is slipping away, and without a dramatic turn of events, no new major aid packages should be expected from the US.
This is not hard to understand. Other global crises are emerging, and the depleted American arsenal cannot serve everyone at once. In both Ukraine and across Western Europe, people are adjusting to what once seemed unthinkable: a slow but steady US withdrawal. These European leaders must now decide whether to carry the burden alone or accept a settlement on Moscow’s terms – conceding Ukraine from their sphere of influence. But neither Kiev nor its immediate sponsors is ready for serious negotiations. Why would they be? Ukraine believes it can hold without American backing. Russian oil revenues have dipped, the ruble is under pressure, and Moscow has taken hits in the Middle East and Caucasus. Perhaps, they reason, Putin will come begging in another year or two. Let’s fight, then.
Amid this political theater, the war itself has faded into the background. For many observers, the front lines seem frozen in time – village names flicker in and out of headlines, lines shift, but the broader picture holds. It’s a difficult situation for military analysts. They are forced to generate drama from attritional warfare. One day, headlines declare the Lugansk Peoples Republic fully liberated (a few villages remain contested). The next, we hear of Russian forces entering the Dnepropetrovsk region (true in a narrow sense – they crossed a small corner in a broader encirclement maneuver around Pokrovsk). None of this, however, alters the core dynamic. Both sides are largely following the same strategies as a year ago. For Russia, the aim remains clear: exhaust Ukrainian forces until they can no longer defend. The goal isn’t to seize a specific line, but to break the enemy’s army.
Russia has pursued this with steady, grinding pressure. Last winter, Moscow shifted from large mechanized thrusts to small, flexible assault groups. Instead of smashing through defenses, these units infiltrate after prolonged bombardment from artillery, drones, and air power. The results aren’t flashy, but the goal is cumulative. The summer campaign began in May; we’ll see its full effect by late summer or even winter. This mirrors the pattern of 2024, when Russian forces made their biggest gains in October and November, capturing several cities in Donetsk with minimal resistance – Novogrodovka, Ugledar, Selidovo, Kurakhovo. The key question now is scale: can Russia turn these tactical wins into a full collapse of Ukrainian lines?
The answer depends in part on the weakened state of Ukraine’s forces. By spring, Kiev had fewer armored vehicles, fewer Western shipments, and fewer elite units. The best troops were spent in the failed Kursk push and are now stuck holding Sumy. But the gravest issue is manpower. The supply of volunteers has dried up. Ukraine’s army now relies on forced conscription – the so-called “busified.” And the results are telling. In just the first half of this year, Ukraine recorded over 107,000 criminal cases for desertion – 20% more than in all of 2024, and nearly half of the total since the war began. That’s only the official count; the real number is undoubtedly higher. Desertion is now the Ukrainian army’s leading cause of losses. Draft officers are hated, and civilians fear being dragged into vans and thrown to the front. Power outages have lessened, and life behind the lines is almost normal. But the threat of forced mobilization looms. In a telling detail, real soldiers now mark their cars with “not TCR” to avoid attacks from angry civilians.
“..the abundance of cases–desperate mothers, women committing suicide, daughters protesting–began to suggest that, deep down, the Ukrainian soul may still belong to a peaceful people who never wanted any of this..”
• The Emotional Alliance Between Ukrainians and the Russian Federation (Dionísio)
For a regime that presents itself to Western nations as “the shield of democracies,” it is ironic, if not tragic, that its own people do not feel aligned with such a “noble” mission. Indeed, there are signs that Ukrainians neither consider it noble nor desire such a mission, despite the enthusiasm of Western journalists and politicians. When we watch news about the war in Ukraine and encounter journalists who, forgetting their role as informants, immediately shift to “counterarguments“–which is not their function–to challenge any more independent commentator, we are far from understanding the levels of suffering, despair, and immorality to which the Ukrainian people have been subjected over these hellish three years. During this time, the US, EU, NATO, and G7 decided to assign them an impossible mission: “to defend Western democracies against Putin’s autocracy.”
One might expect Ukrainians to feel flattered, even praised, for being chosen for such a lofty mission, especially when the assigners were none other than the self-proclaimed champions of transparency, civility, democracy, and respect for human rights. Over the three years of war, there was no shortage of street interviews in which carefully selected passersby declared their readiness for anything; nor was there a shortage of so-called journalists who praised the courage, fervor, and antagonism toward Russia, and especially toward Putin. Everything was shown to make it seem as though everyone was happy and committed. Europeans and Americans funded the war, other people’s children fought it, and the children of those aspiring to join the Western garden were sent to the front under the auspices of von der Leyen’s victory, the infantile Trumpist Mark Rutte, Baerbock, now Kallas, and formerly Borrell.
Until the news of forced conscription could no longer be contained, even outlets like The New York Times or The Guardian could not suppress it. After all, some were not so enchanted with the mission of defending others’ freedom at the cost of their own tyranny. Images began to emerge of fathers, sons, brothers, young men, and adults resisting–heroically, madly, desperately–being sent to their deaths. The images could no longer lie: men running over recruitment officers–at the risk of arrest and worse–others screaming while clinging to trees, traffic signs, or anything they could hold onto, desperate workers running through the streets shouting… In the end, one of two things must be true: either the promise of eternal freedom is not so thrilling, or the promise of eternal tyranny in case of military defeat is not so credible.
The truth is that the abundance of cases–desperate mothers, women committing suicide, daughters protesting–began to suggest that, deep down, the Ukrainian soul may still belong to a peaceful people who never wanted any of this. For Western media, nothing had changed, except that they stopped contradicting those who openly declared that Ukrainian men were no longer masters of their own lives. Not a single word, report, or statement. After all, what is happening to the Ukrainian people is not so different from what is happening elsewhere in the world.
If in Gaza and the West Bank a people is martyred, eliminated, in the name of defending Israel at the hands of a Zionist minority; in Ukraine, a people is martyred, forced to fight those they considered their brothers, with whom they lived and prospered (Soviet Ukraine was once the 10th-largest economy in the world), tyrannized by a Nazi-fascist minority, used and nurtured to defend “the democratic West.” It all comes down to pure optics, to those who consider themselves superior and, by that superiority, believe they can instrumentalize the worst evils to achieve a supreme good that only a select few enjoy. Just as Zionists consider themselves superior to all other peoples, so too do Western globalists, imperialists, Atlanticists, and liberal-fascists consider themselves superior to the peoples of the Global South, Russians included.
The one who did not fail to identify this profound contradiction was the Russian Federation and its highest military ranks. And then the unexpected happened. After all that was said about the Russian Federation, after the charges brought against Vladimir Putin for genocide and crimes against humanity, after accusations of “imperialist” ambitions, the Ukrainian people began to look at the Russian Federation not as an invader, not as a destroyer, but as an ally–if not a savior, as in the case of Russian-speaking Ukrainians. The decision to bomb “recruitment” centers–read “detention” centers–thus became a form of soft power in itself. With each destroyed center, Ukrainian voices rose in jubilation, as if turning despair into courage to say to their ally, “Yes, it is in you that I must place my hope.” Social media was flooded with messages of gratitude to Russian forces, of sympathy for this unexpected “solidarity.” It was as if, with each destroyed center, Ukrainians gained days of life, extending the hope that the war would truly end, and with it would come peace and the condemnation of the real culprits.
“The entire complexion of this war to retain America’s dollar primacy has been irreversibly altered.”
• US Hubris-Driven Blunders Transform The Wider War (Alastair Crooke)
The big issue emerging from the U.S.’ 22 June strike on Iran – second only to ‘wither Iran?’ – is whether in Trump’s calculus he can ‘rhetorically impose’ the having “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear programme claim long enough to both restrain Israel from hitting Iran again, yet still allow Trump to pursue his show-stopper headline, ‘WE WON: I’m in charge now and everybody is going to do what I tell them’. These were the key conflicting issues that were to be hammered out with Netanyahu during his White House visit this week. Netanyahu’s interests essentially are for ‘more hot war’, and thus differ from the Trump ceasefire general stratagem.
Implicit in his ‘In-Boom-Out & Ceasefire’ Iran approach is that Trump may imagine he has created the space to resume his primary objective – that of instituting a broader Israeli-centric order across the Middle East, devolving upon trade deals, economic ties, investment and connectivity, to create a business-led West Asia, centred on Tel Aviv (with Trump as its de facto ‘President’). And, via this ‘Business Super Highway’, to strike further beyond – with the Gulf States penetrating into BRICS’ south Asian heartland to disrupt BRICS connectivity and corridors. The sine qua non for any jumpstart to a putative ‘Abraham Accords 2.0 of course – as Trump clearly understands – is an end to the Gaza War; the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza; and the Strip’s re-construction (none of which seems to be in realistic reach).
What emerges rather, is that Trump continues to be seized by the delusional view that his Israeli-centred vision could all be accomplished merely by ending the genocide in Gaza, but with the world watching aghast as Israel continues on a hegemonic military rampage across the region. The most obvious flaw to the Trump premise is that a chastened Iran somehow has been achieved by Israeli and American strikes. It is the opposite. Iran has arisen more unified, resolute and defiant. Far from being relegated to watching passively from the sidelines, Iran now – in the wake of recent events – resumes its place as a leading regional power. One that is readying a possibly game-changing military riposte to any further strikes by either Israel or the U.S.
What is ignored in all these western claims of Israeli success, is that Israel chose to bet all on a surprise ‘shock and awe’ strike. One that would overturn the Islamic Republic at a stroke. It didn’t work: the strategic objective failed, and it produced the opposite outcome. But the more fundamental point is that the techniques used by Israel – that required months, if not years of preparation – cannot just be repeated again now that their stratagems have been fully exposed. This White House misreading of the Iran reality signals that the Trump Team allowed themselves to be deceived by Israeli hubris in insisting that Iran was a house-of-cards, primed to collapse completely into paralysis upon the first taste of the Israeli sneak decapitation ‘muscle’ on 13 June.
This was a fundamental error – in a pattern of similar errors: That China would capitulate to the threat of imposed tariffs; that Russia could be coerced into a ceasefire against its interests; and that Iran would be ready to sign an unconditional surrender document in the face of Trump’s threats post-22 June. What these U.S. blunders speak to – apart from a consistent divorce from geo-political realities – is western weakness masked behind hubris and bluster. The U.S. Establishment clings to its fading primacy; but in doing it so ineffectually, it has instead accelerated the formation of a potent geo-strategic alliance intent on defying the U.S.
The consequence has been the wake up call to other States occasioned by the western slide towards stratagems of outright lies and deceit: The ‘Spider Web’ operation against the Russian strategic bomber fleet on the eve of the Istanbul talks and the U.S.-Israeli sneak attack on Iran two days before the expected next round of U.S.-Iranian nuclear talks, have increased the will-to-resist by China, Russian and Iran particularly, but more generally it is felt across the Global South. The entire complexion of this war to retain America’s dollar primacy has been irreversibly altered.
I -used to- like John Helmer. But he’s lost me now. If you want to claim that Trump is too demented to tie his shoe laces, you need more than a few quotes from a niece who hates his guts.
• Three Rational Calculations By Trump’s Men (Helmer)
About President Donald Trump, certifiable maniac isn’t an expletive – it’s a clinical diagnosis. In the neurological and psychiatric evidence that has been accumulating about Trump over many years, there is the medical history of Alzheimer’s Disease which runs in his family: his father was first diagnosed at age 86 and died at 93; his older sister died of it, aged 86; and at least one cousin died of the same, aged 84. Since the President has just turned 79, there is reason to anticipate similar onset of symptoms and cause of death for him. Trump thinks this himself, according to Mary Trump, a clinical psychologist and the President’s niece. She has published a case history of the President in 2020 which Trump’s lawyers failed to suppress in court.
Last week, she published a new symptom of what she calls the acceleration in Trump’s cognitive decline: he cannot tie his own shoe laces. This claim has already been pursued by online investigators who have been reporting Trump’s lace-ups which appear from the photographs to be tied permanently and a mysterious right shoe several sizes too large. The evidence of Trump’s incapacity to understand the Russian end-of-war terms, as he expressed himself in the July 14 press session with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, was reported here. [..] When Trump and Rutte accuse President Vladimir Putin of failing to negotiate seriously, the record reveals the opposite. Negotiating on the Ukraine war with Trump is proving to be impossible because Trump isn’t serious. That’s not his political decision; it’s his neuro-psychiatric handicap.
“You really gave him [Putin] a chance to be serious to get to the table to start negotiations,” Rutte said to Trump on Monday. “Steve Witkoff, Marco Rubio, we all try to help you. But you’ve now come to a point where you say, well, hey, you know, you have to — you have to get serious.” Trump agreed, replying: “We actually thought we had probably four times [agreed] the deal.” Five times over, Rutte repeated that the Russians aren’t serious. Trump repeated himself: “We’re going to go for a period of time. Maybe he’ll start negotiating. I think we felt, I felt, I don’t know about you Mark, but I felt that we had a deal about four times and here we are still talking about making a deal.”
Trump’s recall was that the terms of his deal had been accepted by Putin; he didn’t recall what Putin’s terms were. He is revealing he cannot comprehend the difference between the US and Russian negotiating positions; he hasn’t so much rejected the “new idea, new concept” from the Kremlin as not to have understood it. This isn’t Trump’s negotiating tactic – it’s cognitive incapacity camouflaged by the threat of force to compel Putin’s capitulation. The first test of Trump’s rationality is the Mary Trump test – an Oval Office press conference in which Trump demonstrates how he ties his shoe laces. The second test requires Russian counter force. This is the Oreshnik decision-making point for Putin, when there is no longer any point to negotiating because the US side aims at escalating its arms supplies to the Ukraine battlefield and encouraging the Germans to join in long-range missile attacks on the Russian hinterland, including Moscow and St. Petersburg.
In the Russian decision-making now under way, there is an attempt to find the rational calculations in what Trump is meaning; that is to say, what Trump’s advisors, constituents, and officials are calculating when he himself is incapacitated. The first of these, Russian sources believe, is that the Trump escalation is a pitch to prevent Trump’s domestic voter base, the MAGA enthusiasts in the battleground states which won the presidency for Trump last November, from deserting him.
The second calculation is that Russia is militarily and economically vulnerable to a combination of escalation of attacks inside Russia and sanctions on the oil trade outside. This is the strategy of the “bigger bear”, announced on CNN this week by former Trump and Biden Administration warfighter, Brett McGurk: “the Russians approach diplomacy as a bear approaches a dance. The bear knows it will determine when and how the dance ends, unless the other dance partner proves itself to be a bigger bear. Sometimes, it helps to be the bigger bear. In the context of Ukraine, like Syria, while the United States is a far more powerful country than Russia, Putin believes that he has the upper hand in such localized conflicts due to Moscow’s determination and consistency contrasted with Washington’s perceived lack of focus, stamina and shifting politics through election cycles. Correcting that perception is a first principle for effective diplomacy with Moscow, and the approach outlined by Trump yesterday offers the chance to do exactly that.”
The third rational calculation, Russian sources believe — as do some US analysts — is that by supplying the Ukraine battlefield through Germany, the UK and Norway with a combination of Patriot anti-aircraft defence batteries and long-range offence missile systems like the Typhon, the Trump Administration will escape having to face a US taxpayer revolt in Congress over the multi-billion dollar cost of direct US arms supplies to Kiev regime. According to this scheme too, Trump would have an alibi if the Oreshnik decision is taken by Putin, and if the US weapons are defeated in the collapse of the Zelensky regime. Trump would blame the Germans, repeating his line: “don’t forget, I’ve just really been involved in this for not very long and it wasn’t initial focus. Again, this is a Biden war. This is a Democrat war, not a Republican or Trump war. This is a war that would have never happened.”
“..the 80th anniversary of the Potsdam Conference, which began on July 17, 1945. The conference was the last wartime meeting between leaders of the Soviet Union, the United States, and the United Kingdom. It laid the groundwork for postwar Europe..”
• ‘Obvious Similarity’ Between Ukraine and Nazi Germany – Medvedev (RT)
Ukraine bears similarities to the Nazi state at the end of World War II and should undergo “demilitarization,” “denazification,” and “democratization” in a manner similar to postwar Germany, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has told TASS. He spoke to the Russian news agency on Thursday, the 80th anniversary of the Potsdam Conference, which began on July 17, 1945. The conference was the last wartime meeting between leaders of the Soviet Union, the United States, and the United Kingdom. It laid the groundwork for postwar Europe, including plans for Germany’s demilitarization and denazification. Medvedev, who currently serves as deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, explained that the concept of the “three D’s” had originally been formulated for Nazi Germany, which he described as an aggressor state that had disrupted the international order, according to TASS.
“The 1945 Reich and modern Ukraine are, of course, very different – in scale, global role, and even (formally) in state ideology. But there is also obvious similarity.” Medvedev said Ukraine shares its “crisis of identity” with Hitler’s Germany and engages in the “open use of Nazi symbols,” while showing signs of dictatorship and economic degradation. “All this makes the idea of applying the three D’s relevant,” he stated. He added that demilitarization for Ukraine should not be seen as punishment, but rather as “a chance to stop being a pawn in someone else’s bloody geopolitical games.”
He described denazification or “debanderization” as a long-term effort involving public consciousness and historical memory. Democratization, he said, involved not only elections but also the restoration of legal institutions, free media, political competition, and the separation of powers. Many historic ultranationalist leaders, including Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) Stepan Bandera, a notorious Nazi collaborator, are widely revered by Ukrainians today. Russia has repeatedly condemned Kiev’s elevation of these collaborators to national hero status and has demanded the “denazification” of the country as part of a negotiated peace agreement. Russia has accused Western governments of deliberately ignoring continued neo-Nazi activity in Ukrainian ranks.
“..placing toxic chemicals in the areas where Russian troops operate and their subsequent detonation.”
• Kiev Setting Stage For Chemical Disaster – Moscow (RT)
The Ukrainian military is trying to provoke a major ecological disaster close to the front line and blame it on Russia, the Defense Ministry in Moscow warned on Thursday. The accusation came from Maj. Gen. Aleksey Rtishchev, the commander of Russia’s Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Protection Troops, who briefed the public about alleged Ukrainian violations of an international treaty prohibiting the use of chemical weapons. Rtishchev disclosed a document obtained by the Russian military, in which the deputy director of Ukrainian state-owned company Ukrkhimtransammiak informed a regional official appointed by Kiev that in late June Ukrainian troops had illegally accessed a site operated by the firm.
The Ukrkhimtransammiak executive stressed his concern that the location could be damaged due to the military’s involvement, potentially causing the release of up to 566 tons of highly toxic liquified ammonia. The site, an above-ground element of a Soviet-built underground ammonia pipeline operated by Ukrkhimtransammiak, is located roughly 2.5 km north of the village of Novotroitskoye, in the Kiev-controlled portion of Russia’s Donetsk People’s Republic. Rtishchev claimed the Ukrainian military had placed communication equipment at the location as part of “barbaric tactics used by the Kiev regime” which involves “placing toxic chemicals in the areas where Russian troops operate and their subsequent detonation.”
“The intention is to accuse our nation of intentionally causing a technological disaster and damage its reputation,” the general stated. “The use of hazardous objects for military purposes violates the international humanitarian law.” Rtishchev also reiterated Russian accusations against the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Moscow says the international watchdog ignores Russian reports about Ukrainian violations of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) while taking Kiev’s allegations against Russia at face value.
It won’t go away by itself. Might as well feed the frenzy.
• Trump Orders Release Of Epstein ‘Transcripts’ (RT)
US President Donald Trump has promised to release more information after criticism of his administration’s handling of the sex trafficking case involving the late financier Jeffrey Epstein reached a tipping point. After months of pledges to disclose the full case files, the Department of Justice said in a memo last week that no further documents would be made public – triggering a backlash even among some of Trump’s closest supporters. “Based on the ridiculous amount of publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein, I have asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce any and all pertinent grand jury testimony, subject to court approval,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Thursday.
President Trump—we are ready to move the court tomorrow to unseal the grand jury transcripts. pic.twitter.com/hOXzdTcYYB
— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) July 18, 2025
Bondi confirmed that her office is “ready to move the court tomorrow to unseal the grand jury transcripts,” though it remains unclear which documents would be released or when. Epstein was arrested in 2019 and charged with trafficking minors for sex. He allegedly hanged himself in his New York jail cell before he could stand trial. His longtime associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, was later convicted of conspiring to sexually abuse underage girls and is now serving a 20-year sentence. Although Epstein’s death was officially ruled a suicide, it has long fueled public skepticism. The DOJ’s controversial review concluded that no “client list” of Epstein’s sex-trafficking ring ever existed and found no evidence of blackmail. There were no grounds to investigate uncharged third parties, the memo stated.
These findings appeared to contradict Bondi’s earlier comments that the client list was “sitting on [her] desk,” and that the FBI had turned over a “truckload” of materials that would “make you sick.” Bondi appeared to walk back those remarks, clarifying on Tuesday that she was referring to case files on her desk in general. She also dismissed concerns about a one-minute gap in the 11-hour surveillance video recorded near Epstein’s jail cell. Earlier this week, Trump claimed only “stupid people” believe the sex offender’s alleged “client list” wasn’t yet another Democrat hoax. Trump ordered the release of additional documents after the Wall Street Journal accused him of sending a lewd birthday greeting to Epstein in 2003. The president has threatened to sue Rupert Murdoch and his “third-rate newspaper” for defamation.
“The Wall Street Journal, and Rupert Murdoch, personally, were warned directly by President Donald J. Trump that the supposed letter… was a FAKE and, if they print it, they will be sued,..
• Trump Threatens To Sue WSJ Over ‘Bawdy Letter To Epstein’ (RT)
President Donald Trump has threatened legal action against the Wall Street Journal, its parent company News Corp., and media mogul Rupert Murdoch after the newspaper claimed that he authored a lewd letter to Jeffrey Epstein for his 50th birthday. The alleged letter was reportedly part of a leather-bound album compiled by Ghislaine Maxwell in 2003 and included a crude drawing of a nude woman, according to the Journal’s exclusive report on Thursday. “A pair of small arcs denotes the woman’s breasts, and the future president’s signature is a squiggly Donald below her waist, mimicking pubic hair,” the report described, without explaining how the outlet obtained what it claimed was a previously unreleased Department of Justice file.
The paper acknowledged that Trump strongly denied the allegation, but went ahead with publication. “I never wrote a picture in my life. I don’t draw pictures of women… It’s not my language. It’s not my words,” the Journal quoted Trump as saying. Several hours after the story broke, Trump accused Murdoch and WSJ Editor Emma Tucker of deliberately spreading “defamatory lies.” “The Wall Street Journal, and Rupert Murdoch, personally, were warned directly by President Donald J. Trump that the supposed letter… was a FAKE and, if they print it, they will be sued,” Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform. He described the “once great” paper as a “disgusting and filthy rag” that was desperately trying to “stay relevant.” Trump vowed to sue the WSJ, News Corp., and Murdoch “shortly,” citing his history of successful lawsuits against major media outlets.
Epstein was arrested in 2019 and charged with trafficking minors for sex. He allegedly hanged himself in his New York jail cell before standing trial. His longtime associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, was later convicted of conspiring to sexually abuse underage girls and is now serving a 20-year sentence. Although Epstein’s death was officially ruled a suicide, it has long been the subject of public skepticism. Earlier this week, Trump responded to growing criticism over his administration’s handling of the Epstein case, claiming that only “stupid people” still demand access to the sex offender’s alleged “client list.”
“Mexican coke” uses natural cane sugar as a sweetener while American coke has relied on high-fructose corn syrup since the 1980s.”
• Trump Convinces Coca-Cola To Return To Cane Sugar In The US (JTN)
President Donald Trump on Wednesday announced that he had convinced Coca-Cola to use authentic cane sugar in their American products, marking a subtle cultural victory over Mexico. “I have been speaking to Coca-Cola about using REAL Cane Sugar in Coke in the United States, and they have agreed to do so. I’d like to thank all of those in authority at Coca-Cola. This will be a very good move by them — You’ll see. It’s just better!” Trump announced on Truth Social.
“Mexican coke” uses natural cane sugar as a sweetener while American coke has relied on high-fructose corn syrup since the 1980s. The cane sugar coke often appears in stores contained within glass bottles. Trump did not speak to any planned changes in the American containers. The announcement came somewhat out of left field as Trump has spent much of the week fending off criticisms over his handling of the Epstein case and there was little coverage of any talks with the iconic soda company.
"I have been speaking to @CocaCola about using REAL Cane Sugar in Coke in the United States, and they have agreed to do so. I’d like to thank all of those in authority at Coca-Cola. This will be a very good move by them — You’ll see. It’s just better!" –President Donald J. Trump pic.twitter.com/9L27oxlYUj
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) July 16, 2025
Well, she does seem to have let the Diddy case slip through her fingers. And she and her hubby are Trump haters. Why keep them on?
• James Comey’s Daughter Fired From Top US Attorney’s Office Job (NYP)
Maurene Comey, the daughter of former FBI Director James Comey, was fired Wednesday from the powerful Manhattan US Attorney’s Office — where she prosecuted Jeffrey Epstein, his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell and, most recently, Sean “Diddy” Combs, sources told The Post. The reason for Comey’s firing, which law enforcement and Department of Justice sources confirmed, was not immediately clear. She was informed that she was being axed under Article II of the Constitution, which describes the powers of the president, the sources added. President Trump has a long history of conflicts with the elder Comey and fired him as FBI director in 2017 during Trump’s first term.
Maurene Comey, who served as an assistant US attorney in the Southern District of New York since 2015, worked on the prosecutions of disgraced financier pedophile Epstein and Maxwell, who was found guilty of multiple sex crimes at trial and sentenced to 20 years in prison. Comey most recently worked on the high-profile sex-trafficking case against Combs. The nearly month-long trial ended with the jury acquitting the disgraced hip-hop mogul of the most serious charges against him — racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking — that could have landed him life in prison. He was only found guilty of two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution.
[..] “This firing is an effort by the DOJ to distract from its failures on Epstein, the J6 pipe bomb, Butler assassination plot and ongoing whistleblower retaliation,” former FBI agent-turned-whistleblower Steve Friend said. “Removing Maureen Comey six months into the administration is like a fire department hiring an arsonist and expecting applause when they fire him after he’s already burned down a city block. Too little, too late. “They are desperate for a win and distraction. The Comey-Brennan case is a distraction. They’ll never get charged. It’s a way for congressmen to have hearings,” Friend added, referring to the FBI investigation of former CIA Director John Brennan and James Comey for potential criminal conduct related to the 2016 Trump-Russia collusion probe.
BREAKING: Pam Bondi has fired Maurene Comey, daughter of James Comey, from her job as a prosecutor in the Manhattan U.S. attorney's office, per Politico. She worked on the prosecutions of Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein, and Sean "Diddy" Combs. pic.twitter.com/vimxtCvN9z
— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) July 16, 2025
The Epstein firestorm was revived last week after the Justice Department and FBI concluded in a memo that the convicted pedophile, 66, killed himself in his Manhattan jail cell in August 2019 — and did not keep a list of wealthy and powerful “clients” to whom he trafficked underage teens. That conclusion sparked a storm of backlash from top MAGA personalities, who suspected that the Trump administration wasn’t being fully upfront about Epstein, despite the 47th president’s promise on the campaign trail to release the files on the convicted pedophile. Comey’s ouster also follows renewed attacks from Trump’s base, including conservative firebrand Laura Loomer, who publicly urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to fire Comey and her husband, SDNY Assistant US Attorney Lucas Issacharoff, back in May.
“Today, the DOJ fired Maurene Comey from the United States Attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York,” Loomer posted on X after the news broke. “This comes 2 months after my pressure campaign on Pam Bondi to fire Comey’s daughter and Comey’s son in law from the DOJ.” Loomer has claimed that Issacharoff, who has worked in the SDNY’s Civil Division since 2019, has “a long history of being a Trump hater.” “No word yet on whether or not he was also fired today, but he should be. +1 for Blondi today!” Loomer cheered. Trump has since spent days dismissing Epstein’s case as a “big hoax” concocted by the Democrats for political gain — and blasting suspicious GOP members for being “duped” by their colleagues on the other side of the political aisle. The prez has also lashed out, pressing the country and news reporters to stop focusing on the notorious predator.
“They haven’t learned their lesson, and probably never will, even after being conned by the Lunatic Left for 8 long years,” Trump railed on Truth Social Wednesday. “I have had more success in 6 months than perhaps any President in our Country’s history, and all these people want to talk about, with strong prodding by the Fake News and the success starved Dems, is the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax.” The Trump administration is investigating James Comey for potential criminal conduct during the FBI’s Trump-Russia collusion probe in 2016. The Secret Service also interviewed the ex-bureau director in May for a cryptic “86 47” Instagram post that led to accusations from Trump that Comey was calling for another assassination attempt against him.
Focus on Trump’s words, memory-hole Biden’s.
That video is priceless. The first minute is Oscar material. Which director lets the head of the president disappear on his way to the podium?
• I Can’t Believe The NYTimes Thought It Would Get Away With This (Margolis)
The irony is thick enough to choke on. The New York Times, that bastion of so-called journalistic integrity, churned out yet another hit piece on President Donald Trump, painting him as some vengeful tyrant hell-bent on crushing his political foes. According to the paper, Trump supposedly views his opponents as downright evil, promising a campaign of retribution that sends shivers down the spines of the elite media class. Last week, he denounced a reporter as a “very evil person” for asking a question he did not like. This week, he declared that Democrats are “an evil group of people.”“Evil” is a word getting a lot of airtime in the second Trump term. It is not enough anymore to dislike a journalistic inquiry or disagree with an opposing philosophy.
Anyone viewed as critical of the president or insufficiently deferential is wicked. The Trump administration’s efforts to achieve its policy goals are not just an exercise in governance but a holy mission against forces of darkness. The characterization seeds the ground to justify all sorts of actions that would normally be considered extreme or out of bounds. If Mr. Trump’s adversaries are not just rivals but villains, then he can rationalize going further than any president has in modern times. This isn’t journalism; it’s selective outrage at its finest. The Times acts like Trump’s tough talk is some unprecedented assault on democracy, conveniently forgetting or willfully ignoring the years of venomous rhetoric that the left spewed against Trump and conservatives everywhere.
It has the gall to portray Trump as the villain while pretending that its side hasn’t been fanning the flames of division for nearly a decade. If the Times is so concerned about demonizing political enemies, maybe it should look in the mirror, or better yet, revisit one of the most egregious examples from its own camp: from Barack Obama’s spying on Trump to frame him for colluding with Russia to Joe Biden’s lawfare campaign that literally tried to put Trump in prison. Actions may speak louder than words, but Joe Biden spoke rather loudly during his infamous speech at Independence Hall back in 2022, where he didn’t even hide the fact that he saw his political allies as evil. Remember that spectacle? There was Biden, standing in front of the birthplace of American liberty, bathed in dramatic red lighting that appropriately gave off a fascistic vibe. He wasn’t there to unite the nation; he was there to declare war on half of it.
“Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic,” he thundered, as if conservatives were some invading horde rather than fellow Americans exercising their right to disagree. He didn’t stop there. He literally called Trump and his supporters a “clear and present danger” to the country. Biden’s words weren’t just heated; they were incendiary. It was pure demagoguery, designed to otherize and vilify millions of Americans who simply wanted secure borders, economic strength, and a government that puts America first. And where was The New York Times during all this? Cheering it on, of course. The paper didn’t call out Biden for his divisive rant; it amplified it, framing it as a noble defense of democracy against the supposed fascist threat of Trump.
“Biden Warns That American Values Are Under Assault by Trump-Led Extremism,” read the headline of one article reacting to the speech. Another article detailing four takeaways from the speech lacked any outrage at all at Biden’s rhetoric. Fast-forward to today, and leftists are clutching their pearls over Trump’s promises to hold corrupt officials accountable, like the ones who weaponized the DOJ against him. Trump’s talk of retribution isn’t about personal vendettas; it’s about restoring justice after years of witch hunts, from the Mueller probe to the sham impeachments. Yet the Times ignores how the left’s rhetoric has real-world consequences. We’ve seen assassination attempts on Trump, violent protests egged on by Democrat leaders, and a media ecosystem that normalizes calling conservatives Nazis or threats to humanity.
And the Times is crying over Trump for saying mean things about his political adversaries? This double standard is the real threat to our republic. The Times’ piece reeks of desperation, a last gasp from a dying media empire that’s lost all credibility. Leftists whine about sources going silent, as if that’s proof of some authoritarian chill, but maybe those experts are just tired of being props in the left’s endless anti-Trump crusade. If the paper truly cared about toning down the rhetoric, it should start by acknowledging its own role in escalating it. Biden’s speech wasn’t a one-off; it was the blueprint for the left’s strategy — demonize, divide, and conquer.
“..an estimated 215 million doses, worth close to €4 billion, subsequently being discarded..”
“Many of the key decisions are no longer taken by elected governments or national parliaments, but by EU bodies often guided by a technocratic logic and by interests dominant within the EU system.”
• Von der Leyen’s Final Plan: A False Democracy For A False Europe (Pacini)
The perception of the European Union is changing in some sections of public opinion: from a project of cooperation between sovereign states, the EU is increasingly seen as a centralized bureaucratic machine, which is what it really represents, and this view is fueled by the growing control exercised over information spaces, political dynamics, and the very interpretation of democratic principles. If the failure of the euro as a common currency was already telling, even more so were the isolationist policies of sanctions against the Russian Federation, followed by those against China and, in general, against any political entity that was not in the good graces of the UK-US axis. In this context, the role of the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, is worrying.
While proclaiming herself a champion of democratic values, she is contributing to the construction of a system in which truth, dissent, and public debate are suppressed or marginalized. There is no doubt that no one has ever pursued policies as totally anti-democratic, liberticidal, and homicidal as hers (as in the cases of Ukraine and Palestine).These concerns have been fueled by discussions on a motion of no confidence against von der Leyen. In June 2025, Romanian MEP George Piperea proposed a vote to question her leadership. The necessary signatures were collected from various MEPs to put the issue to a vote in the plenary. The main reason given is the alleged violation of transparency rules during the management of contracts for COVID-19 vaccines in 2020-2021.
Following those agreements, the EU purchased huge quantities of doses, many of which proved to be surplus to requirements, with an estimated 215 million doses, worth close to €4 billion, subsequently being discarded. When citizens and the media asked for clarity on those contracts, the European Commission refused to make the communications public, a decision that the Court of Justice of the European Union later ruled contrary to the rules. According to the Court, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Commission is obliged to prove that such communications do not exist or are not in its possession. Despite this, the Commission has never provided a clear explanation as to why the messages between von der Leyen and Pfizer’s CEO were not disclosed.
It has not been clarified whether the messages were deleted voluntarily or whether they were lost, for example, due to a change of device by the president. Finally, on July 10, during a plenary session in Strasbourg, the European Parliament rejected the motion of no confidence against Ursula von der Leyen. To pass, it would have required a qualified majority of two-thirds, supported by an absolute majority of MEPs. The result was 360 votes against, 175 in favor, and 18 abstentions. The motion was supported by right-wing groups such as Patriots for Europe and Europe of Sovereign Nations, numerous members of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group, and some members of the radical left. Von der Leyen was not present at the time of the vote.
Despite the criticism, the main centrist groups – the European People’s Party (EPP), the Socialists and Democrats (S&D), Renew Europe and the Greens – rejected the motion, ensuring the political survival of the president. However, if the no-confidence motion had passed, the entire European Commission would have fallen, opening a complicated process for the appointment of 27 new commissioners. This decision is perhaps more strategic than tactical: keeping a president who has already lost confidence and is therefore politically manageable and has limited room for maneuver is more convenient than having a new president who may be worse than the previous one and has the full confidence of the European Parliament.
Elections in the European Union, as in many other democratic contexts, should express the will of the people. They should, I emphasize. In practice, however, they are increasingly seen as an institutional ritual with no real impact on fundamental political choices and, above all, they are not an expression of the real will of the people, as they lack representation. Many of the key decisions are no longer taken by elected governments or national parliaments, but by EU bodies often guided by a technocratic logic and by interests dominant within the EU system. The 2024 European elections represented a turning point: conservative, sovereignist, and nationalist parties significantly expanded their representation, establishing themselves in countries such as Italy, Austria, Germany, France, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia.
These parties have strongly opposed the EU’s migration policies, environmental measures deemed excessive, and its confrontational foreign policy towards Russia. However, instead of encouraging constructive debate and giving space to critical voices – as the European Parliament claims to want to do – these forces have been systematically branded as “anti-democratic” and publicly discredited. A central role in this strategy has been played by Ursula von der Leyen, in office since 2019, who has repeatedly portrayed right-wing parties as a “threat to European unity,” without ever providing concrete evidence to support this claim, but often referring to alleged Russian interference or generic “threats to sovereignty.”
1M+
Shocking: Pediatricians Get $200–$600 Per Child for Vaccines, Some Earn $1M+ Yearly
In a bombshell discussion, Senator Ron Johnson, Polly Tommey, and Dr. Brian Hooker exposed how pediatricians are financially incentivized to push vaccines—at the expense of parental choice and… pic.twitter.com/LMIm6icjJK
— Camus (@newstart_2024) July 16, 2025
Erodium
The "Erodium Copy" robot.pic.twitter.com/DU0JSkayfE
— Massimo (@Rainmaker1973) July 17, 2025
Uber
POV: your Uber is a gator 😂 pic.twitter.com/b1VQ3fmN57
— Wholesome Side of 𝕏 (@itsme_urstruly) July 16, 2025
Mamba
Lions rescue an eagle from a black mamba snake
pic.twitter.com/7ml0G5oSPK— Science girl (@gunsnrosesgirl3) July 17, 2025
Orca
I honestly believe this is one of the biggest mysteries there is, Orcas are the most efficient predators on earth, yet they have never attacked us in the wild. They know something we don’t. pic.twitter.com/qItHMtqj9Y
— Nature is Amazing ☘️ (@AMAZlNGNATURE) July 16, 2025
Sears
My neighbor' house is a Sears & Roebuck ordered home from 1921. 😎 pic.twitter.com/12UVvs8Yul
— Prarie Patriot (@russcar10now) July 16, 2025
Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.
