Menu Icon

Debt Rattle April 28 2026

Apr 282026
 
 April 28, 2026  Posted by at 9:48 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , ,  31 Responses »


Johannes Vermeer Girl Reading a Letter at an Open Window 1657-59


• A Feral and Savage Party (James Howard Kunstler)
• No Conspiracy Required (Stephen Green)
• Obama Said This About the Latest Trump Assassination Attempt (Margolis)
• President Trump 60-Minutes Interview on Events During Attack at WHCA Dinner (CTH)
• Again, Fetterman Breaks Ranks After the Third Attempt on Trump’s Life (Manney)
• Melania Trump Deplores Jimmy Kimmel’s Disturbing Shooting Jokes (Salgado)
• How the GOP Should Respond to the ‘Both Sides Are Guilty’ Nonsense (Pinsker)
• The New York Times Explores the Case for “Microlooting” to Murder (Turley)
• Muslim Voters Are Reshaping U.K. Politics (JTN)
• Trump’s Prescription Drug Policies Make Small-Town Pharmacies Great Again (JTN)
• Charlottesville: The Deceit Underlying the Hoax (Steve Cortes)
• The Siege of Iran, and Other Matters (James Howard Kunstler)
• Iran Offers New Proposal To Reopen Strait – Trump Open To Deal Via Phone (ZH)
• Bessent: IRGC Leaders ‘Trapped’ Like ‘Drowning Rats’ By US Blockade (ZH)
• Senator Chuck Grassley’s Office Requests Answers from DOJ and FBI (CTH)

 


 

https://twitter.com/Real_RobN/status/2048492303531364530?s=20 https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2048439348463337953?s=20 https://twitter.com/CRRJA5/status/2048585821163254218?s=20 https://twitter.com/eagameover/status/2048427971476705443?s=20

 


 


“Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it’s enemy action.” —Ian Fleming

• A Feral and Savage Party (James Howard Kunstler)

Don’t you love the way the news media pretends it can’t figure out the motive of Cole Tomas Allen, who tried to shoot-up Saturday’s White House correspondents’ gala. He was a creation of the very White House correspondents who ducked under their tables at the sound of his shots. Cole Tomas Allen had digested and internalized the “narrative” spewage of the Democratic Party’s propaganda department. MSNOW occupied his brain like a glistening parasite.


CBS tried to amplify the shooter’s own motive on Sunday night’s 60 Minutes show when Norah O’Donnell read out-loud from his manifesto, “I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes,” and asked President Trump “What is your reaction to that?” Mr. Trump did not fall for the ruse — which was just an opportunity to reinforce a well-worn scurrility. “You’re a disgrace,” the president replied, and Ms. O’Donnell just continued with the interview as if his answer never registered. There it is.

In fact, Cole Tomas Allen traveled all the way from Los Angeles to Washington for the rare chance to find Mr. Trump and most of his cabinet all together in one room where he might be able to kill as many of them as possible. He styled himself: “Cole ‘coldForce’ ‘Friendly Federal Assassin’ Allen. “I experience rage thinking about everything this administration has done,” he concluded in his short manifesto, reportedly composed and sent out minutes before he left his room at the Washington Hilton to perform his rash deed.

That rage, you understand, was planted in his head by the likes of Norah O’Donnell of CBS news and the scores of reporters, editors, and news producers who had to abandon the festive menu starters of spring pea and burrata salad and crab terrine with a nice Veuve Clicquot when the shots rang out. The gala is a night when the Blob’s media errand boys and call girls like to treat themselves like royalty. (Meanwhile their hated enemies back in the truck stops of MAGAland get by on lowly chili-lime jerky and Little Debbie Zebra Cakes, washed down with Red Bull — good for five-hundred miles of hauling, at least.)

The former president can’t guess Cole Tomas Allen’s motives. He is a liar, a cad, and a fraud. As for political violence in general, you have not heard Mr. Obama complain about Antifa mayhem, BLM riots, tranny school murders, harassment of ICE officers, or any other violence approved by the Lefty-left. Mr. Obama is himself a bona fide seditionist. When he repeats the shibboleth “our democracy” he means simply the Lefty-left’s malevolent will to power — which is predicated on nothing more than feeding the Democratic Party’s never-ending rackets, doling out money to its captive clients for votes, solely to remain in power: Ouroboros, the snake eating its own tail. His mealy-mouthed sanctimony serves only his personal need to evade prosecution for his own crimes.

The only way Barack Obama can evade prosecution for RussiaGate and then for covertly running the “Joe Biden” White House from his HQ across town is if he is named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the RICO cases to come. That will be enough for historians to understand what happened here in the early 21st century. And what about the other traitors, the long list of Blob apparatchiks who schemed to overthrow the executive from 2016 to 2021, and then labored to throw thousands in prison, ran a fake pandemic op, queered two elections, hijacked the courts, shut down opposing opinion, and poisoned the minds of several assassins?

Justice is coming for them. They know it, and their “resistance” seeks to turn feral and savage in the months leading to the midterm elections. It will start in a few days with “Mayday Strong” rallies and street marches. Their slogan, “It’s workers over billionaires,” is just another lie. The part they leave out is that these actions are funded by billionaires: George Soros, Neville Roy Singham, Hansjörg Wyss, et al. Don’t expect the action to remain “mostly peaceful,” either. The idea, of course is to get violent so as to goad President Trump into invoking emergency powers to put down an insurrection.

I doubt that President Trump will shrink from invoking the Insurrection Act, an amalgamation of laws passed by Congress starting in 1792–1795 with the Militia Acts, then the key 1807 law signed by President Thomas Jefferson, and major amendments during and after the Civil War, including the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act. It is codified in Title 10 of the United States Code, Chapter 13, specifically §§ 251–255. It is a statutory exception to the Posse Comitatus Act (1878), which generally prohibits using federal troops for domestic law enforcement.

The Insurrection Act (with its predecessor statutes) has been invoked approximately 30 times in U.S. history by 16 presidents — Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Grant, Hayes, Arthur, Cleveland, Wilson, Harding, FD Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, and Bush — in episodes ranging from the Whiskey Rebellion, the Southern Secession, many violent labor strikes, several race riots, and looting in natural disasters.

President Trump might have to use the Insurrection Act to stop what has been an ongoing coup against his elected administration by an opposition party that has turned criminal and traitorous. He may have to convene extraordinary military tribunals to adjudicate crimes that include those committed by the federal judiciary itself. If he does all this, it must include an executive order mandating common sense election procedure for the midterm: citizenship and photo ID required, paper ballots only, no vote-counting machines, voting only on one day deemed Election Day, and mail-in ballots limited only to military, people required to be out of the country, and the disabled. All this is looking increasingly unavoidable.

Read more …

“If the Democrats don’t knock this off, there really will be a civil war in this country, and it won’t end well for them, just like the last one they started in 1861.”

• No Conspiracy Required (Stephen Green)

“The Democratic Party has created monsters among them,” Jan. 6 criminal defense attorney Marina Medvin posted to X in the wake of yet another assassination attempt on President Donald Trump Saturday night. “The most interesting part” of attempted assassin Cole Allen’s manifesto and social media posts is that they’re “generally indistinguishable from most liberal social medial accounts belonging to Democrat voters in America.” Dems, you have a problem.


“The same week the New York Times published a cozy interview justifying the murder of people whose politics you don’t like, the same week we learned that the Unite the Right Charlottesville rally was funded by the Left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center, President Trump survived his third assassination attempt,” Batya Ungar-Sargon wrote on Sunday. “A recent YouGov poll says it all: 25% of very liberal Americans consider political violence justified—compared to 3% of very conservative Americans. Another 17% of liberal Americans say it’s justified, compared to just 6% of conservatives.”The left has worked hard at normalizing political violence — and Allen’s murderous intent is the left’s new mainstream. Let’s start with Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, widely believed to have 2028 presidential ambitions, speaking last week:

As John Bulkeley warned, “If the Democrats don’t knock this off, there really will be a civil war in this country, and it won’t end well for them, just like the last one they started in 1861.” Speaking of war, here’s Democrat House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries doing just that.

Barring some big change before the midterms, Jeffries will be the next House Speaker. Maybe you remember James Talarico, the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by four-term incumbent John Cornyn. Writing for the New York Times last month, pseudo-conservative David French praised him as “one of the most faith-forward politicians in the United States.” Here’s Talarico’s pastor on Sunday:

Please note that the pastor did not go on to chide people for having mixed feelings about an assassination attempt, but instead doubled down on the very rhetoric that Allen echoed on BlueSky and in his manifesto. In church, if you can believe it. Finally, here’s late-night host Jimmy Kimmel on Thursday, calling first lady Melania Trump “an expectant widow” right to her face.

One more? OK, one more:

And don’t even get me started on the mainstream media… but if CNN’s Jake Tapper is at all unusual, it’s only because he’s so high-profile.

As I’ve written here for two years, there’s no conspiracy required to produce a left-wing assassin like Tyler James Robinson or Ryan Routh. They just amp up the rhetorical pressure, 24/7/365, until somebody pops. Lee Harvey Oswald was a weird teen, easy to pull out of the crowd. He embraced “theoretical Marxism” in high school and soon after earned the name “Oswaldovich” from his fellow Marines. But he seems to have required renouncing his citizenship and a two-year stint in the Soviet Union to turn him into a lefty assassin. If his manifesto is anything to go by, all Cole Thomas Allen had to do was watch CNN and read the New York Times.

Read more …

“Allen’s manifesto made it clear he has fallen for the lies of the Democrats, radicalized by their rhetoric — including Barack Obama’s.”

• Obama Said This About the Latest Trump Assassination Attempt (Margolis)

In the immediate aftermath of the shooting at the White House Correspondents Association dinner at the Washington Hilton, where 31-year-old Cole Allen of California tried to assassinate President Donald Trump and other administration officials, there was a lot of confusion. Early reports suggested that the shooter had been killed. Those reports turned out to be false. During that time, many people on the left were trying to distract from the obvious, that someone had tried to assassinate Trump again. Left-wing influencers started chiding conservatives, pointing out the obvious. They claimed we shouldn’t jump to conclusions. Of course, they also claimed the shooting was staged, but that’s a whole other story.


And then there’s Barack Obama. “Although we don’t yet have the details about the motives behind last night’s shooting at the White House Correspondents Dinner, it’s incumbent upon all of us to reject the idea that violence has any place in our democracy,” Obama wrote on X. “It’s also a sobering reminder of the courage and sacrifice that U.S. Secret Service Agents show every day. I’m grateful to them – and thankful that the agent who was shot is going to be okay.”

There’s just one huge problem with Obama’s statement. We already knew the shooter’s motive at this point. Obama posted his statement at 5:15 p.m. EDT on Sunday, and the shooter’s manifesto and its contents were first published late Sunday morning. So by the time Obama decided to weigh in, the manifesto had been in the public domain for several hours, and his anti-Trump motives were already widely reported.] Here’s what Cole Allen’s manifesto said:

“I am a citizen of the United States of America. What my representatives do reflects on me. And I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes. (Well, to be completely honest, I was no longer willing a long time ago, but this is the first real opportunity I’ve had to do something about it.) […] Administration officials (not including Mr. Patel): they are targets, prioritized from highest-ranking to lowest

Allen made clear that Secret Service agents were only to be engaged if necessary — and even then, he claimed he preferred to incapacitate rather than kill. Hotel security, Capitol Police, and National Guard personnel were to be avoided unless they intervened, and he explicitly stated that hotel employees and guests were not targets. In short, there is no doubt he came there to kill Trump and other Trump administration officials. And Obama’s response was to tell the public the motive remained unclear.

There’s a pattern here worth naming. When political violence touches conservatives, the motive becomes suddenly complex, nuanced, perhaps unknowable. The calls for unity arrive with a side of fog. Meanwhile, the very writings that explain everything are either broadcast for maximum damage or quietly tucked away to avoid inconvenient conclusions.

No one can honestly believe that Obama was clueless. So why keep pretending that the motive is some unsolvable mystery? The answer is the same reason some on the left rushed to claim the assassination attempt was staged. They understand how damaging this is, so the instinct is to downplay it, muddy the waters, and dodge any real reckoning with the kind of radicalism that keeps surfacing on their side. Allen’s manifesto made it clear he has fallen for the lies of the Democrats, radicalized by their rhetoric — including Barack Obama’s.

Read more …

He shows himself in total control. This is obviously not the first time he thinks about it. How could it be?

Donald Trump came out of this weekend a lot bigger than he went in. A lot.

• President Trump 60-Minutes Interview on Events During Attack at WHCA Dinner (CTH)

President Trump details his experience at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, where a gunman charged toward the ballroom. President Trump says he wasn’t worried and praised the actions of law enforcement.


Read more …

“Fetterman cut through the noise and picked action over argument. While others kept talking, he picked a solution.”

• Again, Fetterman Breaks Ranks After the Third Attempt on Trump’s Life (Manney)

If the man wasn’t a bloody lefty, I’d create a chorus of people asking him to flip to the Republican side. When compared to other Senate freshmen, he’s ranked the second most leftist. Alas, I believe him to be the maverick that the media’s favorite maverick, John McCain, thought himself to be. Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) didn’t hedge after the chaos at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner when a gunman, Cole Allen, rushed a Secret Service checkpoint and opened fire. The shooter has now been identified as 31-year-old schoolteacher Cole Allen of Torrance, Calif., who sprinted past security checkpoints inside the hotel armed with a shotgun, a handgun, and two knives. He never made it into the ballroom.


Gunfire was exchanged during the incident, but Allen was not hit, and police arrested him. A Secret Service agent was struck but was wearing protective gear. No other injuries were confirmed among the attendees. In seconds, a routine political event turned into a live test of how much risk members of the Trump administration accept when they gather away from the White House. Fetterman saw enough, telling fellow Democrats to drop the reflex of opposing anything “Trump” and back a practical fix: build a secure, bulletproof ballroom on the White House grounds. A hardened, on-site venue would let presidents host large events inside a controlled perimeter instead of relying on facilities that weren’t built for modern threat levels.

President Donald Trump drove the point home within hours, saying the shooting proved why a protected ballroom isn’t optional; it’s basic security. Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and senior officials moved off the stage as agents contained the threat. One Secret Service agent took a round to his chest and, thanks to his vest, survived. Cole Allen of Torrance, Calif., never reached the main seating area, but the gap between “contained” and “catastrophic” was very thin. Fetterman’s position isn’t a one-off; he votes with his caucus most of the time, yet he breaks from it on national security when it counts. He backs Israel, supports Trump’s effort to block Iran from getting nuclear weapons, and, last year, defended the ballroom plan as appropriate and in line with the White House’s long history of upgrades.

Private donors would fund the ballroom, which removes the usual fight over money. For years, security professionals have warned about concentrating the president, vice president, cabinet, and lawmakers at off-site venues like the Washington Hilton. A single breach threatens multiple layers of leadership at once. A White House ballroom keeps those events inside a fortified perimeter designed for current threats, not assumptions from the past 30 years. You can’t put it more plainly than Fetterman did on X.

His point isn’t partisan; it’s operational: protect the office, reduce exposure, and control the environment. Washington typically defaults to posture over progress when leaders dig in, defend their side, and stall anything tied to the other party. Fetterman, however, did the opposite; he looked at what happened and backed a fix already on the table. Allen’s “alleged” attack didn’t create a new problem; he exposed one that’s been tolerated and kicked down the road for years.

How many times will it take for people filled with common sense to look at the critics of the ballroom, smack ‘em in the head, and, in the most sarcastic tone possible, exclaim: It doesn’t bear repeating, but for some dunderheads, it does: a secure, on-site venue won’t solve every risk, but it closes obvious ones. The presidency demands more than ceremony and tradition; it demands infrastructure that matches the reality of modern threats. Fetterman cut through the noise and picked action over argument. While others kept talking, he picked a solution.

Read more …

‘Political Sickness:’

• Melania Trump Deplores Jimmy Kimmel’s Disturbing Shooting Jokes (Salgado)

After vile “comedian” Jimmy Kimmel referred to First Lady Melania Trump as an “expectant widow” in a series of grossly inappropriate jokes before the Saturday assassination attempt on Trump administration officials, the first lady responded with dignity but without holding back on emphasizing just how dangerous the rhetoric is.


Just days before Cole Allen opened fire at the April 25 White House correspondents’ dinner, the host of Jimmy Kimmel Live! chortled, “Our First Lady, Melania, is here. Look at Melania, so beautiful. Mrs. Trump, you have a glow like an expectant widow.” That ugly display was part of Kimmel’s Thursday parody of the then-upcoming correspondents’ dinner. And the shooting highlighted vividly how irresponsible or downright bloodthirsty the media is for their constant pro-assassination rhetoric. No wonder the first lady wants ABC to take him off the air.

Melania posted on X Monday, “Kimmel’s hateful and violent rhetoric is intended to divide our country. His monologue about my family isn’t comedy- his words are corrosive and deepens the political sickness within America.” That is exactly what we see across the political left in America now, a sickness that has pervaded not only their politics, but their minds and their morals as well.

Then, Melania continued by challenging the networks that platform such incredibly dangerous rhetoric. “People like Kimmel shouldn’t have the opportunity to enter our homes each evening to spread hate. A coward, Kimmel hides behind ABC because he knows the network will keep running cover to protect him,” she said. “Enough is enough. It is time for ABC to take a stand. How many times will ABC’s leadership enable Kimmel’s atrocious behavior at the expense of our community.”

Jimmy Kimmel was also despicable about the Charlie Kirk assassination. He falsely claimed that Kirk’s murderer was MAGA (actually, Tyler Robinson was an LGBTQ leftist) and smirked that the right was trying to score political points off the tragedy. The problem is that he is mainstream for lefties. He might be a little more candid about his unholy glee when Republicans die or are in danger of death, but his mainstream media pals agree with him.

Erika Kirk, Charlie’s widow, was at the correspondents’ dinner on Saturday and understandably was extremely traumatized after the near-deadly incident, considering how recent her husband’s assassination was. But Kimmel thinks it is all a great big joke. While ABC is not a public broadcasting station that essentially receives a form of government subsidy, and therefore the government cannot challenge Kimmel’s employment directly, it is entirely reasonable for Melania to ask why the Walt Disney Company keeps funding this hideous human being’s show.

Why is Kimmel even still on the air? At the very least, Donald Trump needs to stop going on mainstream media like CBS News’ 60 Minutes and legitimizing these poisonous propagandists. The president and his wife are absolutely right that the media is fueling violent hatred, and therefore, Republicans should allow these same media stooges to fall into the complete irrelevancy they have so richly earned.

Read more …

Don’t get ahead of yourself: Only one man should decide and proclaim how the GOP should respond: the President.

• How the GOP Should Respond to the ‘Both Sides Are Guilty’ Nonsense (Pinsker)

If you’re an absent-minded married shlub, you’ve probably played the “golly gee, both sides were wrong, let’s move on” card, too. It goes like this:

Wife: Scott, why haven’t you taken out the garbage yet? I asked you two days ago. It’s starting to stink.

Me: But that was in the past! We need to look to the future. Let’s not dwell on the blame-game, honey — we’re better than that.

Wife: What are you talking about? Just take the garbage out, please.

Me: Look, we both contributed to the garbage. You threw away plenty of stuff, too. Probably more than me.

Wife: I can hear the garbage truck coming! Take it out to the street before it’s too late!

Me: Really, we’re both at fault: You asked me to do something — and somewhere along the way, there was a communication breakdown. So instead of pointing fingers, let’s be grownups and admit we were both wrong. Mistakes were made, but life goes on. That’s why pencils have erasers. Right?

Wife: [sighs] Never mind, I’ll do it.

Me: Thanks, honey. While you’re up, can you grab me a beer?

Yeah: It doesn’t work when you’re married any better than it’ll work for the Democrats. On the heels of yet another assassination attempt, the American people are beginning to recognize the media’s Political Violence Blame-Game Template. After all, it’s really not that complicated: When there’s no political violence: Blame Donald Trump and the GOP for inciting this awful, terrible epidemic of violence that doesn’t exist (yet).When a Democrat is the victim: Blame Donald Trump and the GOP for “extremist language” and racist/fascist “dog whistles” that are an “existential threat to democracy.” Demand greater civility in political discourse — while threatening to jail Republicans who appear “threatening” to liberals. (The only long-term solution to political violence, of course, is to remove Republicans from power.)

When a Republican is the victim: Blame both sides. (“It’s everyone’s fault! How the heck did things spiral out of control?”) Neither party has a monopoly on unstable nutjobs, but according to opinion polls, one side is a helluva lot more likely to support political violence than the other. Spoiler alert: It’s not the GOP.

For the Babylon Bee, the parody writes itself:

The assassination attempt at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner will likely dominate the headlines for the next several days. Unlike most Black Swan events, this one will have extra-long legs because:

1) All the D.C. journalists who witnessed it are highly incentivized to continue talking about the most exciting moment of their careers. Like I wrote yesterday, if reporters like Brian Williams can’t resist bragging about fake bullets, you better believe they’re gonna be talking nonstop about the real thing.

2) There’s a legitimate mystery to investigate: Who, what, when, and how was Cole Allen, the (alleged) “Friendly Federal Assassin” radicalized? On the surface, he seems like your normal, typical, nondescript leftist. As far as we know, this wasn’t a kid who was in and out of mental hospitals. So, was he radicalized by TikTok and Reddit? By the Epstein conspiracy? A hate-merchant like Hasan Piker? What pushed him over the edge?

Which means, the mainstream media will play the “both sides are equally guilty” card, but its attention will be diverted: Journalists can’t investigate Allen, beat their chests and brag about their (remarkable) bravery, AND be laser-focused on blaming both sides. Not enough oxygen in the room. Too many competing storylines to juggle. And therein lies the GOP’s opportunity. Because the media’s attention will be divided, the GOP will have a free hand to publicize its own message to the masses — and counterprogram the mainstream media. But we’ll have to be picky: With all the competing storylines, only one or two “talking points” will break through.

This means that we can’t say EVERYTHING we think about Cole Allen and left-wing political violence. We must be selective: It’s all about bang-for-the-buck. So how should the GOP counterprogram the Dems? Conservatives tend to favor intellectual, evidence-based arguments over raw emotions. It’s why we rely so heavily on statistics. Already on social media, we’re seeing swaths of posts about polling data — such as the one embedded above — that make a compelling mathematical argument about left-wing America’s sick tolerance of political violence.

Read more …

“Margaret Cho this week declared that “we need a feral, bloodthirsty, violent Democrat.”

• The New York Times Explores the Case for “Microlooting” to Murder (Turley)

“It is so hard to live ethically in an unethical society.” That lament heard this week from New York Times opinion culture editor Nadja Spiegelman could well be the Democratic Party’s epitaph. Spiegelman was interviewing two left-wing influencers about how everything from shoplifting to murder may be excusable today in light of the unfairness they see in society.


The podcast, a product of the nation’s newspaper of record, reveled in the moral relativism that has taken over the American left. It featured the ravings of the antisemitic Marxist streamer Hasan Piker, who calmly explained how the murder of United Healthcare executive Brian Thompson was perfectly understandable. His rationalization came from Marxist revolutionary Friedrich Engels, who had called capitalism “social murder.” If capitalists are “social murderers,” then why not kill them? The logic is liberating and lethal for some on the left looking for a license for violence.

Mind you, this same newspaper had once condemned and effectively banned a U.S. senator for writing an op-ed advocating the use of the military to quell violent protests during the summer of George Floyd’s death. The Times even forced out its own opinion editor for having the temerity to publish such an opinion. But glorifying murder? The suggestion of open hunting season on corporate executives did not appear to shock or repel Spiegelman. After all, we are living in “an unethical society.” She explained that many felt that the murder of Thompson, the father of two, meant that “finally, someone can actually do something about health care.”

Even liberal comedians are practicing a literal version of slapstick. Margaret Cho this week declared that “we need a feral, bloodthirsty, violent Democrat.” To be far, Spiegelman did concede that it might seem a bit “scary” for some to start murdering our way to social justice. She also explained that shoplifting can be justifiable because people are “stealing from Whole Foods — not just for the thrill of it, but out of a feeling of anger and moral justification.” New Yorker writer Jia Tolentino also contributed to the podcast, titled “The Rich Don’t Play by the Rules. So Why Should I?” She immediately threw in her own experience with “microlooting” and explained why it is arguably moral: “I have, under very specific circumstances. I will say, I think that stealing from a big-box store [isn’t] significant as a moral wrong, nor is it significant in any way as protest.”

She detailed her own past thefts and added, “I didn’t feel bad about it at all, in part because the store was a corporation. And it certainly felt, in a utilitarian sense, I was like, this is not a big deal. Right, guys?” Not in the confines of the New York Times, where apparently you are entitled to all goods that are fit to pilfer. The bizarre exchange highlighted the moral chasm that is opening its maw on today’s political left. In my book “Rage and the Republic,” I write about how rage helps people excuse any offense or attack. It dismisses the humanity of others and provides a license to hate completely and without reservation. It is not really murder or theft if there are no real humans on the other side, is it?

Read more …

And the country.

• Muslim Voters Are Reshaping U.K. Politics (JTN)

The growing numbers of Muslims in the United Kingdom, along with their organized and issue-driven politics, has made them an increasingly consequential – if not outsizes – part of the country’s electorate – representing new challenges for Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s center-left government and efforts to maintain a unified stance on key issues.Recent elections have shown the country’s estimated 4 million people, or roughly 6.5% of the country’s overall population, have been enough to determine electoral outcomes in specific districts and nudge national parties to re-calibrate their platforms.


U.K. foreign policy – particularly when it concerns heavily Muslim parts of the world such as Gaza and Iran – has become especially prickly, according to surveys. Changes among Muslim voters have also fragmented the traditional Labour Party coalition, and according to some reports, have accelerated a shift toward “transactional politics.” “The size of the Muslim population and even more so, the areas where it is concentrated are helping to leverage influence in key areas,” political scientist Rana Dancyger told Just the News. “They do not vote as a bloc, but their influence is large enough that their priorities must be taken into consideration.”

Census data shows that the U.K.’s Muslim population is concentrated in urban constituencies such as Birmingham, Bradford, parts of London, and cities in the north. The Muslim Council of Britain has for years identified dozens of constituencies in which Muslim voters could play a decisive role in tight races. That played out in 2024, the last national vote, where Starmer’s Labour Party lost significant support among constituencies with large Muslim populations, meaning hundreds of thousands of voters shifted away over protests on specific issues including the government’s policies on Israel’s war with Hamas in Gaza, where roughly 99% of the population Muslim. And likewise with Iran, who’s at war with Israel and the United States, and whose population is 99% Muslim.

It didn’t hurt Labour in the final tally, in which Starmer and his allies swept the Conservatives out of office for the first time in 16 years. But the shift helped to fuel growth for more extreme parties, such as the Liberal Democrats and the right-wing Reform UK party. The shift has forced Starmer’s government into a delicate balancing act, as positions that in the past would have been framed through political alliances – such as support for Israel or backing Israeli and U.S. policies toward Iran — now carry clear domestic consequences.

Even within the Labour Party itself, Muslim members of parliament, other government officials, and activists, have become more vocal in criticizing government policies, making it increasingly difficult for Starmer to maintain a unified message. One survey warned that the historic ties between the Labour Party and Muslim representatives could be “at a breaking point,” adding to Labour’s woes stemming from weak economic growth and indirect ties to scandals involving the Epstein files in the U.S.

Read more …

Wonderful.

• Trump’s Prescription Drug Policies Make Small-Town Pharmacies Great Again (JTN)

President Donald Trump recently announced a substantial deal with drug manufacturer Regeneron to lower drug prices and onshore nearly $10 billion to $27 billion in U.S. manufacturing, further expanding access to domestic medicine, the absence of which has caused headaches for America’s thousands of community and rural pharmacies. “Seventeen of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies, representing 80% of the branded drug market, have now agreed to sell their drugs to American patients at the lowest price anywhere in the world. This will result in the largest drop in prescription drug prices in the history of the United States of America,” Trump told the press Thursday during the announcement in the Oval Office.


Earlier in April, the Trump administration imposed a timed 100% tariff on patented pharmaceutical ingredients and products from most countries, which has accelerated the return of drug manufacturing to the U.S., producing stability and economic wins for independent pharmacies that have long struggled with supply-chain fragility. Key policy drivers include the April 2 Presidential Proclamation imposing 100% ad valorem tariffs on patented pharmaceuticals and ingredients (effective July 31 for major companies and September 29 for smaller companies). Companies with secretary of Commerce-approved onshoring plans qualify for a transitional 20% rate, which escalates to 100% on April 2, 2030, while MFN pricing agreements can yield 0% tariffs (with their own sunset provisions).

Complementary actions streamline FDA approvals and inspections to accelerate domestic manufacturing.The data have shown dramatic early results. In 2025 alone, drugmakers announced more than $370 billion in new U.S. manufacturing commitments – the largest reshoring wave in industry history – creating tens of thousands of jobs and dozens of new or expanded facilities. Major players have pledged over $480 billion total (e.g., Eli Lilly’s $27 billion for four new sites, Johnson & Johnson’s $55 billion including multiple plants, AstraZeneca’s $50 billion with a major Virginia facility, and similar multi-billion-dollar moves by Novartis, Roche, and others.)

The investments are generating roughly 44,000 direct manufacturing and support jobs while reducing reliance on overseas APIs, where 70–80% of U.S. generics and many branded drugs historically originated from China and India. For rural and small-town pharmacies, the re-shoring translates into tangible long-term gains. Independent operators – who often operate on razor-thin margins and serve Medicare/Medicaid-heavy populations – have faced chronic shortages, stock outs, and price volatility from global disruptions. Domestic production ramps are already easing those pressures by shortening supply chains, cutting transit risks and enabling faster replenishment.

Early signs that these policies are improving the industry, all the way down to small pharmacies, include stabilized generic supply in key categories (like antibiotics and diabetes treatments) and renewed local economic activity as new plants (many in heartland or Southern states) boost regional wages, supplier networks, and tax bases that indirectly support pharmacy viability. The administration’s parallel Rural Health Transformation Program further amplifies this by aligning pharmacies with goals like “sustainable access” and “make rural America healthy again,” positioning independents as frontline partners in expanded care delivery.

Read more …

“The SPLC created hate groups and activities like the Charlottesville rally, and the complicit media then weaponized these concocted offenses by spreading outright lies about Trump’s reaction to the staged events.”

• Charlottesville: The Deceit Underlying the Hoax (Steve Cortes)

For years, Democratic politicians and their allies in the legacy media have spread the damnable Charlottesville Hoax: the propaganda myth that President Trump praised bigots who rioted in 2017 in the Virginia town. Of course, the opposite is true, as Trump actually said: “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.”

Now, we learn that the entire hoax of Trump and Charlottesville is, itself, built upon another grand lie. The media and people like Joe Biden have continually pushed the narrative that some big, organic gathering of hateful Americans descended upon Charlottesville and represented some larger threat to the republic itself. But it now turns out that the “Unite the Right” rally was organized and financed by the highly partisan, left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center.

In a sweeping 11-count indictment, the Department of Justice and acting Attorney General Todd Blanche charge the advocacy group with criminal defrauding of donors and “manufacturing the extremism it purports to oppose by paying sources to stoke racial hatred.” The charges contained in this indictment are akin to the fire department becoming an aggressive criminal arson enterprise, setting fires all across a town, and then demanding more budget and authority to fight the very infernos it set ablaze.

So…the end result is that America endured years of propaganda that convinced a large segment of the population – in contravention of the facts – that their president supported violent hate merchants. Even worse, masses of unskeptical Americans, who consume only legacy media content, believed that the entire America First populist movement was based on bigotry, rather than patriotism.

Now, nearly a decade later, the truth is revealed about the deception that lay beneath that grand lie. There was a layer of duplicity here that is almost difficult to fathom. Only true Marxists could excuse this level of propaganda. The SPLC created hate groups and activities like the Charlottesville rally, and the complicit media then weaponized these concocted offenses by spreading outright lies about Trump’s reaction to the staged events.

Read more …

“What matters now is ending the war as quickly and decisively as possible. . . After that, people can wrestle over the “moral and constitutional” quandary to their heart’s content.” —Brandon Smith

• The Siege of Iran, and Other Matters (James Howard Kunstler)

Other matters first, then Iran. The fall of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in an eleven-count fraud and money-laundering indictment is a watershed moment for exposing the bad faith business model of the Lefty-left: pay for the creation of imaginary monsters so you can pretend to be the defender of your fake victim-clients, the sundry “oppressed minorities” yearning to breathe free.


The money was paid to various manifestations of “white supremacy,” ranging from the good old Ku Klux Klan (more venerable in America’s memory than Frankenstein) to the avant-garde Sadistic Souls Motorcycle Club, affiliated with the Aryan Nation. And, turns out, the SPLC also engineered the Fine People Hoax in Charlottesville, 2020, that loomed so large in “Joe Biden’s” supposedly victorious campaign for president. The Left’s moral center-of-gravity is a black hole of grift and subterfuge.

Of course, this SPLC farrago might raise some questions about many other Lefty-left NGOs that infest our political landscape, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Black Lives Matter (BLM), and Al Otro Lado in California, which launders taxpayer money into all manner of freebies for illegal aliens — all of these orgs accused of rank improprieties. CAIR, which is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, was declared a terrorist or transnational criminal organization by Texas and Florida. BLM grifters in Atlanta and Oklahoma City were indicted for wire fraud and money laundering.

Between the zillions of dollars flooding the USA from foreign dark money pass-thrus like the Soros family’s Open Society Foundations, the checkbook of Shanghai American expat Neville Roy Singham, The Tides Foundation, The Hopewell Fund, et cetera, ad infinitum, plus the taxpayers of California, New York, Illinois, and Minnesota, vast fortunes are pumped into civic mischief and chaos creation here, including all the riots of recent years. Is it not time, a least, to revoke the 501(c)(3) tax exemption status of all these nefarious outfits? Should be easy. (Paging Treasury Sec’y and IRS chief Scott Bessent!)

Next up: The Democratic Party’s savage stupidity played out this week in Virginia with a big election win for a shamelessly impudent Congressional redistricting scam that would sculpt away all but one GOP district of eleven on the Virginia map. NGOs poured a ton of money into the op. The ballot proposition was worded artfully “to restore fairness in upcoming elections,” which, as always with the Lefty-left, was the exact opposite of what it was designed to do.

Within hours, Tazewell County Circuit Court Judge Jack C. Hurley, Jr., ruled the proposition void and blocked Virginia from certifying the referendum. The case now speeds to the Virginia Supreme Court where the prop is expected to fail on at least four counts of blatant affront to the state’s constitution. Virginia’s new governor, former CIA analyst Abigail Spanberger, ran in 2025 on the explicit promise that she would not advocate a Congressional redistricting measure. This is exactly what Democratic Party bad faith looks like.

You’ve noticed, no doubt, that bad faith is not solely owned by the Democratic Party. We watch in wonder and nausea the bewildering psychodrama of Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) refusing to allow procedure that would get the Save Act passed (common sense election reform). Nor will Thune allow confirmation votes to proceed for nominated DOJ US attorneys and other jobs submitted by the executive branch. He shows every sign of wanting his party to lose. . .which means, allowing the Democratic Party to continue queering elections, including the crucial midterms. . . which means he wants our country to fail.

Seems like nobody knows what to do about Sen. Thune and his dishonorable cohorts in the chamber. If the president knows, he isn’t saying just now, and that would be consistent with his mode of fighting battles. But remember, Nicolás Maduro has been in US custody for months, and you can be sure he’s been debriefed on the subject of Dominion and Smartmatic voting machine shenanigans that originated in Venezuela years ago in order to ensure his own election. The FBI is also sitting on 2020 election evidence harvested out of Georgia, Michigan, and Arizona (perhaps other states, too). The truth about 2020 will come out, probably sooner than later, and when it does, Senator Thune will be sufficiently humiliated to drive him out of his post. He appears to be too dumb to realize that.

Now, as to Iran: The country’s putative “leadership” marinates in rage, impotence, and factional squabbling as the ceasefire dwindles. They can make some more mischief in the Persian Gulf, perhaps, but in a matter of days Iran’s oil industry will be permanently wrecked, its economy strangled, and its ordinary citizens in a desperate fury to make it all stop. If that doesn’t force a deal — no nukes, hand-over the 1000 pounds of Uranium, let in the neutral inspectors, etc. — then it’s onto the bridges and power plants. There really is no other way now. Show a little more patience. Won’t be long. The world will be a better place when this is over.

Read more …

Trump demands NO NUKES; not maybe, not halfway.. They can anwser yes or no. New proposals are useless.

• Iran Offers New Proposal To Reopen Strait – Trump Open To Deal Via Phone (ZH)

Running a little ahead of schedule, Sunday evening brought this week’s infusion of pre-Monday-open optimism about prospects of ending the US-Israel war on Iran. Axios’ Barak Ravid, a veteran of Israeli intelligence who routinely posts anonymously-sourced scoops, reported that Iran has presented a new proposal for opening the Strait of Hormuz and ending the shooting — though Iran’s concept includes a potential non-starter via a proposed postponement of nuclear negotiations. No details were reported, beyond the notion of either an extended ceasefire or permanent end of the war that would accompany a full reopening of the strait.


Earlier on Sunday, President Trump said face-to-face discussions with the Iranians weren’t essential to ending the war. “If they want to talk, they can come to us, or they can call us. You know, there is a telephone. We have nice, secure lines,” he told Fox News. “They know what has to be in the ` agreement. It’s very simple: They cannot have a nuclear weapon; otherwise, there’s no reason to meet.” Sunday’s micro-dose of hope capped a weekend in which negotiations were perceived as grinding to a clear stalemate marked by a lack of warfare but also a continued choking of traffic through the vital Strait of Hormuz. On Saturday, Trump’s lead negotiators, Steve Witkoff and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, were poised to travel to Islamabad for another round of negotiations with the Iranians when Trump nixed their trip at the last minute.

Iranian Foreign Minister Shuttles Between Pakistan, Oman, Russia
Iran’s Fars news agency reported that Araghchi has “conveyed written messages regarding Iran’s red lines to the American side through Pakistani intermediaries.” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has been on the go. On Saturday, he left Pakistan after meeting with Pakistan’s military chief, Asim Munir, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar. On parting, Araghchi said he’d had a “very fruitful visit,” while cautioning it’s unclear “if the US is truly serious about diplomacy.” Then he was off to Oman for talks centered on re-opening the strait — which lies between the two countries — then back to Pakistan. By Monday, Araghchi was in St Petersburg, Russia for discussions with President Putin. Commenting on the relationship via X, Iran’s envoy in Russia said:

“Iran and Russia are present in a united front in the campaign of the world’s totalitarian forces against independent and justice-seeking countries, as well as countries that seek a ` world free from unilateralism and Western domination.”Trump: Iranian Oil Infrastructure In Peril From Limited Capacity Trump told Fox News on Sunday that the US blockade on traffic to and from Iranian ports is putting major pressure on the country’s export infrastructure: “When you have, you know, lines of vast amounts of oil pouring through your system, if for any reason that line is closed because you can’t continue to put it into containers or ships, which has happened to them — they have no ships because of the blockade — what happens is that line explodes from within, both mechanically and in the earth.”

“It’s something that happens where it just explodes. And they say they only have about three days left before that happens. And when it explodes, you can never, regardless, you can never rebuild it the way it was.” That approximate scenario has also been outlined by the Critical Threats Project at the American Enterprise Institute. “Once the tanks are filled, Iran would have to shut down its oil fields, which risks long-term damage to the fields,” AEI’s Annika Ganzeveld told the New York Post. A worst-case scenario doesn’t only imperil Iran’s economy, but also threatens to put more upward pressure on global energy prices. Analysts differ on how much time Iran has before a forced shutdown of production — with estimates ranging from mere days to seven weeks.

Read more …

NO nukes and NO control of the Strait.

• Bessent: IRGC Leaders ‘Trapped’ Like ‘Drowning Rats’ By US Blockade (ZH)

In the early evening of Monday, well after markets closed, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent issued the following on X (below), describing IRGC leaders as now “trapped like drowning rats” amid the enduring US naval blockade of Iranian ports, which will soon result in gasoline shortages and anger – and potential protests leading to uprising (according to US desires and aims). Also here is where things stand on the stalled negotiations, and an early hint of the potential White House reaction, per WSJ:


Iran has presented regional mediators with a new offer to stop its attacks on ships in the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for a full end to the war, including the U.S.’s lifting of its naval blockade of Iranian ports and the postponement of nuclear negotiations, according to officials familiar with the matter. nThe proposal, presented by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi during his tour of the region and Pakistan over the weekend, is designed to break the deadlock in the conflict and set talks back in motion, the people said. President Trump and his national-security team are skeptical of Iran’s offer, U.S. officials said. Trump previously said negotiations could happen over the phone instead of in person.

And: “Trump held discussions with aides Monday morning about the offer. While he didn’t reject it outright, officials said Trump sounded notes about Iran not dealing in good faith or being willing to meet his key demand: ending nuclear enrichment and vowing never to make a nuclear weapon.”

Meanwhile..

Rubio: ‘Will Not Tolerate’ Iran Control of Strait
The latest via WSJ on what Iran is proposing, centered on immediately lifting the US naval blockade on Iranian ports: Iran has presented regional mediators with a new offer to stop its attacks in the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for a full end to the war and a lifting of the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports, according to officials familiar with the matter. The proposal, presented by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi during his tour of the region and Pakistan over the weekend, is designed to break the deadlock in the conflict and set talks back in motion, the people said. It would see discussions about Iran’s nuclear program shelved. Washington hasn’t responded to the proposal, one of the people said. Iran’s mission to the United Nations didn’t respond to a request for comment.

But US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has told Fox News on Monday that the US will not tolerate Iran controlling or establishing a toll system in the Strait of Hormuz. Rubio further asserted that the strait would remain open either through international pressure or a coalition-led effort. Just days ago Iran began declaring that the first toll passage funds had been successfully transferred to the Central Bank of Iran, after Trump stated the US won’t allow a toll system. Rubio further said the US will not normalize the Iranians being essentially a gatekeeper, with countries seeking permission from Iran.

Read more …

A theme that will grow in importance as we go along,

“Inside Chuck Grassley’s office there is an investigative team that every GOP senator and congressman will admit consists of the very best researchers and knowledgeable staff..”

• Senator Chuck Grassley’s Office Requests Answers from DOJ and FBI (CTH)

First, it becomes very important for people to understand some of the inside baseball in Washington DC circles in order to hold context for what has been made public today by the office of Senator Chuck Grassley. Inside Chuck Grassley’s office there is an investigative team that every GOP senator and congressman will admit consists of the very best researchers and knowledgeable staff officials on how the Deep State operates. Grassley’s office is the venue, the vehicle or vessel, for those investigators to operate; Chuck Grassley is not organizing this group – he facilitates it.

Just as Robert Mueller served as the figurehead holding the legislatively authorized power of the special counsel—while the actual investigative work was carried out by his team—Chuck Grassley similarly acts as a symbolic leader, with the real action happening within the organization he oversees. Mueller at 75-years old (2019) was to the special counsel as Grassley at 93-years old (2026) is to senatorial inquiry.

That said, today the office of Senator Chuck Grassley sent a dispatch of connected information about Hillary Clinton from DOJ/FBI files retrieved over the past several years as part of a longer-term investigation. Grassley’s office released the FBI Washington Field Office’s 12-page “electronic communication” (EC) that opened a preliminary investigation into the Clinton Foundation. [SEE HERE] They also released a trove of documents showing overwhelming evidence of pay-to-play criminal activity by the Clinton family and emphasize lack of response from the DOJ which highlights both politicalization and weaponization of information by the Department of Justice and FBI.

The FBI and DOJ buried the investigations of Hillary Clinton, yet the evidence of corruption was simply overwhelming. With time running out on their ability to retain the venue, in essence Grassley’s office is urgently asking the DOJ and FBI, how could this not have been prosecuted?

Chuck Grassley, who turns 93 in September, has served in the U.S. Senate for 45 years. Grassley has spent more than 50 years in Congress overall, having served in the U.S. House from 1975 to 1981 before being elected to his first term as senator. In 2022, Grassley was elected to an eighth term, winning against Democratic challenger Michael Franken with 56% of the vote — a smaller margin of victory than in many of his previous elections. He will be 95 by the time his current term ends in 2028.

Currently, Grassley serves as president pro tempore of the Senate, in addition to being the Senate Judiciary Committee chair. I strongly doubt there will be another Grassley term in office and given the stakes of the 2026 midterm election it looks like the people in his office are trying to push out as much information as possible while it can still do some good. I would bet you a donut this is the correct context to view this information flow.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/RMXnews/status/2048534614755467353?s=20 https://twitter.com/Gitmo99/status/2048574878026985630?s=20

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle March 13 2026

Mar 132026
 
 March 13, 2026  Posted by at 9:38 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,  97 Responses »


Willem de Kooning Woman 1969


• The War on Iran Could Remake the World (Lukyanov)
• The 3 Big Lies About the Iran War (Ben Shapiro)
• Iran Confirms New Supreme Leader Injured But Recovering (RT)
• Attacking Water in Iran Can Bring Out Nukes – Martin Armstrong (USAW)
• Iran War Crack-Up (Helmer)
• Eat the Rich: Sanders and Khanna Introduce Federal Billionaires Tax (Turley)
• UK Behind Deadly Storm Shadow Missile Attack On Russian City – Kremlin (RT)
• Ukraine Attacking Russian Gas Pipeline To Stop Deliveries To Europe (RT)
• The UN Warns Trump About Migrant Rhetoric. Seriously. (Manney)
• Forget The Island: Jeffrey Epstein’s Secret War For Libya’s Billions (Fetouri)
• Epstein Guard To Testify As Oversight Committee Explores Potential MURDER (MN)
• The Politicking of Barack Obama (Victor Davis Hanson)
• The Era of Truth and Freedom is Over (Paul Craig Roberts)
• Putin Is Again on the Wrong Track (Paul Craig Roberts)
• 56% of Americans Now Suspect COVID-19 “Vaccines” Caused Mass Deaths (Hulscher)

 


 

 


 


It already does.

• The War on Iran Could Remake the World (Lukyanov)

The United States and Israel justified their military campaign against Iran by claiming it was necessary to protect themselves, and the world, from a nuclear threat. Tehran was accused of secretly accumulating enough weapons-grade uranium to build up to 11 atomic bombs. Yet after the first week of bombing, it became clear that nuclear fears were only part of the story. The war against Iran is not merely another Middle Eastern conflict. It marks the latest stage in a long process of upheaval that has been reshaping the region since the end of the Cold War. And the consequences of what is happening today will extend far beyond the Middle East.


The current war can be seen as the culmination of a transformation that began more than three decades ago. The modern Middle East emerged in the 20th century during the decline of colonial empires. But that order began to unravel in 1991, when the United States launched Operation Desert Storm to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The timing was symbolic. The Gulf War coincided with a dramatic shift in global politics: the collapse of the Soviet Union, the end of the Cold War, and the emergence of what was often called the “unipolar moment.” The period of unrivalled American dominance.

What followed was a chain reaction of crises and interventions. The terrorist attacks on New York and Washington in September 2001 triggered the global War on Terror, leading to military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Arab Spring then destabilized regimes across the region, followed by intervention in Libya and the prolonged civil war in Syria.Each crisis pulled more actors into the vortex. Gradually, control over events slipped away from those who had initiated them. For Washington, the result was a strategic trap. The US sought to reduce its direct involvement in Middle Eastern conflicts while simultaneously maintaining its influence. These goals proved increasingly difficult to reconcile.

With hindsight, it is clear that many American decisions in the region were reactive. Each step was presented as part of a coherent geopolitical strategy, yet the long-term consequences were rarely calculated beyond the immediate horizon. Donald Trump, during both his first presidency and his return to office, repeatedly argued that the US should avoid military interventions far from its own borders. Yet Iran presented a different challenge. Iran is the most powerful state the US has confronted directly since World War II. Not necessarily in terms of military strength, but in terms of its demographic weight and regional influence. Attempting to dismantle such a pillar of the regional order inevitably carries profound consequences.

In Washington, a widely circulated interpretation suggests that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump agreed late last year to launch a decisive campaign against Iran. According to this view, the Israeli leadership played a decisive role in shaping the decision. Trump, who had previously championed a policy of restraint in the Middle East, deviated from that principle. The White House appears to have misjudged the political situation in Iran, expecting that a sharp military strike might trigger internal collapse.

There was also hope for a repeat of a familiar pattern: a rapid, surgical attack followed by a declaration of victory. But that scenario failed to materialize. Instead, the region plunged into instability. And once the war escalated, Washington found itself unable to step back without risking the perception of defeat.

Read more …

“The goal is simple: Undermine public confidence and turn what is shaping up as a strategic success into a perceived failure.”

• The 3 Big Lies About the Iran War (Ben Shapiro)

If you’ve been following coverage of the Trump administration’s military action against Iran, you’ve probably noticed something: A lot of people are determined to convince you that the United States is losing. They’re wrong. Even worse, many of them know they’re wrong. Critics across the political spectrum — from Democrats to elements of the so-called horseshoe Right — are pushing narratives that paint the conflict as a disaster in the making. The goal is simple: Undermine public confidence and turn what is shaping up as a strategic success into a perceived failure. Three particular claims are circulating widely. All three deserve to be addressed.


Lie No. 1: The war is a quagmire.
The first claim is that the United States has stumbled into another interminable Middle East war — one destined to drag on for years and possibly escalate to catastrophic levels. This is absurd. At the time of this writing, the conflict is less than two weeks old. Twelve days. That’s not 12 years, as in Vietnam, or even 12 months, as in the Spanish-American War. Wars unfold over time, and no one should pretend to know exactly how long any conflict will last. But the notion that the United States is already trapped in a generational quagmire — after less than two weeks of fighting — is less analysis than panic.

Lie No. 2: Iran is somehow winning.
A second claim insists that Iran is holding strong — that the regime is weathering the assault and even gaining the upper hand. Again, reality tells a different story. Iran’s military capabilities have been battered. Its missile and drone infrastructure has been heavily targeted. Its naval assets have reportedly suffered severe losses. Leadership turmoil inside the regime only compounds the problem. Reports suggest that the death of longtime Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has triggered a chaotic succession struggle. Even his presumed heir, Mojtaba Khamenei, appears to lack both political support and personal legitimacy within the system. In other words, the Iranian regime is not projecting strength. It is scrambling to maintain control.

Lie No. 3: The oil shock will break the United States.
The final warning is economic: Iran, critics say, will simply shut down the Strait of Hormuz, sending global oil prices skyrocketing and bringing the American economy to its knees.For a brief moment earlier this week, markets reacted to that fear. Oil prices jumped sharply amid speculation that the strait could be disrupted.But the panic faded almost as quickly as it began. Within days, crude prices had fallen back below $90 a barrel. Markets, unlike pundits, respond to reality. And the reality is that Iran faces enormous consequences if it attempts to choke off one of the world’s most vital shipping lanes.

President Donald Trump has made that point unmistakably clear. In a statement posted online, he warned that any Iranian attempt to block the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz would trigger an overwhelming American response.The message was aimed not only at Tehran but also at Beijing and other major energy consumers: The United States intends to keep global energy flowing — and anyone who interferes will pay a heavy price. There are legitimate questions to ask about any military action. Democracies require scrutiny, debate and skepticism. But skepticism should not be confused with hysteria.

Right now, critics are spinning worst-case scenarios while ignoring the basic facts on the ground: Iran’s military is under severe pressure, its leadership structure is unstable, and the economic fallout that many predicted has yet to materialize. None of this guarantees the conflict will end quickly or cleanly. War rarely works that way. But it does suggest that the narrative of inevitable American failure — so loudly promoted by the administration’s opponents — is far removed from the reality unfolding in the Middle East. And that reality matters far more than the talking points.

Read more …

The title of this article was originally: “Trump claims Strait of Hormuz ‘in great shape’ “.

• Iran Confirms New Supreme Leader Injured But Recovering (RT)

Iran has confirmed that newly appointed Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei was injured but is recovering. “He’s injured but fine,” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei told Italy’s Corriere Della Sera on Thursday. Earlier reports suggested Khamenei was wounded in the initial US-Israeli strikes that killed his father, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, which may explain why he has yet to appear publicly or on video since assuming the top post. Meanwhile, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has outlined three conditions to end the conflict. In a post on X, he said the war can only end through recognition of Iran’s “legitimate rights,” reparations for US-Israeli strike damage, and “firm international guarantees against future aggression.”


Elsewhere, the US-Israeli military campaign against Tehran has continued to disrupt global energy markets. In Iran, the US has bitten off more than it can chewREAD MORE: In Iran, the US has bitten off more than it can chew Despite all 34 International Energy Agency (IEA) members agreeing on Wednesday to a record 400-million-barrel release from emergency reserves, oil prices have surged roughly 9% in the past 24 hours, with international benchmark Brent crude hovering just above $100 per barrel.

Here are the latest developments as RT continues to bring you up to date:
• At least two oil tankers were hit near Iraq’s Umm Qasr port early on Thursday, while the port of Salalah in Oman continued to burn overnight. Saudi Arabia and Bahrain also reported strikes on their oil facilities. Oman evacuated vessels from Mina Al Fahal as a precaution.
• US President Donald Trump claimed Iran has been “virtually destroyed,” but said he does not plan to end the campaign early, insisting the Strait of Hormuz remains “in great shape.”
• A Pentagon probe into the strike on a primary school in Minab that killed 168 children reportedly found that outdated US targeting data on a nearby IRGC facility likely caused the attack.
• The IDF intensified strikes in Lebanon after Hezbollah coordinated attacks with Iran’s IRGC, hitting a Beirut refugee camp. The total death toll in Lebanon now exceeds 634.
• Western banks began closing Middle East branches after Iran threatened financial institutions in retaliation for the strike on Tehran’s state-owned Bank Sepah, which handles military and IRGC payrolls.

Read more …

Iran has a very serious water issue.

• Attacking Water in Iran Can Bring Out Nukes – Martin Armstrong (USAW)

Martin Armstrong warned in February, “This is where the volatility starts kicking in.” What do we have? Oil, gold and silver spiking in price, and violent exchanges between Iran, the United States and many other countries in the Middle East. Now, water assets like desalination plants in Bahrain and Iran are being blown up. Add the worst water shortage in decades in Iran as a backdrop to constant bombing, and you have a situation that could turn very ugly, very fast. The water shortage is so bad that there has been water rationing in Tehran for months. This water rationing was part of the reason there were huge protests in Iran a few months ago.


Armstrong explains, “Part of the protests (in Iran) were about water rationing. The Islamic Republic Guard were called the ‘water mafia.’ They control the water. It’s kind of like North Korea. If you want to be fed, you join the army. All food goes to the army first, and water will also go to the military first.” Remember, they are water rationing in Iran now, and they don’t have a lot left. So, what happens if the US, Israel and other Persian Gulf nations knock out what’s left of Iran’s water? What happens if Iran is completely out of water? Armstrong says, “Personally, I would ask Pakistan for a nuke. Look, you are talking about the death of a country. When you get to that point, if you’ve got a nuke, you are going to use it.”

So, what happens if the dams and reservoirs are bombed and Iran is completely cut off from water? Armstrong says, “If you do that, is that a war crime because you are wiping out the average population and civilians? Would you do that? This is a mess. It’s a complete mess.” On the other side, what happens if Iran knocks out all the Persian Gulf oil refineries? Armstrong says, “If I were Iran, I would attack all the oil refineries of the neighboring states. You do that, and you will bring the entire West to its knees. The US only gets about 3% of our oil from the Middle East. You would wipe out Europe for sure.”

Armstrong sees gold going as high as “$8,800 an ounce . . . and silver $150 per ounce. . .. Oil could test $200 a barrel. . .. It’s going to get worse this summer, and it’s a 250-year drought cycle in Iran. I wrote about this on my site.” In closing, Armstrong says, “Winston Churchill said, ‘In time of war, truth is very precious, and it needs a bodyguard of lies to protect it.’”


Read more …

“Russian-Chinese cooperation has truly limitless possibilities and potential, and we will continue to act in unison.”

• Iran War Crack-Up (Helmer)

Iran has made one point very clear to the United States. It will negotiate on terms for a “permanent peace” but not for a ceasefire. It will fight on against US troops if they land, against US bases in the Arab states, and against US vessels at sea; it will keep the Hormuz Strait closed. Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi repeated this point in three interviews he gave the NBC and PBS television networks on March 6, March 8 and March 9. President Vladimir Putin has made one point very clear to Iran. “I want to confirm our unwavering support of Tehran and our solidarity with our Iranian friends,” he said in his message of March 9 to the new Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei. “Russia has been and will remain the Islamic Republic’s reliable partner. I wish you success in tackling the challenges in front of you, good health and strong spirit.”


The next day Putin telephoned Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian to “reaffirm his principled stance in favour of de-escalating the conflict as soon as possible and resolving it via political means. Masoud Pezeshkian expressed gratitude for the support provided by Russia, including in particular the humanitarian aid granted to Iran.” De-escalation isn’t ceasefire first; as soon as possible isn’t a short war; humanitarian aid isn’t exactly military aid but it may be. Putin’s wish for Mojtaba Khamenei’s “good health” may extend to new Russian measures for his security; or they may be no more than Putin’s wish. Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, then announced the maybes are mightnots.

“’All of these issues were not discussed during that conversation [with Pezeshkian]’ in response to a question whether the presidents discussed Iran’s alleged demands to the United States, including guarantees against the resumption of hostilities, the right for a full peaceful nuclear fuel cycle as well as possible compensations.” Not exactly nothing was said, Peskov meant. But he omitted to say if Putin told Pezeshkian that Russia’s support for Iran’s security and for the new Supreme Leader’s “good health” is “unwavering”.Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, however, did say this to Aragchi in their telephone call on March 10. Russia backs negotiations “with due consideration for [the] security interests of Iran and its regional neighbours”, the foreign ministry communiqué announced.

President Xi Jinping has made nothing very clear — by his silence. Instead, he has delegated Wang Yi to speak. Wang is a Communist Party Politburo member and Foreign Minister; the first rank is more important than the second. “China calls for an immediate stop to military operations to avoid the spiralling escalation of the situation”, Wang said on March 8. “All sides should return to the negotiating table as quickly as possible, resolve differences through equal dialogue, and make efforts for realizing common security.” That’s to say, ceasefire first; negotiations second.

Wang then told his spokesman to announce on March 11: “As to China-Russia relations, both sides develop bilateral ties based on the principle of non-alliance, non-confrontation and not targeting any third party.” This is the first time China has officially emphasized its non-alliance with Russia. At their last direct conversation on February 4, 2026, the Kremlin spokesman had said: “Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping once again noted that the comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation between our two countries are at an unprecedented level, are based on equality and mutual benefit, are not directed against any third parties, and are not subject to short-term political considerations.”

“Comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation” was the watchword of their joint communiqué in Moscow on May 8, 2025; and in Kazakhstan on July 3, 2024; Putin told Xi in Moscow on March 21, 2023, “Russian-Chinese cooperation has truly limitless possibilities and potential, and we will continue to act in unison.”

Read more …

“That is the signature of economic factionalism, which feeds an insatiable appetite for greater wealth seizure.”

• Eat the Rich: Sanders and Khanna Introduce Federal Billionaires Tax (Turley)

“Enough is enough.” With those words, Senator Bernie Sanders (I., Vt) launched a push to impose a 5% annual wealth tax on America’s billionaires. With Rep. Ro Khanna (D., Cal.), the legislation, “Make Billionaires Pay Their Fair Share Act,” echoes the growing “eat-the-rich” mantra on the left — seeking to replicate a disastrous push in California that has led to an exodus from that state and an estimated loss of $2 trillion in taxable assets. It is also flagrantly unconstitutional. Under the plan, Congress would target 938 billionaires to tap them for $4.4 trillion. That money would then be redistributed as a $3,000 direct payment to every man, woman, and child in a household making $150,000 or less – $12,000 for a family of four.


The timing of the move is telling. Not only is it calculated before the midterm elections, in which the Democrats hope to retake power, but it follows the push by California Democrats and unions to impose a similar wealth tax in that state. Khanna, who represents Silicon Valley, has supported the state law, which includes a ruinous provision for startup entrepreneurs. The law would not only be retroactive to try to trap wealthy taxpayers who have fled the state, but also base wealth calculations on the voting shares of corporate executives. Often, with start-ups, entrepreneurs hold greater voting shares than actual ownership. However, just in case they need more incentive to leave the state, they will be taxed as if their voting shares represented actual wealth.

The practical problem is that the wealthy, like their wealth, are mobile. As a result, many are fleeing California. So now Khanna is joining with the nation’s leading Democratic Socialists to ensure there is nowhere to hide in the United States. For billionaires in California, they could be double-tapped for ten percent of their wealth. It has long been the dream of the far left. Years ago, Warren delighted Democratic voters in her run for the presidency by telling the rich she was coming after “your Rembrandts, your stock portfolio, your diamonds and your yachts.” In one debate, she dramatically rubbed her hands together after saying she would take some of the wealth of fellow candidate John Delaney, a self-made millionaire.

In my book, “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution,” I discuss the growing threat of “economic factionalism” as politicians fuel rage against the wealthy based on the false premise that they are not “paying their fair share.” While there are good-faith arguments for adjusting tax burdens to address budget demands, the top 1 percent pays more taxes than the bottom 90 percent combined.There is little reason to believe that a wealth tax targeting billionaires will not, if upheld, be later extended to lower tax brackets, starting with multimillionaires. That is the signature of economic factionalism, which feeds an insatiable appetite for greater wealth seizure.

The Sanders-Khanna plan is notable in its express commitment to direct wealth redistribution. It also explains why the left has made the packing of the Supreme Court a priority. As Harvard professor Michael Klarman explained years ago, the radical agenda to change the system to guarantee Republicans “will never win another election” requires control of the Supreme Court to uphold such measures.The problem is that the Constitution bars the implementation of such a federal wealth tax. When the 16th Amendment was ratified, it allowed for federal income taxes, and only income taxes: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

The effort to expand federal taxation beyond income taxes will require either a constitutional amendment or an enabling, packed Court.Nevertheless, these politicians will continue to dangle wealth distribution before voters. They will demonize figures like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk for their wealth while ignoring that these same figures are wealth and job creators, driving our economic growth. Instead, Sanders declared that “Billionaires cannot have it all.” The irony of Rep. Khanna (who has been floating a run for President in 2028) turning on his own constituents in Silicon Valley underscores the appeal of wealth-redistribution campaigns. He is turning the very heart of his state’s economic growth as state deficits and out-of-state migration increase.

For Sanders, the legislation is a key moment to advance his long-standing socialist agenda. He declared the beginning of the end of “unprecedented income and wealth inequality” in the United States through such redistribution. The stated objective of erasing wealth inequality highlights how this is just the start and the end of wealth taxation.As discussed in Rage and the Republic, none of this is new. Countries like France previously targeted the wealthy, triggering an exodus of taxpayers and their businesses from the country. It had to reverse its policy as the economy collapsed.

Of course, many young people have no memory of such failures in the 20th Century. Instead, they are drawn to the very same soundbites used in France and Great Britain before disastrous experiments with socialism. With no experience with socialist economies, figures like socialist mayor Zohran Mamdani can entice voters to “the warmth of collectivism.” There are legitimate concerns over the glaring and growing wealth gap in the United States. However, a wealth tax is neither a constitutional nor a practical way of addressing the problem.

Read more …

“.. the missiles “couldn’t have been launched without British specialists.”

• UK Behind Deadly Storm Shadow Missile Attack On Russian City – Kremlin (RT)

A Ukrainian strike on the Russian city of Bryansk using UK-made long-range Storm Shadow missiles would have been impossible without the direct involvement of British military specialists, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said. The regional governor, Aleksandr Bogomaz, initially said the attack on Tuesday killed six people and injured 42, slamming the bombardment as an “inhumane terrorist act.” On Wednesday, he reported that the death toll had risen to seven, while confirming that the strike had involved Storm Shadow missiles. Peskov said on Wednesday the missiles “couldn’t have been launched without British specialists.”


He added that the strikes again show the necessity of the continued military campaign against Ukraine, as its success will ensure that “these barbaric actions by the Kiev regime don’t continue.” “One of the goals is to demilitarize Kiev and strip it of the ability to carry out attacks like this,” Peskov stressed. Ukraine has taken responsibility for the strike, claiming it was targeting a local microelectronics factory. Media reported that the attack came during a shift change at a local factory, when some employees were heading to the exit. According to the Russian Foreign Ministry, seven British cruise-missiles were used in the attack. The UK and other nations backing the Ukrainian government “bear full responsibility” for civilian casualties in Bryansk, it said in a statement on Wednesday.

London is “prepared to bring the conflict to a new level in terms of damage and loss of life” using Ukrainian “puppets,” it added.] The ministry said the UN must react to the incident, stating that “silence will be taken as encouragement of criminal actions” of the Ukrainian government and its foreign backers. Governor Bogomaz announced a day of mourning in Bryansk, saying that 20 people remain in local hospitals, while nine of the most severely injured have been transported to specialized medical facilities. Storm Shadow cruise missiles are launched from the air and have a range of up to 560 km. Bryansk is located just over 100 km from the Ukrainian border and is internationally recognized as Russian territory.

Read more …

“.. the goal is to jeopardize the peace process to end the Ukraine conflict.”

• Ukraine Attacking Russian Gas Pipeline To Stop Deliveries To Europe (RT)

Kiev has been deliberately attacking the infrastructure of the TurkStream gas pipeline in an attempt to halt deliveries to European consumers, the Russian Defense Ministry said on Wednesday. The statement comes after pipeline operator Gazprom reported on Wednesday that the Russkaya compressor station in southern Krasnodar Region, which serves as the starting point for supplies through the TurkStream, came under attack overnight. The company said the Beregovaya and Kazachya compressor stations were also targeted the day before, adding that its facilities in southern Russia were attacked 12 times in the past two weeks.


On Wednesday, the Defense Ministry confirmed the attacks, saying: “the Kiev regime, in order to stop gas supplies to European consumers, launched another attack using strike aircraft-type UAVs on the infrastructure of the Russkaya compressor station.” The ministry stated that four Ukrainian drones were shot down by Russian air defense systems in the airspace adjacent to the station, two more were intercepted by fighter aircraft, and three were destroyed by mobile fire teams. The TurkStream transports Russian gas to Türkiye via the Black Sea, with one line dedicated to the Turkish market and another supplying countries in Southern and Southeastern Europe.

Last month, President Vladimir Putin said Russia has become aware of plans to attack the TurkStream and Blue Stream trans-Black sea gas pipelines, adding that the goal is to jeopardize the peace process to end the Ukraine conflict. Putin did not publicly attribute the alleged plot to a specific party, saying it would be discussed behind closed doors with the Federal Security Service (FSB) board. In October, FSB chief Aleksandr Bortnikov warned that Ukraine and the UK were jointly preparing an attack on TurkStream.

Gas and oil infrastructure in the Black Sea has repeatedly come under Ukrainian attacks amid the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. The attacks involved long-range drone strikes against various facilities ashore, as well as repeated attempts to target Russian naval vessels patrolling the pipelines with sea drones. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov responded to the attack, saying it highlights the “true nature and essence of the Kiev regime,” describing the strikes as “especially irresponsible against the backdrop of a global energy crisis that is brewing day by day.”

Read more …

Anything you say can and will be used… Soon as you say something anything about immigration you’re a racist, bigot, etc.

• The UN Warns Trump About Migrant Rhetoric. Seriously. (Manney)

As if we can’t hate the United Nations enough. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination issued a warning about President Donald Trump’s immigration rhetoric, claiming that describing migrants as criminals could increase racial hostility. Members of the committee argued that the language used by political leaders can fuel discrimination and possibly trigger hate crimes against migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers living in the United States.


The Committee was deeply disturbed by the growing use of derogatory and dehumanizing language and the dissemination of harmful stereotypes targeting migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers. “Portraying them as criminals or as a burden, by politicians and influential public figures at the highest level, particularly the President,” the Committee said, “may incite racial discrimination and hate crimes.” It underscored that the systematic use of racial profiling and arbitrary identity checks by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) against people of Hispanic/Latino, African, or Asian origin has resulted in widespread arrests of refugees, asylum seekers, migrants, and people perceived as such.

The Committee also raised alarm that the lives and physical integrity of the above vulnerable groups are jeopardised by the excessive use of force and violence by enforcement officers during immigration operations. It cited that at least eight people have died since January 2026 during ICE operations or while in ICE custody, including protesters exercising their right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association and detained refugees, asylum seekers, and migrants.

The committee, operating within the United Nations human rights system, raised concerns about immigration enforcement actions carried out by federal agencies, including ICE and Customs and Border Protection. Committee members also referenced deaths tied to immigration detention and enforcement operations since early 2026. UN officials urged the U.S. government to review immigration enforcement measures implemented after January 2025. Committee members called for restrictions on enforcement operations near schools, hospitals, and houses of worship. They also pressed federal authorities to prohibit racial profiling and consider alternatives to immigration detention for families and minors.

Trump administration officials rejected the criticism. The White House accused the U.N. of bias and said Trump had delivered on many of his campaign promises, including securing the U.S. border. “No one cares what the biased United Nations’ so-called ”experts” think, because Americans are living in a safer, stronger country than ever before,” White House spokeswoman Olivia Wales said when reached for comment. Administration officials argue that immigration enforcement remains necessary to address criminal activity tied to illegal entry and trafficking networks operating along the southern border.

The UN regularly presents itself as a global human rights watchdog, yet its own record has drawn scrutiny across multiple regions. Internal investigations into reconstruction programs in Iraq revealed allegations that UN development staff demanded bribes of up to 15% of contract values during a multibillion-dollar aid effort for postwar rebuilding projects. These accusations triggered whistleblower complaints about the misuse of funds intended for infrastructure and humanitarian aid.

Read more …

“New DOJ documents expose a 2011 plan by Epstein and former intelligence operatives to seize $70 billion in frozen Libyan assets ..”

• Forget The Island: Jeffrey Epstein’s Secret War For Libya’s Billions (Fetouri)

While NATO bombs were still falling on Tripoli in the summer of 2011, a different kind of predator was circling the Libyan capital from the safety of a Manhattan townhouse. Newly released 2026 US Department of Justice documents reveal that Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier and alleged Israeli intelligence asset, was also a geopolitical vulture looking to feast on the remains of the Libyan state.,Epstein’s private correspondence reveals a cold-blooded calculation to bypass international law and tap into the $32.4 billion in Libyan assets frozen in the US. The tragedy of the Libyan people was presented as a commercial opportunity.


On September 18, 2011, while the streets of Libya were still engulfed in the chaos, a clandestine plan was being hatched in New York to capture the country’s sovereign wealth. In an email titled ‘New York – Optics are important’, Jeffrey Epstein’s associate, Greg Brown, urgently pushed the financier to bankroll a high-level meeting with future Libyan leaders during the UN General Assembly. The targets were not minor players; they included Dr. Mohamed Magariaf, who would soon become Libya’s head of state, and his key advisers, Dr. Noah and Fadel Hshad.

Brown identified this trio as the men who would soon hold the mandate to negotiate with global giants like Goldman Sachs. The prize was a staggering $40 billion in Libyan Investment Authority (LIA) assets invested across Sub-Saharan Africa on top of the amounts frozen in the US banks. By offering to “identify, manage and monetize” these funds, Epstein’s circle sought to position themselves as the ultimate gatekeepers of Libya’s post-war economy – a ‘play’ that Brown promised would generate hundreds of millions for their own pockets.

The operation was in fact a privatized intelligence effort designed to exploit the vacuum of the Libyan state. Additional emails from the same period reveal that Epstein’s network was not working in isolation, claiming that former operatives from Britain’s MI6 and Israel’s Mossad were “willing to assist” in the hunt for Libya’s billions. This shadowy alliance viewed the $32.4 billion in funds frozen in the US – as well as the additional $40 billion’s African portfolio – not as protected sovereign wealth, but as a “significant opportunity” for recovery on a contingency-fee basis. By leveraging the “fearless” reputation Greg Brown attributed to Epstein, the group aimed to convince the nascent Libyan leadership that only their network of spies-turned-fixers had the “juice” to navigate the web of global finance and retrieve the nation’s “stolen” assets.

To justify this unprecedented financial intervention, Epstein’s network relied on a carefully constructed narrative that painted all Libyan overseas wealth as ‘stolen and misappropriated’ by the Gaddafi family – a claim that has never been proven 15 years later. This was a deliberate mischaracterization; in reality, these assets were the legitimate holdings of the Libyan State funds, invested in blue-chip stocks like Pearson and global banking giants. By framing a diversified state portfolio as ‘criminal proceeds’, Epstein’s people and their intelligence associates sought a legal loophole to bypass UN sanctions and extract a ‘contingency fee’ from wealth that belonged to the Libyan people – not a single family.

This strategy of criminalizing state assets was particularly aggressive across the African continent. During the 2011 chaos, persistent rumors (often fed by Western intelligence) portrayed the Libya Africa Investment Portfolio as Gaddafi’s personal slush fund rather than a legitimate development vehicle.

his narrative reached its peak with allegations involving former South African President Jacob Zuma. Claims surfaced that Zuma had received $30 million in cash (and even stashes of gold and diamonds) from the late Libyan leader for “safe keeping.” Although Zuma repeatedly and sarcastically denied these claims, noting that he would hardly be struggling with legal fees if he possessed this fortune, the ‘ghost story’ of the ‘Gaddafi Trillions’ served a vital purpose. It allowed shadow players like Epstein to treat the continent’s sovereign investments as ‘missing treasure’ up for grabs rather than state-owned assets that should have remained under the protection of international law.

The true danger of Epstein’s ‘New York Optics’ play was an attempt to formalize a shadow guardianship over Libya’s sovereign institutions before they could even be rebuilt. By targeting the individuals tasked with negotiating the Goldman Sachs settlement, Epstein was looking to establish a precedent when private, unaccountable fixers would manage the nation’s legal disputes.

This was a direct assault on Libya’s financial sovereignty, after the assault on its political sovereignty by the NATO military invasion. While the United Nations mission (UNSMIL) and international community spoke of ‘transitioning to democracy’, Epstein’s documents reveal a parallel reality: A race to ensure that the LIA remained a black box controlled by Manhattan-based intermediaries. This interference likely contributed to the years of litigation and internal divisions that have kept billions of dollars in state wealth effectively paralyzed – leaving the Libyan people to pay the price for a ‘recovery’ process that was designed by predators for predators.

Perhaps the most damning indictment of this intervention is that it was built on a financial phantom. For 15 years, the international community has been regaled with tales of ‘Gaddafi’s hidden trillions’ – a narrative Epstein’s network eagerly exploited to justify their ‘recovery’ services. Yet, the 2026 reality remains stark: Not a single personal bank account or secret stash belonging to the late Muammar Gaddafi has ever been found. The billions frozen in the West are, and always were, the documented institutional assets of the LIA. LIA was created in 2006 to, among other portfolios, invest oil money for poor families in the country.

Read more …

New number: $70 billion.

• Epstein Guard To Testify As Oversight Committee Explores Potential MURDER (MN)

House Oversight Chairman James Comer is ramping up the heat on the botched handling of Jeffrey Epstein’s custody, announcing a subpoena for prison guard Tova Noel amid bombshell revelations of suspicious cash deposits and online searches just before the disgraced elitist’s alleged suicide.


With fresh DOJ documents unearthing red flags that scream cover-up, Comer’s move signals a long-overdue push for transparency against the bureaucratic stonewalling that has shielded powerful figures tied to Epstein’s web of abuse. Comer dropped the news during a Fox News interview, pointing to media reports and overlooked Justice Department records that cast doubt on the official narrative of Epstein’s 2019 death at the Metropolitan Correctional Center.

“Well, the recent media reports, what you just said, are very concerning — especially the suspicious activity report on a $5,000 mysterious deposit that she had,” Comer told host Jesse Watters. “The reason that stands out to me, Jesse, is because very seldom are suspicious activity reports even reported for sums less than $10,000.” “That’s a mystery there, and that’s something that, according to the DOJ documents, they never looked into — never asked her about,” he continued. Comer emphasized broader questions lingering over Epstein’s case: “Because of this, because of the media reports, and because of the fact that, honestly, most people on the committee aren’t confident 100% that Epstein’s death was a suicide, we’re going to ask Ms. Noel to come in for a transcribed interview.”

“Again, no one’s accusing her of any wrongdoing, but we have a lot of questions about Epstein — questions about who else was involved in abusing girls,” Comer added. “Why did the government not do a better job of investigating and prosecuting Epstein when they had a chance years before they finally convicted him? Was Epstein a spy? Was our government involved in any way, shape, or form in trying to destroy evidence or hide evidence from any of those four properties?” “Now, was Epstein’s death a suicide, as the government has reported, or was there something else?” he questioned. “Again, no one’s accusing this prison guard of any wrongdoing, but I will announce tonight on your show that we are going to ask her to come in and sit for an interview because we have a lot of questions.”

The subpoena targets Noel, who was on duty the night Epstein died. DOJ records show she googled “latest on Epstein in jail” at 5:42 a.m. and 5:52 a.m., just 40 minutes before her colleague discovered the body at 6:30 a.m. Instead of conducting required checks, Noel admitted to napping and online shopping, while falsifying logs—a lapse that earned her a deferred prosecution deal from an Obama-era judge in 2021. FBI forensics flagged her search as the only notable one in a 66-page review of the guards’ computers. Noel denied remembering the searches, calling records “inaccurate.”mChase Bank flagged suspicious deposits into Noel’s account, including $5,000 on July 30, 2019—ten days before Epstein’s death. From December 2018, seven deposits totaled $11,880, coinciding with her assignment to Epstein’s unit. Yet DOJ investigators never questioned her about it.

An FBI briefing identified Noel as an “orange flash” on camera approaching Epstein’s cell at 10:40 p.m. the night before, carrying linens or clothing—the last approach to the tier. She denied it. Noel now faces a lawsuit for alleged assault at her new job as a medical assistant. The guard’s actions fueled a heated exchange between journalist Michael Shellenberger and Joe Rogan during his latest podcast episode.


This development echoes ongoing scrutiny of Epstein’s death. DOJ documents labeled his death a “MURDER” in one instance, showed it documented a day early, and highlighted the wrong noose being DNA-tested. As one X user noted in response to those revelations: “Epstein is alive. He was extracted, likely by our own government.” Another pointed to a bipartisan cover-up: “The evidence points to a cover-up: Trump’s first AG Bill Barr oversaw the initial Epstein “suicide” ruling amid massive irregularities, Biden’s DOJ continued the stonewalling, and now Trump’s team is doing the same. Epstein was likely a protected CIA/elite asset—too many powerful world leaders, billionaires & influencers were involved in his crimes. The government decided to bury it all to avoid total exposure & chaos.”

Read more …

“.. once Barack Obama came to the podium, he had an agenda.”

• The Politicking of Barack Obama (Victor Davis Hanson)

I’d like to comment recently on the politicking of Barack Obama. He’s been in the news recently, speaking at the Jesse Jackson funeral. What he did there, I’ll get to in a second, but he had a habit of talking down to black Americans as if they were naive, stupid, lacked his sophistication. Do you remember most poignantly when he told supporters of Kamala Harris, don’t dare, you don’t know what’s good for you. Don’t dare vote for basically a white racist like Donald Trump when you could empower a black woman. That didn’t go over very well, but he has a long history of that. Before I continue, though, the Democrats have a long history of using the venue of the funeral memorial service to hijack it and use it for political purposes.


In 2002, they did that with the late Sen. Paul Wellstone, and what should have been a memorial service turned into a four-hour campaign harangue. It was sort of the same way when Barack Obama went to the funeral of John McCain. He was asked to speak, and there’s no secret that John McCain and Donald Trump were not friends.Donald Trump felt that he had endorsed John McCain in 2008. John McCain had not turned the favor by explicitly telling the country that he would not vote for his own party’s nominee in 2016. John McCain, remember, had been a lifetime supporter of private medicine, and when Obamacare came on the scene, he was a vehement opponent. And when Donald Trump then was president, he had the votes to repeal Obamacare and bring in a free-market alternative.

John McCain inexplicably, in a late-night vote, flipped and decided to cast the deciding vote to crush that effort. And we have Obamacare today thanks to John McCain. He was never forgiven. Trump then said some things, and that all surfaced at the McCain funeral where Barack Obama sort of, without mentioning Trump, but it was very overt, the reference. He said that unlike people who are brash and think they’re tough and crude, basically, John McCain was tough, but he didn’t have to emphasize it. The next occasion came in 2020 for Barack Obama. That was at John Lewis’ funeral, and like the Wellstone funeral and the McCain funeral, once again, it was occasion to hijack the purpose, that is to honor the dead, and instead to use it for political purposes. So once Barack Obama came to the podium, he had an agenda.

And he was going to attack Donald Trump. And the way he did it was he said, we are suffering from racism and voter suppression. We don’t need voter IDs. We need a national holiday for balloting. We need to let prisoners vote, and we have too much Jim Crow racism in the country. Therefore, we’ve got to get rid of the Jim Crow racist filibuster footnote. He used it very ineffectively, but he used it in 2006 to deny the nomination of Justice [Samuel] Alito to the Supreme Court. And then he said that we have racist gerrymandering. That’s kind of ironic to see who’s been gerrymandering lately. And he has fully endorsed the efforts of Illinois, of Massachusetts, of Virginia, of California to ensure that Republicans don’t have House representation commensurate with their popular vote in their states.

In that long sermon, people were kind of startled. They thought, “Wow, this is a campaign. Is this a campaign advertisement, or is this an occasion for Obama to get relevance again after being out of office?” I would drop it there, but he did it again. He just went to the funeral of Jesse Jackson. I should add another footnote here that Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama were not close friends. Jesse Jackson said that he had been the trailblazer, the first African American presidential candidate that had a real chance to win. There had been others, but he felt that he was the most viable and that broke the barrier. And Obama was the beneficiary of that. He got so angry that in 2008 he got tired of Barack Obama, he thought, talking down to African Americans. So he said in a hot mic in the Fox Chicago studio, “I’d like to cut his” off, a vulgar reference to Obama’s testicles. But anyway, Obama was asked to speak.

Now, I would say in another footnote, all of these speeches at these funerals that Obama presents are basically about himself. He always relates anecdotes, not about necessarily just about the politician in question, but about his interaction with him. But in this particular Jesse Jackson speech, he went after division in the country using government. These are all sins he purportedly thinks that Donald Trump has committed—disunity, racism, valuing some people over others, and using the government to pursue enemies.

This was very, very rich. Very rich. Barack Obama, remember when he was president, he used the government to do what? Surveil Associated Press reporters, politicized the IRS to make sure they went after conservative groups and denied them tax-free status before his reelection effort. And remember most egregiously of all: He had at one point James Clapper, John Brennan, and James Comey in the Oval Office with him during the transition after Trump had been elected. And he basically said to them, your intelligence assessments from national intelligence, FBI, CIA are flawed because I’m not getting the results I want. I want Russian collusion. Collusion. Now go back and give me Russian collusion and Donald Trump.

Read more …

“.. only 3 or 4 percent of felony cases are decided by juries. In the US jury trials have already been abolished, not by law, but by non-usec..”

• The Era of Truth and Freedom is Over (Paul Craig Roberts)

The British Parliament is in the process of abolishing the right to trial by jury. The law, which seems about to pass, removes a jury trial for defendants whose crimes are punishable by a sentence of three years or less. Instead of a jury of one’s peers, a judge will determine a defendant’s innocence or guilt. Next the cutoff will be 5 years, then ten, then jury trial will disappear, and England will return to the Dark Ages. The appointed judge will decide according to the wishes of he who rules. The reason the Labour government gives for abolishing trial by jury is an 80,000 case backlog that is choking the British justice system, a backlog that the Labour government says will rise to 200,000 in 9 years.


So, first British governments for decades allowed massive numbers of third world immigrant-invaders into Britain, many of whom turned out to be practitioners of crime. Their crimes, many of which are never prosecuted such as the 180,000 gang-rapes of British girls covered up by British governments for 30 years, overwhelmed the ability of the court system to process, and the solution is to abolish trial by peers, one of Britain’s greatest contributions to justice. For eight centuries from Alfred the Great to the Magna Carter to the Glorious Revolution (1680) the British built freedom and the protection of liberty from arbitrary power into law and civil society. And now a great achievement of Western Civilization has been lost to immigrant-invaders.

Possibly, trial by one’s peers had already been lost in Britain. I do not know if plea bargaining has become a feature of the British justice system. In the “free” United States plea-bargaining is, according to the US Department of Justice, the dominant way to decide felony cases. According to the US Department of Justice, only 3 or 4 percent of felony cases are decided by juries. In the US jury trials have already been abolished, not by law, but by non-use. A plea bargain is self-incrimination, against which the US Constitution and British legal practice protect a defendant from being tortured into a confession, whether innocent or guilty.

Despite the Constitutiion, Americans are coerced into self-incrimination by the cost of paying defense attorneys, by the prosecutor’s threat that he will pile on more charges if the defendant insists on a jury trial. A defendant who insists on a jury trial faces not only a hostile prosecutor, whose time is used up in a jury trial when he could be building his conviction rate with plea bargains, but also a hostile judge whose court docket is clogged by a jury trial. A plea bargain takes a few minutes. A jury trial takes a day or several weeks and requires a lot of effort and resources and attention by the judge..

If the defendant is without financial resources, his public defender knows that if he competently represents his client he will not be assigned more cases by the court. The defendant is told by his lawyer that a jury that trusts the system will think that of so many charges against the defendant at least one of them will be true. The defendant will be told that the penalty for one conviction will be worse than the plea bargain that has attorney can negotiate for him. The process works to break down the defendant’s resistance to self-incrimination.

And, so, prosecutor, defendant and his attorney appear before the judge. All three swear that no deal has been made, that the defendant admits his guilt to a charge of a crime that never happened, but which carries a lesser sentence than the original crime for which the defendant was indicted. When I have written that America’s jails are full of innocent people, this is what I mean. Defendants admit to a crime never committed in order to avoid prosecution for one that did, whether or not the accused committed the crime.

The fact that 96-97% of felonies never go to trial means that the police evidence is never tested in court. Time has taught the police that they don’t need any evidence. Their work load is easy. The police just pick a plausible defendant and turn him over to the plea bargaining system. Feminist ideology and blacks taught that white people are racists have added their part to undermining the integrity of juries. A white male with feminists and blacks on his jury can be convicted out of hate. This is justice in the “free” West today. Even the British have now abandoned the struggle for justice for which they fought for eight centuries.

What more evidence does a sentient person need to understand that the foundations of freedom that made Western civilization unique and a magnet to the world no longer exists. This is why the United States, once the repository of these truth and freedom preserving institutions, can betray all morality, all law, by intentionally attacking a girl’s school in Iran for children of Iranian Guards in order to demoralize the Iranian military force in hopes of reducing its ability to resist Israeli-American unprovoked aggression against the Iranian nation. Trump and Netanyahu opened their war by murdering 185 little girls.

Do governments so totally evil, so overflowing with self-righteousness and self-justification for their crimes against humanity as Washington and Israel have a right to exist? This is the question that is before us. Yet the entire world, including Putin and Xi, refuse to confront the question, preferring to defer to evil.

Read more …

He’s definitely not his biggest fan.

• Putin Is Again on the Wrong Track (Paul Craig Roberts)

Just as Putin destroyed the reputation of the Russian military by refusing to win an ongoing minor conflict, he is again demonstrating the worst kind of judgment in calling for a return to peace and stability in the Middle East. Is Putin aware of the Zionist Israeli agenda of Greater Israel? How can he not be aware when Netanyahu himself has held up a map of Greater Israel? How can Putin not be aware when Tucker Carlson asked Washington’s ambassador to Israel how Israel could claim an entire region in which there were different countries and received the answer that the Israelis should just go ahead and take it all now? How can Putin be aware of Greater Israel and call for a return to peace and stability? The only stability permitted by Israel’s agenda is when Israel stretches from the Nile to Pakistan.


Just as Israel used the US to clear out of the way Iraq, Libya, and Syria, Israel is now using Trump to remove Iran as an obstacle to Greater Israel. The only way Israeli-American aggression in the Middle East can be avoided is for Israel’s agenda of Greater Israel and Washington’s agenda of hegemony to be negotiated away. Any other negotiations are mindless distractions from reality. The Israeli-American demands for hegemony are totally inconsistent with any possibility of peace and stability. When confronted with such hegemonic demands, how stupid must you be to call for “peace and stability”?= Why are there no calls for Israel to negotiate its agenda of Greater Israel, for Washington to negotiate its growing demands for hegemony over other countries?

If Putin convinces Iran to call off a war that Iran must fight to victory if the ancient country is to survive, Iran will be destroyed. Having betrayed Syria, is Putin now going to betray Iran in exchange for Washington removing sanctions on Russian oil so Putin can negate for Israel and the US the impact of the closed Strait of Hormuz? Is Putin aligning Russia with Washington and Israel against a BRICS partner? If Putin were a real leader, he would be calling for negotiating an end to the Zionist agenda of Greater Israel. The US cannot do it, because America is completely under Israel’s thumb. Unless the rest of the world can bring itself into acknowledging the reality of the agendas of Greater Israel and American Hegemony, the world will continue on the path to Armageddon.

Read more …

“Rasmussen survey finds 56% of U.S. voters believe COVID shots caused significant deaths — and 42% say CDC employees should be fired for their pandemic response.”

• 56% of Americans Now Suspect COVID-19 “Vaccines” Caused Mass Deaths (Hulscher)

Public opinion is shifting—and they want action. A new Rasmussen survey of 1,158 likely U.S. voters—conducted September 7–9, 2025, with a ±3% margin of error—reveals that 56% believe side effects from the COVID-19 shots have likely caused a significant number of unexplained deaths. Nearly one-third (32%) say it’s very likely. Only 35% still dismiss the idea.This shows that what was once called a “conspiracy theory” has become the mainstream view. The majority of Americans now believe vaccine harms are real and widespread.


Support for HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. reflects this shift. Half of voters (50%) say government health officials deserve criticism for their handling of the pandemic, while 42% even think CDC employees should be fired for their role in misleading the public. Among those who strongly believe the shots caused deaths, over 70% want CDC firings.

Partisan divides remain—70% of Republicans, 46% of Democrats, and 54% of independents think the vaccines likely caused deaths—but the skepticism crosses party lines and racial groups. In fact, black (64%) and Hispanic (57%) voters are even more likely than white voters (54%) to suspect deadly vaccine effects. According to the survey, RFK Jr. is viewed favorably by 45% of voters, with strong support among Republicans and independents, even as Democrats turn sharply against him.The takeaway: A credible, nationally representative poll now confirms most Americans believe COVID-19 shots have killed many people, and they want accountability from the CDC and government health leaders.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/2031914707989479467?s=20 https://twitter.com/XFreeze/status/2031684358327656503?s=20 https://twitter.com/ValerieAnne1970/status/2031792269636813252?s=20

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle March 8 2026

Mar 082026
 
 March 8, 2026  Posted by at 9:16 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,  78 Responses »


Frida Kahlo Self portrait in a Velvet Dress 1926


• Donald Trump Is a Great Man of History (Josh Hammer)
• I Think We’re Going to Need a Bigger Military (Sarah Anderson)
• The Real Reason Trump Fired Kristi Noem Is Not What You’ve Been Told (Margolis)
• Can We Just Appreciate How Hardcore Trump’s New DHS Secretary Is? (Margolis)
• Right Now, Russia is Like Amazon During COVID (CTH)
• The White House Fool (Paul Craig Roberts)
• US Military-Industrial Complex Agrees To Quadruple Bomb Production (ZH)
• No Justification for US-Israeli War On Iran – Moscow (RT)
• The End of Russia’s Gas Era (Dmitry Lekukh)
• Is There Any Escape from Israel’s Control of America? (Glenn Greenwald)
• Conversation with Alexander Dugin (PCR)
• Will Reality Ever Dawn? (Paul Craig Roberts)
• Prosecution of Maltese Man for Discussing Transition from Homosexuality (Turley)
• The Clearest Sign Yet the Obamas’ Marriage Is a Total Lie (Margolis)
• EU Nationalists Rally Around Orbán (RMX)

 


 

https://twitter.com/OCOCReport/status/2029958942114128203?s=20 https://twitter.com/apocalypseos/status/2030167724530262091?s=20

 


 

 


 


(Almost) half the country thinks he’s Hitler instead.. Dangerous.

• Donald Trump Is a Great Man of History (Josh Hammer)

Most students of history have likely pondered the question: Is it the times that make the man, or is it the man that makes the times? The question, though superficially intriguing, seems to have an easy enough answer: Sometimes it is the times that makes the man, and sometimes it is the man that makes the times. Rarest of all is the man who is both summoned and elevated by the times, on the one hand, and who has the courage and conviction to shape the times in return, on the other hand. It is this lattermost group of men who we might refer to as the truly great men of history.Donald Trump is, on this metric, a great man of history.


In 2016, Trump was first swept into office, just a few months after the Brexit referendum in the UK, amid a broader wave of nationalist backlash to the regnant neoliberal global order. Trump, a lifelong free-trade skeptic with New York City outer-borough sensibilities, was the right man to lead at the right moment. He became the first president since Richard Nixon’s fateful trip to visit Chairman Mao in Beijing to begin decoupling the U.S. from its economic bear hug with the Chinese Communist Party. More recently, Trump has overseen a historic securing of America’s porous southern border and an equally historic withdrawal from dozens of transnational institutions.

Trump has met the moment and risen to the occasion in numerous foreign theaters besides China and the broader Indo-Pacific as well. He saw decades of American malaise, managed decline and overextended empire, and he has promptly reversed course.Trump and his administration have repeatedly proven willing and unafraid to criticize America’s European allies, nudging our core NATO partners to be better versions of themselves in such areas as military spending and defense self-sufficiency. He has responded to decades of buildup of murderous transnational nonstate cartels and Chinese and Russian entrenchment in our own hemisphere by reasserting the Latin America-centric Monroe Doctrine, as most spectacularly evidenced by January’s Operation Absolute Resolve extraction of fugitive Nicolas Maduro in Caracas.

And now there is the unfolding Operation Epic Fury in Iran. For 47 years, Iran’s revolutionary Shiite theocracy has been attempting to kill, and indeed killing, Americans. From the U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Beirut in 1983 to the Bush-era roadside IEDs in Iraq to the attempted (and indicted) assassination of Trump himself, the mullah regime in Tehran has a long and bloody track record when it comes to American loss of life — more than 1,000 Americans killed in total, according to U.S. Central Command. For decades, presidents kicked the can down the road, appeasing and negotiating with the mullahs as if they were atheistic Soviets and not 72 virgins-aspiring apocalyptic Islamists. The mullahs dissembled and stalled, while racing toward nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles on which to mount them.

And then Trump came along. Trump campaigned on ending so-called forever wars in the Middle East. His critics, both on the left and in certain pockets of the impotent right, have accused Trump of violating that promise with the current campaign. But those critics are wrong. Iran has been at war with us, whether or not we think about it and acknowledge it, since the founding of the revolutionary regime in 1979. The revolutionaries’ very first action was to storm the U.S. embassy in Tehran and commence a 444-day hostage crisis. Tehran’s “death to America” chants since then have been daily, and its anti-American atrocities have been legion.

With Operation Epic Fury, Trump isn’t starting a new forever war — he is ending one. Time and again, Trump has shown that he is willing to take actions that U.S. presidents of both parties long paid lip service to support but never actually effectuated. The notion that the world’s most zealous Islamist regime cannot acquire the world’s most dangerous weapons had been spoken so many times by so many different politicians over the decades that it had become old hat. No one actually acted on it until Trump tore up Barack Obama’s disastrous nuclear deal in 2018 and bombed key Iranian nuclear facilities during Operation Midnight Hammer in 2025. Now, with Operation Epic Fury, Trump is attempting to finish the job and permanently ensure that Iran no longer threatens American interests.

God bless him for it.

Read more …

“The New Monroe Doctrine.”

• I Think We’re Going to Need a Bigger Military (Sarah Anderson)

Well, folks, the moment is upon us. If you’ve been reading this column for the last month, you know that I’ve been teasing this big meeting of Latin American leaders — those aligned with the United States — in Miami, hosted by Donald Trump and Marco Rubio. That will happen on Saturday, March 7, and I am not sure how much will be made public (though I do know someone who will be there, so fingers crossed, I get some info), but I’ll be around to cover what I can. I think this marks the official beginning of an exciting — and historic — moment for the United States and our entire region. According to Rubio, the summit will include leadership and heads of state from 13 countries. I can confirm 12:

  • Argentina
  • Bolivia
  • Chile
  • Costa Rica
  • Dominican Republic
  • Ecuador
  • El Salvador
  • Guyana
  • Honduras
  • Panamá
  • Paraguay
  • Trinidad and Tobago


I have heard rumors that number 13 could be Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, but I can’t confirm that one. Note that Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia were not invited, nor was Venezuela’s Delcy Rodríguez, because she’s not really a head of state. We run that country, and inviting ourselves to our own summit would be redundant. Initially, the reason for the summit was said to be to “stop China’s encroachment in the region,” but Karoline Leavitt has described it as promoting “freedom, security, and prosperity in our region.” Same thing? I imagine it will be a good bit of both anti-cartel measures and anti-China measures, along with some economic stuff. I also imagine that there will be a lot of talk about the future of Venezuela and Cuba because it’s going to take a regional effort to make them totally great again.

But this is a good team. These countries are all aligned or are ready to align with the United States and move away from China. They largely agree with everything Trump has done globally. They all have conservative or right-leaning leadership who are ready to take a hardline stance against the cartels and organized crime that plagues the Americas. As the Trump administration has stated, they are the “ISIS and the Al-Qaeda of the Western Hemisphere,” and they must be dealt with. Assuming this becomes a regular thing, I think Colombia, after its elections in a few months, and Venezuela, after it elects a real leader, will be able to join. Who knows, after Brazil’s October elections, it may even get to join Team Americas. I don’t have a lot of hope for Mexico, but Trump may have something up his sleeve.

We’re Gonna Need a Bigger Military
Maybe I’m just a big dork, but I’m really excited about this. I’m tracking all the presidential planes coming into Miami as I write this. The Summit follows the Pentagon’s Americas Counter-Cartel Conference, which Catherine has been writing about over the last 48 hours. It included “defense and security leaders from 17 countries across the Western Hemisphere.” She quotes Pentagon Chief Spokesman Sean Parnell as saying, “The Department of War values the strong partnerships that make collective action possible to prevent external powers from interfering in our neighborhood and confronting shared threats. We look forward to working with these committed nations to support efforts that strengthen regional cooperation and advance a safe, secure, and prosperous Western Hemisphere.”

Read more …

“..the fallout in Minnesota, the ad campaign, the allegations of infidelity, the mismanagement of her staff, and her constant feuding with the heads of other agencies..”

• The Real Reason Trump Fired Kristi Noem Is Not What You’ve Been Told (Margolis)

The story you heard first — that President Donald Trump fired Kristi Noem over a $220 million ad campaign — isn’t wrong, exactly. But it’s incomplete. The ad spending lit the fuse; an eight-word question that Noem refused to answer in plain English plunged the detonator. Here’s what really pushed Trump to fire her. It was previously reported that the breaking point for Trump was when Noem testified on Tuesday that he had personally approved $220 million in Homeland Security advertising, including a cinematic spot of her riding a horse in front of Mount Rushmore with a voiceover that said, “From President Trump and me: Welcome home.” Trump says he never knew about it, and multiple reports indicated he was really upset over her claim.


So yes, Trump was already halfway out the door with Noem after Tuesday. Then came Wednesday. What went down that day sealed her fate. At the House Judiciary Committee hearing, Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.) asked Noem point-blank, “Have you had sexual relations with Corey Lewandowski?” Noem didn’t say no.“I am shocked that we’re going down and peddling tabloid garbage in this committee today,” Noem replied. “I would tell you is, that he is a special government employee who works for the White House. There are thousands of them in the federal government.” Lawmakers pressed her repeatedly. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) told her directly, “I really think you need to say the word ‘no’ into the record so that you can clear that up.” Noem never did.

“It kept mounting up,” said another source, who agreed that it was the last nail in the secretary’s coffin. A third source said, “There was just no going back with the two hearings. It all became about her and him.” Lewandowski himself told The Post he wasn’t sure what role the alleged affair played. “You’re asking me to speculate on things that I have no insight into,” he said when reached by phone. “The question about the affair at the hearing was actually the final straw. It was f—ing brutal,” a source told the Post.

Lewandowski, for his part, played dumb. Asked whether the affair question factored into Trump’s decision, he said, “You’re asking me to speculate on things that I have no insight into.” He also described himself publicly as merely an “unpaid volunteer” — despite DHS staffers describing him as Noem’s de facto chief of staff who ran what employees called a “reign of terror” inside the department. Noem and Lewandowski began to lose influence in January when a second anti-deportation activist, Alex Pretti, was killed by federal agents in Minneapolis, following the earlier fatal shooting of Renee Good. Trump sent in the pair’s internal rival, border czar Tom Homan, to calm and wind down the local operation.

An administration official said: “Replacing Kristi was based on the culmination of her many unfortunate leadership failures including the fallout in Minnesota, the ad campaign, the allegations of infidelity, the mismanagement of her staff, and her constant feuding with the heads of other agencies, including CBP and ICE.“Kristi’s drama sadly overshadowed and distracted from the administration’s extremely popular immigration agenda, which will continue full force.” In the end, Noem turned one of the highest-profile jobs in Trump’s cabinet into a liability — and Trump, who had reportedly “joked about” her relationship with Lewandowski for years, finally decided the joke wasn’t funny anymore.

Read more …

Political fisticuffs? No thanks,

• Can We Just Appreciate How Hardcore Trump’s New DHS Secretary Is? (Margolis)

Whatever your verdict on Kristi Noem’s tenure at the Department of Homeland Security, one thing is beyond debate: her replacement is built differently. President Trump has nominated Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) to take over DHS. If you don’t know much about him, let me tell you: He’s hardcore. Before winning a Senate seat, Mullin ran a successful plumbing business, coached wrestling, and raised two Oklahoma State Wrestling Champions. He also holds a 3-0 MMA record in the Xtreme Fighting League. But here’s what I’m really talking about. And he literally challenged a union boss to fight in the middle of a hearing. It all started in June 2023 when Teamsters President Sean O’Brien mocked Mullin in a tweet, and Mullin responded by challenging O’Brien to an MMA fight for charity, which O’Brien apparently ignored.


It gets better. Then, in November of that year, O’Brien was testifying before the Senate, and Mullin read O’Brien’s tweet aloud and then challenged him to a fight right then and there. First, Mullin read O’Brien’s tweet accusing Mullin of being a “clown and fraud.” “Sir, I wish you was in the truck with me when I was building my plumbing company myself, and my wife was running the office, because I sure remember working pretty hard and long hours,” Mullin said.He kept reading, line by line, quoting O’Brien’s own words: “Pretends like he’s self-made. What a clown. Fraud. Always has been, always will be. Quit the tough guy act in these Senate hearings. You know where to find me. Any place, any time, cowboy.” Then he dropped the hammer: “Sir, this is a time, this is a place. You wanna run your mouth, we can be two consenting adults, we can finish it here.”

O’Brien didn’t back down. “Okay, that’s fine. Perfect,” he said. “You wanna do it now?” Mullin asked. “I’d love to do it right now,” O’Brien shot back. “Well, stand your butt up, then,” Mullin said O’Brien fired back instantly. “You stand your butt up.” And so Mullin stood up, ready to give O’Brien a much-deserved beating right there. It would have been great to see, but unfortunately, that’s when Bernie Sanders, who was chairing the hearing, had to intervene. The fight never happened. O’Brien wimped out. “O’Brien declined, instead suggesting they meet for coffee and work out their differences,” NPR reported. “Mullin accepted, but the two kept shouting at each other until the next senator, Democratic Sen. Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, started her questioning by talking over them.”

Read more …

Russia will be alright.

• Right Now, Russia is Like Amazon During COVID (CTH)

We like the deep weeds, most do not. The geopolitical ramifications of the U.S. confrontation with Iran are vast and complicated; however, to encapsulate one of the most interesting dynamics consider this ‘tldr’ statement to open the discussion with your friends: Right now, Russia is like Amazon during COVID-19. What follows is not me saying President Trump and President Putin are holding nightly conversations, discussing steps or details, or even obliquely coordinating measures as Trump eliminates the generational threat posed by Iran.


However, I am saying that given the nature of all contact and communication between Trump and Putin, including extensive contacts by their representative emissaries, both Putin and Trump are well aware of each downstream effect from the Iranian confrontation. Two days after the U.S./Israel began Operation Epic Fury, President Vladimir Putin said Russia should consider shutting down oil and liquified natural gas (LNG) shipments to the EU in advance of the previously scheduled April deadline date when the EU would stop purchases.

First, remember ‘force majeure’ contract nullification is in place for every producer, supplier and transporter in the middle east. Second, with shipments from the Gulf of Oman greatly reduced, LNG prices along with oil prices are increasing rapidly. The result – ships filled with oil and LNG currently on the water are diverting in real time as international bidding for the content of the ships take place. If Putin stops selling LNG to Europe, and Europe cannot get LNG from the Gulf of Oman, and China/Asia are LNG dependent (not exporting), then where is Europe going to get the LNG to replace what Russia will no longer provide? Answer: The United States, and to a lesser extent, Norway.

[SIDENOTE: now does President Trump continuously smacking Great Britain about shutting down their North Sea oil and gas operations take on context? Geopolitical foresight? I digress. END SIDENOTE] The European Commission’s decision to phase out and ultimately stop purchasing Russian oil/gas was made in 2025 prior to the Iran conflict triggering. Europe’s replacement plan included increased LNG purchases from the U.S., Norway and middle east; the latter supply option is now void.

Europe’s decision to stop buying oil/gas from Russia puts them in a very precarious position. The supply option for Europe is suddenly very limited, and Putin’s statement about stopping the flow early was obviously made with this understanding in mind. [Go back to the sidenote above. Without question President Trump already knew that an LNG supply restriction from the middle east would disproportionately hurt Europe. Both President Trump and President Putin would understand this geopolitically obvious fact/reality. If Europe now has to purchase more LNG from America (at higher prices) President Trump’s leverage over Europe increases. If both oil and LNG prices increase substantially, the price of oil/LNG currently on the water increases.

[SIDENOTE #2 – Previously the EU confiscated their holdings of the Russian Sovereign Wealth Fund, value €210 billion held in Euroclear and another €50 billion from other G-7 countries; total €260 billion. From those seized assets the EU created a €90 billion loan scheme to Ukraine with no repayment mechanism, because the EU predicts Russia will be forced to pay reparations for war and the negotiated settlement will deduct the €90 billion loan scheme from the balance. Hungary, a Trump ally, is currently blocking the transfer of funds; but this payment scheme -created by the EU holding the assets- underpins why the EU will not permit the conflict to end without their approval. END SIDENOTE]

Read more …

“It is possible that events are now out of everyone’s hands and are on a course of their own.”

• The White House Fool (Paul Craig Roberts)

Just as the whore media told us for three years that Ukraine was winning and Russia’s defeat was imminent, we are now hearing that Iran’s defeat is imminent. If so, why is Trump now speaking about sending in American troops? Why is the CIA offering large bribes to Kurd leaders to send Kurdish men to die for Israel in Iran? Why are executives of American armament companies suddenly summoned to the Pentagon to see how quickly Washington’s depleted supply of missiles can be overcome? Why have Japan and South Korea been ordered to return to the United States the missiles supplied to them? Who is really losing?


To answer this question, it is necessary to move beyond the war propaganda. It appears that not only did Trump allow Netanyahu, not the US Congress as the US Constitution requires, to take the United States to war for Israel, but Trump also allowed America to be taken to war without proper preparation and without a backup plan.It appears that Trump was convinced that the Iranian government was so weak that if a few bombs an d missiles were dropped on Iran, the government would collapse and Trump and Netanyahu could appoint a puppet government. It never occurred to Trump, despite warnings from the US military, what the situation facing him would be if Iran lasted longer than the limited supply of US and Israeli missiles. That’s such a question could be overlooked totally discredits President Trump.

Add to the situation these elements: The United States has proved itself unable to protect the small Arab city states that are sites for American air and naval bases. Trump is faced with a midterm election and a population, the majority of which does not support his war of choice for Israel. Apparently, Iran is yet to use it’s hypersonic accurate missiles, apparently planning to use those to severely punish the US, Israel and the Arab oil city states once Washington and Israel are empty of missiles for air defense. The strait of Hormuz is effectively closed. In the US premium gasoline prices have already risen by $.70 per gallon. Trump says the US Navy will escort oil tankers in and out of the Persian Gulf, but this would expose the U.S. Navy to easy destruction by Iran.

Possibly Iran, would not deliver Trump the humiliation of sinking a US aircraft carrier out of fear that Trump would reply with nukes. However, if Iranians understand that they are in a fight for their very existence, whether Iran goes out like Gaza or via nukes might not matter to the leadership. If oil flows stop and oil revenues dry up, the petro-dollars from the region will cease to underwrite AI’s data centers in the US, possibly setting off a major stock market contraction. Americans, caught between falling wealth and rising inflation, are likely to turn against Trump and the midterm election, leaving Trump with no protection from impeachment. You really have to be reckless to bring so many possible risks down on your head all at the same time and all for Israel. In no way does America benefit from Trump’s war in behalf of Israel’s agenda of Greater Israel.

Trump will have to save face. What can he do? Send troops into such a large country as Iran with unfamiliar and difficult terrain? If troops are sent and are chewed up, what is Trump’s remaining option? To nuke Iran or will Israel do it? It is entirely possible that Trump’s mindless act in attacking Iran has opened the door to nuclear war. Russia and China have already lost credibility from failing to stand by their allies, first Syria, then Venezuela, and now Iran. This will encourage Trump’s belief that both countries are paper tigers. If Iran is defeated, it means the end of BRICS and China’s New Silk Road. Trump’s success, if such is the case, with Venezuela, Iran, and in the meantime, Cuba, Greenland and whomever else, will encourage him to restore American hegemony over Russia and China.

At this point, Russia and China will no longer be able to continue their mindless policy of turning a blind eye to reality. Maybe the two countries leaderships will finally read the Wolfowitz Doctrine. As far as I can tell, not many people are aware of the catastrophe that can result from the American president allowing himself to be led to war by Netanyahu, and those few who are aware are considered unpatriotic. Trump’s ego will never allow him to admit that he has made a possibly catastrophic decision for all of humanity and cause Trump to withdraw and to act to restore the sovereignty and independence of American foreign policy from Israel’s control. Trump is simply too completely owned by the Zionists.

Perhaps Putin and Xi will wake up, but there are no signs of it. Both seem more interested in trade deals than in national survival. It is possible that events are now out of everyone’s hands and are on a course of their own. Humanity’s stupid and foolish leaders have betrayed humanity.

Read more …

Makes some people happy. They call themselves investors.

• US Military-Industrial Complex Agrees To Quadruple Bomb Production (ZH)

U.S. Central Command said late Friday on X that U.S. forces struck 3,000 IRGC targets with air-delivered munitions during the first week of Operation Epic Fury, signaling that the campaign is only intensifying as it moves into next week.


President Trump wrote on Truth Social Friday that he would not accept a negotiated end to the war with Iran, suggesting the conflict could drag on for some time. “There will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!” he said. We have reported that U.S. inventories of some critical munitions are running low, with U.S. forces scrambling for supplies of key air-defense interceptors as IRGC missiles and drones continue to target American and allied bases across Gulf states.

Dwindling supplies of critical munitions are being amplified by Ukraine’s continued need for interceptors amid relentless Russian missile and drone barrages, a major problem that likely prompted President Trump to host top U.S. defense manufacturers to discuss accelerating missile and bomb production. “We just concluded a very good meeting with the largest U.S. Defense Manufacturing Companies where we discussed Production and Production Schedules,” Trump said on Truth Social late Friday afternoon.

Trump said the CEOs of BAE Systems, Boeing, Honeywell Aerospace, L3Harris Missile Solutions, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon were all in attendance and “agreed to quadruple” weapons production. “They have agreed to quadruple Production of the ‘Exquisite Class’ Weaponry in that we want to reach, as rapidly as possible, the highest levels of quantity. Expansion began three months prior to the meeting, and the plants and Production of many of these Weapons are already underway,” the President said. “We have agreed to quadruple critical munitions production,” LMT wrote on X shortly after the meeting.

As the conflict is set to drag on for weeks and weapons production ramps up, the Goldman Sachs index for U.S. defense firms is primed for a breakout. One reason the breakout could occur is USCENTCOM’s X post, which reads “We Are Not Slowing Down.” Our defense pick since May 24, 2025, has been L3Harris, another defense firm that attended the meeting. Nearly a year ago, we outlined that L3Harris was a play on the “U.S. Hemispheric Defense Theme.” Since then, the stock is up more than 50%. What is clear to traders is that the moment Trump signals Iran is prepared to surrender, defense stocks and crude are likely to plunge as war risk premiums implode.

Read more …

Washington and West Jerusalem have described their strikes as preemptive measures to dismantle Tehran’s military capabilities

• No Justification for US-Israeli War On Iran – Moscow (RT)

There is no justification for the ongoing US-Israeli strikes on Iran as the Islamic Republic posed no threat to either nation, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said. Washington and West Jerusalem have framed their attacks on Iran as preemptive measures aimed at destroying its uranium enrichment and ballistic missile programs. The Islamic Republic insists that its nuclear program is peaceful and has denounced the strikes as entirely unprovoked. Speaking to RIA Novosti on Wednesday, Zakharova stated that “although we are hearing claims from the US and Israel that they are even supposedly defending themselves… no one attacked them, no one threatened them.” The Russian diplomat noted that Iran had always been willing to engage in negotiations with the West.


Moscow previously condemned the US-Israeli strikes as a “premeditated and unprovoked act of aggression” aimed at toppling a government that “refused to yield to the dictates of force and hegemonic pressure.” Commenting on the killing of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in the first wave of attacks unleashed last Saturday, Russian President Vladimir Putin characterized it as a “cynical violation of every norm of morality and international law.” The Russian Foreign Ministry has similarly denounced the “practice of political assassinations and the ‘hunting’ of leaders of sovereign states.”

According to Iranian authorities, aside from Khamenei and a number of senior commanders, at least 168 children, as well as teachers and staff, were killed in the US-Israeli bombing of an elementary school in the southern Iranian town of Minab on Saturday.While the Pentagon has said it is investigating the incident, the New York Times, citing newly released satellite imagery, verified social media posts and geolocated videos, reported on Thursday that American forces were likely responsible for the attack. According to the newspaper, the US military was targeting an adjacent naval base belonging to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC).

Read more …

“Putin tells Russia’s energy sector: There’s no going back to EU..”

• The End of Russia’s Gas Era (Dmitry Lekukh)

The current discussion about redirecting Russian gas flows away from Europe and toward other markets should not be understood as a short-term political maneuver. Judging by Vladimir Putin’s remarks on Wednesday, the signal is much deeper and primarily aimed at a domestic audience.In an interview with journalist Pavel Zarubin, the president noted that Russia could theoretically stop supplying gas to Western Eur opean markets immediately rather than in a month, as proposed by the EU. Moscow, he suggested, could instead concentrate on more promising markets elsewhere.


Formally, no final decision has been made. Putin has only instructed the government to study the issue. But even this preliminary statement should not be dismissed as rhetorical flourish. It carries a clear meaning. Contrary to what some observers assume, the signal is not primarily directed at the EU or other external players. It is addressed to economic actors inside Russia who still hope for a return to the old model, one in which the country’s energy industry was built around “traditional markets” in the West. In more human terms, the message could be interpreted as follows: are you certain that Western Europe remains a reliable partner?

The warning is simple. The current surge of EU interest in Russian oil and gas, fueled in part by instability in the Persian Gulf, may prove temporary. Betting the country’s long-term strategy on such fluctuating demand would be risky. For this reason, the emphasis on “promising markets” in the president’s remarks should not be overlooked. Putin rarely uses words casually in public speeches. In this case the term was clearly stressed, and the implication is obvious: Western European markets are increasingly viewed as declining rather than promising. From a long-term economic perspective, investing political capital and bureaucratic effort to preserve access to shrinking markets simply makes little sense.

If American suppliers want to dominate the EU gas market, Moscow appears increasingly willing to let them try. Ironically, however, even Washington seems ambivalent about fully taking on that role. There is a notable bipartisan consensus in the United States on this issue. The freeze on new long-term LNG contracts, after all, was introduced not by Donald Trump but by the Biden administration.In other words, the future of Europe’s gas market remains uncertain even for those who claim to benefit from Russia’s withdrawal.

Putin also pointed to broader structural trends that have reshaped the European energy landscape. The EU’s ambitious and expensive green transition has been underway for years, despite growing economic pressures. At the same time, geopolitical events have narrowed Western Europe’s access to traditional energy sources.The upheavals of the Arab Spring complicated access to southern resource bases, while the conflict in Ukraine effectively closed the eastern Russian corridor that had long supplied the EU. Against this backdrop, Russia’s strategic pivot toward Asia, a policy launched in the early 2010s, now appears less like a gamble and more like long-term planning. Analysts within the Russian leadership began promoting this shift well before today’s geopolitical tensions made it unavoidable.

None of this means Russia intends to abandon European customers entirely. Moscow still describes itself as a reliable supplier. But the EU is no longer the central pillar of Russia’s energy strategy. From now on, it will be treated as a residual market rather than a priority. And that raises a difficult question for the bloc’s policymakers. Is it wise to build long-term economic plans around partners whose own future, economically and politically, appears increasingly uncertain?

Read more …

No.

• Is There Any Escape from Israel’s Control of America? (Glenn Greenwald)

PCR: Glenn Greenwald, one of the handful of real journalists who still exist in the Western world, where the Israel Lobby has murdered Free Speech despite the protection the US Constitution gives Free Speech in the First Amendment–impotent protection it turns out to be in Trump’s Zionist America–has just delivered the best news I have ever heard. Pray that he is correct and that Americans will be delivered from rule by Satanic Israel, the Nation of Unbridled Evil, the agents of Satan. Support for Israel in the US Has Collapsed, Radically — Finally Opening the Debate


GLENN GREENWALD
An article I wrote for Brazil’s largest newspaper documents growing opposition to Israel among Americans, and its relevance for other countries where Israel dissent is still taboo. This article was published this morning in Brazil’s Folha de S.Paulo, the country’s largest newspaper, where I am a columnist. It has been translated to English from its original Portuguese, and reformatted where necessary for re-publication on Substack. To read the original, you can find the link here: https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/colunas/glenn-greenwald . For decades in the United States, absolute support for Israel was an unbreakable bipartisan consensus. The only argument about Israel in U.S. presidential elections has been when one candidate boasts that they are more pro-Israel than the other.

That the U.S. must always finance, arm, diplomatically protect, and even deploy its own soldiers to fight for Israel was affirmed by former President Barack Obama (who fed Israel weapons to bomb Gaza in 2014 and agreed in 2016 to give Israel $38 billion over 10 years), as well as Joe Biden and Donald Trump (who financed and armed Israel’s destruction of Gaza following the October 7 attack). mLast year, Trump joined Israel in bombing Iran. And now Trump, with Israel, has launched a highly dangerous regional war against Iran that both The New York Times and The Financial Times are accurately describing as a war for Israel.

Already, both countries are relentlessly bombing Tehran and other cities, killing at least hundreds of the same Iranian civilians they claim to want to “liberate.” The U.S. is on its way to doing to Iran what it did to Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya: not liberating it, but destroying it. For more than fifty years, prominent Americans were petrified to criticize Israel or question American devotion to it because of guaranteed reputational destruction. Powerful pro-Israel groups would instantly accuse anyone questioning Israel of anti-Semitism. That worked.

But all of that has changed over the last two-plus years, especially among younger Americans. They have, for the first time, seen the true face of Israel and U.S. devotion to that country. They hate what they see. And support for Israel in the U.S. has now collapsed. Every demographic group except for conservatives over 50 has now turned against Israel. That once-unthinkable shift is reflected by the vehement opposition to U.S. support for Israel’s wars from leading American conservatives, including Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, and (before he was assassinated) [by Israel] Charlie Kirk.

So extreme is this collapse that the most recent Gallup data, as reported by The Financial Times this month, shows that “more Americans sympathise with Palestinians than Israelis for the first time since Gallup began tracking the sentiment.” A recent internal Democratic Party report concluded that the Biden-Harris support for Israel’s war in Gaza suppressed the youth vote and cost them the election. The reasons are not difficult to understand. The world spent two years watching daily videos of Israel incinerating families and children in Gaza [with the “Israeli Defense Force” defending Israel by shooting mothers and babies in the head with ZERO protest from the Trump regime and with the heinous war crimes paid for by American taxpayers.]

International tribunals as well as numerous genocide scholars – many of whom are Jewish, and even Israeli – have concluded that Israel is guilty of genocide in Gaza [but you cannot say this in “free America.”] Yet while debate over Israel has finally become more permissive in the U.S., it remains strangely stifled in large Brazilian media [whores paid off by Israel.] Just over two years ago, in this paper, I harshly critiqued this extreme pro-Israel bias, with a particular focus on Globo, Brazil’s largest news conglomerate. That trend has only worsened, and the examples cited therein have continued.

The Brazilian Right also maintains a truly bizarre reverence for Israel, and for every new American and Israeli war. Supporters of former President Jair Bolsonaro love to prance around declaring how powerful and just it is to bomb the enemies of Israel and the U.S. – from Venezuela and Iraq to Yemen and Iran – yet apparently never themselves want to fight in, or have their own country to pay for, any of those wars they glorify. The Scottish philosopher Adam Smith warned 250 years ago – in his 1776 book Wealth of Nations – that people will always be eager to support and cheer for wars, and will derive a warped sense of excitement and purpose from them, as long as they are kept at a safe distance away from the fighting. The Brazilian Right is superb at cheering on American and Israeli wars, and equally superb at ensuring they bear none of the burdens or costs.

Whatever else is true, basic journalism requires the inclusion of all reasonable perspectives or else it is crude propaganda. World opinion has now turned sharply against Israel and its joint wars with the U.S. It is long past time for Brazilian journalism to prominently reflect that dissent.

Read more …

From paulcraigroberts.org.

• Conversation with Alexander Dugin (PCR)

Conversation with Alexander Dugin on the Sputnik TV program Escalation.

Host: Dear friends, today we are addressing a large and serious topic. Everyone is talking about it right now, and understandably so, because a historic event is unfolding. Let me remind our listeners: on February 28, 2026, a joint operation was launched by the armed forces of the United States of America and Israel. Strikes were carried out against Iran, as a result of which Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed. In addition, many other high-ranking figures were eliminated in the attack. Iran has begun responding with strikes against both Israel and American bases, and as we speak, military clashes are taking place. There are many questions about what the consequences will be, who will suffer most from these developments, and whether Iran will be able to withstand the pressure. But the first thing one wants to understand is: where is all of this leading?


Alexander Dugin: This is indeed an extremely important event. It is entirely possible that it could become the beginning of the Third World War, because forces of enormous scale are now involved. The actions of the Americans—Trump together with Netanyahu—directed against the political leadership of Iran were extraordinarily abrupt.

This is already the second such case. First, the United States abducted Maduro, establishing direct control over Venezuela and effectively occupying that country. Now they have destroyed the entire military-political and religious leadership of Iran. In significance, this is comparable to destroying the Pope or an Orthodox Patriarch, because the spiritual leader of the Shiites—the Rahbar, Ayatollah Khamenei—was revered not only in Iran. He was effectively the head of the entire Shiite world, which includes hundreds of millions of people across the globe. Before this, Israel eliminated the leadership of Hamas—a more limited case—and then the leadership of Hezbollah, which was already more serious.

Now the leadership of Iran has been directly and openly destroyed. This means that there are no longer any international norms, no rules, and the United Nations effectively no longer exists. That organization now belongs to the past, like a phantom limb from a vanished world. Trump himself essentially said as much: there is no international law; whatever he does is moral. This changes everything. The previous world order has collapsed. We had been gradually moving in this direction, but now the point of no return has been crossed. If a country can destroy the military-political and religious leadership of a sovereign state without any grounds whatsoever, then we are living in a completely different world—a world where everything is permitted, where law is replaced by force, where the principle operates: “If I can do it, I will.” [Or as Lenin put it, “neither more nor less than unlimited power, resting directly on force, not limited by anything, not restricted by any laws, nor any absolute rules. Nothing else, but that.”]

Trump’s behavior is particularly striking. All of this happened during negotiations involving Kushner and Witkoff, and according to available information Iran had agreed to almost all American demands—literally to almost everything. Despite this, such a strike followed directly against the leadership of the country. First of all, we must understand that in this situation we [Russia] are next. Venezuela, Iran, and before that Syria and Hezbollah—these are all regimes or political systems currently targeted by the United States, and they are our allies.

In effect, if such actions can be taken against our allies, if all of this goes unpunished, if Trump succeeds in everything he attempts, then at the next stage—perhaps even during negotiations between Kirill Dmitriev and Kushner and Witkoff—a similar operation aimed at regime change in our country could occur.

And what protects us from such a scenario? Nuclear weapons? Even here the question remains whether we would actually use them. In an extreme situation, the West has serious doubts that we would be prepared to take that step—we issue threats too often and fail to follow through. [ in other words, the Russian government does not sufficiently believe in Russian national sovereignty to defend the country.] At the same time, efforts are underway to surround and isolate our president. Our president, beyond any doubt, is the figure upon whom everything rests. In our country, and perhaps even in the world, everything depends on him. He is the one who restrains—the Katechon, as our Orthodox tradition describes it. Today this is simply a fact of geopolitics, a fact of the global order.

But if the Americans—Trump himself—become convinced that other Russian leaders who might, God forbid, replace our president would be more accommodating towards the West—and this was precisely the calculation in Iran, when the sovereign leaders of that country were physically eliminated because they pursued policies that did not align with American interests—then what would prevent Washington from attempting to implement the same scenario here? [Dugin forgets that Washington already has attempted regime change in Russia when Washington tried to assassinate Russian President Putin in his home.]

Trump is conducting a completely consistent neoconservative geopolitical strategy of attack. The states that were targeted by globalists under Biden, under Obama, and under Clinton are exactly the same states being targeted now. Nothing fundamentally new has appeared. Despite the scandals and disputes with European NATO allies, in the end those allies align themselves behind the United States and adopt the same position. For us, therefore, this is extremely serious. It is the final warning.

Read more …

“Will Russia and China, along with Iran, be destroyed by the inability of their leaders to recognize reality?”

• Will Reality Ever Dawn? (Paul Craig Roberts)

It seems that Netanyahu is the only effective leader in the world, and that he is leading the world to Armageddon.mClearly, the Zionist goal of greater Israel is the dominant force in world foreign policy today and has been for sometime. The Zionist’s goal is, of course, aided and abetted by the delusions of the rest of the leaders and their fear to say anything negative about Israel.mWhy, for example, did the Chinese government sit on its insouciant butt and allow a war to start that cuts China off from 50% of its oil, when all China had to do was to form a mutual defense agreement with Iran, extend the Chinese nuclear umbrella to the protection of Iran, and provide a couple of squadron of Chinese fighter aircraft on Iranian airfields.


Putin could have done the same thing and, thereby, avoid the risks to the Russian Federation of an Iranian defeat. But Russia also was incapable of looking after its own interest. It appears that Putin’s delusional belief in his “special relationship with Donald Trump” has made Putin blind to reality. The only person who has a special relationship with Donald Trump is Netanyahu. It is the relationship of a servant to his Zionist master. The outcome of the war depends heavily on which side first runs out of missiles. Washington is already showing concern. Weapons industry executives have been asked what they can do to provide sufficient missiles for Washington to be able to continue the conflict, and missiles in the hands of Washington’s Japanese and South Korean allies have been recalled for use against Iran.

Another sign that Washington is less confident of the outcome than is President Trump is Washington’s effort to bribe the Kurds to send its soldiers to fight for Israel by invading Iran. Perhaps the ballistic middle reportedly fired at Turkey from Iran, is further evidence of Washington’s attempt to cover a bad bet. I suspect the missile, if there was one, was fired by Israel or the US and that its purpose is to drag Turkey and thereby the European countries that comprise NATO into the conflict with Iran. Clearly, neither the Russian nor the Chinese nor the Indian leaderships are doing anything to contain the developing catastrophe. Allowed to succeed in Iran, Trump will regard Russia and China as paper tigers. As Alexander Dugan says, “Today Iran, Tomorrow Russia.”

Read more …

What a story,

• Prosecution of Maltese Man for Discussing Transition from Homosexuality (Turley)

We have been discussing the erosion of free speech rights across Europe, particularly within the European Union. The crackdowns on free speech in the United Kingdom, Germany, and France are often the focus of these columns. However, a recent case shows how smaller countries like Malta have joined this effort with a repressive vigor. Fortunately, the prosecution of Matthew Grech, 33, ended in acquittal this month, but not for a lack of effort by the government. The case should shock the conscience of anyone who values this “indispensable right.”


Grech faced up to five months in prison and a fine of 5,000 euros ($5,400) after he discussed his own history abandoning a homosexual lifestyle to become a born-again Christian. Not only did the government prosecute him for discussing his life, but it also charged journalists Mario Camilleri, 44, and Rita Bonnici, 45, for interviewing him. It was a full frontal attack on both free speech and the free press. The prosecution was brought under Malta’s “Affirmation of Sexual Orientation, Gender and Gender Expression Act.” The law makes it a crime to perform or advertise practices aimed at changing or suppressing a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

Grech was the first to be prosecuted under the law after LGBTQ activists failed criminal complaints against him following his interview. Silvan Agius and Christian Attard filed a report alleging that a related Facebook post and the subsequent interview advertised illegal conversion practices and promoted their “efficiency.” Cynthia Chircop, a volunteer with the Malta LGBTIQ Rights Movement, filed a report with the Cyber Crime Unit that the video had “triggered emotions” of isolation she experienced as a teenager. The government alleged that the interview constituted “marketing” for the International Foundation for Therapeutic and Counseling Choice, an organization associated with Grech that advocates such transitioning away from homosexual lifestyles.

However, Magistrate Monica Vella ruled that sharing a personal account does not constitute marketing the procedures. She sought to protect “free exploration and development.” However, the law itself was not struck down. The acquittal was secured on the basis that it was a personal account and not marketing. The country still criminalizes programs that seek to help those who want to transition away from homosexual practices or lifestyles. In my view, such programs should be considered protected under free speech, religious, and associational rights.

Advocates in the United States have attempted analogous bans by other means. Roughly 23 states have laws banning conversion therapy for minors. The Supreme Court recently heard the case of Chiles v. Salazar, a challenge to Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors.

Read more …

Is she still a man?

• The Clearest Sign Yet the Obamas’ Marriage Is a Total Lie (Margolis)

Jesse Jackson’s funeral was held Friday at the House of Hope on Chicago’s South Side. Every major Democrat who still matters showed up: Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, Jill Biden, California Gov. Gavin Newsom.That’s right: sitting with a bunch of other couples, Barack Obama once again went stag. The Obamas themselves issued a joint statement about Jackson’s death that made Michelle’s absence on Friday all the more glaring. “Michelle got her first glimpse of political organizing at the Jacksons’ kitchen table when she was a teenager,” the statement read. “And in his two historic runs for president, he laid the foundation for my own campaign to the highest office of the land.” If there was ever a funeral Michelle had a personal, deeply rooted reason to attend, this was it.


So what’s the excuse this time? Her absence at Jimmy Carter’s funeral in Dec. 2024 was bizarre enough. Her excuse was that she was “on vacation” in Hawaii. She skipped Trump’s second inauguration in Jan. 2025. Why? Her excuse was that she had nothing to wear. I’m not even joking.I could see her refusing to go to the Trump inauguration in protest, but skipping Carter’s funeral? Well, I know she’s not a big fan of white people, so maybe that’s it. But skipping Jesse Jackson’s funeral raises huge red flags. It may be the most telling sign yet that the Obamas are married in name only.

The Obamas have been the subject of divorce rumors for a while now, and to say they’ve not handled them well is an understatement. They appeared on a podcast together, which looked painfully scripted, and of course, there’s the obligatory birthday, anniversary, Father’s Day, and Mother’s Day posts on social media. The choreographed podcast appearances and coordinated anniversary posts on social media prove nothing. Bill and Hillary Clinton have been photographed holding hands, too; no one believes they have a happy marriage. Last June, Michelle said she was relieved she didn’t have a son, because he would have been “another Barack.” That’s not the kind of thing a happily married woman says in public.

The real tell is the explanation Michelle keeps offering. “One of the major decisions I made this year was to stay put and not attend funerals and inaugurations and all the things that I’m supposed to attend,” she told NPR last year. “That was a part of me using my ambition to say, ‘Let me define what I want to do, apart from what I’m supposed to do.'”That would be a compelling argument if she were actually retreating from the public eye. She’s not. She’s recently “written” a book. She does podcast interviews regularly. She gives speeches. From where I sit, she seems to be declining the specific events where the public would see her standing next to her husband. There’s a meaningful difference between stepping back from the spotlight and stepping away from your spouse.

I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again — the Obamas are almost certainly never going to officially divorce. The financial and reputational stakes are too enormous. Their entire brand was built on being the perfect couple. They were portrayed as the opposite of every messy political marriage the public had ever seen. They won’t ever get divorced because to do so would unravel decades of carefully constructed mythology. What we’re likely watching is the same arrangement the Clintons have run for years: a show marriage for the public to keep their legacies intact, while the actual relationship is a dumpster fire behind the scenes.

Read more …

He’s threatening members of the club, for pete’s sake. They should fire Von der Leyen because of it, but they don’t.

• EU Nationalists Rally Around Orbán (RMX)

Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó has condemned remarks by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that Budapest says amounted to a threat against Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. Responding to comments made during a press briefing in Kyiv on Thursday, Szijjártó said the statement was “beyond every limit” and reflected what he described as “the kind of ‘culture’ coming from Kyiv.” “This is the man Brussels admires and the country they want to fast-track into the European Union,” Szijjártó said. “No one can threaten Hungary or its prime minister. No one can blackmail us just because we refuse to pay the price of Ukraine’s war and refuse to accept higher energy prices because of Ukraine.” Zelensky had been speaking to compatriots about the proposed €90 billion European funding package for Ukraine, and warned that a single EU leader should not block the measure, widely interpreted as meaning Viktor Orbán.


“We hope that in the European Union, one person will not block the 90 billion [euros]. Otherwise, we will give this person’s address to the armed forces, to our guys, let them call him and talk to him in their own language,” Zelensky said. The Patriots for Europe group in the European Parliament also criticized the comments, saying that “statements suggesting intimidation or threats of violence are incompatible with democratic principles and with the spirit of mutual respect that should guide relations between partners.” The group noted that EU member states have already provided approximately €200 billion in support to Ukraine and said such rhetoric was difficult to reconcile with Ukraine’s ambition to join the European Union.

Tensions escalated further after Orbán responded on social media, declaring that Hungary would restore energy flows through the Druzhba oil pipeline by force, if necessary. b“There will be no deals, no compromise. We will break the Ukrainian oil blockade by force. Hungary’s energy will soon flow again through the Friendship pipeline,” Orbán wrote.m“President Zelensky’s threats are not about me. He is threatening Hungary. Unfortunately for him, he cannot stop me from protecting Hungarian families,” he added.

Several Members of the European Parliament stood in support of Hungary following the remarks. “Let me remind you that Hungary decided to take this step not out of some whim or bad mood, but in response to Ukraine halting the transit of oil to Hungary via the Druzhba pipeline,” noted Polish MEP Ewa Zajaczkowska-Hernik, affiliated with the right-wing Confederation. “Because of this, fuel prices in Hungary have risen, and Prime Minister Orbán is simply standing firm in defense of his citizens.” “Not another euro for Zelensky and his corrupt gang! We stand with Hungary,” added Austrian Freedom Party MEP Harald Vilimsky. https://twitter.com/RobertFicoSVK/status/2029662612707852700

“Zelensky has long been making a mistake by allowing himself to be used by the European Union to cooperate with Von der Leyen and the Brussels troop in the massive interference in the Hungarian election campaign,” added Spain’s Vox MEP Hermann Tertsch. “It’s very likely that their plan will backfire.” Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico also weighed in late on Thursday. In a video posted on social media, Fico expressed “full solidarity” with his Hungarian counterpart, and intimated that “if the Ukrainian president continues like this, it may be that other EU member states will also block the €90 billion loan.” He further urged key members of the European Commission and European Parliament to “distance themselves” from what he called Zelensky’s “outrageous blackmailing statements.”

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/theUMreal/status/2030185782871290039?s=20 https://twitter.com/XCorpHub/status/2029935040814104625?s=20

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle March 1 2026

Mar 012026
 
 March 1, 2026  Posted by at 10:22 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , ,  71 Responses »


Mark Chagall Peace window, UN 1967


• Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is Dead (Matt Margolis)
• Trump Announces Major Airstrikes Against Iranian Regime (Matt Margolis)
• Saudi Arabia Joins U.S. in Fighting Iran (Salgado)
• Trump Isn’t Starting a War, He’s Ending One (A.J. Christopher)
• Russia Condemns US Attack On Iran, Warns Of ‘Radiological Catastrophe’ (ZH)
• Barack Obama Is to Blame for Iran. Here’s Why. (Matt Margolis)
• The Clash Of Civilizations Restarts History (J.B. Shurk)
• The Devil (and Gavin Newsom) Went Down in Dixie (Scott Pinsker)
• A Surprising Defense of Trump Came From Bill Clinton (David Manney)
• How Profanity Has Taken Hold of American Politics (Turley)
• Britain’s Islamic Bloc Vote Warning. America, Take Note. (Peter McIlvenna)
• The EU Wants A Nord Stream Sequel, But Not All Members Are Buying It (Marsden)
• Marine Le Pen Says She Will Not Run In 2027 Election If Under House Arrest (ZH)
• Bhattacharya To Lead Top US Health Agencies At Trump’s Request (Attkisson)
• RFK Jr. DESTROYS Media’s Trump Caricature, Celebrates Epic Win on Drug Prices (MN)

 


 

https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/2027850917337346454?s=20

 


 

 


 

 


 

 


 


Iran is a formidable force. They had 35 years to prepare. They have a million missiles. They have a million soldiers. Question is: who has their finger on the button now Khameini’s gone?

• Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is Dead (Matt Margolis)

Despite some initial debate, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed during the airstrikes Saturday morning, Israeli officials report. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was assassinated in an Israeli strike on Tehran, with his body found under the rubble caused by an Israeli airstrike, senior Israeli officials were informed on Saturday evening, the Jerusalem Post reports. Documentation of Khamenei’s body was reportedly shown to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Khamenei has ruled the Islamic Republic of Iran since 1989, previously serving as president under Ruhollah Khomeini’s regime from 1981 until his ascension to supreme leader. He was 86 years old.


Earlier on Saturday, Iranian officials promised to release a recording from Khamenei soon after Israeli strikes targeted his Tehran compound. The preliminary assessment among Israeli officials was that Khamenei was hurt in the strike. No official confirmation has been received by Israeli, American, or Iranian sources. In the immediate aftermath of the U.S.- Israeli strikes, there was a several hour window where no one could say for sure whether Khamenei was dead, wounded, or merely in hiding. Israeli TV, citing unnamed intelligence sources, quickly assessed that Khamenei had likely been killed when his compound in Tehran was flattened, but officials in Israel, the U.S., and Iran all stopped short of formal confirmation, stressing that his fate was still uncertain.

https://twitter.com/Osint613/status/2027833699316764764

An Israeli official also confirmed to Axios that Khamenei was killed. Why it matters: The 86-year-old Khamenei led Iran for 35 years, making him one of the world’s longest-serving authoritarian rulers. His death is a massive blow to the regime and could accelerate its collapse, which U.S. and Israeli officials have stated as a goal of their operation. The big picture: Khamenei’s killing sets off an immediate succession crisis with no clear answer.Under Iran’s constitution, a council of clerics is meant to select a new supreme leader – but Israel’s strikes also targeted senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders and political leaders, leaving the regime’s chain of command in disarray. Israeli officials say they assess the Iranian minister of defense and the commander of the IRGC were also among those killed in targeted strikes on Saturday.

Yes, it’s official: https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/2027839695007138207

Sen. John Fetterman (D-Penn.) once again had a sensible reaction:
Read more …

They have to go all the way now.

• Trump Announces Major Airstrikes Against Iranian Regime (Matt Margolis)

President Donald Trump addressed the nation early Saturday morning in an eight-minute video posted to Truth Social, announcing that the United States had begun a joint military strike in Iran. The strikes, which followed a coordinated U.S.–Israeli joint assault on key Iranian military assets, represent the most significant American military action in the Middle East in decades. “A short time ago,” he began, “the United States military began major combat operations in Iran. Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime, a vicious group of very hard, terrible people.”


He framed the attack as a long-overdue reckoning. “Its menacing activities directly endanger the United States, our troops, our bases overseas, and our allies throughout the world,” Trump said. “For 47 years, the Iranian regime has chanted ‘Death to America’ and waged an unending campaign of bloodshed and mass murder targeting the United States, our troops and the innocent people in many, many countries,” he said, as though ticking off the charges against a sworn enemy. Trump dove into history of Iran’s evil actions, from the 1979 hostage crisis to the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut in 1983, and even the attack on the USS Cole in 2000.

“Many died,” he said bluntly. “Iranian forces killed and maimed hundreds of American service members in Iraq.” He accused the regime of continuing “to launch countless attacks against American forces stationed in the Middle East” and striking “U.S. naval and commercial vessels in international shipping lands.” Then came his cutting declaration: “It’s been mass terror, and we’re not going to put up with it any longer.” “From Lebanon to Yemen and Syria to Iraq, the regime has armed, trained and funded terrorist militias that have soaked the earth with blood and guts,” he said, a vivid and gruesome description even by Trump’s standards. He pointed specifically to the Oct. 7 attacks on Israel, reminding the nation that more than 1,000 innocent people were killed, including 46 Americans, and that 12 U.S. citizens were taken hostage.

“Iran is the world’s number one state sponsor of terror,” Trump asserted. “It has always been the policy of the United States, in particular, my administration, that this terrorist regime can never have a nuclear weapon. I’ll say it again — they can never have a nuclear weapon.” He reminded Americans of “Operation Midnight Hammer,” the 2025 strike that “obliterated the regime’s nuclear program at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan,” and painted Iran’s leadership as directionless and fanatical. “We tried. They wanted to do it. They didn’t want to do it. Again, they wanted to do it. They didn’t want to do it. They didn’t know what was happening. They just wanted to practice evil,” he said.

This new campaign was both an act of defense and destiny. The Iranian regime has long had nuclear ambitions, and nothing, not even that ridiculous nuclear deal with Obama, stopped them. And Trump understands that the regime was never going to stop pursuing nuclear weapons. “They rejected every opportunity to renounce their nuclear ambitions, and we can’t take it anymore,” Trump said. Iran, he warned, had been “developing long-range missiles that can now threaten our very good friends and allies in Europe, our troops stationed overseas, and could soon reach the American homeland.”

[..] Finally, Trump turned to the people of Iran. “The hour of your freedom is at hand,” he said. “Stay sheltered. Don’t leave your home. It’s very dangerous outside. Bombs will be dropping everywhere. When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take.” He called it “probably your only chance for generations,” and pledged that “America is backing you with overwhelming strength and devastating force.” “This is the moment for action,” Trump concluded. “Do not let it pass. May God bless the brave men and women of America’s Armed Forces. May God bless the United States of America. May God bless you all. Thank you.”

Read more …

BIG. Split up the middle east.

• Saudi Arabia Joins U.S. in Fighting Iran (Salgado)

The Muslim kingdom of Saudi Arabia is so outraged at a retaliatory Iranian strike on a United States base on Saudi soil that it is planning to join the operation against Iran’s regime, according to Fox News. The Iranian regime might have made a fatal mistake in striking multiple Gulf states that host American military bases. Several of those countries, including Qatar, are often inclined to be favorable towards the genocidal Iranian dictatorship, but by hitting targets in those countries, the Iranian jihadis have likely made them into enemies. And if Saudi Arabia really is joining the operation against Iran, that would be a major development.


Fox News national correspondent Jennifer Griffin announced live on Saturday afternoon, “We’re just getting word that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia says they will join the U.S. in the operation against the Islamic Republic of Iran.” Operation Epic Fury has a new partner. The Iranian regime was so foolish that it managed to get Saudi Arabia at least temporarily on the same side as Israel, which really is shocking.Griffin continued, “They [Saudi Arabia] said that this comes in the wake of Iran attacking the U.S. base in Saudi Arabia. I just spoke to a senior U.S. official who said the Iranians made a big mistake by firing on Arab coalition partners. Now they are likely to respond. So by Iran firing missiles at UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, they are now likely to fire back at Iranian targets.”

In short, Griffin stated, “So those coalition partners are now going to enter this operation that started off as a U.S.-Israeli operation. That is very, very significant, and we haven’t seen that happen in the past.” No kidding. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia already made an announcement that it “condemns and denounces in strongest terms the blatant Iranian aggression and the flagrant violation of the sovereignty of the United Arab Emirates, the Kingdom of Bahrain, the State of Qatar, the State of Kuwait, and Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The Kingdom affirms its full solidarity with and unwavering support for the brotherly countries, and its readiness to place all its capabilities at their disposal.”

The official statement added, “Saudi Arabia calls on the international community to condemn these blatant attacks and to take all firm measures necessary to confront Iranian violations.” By that point, Iran had launched a retaliatory strike against a U.S. base in Saudi Arabia. Even the terror-sponsoring Qatari regime that has interceded for Khamenei’s dictatorship in the past posted, “The Ministry of Foreign Affairs affirms that the State of Qatar reserves its full right to respond to this attack in accordance with the provisions of international law and in a manner proportionate to the nature of the aggression, in defense of its sovereignty and in protection of its security and national interests.”

But since Qatar then followed that up by calling for an immediate cessation in hostilities, it is unlikely that the pro-terror state will take any military action to help the United States in this case. Qatar is likely ticked off that its pals over in Iran might dare to hit it.

Read more …

“We have “thou shalt not kill.” They have “thou shalt kill every infidel you find.”

• Trump Isn’t Starting a War, He’s Ending One (A.J. Christopher)

As of this writing, the United States and Israel have begun what I can only assume to be the first round of military strikes on Iran. I also assume that the eventual goal is regime change, effected by the United States, but driven by the Iranian people. And I’m not alone. Over the past few days, the so-called “think” tanks are falling all over themselves to be the first to prophesy a quagmire, a “trap,” a “forever war,” and Iraq 3.0.


The dregs at Foreign Policy took a break from clamoring for a post-American world order to demand we not bomb Iran precisely to more quickly usher in said order. At Powerline blog, John Hinderaker gleefully straddles the fence as only he can by declaring his hope that Trump bombs the mullahs with the goal of regime change… and in the same sentence, expresses doubt that this will be accomplished. And if you’re willing to waste the brain cells, you can guess what ol’ Tucker’s position on it is.

But the absolute worst take must be from John Daniel Davison over at The Federalist. John’s main point is that if we allegedly “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear abilities with Operation Midnight Hammer, than why do we need to now bomb Iran again to prevent them from acquiring nuclear capabilities?bUm, well, because Iran is trying to rebuild them. As we knew they would. And if we keep bombing only their nuclear facilities, they will simply keep rebuilding them until the next Democrat gets elected president and we stop sending bombs and start sending pallets of cash again. So there’s that. John writes, “At a certain point, it begins to look like the Trump administration is fishing for a reason to strike Iran. Sorry, but that’s not good enough.” Fishing for a reason? I’ll give you a few reasons, John. You tell me if they’re “good enough.”

  • On November 4, 1979, the Iranian government took 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.
  • The Iranian government helped create, fund, and arm Hezbollah and Hamas.
  • On April 18, 1983, Hezbollah bombed the American embassy in Beirut, killing 63 people.
  • On October 23, 1983, Iranian-backed terrorists bombed the American and French barracks in Beirut, killing 307 people.
  • Over the next decade, Iranian-backed terrorists hijacked several planes, including TWA flight 847, which resulted in the killing of an American sailor.
  • On July 22, 1985, Hezbollah bombed a synagogue, a Jewish nursing home, and a kindergarten in Copenhagen.
  • On March 17, 1992, Hezbollah bombed the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, killing 29 people.
  • On July 18, 1994, Hezbollah bombed a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, killing 85 people.
  • On June 25, 1996, Iranian-backed terrorists bombed Khobar Towers, killing 19 American servicemen.
  • Iran provided training and expertise to al-Qaeda to commit the 1998 embassy bombings
  • Iran provided training and expertise to al-Qaeda to commit the 2000 USS Cole bombing.
  • During the Iraq War, Iran supported the Shia insurgency against coalition forces.
  • During the Afghan War, Iran supported the Taliban insurgency against coalition forces.
  • Iran supported Syria’s Assad government in crushing its own revolution.
  • On October 7, 2023, Hamas launched a genocidal war against Israel.
  • Iran trains and supports the Houthi rebels in Yemen.
  • Iran maintains close ties with the world’s most totalitarian governments, to include Russia, China, North Korea and, until recently, Venezuela.
  • Iran’s government is protected by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), which is basically an Islamic version of Hitler’s SS.
  • For the last 47 years, Iran has been the foremost sponsor of terror in the world.


If these reasons aren’t “good enough” for John Daniel Davison, and we need to go “fishing” for more reasons, here’s another one: The Iranian government is founded on an offshoot of Islam called Twelver Shiism. It is an apocalyptic sect which holds that the twelfth imam Muhammad al-Mahdi (born 870 AD) never actually died, and has been in hiding this entire time. The Twelvers believe it is their divine duty to usher in the Apocalypse in order to trigger his return. Hence the unrelenting half-century war of terror against the West. We have “thou shalt not kill.” They have “thou shalt kill every infidel you find. That’s the mindset we’re up against. Not reason. Not logic. Not deals or agreements or easing of sanctions. Not a return to the “stable” order of the Cold War that so many “conservatives” seem to long for. The Ayatollahs, their IRGC henchmen, and their Hamas and Hezbollah proxies want all of us dead. All of us.

They would behead John’s kids in front of him and laugh as they did it. Still “not good enough,” John? Here’s one more reason: In the last 47 years, the geopolitical chessboard has never been so favorable to us and so unfavorable to Iran. In the last few years, Iran has lost both Hamas and Hezbollah as serious forces. Iran has lost its base in Syria. Iran has lost its base in Venezuela. Russia and China have quietly dumped Iran. The Houthis have been taught a few lessons. Iran has recently been militarily weakened in its humiliating defeat in the Twelve-Day War with Israel, as well as with Operation Midnight Hammer. And millions of the Iranian government’s own citizens openly despise the regime, and will be more than happy to see it relegated to the dustbin of history.

Read more …

Russia has to protest of course. But they’re happy too. Who wants to deal with a medieval regime?

• Russia Condemns US Attack On Iran, Warns Of ‘Radiological Catastrophe’ (ZH)

As fully predictable, Moscow has blasted the major overnight and early morning US-Israeli strikes on Iran, calling the attack “a preplanned and unprovoked act of armed aggression against a sovereign and independent U.N. member state” and has demanded an immediate halt to the military campaign and a return to diplomacy. The Foreign Ministry in a statement on Telegram accused Washington and Tel Aviv of “hiding behind” concerns about Iran’s nuclear program while actually pursuing regime change, as also cited in The Associated Press. After all, even on Friday Iran was strongly signaling readiness to take enrichment down to zero, as our own headline and others indicated: Iran Reportedly Agrees To Give Up Nuclear Material In Breakthrough: ‘Peace Deal Within Reach’.


Moscow is further warning of Iraq-style catastrophe and a regional domino effect which could unleash terrorism and chaos for years to come. The attacks could trigger “humanitarian, economic and possibly radiological catastrophe” in the region, and charged the US and Israel of “plunging the Middle East into an abyss of uncontrolled escalation.” However, the Kremlin is unlikely to come to Iran’s rescue in any direct way, given it is carefully trying to balance and restore relations with Washington in the context of the Ukraine war.

As for that other raging conflict in Eastern Europe, now four years in, Ukraine has come out in support of the US attacks on Iran. This is understandable, given the Iranians have long supplied Moscow with suicide drones which have wreaked havoc on Ukrainian cities. China too has condemned the attack on Iran alongside Moscow, but using words much more restrained that Russia’s. “China calls for an immediate stop of the military actions, no further escalation of the tense situation, resumption of dialogue and negotiation, and efforts to uphold peace and stability in the Middle East,” its foreign ministry ministry said on X.

Most or all of the BRICS countries are expected to come out against the US-Israeli aggression. Europe is expected to by and large stay on the sidelines, fearing that any broader Mideast war would have spillover effects, such as another potential refugee crisis. The UK, Germany and France have said nothing specifically on the ‘legality’ of the unprovoked US attack on Tehran, but have instead condemned the Iranian response.They released a joint statement telling Iran to stop its attacks on US-Israeli assets and bases in the region. “We condemn Iranian attacks on countries in the region in the strongest terms,” French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said.

Read more …

JCPOA

• Barack Obama Is to Blame for Iran. Here’s Why. (Matt Margolis)

Americans woke up Saturday to something big. The United States and Israel launched a massive joint offensive against Iran’s regime, known as Operation Epic Fury. According to reports, targets included Iran’s supreme leader and president. Major combat operations are now underway, and the implications are global. Predictably, Democrats in Washington and even some Republicans are questioning the strikes. But let’s be honest — this moment was long overdue. Iran’s reign of terror didn’t start yesterday. In fact, this confrontation is the direct result of the Obama administration’s disastrous decision a decade ago to appease, enrich, and embolden Tehran.


Barack Obama and his administration sold the world a fantasy with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly referred to as the Iran nuclear deal. This treaty was so bad that Obama didn’t even attempt to get the Senate to ratify it. He just pretended it wasn’t a treaty and signed it unilaterally, claiming it as a foreign policy victory for himself. In fact, Obama was so desperate to make the deal a defining foreign policy achievement of his presidency that the lies about the deal from the left have never stopped. He told us it was a historic diplomatic breakthrough that would block Iran’s path to nuclear weapons. In reality, it handed the mullahs a lifeline and a fortune. Sanctions were lifted. Tehran gained access to roughly $150 billion in frozen assets, and there was that infamous $1.7 billion in cash sent to the regime, much of it delivered on pallets in the middle of the night. Every step of the way, Obama was emboldening Iran, not containing it.

It didn’t take long for Iran to show what a joke the deal really was. Just three months after signing the deal, Tehran test-fired ballistic missiles in open violation of U.N. resolutions. German intelligence later reported that Iran was still seeking technology for a military nuclear program. The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed repeated violations of material limits — all while Obama kept reassuring us that the agreement was “working.” Even he eventually admitted Iran was violating the “spirit” of the deal, and that was as close as he’d ever get to admitting that his deal was a sham. nAnd while Obama’s State Department was congratulating itself, Iranian leaders were laughing. They bragged that the JCPOA favored Iran. Hassan Rouhani, then Iran’s president, boasted that the regime had used diplomacy to buy time and advance its nuclear program. The Obama administration believed it was outsmarting Tehran, but in reality, it had been duped.

It’s not as if the liberal media didn’t notice this either. The New York Times even reported in 2015 that Iran had breached its enrichment limits before the deal was finalized. Inspectors found that while the Obama White House claimed Iran’s program was “frozen,” the country’s nuclear stockpile actually increased by 20%. Iran was supposed to convert that material for peaceful use. Instead, they let it grow — and Washington looked the other way. By the time President Donald Trump took office, the JCPOA wasn’t the safeguard Democrats claimed it was; it was just a smokescreen. Obama’s grand achievement hadn’t restrained Iran’s nuclear ambitions one bit. If anything, it emboldened them to pursue nuclear weapons as never before. The regime’s missile program accelerated, its proxies expanded across the region, and its leaders grew richer, bolder, and more violent.

Nevertheless, when Trump took office in 2017, he didn’t immediately pull the plug. He gave the deal every chance to work. But by 2018, the evidence was clear: continued violations, broken promises, and a regime that had learned there were no consequences. So, in May of that year, Trump ended the charade and withdrew from the deal once and for all. Of course, Joe Biden wanted to revive the deal when he took office. While he never succeeded, the message to Iran was clear: the Democratic Party would always be there for the regime. If you want to know why negotiations with Iran always failed, the answer is obvious: they had to do was wait out Trump, and hope Democrats would be in power again.

Iran has been daring the world to stop it for years, and now, it is finally getting what it deserves.

Read more …

“Burma, India, Bangladesh, Thailand, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Laos fight against each other and themselves..”

• The Clash Of Civilizations Restarts History (J.B. Shurk)

Western globalists won’t last long. Thirty-five years ago, American political scientist Francis Fukuyama made a name for himself by advancing the proposition that the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union promised the ascendency and universalization of so-called Western liberal democracy. As a Marxist-Hegelian who saw the progression of history as an evolutionary process with a natural and predetermined conclusion, Fukuyama envisioned Western-styled liberalism as both “the endpoint of mankind’s ideological evolution” and “the final form of human government.” Expecting all human struggles to barrel toward a state of imminent equilibrium and future peace, Fukuyama stated out loud what many other late-twentieth century thinkers also believed: Humanity had reached the end of history.


After the 9/11 Islamic terror attacks in the United States, two decades of the “Global War on Terrorism,” communist China’s expansive “Belt and Road Initiative,” immigration-fueled social strife, the collapse of public trust in government institutions, the prevalence of pre-civil war conditions across Europe, the rise of Indian economic power,, the emergence of Donald Trump’s nationalism as a counterbalance to the World Economic Forum’s vaunted globalism, the return of the Russian Federation as a major source of European angst, the growth of “multiculturalism” and its attendant fracturing of national unity, the “great powers” competition for hydrocarbon energies and other natural resources, the new geopolitical race to project strength in the Arctic, and the ever-present discussion of an impending World War III — just to name a few of the numerous global conflicts of the first quarter of the present century — Fukuyama’s “end of history” argument has probably reached the end of its usefulness.

Before the curse of humanity’s short memory stores Fukuyama’s “end of history” thesis in the cupboard until it can be retrieved, dusted off, and recycled for practical use next century (just as Fukuyama had done with the historical conceptions of Hegel and Marx), it is worth noting how much of the academic world bought into this argument. I remember listening to two young political science professors discussing Fukuyama’s work after the 9/11 terror attacks, and even then — in the midst of such a horrific rebuke to the proposition that a globalized form of Western liberalism was preordained — both academics were staunch believers in the “end of history” and disagreed only about whether Professor Fukuyama was worthy of so much praise for having merely stated what was glaringly obvious.

I was around another man at the time named Samuel P. Huntington, and he had written an essay and book that took Fukuyama’s thesis to task. In The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Professor Huntington argued that unbridgeable cultural conflicts would continue to remake the world. Although critics called him “racist,” “Islamophobic,” “ignorant,” and even “Hitlerian” for dismissing the unifying effects of “diversity” and “multiculturalism,” Huntington’s predictions for a volatile twenty-first century were much more accurate than anything coming from the “end of history” camp. Still, even after death, the man who dispassionately forecasted a civilizational clash and an emerging period of global uncertainty is still maligned as “prejudicial,” “white supremacist,” “bigoted,” and “imperialist.”

Is there any conflict raging in the world today that can’t be described in terms of competing cultural values? Israel and its Islamic neighbors have been in a perennial state of war for eighty years. Indian Hindus and Pakistani Muslims remain at each other’s throats. Christianity and Islam have added fuel to fiery tribal conflicts that continue to rage across the continent of Africa. Armenia’s Christians and Azerbaijan’s Muslims struggle to maintain peace. The Balkans remain a potpourri of combative cultures and ethnic groups whose simmering passions can quickly boil over. Burma, India, Bangladesh, Thailand, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Laos fight against each other and themselves as civilizational loyalties turn ancient resentments into recurring bouts of violence. The War in Ukraine centers around the contested Donbas region whose people more closely align with the language, religion, and culture of Russia than with the historic identity that unites the people living in the western two-thirds of Ukraine. Everywhere in the world, battle lines are drawn around civilizational identity. Religious conflict, historic grievance, and cultural incompatibility drive violence around the planet.

Read more …

“Black people are roughly 20% of the Democratic Party. In the critical primary state of South Carolina, nearly 60% of the voters are black.” […] Gavin Newsom is slick, but he’s no Slick Willy.”

• The Devil (and Gavin Newsom) Went Down in Dixie (Scott Pinsker)

I love Charlie Daniels, but this has always bothered me: From the lyrics to his classic “Uneasy Rider”:


I I just ordered up a beer and sat down at the bar
When some guy walked in an’ said, “Who owns this car?
With the peace sign, the mag wheels, and four on the floor”


Well he looked at me and I damn near died
And I decided that I’d jus wait outside
So I laid a dollar on the bar and headed for the door

Jes’ when I thought I’d get outta there with my skin
These five big dudes come strollin’ in
With this one old drunk chick and some fella with green teeth

Okay, so first one guy walks in. Then five more guys come in — plus a drunk woman and the green-toothed gentlemen. That’s eight guys! Then the lyrics continue:
An’ I was almost to the door when the biggest one
Said “You tip your hat to this lady, son”
An’ when I did, all that hair fell out from underneath

Now the last thing I wanted was to get into a fight
In Jackson Mississippi on a Saturday night
‘Specially when there was three of them and only one of me

Wait — how did it go from eight to three?! Like I said, I love Charlie Daniels, but my boy’s not the greatest at math. Oh well. Still a heck of a storyteller. And his biggest hit was “The Devil Went Down to Georgia.” (Of course, since the Devil went DOWN to Georgia, the implication is, Hell must be north of Georgia. I’m thinking Richmond, Va.) Either way, the devil wasn’t the only one defeated in Dixie: Gavin Newsom, the exquisitely coiffed governor of California, just rolled snake eyes, too. Even his hometown news site admitted it. From SFGATE:”Newsom Is Touring Southern States. It’s Exposing Some Hurdles in His Path to 2028″.

Newsom began the first stretch of the book tour for his memoir “Young Man in a Hurry” this weekend in the South, with stops in Alabama, Tennessee and South Carolina. His team said starting in that region was “quite intentional” — but he’s already ruffled some feathers. While he is mostly sharing heartening anecdotes from the book, including how he handled being a student raised by a single mother and struggling with undiagnosed dyslexia, he is also clearly using his hourlong stage appearances to appeal to potential swing voters. No, it’s NOT about appealing to swing voters — at least, not yet. Newsom only cares about Democratic voters because, without them, swing voters are meaningless. He’s got to win his party’s nomination first.

That’s why his book tour was built around a Bizarro version of the Southern Strategy: Newsom needs black support. It’s his biggest vulnerability. We discussed this earlier in the week:”Black people are roughly 20% of the Democratic Party. In the critical primary state of South Carolina, nearly 60% of the voters are black.” […] Gavin Newsom is slick, but he’s no Slick Willy. There’s a reason why Toni Morrison dubbed the Man from Hope our “first black president.” Whereas Bill Clinton had an aw-shucks, good-natured, instantly relatable Southern charm, Gavin Newsom is as white as mayonnaise. Newsom isn’t “street” — unless that street is Wall Street. He’s the Patriarchy personified. Without black support, Gavin Newsom risks being the next Bernie Sanders. In CNN’s 2020 postmortem on Sanders’ loss to Joe Biden, the #1 reason cited was: Lack of Black Support.

Sanders ran into a wall in 2016 among black voters. Hillary Clinton catapulted herself to victory by winning blowouts throughout the South, where black voters make up a huge chunk of primary voters. Sanders needed to improve upon his performance. Instead, Sanders did as bad in 2020 among this pivotal group. Among African Americans who voted for Biden or Sanders, Sanders won just 23% in the median state with an entrance or exit poll. That was the same percentage he garnered in 2016. Black voters propelled Biden to his big win in South Carolina, which started him on his journey to defeating Sanders. This is why Gavin Newsom set up shop in Dixieland: He’s learned from Sanders’ campaign mistakes. Striking gold in New Hampshire or Iowa is meaningless if your cupboard is bare in the South. Trouble is, he tried to bond with black Democrats by playing up his stupidity. Here’s the video:

Read more …

“For Clinton to say, under oath, that Trump showed no indication of criminal involvement doesn’t neatly fit into partisan talking points. ”

• A Surprising Defense of Trump Came From Bill Clinton (David Manney)

Every once in a while, politics delivers a moment nobody sees coming. Former President Bill Clinton, under oath, reported that President Donald Trump never gave him any indication he was involved in Jeffrey Epstein’s criminal conduct. That sworn statement now adds a new wrinkle to one of the most combustible and easily proven false stories of the last decade. Bill Clinton has been facing questions about his own past ties to Epstein. Flight logs show Clinton traveled on Epstein’s private jet several times in the early 2000s, but he’s maintained he cut off contact after learning more about Epstein’s behavior. In this recent sworn exchange, Clinton reportedly stated that during his interactions with Trump, he never saw or heard anything suggesting Trump engaged in Epstein’s crimes.


Trump has repeatedly acknowledged knowing Epstein socially in the 1990s, appearing in photographs from that period. He’s also publicly stated that he broke off contact with Epstein years before Epstein’s 2008 guilty plea. In 2019, Trump told reporters that he hadn’t spoken to Epstein in about 15 years and described himself as “not a fan.” “Trump barred Epstein from Mar-a-Lago after Epstein behaved inappropriately toward a club member’s teenage daughter, according to journalists from the Miami Herald and Wall Street Journal. The reporters included some information about Trump’s links to Epstein in their 2020 book, “The Grifter’s Club: Trump, Mar-a-Lago, and the Selling of the Presidency.”

A Mar-a-Lago member told the journalists that Trump had “kicked Epstein out after Epstein harassed the daughter of a member,” Sarah Blaskey of the Miami Herald reported. “The way this person described it, such an act could irreparably harm the Trump brand, leaving Donald no choice but to remove Epstein.” The incident happened around October 2007, when Mar-a-Lago’s registry listed Epstein’s account as “closed,” the Miami Herald reported. Epstein was arrested in July 2019 on federal sex trafficking charges involving underage girls. He died in a Manhattan detention facility while awaiting trial. His longtime associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, was convicted in 2021 on federal sex trafficking charges and later sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Clinton’s reported testimony stands out for one simple reason: it cuts against the common political storyline. Clinton and Trump have been rivals since Trump rode the escalator, trading barbs publicly and representing opposite poles in American politics. For Clinton to say, under oath, that Trump showed no indication of criminal involvement doesn’t neatly fit into partisan talking points. Statements under oath carry legal weight; false testimony risks perjury. That context matters; when a former president speaks under penalty of law, the words deserve attention. The broader Epstein scandal has touched powerful names across finance, politics, and entertainment, while Congressional interest remains high. Lawmakers continue seeking documents and testimony tied to Epstein’s network as calls for full disclosure have come from both sides of the aisle.

Clinton’s sworn statement doesn’t erase Trump’s past social proximity to Epstein, but it adds a factual element that complicates sweeping accusations. When critics assert that association equals guilt, sworn testimony suggesting otherwise forces a pause. While it’s fair to call the moment unexpected, it’s also fair to ask whether legacy political commentators who’ve spent years speculating will give equal attention to testimony challenging their narrative. Ignoring inconvenient details only subtracts from their sinking credibility. The Epstein case remains one of the most disturbing and long-reaching criminal sagas in modern history. Justice for victims remains central. Factual clarity about who did what remains essential, and when sworn testimony contradicts assumptions, it can’t be brushed aside.

Read more …

“I don’t swear in public very well, but we have to f–k Trump. Please don’t tell my children that I just did that.”

• How Profanity Has Taken Hold of American Politics (Turley)

“Respectfully, f–k off.” Those words by California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s spokesperson, Izzy Gardon, summed up the current race to the bottom of American politics. Democrats appear in a competition of the profane where voters are now subject to a virtual carpet-bombing of f-bombs and other indecent language. Gardon’s response was to a standard media inquiry after Newsom’s controversial statement to a black interviewer. In an Atlanta event, Newsom declared: “I’m like you … I’m no better than you. I’m a 960 SAT guy … literally a 960 SAT guy. You’ve never seen me read a speech because I cannot read a speech.” It was widely denounced as racist, but Newsom insisted that he was only talking about his struggle with dyslexia.


The spin quickly fell apart after his statement, “I’m like you … I’m no better than you,” which suggested he thought the audience in Atlanta had low scores. Reporters followed up to ask for proof about his disability, including his claim that “I cannot read.” The response was an f-bomb from Gardon. Newsom, too, unleashed a profane attack on Sean Hannity of Fox News — who gave the California governor a chance to respond to his critics. When Hannity criticized Newsom’s comments in Atlanta, the governor posted several four-letter words on X, concluding with: “Spare me your fake f—ing outrage.” There was a time when political leaders maintained basic standards of civility and avoided profanity in public. Presidents like Lyndon Johnson could be quite salty in private, but drew a line in public.

Rporters followed up to ask for proof about his disability, including his claim that “I cannot read.” The response was an f-bomb from Gardon. Notably, one of Richard Nixon’s objections to his tapes being made public was the inclusion of foul language used in the Oval Office. He noted in his book In the Arena that “since neither I nor most other presidents had ever used profanity in public, millions were shocked.” It was not long ago that Trump’s then-new White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci shocked many with a profane diatribe. He defended it as “an Italian thing.” At the time, I wrote that, as someone who was raised in an Italian family, we clearly had a different upbringing. I noted that if I used that language in public, my Sicilian grandmother would have ended the diatribe with a backhand.

Profanity sometimes added to the mystique of military leaders who sought to convey that they were unconcerned with social norms as warriors. Gen. George Patton was known to drop some doozies. In one scene in the famous eponymous movie, Patton is asked about the Bible next to his bed and whether he really prayed. Patton responds, “I sure do … Every godd–n day…” Politics was different. The public once looked to political leaders as role models who exemplified social norms. It now appears that profanity is viewed as an essential element of political speech on the left.m mPolitics was different. The public once looked to political leaders as role models who exemplified social norms. Katie Porter this week thrilled a crowd by waving around a sign reading “F–k Trump.” Porter was previously criticized for using such language to abuse staffers to “get out of my f–cking shot” in an interview.

At the State of the Union, Rep. Rashida Tlaib wore a button on the House floor reading “F–k Ice.” Such behavior is not just limited to Democrats. President Trump has used profanity on occasion. However, the Democrats appear to have made profanity a signature element in their campaigns.Rep. Jasmine Crockett, who is running for the U.S. Senate in Texas, seems a perpetual profanity machine, regularly telling figures like Elon Musk to “f–k off” and dropping the f-bomb at a higher rate than prepositions. Some are virtually giggly over swearing in public. Rep. Maxine Dexter (D-Ore.) declared, “I don’t swear in public very well, but we have to f–k Trump. Please don’t tell my children that I just did that.” The crowd roared with approval that Dexter was feigning being naughty with dirty words.

Read more …

Muslims born in Britain. Now poised to take over. How will the Christians defend themelves? They don’t even know they’re under threat.

• Britain’s Islamic Bloc Vote Warning. America, Take Note. (Peter McIlvenna)

Britain’s Gorton and Denton by-election on Feb. 26 was more than just a local upset. It gave a glimpse into demographic changes that could shape U.S. politics. The Green Party’s Hannah Spencer won with 41% and 14,980 votes, turning this Labour stronghold into the Greens’ first northern seat. Reform UK came second with 29% of the vote, and Labour finished third with 25%. Turnout was low at 48%. The main story: Muslim bloc power flipped a seat, and Reform UK leader Nigel Farage’s strategy did not work. The seat’s divided nature tells the story. Manchester wards like Burnage, Gorton & Abbey Hey, Levenshulme, and Longsight are changing fast: 40% Muslim, 62% U.K.-born, and 30% are graduates or students.


In Longsight, 60% are Muslim and 52% U.K.-born, making it a diverse, urban area where Gaza is a common topic. The Greens succeeded by using multilingual flyers, focusing on Palestine, and promoting anti-Islamophobia messages. Instead of attacking others, they built coalitions. That bloc, along with tactical left-wing voters, overshadowed everything else.Tameside wards, including Denton North East, South, and West, feel very different: less than 3% Muslim, 86% U.K.-born, and over 80% white British. These are working-class areas with few graduates and strong local roots. Reform UK led here, getting over 40% in some places by appealing to “keep Britain British” sentiment. Still, Manchester’s voters decided the outcome. This is a story of two different visions, almost like a modern Dickens novel.

Manchester is moving away from traditional English and British identity, with lower native birth rates, more multiculturalism, less connection to Christianity and old values, and a shift toward new cultural expressions. Tameside, on the other hand, is more cautious about fast cultural change, holding on to traditions and trying to keep established cultural identities. It is similar to the old divide between East and West Germany. The East kept its German identity, had little migration, and held onto traditions. The West became more multicultural, saw fewer native births, and its religious makeup changed. Gorton-Denton is a smaller version of this: Manchester shows the changing face of old England, while Tameside tries to stay recognizably British. The Greens won by understanding that concentrated bloc votes and progressive alliances now matter more than nostalgia.

Farage’s role was chaotic. Before the election, he avoided criticizing Muslims, maybe to appeal to more voters. But after losing, Farage accused others of “sectarian voting,” “cheating,” and “dangerous Muslim sectarianism.” He complained about “family voting,” with observers noting it in twelve percent of sampled cases, where husbands and wives crowded voting booths—the highest rate ever recorded. Democracy Volunteers flagged 68% of polling stations. No mosques were used as polling places; the council managed the process. Still, Farage’s comments sparked controversy. Critics say he changes his stance: soft on Islam to grow Reform, but harsh when things go wrong. Either way, he seems unsettled, caught between his supporters and the need to win votes.

Now, America faces similar questions in its primaries. The Muslim population is under 2% nationally, but is expected to grow due to higher birth rates and migration. CAIR reported 38 Muslim winners across the country last year. Zohran Mamdani won New York’s mayoral race with strong support for his socialist and pro-Palestine views. Ninety-seven percent of Muslim voters supported him, along with major donors, and Gaza became a key issue. Does this sound familiar? If the Gorton-Denton approach shows up in other places, like Dearborn, Queens, or Minneapolis, organized turnout could affect close elections.

Strong support from certain communities may help some candidates, while others might choose more moderate strategies. Family-based turnout, like what was seen in the U.K., could change usual voting patterns. Demographic changes are likely to continue, with some areas keeping traditional majorities and others forming new coalitions. The message is clear: Pay attention to demographic trends, or you might be surprised by changes in election results. Primaries are still important—voters may choose to stick with the status quo or join coalitions that want change. The lesson from Britain is that traditions alone may not be enough when organized participation increases.

Read more …

“Ukraine’s oil pipeline blackmail has Hungary demanding that support for Kiev be cut off..”

• The EU Wants A Nord Stream Sequel, But Not All Members Are Buying It (Marsden)

The Druzhba, or ‘Friendship’, oil pipeline is really living up to its name. All the ‘friends’ are fighting with each other. And now Hungary, worried about the EU’s slack attitude about what happens to its oil source, is saying that it’s time to deploy the army to protect it. Critics of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban argue that he only wants troops deployed inside the country because he’s down in the polls ahead of the April national election and he’s going to try some kind of autocratic jiu-jitsu to cancel them. Which totally ignores the fact that Ukrainian secret services are actively attacking the pipeline’s infrastructure – and there is something really fishy about the EU’s permissiveness around it.


Everyone from the Kiev Independent to French state media, France 24, has been attributing to the SBU, Kiev’s secret services, drone strikes on February 23, targeting a Russian oil pumping station serving Druzhba – citing actual SBU sources. And the EU’s position has been, “Look, it’s up to Ukraine if they want to fix it.” It’s not like they owe the EU anything, right? Just billions of euros, and counting. Can’t even get a repair job these days for that price, apparently. So Hungary’s been saying, “Hey, are you jokers going to actually do something about this? Because we’re putting our foot down on your whole ‘cash for Ukraine for European defense contractors’ charade and unilaterally canceling the next episode of your Russian sanctions unity show with a veto, until you reel in your spoiled brat foster kid.”

The EU says it would welcome the reactivation of landlocked Slovakia and Hungary’s fuel source running across Ukraine and delivering Russian oil. Funny that’s the case only now that it’s been bombed and the tap has been turned off – after years of official EU policy to ditch the Russian fuel that runs through it. But Brussels also said that it’s ultimately up to Little Zelya, Vladimir Zelensky, as to what he wants to do. Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has been sounding like a waitress at Denny’s who’s fed up waiting for Little Zelya to decide what he wants while he kicks his little feet against the high chair. Queen Mommy, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, insists that he should be able to freely choose between blackmailing Hungary over oil or resuming the flow – with all the nonchalance of deciding between pancakes or a kid’s combo, even though it’s the Europeans whose interests she’s supposed to be defending and who are paying the tab.

“This risks our sovereignty, and we are not willing to tolerate this in silence,” Szijjarto said. “It is very frustrating that here in Brussels they usually stand on the side of a non-EU member state against EU member states. The European Commission behaves like a Ukraine Commission, and this is unbelievable.”

Read more …

Here’s democracy for you. Wait, didn’t that start in France?

“If I cannot be a candidate, Bardella will determine at what level he needs my presence, my advice and my experience,” Le Pen has stated about her protegé ..”

• Marine Le Pen Says She Will Not Run In 2027 Election If Under House Arrest (ZH)

In March 2025, Le Pen was convicted on charges dating back years ago, in a move that was widely contested and seen as a highly political attempt to keep her from running in next year’s presidential election. Now, she says she has no intention of running if her ban from running is lifted, if it means she must wear an electronic tag, i.e., ankle monitor. She is also ready to place full trust in Jordan Bardella, current leader of the National Rally (RN) Le Pen’s comments came during an interview with French television station BFMTV, her first since French prosecutors asked a court to uphold her five-year ban. A ruling on her case is expected on July 7.


“You cannot campaign under these conditions. Can you campaign without going out in the evenings to meet your constituents at rallies?” she asked, referring to the idea of having to campaign while wearing a monitor and under house arrest. Prosecutors had asked for Le Pen to be sentenced to four years in prison (three of which were suspended) and a fine of €100,000.In France, shorter prison sentences are often commuted, meaning that if the court follows the prosecutor’s request, Le Pen could spend anywhere from a few months to a year under house arrest, wearing an anklet. However, Le Pen has said she would not campaign under such circumstances. Le Pen says she will be present in court on July 7 to hear the Court of Appeal’s decision.

“Of course I will go, as I went every day to the trial in the first instance and on appeal because I respect justice,” she told BFMTV. Regarding the 2027 election, Le Pen said regarding RN leader Jordan Bardella: “The best-case scenario is that I am elected president of the Republic and he is my prime minister.” However, if she cannot run, then “Jordan will find himself a prime minister,” and she will take whatever “role he wants me to have.” Emphasizing that Bardella will be free to make his own choices, Le Pen told listeners, “If I cannot be a candidate, he will determine at what level he needs my presence, my advice and my experience.”

Read more …

A good thing about Covid: we found some really good people in the US. No, it ain’t Fauci.

“You don’t have to worry about looking over your shoulder, that you aren’t ideologically pure enough. You just focus on science that can translate over to solving the longevity problems that the United States has, the chronic disease problems, the real problems.”

• Bhattacharya To Lead Top US Health Agencies At Trump’s Request (Attkisson)

The head of the National Institutes of Health is now at the helm of a sub-agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya says President Trump personally asked him to take the CDC job temporarily until a permanent director can be named. “It’s hard to say ‘no’ to the president. What it means is that I will still be the director of the NIH. That’s my main day job,” Bhattacharya told “Full Measure” in a recent interview at NIH headquarters in Bethesda, Maryland. “But over the next couple of months, I’m gonna go work with folks at the CDC to help get the agency in a place where the new director, whoever ends up being Senate confirmed, we’ll have an organization that’s running well so that they can get their priorities in place.”


Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Bhattacharya was a medical doctor and professor at Stanford University, “happily publishing in journals.” But during Covid, he became a very vocal opponent – for scientific reasons – for government-mandated lockdowns to try to stop the spread of the virus. “I did a bunch of research that suggested that the lockdowns were not helping people, in fact, were causing tremendous harm to the poor children in the working class, all the school closures and all that,” he says. Bhattacharya helped create and get thousands of signatures on the Great Barrington Declaration to speak out against the lockdowns on public health grounds. For that, he became a target of the head of NIH at the time, Dr. Frances Collins, and Dr. Anthony Fauci, who headed the NIH Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

It was later revealed that the two men orchestrated a “devastating take-down” of Dr. Bhattacharya and his colleagues to silence and discredit them. Today, it’s a stunning reversal of fortunes for Dr. Bhattacharya that he was chosen to head up the very agency whose leaders had conspired against him. Bhattacharya says one of his main goals is to remove politics and ideology from science to “leave a lot more space for actual science.”“The cultural shift is, is enormous,” he says. “The purpose and the mission of the NIH is to do research that improves the health and longevity of the American people,” Bhattacharya said. “First of all, everyone should be behind that mission. And then second, once you say that’s the mission, that we’re only gonna be focused on the mission, it frees you up from all of the baggage.

“You don’t have to worry about looking over your shoulder, that you aren’t ideologically pure enough. You just focus on science that can translate over to solving the longevity problems that the United States has, the chronic disease problems, the real problems.” Establishment medicine figures who were frequently proved wrong about approaches to Covid and matters of Covid vaccine safety and effectiveness criticize most every decision and move Bhattacharya now makes. He says in response to the criticism: “If the NIH’s mission is to do support research that translates into better health and longer life for Americans, well, the NIH over the last 15 years has failed in its mission.

“And so the idea that it’s anti-science or politicizing the agency to remove political agendas from the agency, it’s almost Orwellian. And so when I see these stories, my general understanding of them is that it’s people that benefited from the old system where the focus was in part on ideology.” Bhattacharya says part of the steps to remove politics from the NIH is to begin a new plan to genuinely study vaccine injuries and treatments. “We’re working on that,” he told “Full Measure.” “One of the things that Tony Fauci’s old NIAID is gonna be doing is studying vaccine injury.”

Read more …

Bobby’s become a big Trump fan.

• RFK Jr. DESTROYS Media’s Trump Caricature, Celebrates Epic Win on Drug Prices (MN)

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. delivered a powerful takedown of the fake news narrative surrounding President Trump, exposing the blatant lies and highlighting the administration’s groundbreaking success in driving down prescription drug costs—a move that puts American families first and crushes Big Pharma’s grip. Kennedy’s remarks come amid the Trump administration’s aggressive push to overhaul healthcare, including the implementation of the Most Favored Nation policy, which ensures Americans no longer foot the bill for the world’s highest drug prices. Kennedy noted that the U.S. had been paying two to four times as much for prescription drugs as other nations, with the administration securing agreements from “60 or 70” drug companies to end this disparity.


This victory builds directly on Trump’s longstanding commitment to dismantle Obamacare’s inefficiencies and redirect funds to the people, as we detailed in our earlier coverage of his plan to scrap the “STUPID” system and empower Americans. Kennedy didn’t hold back on the media’s relentless smear campaign against Trump. “The caricature you see in the press: ‘Narcissistic bombast, who is uneducated, not thoughtful, lacks compassion.’ The ACTUAL person is the OPPOSITE of those things!” Kennedy stated. He praised Trump’s intellect and expertise across multiple fields, noting “He’s extremely detail-oriented, he’s an encyclopedia in many areas, in business, in sports, in the arts, in architecture, in building.”

Kennedy emphasized Trump’s unparalleled ability to deliver results, stressing “He knows how to, above all, he just knows how to get things done.” “He understands the uses of power probably better than any president that I can name and I’m pretty familiar with all the presidents,” Kennedy added. “So I don’t think we’ve ever had somebody who understands the use of power that he does. And the boldness with which he moves and which he expects us to move, I think has inspired all the people who work here right now to do things that people told them before were not possible,” he further urged. Tying it to the drug price breakthrough, Kennedy highlighted how Trump’s leadership turned promises into action.

“We were paying the highest drug price of any country in the world, now we’re paying the lowest. Every president’s promised to do that and all of them have said it’s insurmountable, you can’t do it, but we were able to do it!” he emphasised. This aligns with the broader Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) mission. As Calley Means has previously pointed out, key wins include lowering drug prices alongside reforms like eliminating food dyes and acknowledging vaccine injuries—proving MAHA is “WINNING big” despite leftist opposition. This drug price overhaul, part of Trump’s executive actions, ensures nearly 95% of medications are now the cheapest globally, delivering affordability without stifling innovation—a stark contrast to the bloated systems of the past.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/NicHulscher/status/2027428352978558997?s=20 entanglement

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle February 24 2026

Feb 242026
 
 February 24, 2026  Posted by at 10:34 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,  61 Responses »


Piet Mondriaan The red cloud 1907


• TRUMP Declares WAR On Euro CENSORSHIP (MN)
• EU Says Trump’s Tariff Workaround Violates Trade Deal (ZH)
• The Supreme Court has Ruled on Tariffs, but Who Will Ultimately Pay? (Turley)
• Bessent Signals No Retreat After SCOTUS Tariff Ruling (David Manney)
• AOC Has Instagram Meltdown. It’s a Sight to Behold. (Matt Margolis)
• AOC’s Ignorance Is No Laughing Matter (Stephen Soukup)
• Trump is Losing His Base – Mark Taylor (USAW)
• Obama’s ‘Gift’ Sticks Taxpayers With $200M+ Bill (ZH)
• CNN Finally Admits the Truth About Democrat-Run Cities (Matt Margolis))
• Trump is Netanyahu’s Puppet (Paul Craig Roberts)
• Judge Says Jack Smith’s Final Report on Trump Can Never Be Released (ET)
• British Police Take Former Ambassador Mandelson into Custody (Manney)
• The Putin Plan for Cuba and The Castro Family (Helmer)

 


 

https://twitter.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/2025573014155227301?s=20 https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2025580547527856295?s=20

 


 

 


 


Europe’s last hope before the curtain closes. These guys want to operate in darkness. Because they all, Starmer, Macron, Merz, have one thing in common: they’re painfully unpopular back home.

US State does what I’ve been doing (trying to do) for many years:: give people a peek behind the curtains.

• TRUMP Declares WAR On Euro CENSORSHIP (MN)

As European governments ramp up their assault on online freedom, the Trump administration is striking back hard with Freedom.Gov—a portal designed to equip European and British citizens with tools to shatter digital barriers imposed by overreaching bureaucrats. The move exposes the hypocrisy of so called “safety” laws that geofence truth, forcing websites to block users or demand ID, all while claiming to protect the public from their own thoughts. A growing number of websites have chosen to simply block users rather than comply with arduous censorship demands in response to Europe’s Digital Services Act and the UK’s Online Safety Act, with many more hidden behind government-mandated age-verification making linking a real-life identity to internet use a prerequisite for access.


The U.S. government is launching a ‘Freedom.Gov’ website that will give British and European visitors the tools to access censorship-free parts of the internet they have been geofenced out of by their own governments in the name of public safety. The new initiative is the work of the U.S. State Department and led by Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers, who has been a key figure in bringing President Trump’s message of freedom to Europeans in recent months. Government insiders say the Freedom.Gov portal may feature a Virtual Private Network (VPN) tool to allow European users to bypass domestic controls and claims its use won’t be tracked.

A State Department spokesman is quoted as saying: “Digital freedom is a priority for the State Department, however, and that includes the proliferation of privacy and censorship-circumvention technologies like VPNs.” A placeholder website for the planned anti-censorship service is already active. The Freedom.Gov site first became active in January and was blank apart from the text “fly, eagle, fly”. Today, an updated landing page proclaims “Freedom is coming. Information is power. Reclaim your human right to free expression. Get ready.” In a crystal-clear message to the censorious British authorities cracking down on internet freedoms, the page also features an animated logo of Paul Revere on his famous 1775 midnight ride, warning the Minutemen of the approaching British troops.

The decision to launch the service will inevitably bring the U.S. into some sort of conflict with European capitals, given the pro-freedom move would force those governments to either defacto accept that their censorship laws will either be openly bypassed by their own citizens with the assistance of Washington, or to block Freedom.Gov, and clarify their opposition to the free dissemination of information.mThis puts Washington in the unfamiliar position of appearing to encourage citizens to flout local laws, without stopping to note this is, of course, not actually unfamiliar at all. The United States through the CIA and other agencies maintained a large network of censorship-busting initiatives through the Cold War using the latest technology of the time.

Among those efforts was Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Liberty, sending unfiltered news and other programming through high-powered broadcasts into the Soviet nations behind the Iron Curtain. This effort was something of a game of cat-and-mouse between the free West and the Communist East, with Soviet authorities attempting to block out the broadcasts with radio interference equipment of their own. In those Soviet countries, when the Western radio broadcasts did get through, those who tuned into them faced arrest “or worse” at the hands of the authorities. Today, the British government has already started to react to the use of VPNs to circumvent its new internet controls—imposed, it says, for the sake of public “safety”—and is moving to defacto outlaw them.

Pro-Freedom and anti-surveillance campaign group Big Brother Watch responded to the government’s plan to crack down on VPNs, saying: “The Prime Minister’s announcement that the government intends to restrict access to VPNs for under-16s represents a draconian crackdown on the civil liberties of children and adults alike. The only way such restrictions could be enforced effectively would be for VPN providers to require all users to undergo age-assurance measures.”

The group continues, “Having to provide ID or a biometric face scan to access a VPN utterly defeats the point of a technology designed to enhance privacy online. The ability to receive and share information absent state snooping is a vital part of living in a free democracy.” “There is a reason authoritarian governments in countries such as China, North Korea, Iran, and Belarus ban or restrict VPNs. Anonymity and enhanced privacy allow journalists, whistleblowers, campaigners, and dissidents to communicate securely,” they further urge. This latest escalation builds directly on the Trump administration’s earlier vows to counter British PM Kier Starmer’s censorship frenzy, where Under-Secretary Sarah B. Rogers warned that America would unleash its full arsenal against threats to X and free speech, treating the UK like Iran if needed.

Rogers stated: “With respect to a potential ban of X, Keir Starmer has said that nothing is off the table. I would say from America’s perspective, nothing is off the table when it comes to free speech.” It also extends Trump’s pattern of offering lifelines to UK and European dissidents, including asylum for “thought criminals” prosecuted for silent prayers or online posts challenging mass migration and gender ideology. nSources previously confirmed the White House was scouting cases, tying free speech erosion to Britain’s immigration failures.

Read more …

They don’t want transparency.

• EU Says Trump’s Tariff Workaround Violates Trade Deal (ZH)

Update (1715ET): Europe is now getting ‘legal’ over the whole thing – claiming that Trump’s new tariff workaround violates levels permitted in their trade agreement, Bloomberg reports. The European Commission, which handles trade matters for the bloc, told lawmakers Monday that the new global tariff will be added to levies that are already in place, according to Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s trade committee. The new cumulative rate means some goods would be above the 15% ceiling the EU and US agreed to in their trade deal.Under Trump’s new tariff program, some products including butter, plastics, textiles and chemicals would have levies above that 15% ceiling, according to people familiar with the commission’s assessment. The new global tariffs can stay in place for as many as 150 days.


* * * Update (9:40am ET): In response to the EU’s decision to freeze ratification of Trump’s landmark deal, the US president has come out swinging and on Truth Social threatened any countries that “play games” with the supreme court decision that they “will be met with a much higher tariff.” It just isn’t clear what the procedure for these much higher tariffs – aside from Section 122 which is limited to 150 days – will be now that IEEPA has been ruled unconstitutional.

Earlier: In the aftermath of Friday’s SCOTUS decision to reverse Trump’s tariff policy, one lingering question is what happens to the bilateral trade deals Trump struck with various countries (and which supposedly would lead to hundreds of billions of fresh investment into the US). Well, in the case of the EU we no longer have to wonder: {This] morning, the European Union said it would freeze the ratification process of its trade deal with the US and was seeking more details from the Trump administration on its new tariff program. Zeljana Zovko, the lead trade negotiator in the European People’s Party group on the US deal, said in an interview with Bloomberg that “we have no other option” but to delay the approval process to seek clarity on the situation.

The main political groups in the European Parliament say they’ll suspend legislative work on approving the trade deal on Monday, days after the US Supreme Court struck down Trump’s use of an emergency-powers law to impose his so-called reciprocal tariffs around the world. The center-right EPP, which is the largest political bloc in parliament, will be joined by parties including the Socialists & Democrats and the liberal Renew group to back freezing the process. According to Bloomberg, Bernd Lange – chairman of the parliament’s trade committee – called an emergency meeting later Monday to reassess the EU-US trade accord. He said over the weekend that parliament should delay work on the trade accord until the EU receives more clarity on the new tariffs. EU ambassadors will also meet Monday afternoon to discuss the US trade relationship.

Trump’s announcement following the court decision to impose a 10% global tariff, which he then increased to 15%, left many questions unanswered for American trading partners, stirring up more economic turbulence and uncertainty about the US policy. As a reminder, the deal struck last summer between Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen would impose a 15% tariff rate on most EU exports to the US while removing tariffs on American industrial goods heading into the bloc. The US would also continue to impose a 50% tariff on European steel and aluminum imports. The bloc agreed to the lopsided deal in the hopes of avoiding a full-blown trade war with Washington and retaining US security backing, particularly with regards to Ukraine. Parliament had been aiming to ratify the agreement in March.

Read more …

“Unless members want to further add to the deficit, Congress should intervene to uphold the tariffs retroactively. But that may not be possible.”

• The Supreme Court has Ruled on Tariffs, but Who Will Ultimately Pay? (Turley)

Friday’s blockbuster ruling on tariffs was hardly welcomed by the Trump administration, but it was also widely expected. The Supreme Court clearly established in its 6-3 decision that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not afford presidents authority to issue sweeping, unilateral tariffs like those imposed by President Trump over the last year. The justices fractured on other issues. And they left one issue conspicuously unaddressed: What happens to the hundreds of billions of dollars collected from these tariffs so far? Many of us predicted that the administration would lose this fight. That view was reinforced after oral arguments, when a majority of justices raised possible reasons why the president might not possess this power.


Then again, he does possess similar powers under other laws, which the administration has already announced he will use. Although Trump said he was “ashamed” of the conservative justices who ruled against him, their opinion is consistent with the conservative interpretive approach taken in prior statutory cases. The majority defended Congress’s core power over the purse, maintaining the balance among the branches of our tripartite system. There were good-faith arguments on both sides, but these conservative justices ruled regardless of the political or practical repercussions, based on what they believed was demanded by the Constitution. The most surprising votes were not the three conservatives but the three liberal justices, who historically have not been deterred by ambiguity in statutes in deferring to presidents.

They have repeatedly also found delegated authority in independent agencies without worrying too much about the separation of powers. Democratic politicians openly celebrated from the loss. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) seemed gleeful over the idea that the country will have to incur massive penalties, costs that could undermine the current economic growth figures. Newsom, who has led his state into a deep deficit and triggered an exodus of taxpayers, eagerly called for economic penalties for the country: “Every dollar unlawfully taken must be refunded immediately — with interest. Cough up!”

In reality, the tariffs are not going away. Trump will just have to rely on less nimble laws, but he can pursue the same policies in the name of other causes, such as securing greater market access and other concessions from foreign governments. So what about “coughing up” those past tariff dollars? Newsom may ultimately be disappointed. Unless members want to further add to the deficit, Congress should intervene to uphold the tariffs retroactively. But that may not be possible.

Democratic politicians like Newsom are not likely to want to help Trump, even if that means wounding the national economy and the federal budget. But this may offer Republicans a unique opportunity to force such a vote. Do Democrats truly want to vote to give hundreds of billions back? There are already more than 1,000 claimants. Justice Brett Kavanaugh dealt with the problem directly in his forceful dissent. He criticized the majority for its silence on whether or how such refunds would be made. Most pointedly, Kavanaugh noted that the federal government “may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the … tariffs, even though some importers may have already passed on costs to consumers or others.”

Read more …

“.. tariff collections will continue at the same level because the rates and scope remain consistent. The mechanism changes, but the dollars don’t,..”

• Bessent Signals No Retreat After SCOTUS Tariff Ruling (David Manney)

After the Supreme Court handed down a six-to-three decision limiting how President Donald Trump used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose so-called Liberation Day tariffs, his critics pounced, declaring the strategy dead. Do they know President Trump? Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent went on the air and made clear the administration isn’t backing down. One tool was whittled down, but the policy is still kicking. The Supreme Court ruled that the administration stretched IEEPA beyond its intended scope. While the statute allows emergency economic measures, the majority found that the tariff action did not fit the framework Congress had designed. The decision appeared to force surrender, but all it did was cause a pivot.


Bessent told Sunday Morning Futures host Maria Bartiromo that tariff revenue wouldn’t stop, framing the ruling as procedural rather than authoritative. He said that the administration still has multiple statutory authorities to address trade imbalances and national security threats. The objective, he said, hasn’t changed: reduce trade deficits, protect domestic industry, and pressure the foreign governments that have been gaming the system. Bessent explained that the White House will move to Section 122 authority within days, as President Trump already announced a 15% global tariff, adjusting it over the weekend to maintain leverage.Section 122 allows temporary trade restrictions to address balance-of-payments concerns, and while formal investigations proceed, it remains in effect for 150 days.

Bessent said that the administration also plans to use Section 232, which addresses national security concerns, and Section 301, which targets unfair trade practices. Commerce Department reviews and United States Trade Representative studies will support those actions. Describing the shift as straightforward, Bessent argued that the Supreme Court’s decision clarified the boundaries and strengthened the administration’s footing under other statutes. “In a way, they have made the leverage that he has more draconian because they agreed he does have the right to a full embargo,” the secretary said. “Within three days, the President can put on the Section 122 10% global tariff. So, at Treasury for the full year 2026, we foresee no decrease in revenue,” he continued.

Some budget watchdog groups warned tariff revenue would fall. Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, shared uncertainty about the long-term math, an argument Bessent rejected outright, saying that revenue projections remain intact under the new authorities. “Yes, so, Maria, let’s take a step back here. And Maya MacGuineas should be ashamed, and they should take the word ‘responsible’ out of her organization’s name,” Bessent responded. “Everything she told you was completely irresponsible, and look, where were they when the Biden administration blew out the deficit that we had a fiscal contraction last year? So she should be ashamed.”


Using the phrase “new authorities,” Bessent meant that different trade laws already on the books, not a fresh attempt at a supposed power grab. The administration plans to rely on Section 122 of the Trade Act for temporary tariffs, along with Sections 232 and 301, statutes written specifically for trade enforcement, giving the White House a firm legal foundation even after the Supreme Court narrowed the use of emergency powers. Bessent went on to say that tariff collections will continue at the same level because the rates and scope remain consistent. The mechanism changes, but the dollars don’t, while he pushed back against claims that tariffs worsen inflation or cause exploding deficits. Years of runaway spending happened long before these trade actions.

Read more …

“Everyone’s got this story wrong, that this is about me running for president. Global democracies are on fire the world over.”

• AOC Has Instagram Meltdown. It’s a Sight to Behold. (Matt Margolis)

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) traveled to the Munich Security Conference with big ambitions and came home with a reputation problem. The trip was supposed to bolster her foreign policy credentials ahead of a future Senate or presidential run. Instead, it turned into a masterclass in unpreparedness, and now she’s doing damage control in the worst way possible: a tearful late-night Instagram rant.


In the video, an emotional AOC, appearing to hold back tears, pushed back against critics who saw her faceplant in Munich, convinced she has no idea what she’s talking about. Her defense? It’s not her, it’s you, who’s the problem. “If you think that I don’t understand foreign policy because out of hours of discourse about international affairs, I paused to think about one of the most sensitive geopolitical issues that currently exist on Earth, I’m afraid the issue is not my understanding, but rather the problem is perhaps you’ve gotten adjusted to a president that never thinks before he speaks.” There it is. You can’t blame her for not knowing what she’s talking about; you’ve got to blame President Donald Trump.

Make no mistake about it, the Instagram video isn’t going to rehabilitate her, because the Munich footage still exists. And it was bad, in every sense of the word. When a panelist asked AOC whether the U.S. should commit troops to defend Taiwan if China attacks — a question any serious foreign policy thinker should be able to handle — she froze. What followed was genuinely painful to watch: “Um… You know, I think that, uh… This is such a, uh, you know, I think that this is a, um… This is, of course, a very long-standing policy of the United States, and I think what we are hoping for is that we want to make sure that we never get to that point.” She rambled for several more seconds without saying anything approaching a coherent position. Taiwan policy has been a central pillar of U.S. foreign relations for decades. This wasn’t a trick question.

That wasn’t pausing to think; that was clearly her not having the faintest idea how to respond. Her wealth tax moment wasn’t any smoother. Asked whether she’d impose one as president, AOC giggled nervously before managing this: “I don’t think that, um, I don’t think that anyone, and that we don’t have to wait for any one president to impose a wealth tax. I think it needs to be done expeditiously.”Argentine politician Daiana Fernández Molero wasted no time dismantling that position with actual evidence. “You have the recipe that many Latin American countries applied many, many times; that is some relief in the short term, but ends up being a tragedy for the future,” Molero explained.

“It’s like a public expenditure, huge public expenditure, price controls, sometimes wealth tax, and you end up with the wealth going away, and you have just the tax, and you don’t have wealth anymore. That was something that Peronism did many, many times.”Molero continued, “So all these recipes create a cycle. Then you have this short-term relief, but then it goes with inflation, shortage, then you have more poverty, and the cycle goes and goes.”

Once again, AOC came away from an exchange looking like the dumb kid way out of her depth. So she did what any entitled brat would do: she called a reporter to defend her. New York Times journalist Kellen Browning publicly confirmed that AOC “gave me a call,” and his subsequent article dutifully suggested she faced a “potentially frosty reception” and that critics missed “the substance of her arguments.” AOC told Browning, “Everyone’s got this story wrong, that this is about me running for president. Global democracies are on fire the world over.”

The left-wing media ecosystem spent years building AOC into a political phenomenon, with protective coverage that kept her weaknesses hidden as much as possible. Munich stripped all of that away. Without friendly gatekeepers controlling the narrative, her lack of depth became impossible to disguise.If this conference was her 2028 audition, she bombed it. And no amount of teary Instagram videos is going to make people forget how badly she bombed.

Read more …

“.. in the United States, the most prominent Marxist theorists actually gave up on workers altogether as allies in the fight against capitalism.”

• AOC’s Ignorance Is No Laughing Matter (Stephen Soukup)

Over the past week or so, many on the political Right have understandably enjoyed a laugh or two at the expense of Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D, N.Y.). AOC went to the Munich Security Conference to provide “balance” to the Trump administration’s presence and to burnish her own credentials on the global stage. Instead, she mostly just made a fool of herself. Not only did she stutter, stammer, and offer a Kamala Harris-esque non-answer when asked about American interests in and obligations to Taiwan, but she also demonstrated a comically poor grasp of geography and a righteously ignorant understanding of history. In an effort to rebut and embarrass U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, AOC embarrassed only herself, showing that historical facts mean far less to her than identity-inspired fiction.


But while it’s inarguably fun to chuckle at and mock the ignorance of the smug congresswoman and presumed presidential aspirant, it is also important to acknowledge that her historical and political illiteracy extends beyond the superficial and touches on matters of real and critical importance. Notably, this purported champion of the working class does not know the history of working-class politics, does not understand the reasons for the collapse of the working-class-centered ideology, and, as a result, has never contemplated the dangers inherent in attempting to resuscitate that failed doctrine. Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez has long emphasized her biography and working-class roots to enhance her political status—and justifiably so. Her childhood may not have been quite the struggle she pretends it was, but she nevertheless endured economic hardships—especially after her father’s death—and was unable to find employment commensurate with her education. She was, famously, a bartender and a cocktail waitress before her election to Congress and, as a result, has long fashioned herself a champion of the working class and its purported priorities.

Indeed, on her trip to Munich, AOC emphasized her affinity with the working class and admonished democratic nations to erect a bulwark against totalitarianism by focusing on workers, workers’ rights, and worker-centered politics. “It is of utmost urgent priority that we get our economic houses in order and deliver material gains for the working class,” the congresswoman said, “or else we will fall to a more isolated world governed by authoritarians that also do not deliver to working people.” She railed against large corporations and especially billionaires, insisting that they had to be stopped from “throwing their weight around” in domestic and international politics. In short, the good congresswoman used her trip to Munich to urge the workers of the world to unite, because, as she sees it, they have nothing to lose but their chains.

There’s only one little problem with AOC’s exhortation: it’s ridiculous. Indeed, it’s been tried . . . and tried . . . and tried. It doesn’t work. And when I say that, I don’t mean that socialism doesn’t work or that communism has been tried countless times before and failed every time. That much is obvious by now. Rather, what I mean is that the workers of the world don’t care about the rest of the workers of the world. They don’t like the idea of being divided into classes, and they don’t have any particular affection for their fellow laborers. They don’t dislike other workers necessarily, but they don’t see themselves as a monolithic federation sharing the same interests, needs, or political predilections. Truth be told—and this is the key to understanding the silliness of the whole “global proletariat” nonsense—even the Marxists long ago gave up on uniting the workers of the world. In fact, in the United States, the most prominent Marxist theorists actually gave up on workers altogether as allies in the fight against capitalism.

Read more …

“God drove him to his knees, and it was supposed to humble him, but in some cases, it made him worse.”

• Trump is Losing His Base – Mark Taylor (USAW)

Retired firefighter, Lieutenant Mark Taylor, author of the popular book “The Trump Prophecies,” predicted Donald Trump would become President five years before the 2016 Election. Many thought that was an outrageous prediction, but he was proven right. Taylor also looked like he got it wrong when he predicted Trump would be a two-term President. He was, once again, proven correct despite the four-year gap in his Administration. Now, Taylor is sounding the alarm that President Trump is losing the votes of people who gave him the biggest political comeback of all time. Taylor explains, “Here’s the prophetic warning: If you wait too late to act, the patriots are going to take matters into their own hands. . ..


There is video after video from patriots fed up as to how long it is taking to get some of this stuff done. I get emails and comments on social media, and people are feeling how hurt they are from the President. How they even feel betrayed and angry with this President because it is taking so long. Nobody has been held accountable in their eyes. I am telling you the perception of the patriots. . .. Trump is losing his base. I don’t want to see that happen. I want to see him succeed because if he succeeds, the country succeeds. There are certain things this President is doing that is hampering this process. He is waiting too long, and the patriots are getting ready to take matters into their own hands. No amount of military is going to stop this if it starts because right now, they are feeling hopeless.”

Yes, Donald Trump has done some very good things such as getting America out of the World Health Organization. Trump brought in trillions of dollars in investments and has begun removing millions of illegal aliens the Biden Administration let in with open borders. The Southern border is now closed, but the enemy is not just external, and it’s not only flesh and blood. Taylor says there is an enemy within and explains, “God is calling for a place of repentance, and that includes the people’s house, The White House. This includes who is in charge of the people’s house. . .. Susie Wiles (White House Chief of Staff) needs to be fired.

Taylor contends, “Paula White is a spiritual gatekeeper. The President has clairvoyants, psychics and remote viewers around him. He has intelligence people around him. His spiritual advisory board is completely combat ineffective in the spiritual realm. I believe Susie Wiles and her people are responsible for not only killing this presidency . . . but she has him going off track and going in a different direction, and she is responsible for killing the America First agenda. This is what a lot of patriots that I am hearing from are angry about. . .. If there is not a giant turnaround, I think we are going to hand it over to the Democrats (midterms in 2026) because the Republicans are not going to show up to vote because they lost all hope in the President.”

Taylor says, “Who has his ear is steering the President in the wrong direction. He has got to correct this at some point. He’s got to get rid of some of these people. You cannot empower the spirit of Jezebel the way Trump has and not be demonically influenced. He has to throw Jezebel off the roof and feed her to the dogs.” Taylor says he would advise President Trump to fire FBI Director Kash Patel, AG Pam Bondi, spiritual advisor Paula White and political advisor Susie Wiles just for starters. Please keep in mind, Wiles had a disastrous interview late last year with Vanity Fair where she said President Trump had an “alcoholic personality.” President Trump never drinks alcohol because he had an alcoholic brother.

In closing, Taylor warns, “You cannot have this stuff going on and expect God (The Father) to be in it. . .. God is showing me if Trump does not repent and turn back to God and start listening to God instead of his intelligence, the intelligence that is purposely trying to steer him off track, then God is showing me there is something coming for him. There is going to be a David moment, so to speak . . .. God took a child from David. I am not saying he’s going to do that. The assassination attempt was allowed. The bullet grazed his right ear. What is the right ear prophetic for? It is for what you are hearing now. He’s listening to the wrong people now. . .. God drove him to his knees, and it was supposed to humble him, but in some cases, it made him worse.”

Read more …

Send the bill to Reid Hoffman.

• Obama’s ‘Gift’ Sticks Taxpayers With $200M+ Bill (ZH)

When former President Barack Obama announced plans for his presidential center on Chicago’s South Side, he described it as a privately funded investment in the city that would give back to the community that shaped his political career. And while construction of the brutalist eyesore itself remains privately financed through the Obama Foundation, taxpayers are footing the bill for massive infrastructure costs. A review by Fox News found that state and city agencies have not produced a unified accounting of total public expenditures tied to the project’s surrounding infrastructure. While individual agencies have disclosed partial figures, no single office has reconciled those totals or clarified how they overlap.


At the time the project was approved in 2018, public infrastructure costs were projected at roughly $350 million, to be split between the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago. Those estimates covered roadway modifications, utility relocations and related improvements necessary to accommodate the 19.3-acre campus in Jackson Park that nobody asked for. In July, the Illinois Department of Transportation said that approximately $229 million in state-managed infrastructure spending had been committed to the project. That total includes about $19 million for preliminary engineering, $24 million for construction engineering and $186 million for construction activities. A department spokesperson described the earlier $174 million figure as a preliminary 2017 estimate.

Now, Chicago’s most recent 2024–2028 Capital Improvement Plan lists more than $206 million allocated to roadway and utility work associated with the project. However, much of that funding is labeled as “state,” and neither state nor city officials have clarified how the figures relate to one another or whether they represent overlapping commitments. Fox submitted records requests to several agencies, including the Illinois Department of Transportation, Chicago’s Department of Transportation, the city’s Office of Budget and Management, the mayor’s office and Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s administration – yet, not one provided a consolidated, up-to-date accounting of total public infrastructure spending. The Illinois Attorney General’s Public Access Counselor is reviewing whether agencies complied with state transparency laws in responding to the requests.

The Obama Foundation defended the project, reiterating that the center’s construction – whose cost has grown from early projections of roughly $330 million to at least $850 million, according to its 2024 tax filings – is being financed by private donations. In a statement to Fox, foundation spox Emily Bittner said the organization is “investing $850 million in private funding to build the Obama Presidential Center and give back to the community that made the Obamas’ story possible,” adding that the project is intended to catalyze economic opportunity on the South Side. Bittner, of course, didn’t address the infrastructure costs – which have been extensive.

Chicago’s 2024–2028 Capital Improvement Program lists $206,078,058 for “Obama Presidential Center & Jackson Park – Infrastructure Improvements,” with most funding labeled as state sources. (City of Chicago Capital Improvement Program) Cornell Drive, a four-lane roadway along the eastern edge of Jackson Park, was removed and traffic rerouted farther west. Utilities, including water mains and sewer lines, were relocated, and new drainage systems were installed. City and state officials have said the changes were necessary to manage anticipated traffic and visitor demand.The center occupies 19 acres of public parkland transferred under a 99-year agreement for $10, a decision that prompted legal challenges arguing that the arrangement was not in the public interest. Courts ultimately dis missed those lawsuits.

Though often described as a presidential library, the Chicago complex will not function as a traditional library operated by the National Archives and Records Administration. Former President Obama’s official records will be maintained by the federal government at a facility in Maryland, while the Chicago site will be operated privately by the Obama Foundation. The foundation also pledged to establish a $470 million endowment intended to protect taxpayers in the event the project encounters financial difficulty. According to previous reporting by Fox News, that fund has received $1 million in deposits. Who didn’t see this coming?

Read more …

“.. not only are there never results, but there’s never any accountability either ..”

• CNN Finally Admits the Truth About Democrat-Run Cities( Matt Margolis))

CNN’s Fareed Zakaria went off-script this week — at least by his network’s standards — and said the quiet part out loud: Democrat-run cities are a mess, and the politicians in charge either can’t or won’t do anything about it. Of course, this isn’t news to you, but for a CNN host to admit this is a big deal. Zakaria opened with Zohran Mamdani’s New York, calling it “a prime example of a problem Democrats seem unwilling to confront.” That’s a pretty remarkable admission from a CNN host, but I assure you, he was just getting started. “Blue cities are out of control,” he said, “promising more, spending more, delivering less, and pushing off the fiscal problems to some future day.”


He then turned to Los Angeles, and the numbers he cited are staggering. Zakaria noted that the city’s homelessness budget for fiscal year 2025-2026 alone totals roughly $950 million. Not the cumulative total over several years. One year. And what has all that money bought? He explained that the LA Homelessness Services Authority reported that homelessness increased by 9% countywide and 10% within the city in 2023. A 2024 AP account found that homelessness had surged by 70% countywide since 2015 and by 80% within the city. “All this amid public frustration, despite billions spent,” Zakaria said. Then came perhaps the most damning detail. An audit reviewed $2.4 billion in city homelessness funding and found that “officials could not reliably track where it went or what it achieved.” That’s right. $2.4 billion has just disappeared into the bureaucratic ether.

To make matters worse, not only are there never results, but there’s never any accountability either, at least not for the people running the city. Zakaria moved on to Chicago next. He noted the city has a mayor whose approval rating is “deep underwater” and pension obligations so enormous they will “surely bankrupt the city at some point.” That’s a pretty frank diagnosis coming from a guy on a network that spent years cheerleading for this very brand of governance. Then Zakaria asked the key question Democrats never ask: “What is the theory of good government here?” His answer was cutting. “If the answer is keep adding programs, the city will keep producing unaffordability, because unaffordability is what happens when government becomes a machine that grows faster than the society it governs.”

Zakaria continued, “Zohran Mamdani’s basic instinct is correct: focus on affordability, especially housing, but not by providing government subsidies. These only seem to have driven up the cost of rent, as subsidies naturally do.” Here’s where Zakaria went wrong. Affordability isn’t an instinct for Mamdani; it’s a talking point. His instinct is to subsidize. It’s not like he wasn’t upfront about this during his campaign. So all the affordability problems New York City faces are going to get worse under Mamdani. Heck, he’s already gone looking to Gov. Kathy Hochul to bail out New York City — a mere two months into his administration. That’s the pattern. Spend more. Get less. Blame someone else. Repeat.

Read more …

Trump throw nukes? I doubt it.

• Trump is Netanyahu’s Puppet (Paul Craig Roberts)

It seems clear that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has disrupted Trump’s negotiations with Iran about nuclear weapons by interjecting in the middle of the negotiations another demand- that Iran give up its missiles and its alleged proxy forces. Netanyahu’s demand is obviously intended to ruin the negotiations as the demand clearly would prevent Iran s ability to defend itself from Israeli attack. From the beginning Netanyahu has been determined to force the US to war with Iran, and that is the purpose of his demand that the deal with Iran includes the military disarming of Iran.


We see this in the news reports that the Trump regime is now considering whether the deal with Iran should also extend to Iranian missiles. Iran is willing to agree not to produce nuclear weapons, but cannot possibly agree to disarm itself of conventional weapons, especially after US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee recently acknowledged that Greater Israel is an ongoing Zionist project. If Iran has the Chinese battle control system that former British diplomat Alastair Crooke described, a US attack on Iran could result in an American defeat, the loss of aircraft carriers and US military bases in the area as well as heavy destruction of Israel. Why would Netanyahu expose Israel to this risk?

Could it be that he bets that an American defeat would lead to demand for revenge on Iran and the US would finally do what Israel wants and nuke the Iranian nation, thus removing Iran as a barrier to further Israeli expansion? Iran’s designation as a terrorist state and Iran’s alleged proxy forces are propagandistic claims used to justify a US military attack on Iran. As the world must know, the two terrorist states are Israel and the United States. Washington, for example, kidnaps foreign leaders of states, and Israel assassinates Iranian, Lebanese, and Yemeni leaders. Who has Iran assassinated ? What terrorist act is Iran responsible for?

The Israeli genocide of Palestine is reason enough for the Houthis in Yemen to oppose Israel. Israel’;s attempted expansion into Lebanon is sufficient reason for Hezbollah to oppose Israel. Perhaps Iran supplies them with weapons, but that doesn’t make them Iran s proxies. The US provides Israel with weapons. Does this make America an Israeli proxy? Insouciant Americans are unaware that Netanyahu and Washington are setting them up for a war that serves only Israel’s interest. Ever since Americans fell for the 911 narrative, they have been putty in the Israel Lobby’s hands, and their beliefs about the Middle East have been given to them by the Israel Lobby and it s many American associates. The prevailing ignorance can very easily produce a catastrophic war.

Read more …

“The Court strains to find a situation in which a former special counsel has released a report after initiating criminal charges that did not result in a finding of guilt.”

• Judge Says Jack Smith’s Final Report on Trump Can Never Be Released (ET)

federal judge on Feb. 23 said that the final report on President Donald Trump compiled by a former special counsel shall not be released. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who is based in Florida, said in a 15-page decision that she was granting requests from Trump and his co-defendants to keep part two of the report from former special counsel Jack Smith shielded from the public. Cannon said that Smith wrongly forged ahead with investigating Trump and others for allegedly violating federal law by gathering and retaining sensitive documents even after she ruled his appointment was unconstitutional and threw out the case.


“Rather than seek a stay of the Order, or clarification, Special Counsel Smith and his team chose to circumvent it, for months, by taking the discovery generated in this case and compiling it in a final report for transmission to then-Attorney General Garland, to Congress, and then beyond,” Cannon said. “The Court need not countenance this brazen stratagem or effectively perpetuate the Special Counsel’s breach of this Court’s own order.” She added later: “While it is true that former special counsels have released final reports at the conclusion of their work, it appears they have done so either after electing not to bring charges at all or after adjudications of guilt by plea or trial. The Court strains to find a situation in which a former special counsel has released a report after initiating criminal charges that did not result in a finding of guilt.”

The Department of Justice (DOJ) had appealed Cannon’s ruling, but dropped the appeal after Trump won a second term in office. The department also released part of Smith’s report just before Trump began his second term. The other part, which has not been made public, was not to be released, according to a January 2025 order from Cannon. Cannon announced in December 2025 that her injunction was set to expire in February this year. Trump and co-defendants said in filings on Jan. 20 that Cannon should permanently block the release of the other part of Smith’s report. Lawyers for Trump said Smith was illegally appointed, and all acts he undertook were thus void, so the release “would constitute an irreversible violation of this Court’s constitutional rulings in the underlying criminal action and of bedrock principles of the separation of powers.”

DOJ officials backed that position. “Put simply, Smith’s tenure was marked by illegality and impropriety, and under no circumstance should his work product be given the full weight and authority of this Department,” they said in a brief, adding later that making the second part of the report public would “lead to the public dissemination of sensitive grand jury materials, attorney-client privileged information, and other information derived from protected discovery materials, raising significant statutory, due process, and privacy concerns for President Trump and his former co-defendants.”

Read more …

Nothing to do with girls. That’s all just a cover.

• British Police Take Former Ambassador Mandelson into Custody (Manney)

Peter Mandelson built a career inside the highest levels of British power, but that career collided with a police investigation tied to Jeffrey Epstein. On Monday morning, officers with London’s Metropolitan Police arrested Mandelson on suspicion of misconduct in public office. Police transported the 72-year-old former British ambassador to the United States to a London station for formal questioning. Authorities also searched two properties linked to him in Wiltshire and Camden. Mandelson served as business secretary and twice held cabinet rank under Labour governments, later becoming the United Kingdom’s ambassador to the United States.


That role placed him at the center of diplomatic strategy between London and Washington, while also placing him under scrutiny once the newly released Epstein files revealed how deep his association ran with the convicted sex offender. Officials removed Mandelson from his ambassadorial post in September, after the extent of his relationship with Epstein became public. He resigned from the Labour Party the same day the news broke that police had opened a formal investigation into whether he shared confidential government information, the reason behind today’s arrest. Mandelson hasn’t been charged, and he’s said that documents released by the U.S. DOJ didn’t indicate wrongdoing or misdemeanor on his part. He’s stopped talking in public since the beginning of the investigation.

Law enforcement works under a long-standing legal principle: evidence found by unlawful means can’t stand in court, and anything derived from it falls with it—fruit from the poison tree. The fallout from the Epstein files works similarly in public life: Names connected to Epstein don’t come out of the washer clean when associations become liabilities, and careers erode once those ties come to light. If he understood anything, Mandelson understood influence, spending decades navigating political power inside Westminster and abroad. Prime ministers relied on him to negotiate, strategize, and manage party operations. He easily moved between government offices and diplomatic leadership, and that access is now at the center of a criminal inquiry.

It’s rare for British police to arrest former cabinet ministers, which shows that investigators believe serious questions remain unanswered. Officials haven’t disclosed the exact nature of the alleged confidential material involved, confirming only that a former government minister was arrested in connection with an ongoing investigation into misconduct in public office. This circus shows that Epstein’s network extended beyond American shores, both politically and financially. British figures repeatedly showed up in released documents and flight logs, and each new disclosure reopened old wounds, forcing political leaders to confront uncomfortable connections. Mandelson’s arrest marks one of the most significant developments inside the U. tied to those files.

European royals, government officials, politicians, and others are losing jobs and titles over their connection to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. European law enforcement agencies are opening investigations based on recent troves of documents released by the U.S. government. …

Read more …

“This year we will mark the centenary of Fidel Castro’s birth, and we will do so together.”

• The Putin Plan for Cuba and The Castro Family (Helmer)

President Vladimir Putin will not run the gauntlet President Donald Trump has established around Cuba with the Russian Navy to escort Russian-flagged tankers delivering crude oil and petroleum products to Havana. When Cuba’s Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla sat down in the Kremlin on Thursday to ask for more “solidarity, firmly demonstrated by you, the Government of Russia, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in the face of the tightening blockade of Cuba and the recent energy siege,” Putin responded enough is enough. He meant that solidarity with Cuba is one thing, but not at the risk of military conflict with the Trump Administration and its naval forces in the Caribbean.


This is Mikhail Gorbachev talking, responded the Kremlin security analysis medium, Vzglyad, not Nikita Khrushchev. “Please convey my best wishes to the President of Cuba and Army General [Raul] Castro,” Putin told the foreign minister. “This year we will mark the centenary of Fidel Castro’s birth, and we will do so together.” It is not the first time Putin has said there is nothing but historical memory to share between Russia and Cuba; and that he would trade Russia’s military positions in Cuba for its interest in business with the US. In a meeting with President George W. Bush on October 21, 2001, Putin had said he would remove the Russian military intelligence base in Cuba. “I don’t want to horsetrade or nickel and dime this thing or argue about who gets what,” Putin said to Bush in a recently declassified record. In the outcome that is exactly what Putin did – and the trade failed because Bush did not reciprocate.

In his meeting with Rodriguez, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was clearer in public what the Russian line means. “We call on the United States to show common sense and take a responsible attitude,” he said – “refraining from implementing its plans for a naval blockade of the Island of Freedom. We categorically reject the far-fetched allegations regarding Russia and Cuba, and cooperation between them, which is presumably threatening the interests of the United States or any other countries. All disputes should be settled exclusively through dialogue based on mutual respect and a balance of interests. We know that our Cuban friends are always ready for honest negotiations… All issues should be resolved solely through a mutually respectful dialogue aimed at finding a balance of interests. We know that Cuban friends are always ready for such honest negotiations. In turn, we will consistently continue to support Cuba, the Cuban people in protecting the sovereignty and security of the country.”

“I would like to reiterate our complete solidarity with our Cuban friends. I fully share the views on our relations and strategic partnership, which you [Rodriguez] have stated. I would also like to reaffirm the complete unacceptability of actions by the United States, which, as you have reminded just now, has adopted an executive order designating Cuba as a threat to US national interests. At the same time, the document says that this alleged threat is exacerbated by Cuba’s cooperation with Russia, which has been described in the document as a ‘hostile’ and ‘malign’ actor. We are confident that all states should define their national interests in a way that will include recognition of and respect for the national interests of all other countries.”

Read more …

 

 

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2025925319882870883?s=20 https://twitter.com/Real_RobN/status/2025615047423352928?s=20 https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2025707794658160837?s=20

 


 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle February 18 2026

Feb 182026
 
 February 18, 2026  Posted by at 10:26 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,  29 Responses »


Jean-Michel Basquiat Warrior 1982


• Anthropic–Pentagon Talks Stall Over AI Guardrails (ZH)
• Behind the Burnout and High Turnover Rates in the AI Industry (ET)
• Bill Clinton Just Got Brutally Dissed By His Own Party (Matt Margolis)
• The Obama Admin’s Prostitution Scandal And The Ruemmler-Epstein Connection (ZH)
• Aliens Are ‘Real’ – Obama (RT)
• Zelensky Launches F-bomb Laden Rant In Munich (RT)
• The War Party Takes Munich (Kosachev)
• The US Wants a Deal. Russia Wants a System (Lukyanov)
• The Middle East Is Splitting Into Rival Blocs (Sadygzade)
• In Defence of Sir Jim Ratcliffe (Charles Johnson)
• Trump DOJ Seeks To Dismiss Steve Bannon’s J6 Conviction and Indictment (JTN)
• Trump’s Surpising Reaction to Jesse Jackson’s Death (Matt Margolis)
• Race Hustler or Civil Rights Icon? Jesse Jackson Dead At 84 (Rick Moran)
• Regarding the Rev (Christian Josi)
• ‘Mr. Wonderful Destroyed CNN’s Anti-SAVE Act Narrative in 30 Seconds (Margolis)

 


 

AI Dalio Ed Dowd Deindustrialization was DELIBERATE. https://twitter.com/PrometheanActn/status/2023501026712539320?s=20 China

 


 

 


 


Will AI command the military?

• Anthropic–Pentagon Talks Stall Over AI Guardrails (ZH)

Contract renewal talks between Anthropic and the Pentagon have stalled over how its Claude system can be used. The AI firm is seeking stricter limits before extending its agreement, according to a person familiar with the private negotiations and Bloomberg. At the heart of the dispute is control. Anthropic wants firm guardrails to prevent Claude from being used for mass surveillance of Americans or to build weapons that operate without human oversight. The Defense Department’s position is broader: it wants flexibility to deploy the model so long as its use complies with the law. The tension reflects a larger debate over how far advanced AI should go in military settings.


Bloomberg writes that Anthropic has tried to distinguish itself as a safety-first AI developer. It created a specialized version, Claude Gov, tailored to U.S. national security work, designed to analyze classified information, interpret intelligence and process cybersecurity data. The company says it aims to serve government clients while staying within its own ethical red lines. “Anthropic is committed to using frontier AI in support of US national security,” a spokesperson said, describing ongoing discussions with the Defense Department as “productive conversations, in good faith.” The Pentagon, however, struck a firmer tone. “Our nation requires that our partners be willing to help our warfighters win in any fight,” spokesman Sean Parnell said, adding that the relationship is under review and emphasizing troop safety.

Some defense officials have grown wary, viewing reliance on Anthropic as a potential supply-chain vulnerability. The department could ask contractors to certify they are not using Anthropic’s models, according to a senior official—an indication that the disagreement could ripple beyond a single contract. Rival AI developers are watching closely. Tools from OpenAI, Google and xAI are also being discussed for Pentagon use, with companies working to ensure their systems can operate within legal boundaries. Anthropic secured a two-year Pentagon deal last year involving Claude Gov and enterprise products, and the outcome of its current negotiations could influence how future agreements with other AI providers are structured.

Read more …

“.. a median hourly wage of $15 and a median annual salary of $22,620.”

• Behind the Burnout and High Turnover Rates in the AI Industry (ET)

Across the artificial intelligence (AI) supply chain, insiders describe a precarious, high-turnover workforce with limited support and stability. This “invisible” human labor that labels data, evaluates outputs, and filters harmful material has become a revolving door of talent that navigates high-pressure gigs and burnout. Moreover, workers and industry experts say this talent churn can degrade the very AI models that workers are paid to improve. Across the board, workers who are hired to support, evaluate, or operationalize AI systems face similar challenges: high-stress environments that often involve complex tasks, unrealistic timelines, job instability, and low wages.


It’s no secret that the tech industry has long suffered from high turnover rates. Numbers vary, but many studies put the average rate of talent churn in the tech sector at between 13 percent and 18 percent. This becomes clear when considering the cost of replacing tech talent, which can be up to 150 percent of a worker’s salary, including recruitment expenses, onboarding time, productivity losses, and effects on customer relationships.Some have said that the loss of institutional knowledge alone makes worker retention critical. “People love to talk about the ‘magic’ of AI, but the work culture behind it is a meat grinder. I’ve seen talent turnover in model evaluation hit record highs because the work is repetitive and psychologically draining,” Barry Kunst, vice president of marketing at Solix Technologies, told The Epoch Times.

“When you lose a lead researcher to churn, you don’t just lose a body; you lose the ‘why’ behind the model’s safety guardrails.” Kunst said this is why he’s adamant about AI workforce stability, which he said correlates directly with model reliability. “If you’re rotating contractors every six months to keep labor costs low, your data governance will fail, period,” he said.Sovic Chakrabarti, the director of digital marketing agency Icy Tales, told The Epoch Times: “Team turnover is more common than people expect. “In some groups, especially those tied to model training, evaluation, or data labeling pipelines, churn can happen every few months.

“Short contracts, project-based funding, and constant reorganization mean people cycle in and out quickly.” Chakrabarti said he has worked on the development and support side of AI systems long enough to see patterns that, as he put it, “rarely make it into public discussions.” “That [workforce] churn absolutely leads to lost knowledge,” he said. “Important context about why a dataset was filtered a certain way, why a safety rule exists, or why a model behaved oddly in testing often lives in someone’s head. ”When that person leaves, documentation rarely captures the full story, according to Chakrabarti. “New hires inherit systems without understanding the original tradeoffs, which can quietly introduce risks,” he said.

Burnout rates among information technology workers are high. LeadDev’s Engineering Leadership Report 2025 found that 22 percent of the 617 polled engineering leaders and developers felt critically burned out at work. An additional 24 percent of respondents reported feeling “moderately” burned out, while 33 percent reported low levels of burnout. Some of this is driven by job security fears after two years of layoffs at big tech companies, but the pay for many of the workers fueling the AI revolution is often low. The Alphabet Workers Union, Communications Workers of America, and TechEquity led a study on the working conditions of U.S.-based data workers and found conditions similar to those of tech contractors in developing countries.

In a survey of 160 U.S. data workers, 86 percent worried about being able to pay their bills, and 25 percent relied on public assistance to get by. The same group reported a median hourly wage of $15 and a median annual salary of $22,620. Eighty-five percent of the study group said they’re expected to be “on call” for work, but only 30 percent reported being paid for that time. More than a quarter of respondents reported spending more than eight hours per week on call. “If there’s anything I wanted the general public to know, it is that there are low paid people [in the United States] who are not even treated as humans—just little more than employee ID numbers—out there making the 1 billion dollar, trillion dollar AI systems that are supposed to lead our entire society and civilization into the future,” Kirn Gill II, a search quality rater working on Google products at Telus, told the Communications Workers of America.

Chakrabarti said the work culture behind AI fuels these challenges. “There is real pressure to keep labor costs low,” he said. “I have seen unrealistic timelines, understaffed teams, and expectations to ‘do more with less’ while the stakes keep rising. That tension creates stress, especially when the systems affect millions of users.”

Read more …

“.. the party is so embarrassed by Clinton’s Epstein connections that they’re willing to airbrush him out of history entirely.”

• Bill Clinton Just Got Brutally Dissed By His Own Party (Matt Margolis)

The Democratic Party put together a Presidents’ Day tribute on social media that snubbed one of their most electorally successful presidents in modern history. Bill Clinton, the guy who won two terms and left office with a 66% approval rating, got left out of the party’s official image like the creepy uncle no one wants to sit next to at Thanksgiving dinner. The post from the Democrat Party’s official X account showed a “Happy Presidents’ Day” collage featuring JFK, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, FDR, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden. Notice anyone missing? The only Democrat presidents they skipped were Clinton and Harry Truman. You could probably argue that to today’s Democrat Party, all old white men look alike, but Clinton is still quite active in the party, and probably should have been included.


Naturally, the RNC pounced, retweeting the Democrats’ post with a photo of Clinton sitting next to Hillary, both looking appropriately concerned. “Forget someone again??” the caption reads. It’s the kind of burn that lands because everyone knows something weird is happening here. Fox News Digital reached out to the DNC to ask whether leaving Clinton out was intentional, but they didn’t receive an answer. The Clinton Foundation didn’t respond either. That silence speaks volumes when your own party features Jimmy Carter and Joe Biden—two presidents who collectively gave America stagflation, hostage crises, the Afghanistan disaster, and 40-year-high inflation—yet can’t find room for the guy they used to credit with balancing the budget. However, that was technically Newt Gingrich who did that. So, why did Bill get dissed? Fox News Digital offers a theory.

“Clinton, one of the most popular presidents in recent history, was not without his share of scandal. The late Kenneth Starr investigated Clinton for connections to a controversial 1978 land deal in the Ozarks nicknamed “Whitewater” dating to Clinton’s time as Arkansas attorney general. While Clinton was never charged with wrongdoing, Arkansas business partners Jim and Susan McDougal were convicted in connection with the failed Whitewater deal. Hillary Clinton had previously worked for the law firm that represented Jim McDougal’s bank. Gov. Jim Guy Tucker, Clinton’s successor, was also convicted. But the Whitewater case led Starr to discover what became the Monica Lewinsky scandal — wherein Clinton allegedly had a sexual relationship with a White House intern. On January 26, 1998, Clinton famously maintained his innocence in the face of impeachment over Starr’s case, declaring at the end of a childcare policy press conference:”

Not buying that. If presidential scandals were enough to warrant exclusion from the image, Barack Obama would never have made it. Many on social media speculate it has something to do with the fact that Clinton’s name appears all over the Epstein files. He flew on Epstein’s private jet at least 16 times between 2001 and 2003. Recently released documents include photos of Clinton with Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, including one showing a shirtless Clinton in a hot tub with someone identified by the DOJ as a victim of Epstein’s abuse.

Both Bill and Hillary Clinton recently agreed to testify before Congress about their relationship with Epstein after facing potential criminal contempt charges. Sure, they claim House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer is employing dirty tricks. Still, when your party won’t even put your picture on a Presidents’ Day card, the only possible explanation is that the party is so embarrassed by Clinton’s Epstein connections that they’re willing to airbrush him out of history entirely.

Happy Presidents’ Day, Bill.

Read more …

“The procedure for checking in prostitutes is hardly rigorous.”

• The Obama Admin’s Prostitution Scandal And The Ruemmler-Epstein Connection (ZH)

Remember Obama’s 2012 Colombian prostitution scandal? Turns out, Jeffrey Epstein was involved… Newly released Department of Justice documents from the Epstein files have exposed a previously unknown connection between a 2012 White House advance-team scandal in Cartagena, Colombia, and Kathryn Ruemmler – the former Obama White House counsel who later became Goldman Sachs’ top lawyer. Ruemmler resigned from Goldman late last week, after the latest Epstein document dump revealed her extensive, affectionate, and years-long correspondence with the convicted sex offender.


The emails show she called him “Uncle Jeffrey,” accepted expensive gifts, and turned to him for advice on sensitive legal and reputational matters – including how to respond to a 2014 Washington Post report that accused her of helping suppress evidence of prostitution involving a rich kid White House aide whose daddy was a huge Obama donor. The WaPo report, by all accounts, cost Ruemmler a job as Obama’s Attorney General.

The 2012 Cartagena Prostitution Scandal
In April 2012, ahead of President Obama’s trip to the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia, at least 20 Secret Service agents, military personnel, and others were involved in hiring prostitutes. The scandal led to multiple firings and disciplinary actions. A lesser-known element involved Jonathan Dach, a 25-year-old Yale Law student and unpaid White House advance-team volunteer (son of prominent Democratic donor Leslie Dach). Hotel records obtained by investigators showed a prostitute was checked into Dach’s room at the Hilton Cartagena shortly after midnight on April 3, 2012.

Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan briefed White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler on the evidence. The White House conducted a review, interviewed advance-team members (including Dach), and publicly declared “no indication of any misconduct” by White House personnel. Dach was later cleared and went on to work at the State Department. More recently, Dach was found to have ‘chronically violated state rules’ in his role as former chief of staff to Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont (D) by using a state vehicle as his personal car for nearly two years “and driving at speeds constituting reckless driving under Connecticut law.”

The 2014 Washington Post Revival and Ruemmler’s Response
In October 2014, while Ruemmler was in private practice at Latham & Watkins and reportedly under consideration to replace Eric Holder as Attorney General – WaPo published new details. Reporters Carol D. Leonnig and David Nakamura revealed that the White House had received specific evidence (hotel records and witness accounts) implicating a White House advance-team member but had not fully investigated or disclosed it. On October 9, 2014, Epstein emailed Ruemmler: “Doing fine. Was talking to reporters until late in the morning last night. Trying to isolate/contain wapo.”mOn October 17, 2014, Ruemmler forwarded Epstein a draft of her response to the Post reporter and asked for his input. In the draft she downplayed the allegations, writing:

“The whole thing is ridiculous – they had to obtain the record ‘under the table’ because the last thing the Hilton wanted to do is to voluntarily give over info implicating the privacy of their guests. The procedure for checking in prostitutes is hardly rigorous.”

Read more …

“When asked what question he most wanted answered upon becoming president, Obama joked that it was: “where are the aliens?“

• Aliens Are ‘Real’ – Obama (RT)

Former US President Barack Obama has said he believes that aliens are “real” but dismissed longstanding conspiracy theories that the US is concealing proof of extraterrestrial life at a secretive military facility called Area 51. Obama made the remarks on the No Lie podcast with Brian Tyler Cohen released on Saturday. Asked whether aliens “are real,” the ex-president replied in the affirmative, adding “I haven’t seen them, and they’re not being kept in Area 51.” “There’s no underground facility, unless there’s this enormous conspiracy and they hid it from the president of the United States,” he added.


When asked what question he most wanted answered upon becoming president, Obama joked that it was: “where are the aliens?” Area 51 is a highly classified US Air Force facility at Groom Lake in southern Nevada. The CIA officially acknowledged the site’s existence in 2013, when declassified documents revealed it had been used since 1955 to test the U-2 spy plane and other experimental aircraft. The facility’s secrecy sparked decades of speculation about extraterrestrial research, including theories that crashed alien spacecraft were stored there and that it was a venue for meetings with extraterrestrials. There have been a few UFO sightings in the area, but the CIA claimed they were test flights of the U-2 spy plane.

However, conspiracy theories have also been fueled by hundreds of alleged UFO sightings elsewhere. Pentagon officials told Congress in May 2022 that there were nearly 400 reports of unidentified aerial phenomena by military personnel, up from 144 tracked between 2004 and 2021. In 2024, the Pentagon stressed, however, that it had “no evidence to indicate extraterrestrial life has visited the planet.” Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump said that he was not a “believer” in extraterrestrial life, adding, though, that he had met with “serious people that say there’s some really strange things that they see flying around out there.”

Read more …

“..a $100 million kickback scheme in Ukraine’s struggling energy sector.”

• Zelensky Launches F-bomb Laden Rant In Munich (RT)

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky delivered a profanity-laden tirade urging Western countries to expel Russian citizens, including students.Speaking to Politico Playbook on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference Saturday, Zelensky called on US President Donald Trump and European leaders to ramp up sanctions against Moscow.“Europeans still didn’t put sanctions on nuclear energy of Russians, on [the state-run energy company] Rosatom, on people, on their relatives, on their children which live in Europe, which live in the United States, which study in the universities of Europe, which have real estate in the United States,” Zelensky said. “So, they have a lot of real estate, they have children, relatives everywhere. F**k away to Russia. Go home,” he added.


Zelensky’s remarks come as the US, Russia, and Ukraine prepare for a third round of three-way talks in Geneva. Moscow has criticized measures targeting Russian nationals and cultural “cancellation” abroad as Russophobia. The trip also comes amid a conscription crisis and ongoing blackouts in Ukraine caused by Russian air strikes, which Russia says aim to weaken Ukraine’s defense production. Zelensky’s reputation has been tarnished by multiple corruption scandals involving his inner circle, prompting the resignation of two government ministers and his longtime chief of staff. On Monday, anti-corruption agencies charged former Energy Minister German Galushchenko with money laundering linked to a $100 million kickback scheme in Ukraine’s struggling energy sector.

Read more …


Very correct: “Zelensky received the expected applause from Munich’s hawkish audience and once again demanded security guarantees from Washington. In plain terms, he was asking the United States to commit itself to direct war with Russia.”

• The War Party Takes Munich (Kosachev)

This year’s Munich Security Conference was not merely disappointing; it was pointless. It produced no new ideas and no added value. Instead, it resembled a rally of a self-styled “coalition of the willing” for war. That, unfortunately, is consistent with Germany’s long tradition of failing to draw the right lessons from history. Western European leaders spoke almost exclusively about rearmament and the creation of an independent military capability aimed, openly or implicitly, at confrontation with Russia. The tone was unmistakable: preparation for war, not peace. At the same time, participants repeated the familiar mantra that “more must be done” to ensure Ukraine’s victory. The contradiction went largely unnoticed. What emerged instead was a disturbing impression that Western Europe’s war party has overwhelmed everything else, including common sense and the instinct for self-preservation.


There was something unsettlingly familiar about the atmosphere. One could not help recalling Germany in the spring of 1945, when defeat was inevitable yet resistance continued with fanatical intensity, sustained by fantasies of miracle weapons. In Munich itself, Bavarian Gauleiter Paul Giesler crushed an attempted surrender on April 28, 1945 by executing Wehrmacht officers and civilians who wanted to hand the city over to the Americans without a fight. Hitler rewarded this “loyalty” by appointing Giesler interior minister the day before his own suicide. Within days, Giesler shot his wife and then himself. History rarely repeats itself neatly, but it often rhymes, and Munich echoed loudly this year.

On stage, European figures such as Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, alongside American voices like Senator Roger Wicker, openly called for supplying Ukraine with ever more advanced weapons, including Tomahawk missiles, described with an alarming casualness as if it were a modern “wunderwaffe.” The old refrain was repeated yet again: Ukraine can win, but Russia is also poised to attack NATO. This logical contradiction has become a permanent feature of Western discourse.

Washington, for its part, played along. But cautiously. This time, it sent the ‘good cop’: Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in contrast to last year’s ‘bad cop’, J.D. Vance. Gone were the blunt warnings about Western Europe’s inevitable collapse if it stayed the course. Instead came soothing assurances of American support and solidarity. Yet the underlying message remained unchanged: without the United States, the EU cannot survive. The transatlantic alliance was not restored; it was merely cosmetically repaired. Zelensky received the expected applause from Munich’s hawkish audience and once again demanded security guarantees from Washington. In plain terms, he was asking the United States to commit itself to direct war with Russia.

Germany, meanwhile, declared its readiness to rearm and assume leadership of the Western slice of Europe in a new confrontation with Moscow. At the same time, Emmanuel Macron cautiously signalled that the bloc must eventually negotiate with Russia. Albeit, if only to avoid being excluded altogether while talks proceed in a Russia-Ukraine-US format. He even floated extending the French and British nuclear umbrella to other NATO members. In other words, “all quiet on the Western Front.” Once again, the conclusion is unavoidable: there is little to be gained from dialogue with this EU. And furthermore, one is reminded why it was precisely “civilized” and “enlightened” Europe that became the cradle of the two most devastating wars in human history.

Equally telling were the subjects that never surfaced. Talk of corruption in Ukraine, or of where Western funds are going, or when accountability will begin, was absent. So too was the fate of Venezuela’s leadership and the precedent set for international law. Iran was barely mentioned, despite last year’s US-Israeli military actions and the obvious risks of escalation. Even Greenland appeared only in whispered conversations offstage. Why complicate matters, when invoking the Russian threat remains the safest and most reliable option? That, in essence, is all one needs to know about this year’s Munich Conference. A forum with a promising youth and a respectable maturity, now drifting toward ideological exhaustion.

Read more …

“Territory has, inevitably, grown in importance over time. But the core issue has remained unchanged: the principles governing security on the continent.”

• The US Wants a Deal. Russia Wants a System (Lukyanov)

After last August’s meeting between the Russian and American presidents in Alaska, a new phrase entered diplomatic circulation: the “spirit of Anchorage.” The substance of the talks was never officially disclosed and can only be reconstructed from selective leaks. The form, however, was striking: a personal greeting, an honor guard, a shared limousine. Symbolism mattered. It was meant to signal seriousness. Yet the question remains: what exactly was born in Anchorage? And does it belong in the lineage of earlier diplomatic “spirits” that once defined entire eras? The term itself is not new. Before Anchorage, there was the “spirit of Yalta,” the “spirit of Helsinki,” and, briefly, the “spirit of Malta.”


All three marked turning points in relations between the great powers during the second half of the twentieth century. Yalta in 1945 laid the foundations of the post-war world order, recognizing the USSR and the United States as its central pillars. Helsinki in 1975 codified that order, even as it quietly set the stage for its eventual erosion. Malta in 1989 symbolized the end of the Cold War and, with it, the division of Europe.These meetings differed in format and outcome. Yalta brought together three victorious powers dividing spheres of influence. Helsinki was the product of prolonged multilateral negotiations designed to stabilize a tense status quo. Malta was a bilateral encounter that effectively ratified the retreat of one side under the banner of a “new world order.” But they shared one defining feature: each sought to determine the parameters of the international system itself.

Does Anchorage belong in this tradition? Formally speaking, the Alaskan talks focused on Ukraine. That immediately raises a fundamental question. How realistic is it to reach a durable settlement without the direct participation of one of the warring parties? Such an approach is only viable if one of the interlocutors, in this case the United States, is both willing and able to compel Kiev to accept decisions taken without it. Events since August suggest that Washington lacks this capacity, despite its considerable leverage. A more convincing explanation, however, is that it lacks the motivation. Donald Trump has made resolving the Ukrainian conflict a matter of personal prestige. But prestige is not the same as strategic necessity. For Trump and the narrow circle around him, the precise configuration of a settlement matters less than the avoidance of an outright Russian victory. Beyond that, the exact line of demarcation, and the conditions under which it is maintained, are not critical.

The United States would only deploy the full weight of its political and economic power if it perceived these negotiations as shaping a new world order. That was the case at Yalta, Helsinki, and Malta. It is not the case today. Moscow, by contrast, has invested Anchorage with precisely this broader meaning. From the very beginning of the military operation, Russia has framed the conflict not primarily in territorial terms, but as a question of European security architecture. Territory has, inevitably, grown in importance over time. But the core issue has remained unchanged: the principles governing security on the continent.

Today, this is often described as the question of “security guarantees for Ukraine.” In reality, it concerns the broader system within which such guarantees would exist. This may ultimately prove the most serious obstacle to any agreement. Washington’s approach is different. The current American administration does not think in terms of comprehensive frameworks or shared rules. Its vision of world order is far more fragmented and instrumental. Control is exercised through economic pressure, military presence, and political leverage applied selectively to specific regions and problems. It is a model of targeted intervention rather than systemic design. A kind of forceful acupuncture.

In this context, agreements are not about principles, but about transactions. They are designed to deliver concrete, often mercantile, outcomes rather than to establish enduring rules of interaction. Ukraine, from this perspective, is one issue among many, not the axis around which a new order would be built. If the goal is merely a political settlement of the Ukrainian conflict, the Russian-American format is insufficient. Ukraine itself would have to be involved, as would Europe. While Europe’s strategic weight is limited, it retains a significant capacity to obstruct any settlement it finds unacceptable. Ignoring this reality would be a mistake.

For the “spirit of Anchorage” to stand alongside Yalta, Helsinki, and Malta, it would need to aim higher: at the construction of a new global political system to replace the one that emerged after the Second World War and has endured, in various forms, for nearly 80 years. Washington does not see Moscow as a central interlocutor in such a project. At most, this role is tentatively assigned to China. However, even that is far from settled. As a result, the “spirit of Anchorage” hovers uneasily between two incompatible interpretations of what the conversation is actually about.

From the Russian perspective, it is about redefining the foundations of European and global security. From the American side, it is about managing a specific conflict without altering the broader architecture of power. When the parties are not even discussing the same subject, the risk is obvious. In such circumstances, the “spirit” inevitably fades, becoming less a guiding force than a rhetorical shadow. A ghost of an agreement that never quite came into being. Could this change? Possibly, but only if events intervene that force both sides to move beyond regional calculations and confront the need for a more fundamental reordering. Until then, Anchorage remains suspended between ambition and reality, its promise unfulfilled.

Read more …

Complex.

• The Middle East Is Splitting Into Rival Blocs (Sadygzade)

Across the globe, the post-Cold War settlement that once carried the promise of Western primacy is no longer taken as an unshakeable fact. Its vocabulary remains in circulation, yet real-time history continues to contest its authority. In the space left behind, many states are seeking a different idea of order, one that sounds less like instruction from a single center and more like negotiated balance among several centers. In such a moment, regions that were once treated as arenas begin to behave like authors. The Greater Middle East is one of the first places where this change is becoming visible as a messy strategic recomposition in which security is no longer outsourced and alliances are no longer assumed to be permanent.


For decades, a simple model dominated strategic thinking in the region. Washington would remain the ultimate guarantor, and regional states would calibrate their risks inside the umbrella of American deterrence. That model did not always prevent wars, but it provided a framework for expectation. Even when trust frayed, the underlying assumption was that the US could be induced to act, and that the cost of ignoring its interests would be prohibitive. In recent years, however, the region has experienced a succession of shocks that have made the old calculus feel less reliable.

One of the most dramatic was the Israeli strike in Doha in September 2025, an operation that pushed a long-simmering anxiety into the open by showing how quickly escalation could breach political red lines in the Gulf. If such an event could occur with only limited external restraint, then the notion of an automatic security backstop began to look like a story the region told itself rather than a guarantee the system could still deliver.

It was in this atmosphere that the Saudi-Pakistani Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement, signed in September 2025, drew intense attention. It suggested that major regional players were preparing for a future in which protection would be organized through layered partnerships rather than delegated to a single patron. Analysts noted that the pact followed a pattern of disappointment with external responses, including perceptions of American restraint or hesitation when regional allies felt exposed. Whether the agreement functions as a hard war guarantee or as a strategic warning, it belongs to a wider movement in which states are building options.

Two emerging security configurations are now becoming visible across the Greater Middle East, and it is important to name their participants clearly. On one side, a prospective bloc is coalescing around Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Türkiye, Egypt, and Oman, with this core increasingly presented as a sovereignty-driven framework meant to reduce reliance on external guarantees and to deter destabilizing escalation, while Qatar, Algeria, and several other states observe this alignment with growing interest as a possible partner network rather than as a formal membership.

On the other side, a countervailing alignment is taking shape around Israel and the United Arab Emirates, whose partnership is reinforced by defense industrial cooperation and advanced technology collaboration, and whose strategic reach is further strengthened by Azerbaijan, which acts less as a conventional member than as a pivotal partner connecting overlapping networks because it maintains close ties to Türkiye while simultaneously sustaining deep security and energy links with Israel and expanding cooperation with Abu Dhabi.

Read more …

” In the 2017/18 tax year Ratcliffe was the fifth highest taxpayer in the country, footing a bill of £110.5 million.”

• In Defence of Sir Jim Ratcliffe (Charles Johnson)

Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s statement that Britain has been “colonised by immigrants” has sparked a fierce reaction. From Starmer to Bluesky, to the Athletic and all the football social media pundits in between, the co-owner of Manchester United has been bombarded with the same attack lines repeatedly. He has been called a tax dodging, racist immigrant hypocrite. Such an uproar has flared up in such a short space of time because Ratcliffe is radically different from those who have issued similar statements before. Ratcliffe is not a political figure: you do not see billionaires nor football club owners voicing discontent like this. The pushback has been fierce because Ratcliffe has no political incentive to say any of this. He isn’t running for office, seeking favour, or chasing votes — which makes his intervention harder to dismiss. Part of the backlash, too, reflects an unease that his diagnosis may be accurate.


The remarks came from an initial conversation regarding the economic challenges Britain faces in general, not solely on immigration. The snippet that has been so widely shared is merely part of a wider statement of the economic problems Britain faces; Ratcliffe refers to the issues of “immigration” and “nine million people” on benefits simultaneously. Colonised is a strong opening salvo for a figure such as Ratcliffe, who is not known for any previous anti-migration stance. This generated responses of tone policing from his critics – cries that his choice of words were “disgraceful and deeply divisive” and that “this language and leadership has no place in English football” from Kick It Out, a notable “Anti Racism” football pressure group. There was no attempt to argue or debate: this was no more than tone policing, of “mate mate mate, you can’t say that mate”. It did not engage with the substantive point. It was not an argument.

The Prime Minister has pushed for Ratcliffe to apologise. Less than a year ago, Starmer was referring to Britain as an ”Island of Strangers”; he has little argument here. Sir Ed Davey has stated that Ratcliffe is “totally wrong” and is “out of step with British Values”. Once again this is weak tone policing, not an argument. Regardless, which British values are being violated in particular? What are British values precisely meant to mean here? The fact is that Ratcliffe’s vocabulary choice is nowhere near as divisive as the impacts of mass migration in the last quarter century.

Mass migration is the most important issue in British political debate. It has bought sectarianism, Bengali and Palestinian politics swinging both local council and Parliamentary elections, a deepening of housing crisis, the rape and murder of British women from taxpayer funded hotels and programs which bloat the welfare state even further. It is undeniable mass migration has defined British politics of the 2010s onwards. It has been much more harmful and divisive than any comment made by Sir Jim Ratcliffe. His words are nothing compared to the actions of Deng Chol Majek, or Hedash Kebatu, to name a couple of examples.

Critics have also cried that Ratcliffe is “an immigrant himself, dodging tax in Monaco”. The difference between Ratcliffe and migration into Britain is so different they are almost incomparable. In the 2017/18 tax year Ratcliffe was the fifth highest taxpayer in the country, footing a bill of £110.5 million. With such an extraordinarily high bill, it is no wonder that he has since moved to Monaco. Meanwhile, the average salary of of a migrant entering Britain in 2023 (which has fallen by £10,000 since 2021) was £32,946, according to a report by the Centre for Migration Control. From this we can estimate a migrant would pay about £5,000 in income tax. That means it would take over 22,000 (statistically average) migrants to foot the tax bill that Ratcliffe paid in one year alone. Ratcliffe has been an exceptional cash cow to the British state. He has been taxed incredible amounts and contributed more to this country than almost anyone currently living; to call him hypocritical since he dared to criticise migration and its impact on the welfare state is simply not fair.

Census data from the ONS in 2021 shows that migrants from four nations – Somalia, Nigeria, Jamaica and Bangladesh – head over 104,000 social homes in London alone. With such incredible numbers of subsidised housing going to foreign born nationals, it is absolutely correct to state that mass migration is costing the British economy a fortune. The same census states that over 70% of Somali born households are in social housing in England and Wales, whilst also being of lowest contributors to income tax in the nation – paying well under the £5,000 stated per head previously. The increase and sheer scale of benefit reliance for many immigrants in Britain is not sustainable, and it is a problem that is right to be addressed.

Perhaps the most nonsensical argument presented by some is that as co-owner of Manchester United he employs a significant number of immigrant players. Bruno Fernandes is not living in social housing in Wythenshawe. Benjamin Sesko is not in a single bed council flat in Hulme. When he arrived in Manchester last year, the first thing Senne Lammens did was not register for Universal Credit. Not a single foreign player is a drain on the state. They are, as elite athletes in the most lucrative league in the world, very clearly exceptions to the norm of British migration. The difference between Bruno Fernandes, who earns a reported £300,000 a week, and the over 40% of Bangladeshi immigrants who are economically inactive should really not need spelling out. We are referring to just 17 foreign senior team players who all earn more in a week than the average migrant – or Brit – will earn in a year. It is ludicrous to even attempt to compare the two. Regardless, employing or working with immigrants does not mean you waive your right to criticise the state of affairs in Britain. As an Englishman, Sir Jim Ratcliffe has a given and inalienable right to comment on the affairs of his country.

Read more …

“The move by DOJ is extremely rare — but not unprecedented — considering Bannon was already convicted and served time in prison. ”

• Trump DOJ Seeks To Dismiss Steve Bannon’s J6 Conviction and Indictment (JTN)

In a stunning reversal, the Trump Justice Department on Monday asked the Supreme Court and a federal judge to dismiss the criminal contempt indictment and conviction of Steve Bannon for refusing to testify in the January 6 investigation by Congress, declaring such a request is in the “interests of justice” after years of politically weaponized lawfare by Democrats. The move by DOJ is extremely rare — but not unprecedented — considering Bannon was already convicted and served time in prison. “The government has determined in its prosecutorial discretion that dismissal of this criminal case is in the interests of justice,” Solicitor General John Sauer wrote in a brief to the nine justices, who were reviewing an appeal from Bannon’s lawyers.


“The government has accordingly lodged a motion in the district court under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) to vacate the judgment and dismiss the indictment with prejudice,” the motion also states The filing noted that the law “allows the government to seek dismissal even after a jury finds the defendant guilty and the district court enters judgment.” Separately, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Perro asked a federal judge in Washington D.C. to vacate Bannon‘s conviction and dismiss the indictment. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche told Just the News that the Democrat-led House January 6 Select Committee was part of a larger weaponization machine that abused the justice system.

“Today the Department of Justice told the Supreme Court that Steve Bannon’s conviction arising from the J6 ‘Unselect’ Committee’s improper subpoena should be vacated,” Blanche said. “Under the leadership of Attorney General Bondi, this Department will continue to undo the prior administration’s weaponization of the justice system.” The request to the two courts to abandon Bannon’s case is the latest twist in a five-year legal saga. The Democrat-led House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol issued a subpoena on Sept. 23, 2021, to Bannon demanding documents and testimony related to the 2020 presidential election and the Jan. 6 attack.

Bannon, a private citizen, had been a policy adviser to President Donald Trump for approximately seven months in 2017. He declined to produce any documents, and the House voted the next month to hold him in contempt of Congress. On Nov. 12, 2021, federal prosecutors in the Biden administration secured a grand jury indictment against Bannon on two counts of criminal contempt of Congress. He was convicted and served time in prison.

Read more …

“I provided office space for him and his Rainbow Coalition, for years, in the Trump Building at 40 Wall Street..”

“He had much to do with the Election, without acknowledgment or credit, of Barack Hussein Obama, a man who Jesse could not stand..”

• Trump’s Surpising Reaction to Jesse Jackson’s Death (Matt Margolis)

Jesse Jackson, the polarizing civil rights figure and race hustler, died Tuesday morning at age 84. Though his cause of death was not immediately shared, he had been previously diagnosed with a rare neurological disorder called progressive supranuclear palsy, which is reportedly similar to Parkinson’s disease. While the media will inevitably lionize him as a civil rights icon, Jackson’s legacy is far more complicated—marked by allegations of extortion, self-promotion, the notorious exaggeration of his role in the events surrounding Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination, and his blatant attempts to be seen as King’s successor in the civil rights movement. You can read more about that in my colleague Rick Moran’s piece here.



President Donald Trump, who knew Jackson for decades before their political paths diverged, has weighed in on the controversial figure’s death with a lengthy and personal statement on Truth Social, reflecting on their long relationship. And it’s not at all what I expected. Last year, Trump’s reaction to the death of Rob Reiner and his wife was rather — well, let’s just say I wasn’t a fan of it. Naturally, I was expecting something similar about Jackson, and I was surprised to see it wasn’t like that at all. “The Reverend Jesse Jackson is Dead at 84,” Trump wrote. “I knew him well, long before becoming President.” He described Jackson as “a good man, with lots of personality, grit, and ‘street smarts,’” adding, “He was very gregarious – Someone who truly loved people!”

Trump also took aim at Jackson’s critics, noting, “Despite the fact that I am falsely and consistently called a Racist by the Scoundrels and Lunatics on the Radical Left, Democrats ALL, it was always my pleasure to help Jesse along the way.” He detailed several ways he says he supported Jackson and causes important to him. “I provided office space for him and his Rainbow Coalition, for years, in the Trump Building at 40 Wall Street,” Trump said. He also pointed to his criminal justice reform efforts, writing that he “Responded to [Jackson’s] request for help in getting CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM passed and signed, when no other President would even try.”

Trump further cited his administration’s record on historically black colleges and universities. He said he “Single handedly pushed and passed long term funding for Historically Black Colleges & Universities (HBCUs), which Jesse loved, but also, which other Presidents would not do.” In addition, he noted that he “Responded to Jesse’s support for Opportunity Zones, the single most successful economic development package yet approved for Black business men/women, and much more.”

Calling Jackson “a force of nature like few others before him,” Trump also made a striking claim about Jackson’s political influence. “He had much to do with the Election, without acknowledgment or credit, of Barack Hussein Obama, a man who Jesse could not stand,” Trump wrote. Trump concluded by offering condolences to Jackson’s loved ones. “He loved his family greatly, and to them I send my deepest sympathies and condolences. Jesse will be missed!”

Read more …

“My constituency is the desperate, the damned, the disinherited, the disrespected and the despised.. ”

• Race Hustler or Civil Rights Icon? Jesse Jackson Dead At 84 (Rick Moran)

He was a con artist and a “race pimp.” He was an opportunist, a race hustler, and a corporate shakedown expert who enriched himself by using funds earmarked for “the cause” for his own personal gain. He was an admirer of notorious racist and virulent antisemite Louis Farrakhan.Jesse Jackson, who died on Tuesday at the age of 84, was all of that. He was also one of the greatest orators of the 20th century, a groundbreaking political figure, one of the best political strategists in American history, and a towering figure in local Chicago Democratic politics. You can’t look at Jesse Jackson as a one-dimensional stick figure. Like all humans, especially those who have left their mark on history, he was a mix of the good, the bad, and the ugly. You can’t simplify his sins or his enormous contributions to American politics. He was a force whose impact will be felt for generations.


There is no doubting Jesse Jackson’s impact on American history. He was the first “serious” black candidate for president in that he energized the base of the Democratic Party in a multi-racial coalition that forced the party to swing hard left. His grassroots coalition, known as “Operation Push,” was the most dynamic organization in the U.S. until a scandal brought it down.He was given the opportunity to speak in prime time in the 1984 and 1988 conventions despite finishing far behind Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis in the nomination race. Both speeches are considered among the finest convention speeches in American history. “My constituency is the desperate, the damned, the disinherited, the disrespected and the despised,” Mr. Jackson said at the 1984 Democratic National Convention in San Francisco. “They are restless and seek relief.”

“His transcendent rhetoric was inseparable from an imperfect human being whose ego, instinct for self-promotion, and personal failings were a source of unending irritation to many friends and admirers and targets for derision by many critics,” writes the New York Times. Prominent black social critic Stanley Crouch once said that Jackson “will be forever doomed by his determination to mythologize his life. That mythologizing began in earnest within minutes of the assassination of Martin Luther King in Memphis in 1968. While the rest of King’s inner circle was in shock, Jackson seized the moment, looking to wrest the mantle of “civil rights leader” from any of King’s close associates.

New York Times: “He was one of several aides who rushed toward Dr. King after he was shot. Later that night, Mr. Jackson hurried back to Chicago, parts of which were in flames in the unrest that followed the assassination. The next morning, he appeared on the “Today” show wearing the olive turtleneck sweater, blotted with blood, that he had worn the day before in Memphis. At a memorial convocation of the Chicago City Council that day, he declared, “I come here with a heavy heart because on my chest is the stain of blood from Dr. King’s head.” He added: “He went through, literally, a crucifixion. I was there. And I’ll be there for the resurrection.”

At least once publicly, he indicated that he was the last person to speak with Dr. King and that he had held his bloodied head as Dr. King lay dying. Others who were there said it never happened. Mr. Jackson’s account changed over time, from cradling Dr. King’s head to reaching toward it.If Mr. Jackson had been a figure of suspicion before, he became an object of outrage after Dr. King’s death. Some in Dr. King’s inner circle — including his eventual successor, Mr. Abernathy, and Hosea Williams, both of whom rushed to Dr. King when he was shot — questioned the accuracy of Mr. Jackson’s account and resented what they saw as his calculated grab to seize the spotlight as the First Mourner.

Over the decades, the story Jackson would tell about where he was and what he did during the assassination would go through several iterations. The storytelling revealed Jackson as a man desperate to be seen as King’s anointed successor. “If no one could replace Dr. King, Mr. Jackson was the one who spent most of his life trying,” writes the Times. It was never to be. Jackson couldn’t get out of the way of his own biases and racist dogmas. Where King reached out and begged for understanding, Jackson fueled the fires of racial division, while trying to claim he was a uniter, not a divider. His comments about New York City being “hymietown,” his friendship with Nation of Islam leader Farrakhan, and his insistence on being anywhere and everywhere a racial incident occurred in order to grab the spotlight and try to “racialize” the issue caused resentment and disgust among friend and foe alike. v

His “shakedowns” of corporate America, where he threatened companies with boycotts unless they adopted policies he prescribed (and donated cash to Operation PUSH), were outrageous and bordered on extortion. Jackson’s success as a political organizer was nothing short of astonishing. His 1988 presidential campaign was so successful that the Democrats were forced into trying to sideline him by putting up the white liberal governor of Massachusetts, Michael Dukakis.

He tried again in 1988, and this time he began as a party heavyweight. In the Super Tuesday primary on March 8, he ran first or second in 16 of the 21 primaries and caucuses. Party leaders, fearing they could not win a general election with an assertively left-wing Black presidential candidate, desperately looked for an alternative. In the end, Gov. Michael S. Dukakis of Massachusetts won the nomination, even though Mr. Jackson had earned almost seven million primary votes — 29 percent of the total.

No radical left candidate would come close to matching that total until Bernie Sanders in 2016. There is little doubt that Jesse Jackson was one of the primary personalities responsible for dragging the Democratic Party to the far left. Through his rhetoric and consummate organizing skills, Jackson made a huge impact on the Democratic Party and thus, on American history.

Read more …

“Rest in peace, Reverend. America owes you a massive debt of gratitude. ”

• Regarding the Rev (Christian Josi)

We lost an icon today. While it wasn’t entirely shocking considering his health condition, it certainly shocked me and, I imagine, many of us. He was an icon. Fought for others his entire life. Was at Dr. Martin Luther King’s side as he was assassinated. Did amazing work through Rainbow PUSH. My children watched him when he appeared on Sesame Street and thought he was cool. He was cool indeed. Imperfect? Yes, but aren’t we all… I met and befriended him later in his life. I’ll get to that.


But first, an old memory. It was 1984, and he was running for president. I was in college, living with my mother in Redlands, Calif. There is a place called the Redlands Bowl, which is sort of like a local Greek Theater… an outdoor venue. My mom’s house was a mile away. While at the time I was not a fan, I heard his speech from my bedroom. That powerful voice. And it impressed the young me. That strong, passionate voice… As for the meeting and befriending, I’ve been a longtime conservative (now libertarian) activist, but I have always sought out friends on the other side. My best friend from the other side is Dr. Julianne Malveaux, whom I used to watch on tv and get pissed off at.

When I moved to Washington years ago, a mutual friend put us together, and we became instant pals. Her work and history impressed me. Whilst rarely on the same page ideologically, our passions matched. Passion is power. No one had more passion or power than The Rev. Dr. Malveaux invited me two years ago to his annual MLK Day breakfast event. Before it began, she took me backstage. JD Pritzker was there, other important people, but I didn’t care. I just wanted to see him. In the flesh.

And what a nice visit it was. I introduced myself, and he said, “I know who you are, Josi”… as he looked me straight in the eye and shook my hand tight. It was a moment I will never forget. That’s when he won my loyalty. I saw his soul. The soul was a beautiful one.The look in his eye… the unexpected respect. We are a diverse nation. We can agree to disagree, but we cannot afford to be unkind to one another. Jesse liked everyone, as I saw firsthand. Maybe didn’t always agree, but there was respect. That’s the point. It’s not at all about partisanship; it’s about decency. Respect. Keeping Hope Alive is not a joke. It’s a fact. Now more than ever.

Rest in peace, Reverend. America owes you a massive debt of gratitude. And I owe you as well. Thank you for changing my view, for influencing me, and for your work to make our nation better.

Read more …

Too much conversation, not enough logic.

• Mr. Wonderful Destroyed CNN’s Anti-SAVE Act Narrative in 30 Seconds (Margolis)

Entrepreneur Kevin O’Leary was on CNN’s NewsNight Monday, where he wiped the floor with the panel over the SAVE Act. This bill does two simple things: It requires proof of citizenship to register to vote and a photo ID to vote. But you know how this goes — the usual suspects on the panel called it “voter suppression.” O’Leary cut through the noise with clean, clear logic, essentially making the point that it is stupid the United States hasn’t already implemented this before. Leigh McGowan, a podcaster you’ve probably never heard of, sparked the debate by declaring, “I think the thing is that the SAVE Act is a voter suppression act wrapped up as a Voter Protection Act. That is not what we’re doing here. We are trying to make it incredibly difficult for certain people to vote.”


She went on about “nationalized elections” and the “federal government taking over what is a state’s job,” invoking “states’ rights,” and lamenting that bills like the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and the For the People Act had failed (even though those were actual efforts to nationalize elections). “What we’re doing here is not that,” she said. “We’re talking about having ICE around voting places. We’re talking about taking people and making them afraid.” That has nothing to do with the SAVE Act, but I digress.

Eventually, Kevin O’Leary stepped in and did what leftists dread: He brought up facts. “This narrative has to be bipartisan by every metric,” he began. “Every 24 months, we go through this debate over and over again when every country — in the Nordic countries, in Europe, France, Switzerland, Canada, Australia — solved this problem decades ago.” He broke it down to the basics. “You’ve got to be a citizen to vote. You got to prove it. We all agree at the table on that one.”Then he landed the blow. “There’s such advancement in technology to make sure there’s no cheating. We should implement it here and get all this crapola over with. It’s getting almost boring. Every 24 months, ‘Oh, the election’s rigged!’ ‘Oh, this guy’s doing this, this guy’s doing that.’ No other country has this narrative.”

McGowan tried to defuse it with a half-joking concession. “Kevin, I agree with you. It is getting incredibly boring.” “It’s ridiculous,” O’Leary told her. McGowan, likely realizing the hole she’d dug, tried again: “We talk about this all the time. It’s incredibly boring. But it’s also not an actual problem. Like when you look at the statistics, voting — illegals voting — is not an actual problem in this country. You do need to show ID to be able to vote.”That’s not actually true. Only a handful of states actually require a photo ID to vote. Nevertheless, O’Leary replied, “But you agree, if you’re not a citizen, you can’t vote.” That forced McGowan into agreeing with the core principle of the SAVE Act. “I would agree with that,” she said, “but that’s not what the problem is.

The problem is that we have 0.001% of people that are illegally voting.” She rattled off statistics from the Heritage Foundation and the Brennan Center, trying to reduce the whole issue to a rounding error and claim that the SAVE Act is somehow unnecessary. Abby Phillip broke in again, perhaps realizing O’Leary had shifted the debate onto plain common sense. “It’s already illegal,” she reminded. McGowan echoed, “No one is doing that.”“So why don’t you just say if you cheat and steal and you’re illegal, you go to jail?” O’Leary asked. It’s a fair question. The left claims that fraudulent voting isn’t an actual problem, yet they fight like hell to ensure we don’t pass laws to enforce what they claim isn’t even happening. You can’t have it both ways.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

SKY https://twitter.com/forallcurious/status/2023522805179183424?s=20 https://twitter.com/ScottJenningsKY/status/2023498116046221337?s=20

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle July 26 2025

Jul 262025
 
 July 26, 2025  Posted by at 9:35 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  64 Responses »


Rembrandt van Rijn The Angel Appearing to the Shepherds 1634

 

• Absolutely Not – Senators Want Special Counsel to Investigate Obamagate (CTH)
• DNI Tulsi Gabbard Reacts to former DNI James Clapper Hiring Lawyers (CTH)
• Barack Obama ‘Not Going to Be Indicted’ but There’s Good News (Margolis)
• Actually, Obama Can Be Indicted. Here’s Why (Margolis)
• Revenge or Justice? (Victor Davis Hanson)
• “Baseless?” (James Howard Kunstler)
• Zelensky’s Days are Numbered, He’ll Be the Ultimate Loser (Sp.)
• Out of Grace: Zelensky Loses US Backing: Larry Johnson (Sp.)
• Zelensky Broke The American Controls – and Now Faces The Consequences (RT)
• Putin-Zelensky Summit Only Possible To Finalize Peace Deal – Kremlin (RT)
• UK Could ‘Easily’ Stab US In The Back – Patrushev (RT)
• Trump Makes Alina Habba Acting US Attorney In NJ (ET)
• Israel Just Drew A New Map – Without Saying It Out Loud (Blade)

 

 

 

 

Nunes
https://twitter.com/Real_RobN/status/1948415920554324305
Tulsi

Rebate


hack
https://twitter.com/LarryOConnor/status/1947628066974359870

judge
https://twitter.com/RodDMartin/status/1948560536066511060

 

 

 

 

Sundance points out that a special counsel is counterproductive, because it won’t have the cross-agencies (silos) powers that Tulsi has. Guess the fact that Lindsey Graham is the one asking for a special counsel, should alert us.

• Absolutely Not – Senators Want Special Counsel to Investigate Obamagate (CTH)

Senator Lindsey Graham (Judiciary Committee) and Senator John Cornyn (SSCI) are requesting Attorney General Pam Bondi to appoint a special counsel to look into the Obama administration’s weaponization of the U.S. Intelligence Community to target Donald Trump with fabricated smears and false evidence using a fraudulent Russia connection. This should be an immediate hard no for a few reasons. Number one, the special counsel process is where investigations go to die intentionally as a design of the legislative branch defense process. Second, the special counsel would not have cross-silo access to exfiltrate information unless it was accompanied by very specific Presidential authority. It just will not work. The intelligence community information that exposes the plot will be found in very distinct ‘silos’, essentially the intelligence agencies that house the information.

Additionally, inside each of the silos there is a formal and informal process to designate that information based on its internally defined national security value. An example of silo retention can be found in the issue of the FBI housing information in “prohibited access” files. These files are not even discoverable by most internal search efforts. Within the Sentinel system there are “Restricted Access” files that are used to control who can view the file information (sources and methods etc.). The FBI or investigative official (think authorized special counsel) can see the file but cannot access the information within it without a higher clearance level. In these files the Special Counsel can request access and then review. However, recently people discovered there are “Prohibited Access” files that makes the file invisible to both outside and inside searches or queries and are exclusively controlled by the FBI Director and FBI Deputy Director.

This is an example of a sub-silo (secret file keeping) within a distinct silo (FBI, Sentinel system). A special counsel would never discover the “prohibited” files, because there’s no way from outside the system to find it. It’s a little complicated but DNI Tulsi Gabbard has been finding, declassifying and releasing these ‘prohibited access’ types of information, because as Director of National Intelligence -her clearance and position- allow her to gain full administrative level access to the entire metadata of IC information. Tulsi can essentially log into all of the 18 intelligence agencies and review everything in the data storage system. A special counsel, regardless of authority, cannot do this. President Trump can demand full administrative access for himself and so can DNI Tulsi Gabbard. The rest of the silo administrators can only see the information inside their silo.

This limited access issue is how the intelligence agencies hide information. They rely on the inability of external reviewers to see the full scope and then cross reference to all other silos using the same terminology, data points and search sequences.

EXAMPLE – Making up an operational name like “Zero Footprint“, when DNI Tulsi Gabbard is looking at that operation, she can see the full scope of information related to Zero Footprint as the information goes from the White House (finding memo) to the CIA, to the State Dept, to the Pentagon, to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), possibly to the Joint Chiefs and then beyond to international partners (whole or part information shared). DNI Gabbard can see the entire continuum, cross reference each step in the process, see who handled the organization, communication, logistics, assignments and track each process, which enables her to map the inputs and outcomes along with the timeline. She can even see the briefings (or lack therein) to the Gang of Eight or PDB as they are recorded.

A special counsel has nowhere near this capacity. In the example above, the research required to find, extract, cross-reference, organize and then assemble the totality of all information related to such a large intelligence operation (fyi, Zero Footprint was real), takes a lot of time and effort. Tulsi Gabbard is able to designate very specific aides to assist in this process, but the demand on her time is extreme even with help. DNI Gabbard recently told Fox News (video below) she was/is using AI as a tool to do autonomous spider crawls through the various silos looking for information that pertained to specific points, phrases, times, dates and people within the 18-agency silo system. Hundreds of thousands of “return positive” files must then be sifted and reviewed for connection to the participants, and again timelines become the key.

This is a big shift in the use of AI data search engine capability within the national security information space; however, it is exactly what I have been talking about for the past several years as I traveled back and forth to DC. Now, keep in mind what I am describing above is “non-public” information. If you want to really understand the insanity of how the silos operate, you need to accept the same filing and hiding system exists even within public information. The congressional staff don’t even know what the other congressional staff are doing with information from within two different committees, like the Senate Judiciary Committee (FISC oversight) and the Senate Homeland Security Committee (DOJ-NSD), or Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (FBI – Cointel).

In essence, there is little to no information sharing within the silo process, even within the guys on the “same team,” and making matters worse sometimes a research team can gain information that is much more pertinent to the other guys looking at similar issues from within another silo. Discovering this is beyond frustrating; however, it does explain how independent researchers who share on open-source crowd sharing platforms can walk down a research trail much faster. Bottom line, a Special Counsel is an exercise in futility, unless that special counsel has the same review and extraction capability as President Trump and/or DNI Tulsi Gabbard. The best option is a team of investigators within Tulsi Gabbard’s office to continue the digging and connecting the information; then share the discoveries with DOJ officials. Previously, I said a small group within the National Security Council might also be able to deliver a similar outcome. Lastly, a tip-line allowing the private sector crowdsourcing to push puzzle pieces toward the research team might also be a big help.

Read more …

“Our representatives were never representing us. The true DC enemy is ‘We The People‘..”

• DNI Tulsi Gabbard Reacts to former DNI James Clapper Hiring Lawyers (CTH)

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard appears with Greta Van Susteren to discuss the ongoing release of Intelligence Community documents showing how President Obama intelligence officials conspired to manufacture a false intelligence assessment, frame Donald Trump and begin the Trump-Russia narrative. At the end of this trail of manufactured evidence, we will inevitably end up at the Robert Mueller investigation. The continuum of the Trump-Russia narrative starts with Hillary Clinton (Fusion GPS, Perkins Coie), then transfers to the FBI (James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok); which includes the DOJ National Security Division (AG Lynch, DAG Yates, Mary McCord), then goes through the backdoor to Barack Obama (Susan Rice, Lisa Monaco) and the Legislative Branch (SSCI), and eventually elevates with DNI James Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan manufacturing the 2017 intelligence product.

All of that collective effort, all of the former created inputs, eventually culminates into the Robert Mueller Special Counsel (Andrew Weissmann) and the Lawfare ideologues charged with upholding the manufactured premise. In my opinion, the greatest legal exposure is going to be with the Mueller team because that group intentionally and purposefully knew the information being received was fraudulent – yet they used it anyway. Keep in mind that John Durham laid the Mueller/Weissmann probe naked to their enemies. Unfortunately, Weissmann and Mueller do not have enemies in Washington DC, amid any party {. Our representatives were never representing us. The true DC enemy is ‘We The People‘ – and we choose to fight them. When Robert Mueller (silo 2) appeared before a congressional committee in June 2019 to answer questions about his Russia election interference report, he was asked about the origination of Trump-Russia.

Mueller’s jaw-dropping response was, “That was not in my purview.” Wait, how can your existence be predicated on investigating Trump-Russia, and yet the origin of Trump-Russia is not in your “purview”? See the problem?!

Read more …

The Supreme Court created a lot of leeway for what a president does in his official capacity. In what capacity did Obama sonspire against Trump?

• Barack Obama ‘Not Going to Be Indicted’ but There’s Good News (Margolis)

Thanks to the evidence already released by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, it’s now clear that Barack Obama engaged in corrupt efforts to sabotage President Trump. And we’re likely just scratching the surface. More damning revelations are almost certainly on the way. Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean Obama will ever see the inside of a courtroom, let alone a jail cell, even if he deserves it. But don’t confuse a lack of prosecution with vindication. During a recent appearance on Real America’s Voice, investigative journalist John Solomon joined Steve Bannon to unpack the formation of a new Department of Justice Strike Force reportedly focused on unraveling the criminal conspiracy behind the Russia collusion hoax and the government’s weaponization against President Trump. And while Obama’s fingerprints are all over the operation, Solomon made it clear that a formal indictment is highly unlikely.

“What the team will do is they’ll bring in all the different skill sets,” Solomon explained. “I think the National Security Division will be brought in. Ironically, that’s the same division that pursued Donald Trump on the classified documents but took a dive on Joe Biden’s.” According to Solomon, this newly formed strike force is modeled after the methods used to break down organized crime families. The process will focus on collecting “overt acts of the conspiracy,” then analyzing the timeline to determine whether the statute of limitations applies or if charges can be brought due to long-hidden evidence. Grand juries, subpoenas, and strategic interviews are all expected. “There’ll be lots of work and then there’ll be grand jury subpoenas. There’ll be significant interviews going on,” Solomon said. “You’ll look for your cooperating witnesses.”

The goal? Reel in the smaller fish first. “One of the things that they do is they roll up people on the low end of the scale early, and then they try to get them to turn on their bosses and get us the truth,” he said. It’s the same strategy that brought down mob bosses and drug kingpins, and now it’s being turned inward, toward the deep state.Names like John Brennan and James Comey are among those believed to be in the DOJ’s crosshairs. But then came the elephant in the room: Barack Obama. “If the ultimate targets are someone like a John Brennan or … James Comey or Barack Obama — who, by the way, is not going to be indicted. Anyone who thinks Barack Obama’s going to be indicted: it’s not going to happen,” Solomon admitted.

That legal shield, ironically, may come courtesy of Donald Trump himself. “President Trump’s immunity victory last year in the Supreme Court’s gonna protect Barack Obama. Barack Obama should send a thank-you card to Donald Trump,” Solomon quipped. But while Obama may avoid prosecution, that doesn’t mean he’s off the hook entirely. “You could imagine a scenario where they lay out a conspiracy, and Barack Obama is named as an unindicted co-conspirator,” Solomon continued. “That would be one hell of a legacy for the 44th president.” Indeed, while Obama will almost certainly avoid legal consequences, the political and historical fallout could be devastating. If he’s officially named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a plot to frame his successor, and the people who carried out that plot end up in prison, his legacy won’t just take a hit; it’ll be permanently disfigured. It’s hard to claim innocence when everyone who did your bidding goes down for the crime.

A scenario like that isn’t something CNN or MSNBC can memory-hole, no matter how hard they try. No, Barack Obama won’t be frog-marched out of his Martha’s Vineyard mansion. But if this investigation follows through, the myth of his “scandal-free” presidency could collapse under the weight of a conspiracy that once masqueraded as patriotism but now reeks of abuse, corruption, and cover-up. Obama may not go to jail, but history may render its own indictment.

Read more …

SCOTUS: “The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law.”

• Actually, Obama Can Be Indicted. Here’s Why (Margolis)

This week, investigative journalist John Solomon told Steve Bannon that despite all the evidence that has been declassified linking Barack Obama to the Russiagate hoax, Obama won’t and can’t be indicted for his role in the Russian collusion hoax. “Anyone who thinks Barack Obama’s going to be indicted: It’s not going to happen,” Solomon admitted. “President Trump’s immunity victory last year in the Supreme Court’s gonna protect Barack Obama. Barack Obama should send a thank-you card to Donald Trump.” But is Solomon right? The case Solomon is referring to, Trump v. United States (2024), was, of course, extremely consequential, but also widely misunderstood. Democrats branded the ruling as the Supreme Court granting “blanket immunity” for presidents, but that’s not what it does at all.

While the Court recognized a degree of immunity for official acts of the presidency, it drew a sharp line between what a president does in his constitutional role and what he does as a private individual or political actor. From the ruling itself: “It is these enduring principles that guide our decision in this case. The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law.” With that in mind, the ruling does not give presidents the power to break the law with impunity. If a president lies to federal investigators, commits fraud, or abuses power outside the scope of his official duties, he can still face prosecution. The Court explicitly left the door open for criminal charges—even against sitting or former presidents—if the conduct in question was personal, political, or unrelated to the legitimate functions of the presidency.

And, let’s be honest: What Barack Obama did during the Russian collusion hoax wasn’t just political—it was a calculated abuse of power far outside the bounds of his official role. If a president lies to federal investigators, forges documents, or uses the office for personal or political revenge, those are not protected actions. He can be charged under the same criminal statutes as anyone else. For example, 18 U.S.C. § 1001 makes it a crime to lie to federal officials. Wire fraud, under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, covers schemes involving deceit through electronic communication. Other statutes—like aiding and abetting (18 U.S.C. § 2), being an accessory after the fact (18 U.S.C. § 3), or even seditious conspiracy (18 U.S.C.§ 2384)—can all apply if the president helps orchestrate or cover up unlawful acts.

That brings us to the documents released by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, which suggest Barack Obama may have done exactly that. The material is nothing short of explosive. It confirms that Obama’s inner circle—including James Clapper and John Brennan, under Obama’s direction—engineered a political smear campaign disguised as an intelligence assessment. According to the files, a high-level meeting in December 2016, led by Obama’s top national security officials, launched the coordinated leaks to the media about so-called Russian election interference—even though pre-election intelligence assessments found no such evidence.

“The evidence that we have found and that we have released directly point to President Obama leading the manufacturing of this intelligence assessment,” Gabbard stated. So obviously, the evidence suggests Obama is not innocent. The only real question now is whether he’ll ever be held accountable—or if the system will once again protect one of its own. That’s an entirely different question.

Read more …

“Obama-era officials and Clinton-campaign activists destroyed President Trump’s own credibility to sustain a workable relationship with a nuclear Russia..”

• Revenge or Justice? (Victor Davis Hanson)

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard just released a trove of apparently once-classified documents — with promises of much more to follow. The new material describes the role of the Obama administration’s intelligence and investigatory directors — purportedly along with former President Barack Obama himself — in undermining the 2016 Trump presidential campaign. In addition, their efforts extended to sabotaging the 2016-2017 presidential transition and, by extension, the first three years of the Trump presidency. The released documents add some new details to what over the last decade has become accepted knowledge. Congressional committees, special prosecutors, and the inspectors general had all previously issued reports that largely confirmed the general outlines of the skullduggery that began in 2015-16.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign, later aided by the top echelon of the FBI, CIA, and the Director of National Intelligence, sought — falsely — to seed a narrative that Trump had colluded directly with Russia to win unfairly the 2016 election. When that campaign gambit failed to alter the 2016 results, the Obama administration doubled down during the transition to undermine the incoming Trump presidency. Next, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s “all-star” legal team found no evidence of direct Trump-Putin collusion to hijack the election. But his investigation did sabotage 22 months of Trump’s first term, marked by constant leaks and hysterical rumors that Trump was soon to be convicted and jailed as a “Russian asset.” By 2020, the frustrated intelligence agencies and former “authorities” now absurdly further lied that Hunter Biden’s incriminating laptop had “all the earmarks” — once again — of Russian interference.

So, what could be new about Gabbard’s latest release? One, after the 2016 election of Donald Trump but before his inauguration, Obama convened a strange meeting with his outgoing intelligence and investigatory heads — CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, FBI Director James Comey, National Security Advisor Susan Rice, and a few others. Contrary to a four-year Democratic Party narrative that “18 intelligence agencies” had long claimed Russian collusion, the top directors apprised Obama that their expert colleagues had found no such evidence of Trump-Putin collusion. Yet outgoing President Obama allegedly directed them to ignore such an assessment. Instead, they began spreading narratives that President-elect Trump had been colluding with the Russians. Leaks followed. Media hysteria crested. And soon Mueller and his left-wing “dream team” of lawyers targeted President Trump.

Further new information may confirm that Brennan’s CIA — and those he briefed in the Oval Office — had known for some time that the Russians themselves were confused about why they were falsely being accused of colluding with Trump to rig the election. Of course, Russian operatives, like their Chinese counterparts, often seek to cause havoc in American institutions, such as hacking emails or spreading online disinformation. But they may have been nevertheless curious why Hillary Clinton was making such false accusations that they were working directly with Trump, and why the Obama administration was acting upon them. Obama has now claimed these new charges are outrageous and beneath the dignity of the presidency. He did not, however, flatly contradict the new information. He should have issued an unambiguous denial that he had never ordered his intelligence chiefs in December 2016 to ignore their associates’ assessments and instead to assume Trump’s collusion with Putin.

These sustained efforts of the Clinton campaign, Obama appointees, and ex-intelligence chiefs and their media counterparts between 2015 and 2020 severely undermined the 2016 Trump campaign. They bushwhacked the 2017 presidential transition. They hamstrung the Trump presidency. And they may well have hurt Trump’s 2020 election bid. Summed up, here is the damage caused by the Trump-Putin collusion lies: 1. They emboldened “experts” in 2020 to again lie blatantly and shamelessly to the American people that the incriminating Hunter Biden laptop was yet another fake product of Russian interference to help reelect Trump. 2. The media were equally guilty. Journalists partnered with current and ex-Obama appointees by disseminating fake documents like the Steele dossier and working with giants like Twitter and Facebook. During the 2020 campaign, the FBI and social media sought to censor accurate news stories that the laptop was indeed authentic and already verified as such by the FBI.

3. These operations may have had serious consequences for U.S. foreign policy. Dictatorial Russia is an adversary of the U.S. But by needlessly and falsely claiming that Russia had intervened in two elections directly to partner with Trump, Obama-era officials and Clinton-campaign activists destroyed President Trump’s own credibility to sustain a workable relationship with a nuclear Russia. In addition, the lying and extra-legal operations of the FBI and CIA only further convinced the paranoid Russians that they could not trust the U.S. government — given it had been engaging in the very conspiracy lies that were more akin to its own than America’s. Obama, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, and others will likely never face legal consequences for the damage they’ve done to our institutions and foreign policy. But that does not mean they should be exempt from an ongoing and disinterested effort to find and finally expose the whole truth.

Read more …

“If you can arrest a former president named Donald Trump, you can arrest a former president named Barack Obama.” — Peachy Keenan on “X”

• “Baseless?” (James Howard Kunstler)

Don’t you think it’s time for The New York Times to stop using the cliché “baseless” when referring to allegations — now, actually, official accusations— of the seditious conspiracy to run President Trump out of office after the 2016 election? Of all the fake “journalistic” blurts emanating from this bastion of degenerate sell-outs, “baseless” is the fakest, as if the word printed in a headline were so magically potent, the sheer assertion of it can make all your problems just — poof! — go away. It’s the thought process of wicked children who fail to develop a sense of true or false, right or wrong, who grow into adults specially licensed, by some new perversion of the social contract, to get away with anything. And those wicked children have become America’s managerial class, the elite who are supposed to do your thinking for you op-ed style, the credentialed experts, such as Tony Fauci, “economist” Paul Krugman, DEI avatar and NPR honcho Katherine Maher, Harvard law prof Lawrence Tribe. . . the list is interminable, but you get the picture.

This class is also the owner / operator of America’s political Deep State, which by 2016 had grown into a colossal racketeering operation, money-laundering gazillions of taxpayer dollars into NGOs dedicated to the country’s cultural and political destruction while it processed campaign donations into fantastic fortunes for people officially earning less than $200-K a year. The racket also managed to pay for the support of multitudes allergic to working for living, as long as they were available for riots and ballot-harvesting drives. It was working at such a high pitch by the end of Barack Obama’s two terms, with the most stupendously privileged creature in the Boomer bestiary ready to take her “turn” in the Oval Office — after amassing a $300-million-plus fortune serving as US senator (salary, $174-K / year) and Secretary of State (salary $199,700 / year, then) — that you must imagine the mighty freak-out at the prospect of one Donald John Trump, outsider vulgarian extraordinaire, promising to step in and drain the whole massive, putrid, necrotic, parasitical nepo-infested quagmire of predatory grifters, leaving them gasping for their lives on the stinking Potomac mudbanks like so many grunions dying on the beach at Redondo.

Barack Obama, apparently, Darth Vadar-ized himself and was handed a light-saber (Hillary’s Steele dossier) by John Brennan, Grand Duke of Planet Intel. . . and the rest should have been history — but instead festered in the US body politic for more than ten years like an inflamed tuberculoma and is now bursting out of the Beltway’s peritoneal cavity in a spectacular spray of ordure, sticking to everyone and everything like a thousand tails pinned on the everlasting Democratic donkey. Alas, Babylon-on-the-Potomac. . . . Also: “baseless,” my ass. . . . The basis for all this mischief is in the process of having proof supplied by the one figure, DNI Gabbard, in a position to retrieve the evidence, in writing, from the various heavily ring-fenced agencies over which she is the ultimate overseer, which has not been done before, especially back in the crucial weeks of late 2020 when John Ratcliffe was in that position. The reason Tulsi succeeded this time where Ratcliffe did not is probably due to newly available A-I systems which make collation of cross-searches much easier through the countless servers of the many intel agencies. And so, now it pours forth day by day.

That’s where things stand and the dust has not even begun to settle, with former President Obama seemingly hoisted on the petard of his own making back in December of 2016. Whether or not all the declassified info can be crafted into prosecutable cases is not yet determined, but you might imagine it will come together soon enough, if at all possible. It may not add up to treason per se, but there are plenty of other serious charges generally proceeding from deprivation of rights under color of law (18 U.S.C. § 242), to seditious conspiracy, i.e., overthrow of the president (18 U.S.C. § 2384) to stuff a number of former officials into orange jumpsuits behind bars.

Read more …

“The longer that Zelensky holds on and continues the fight with the encouragement of the West, he’s going to lose more and more..”

• Zelensky’s Days are Numbered, He’ll Be the Ultimate Loser (Sp.)

“Russians hold all the cards. Zelensky has no cards. All he can do is play games and placate Trump,” says Michael Maloof, former senior security policy analyst in the US Office of the Secretary of Defense, in an interview with Sputnik. According to Maloof, Zelensky is stalling for time, hoping to paint Russia as an unreliable negotiator and gain favor with Trump. The Kremlin, however, has stated that any Putin-Zelensky talks are premature, as no common ground exists yet. “The longer that Zelensky holds on and continues the fight with the encouragement of the West, he’s going to lose more and more,” Maloof warns.

Zelensky is also facing unrest at home. On July 22, Ukrainians protested his attempt to take control of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO). “I think the internal strife is going to have to be accelerated to the point where [Zelensky] is going to have to focus all of his attention on that if he intends to survive politically. But I think his days are numbered,” says Maloof. He suggests that Ukrainians may soon act to “get what’s left of Ukraine back on a stable footing with proper governance and representation.”

“Right now, the Russian perspective is that Zelensky is not a valid leader because his term had expired as president and he’s operating under martial law,” the analyst points out. Western support is also faltering, particularly after Zelensky’s controversial NABU/SAPO law, which contradicts the 2015 Ukraine–US–EU agreement on governance and foreign oversight. The West still holds financial leverage over Ukraine, while “the ultimate loser in the end will be Zelensky,” Maloof concludes.

Read more …

“There is nothing that Zelensky can point to where he can say, hey, I’ve got great support here, and I’m in good favor with Washington..”

• Out of Grace: Zelensky Loses US Backing: Larry Johnson (Sp.)

Volodymyr Zelensky is facing his first wave of mass protests since 2022 — and it’s a bad omen for him, veteran ex-CIA and State Department official Larry Johnson tells Sputnik. The trouble has brewed for the past month, according to the pundit. “We had a news article by Seymour Hersh… that indicated that his sources from the CIA and Department of Defense were telling him that Zelensky was on his way out, that they’re going to get rid of him,” Johnson says. Johnson says the first impression is the protests looked staged: Pre-printed signs, some oddly in English, while Ukrainians mostly speak either Ukrainian or Russian.

Protested Zelensky’s power grab over the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), but not forced conscription, or the failure to return bodies and pay families who have lost loved ones in the war. “The fact that there are rumors circulating that Washington wants to get rid of Zelensky is a sign that the relationship is not what it was two years ago under Biden,” the CIA veteran says. Zelensky tried to appoint his ex-Defense Minister Rustem Umerov as ambassador to the US, but Washington rejected it. Despite promises, Trump has no weapons to send — just deals to sell arms to Europe to pass to Ukraine. Signs show the US has grown tired of Zelensky. “There is nothing that Zelensky can point to where he can say, hey, I’ve got great support here, and I’m in good favor with Washington,” Johnson concludes.

Read more …

If anyone wants to get rid of anyone else in Kiev, they just accuse them of corruption and embezzlement. Can’t miss.

• Zelensky Broke The American Controls – and Now Faces The Consequences (RT)

On July 22, large-scale demonstrations broke out in major Ukrainian cities – Kiev, Lviv, Kharkov, and Odessa – and continue to this day. The protests erupted after the Verkhovna Rada (the Ukrainian Parliament) approved a law limiting the authority of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), effectively placing them under the control of the Office of the Attorney General. This legislation came shortly after NABU and SAPO launched an investigation into former Deputy Prime Minister Aleksey Chernyshov, one of Zelensky’s closest allies. Officials in Zelensky’s Office claimed that the reform was necessary to improve coordination among government bodies amid ongoing military operations and to combat Russian influence over anti-corruption institutions.

However, public outrage stemmed not only from the law itself but also from the rapid centralization of power in Ukraine. Protests persisted even after Zelensky restored the independent functioning of NABU and SAPO. Below, RT explores the motives behind the dismantling of these anti-corruption agencies and why the protests pose a threat to Zelensky’s administration. When Vladimir Zelensky took office in 2019, he vowed to support anti-corruption efforts, urging anti-corruption agencies to investigate all cases and hold even high-ranking officials accountable. However, those promises were never fulfilled. On July 22, the Rada passed Bill No. 12414, originally addressing amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code related to disappearances of people during wartime.

However, MPs from Zelensky’s Servant of the People party added amendments that effectively restructured NABU and SAPO, placing them under the control of the Attorney General, who is appointed by the president. Notably, many MPs who voted in favor of the bill and received it with applause are themselves under investigation by these anti-corruption bodies. The official justification for targeting NABU and SAPO was the investigation into Chernyshov, a presidential ally considered a candidate for prime minister, who faced allegations of abuse of power and illicit enrichment. A major corruption scandal in the construction sector emerged, making Chernyshov the highest-ranking official within the president’s team to be embroiled in such an inquiry.

According to the publication Ukrainskaya Pravda, Zelensky ordered the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) to protect Chernyshov from arrest. Despite the allegations, the court did not suspend him from his post; however, he was eventually dismissed, and the ministry disbanded. Another notable case involves NABU’s investigation into Rostislav Shurma, the former deputy head of the President’s Office. After the case was initiated, he fled to Germany. In July, German authorities, in collaboration with NABU, conducted a search of his residence in the suburbs of Munich. NABU was preparing charges against Timur Mindich, a long-time friend of Zelensky and co-owner of Studio Kvartal-95, Ukrainskaya Pravda reported. He is suspected of embezzlement in the energy sector and drone production.

Sources indicate detectives may possess recorded conversations involving Mindich in which Zelensky is mentioned. These cases involving the Ukrainian leader’s close associates triggered the crackdown on the anti-corruption agencies. This narrative has been confirmed by The Times and The Economist. On July 21, the SBU and prosecutors conducted extensive searches related to NABU employees, targeting over 80 locations nationwide. Law enforcement acted aggressively, using armed groups to force people to the ground without presenting search warrants. Later, the agency reported the detention of Ruslan Magomedrasulov, the head of NABU’s regional office. Investigators claim his father is a Russian citizen, and he failed to disclose this before obtaining access to state secrets. Allegedly, he assisted his father in conducting business in Russia, and his mother reportedly receives a pension from the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and “makes pro-Russian comments” online. He is expected to face charges for “aiding Russia.”

Read more …

Putin already has a job. He can’t go sit at a table for endless negotiations.

• Putin-Zelensky Summit Only Possible To Finalize Peace Deal – Kremlin (RT)

A summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky should only take place to finalize a peace settlement, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said. Zelensky has repeatedly called for a face-to-face meeting with Putin in the past several months. The Ukrainian delegation has also proposed the idea during rounds of bilateral talks in Istanbul, framing such a summit as essential to ending the conflict. While the Kremlin has not ruled out a possible Putin-Zelensky meeting, Russian officials have consistently emphasized that the groundwork must be laid first.

“A summit meeting can and should put a final point in the settlement and record the modalities and agreements that are to be developed in the course of expert work. It is impossible to do the opposite,” Peskov told reporters on Friday. Following the third round of Russia-Ukraine talks in Istanbul this week, the Kremlin spokesman accused Kiev of prematurely pushing for a summit. “They are trying to put the cart before the horse,” Peskov said, stressing that “work needs to be done, and only then can the heads of state be given the opportunity to record the achievements that have been made.” Moscow has consistently pointed to concerns about Zelensky’s legal authority.

While Russia has stated it is open to negotiations with him, officials have warned that any documents signed under Zelensky’s name could face legal challenges in the future. Zelensky’s presidential term expired in May 2024. He has refused to hold new elections, citing the ongoing state of martial law in Ukraine. Russia has argued that his status as head of state is no longer valid and that legal authority in Ukraine now lies with its parliament. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has suggested that Zelensky’s insistence on meeting both Putin and US President Donald Trump may be aimed at getting “a massive legitimacy boost” and using the meetings as a pretext to further delay elections.

Read more …

“The United Kingdom would not hesitate to sabotage a potential thaw in US-Russia relations..”

• UK Could ‘Easily’ Stab US In The Back – Patrushev (RT)

The United Kingdom would not hesitate to sabotage a potential thaw in US-Russia relations, a top aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed on Friday. Nikolay Patrushev, a longtime national security official and senior Kremlin adviser, accused London of being prepared to carry out a false flag in order to derail efforts by US President Donald Trump to resolve the conflict in Ukraine and normalize ties with Moscow. “If necessary, London would easily stab Washington in the back. I believe officials in the White House realize what kind of ‘ally’ they are dealing with,” Patrushev told RIA Novosti.

His comments followed a statement last month by Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), which alleged that British intelligence was directly involved in orchestrating covert Ukrainian operations. The SVR claimed the UK had acquired torpedoes of Soviet and Russian design for potential use in a false flag incident – specifically, a staged attack on an American naval vessel in the Baltic Sea. Since Trump’s return to office in January and the departure of Joe Biden’s Democratic administration, Russian officials have frequently pointed to London as the primary force behind the continued conflict in Ukraine. They argue that the British government’s firm support is an obstacle to peace and a strategic effort to block reconciliation between Washington and Moscow.

Moscow has portrayed the Ukraine conflict as a NATO-driven proxy war meant to weaken Russia at the expense of Ukrainian lives. Past reporting by The New York Times and The Times of London has confirmed that both US and British officials have played more active roles in directing Ukrainian military strategy than publicly acknowledged by their governments.

Read more …

Why did the U.S. district court judges of New Jersey refuse Habba and pick her assistant? i haven’t seen a single reason. Just because they could?

• Trump Makes Alina Habba Acting US Attorney In NJ (ET)

President Donald Trump withdrew his nomination of Alina Habba to serve as New Jersey’s top federal prosecutor, a Justice Department official confirmed on Thursday. The development comes after a federal court declined to retain Habba in the role of U.S. attorney for New Jersey and opted to install Desiree Leigh Grace. On Tuesday, U.S. district court judges of New Jersey selected Grace, who was Habba’s first assistant, to serve as U.S. attorney as Habba’s 120-day term in the office was reaching its end. Attorney General Pam Bondi then fired Grace in response to the judges’ decision. “[Habba] has been doing a great job in making NJ safe again. Nonetheless, politically minded judges refused to allow her to continue in her position, replacing Alina with the First Assistant,” Bondi wrote on X after the decision.

“Accordingly, the First Assistant United States Attorney in New Jersey has just been removed,” she said. “This Department of Justice does not tolerate rogue judges — especially when they threaten the President’s core Article II powers.” A Justice Department official told The Epoch Times that Trump withdrew Habba’s nomination to be New Jersey’s U.S. attorney, and she was appointed first assistant U.S. attorney. This means Habba becomes the acting U.S. attorney, as the position is now vacant after Grace’s firing. “Donald J. Trump is the 47th President. Pam Bondi is the Attorney General. And I am now the Acting United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey,” Habba wrote in a statement posted to X. “I don’t cower to pressure. I don’t answer to politics. This is a fight for justice. And I’m all in.”

Earlier on Thursday, Grace wrote on LinkedIn that she’s honored the judges selected her “on merit” and that she is prepared to follow that order and “begin to serve in accordance with the law.” “I’ve served under both Republican and Democratic administrations. I’ve been promoted four times in the last five years by both—including four months ago by this administration. Politics never impacted my work at the Department. Priorities change, of course, and resources are shifted, but the work and the mission were steady,” Grace said.

However, due to Habba now serving as acting U.S. attorney, Grace likely can no longer assume that office. Habba previously served as Trump’s defense attorney in multiple court cases. Last week, Trump’s pick for U.S. attorney of the Northern District of New York, John Sarcone III, was rejected by judges on that district court. Bondi then appointed Sarcone as a “special attorney” to her, granting him the powers of a U.S. attorney indefinitely.

Read more …

“By offering the far right a symbolic prize on annexation, Netanyahu appears to be stalling a government collapse..”

• Israel Just Drew A New Map – Without Saying It Out Loud (Blade)

In a significant yet non-binding move, the Israeli legislature has overwhelmingly approved a declaration urging the immediate extension of Israeli sovereignty over Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank and the Jordan Valley. The motion, which passed by a vote of 71 to 13, was backed by right-wing and center-right factions including Likud, Shas, Religious Zionism, Otzma Yehudit, and Yisrael Beiteinu. The text declares that the October 7, 2023 attack by Hamas — referred to in Israeli political discourse as the “Simchat Torah Massacre” — proves that the creation of a Palestinian state poses a mortal danger to Israel’s existence. “The Knesset declares that the State of Israel has the natural, historical, and legal right to all parts of the Land of Israel,” the resolution reads.

“The Knesset calls on the Government of Israel to act without delay to apply sovereignty… over all areas of Jewish settlement in Judea, Samaria, and the Jordan Valley.” Though labeled symbolic, Palestinian experts view the vote as laying the bureaucratic foundation for a permanent Israeli presence and governance in the West Bank, the heartland of a future Palestinian state as envisioned by international consensus. Saad Nimr, professor of political science at Birzeit University in the West Bank, told RT the implications of the Knesset’s move are far-reaching. “This is not symbolic at all,” Nimr said. “It means these settlements are now treated as Israeli cities. They’re no longer ‘occupied’ under military law. This is the legal and bureaucratic infrastructure of annexation.”

He continued: “The Israeli ministries — not the military — will now oversee health, welfare, planning, and infrastructure in these areas. It’s not about theory. It’s about bulldozers, budgets, and expansion.” Dimitri Diliani, a member of the Fatah Revolutionary Council, echoed that sentiment. “To describe the vote as symbolic is dangerously naive,” Diliani warned. “In Israeli politics, symbolism is often a precursor to de facto annexation. While the Knesset motion lacks binding legislative authority, it institutionalizes consensus in both government and opposition to expand the State of Israel’s settler-colonial project with new domestic political legitimacy.” Diliani added that members of the Knesset are already pushing legislation to replace the internationally recognized term “West Bank” with the biblical “Judea and Samaria” — further entrenching a nationalist narrative in Israeli law.

Many analysts see the vote not only as ideological, but also as a tactical political maneuver to preserve Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s fragile governing coalition. “It’s quite clear this was a political exchange,” said Nimr. “[The leader of the National Religious Party–Religious Zionism Bezalel] Smotrich and [the leader of the Otzma Yehudit (“Jewish Power”) party] Ben Gvir threatened to leave the government if negotiations in Doha led to a Gaza ceasefire. This vote is Netanyahu’s way of keeping them on board.” By offering the far right a symbolic prize on annexation, Netanyahu appears to be stalling a government collapse – even as truce talks with Hamas continue under Qatari mediation. Diliani described the move as “opportunistic,” adding: “It’s designed to pre-empt mounting international legal scrutiny, particularly after the International Court of Justice advisory opinion in July 2023, which declared Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory illegal.”

The reaction from the international community was swift but toothless. Jordan condemned the vote as “a blatant violation of international law.” The European Union and the Arab League issued similarly worded rebukes, reaffirming their commitment to a two-state solution. But both Palestinian analysts were unshaken by the lack of meaningful repercussions. “The historical record teaches us that international consensus does not always translate into action,” said Diliani. “Israel’s alignment with key Western powers, particularly the United States, has only grown stronger – even amid documented live-streamed Israeli genocide in Gaza and tremendous war crimes in Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank.” He cited continued US military support, which amounts to $3.8 billion annually in aid and has reached nearly $20 billion in additional military assistance since the war on Gaza began in October 2023.

“Israel continues to enjoy extensive trade privileges with the EU,” Diliani added. “Over three-quarters of a million illegal colonial Israeli settlers reside in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Yet the response from the international community remains negligible. Absent deterrent sanctions or accountability mechanisms, Israel interprets this as tacit permission to proceed.” Nimr was equally scathing. “Israel went into this decision with an overwhelming majority in the Knesset. That means they don’t care about the international community’s opinion. The EU witnessed with their own eyes the genocide in Gaza, the use of hunger as a weapon, and still didn’t take any real action.” “If there is no punishment,” Nimr said, “it’s interpreted as agreement. So now, they feel they have a green light.”

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Macron


play

hose

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle July 24 2025

Jul 242025
 
 July 24, 2025  Posted by at 9:25 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , ,  102 Responses »


Max Ernst Inspired hill 1950

 

• Gabbard Refers Obama for Criminal Investigation Over Russiagate (Margolis)
• Obama’s Role In ‘Russia Hoax Lies’ Exposed – Gabbard (RT)
• Tulsi Is About To Drop More Evidence Against Barack Obama (Margolis)
• Canada Accepts No Trade Deal Before 35% Tariffs Kick In (CTH)
• Trump Questions Kiev’s Use Of US Aid (RT)
• Western Media Reacts To Zelensky’s Crackdown On Anti-Corruption Bureau (RT)
• US Congresswoman Labels Zelensky ‘Dictator’ (RT)
• Zelensky’s End Goal Is In Sight, And So Is His End (Amar)
• Von der Leyen Warns Zelensky Over Risk To Ukraine’s EU Bid (RT)
• US State Dept Accuses EU of ‘Orwellian Censorship’ (RT)
• The Case For Media Transparency Within The EU Just Got Sexy (Jay)
• Biggest US Power Grid Sets Power Costs At Record High To Feed AI (ZH)
• Whose Politics Canceled Stephen Colbert? (Daniel McCarthy)
• Macron’s Popularity Hits Record Low (RT)
• Macron Sues Candace Owens For Defamation For Claiming His Wife Is A Man (ZH)

 

 

Treason
https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1947688498330247277

tulsi


Bannon

2020

Fed

Mearsheimer
https://twitter.com/zei_squirrel/status/1947723599801925912

 

 

 

 

CNN does mention Obama and Tulsi now -in passing-, but only to assert that this story serves one purpose only: to divert attention away from the real and infinitely BIGGER story, which is that Trump is connected to the Epstein files. And then it has five different stories about that.

“The evidence that we have found and that we have released directly point to President Obama leading the manufacturing of this intelligence assessment. There are multiple pieces of evidence and intelligence that confirm that fact.”

• Gabbard Refers Obama for Criminal Investigation Over Russiagate (Margolis)

Barack Obama has long pretended that he had no hand in the Russia collusion hoax, but that narrative is crumbling fast. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has just declassified a trove of explosive documents that reveal the Obama administration’s direct role in fabricating the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) — the cornerstone of the bogus claim that Donald Trump was a Russian asset.nOne key piece of evidence is a 2020 House Intelligence Committee report that flatly states that there was no Russian cyber interference connected to Trump’s win. Despite that, Obama demanded a rushed intelligence assessment in the final weeks of 2016, deliberately designed to push the false claim that Vladimir Putin helped install Trump. The goal? To sabotage the incoming president before he was even sworn in.

According to the documents, Obama and his top advisers — working hand in glove with Hillary Clinton’s campaign and their loyal media allies — staged a coordinated, calculated effort to weaponize U.S. intelligence for political warfare. What began as a smear campaign has now turned into something much bigger. On Wednesday, Gabbard confirmed during a White House press briefing that her office has officially referred Obama to the Department of Justice for criminal investigation over his leading role in the conspiracy. “Do you believe that any of this new information implicates former President Obama in criminal behavior?” a reporter asked. “We have referred and will continue to refer all of these documents to the Department of Justice and the FBI to investigate the criminal implications of this,” Gabbard replied.

When asked point blank if that includes the former president himself, Gabbard didn’t flinch. “Correct,” she replied. “The evidence that we have found and that we have released directly point to President Obama leading the manufacturing of this intelligence assessment. There are multiple pieces of evidence and intelligence that confirm that fact.” A second reporter followed up, referencing Gabbard’s recent statement accusing Obama of helping to lead a coup against President Trump. “Do you believe President Obama is guilty of treason?” he asked. Gabbard stopped short of personally issuing a legal judgment but made it clear what she believes took place. “I’m leaving the criminal charges to the Department of Justice. I am not an attorney,” she said.

“But as I have said previously, when you look at the intent behind creating a fake manufactured intelligence document that directly contradicts multiple assessments that were created by the intelligence community, the expressed intent and what followed afterward can only be described as a years-long coup and a treasonous conspiracy against the American people, our republic, and an attempt to undermine President Trump’s administration.” The implications are staggering. For years, the media and Democrats insisted that Russia installed Trump; now, under the Trump administration’s own intelligence leadership, it’s Obama who stands accused of orchestrating the deception that fueled the entire narrative. On Tuesday, Obama’s office released a rare statement essentially denying Obama’s role in the scandal.

“Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response. But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one. These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction,” the statement read. “Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes.” Obama can scoff all he wants and hide behind carefully worded denials, but the truth is catching up with him — and fast. The declassified evidence paints a damning picture: not only did Obama know about the Russia hoax, but he was also the one orchestrating it from the top.

This wasn’t some rogue effort by low-level staffers or overeager Clinton allies. This was a calculated, top-down operation to sabotage President Trump and deceive the American public using the full weight of the intelligence community. And now, for the first time, there are real consequences on the horizon.

Read more …

“..the most egregious weaponization and politicization of intelligence in American history.”

• Obama’s Role In ‘Russia Hoax Lies’ Exposed – Gabbard (RT)

US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on Wednesday released a previously classified congressional report, which she claims debunks “Russia Hoax lies” – a coordinated effort by former President Barack Obama to distort intelligence regarding Moscow’s alleged role in the 2016 election. This marks Gabbard’s second major declassification move, following her earlier allegation of a “treasonous conspiracy” aimed at undermining Donald Trump’s presidency. The newly public document – produced by the House Intelligence Committee in 2020 under Republican leadership – challenges the analytical foundation for the conclusion that Russian President Vladimir Putin sought to help then-candidate Trump win the election.

It criticizes the CIA for failing to adhere to its own standards, citing “one scant, unclear, and unverifiable fragment of a sentence from one of the substandard reports” as the basis for its assessment that Putin favored Trump. In a post on X on Wednesday, Gabbard called the report a “bombshell,” asserting it reveals “the most egregious weaponization and politicization of intelligence in American history.” She accused Obama and his senior officials of collaborating with media allies to delegitimize Trump through what she described as a deliberate disinformation campaign. “They conspired to subvert the will of the American people,” Gabbard wrote, claiming the effort amounted to a “years-long coup” against Trump.

https://twitter.com/DNIGabbard/status/1948007534960198036?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1948007534960198036%7Ctwgr%5Eaebb331bf68ee0ee74f45252db892d1f0e19f30e%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fnews%2F621884-obama-ordered-putin-trump-reports%2F

The report also claims Obama issued “unusual directives” to accelerate the release of the intelligence assessment before Trump’s inauguration, bypassing normal interagency coordination procedures within the intelligence community. Gabbard has argued that these actions warrant a criminal investigation and accused Obama-era officials of manufacturing a false narrative to discredit a sitting president. Trump has endorsed her findings, calling for prosecutions of Obama and top members of his administration. She also claimed that internal US intelligence assessments consistently concluded Russia lacked both the capability and intent to interfere in the 2016 election – but that these findings were deliberately suppressed. Russia has denied any involvement in US elections, and President Putin has repeatedly stated that Moscow does not favor any particular American political candidate.

Read more …

This is from before Tulsi dropped her second batch of files yesterday.

• Tulsi Is About To Drop More Evidence Against Barack Obama (Margolis)

Barack Obama’s team is in full damage control mode after Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard declassified and released evidence that Obama and his top officials in his administration knowingly fabricated intelligence to push the false narrative that Trump was compromised by Russia—an operation designed to delegitimize his election and kneecap his ability to govern. On Tuesday, Barack Obama released a statement through a spokesman in response to the recent release of Russiagate documents implicating the former president in the effort to delegitimize Trump’s presidency. “Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response,” the statement read. “But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one. These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction.”

But, Gabbard isn’t backing down. In an appearance on “Rob Schmitt Tonight” on Newsmax Tuesday, she announced that her team will be releasing documents that directly contradict Barack Obama’s latest attempt to rewrite the history of the Russia collusion hoax. “We will be releasing further documents tomorrow that will refute that statement,” Gabbard said, dismissing the statement outright as part of pattern of misinformation pushed by top Democrats and their allies in the media ever since the release of what she called the “manufactured intelligence document” in January 2017. She didn’t stop there. “We will be pulling a whole host of statements that were made by the Obama administration, by Hillary Clinton, by senior Democrat officials, by their friends in the media,” she said. “They state over and over again after this January 2017 manufactured intelligence document was created that repeat the narrative.”

Gabbard laid out a damning list of examples. “The New York Times says, ‘Russian hackers acted to aid Trump in the election,’” she quoted. “Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan says, ‘There is strong consensus among us… to support the CIA claim Russian hackers aided Donald Trump’s election.’” And of course, Hillary Clinton’s infamous refrain: “I would be president if not for the Russian hackers supporting Donald Trump.” “There is a vast body of evidence and intelligence that debunks and refutes this statement you’ve just read and others coming from some of the Democrat leaders in Congress today,” Gabbard concluded. With more documents expected to drop soon, Gabbard is making it clear she intends to expose the Obama-era narrative for what it was—an orchestrated political operation designed to undercut the legitimacy of a duly elected president.

Now that the truth is starting to trickle out, the Obama crowd is sweating—and for good reason. Tulsi Gabbard’s document drops are pulling back the curtain on what looks like a coordinated effort by Obama and his top brass to sabotage a duly elected president using fake intelligence and a complicit media echo chamber. The phony Russia narrative was a deliberate attempt to delegitimize Trump before he even took the oath. And now, the evidence is catching up. No matter how hard Obama’s lackeys try to spin it, accountability is coming. And they know it.

Read more …

“..Canadian Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc and Mark Carney’s chief-of-staff, Marc-André Blanchard are once again coming to DC to ride their bicycles in slow circles at the bottom of the White House driveway while staring in the windows.”

• Canada Accepts No Trade Deal Before 35% Tariffs Kick In (CTH)

I’ll repeat it as much as needed, until it sinks in. The U.S-Canada trade deal status is simply a no-brainer. President Trump will answer questions about Canada and tariffs, he’ll put people into seats to discuss trade with the Canadian delegation, and he’ll give every outward appearance of being favorable to Prime Minister Mark Carney…. BUT… In the background, Trump is simply waiting for the USMCA timeline to trigger a renegotiation. President Donald Trump is ambivalent to the trade partnership with Canada. This moot-status reality is why there’s no substantive engagement. ‘No deal’ -until USMCA redo- is a win for President Trump. For some bizarre reason that I simply cannot fathom, almost every Canadian politician seems entirely oblivious to this reality. Instead, Canadian Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc and Mark Carney’s chief-of-staff, Marc-André Blanchard are once again coming to DC to ride their bicycles in slow circles at the bottom of the White House driveway while staring in the windows.

An article in Politico notes the Canadian premiers are now accepting the August 1st deadline will pass without any agreement, and the 35% reciprocal tariffs on non-USMCA products (meaning a lot of stuff) is going to trigger. Literally, everything from Canada that has a non-USMCA component is going to be tariffed. Think about all the stuff from China, Asia (writ large) and Europe that Canada assembles for finished goods. All of that stuff will be subject to the tariffs. That said, there’s good news coming from the recent meeting between Prime Minister Carney and the Premiers. Within their statement they use the term “developing large infrastructure projects.” That’s Canadian political codespeak for them realizing they are going to have to get back to regular energy development, raw material use/refinement and ACTUAL MANUFACTURING.

Canada is going to have to bring back their ‘dirty’ industrial jobs. For our Treehouse friends in Canada, this is very good news. The Canadian assembly economic model has to change in order to get compliant with U.S. trade rules. THAT’S TRUMP’S ENTIRE POINT! The environmentalists within Canada will not like this, but economically they will have no choice; it’s the only way to avoid a complete economic depression.

HUNTSVILLE, Ontario — “Prime Minister Mark Carney and Canada’s premiers are tempering expectations that they’ll strike a new economic and security deal with Donald Trump by the end of the month. “We would like to have the ideal deal, as fast as possible. But what can we get?” Quebec Premier François Legault said Tuesday. “You almost need to ask Donald Trump, and I’m not even sure he knows himself what he wants.” It’s a shift in tone from the premiers and Carney, who ran for election on his economic record, arguing he’d be the best person to negotiate with the president. But Canada is finding it harder than it looks. Carney met the premiers in Muskoka, cottage country north of Toronto, to update them on Canada-U.S. negotiations. As the leaders emerged from a three-hour meeting, they downplayed hopes of an Aug. 1 deal, arguing that achieving a “good deal” is more important than hitting a deadline.”

[…] As the negotiations continue, the premiers spent Tuesday carving out a strategy to offset the economic impact of Trump’s tariffs on the aluminum, steel, auto and lumber sector. They spoke about developing large infrastructure projects, breaking down trade barriers between provinces and encouraging a “buy Canadian” approach.”

Canada is going to go into a deep economic recession; there’s no way to avoid it. However, if they restart their industrial base, drop the ridiculous ‘green’ energy stuff, start exploiting their own natural resources and train an apprentice generation -just like we are trying to do- then Canada can bounce back stronger than ever. We know there are Canadian wolverines who understand this concept; we saw thousands of them in the Truckers’ vaccine strike. Make Canada Great Again, by Making Dirty Jobs Great Again, eh?

Read more …

“They were supposed to buy their own equipment. But I have a feeling they didn’t spend every dollar on the equipment..,”

• Trump Questions Kiev’s Use Of US Aid (RT)

US President Donald Trump has claimed that billions of dollars in American aid given to Ukraine under his predecessor Joe Biden may have been misused. The US became Kiev’s top foreign backer under the Biden administration, allocating over $170 billion in military and financial aid, according to official data. Trump, however, has long argued the total is far higher, estimating $350 billion in “equipment and cash” and criticizing Biden for “giving away” money without returns. He reiterated the point at a Republican meeting at the White House on Tuesday, questioning whether Kiev had actually used US aid for defense needs.

“Biden gave away $350 billion worth of equipment or cash. Worse than equipment – cash… They were supposed to buy their own equipment. But I have a feeling they didn’t spend every dollar on the equipment,” Trump said. “We want to find out about that [money], someday, I guess, right?” Trump’s comments echo growing concerns over corruption in Ukraine. The country has long struggled with graft, and its Defense Ministry has faced multiple scandals since the conflict with Russia escalated in 2022. Both the US and EU have pressed for audits and stronger anti-corruption measures. In April, US National Security Adviser Michael Waltz urged tighter oversight of aid, calling Ukraine “one of the most corrupt nations in the world.”

Despite calls for transparency, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky signed a law this week reducing the independence of Ukraine’s anti-corruption bodies, claiming it would streamline investigations. The legislation has triggered international scrutiny and protests across the country, with critics saying the move could be aimed at shielding Zelensky’s inner circle and concealing the embezzlement of military funds. Moscow has long argued that Western aid prolongs the fighting without changing the outcome of the conflict. Russian officials have also long accused Kiev of misusing foreign funds. UN envoy Vassily Nebenzia told RT last month that it’s “an open secret” Ukraine “stole billions of dollars out of the aid” and that Zelensky clings to power to avoid consequences.

Read more …

First, he effectively shut down the independent anti-corruption bureaus. That led to major protests in the streets, the first in years. So he (they) tweaked it all a bit and he claimed they’re independent again. These guys have embezzled billions and for some reason they’re now afraid of being found out.

• Western Media Reacts To Zelensky’s Crackdown On Anti-Corruption Bureau (RT)

Western news outlets have criticized Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky for stripping an independent anti-corruption bureau of its autonomy and placing it under the control of the prosecutor general. The move, carried out on Tuesday, drew widespread concern from journalists and observers. Zelensky signed legislative amendments on the subordination of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the office of the special anti-corruption prosecutor hours after they were rushed through parliament. The changes were enacted despite vocal opposition from the agency. Established in 2015 following the 2014 armed coup in Kiev, the NABU was a cornerstone of judicial reform conditions imposed by Western governments and international financial institutions.

The agency was intended to serve as a key check on official misconduct, along with Western-funded NGOs and media outlets. The move to “neuter” the NABU, as Axios described it, comes amid escalating tensions between the bureau and the Zelensky administration. Earlier this week, Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU) executed search warrants against at least 15 NABU personnel and arrested a top investigator on suspicion of ties to Russia. Zelensky defended the measures, alleging that the NABU was ineffective and compromised by Russian influence, warranting what he called a necessary purge. The clampdown drew muted statements of concern from Western officials and warnings about its potential consequences from journalists.

”It is never a good sign when governments accused of corruption raid the agencies and activists trying to hold them to account,” wrote Bloomberg columnist Marc Champion. “It’s something the country cannot afford, just as it asks taxpayers across Europe to pump tens of billions of additional euros into its defense.” Champion also pointed to “an emerging pattern,” referencing the recent criminal charges filed against anti-corruption activist Vitaly Shabunin, who was accused of fraud and draft evasion. Axios noted that the assault on the NABU’s independence came after recent improvements in US-Ukraine relations. However, the outlet cautioned that Zelensky was “playing with fire,” recalling President Donald Trump’s characterization of him as a “dictator without elections” governing under martial law.

The Wall Street Journal accused Kiev of launching an “attack on anti-corruption institutions,” emphasizing the NABU’s role in assuring Western donors that financial support would be safeguarded from embezzlement. It also extensively cited criticisms by Ukrainian anti-corruption activists. Shabunin told the newspaper that the charges against him were meant to send a message: “Those who investigate corruption in Zelensky’s office will be punished.” Another person suggested Zelensky had grown emboldened by the West’s subdued response after Kiev rejected the independent selection of a NABU detective to lead another economic crimes agency. Foreign correspondents covering Ukraine expressed dismay at the developments on social media.

Oliver Carroll of The Economist called the legislation “shocking” and accused Zelensky of allowing “hubris” to jeopardize the goodwill of the foreign public. Yaroslav Trofimov of the Wall Street Journal claimed the crackdown represented “a gift of historic proportions to Russian propaganda” and to Western skeptics of further military aid for Ukraine. Financial Times correspondent Christopher Miller emphasized that the responsibility lay squarely with Zelensky and his chief of staff, Andrey Yermak. ”Orders came from the office of the president last night and the law enforcement committee passed it early morning in such great haste that members had to join over video,” Miller wrote. “This did not just happen overnight, even if it feels that way. This is a shift months in the making.”

Read more …

That Congresswoman can only be MTG.

• US Congresswoman Labels Zelensky ‘Dictator’ (RT)

US Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has labeled Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky “a dictator” and called for his removal, citing mass anti-corruption protests across Ukraine and accusing him of blocking peace efforts. Her comments came after Zelensky signed a controversial bill into law that places the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) and the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) under the authority of the prosecutor general. Critics argue that the legislation effectively strips the bodies of their independence. The law has sparked protests across Ukraine, with around 2,000 people rallying in Kiev and additional demonstrations reported in Lviv, Odessa, and Poltava. “Good for the Ukrainian people! Throw him out of office!” Greene wrote Wednesday on X, sharing footage from the protests. “And America must STOP funding and sending weapons!!!”

Greene, a longtime critic of US aid to Kiev, made similar comments last week while introducing an amendment to block further assistance. “Zelensky is a dictator, who, by the way, stopped elections in his country because of this war,” she told the House. “He’s jailed journalists, he’s canceled his election, controlled state media, and persecuted Christians. The American people should not be forced to continue to pay for another foreign war.”Her statements come amid mounting speculation over Zelensky’s political future. Journalist Seymour Hersh has reported that US officials are considering replacing him, possibly with former top general Valery Zaluzhny.

Senator Tommy Tuberville also called Zelensky a “dictator” last month, accusing him of trying to drag NATO into the conflict with Russia. Tuberville claimed that Zelensky refuses to hold elections because “he knew if he had an election, he’d get voted out.” Zelensky’s five-year presidential term expired in 2024, but he has refused to hold a new election, citing martial law, which has been extended every 90 days since 2022.US President Donald Trump has also questioned Zelensky’s legitimacy, calling him “a dictator without elections” in February. Russian officials have repeatedly brought up the issue of Zelensky’s legitimacy, arguing that any agreements signed by him or his administration could be legally challenged by future leaders of Ukraine.

https://twitter.com/RepMTG/status/1947777633586159856

Read more …

“Western allies of Ukraine” still believe that Trump keeps seeing Russian President Vladimir Putin “as his main negotiating partner and Zelensky as the primary obstacle to a workable peace deal.”

• Zelensky’s End Goal Is In Sight, And So Is His End (Amar)

When the US picks clients, vassals, and proxies, it needs men or women ready to trade in the interests, even the welfare and lives of their compatriots. Vladimir Zelensky is such a man. A look at the elites of EU-NATO Europe shows he is not alone. But he is an especially extreme case. It is much less than a decade ago that the former media entrepreneur and comedian – often crude instead of witty – advanced from being a pet protégé of one of Ukraine’s most corrupt oligarchs to capturing the country’s presidency. As it turned out, never to let go of it: Zelensky has used the war, which was provoked by the West and escalated in February 2022, not only to make himself an indispensable if very expensive and often obstreperous American puppet but also as a pretext to evade elections.

And yet, now signs are multiplying that his days of being indispensable may be over. For one thing, Seymour Hersh, living legend of American investigative journalism, is reporting that Zelensky is very unpopular where it matters most, in US President Donald Trump’s White House. This is not surprising: Trump’s recent turn against Russia – whatever its real substance or marital reasons – does not mean a turn in favor of Ukraine and even less so in favor of Zelensky, as attentive observers have noted. According to the Financial Times, “Western allies of Ukraine” still believe that Trump keeps seeing Russian President Vladimir Putin “as his main negotiating partner and Zelensky as the primary obstacle to a workable peace deal.”

Time to go

And according to “knowledgeable officials in Washington” who have talked to Hersh, the US leadership is ready to act on that problem by getting rid of Zelensky. And urgently: Some American officials consider removing the Ukrainian president “feet first” in case he refuses to go. Their reason, according to Hersh’s confidants: to make room for a deal with Russia. Hersh has to make do with publishing anonymous sources. It is even conceivable that the Trump administration is leaking this threat against Zelensky to pressure him. Yet even if so, that doesn’t mean the threat is empty. Judging by past US behavior, using and then discarding other countries’ leaders is always an option.

Another, also plausible, possibility is that Zelensky will be discarded to facilitate not ending, but continuing the war, so as to keep draining Russian resources. In this scenario, the US would prolong the war by handing it over to its loyally self-harming European vassals. After, that is, seeing to the installation of a new leader in Kiev, one it has under even better control than Zelensky. Just to make sure the Europeans and the Ukrainians do not start understanding each other too well and end up slipping from US control. The Ukrainian replacement candidate everyone whispers about, old Zelensky nemesis General Valery Zaluzhny – currently in de facto exile as ambassador to the UK – might well be available for both options, depending on his marching orders from Washington.

Meanwhile, as if on cue, Western mainstream media have started to notice the obvious: The Financial Times has found out that critics accuse Zelensky of an “authoritarian slide,” which is still putting it very mildly but closer to the truth than past daft hero worship. The Spectator – in fairness, a magazine with a tradition of being somewhat more realistic about Ukraine – has fired a broadside under the title “Ukraine has lost faith in Zelensky.” The Economist has detected an “outrage” in Zelensky’s moves and, more tellingly, used a picture of him making him look like a cross between a Bond villain and Saddam Hussein. Even Deutsche Welle, a German state propaganda outlet, is now reporting on massive human rights infringements under Zelensky, with the impaired systematically targeted for forced mobilization.

Read more …

Don’t do it out in the open, you fool!

• Von der Leyen Warns Zelensky Over Risk To Ukraine’s EU Bid (RT)

European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen has requested explanations from Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky over the crackdown on the country’s anti-corruption agencies, which has sparked nationwide protests and international backlash. The agencies were seen as key conditions for Kiev’s EU membership bid and continued Western aid. Under the legislation, passed by the Ukrainian parliament on Tuesday and signed by Zelensky hours later, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAP) were placed under the direct control of the Prosecutor General, a political appointee. The controversial law followed security raids on NABU in light of claims by Zelensky that the agency was subject to Russian influence.

Von der Leyen was in contact with Zelensky, her spokesman Guillaume Mercier told reporters on Wednesday, saying she “conveyed her strong concerns about the consequences” of the new law and requested “explanations.” The legislation “risks weakening strongly the competences and powers of anti-corruption institutions of Ukraine,” Mercier said. The EC chief has urged “respect for the rule of law” and the “fight against corruption,” he stated, adding “There cannot be a compromise.” European Council President Antonio Costa reportedly also voiced concern to Zelensky and asked for explanations. German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul wrote on X that the development “hampers Ukraine’s way towards the EU.”

The creation of NABU and SAP was one of the requirements set by the European Commission and International Monetary Fund more than a decade ago to fight high-level corruption in Ukraine. Since then, the two bodies have led far-reaching investigations, including into Zelensky’s circle. The organizations say they now have been stripped of the guarantees that allowed them to operate effectively. EU Economy Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis told the Financial Times that financial aid to Kiev is “conditional on transparency, judicial reforms [and] democratic governments.” Ukraine was ranked 105th out of 180 countries in Transparency International’s 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index.

Read more …

“All the DSA protects is European leaders from their own people.”

• US State Dept Accuses EU of ‘Orwellian Censorship’ (RT)

The EU’s online content regulations are an affront to free speech, the US State Department has said in response to France’s praise for the Digital Services Act (DSA). The State Department echoed earlier criticism from US Vice President J.D. Vance, who accused EU member states of attempting to quash dissenting voices and stigmatize popular right-wing parties such as the Alternative for Germany (AfD). “In Europe, thousands are being convicted for the crime of criticizing their own governments. This Orwellian message won’t fool the United States. Censorship is not freedom,” the State Department wrote on X on Tuesday. “All the DSA protects is European leaders from their own people.”

Earlier this month, France’s mission to the UN promoted the DSA on X, stating, “In Europe, one is free to speak, not free to spread illegal content.” Passed in 2022, the DSA mandates that online platforms remove “illegal and harmful” content and combat “the spread of disinformation,” according to the European Commission. Critics in both the US and Europe have likened the regulations to the creation of a ‘ministry of truth’. Earlier this year, prosecutors in Paris launched an investigation into Elon Musk’s platform X, on suspicion that it was being used to meddle in French politics and spread hateful messages. The company dismissed the probe as “politically motivated.”

In 2024, the French authorities detained Russian-born tech entrepreneur Pavel Durov on charges that he had allowed his Telegram messaging app to be used for criminal activities. Durov, who was later released on bail, denied any wrongdoing and accused France of waging “a crusade” against free speech. He also claimed that French intelligence officials attempted to pressure him into censoring content during Romania’s 2024 presidential election. France’s foreign intelligence agency, the DGSE, confirmed that it had “reminded” Durov of his responsibility to police content, but denied allegations of election interference.

Read more …

“A recent report has exposed the European commission guilty of bribing journalist to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars for favourable coverage..”

The EU taxpayer pays to be deceived…

• The Case For Media Transparency Within The EU Just Got Sexy (Jay)

A recent report has exposed the European commission guilty of bribing journalist to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars for favourable coverage. How long can this go on? While we witness the continuation of the European Commission chief’s anti-democratic control over the project but also a host of values like freedom of speech, a Brussels Eurosceptic think tank has revealed that the project bribes journalists for favourable coverage. In a recent report, MCC claimed that the EU was secretly pumping at least 80m euros a year into both print and broadcast outlets often under the guise of fighting fake news. Yet the figure of 80m euros is wildly underestimated and in reality is likely to be three or four times this as the accountability and transparency of such payments are unsurprisingly buried in opaque accountancy practices with both the EU and media outlets themselves unwilling to be open to their readers/viewers.

Funding programmes are often presented using buzzwords like “fighting disinformation” or “promoting European integration” yet the reality is that it is a fund which is simply there to push propaganda for the project itself. The truth is that the European commission in particular is advancing with a strategy to bribe media giants more and more to promote the EU with its tainted narrative. Ironically, it is Ursula von der Leyen who often talks about “facts” being important. Her pretence that she believes in the truth and an independent press is in itself an illusion on a grand scale and perhaps the greatest example of what “fake news” itself is, on the EU circuit. Just recently, the irony of her being close to losing her job as commission president gave her the opportunity to give us all a good laugh.

“Facts matter, the truth matters”, she said recently in her speech to the EU Parliament, just before a vote of no confidence was held against her. She said – stop laughing – she was willing to engage in debate — provided it was based on “facts” and “arguments”. Yet there has never been an EU commission president who believes and benefits more in the dark art of bunging journalists and media more than Ursula. Indeed, the very media outlets who rushed to her defence when she was facing the jaws of defeat by a group of Eurosceptic MEPs recently are fake news outfits which have been receiving millions of euros of cash in brown envelopes for decades. “Von der Leyen successfully defends against no-confidence vote and attacks right-wing extremists”, thundered Der Spiegel, while Deutsche Welle (DW) reported a failure by the right: “Right-wing extremists fail with no-confidence motion against von der Leyen”.

“Right-wing extremists”? Really? Perhaps it’s worth noting that DW, to date, has received around 35m euros from the EU slush fund, according to the Hungarian think tank’s report which is compiled by Thomas Fazi, an Italian hack whose work is published on Unherd and who recently has published impressive investigations into the salami sliced power grab that the EU has been executing from member states. Ursula, of course, plays a pivotal role in that, as does corrupt media outlets like Deutsche Welle which is so spectacularly shite that its own German language service had to be shut down as no Germans would watch such gobbledygook garbage which champions the EU and Germany’s foreign policy ambitions.

This slush fund, aimed at boosting the EU’s status and relevance, has been around for quite a while but the report was revealing as it explains exactly how the European Commission goes about distributing the cash.mTraditionally, a big way the EU gets artificially positive coverage from Brussels events is via broadcasters. Outfits like DW, Euronews and most of the major state broadcasters across the EU benefit from a subsidy here, whereby the European Commission, European parliament and other institutions like the Council of Ministers provide filming, editing and studio facilities at their state of the art studios which, themselves, are a murky pit of corruption and embezzlement on a grand scale.

These “studios” provide everything for national broadcasters who have “correspondents” in Brussels. TV production, particularly on location is expensive. The EU pays for everything saving state broadcasters like DW millions in production costs which is of course paid back by coverage from the outlet not only with a positive EU spin but often simply replicating the EU narrative. It’s propaganda on a level which would make Goebbels proud as the genius of it is that the relationship which forms between the broadcasters and the EU grows each day until the point where both realise they need one another more than they have previously realised. The result is that so-called “news events” in Brussels which are so boring and would never normally see the light of day if the editors back in Berlin, Paris or Rome would have their say, get air time. And quite a bit of it.

What the report didn’t cover was the contracts themselves with the private companies which run the studios who employ scores of technical staff. Curiously perhaps, it is the same Belgian company which gets the contract every six years when the budget is completed despite EU rules making this impossible. All the Belgian firm does is simply change its name. Corruption of course has to be the heart of this. Someone in the EU commission is getting a huge commission for this of course.

Read more …

All AI data centers should generate their own electricity. But that will come only after a first batch of blackouts.

• Biggest US Power Grid Sets Power Costs At Record High To Feed AI (ZH)

Very soon if you want AI (and even if you don’t), you won’t be able to afford AC. Just this morning we warned readers that America’s largest power grid, PJM Interconnect, which serves 65 million people across 13 states and Washington, DC, and more importantly feeds Deep State Central’s Loudoun County, Virginia, also known as ‘Data Center Alley’ and which is recognized as one of the world’s largest hubs for data centers… had recently issued multiple ‘Maximum Generation’ and ‘Load Management’ alerts this summer, as the heat pushes power demand to the brink with air conditioners running at full blast across the eastern half of the U.S. But as anyone who has not lived under a rock knows, the deeper issue is that there’s simply not enough baseload juice to feed the relentless, ravenous growth of power-hungry AI server racks at new data centers.

“There is simply no new capacity to meet new loads,” said Joe Bowring to Bloomberg, president of Monitoring Analytics, which is the independent watchdog for PJM Interconnection. “The solution is to make sure that people who want to build data centers are serious enough about it to bring their own generation.” Well, there is another solution: crank up prices to the stratosphere. And that’s precisely what happened. As Bloomberg reports, business and households supplied by the largest US grid will pay $16.1 billion to ensure there is enough electricity supply to meet soaring power demand, especially that from a massive buildout in AI data centers. The payouts to generators for the year starting June 2026 topped last year’s record $14.7 billion, according to PJM Interconnection LLC, which operates the grid stretching from the Midwest to the mid-Atlantic.

That puts the capacity price per megawatt each day at a record $329.17 from $269.92. In response to the blowout payout, shares of Constellation Energy and Talen Energy surged in late trading in New York on Tuesday.As millions of Americans will very soon learn the hard way, AI data centers are driving the biggest surge in US electric demand in decades, leading to higher residential utility bills. That’s a key reason why PJM’s auction, once only tracked by power traders and plant owners but now increasingly a topic for general consumption as electricity bills are about to hit an all time high, has also become closely watched by politicians and consumer advocates.

As Bloomberg notes, this is the first auction that included both a price floor and cap, setting the range at $177.24 to $329.17, which of course was the clearing price level reached in this auction. Why even bother pretending there is an auction: just set the price at the max and be done with it. Last year’s 600% jump in capacity prices set off a political firestorm, resulting in PJM reaching a settlement with Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro to essentially cap gains for two years and make auction prices more predictable after wild swings in recent years. Despite the increase in costs across the grid, the price cap trimmed costs for consumers who saw the biggest hikes in the last auction. Exelon’s Baltimore area utility reached a $466 last time, while Dominion Energy’s Virginia territory came in at about $444.

Payouts to generators stayed at high levels due to surging demand from big data centers coming online swiftly, said Jon Gordon, policy director of non-profit clean energy advocacy Advanced Energy United. New facilities are consuming as much power as towns or small cities, coinciding with a wave of older power plants shutting down and lagging investment in new supplies and grid upgrades, he said.The per-megawatt price exceeding the 2024 auction, and well closing at an all time high, is bullish for independent power producers including NRG, Talen, Constellation and Vistra, Barclays analyst Nick Campenella had forecast. These generators have spent more than $34 billion so far this year on deals to mainly buy up power plants fueled by natural gas to feed the AI boom especially in PJM.

Read more …

“The Late Show With Stephen Colbert” reportedly loses $40 million a year..”

“..the average age of Colbert’s viewers is 68..”

Jon Stewart revived late night comedy. He had no successors.

• Whose Politics Canceled Stephen Colbert? (Daniel McCarthy)

Stephen Colbert is at the center of a conspiracy theory. It was born last week, when news broke of CBS canceling Colbert’s late-night talk show. The network’s move wasn’t hard to understand: “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert” reportedly loses $40 million a year, and Colbert is already in the final year of his contract. Viewership for all the late-night gabfests is evaporating; there’s no recovery in sight. Colbert is No. 1 in his time slot, but his show costs $100 million a year to produce and doesn’t bring in nearly enough eyeballs to attract the ad revenue to cover that. So in what universe does CBS renew Colbert and keep losing tens of millions of dollars? The conspiracy theory instantly popular among Democrats and many in the media who ought to know better, however, says Colbert is really being taken off air to please President Donald Trump.

If the Federal Communications Commission allows it, Paramount Global, owner of CBS, will soon merge with Skydance, a company owned by David Ellison, whose father is a major Trump supporter. The president doesn’t like being lampooned by Colbert; he’s happy to see his show end. Trump benefits, so Trump must be to blame—right? For those who suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome, there are no coincidences. The truth is as clear as if Trump had been caught with his arms around the president of CBS Studios at a Coldplay concert. You see, if not for Trump’s FCC leverage over the network, CBS would have been content to keep losing millions on Colbert for years to come. That’s the crackpot view, and it’s politically convenient for Democrats, who’ve done their utmost to promote it.

Sen. Adam Schiff was a guest on the show the night Colbert announced its cancellation, and along with fellow Democrat Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, he took to X that evening to plant the seeds of conspiracy. “If Paramount and CBS ended the Late Show for political reasons, the public deserves to know. And deserves better,” Schiff wrote, feeling no need to offer evidence for the insinuation. “CBS canceled Colbert’s show just THREE DAYS after Colbert called out CBS parent company Paramount for its $16M settlement with Trump—a deal that looks like bribery,” Warren posted, referring to CBS’ settlement of a lawsuit over “60 Minutes.” “Do I think this is a coincidence? NO,” Sanders chimed in. The party instantly had its line, with shouty caps to drive it home.

It worked—Bluesky and Facebook lit up with liberals saying free speech was under attack by Trump, while CNN’s Brian Stelter, even as he reported the dismal financial reality of the “unfortunately unprofitable” show, packed his story with the conspiracy narrative. Stelter devoted more than a third of his report titled “Inside CBS’ ‘agonizing decision’ to cancel Colbert’s top-rated late-night show” to speculation about how the pending sale to Skydance might have influenced CBS, with heavy emphasis on the Trump angle, which he brought elsewhere in his story, too. Stelter even added his own spin, attempting to patch up one of the conspiracy tale’s obvious holes by suggesting CBS could have kept Colbert on air by cutting costs since Colbert had produced a much cheaper show, “After Midnight With Taylor Tomlinson,” that CBS was willing to renew.

But that’s absurd—“After Midnight” is already canceled; CBS canned it when Tomlinson announced her departure to return to stand-up comedy, and while she might well love the live stage, it’s obvious that running a late-night show on the cheap means paying hosts less: too little to keep Tomlinson. How little would Colbert, currently raking in a reported $15-$20 million a year, settle for? Colbert loses viewers and advertisers even with a $100 million budget—how poorly would a Colbert show more than 40% cheaper do? Hollywood Reporter notes the average age of Colbert’s viewers is 68. According to CNBC, the average age of David Letterman’s viewers when he handed his time slot to Colbert in 2015 was 60.

All the data points in the same direction:“The Late Show With Stephen Colbert” was a long time dying. That’s true of late-night talk as a whole, too. “I hear Jimmy Kimmel is next,” Trump predicted on Truth Social. The president doesn’t have to pressure ABC to make that happen; the market will do that on its own, as it did with Colbert. Colbert had a hit when he played a parody conservative on Comedy Central. Once he stopped playing and presented his true face and politics to the country, he crashed. Donald Trump didn’t get Stephen Colbert canceled; everything Democrats like about him did. And the late-night host’s fate will also be theirs if they don’t heed this market lesson.

Read more …

The President sinks below 20%.

Odd math: “Macron’s approval rating has fallen to 19%, with Bayrou at just 18%, making a combined approval of 37% ..”

• Macron’s Popularity Hits Record Low (RT)

French President Emmanuel Macron’s approval rating has dropped below 20% for the first time since taking office, as criticism mounts over rising defense spending and cuts to social programs. Prime Minister Francois Bayrou also performed poorly in the same poll, with the two forming the most unpopular executive pair of the Fifth Republic. Macron’s approval rating has fallen to 19%, with Bayrou at just 18%, making a combined approval of 37% – the lowest in modern France, according to a new IFOP survey published on Monday. Even during the Yellow Vest protests – a major anti-government movement that began in 2018 over fuel taxes and economic inequality – the French leader’s lowest rating was 23%.

Macron’s support has dropped sharply among his 2022 voters, with only 49% still backing him – down 12 points. His approval has also declined among business leaders and executives, falling by 18 and 8 points, respectively. Bayrou, who was appointed after Michel Barnier’s government collapsed in late 2024 following months of coalition infighting and public backlash over mishandled pension reforms, is now advancing a controversial austerity plan. Last week, he introduced new tax measures on high-income earners to help close a €43.8 billion ($48 billion) budget gap. The austerity package includes a freeze on pensions and social benefits, healthcare spending caps, and the scrapping of two national holidays to increase productivity and reduce government spending.

Left-wing leader Jean-Luc Melenchon has called for Bayrou’s resignation, calling the measures “intolerable injustices.” Despite cuts in social services, defense spending continues to rise. Macron has pledged €6.5 billion more for the military over two years, citing heightened threats to European security. This comes as France’s public debt reaches €3.3 trillion – around 114% of GDP. A new French defense review has warned of a potential “major war” in Europe by 2030, identifying Russia as a leading threat. The Kremlin has denied having any intention to attack the West, and has accused NATO countries of exploiting perceptions of Russia to justify their military build-up.

Read more …

Candace has sunk her teeth in this for quite a while. She doesn’t fool around.

“[I]..stake my entire professional reputation on the fact that Brigitte Macron is in fact a man.”

• Macron Sues Candace Owens For Defamation For Claiming His Wife Is A Man (ZH)

French President Emmanuel Macron and First Lady Brigitte Macron launched legal proceedings against conservative podcaster Candace Owens in a Delaware court, seeking damages for what they characterize as a sustained defamation campaign targeting the French president’s wife. The 218-page complaint, filed Wednesday in Delaware’s Superior Court where Owens’ company is incorporated, encompasses 22 counts including defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and defamation by implication. The lawsuit centers on Owens’ repeated claims across multiple platforms that Brigitte Macron was born male, claims the Macrons’ legal team describes as “outlandish, defamatory, and far-fetched fictions.” The conservative commentator has disseminated these allegations through social media posts and an eight-part YouTube series titled “Becoming Brigitte,” which the plaintiffs allege has generated significant online harassment.

Tom Clare, the Macrons’ high-profile attorney, said the case is a straightforward defamation in a statement accompanying the filing. “Relying on discredited falsehoods originally presented by a self-proclaimed spiritual medium and so-called investigative journalist, Ms. Owens both promoted and expanded on those falsehoods and invented new ones,” Clare said. The legal filing indicates the Macrons’ representatives made multiple requests for retractions before pursuing litigation. In a joint statement, the presidential couple said they concluded that “referring the matter to a court of law was the only remaining avenue for remedy” after Owens allegedly “systematically reaffirmed these falsehoods.” Owens has maintained her position despite calls for retractions, declaring in a 2024 social media post that she would “stake my entire professional reputation on the fact that Brigitte Macron is in fact a man.”

The French first couple has consistently disputed these claims, citing official birth records. The lawsuit alleges the false statements have resulted in “relentless bullying on a worldwide scale” and caused “tremendous damage” to their reputations. BCC Communications, the public relations firm representing Owens, told Mediaite that the podcaster would address the lawsuit during her program Wednesday. The U.S. lawsuit follows mixed results for the Macrons in French courts addressing similar allegations. On July 11, a Paris appeals court overturned lower court convictions against two French women who had made comparable claims about the first lady’s gender identity.

The appellate ruling reversed a September 2023 decision that had ordered defendants Amandine Roy, a self-proclaimed spiritual medium, and Natacha Rey, a self-described independent journalist, to pay €8,000 in damages to Brigitte Macron and €5,000 to her brother. The women had produced a four-hour YouTube video in December 2021 promoting theories that Brigitte Macron was previously known as Jean-Michel Trogneux. The appeals court determined the defendants had acted in “good faith” despite making false claims, including allegations of “grooming a minor.” The decision eliminated their financial liability.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

elon 2024

Starship

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle May 18 2025

May 182025
 
 May 18, 2025  Posted by at 9:31 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  53 Responses »


Salvador Dali Neo-Cubist Academy (Composition with Three Figures) 1926

 

• Putin Is ‘At The Table’ For Ukraine Talks – Trump (RT)
• Trump to Have Phone Calls with Putin and Zelensky on Monday (DS)
• Putin-Zelensky Meeting ‘Possible’ – Kremlin (RT)
• Russia’s Maximalist Demands At Istanbul Peace Talks Revealed (ZH)
• Kiev’s Backers ‘Frustrated’ By Trump’s Stance On Ukraine Talks (RT)
• US Opposes ‘Endless Negotiations’ On Ukraine – Rubio (RT)
• Talks In Istanbul Are A Start…The Real Show To Come Is Trump And Putin (SCF)
• The Istanbul Kabuki – Decoded (Pepe Escobar)
• Istanbul Talks 2.0 Are A Great Chance For Zelensky To Accept Reality (Amar)
• What Does Russia Have To Gain From The EU Now? (Bordachev)
• Trump’s Middle East Theatricals Were All About Putting Bibi In His Place (Jay)
• Trump Just Made a Huge Move on Tariffs (Margolis)
• Scott Jennings, Bill Maher Light It Up on Trump’s Powerful Speech (Arama)
• Moody’s Delivers First US Credit Rating Downgrade Since 1917 (RT)
• Biden’s DOJ – Merrick Garland was AG In Name Only for a Specific Reason (CTH)

 

 

 

 

Alex

 

 

“The steps we examine would not have either defense or deterrence as their prime purpose… Rather, they are conceived of as elements in a campaign designed to unbalance the adversary, causing Russia to compete in domains or regions where the United States has a competitive advantage.”

https://twitter.com/rinalu_/status/1923732232293781742

 

 

Patel

Clinton list
https://twitter.com/KarluskaP/status/1923770579917603022

SCOTUS
https://twitter.com/mrddmia/status/1923823175810646037

Homan
https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1923467551855739257

Data

Ed Dowd

Orban
https://twitter.com/zoltanspox/status/1923366358357533027

Logan

 

 

 

 

“I think Putin is tired of this whole thing.”

You bet.

• Putin Is ‘At The Table’ For Ukraine Talks – Trump (RT)

Russian President Vladimir Putin would like to resolve the Ukraine conflict, his US counterpart, Donald Trump, has said. He added that he is certain Washington and Moscow will be able to make a deal and put an end to the hostilities. On Friday, Russian and Ukrainian delegations held a meeting in Istanbul, which marked the first direct talks since 2022. Both sides agreed to exchange lists of conditions for a potential ceasefire, conduct a major prisoner swap, and discuss a follow-up meeting. In a Fox News interview aired the same day, Trump pushed back against the notion that Putin does not want to engage in any kind of talks over Ukraine. “He is at the table, and he wanted this meeting,” the US president said, adding: “I think Putin is tired of this whole thing.”

According to Trump, however, his involvement is essential to a breakthrough in the peace process. “I always felt there can’t be a meeting without me because I don’t think a deal’s gonna get through,” he said. Nevertheless, he expressed optimism about the chances of reaching a settlement. “I have a very good relationship with Putin. I think we’ll make a deal. We have to get together, and I think we’ll probably schedule it.” When pressed again on whether he sees Putin as an “obstacle to peace,” Trump shifted the focus to Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky. “I had a real rough session with Zelensky, because I didn’t like what he said. He was not making it easy… He doesn’t have the cards,” he said, explaining that Ukraine is fighting against a “massive army.” Trump was apparently referring to a public spat with the Ukrainian leader during which he accused Zelensky of ingratitude for past US military aid and “gambling with World War III.”

The US president went on to criticize the policy of assisting Ukraine adopted by his predecessor, Joe Biden. “Every time… he [Zelensky] came to Washington, he walks out with $100 billion… I think he’s the greatest salesman in the world, far better than me,” Trump said, adding that Congress has grown frustrated with this as well. The Ukrainian leader was initially reluctant to agree to the talks in Istanbul proposed by Russia without any conditions, insisting that they should be preceded by a 30-day ceasefire. Moscow has not ruled out the idea in principle, but said Kiev could use the pause to rebuild its battered military. Despite initial pushback, Zelensky sent a delegation to Istanbul after Trump insisted that “Ukraine should agree to this immediately.”

Read more …

First call is Putin. Makes you wonder what Trump will tell Zelensky after that call. Because we know what Putin will say.

• Trump to Have Phone Calls with Putin and Zelensky on Monday (DS)

In an effort to stop the “bloodbath” in the war between Russia and Ukraine, President Donald Trump will have separate phone calls with Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Monday. Trump will first speak with the Russian leader and the “subjects of the call will be, stopping the ‘bloodbath’ that is killing, on average, more than 5,000 Russian and Ukrainian soldiers a week, and trade,” Trump wrote on Truth Social Saturday morning. “I will then be speaking to President Zelenskyy of Ukraine and then, with President Zelenskyy, various members of NATO,” Trump wrote. “Hopefully it will be a productive day, a ceasefire will take place, and this very violent war, a war that should have never happened, will end. God bless us all!!!”

Russia invaded Ukraine over three years ago, a move Trump says would not have happened had he been president at the time. Trump has made ending the war between the two countries a key priority of his administration. Since returning to the White House in January, Trump and Putin have spoken by phone but have not met in person. Trump has met twice with Zelenskyy, first in a contentious meeting at the White House in February. The two leaders met alone at the Vatican on the sidelines of Pope Francis’ funeral in April. The announcement of the Monday phone calls comes one day after delegations from Russia and Ukraine met in Istanbul for the first direct talks between the two nations since March 2022.

Putin proposed the direct peace talks but chose not to attend the meeting in Istanbul. Trump encouraged Zelenskyy to meet with Putin after the Russian leader suggested the talks and Zelenskyy flew to Turkey, but ultimately did not attend the meeting. Secretary of State Marco Rubio was present for the talks on Friday, but acknowledged beforehand that he did not expect a breakthrough without key leaders in the room. Following the less than two-hour meeting in Istanbul, Ukrainian official familiar with the talks told Reuters that Russia is demanding Ukraine pull all its troops out of the regions Russia has claimed before a ceasefire is agreed upon.

While no clear results toward peace were reached during Friday’s meeting, the two nations did agree to a large prisoner swap of 1,000 prisoners of war on each side. Vladimir Medinsky, a top Kremlin aide who led the Russian delegation, said each delegation did agree for both sides to present a ceasefire plan in detail and that talks will continue. “Ukraine is ready to take all realistic steps to end this war,” Zelenskyy wrote on X Friday. “President Trump wants to end this war,” Zelenskyy continued in a series of posts on X. “We need to keep working closely with him and stay as coordinated as possible. Long-term U.S. support is also essential. An American backstop is needed. It’s important that we all work together, on every level, to make that happen.”

Read more …

What would be the use?

• Putin-Zelensky Meeting ‘Possible’ – Kremlin (RT)

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky could hold talks if the ongoing peace efforts between Russian and Ukrainian delegations result in progress and firm agreements, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Saturday. His comments come after the first direct negotiations between Moscow and Kiev since 2022. On Friday, Russian and Ukrainian representatives sat down for a two-hour Turkish-mediated meeting in Istanbul. The sides agreed to exchange their ceasefire proposals and to discuss a potential follow-up meeting, according to Moscow’s chief negotiator, Vladimir Medinsky. Moscow and Kiev also agreed to a major prisoner exchange, he said, adding that Russia is “satisfied” with the results of the talks and is ready to “resume contacts” with Kiev.

Speaking to reporters on Saturday, Peskov said a meeting between Putin and Zelensky “is possible but only as a result of the work of the delegations of both sides and reaching specific agreements.” He added that a key issue for Moscow remains the question of who Ukraine would authorize to sign any potential agreements reached by the negotiators. Peskov was referring to the fact that Zelensky’s presidential term expired last year. The Ukrainian leader refused to call a new election, citing martial law. Russia considers him “illegitimate,” insisting that legal authority in Ukraine now lies with the parliament. Peskov also declined to comment on leaks regarding the terms Russia reportedly presented to Ukraine during the talks. “Negotiations… must be conducted strictly behind closed doors. This is in the interest of the effectiveness of these negotiations,” he said.

The Kremlin spokesman noted that Russia has not held talks with the US on the results of the negotiations in Istanbul, adding that Moscow is not currently contemplating altering the line-up of its delegation, while confirming that the sides “agreed to exchange the list of ceasefire terms.” Ukraine and its backers initially demanded that Moscow agree to a full and unconditional 30-day ceasefire as a prerequisite for talks. Russia expressed concern that a pause would only benefit Kiev and allow it to regroup its battered troops. Instead, it proposed holding direct negotiations without preconditions. While initially reluctant to accept the offer, Zelensky changed his mind after US President Donald Trump insisted that “Ukraine should agree to this [Istanbul talks] immediately.”

Read more …

What exactly is supposedly “maximalist” about terms everyone has known for years?

Russia doesn’t really want the regions, but it wants the Russians who live there, to be safe. And not just for today. No-one in the Kiev side can guarantee that.

• Russia’s Maximalist Demands At Istanbul Peace Talks Revealed (ZH)

The Kremlin has said on Saturday that a future meeting between Presidents Putin and Zelensky is still ‘possible’ – despite no breakthroughs at Friday’s Istanbul talks by delegations representing the warring sides. Putin spokesman Dimitry Peskov said a meeting between the Russian president and Zelensky “is possible but only as a result of the work of the delegations of both sides and reaching specific agreements.” Peskov underscored that one of the major hurdles is remains the question of who Ukraine would authorize to sign any potential agreements assuming the negotiations could produce firm settlement proposals. Moscow’s stance all along has been that Zelensky is illegitimate given he canceled elections under martial law, and has run far past his authorized term in office. Kiev, however, has said that the national constitution allows for this in war time.

As for the content of Friday’s talks and reports that Moscow demanded a Ukrainian troop withdrawal from all the four easter territories, including Donetsk, he said, “Negotiations… must be conducted strictly behind closed doors. This is in the interest of the effectiveness of these negotiations.” One key thing the two sides did agree to is a large prisoner swap involving 1,000 POWs – which would be the single biggest of the war.

But Ukraine has rejected the Kremlin’s demand of de-facto recognizing the loss of its territories. Zelensky has time and again emphasized “this is Ukraine’s land” – and has vowed to fight on, despite mounting losses and serious manpower issues. The following is reportedly among Moscow’s top list of demands, which can be described as maximalist (at least from the West’s perspective), per a new Bloomberg report:
• Ukraine agreeing to neutral status regarding NATO
• No foreign troops in Ukraine
• No nuclear weapons in Ukraine
• De-facto recognition of Crimea and lost eastern territories as now Russia’s
• Withdrawal of Kiev forces from these territories before a ceasefire takes effect

But once again, Peskov has not officially confirmed this list, and precise details discussed at Istanbul remain subject of speculation amid leaks to the press. The US and Russia on Saturday held a phone call, in a post-Istanbul talks debriefing: Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov held a phone call with his US counterpart Marco Rubio, Russia’s Foreign Ministry said on Saturday, to discuss the direct talks between Moscow and Kyiv in Istanbul. “Lavrov noted the positive role of the United States in helping Kiev eventually accept Russian President Vladimir Putin’s proposal to resume the Istanbul talks,” the foreign ministry statement said, adding that Russia was ready to continue working with the US on the matter.

Meanwhile: “We didn’t say five. We said eight.”…

The White House is likely to latch on to anything positive regarding these talks that it can; however, President Trump has clearly been exerting pressure for more speedy resolution, and is growing impatient. The Europeans are ready to slap more sanctions on Moscow, and Washington has also warned that this would essentially be plan B if Russia doesn’t cooperate. But Russia’s fresh maximalist demands will be a hard sell.

Read more …

“Russia has stated that the Ukraine conflict could be settled if Kiev commits to permanent neutrality, demilitarization, denazification, and recognizes the “territorial reality on the ground.”

• Kiev’s Backers ‘Frustrated’ By Trump’s Stance On Ukraine Talks (RT)

European NATO members are “frustrated” with US President Donald Trump’s “constant swerving” on Ukraine peace talks, which undermines their ability to pressure Russia, Bloomberg reported on Friday, citing sources. Kiev’s backers are uncertain regarding what Trump will do following the inconclusive Turkish-mediated talks between Russia and Ukraine in Istanbul on Friday, according to the news agency. The meeting was the first direct engagement between the belligerents since 2022. Key European NATO members initially believed that Trump supported their plan to impose new sanctions on Russia if it rejected the demand for a 30-day unconditional ceasefire with Ukraine, the article said. Moscow has stated that it is open to a ceasefire “in general,” but has expressed concern that it would only give Ukraine time to regroup and rest its battered forces.

However, the West’s unified front apparently started to crumble after Moscow proposed direct Russia-Ukraine talks in Istanbul without any preconditions, according to Bloomberg. The overture prompted the US president to insist that Kiev “immediately” agree to restart dialogue, despite Vladimir Zelensky’s reluctance to do so without a ceasefire.One European official expressed hope that the Istanbul meeting would “make it clear to Trump that the Russians aren’t serious about peace talks,” prompting the US to respond decisively. Some European leaders reportedly believe that Trump may still follow through on earlier threats to impose secondary sanctions and banking restrictions on Moscow.

Others, however, are said to be skeptical about whether Trump – who has repeatedly said he wants to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin to settle the Ukraine conflict – has an appetite for drastic measures. At the Istanbul meeting, discussions included ceasefire options, a prisoner exchange, and plans for a potential follow-up meeting. Vladimir Medinsky, Russia’s top negotiator, said Moscow is “satisfied” with the results of the Istanbul talks and is ready to “resume contacts” with Kiev. Russia has stated that the Ukraine conflict could be settled if Kiev commits to permanent neutrality, demilitarization, denazification, and recognizes the “territorial reality on the ground.” Kiev, however, has ruled out any territorial concessions to Moscow.

Read more …

Then keep Zelensky out of the room. And Europe too.

• US Opposes ‘Endless Negotiations’ On Ukraine – Rubio (RT)

The US does not want negotiations between Russia and Ukraine to drag on indefinitely, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said, emphasizing that Washington expects concrete results. He made the remarks after Russia and Ukraine held their first direct talks in three years in Istanbul on Friday. The countries agreed on a prisoner swap involving 1,000 people on each side, and to continue contacts once both parties have prepared detailed ceasefire proposals. “On the one hand, we’re trying to achieve peace and end a very bloody, costly, and destructive war. So there’s some element of patience that is required,” Rubio said in an interview aired Sunday on CBS News’ Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan.

“On the other hand, we don’t have time to waste. There are a lot of other things happening in the world that we also need to be paying attention to. So we don’t want to be involved in this process of just endless talks. There has to be some progress, some movement forward,” he added. Rubio said the US would examine ceasefire proposals from both Russia and Ukraine. “If those papers have ideas on them that are realistic and rational, then I think we know we’ve made progress,” he said. The diplomat confirmed that the US is ready to impose further sanctions on Russia if no deal is reached. He expressed confidence that both chambers of Congress would pass Senator Lindsey Graham’s bill introducing 500% tariffs on imports from countries that purchase Russian oil, natural gas, and uranium.

According to the White House, Rubio spoke with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov by phone on Saturday, reiterating President Donald Trump’s call for an immediate ceasefire. Moscow has rejected demands for an unconditional 30-day ceasefire, insisting that talks must address the “root causes” of the conflict, including Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO – a move Russia considers a threat to its national security. President Vladimir Putin has maintained that a lasting truce would require Ukraine to halt its mobilization, stop receiving weapons from abroad, and withdraw troops from Russian territory. He also warned that Kiev would likely use a temporary ceasefire to rearm and regroup.

Read more …

“.. If the talks have any chance of succeeding, the American side must take responsibility for the war it started and fueled..”

• Talks In Istanbul Are A Start…The Real Show To Come Is Trump And Putin (SCF)

The talks in Istanbul this week provide a prospect for peace. It bears emphasizing that the three-year proxy war could have been avoided if diplomacy had been permitted by Washington in early 2022 instead of being sabotaged. Three years on, we have a new president in the White House, and there appears to be a more enlightened policy. Or maybe it’s an implicit admission that the U.S. proxy war agenda is a failure and can’t go on. In any case, Trump and his envoys are unequivocally saying that they want to stop the bloodshed in Ukraine. That’s a big change from his predecessor, Joe Biden, who vowed to back Ukraine for as long as it takes in a fantastical, reckless pursuit to strategically defeat Russia. It was the Biden administration, along with the British government, that intervened to scupper nascent peace talks in March 2022 between Russia and Ukraine for a peace deal. Washington and London coaxed the Kiev regime to fight on with promises of more weapons.

The result: three more years of intense conflict, which have caused millions of casualties, mainly on the Ukrainian side. The proxy war has come perilously close to provoking an all-out world war between nuclear powers. Trump appears to want peace. If he is genuine in that intention, then the American president will have to address the root causes of the conflict. Russia has consistently explained the deeper causes of NATO aggression and the militarization of Ukraine as a hostile bridgehead on its borders since the CIA-orchestrated coup in Kiev in 2014. The American president has shown petulance at times, urging Ukraine and Russia to get down to a peace deal. He has even threatened Russia with more (futile) economic sanctions. What the Trump administration needs to understand is that resolving deep causes of conflict requires commensurate negotiations and a realistic commitment to lasting geopolitical security arrangements.

The talks in Istanbul this week to explore a peaceful resolution were initiated by Russian President Vladimir Putin in an announcement last week. Russia’s delegation was led by Putin’s senior aide, Vladimir Medinsky. That speaks of consistency and commitment. Medinsky led the peace talks three years ago in Istanbul, which were then sabotaged in April 2022 by the American and British intervention. This week, the Russian side held preliminary bilateral talks with the Americans led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Subsequently, the Russian and Ukrainian delegates engaged in a meeting convened by Turkish diplomats. It was the first direct encounter between Russian and Ukrainian officials since the March 2022 negotiations. It is not clear if follow-up meetings will take place. But at least one might say that talks took place.

The key to any prospect of ending the conflict depends on Washington demonstrating the requisite commitment. Trump said this week again that he would like to hold a summit with Putin as “soon as possible.” The Kremlin has also said that a formal presidential meeting is desirable. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov cautioned that there must first be adequate preparation for meaningful discussions. That implies that any top-level meeting must be cognizant of Russia’s demands for a resolution, one that deals with the historic, systematic causes of the proxy war. Western politicians and media denying Russia’s perspective are delusional or duplicitous. To claim that the conflict is all about “unprovoked Russian aggression” against “democratic Ukraine” and “Russian expansionism” towards Europe is a travesty.

It’s a bogus narrative that precludes peaceful resolution. Trump seems to be aware of that. But he needs to go beyond a superficial “peace broker” charade. If Trump wants a gimmicky big summit with Putin for PR ratings, as his tour of the Middle East this week illustrates his egotistical wont, he can forget it. The meetings this week in Turkey can be seen as preliminary technical discussions. However, President Trump needs to take the lead. Appropriately, a peaceful resolution will only happen at the senior level of the U.S. and Russian governments. That’s because the United States is the primary protagonist in the proxy war against Russia. It is clear from the antics and theatrics of the Kiev regime this week that there is no prospect of a meaningful, lasting peace if negotiations are confined to that level.

Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky does not even have constitutional legitimacy after cancelling elections last year. His erratic behavior of grandstanding and mudslinging at the Russian diplomatic efforts proves that he is not capable of substantive negotiations. The European leaders are also an impediment to achieving an authentic peace settlement. Even before delegations met this week in Istanbul, various non-entity European politicians were disparaging Russia’s diplomatic initiative. Macron, Starmer, Merz, Von der Leyen and Kallas were desperately trying to insult the Russian president, indulging Zelensky’s PR stunt demanding a face-to-face meeting with Putin in Istanbul. The European Union also timed an announcement this week to double its supply of heavy-calibre munitions to Ukraine. Another provocation.

France’s Macron sought to impose a precondition for the talks by demanding a 30-day ceasefire. That was a flagrant attempt to sabotage the negotiations before they even started. These people are not honest about ending the worst war in Europe since the end of World War Two. Disgracefully, they want the bloodshed to continue for their political survival and gratifying their obsessive Russophobic fantasies. If Trump wants to end NATO’s proxy war against Russia, he will have to sideline the European naysayers and the Kiev puppet regime. Their involvement is counterproductive. One suspects that Trump already knows that. An American and Russian agreement at the highest level is the only way to bring the war to an end. It is no use for the American side pretending that they are mere peace brokers. They are the main protagonist, not the European lapdogs nor the Kiev regime. Preliminary talks are all very well. But they are just that. Preliminary. If the talks have any chance of succeeding, the American side must take responsibility for the war it started and fueled.

Read more …

Lavrov: “In April 2022, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators reached agreement in Istanbul. If that agreement had been observed, Ukraine would have preserved part of Donbass. But every time another agreement, always accepted by Russia, is broken, Ukraine shrinks in size.”

• The Istanbul Kabuki – Decoded (Pepe Escobar)

Did President Putin really change the game by proposing the resumption of negotiations on the proxy war in Ukraine in Istanbul – over three years after the first ones were scotched by NATO? It’s complicated. And depends on which “game” we’re talking about. What the Russian move instantly accomplished was to throw into total disarray the European warmongering Three Stooges (Starmer, BlackRock chancellor, Le Petit Roi) Cocaine Express. Irrelevant Europe was not even at the table in Istanbul – except via extensive previous briefing of the low-rent, shabby-dressed Ukrainian delegation. That was compounded by the noisy barking threat in the sidelines advocating “more sanctions” to “pressure Russia”. In March 2022 in Istanbul, Kiev could have stopped the war. Every one of us who were in Istanbul at the time could foresee that Kiev would eventually have to be forced to the table all over again.

So in essence we are back to the same negotiation – with the same top Russian negotiator, competent historian Vladimir Medinsky, heading a delegation composed by pros, but with Ukraine now facing over a million dead; deprived of at least four regions – more on the way; what’s left of its mineral wealth de facto controlled by the US; and a horrendous black hole that passes for an “economy”. We are talking about country 404 territory. During the negotiations on Friday, Medinsky went straight to the point:“We don’t want war, but we are ready to fight for a year, two, three – as long as it takes. We fought with Sweden for 21 years [the Great Northern War, 1700-1721, as it is known in Russia]. How long are you ready to fight?” That’s the geopolitical/military state of things for Kiev and their “to the last Ukrainian” warmongering backers: either you capitulate, or we’re going to hurt you even more.

What’s the point of these negotiations? Turkiye under uber-opportunist Sultan Erdogan in fact hosted a P.R. meeting between Moscow, Kiev and itself – with the Ukrainians unleashing a blitzkrieg of infantile tantrums only designed to influence global public opinion. In sharp contrast, the head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, Kirill Dmitriev, did his best to put a positive spin on the proceedings. Istanbul 2.0, Dmitriev asserted, achieved a large exchange of prisoners (1,000 on each side); ceasefire options to be presented by both sides; and a continuation of dialogue. That’s not much. Well, at least they discussed in the same language: Russian. Nothing was lost in translation. A serious case can be made that to propose the resumption of these negotiations, under this format, was meaningless.

There’s no evidence in the horizon both parties might touch the fundamental issue anytime soon: the whole geopolitical strategic equation in Eastern Europe, from the Barents Sea to the Black Sea and beyond – leading to an “indivisibility of security” new deal with global repercussions. That implies that whatever track these negotiations may follow further on down the road, they are an objective impossibility. Meanwhile, the proxy war in Ukraine – and the SMO – will go on. That would also suggest that the Moscow security establishment considers the neo-nazi instrumentalized goons in Kiev at best as a re-enactment of the 6th Army of Paulus, with which you negotiate the end of a battle, but not the end of the war. Even NATO semi-realists as retired Commodore Steven Jermy have been forced to admit that “Russia is in the driving seat” and clueless Europeans “appear to believe that the losers should dictate the terms of ceasefire or surrender.”

All the barking by the – European – chihuahuas of war cannot disguise the fundamental geopolitical/military fact: a massive NATO humiliation. Trump’s humongous problem is that he has to manage it – and sell it to domestic public opinion and the global public opinion as some sort of “deal” he struck with Putin. It’s enlightening once again to go back to Grandmaster Lavrov, always the uber-realist, back in September 2024: “In April 2022, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators reached agreement in Istanbul. If that agreement had been observed, Ukraine would have preserved part of Donbass. But every time another agreement, always accepted by Russia, is broken, Ukraine shrinks in size.”

Now back to the (Great) Game. Kiev negotiators eventually admitting Ukrainian capitulation means a NATO capitulation and an Empire of Chaos capitulation. That’s the ultimate anathema for the US ruling classes. Even an ultra-negotiated, carefully managed Ukrainian surrender will be an impossible sell – not to mention Washington under Narcissus Drowned Trump acknowledging a strategic defeat.

Because that will mean the Empire of Chaos losing Eurasia for good: the ultimate Mackinder/Brzezinski nightmare. Coupled with the consequential solidification of the multi-nodal, multipolar world. The Russia-China stategic partnership is very much aware of every nook and cranny in this larger-than-life process. Beyond the current Turkish kabuki, they clearly understand the Big Eurasia Equation. Beijing is fully aware NATO’s real goal was always to confront it via Russia. Ukraine was NATO’s pawn to take down Russia then get to China from the West. The goal of the US ruling elites as they configured their thalassocratic empire remains to blockade China from the West by land and sea, using Russia; then use Taiwan as a staging area to blockade China from the East by sea. No wonder control of Taiwan is a Chinese strategic imperative.

Enter Mackinder panic – all over again: the China-Russia strategic partnership can beat NATO hands down – and Russia, by itself, is already doing it. Xi and Putin once again discussed the chessboard in detail, in person, prior to the Victory Day parade last week in Moscow. The endgame, once again, is clear: the US losing the entire Eurasian land mass. Ukraine, under these immense geopolitical imperatives, is only a sovereign-deprived pawn in the (Great) Game. As for the tantrum-addicted clown in Kiev, he is merely an actor with no authority whatsoever, negotiations included. He is completely dominated by Ukrainian neo-Nazis who will kill him if and when the war is over. He merely fronts for them and gets paid off. And that’s why – enthusiastically supported by inconsequential London, Paris and Berlin – he’s obsessed to continue a Forever War destroying the very nation he claims to represent.

Read more …

“This Istanbul meeting has taken place because of Moscow’s initiative, not that of the West or Ukraine. It was Putin who, on May 11, suggested, in essence, two things: First to start direct talks without preconditions. And second – this is the part everyone in the West pretends to miss – to do so by re-starting talks where “they were held earlier and where they were interrupted.” That was, of course, a clear reference to the Istanbul negotiations in the spring of 2022.”

“Putin’s offer of re-starting the Istanbul talks amounted to a second chance for a Kiev regime that – judging by its atrocious record of sacrificing Ukraine to brutal Western geopolitics – it certainly does not deserve. But ordinary Ukrainians do.”

• Istanbul Talks 2.0 Are A Great Chance For Zelensky To Accept Reality (Amar)

Despite Ukraine’s and the EU’s worst efforts at underhanded sabotage, the Istanbul talks – the first direct Russian-Ukrainian talks in three years – have now taken place. They may be over for now, they may continue soon. They may still turn into a dead end or they may help get somewhere better than war. What is clear already is that they are not meaningless. The question is what that meaning will be once we look back on them from the near future of either peace or continuing war. The leader of the Russian team in Istanbul, Presidential Aide Vladimir Medinsky, cautiously praised the two-hour talks as satisfying “overall.” A substantial prisoner exchange has been agreed (but not in the “all-for-all” format Ukraine unrealistically called for). Ukraine’s request for a meeting between its superannuated leader Vladimir Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin has been made – this time apparently in a serious and diplomatic manner – and the Russian side has taken cognizance of it. Both sides have agreed to detail their vision of a potential future ceasefire and then to meet again.

This is much better than nothing. It’s also not a miracle breakthrough. But those expecting or even demanding the latter only have themselves to blame. That sort of thing was never in the cards. And that’s normal. For diplomacy, especially to end a war, is a complex activity for patient adults, by definition. It is also historically normal that such negotiations take place while fighting is still ongoing. It is silly and simply dishonest to pretend – as do Ukraine, its obstinate European backers, and sometimes (now depending on the mood on any given day) the US – that negotiations can only happen with a ceasefire in place. Medinsky has pointed out this basic fact in an important interview on Russia’s most watched political talk show. Westerners should pay attention. Because he’s right and, perhaps even more importantly, it’s yet another clear signal from Moscow that it will not walk into the simple-minded Western-Ukrainian trap of a ceasefire without at least a very clear path to a full peace.

Indeed, Medinsky referenced the Great Northern War of 1700-1721 to illustrate that Russia will fight as long as it takes. And that it’s a very bad idea not to take a comparatively good deal from Moscow when you are offered one, because the next one will be worse. Zelensky has already done this to his own country once or even twice (depending on how you count). During these second-chance Istanbul talks, an unnamed Russian representative warned Ukraine that if it misses this opportunity again, then the next one will involve additional territorial losses, again, as Russian TV reported. But let’s zoom out for a moment: There is a very simple thing about the current talks between Russia and Ukraine that virtually everyone in Western mainstream media and politics apparently cannot process. So let’s clarify the obvious: This Istanbul meeting has taken place because of Moscow’s initiative, not that of the West or Ukraine.

It was Putin who, on May 11, suggested, in essence, two things: First to start direct talks without preconditions. And second – this is the part everyone in the West pretends to miss – to do so by re-starting talks where “they were held earlier and where they were interrupted.” That was, of course, a clear reference to the Istanbul negotiations in the spring of 2022.As intelligent observers suspected immediately, these first Istanbul talks ended without results because the West instructed the Kiev regime to keep fighting. This is not a matter of opinion anymore. The evidence is in and unambiguous. Even the head of Ukraine’s 2022 negotiating team, David Arakhamia, has long publicly admitted two things: First, that Russia was offering Kiev a very advantageous deal back then, demanding no more than neutrality and an end to unrealistic NATO ambitions; everything else, to quote Arakhamia, was merely “cosmetic political seasoning.”

And second, that it was indeed the West that told Zelensky to bet on more war instead. And to his eternal shame, Zelensky chose to betray his country by obeying the West. That means – like it or not – that Putin’s offer of re-starting the Istanbul talks amounted to a second chance for a Kiev regime that – judging by its atrocious record of sacrificing Ukraine to brutal Western geopolitics – it certainly does not deserve. But ordinary Ukrainians do. Regarding Zelensky, he should have been elated and grateful to get a chance to, if not make up for his horrific decision in 2022 (that’s impossible), at least to finally correct it. But Zelensky has remained Zelensky. His response to the Russian offer was – as so often – stunningly narcissistic, megalomanic, and dishonest. Instead of seizing the chance for his country and himself, Zelensky started a transparent maneuver to put Russia in the wrong so as to impress, above all, US president Donald Trump.

Western politicians and mainstream media, meanwhile, spent tankerloads of venom on denouncing Moscow and Putin, accusing them of sabotaging the talks – which, again, Russia actually initiated – in, allegedly, two ways: by Putin not attending in person and by, as they claim, sending only a “low-level” team instead. These Western information war talking points have been so ubiquitous that it feels – once again – as if everyone is copying from the same, daft memo. Take the Bloomberg version, for instance. It can stand for all the others. Bloomberg is right about one thing: The composition of the Russian delegation – while by no means “low-ranking,” actually – was bound to “fall far short” of Kiev’s expectations. But that was the result not of Moscow’s decisions, but of Kiev’s inflated expectations and the way Zelensky tried to realize them. Once Zelensky had, in essence, made a public ultimatum out of his baseless demand that Putin attend in person, it was, obviously, extremely unlikely to happen.

Read more …

Not much left to gain. Europe is Swiss cheese.

• What Does Russia Have To Gain From The EU Now? (Bordachev)

When Russian President Vladimir Putin recently remarked that Russia and Western Europe would “sooner or later” restore constructive relations, it was less a statement of policy than a reminder of historical inevitability. For now, there are no signs of readiness on the part of the EU. But history is full of unexpected reversals, and diplomacy has always required patience. Still, when that moment comes, Russia will have to ask a hard question: what, exactly, does it have to gain from Western Europe? At present, the answer appears to be very little. EU leaders behave as though Russia remains the same country they remember from the 1990s – isolated, weakened, and desperate to be heard. That world is gone. Today’s Russia neither needs Western European approval nor fears its condemnation.

And yet EU officials continue speaking in tones of paternalism and ultimatums, as if they still believe they represent something decisive on the world stage. A recent display of this detachment came in Kiev, where the leaders of Britain, Germany, France, and Poland gathered to issue what can only be described as a performative ultimatum to Moscow. The content was irrelevant; it was the posture that was telling. One could only wonder: who, exactly, do they believe is listening? Certainly not Russia, and increasingly, not the rest of the world either. Western Europe today poses no independent threat to Russia. It lacks both military capability and economic leverage. Its real danger lies not in strength but in weakness: the possibility that its provocations could drag others into crises it cannot control. Its influence has diminished, and it has largely burned the bridges that once made cooperation costly for Russia.

The West’s cold war fantasies are now detached from the material realities of global power. The EU elite’s fundamental miscalculation is assuming that Russia still views the western part of the continent as a model to emulate. But today’s Russia has little reason to aspire to European institutions, politics, or economic design. Indeed, in areas such as digital governance and public administration, Russia is ahead. Western European efforts to “modernize” Russia through consulting and institutional outreach have long since lost relevance. EU stagnation is not just political but also technological. Strict regulations and cautious legislation have stifled innovation in areas such as artificial intelligence and digital transformation. In fields where other European nations could once have partnered with Russia, different global actors have already stepped in.

The reality is that Western Europe has little to offer that Russia cannot obtain elsewhere. In education, too, Western Europe’s attraction has faded. Its academic institutions increasingly serve as conduits for intellectual siphoning, rather than genuine exchange. What was once a strength is now perceived as an instrument of cultural dilution. To be clear, Russia is not rejecting diplomacy with other European powers. But such diplomacy must be grounded in mutual benefit – and right now, Western Europe offers little. The real tragedy is that many European leaders were raised in a post-Cold War world that taught them they would never face consequences. That arrogance has calcified into a kind of strategic illiteracy. Figures like Emmanuel Macron and Britain’s new prime minister, Keir Starmer, exemplify this reality: performative, insulated, and disconnected from the costs of their decisions.

Read more …

“We can see now though that this idea of the tail wagging the dog, even if once it might have been true to some extent, has now been dealt with head on by Trump.”

• Trump’s Middle East Theatricals Were All About Putting Bibi In His Place (Jay)

Was it Bill Clinton in the White House with Benjamin Netanyahu who, in a press conference, muttered those vulgar and certainly immortal words “who’s the f*** superpower around here?” The question was really about whether the U.S. is running Israel and its activities in the Middle East or it is in fact Israel which is running the U.S. In recent months in both the Biden administration and the Trump one which followed, many pundits have claimed that Israel is in control of U.S. foreign policy, with some even going as far as speculating that this control even goes beyond the Middle East itself. This cabal of online commentators made so much of how Trump adjusted Bibi’s seat when he sat down in the Oval Office. We can see now though that this idea of the tail wagging the dog, even if once it might have been true to some extent, has now been dealt with head on by Trump.

His visit to the Middle East and his impressive speech in Saudi Arabia which mocked the bellicose approach to bombing civilians was a direct message to Netanyahu in Israel: America is back. Trump is literally taking control of U.S. foreign policy in the region and pushing back Israel’s attempts to bomb its way to peace, whether this be in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria or, of course, in Iran. The move comes at a tough time in the region where the country which seemed to bring about a revolution with the Arab Spring – Tunisia – is falling into an abys as it becomes a leading example of a dictatorship which knows no limits on its brutal suppression. For Netanyahu, a number of pundits now are pointing to the “clear light” between Trump and him with some claiming that these two leaders aren’t even talking anymore. Trump defied him by talking to Iran, negotiating with the Houthis and now scrapping sanctions in Syria.

Israel cannot even dream of attacking Iran with the U.S. help and so a big part of Netanyahu’s mojo has been removed. And now Trump is calling the shots on aid to Gaza, but stopped short of calling for the Palestinians to have their own state. Yet his move on Syria is telling. Israel’s plans were always to have head-chopping extremists running the show – which they backed in the Syria civil war – with a constant mayhem present so that they can always take advantage of the chaos while ensuring that the path which once stood between Tehran and Beirut is always blocked. Trump’s announcement that all sanctions will be lifted will not be welcomed by Bibi who will see the move as a stunt by the Donald to demonstrate who is running the show, although the announcement itself might prove to be premature.

Senator Lindsey Graham states only Congress can change the country’s designation as a “state sponsor of terror” and that Trump must make his case to Congress for that to happen. “That report has not been received, and Congress has the opportunity to review this action if it chooses. The designation of Syria as a state sponsor of terrorism has tremendous ramifications apart from the sanctions,” Graham stated. The senator stated that he is sure that Congress must be informed before sanctions are lifted, and the legislative body would then “make an informed decision on whether or not it should approve the change in designation.” But he also stated that Israel’s opinion matters and that Congress would consult Netanyahu so it’s fair to say that Syria’s fate is still yet to be decided regardless of whatever Trump has said at the podium in Riyadh.

It would appear that Bibi and Trump are set to clash now and we shouldn’t be surprised at what resources Trump will deploy to show Israel’s leader that Trump is both serious about peace in the region but also that Israel must put aside its warmongering – which may well include even supporting a two-state solution, pushed more recently by France and the UK. And then we will see who is the f*** super power and who is the client state. Almost certainly the fate of Syria and Gaza will be used as a rod for Bibi’s back until he succumbs to Trump’s rule.

Read more …

There’s not enough time to do the negotiations with 100+ nations properly.

• Trump Just Made a Huge Move on Tariffs (Margolis)

President Donald Trump demonstrated once again why he’s the master of the art of the deal. During his trip to the Middle East, Trump made it clear that countries dragging their feet on trade negotiations are about to face the music. So far, the trade negotiations are going well, and the economic apocalypse that Democrats claimed was going to happen hasn’t. It’s nothing new for Democrats to be wrong, and while they’re still harboring delusions that Trump is going to kill the economy, his latest move is likely to send them into a tailspin. Trump isn’t playing around. With over 150 countries clamoring to make deals with the United States, the president announced that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick will be sending letters to these nations in the coming weeks, essentially telling them that tariffs might rise again soon.

“We have, at the same time, 150 countries that want to make a deal, but you’re not able to see that many countries,” Trump said in Abu Dhabi on Friday. “So at a certain point, over the next two to three weeks, I think Scott and Howard will be sending letters out, essentially telling people — we’ll be very fair — but we’ll be telling people what they’ll be paying to do business in the United States.” CNN has more. “Trump on April 9 paused his massive so-called reciprocal tariffs, which he announced on what he called “Liberation Day” on April 2. The reprieve was supposed to be for 90 days, to allow countries to negotiate with the administration. Trump officials have said around 100 countries have offered to negotiate deals, setting a tremendously difficult task before US trade negotiators to race against the clock to make new commitments.

Without those negotiated deals, Trump could impose reciprocal tariffs – some of which are as high as 50%. The tariffs aren’t technically reciprocal, and many smaller countries with large trade gaps with the United States would end up with significant tariff burdens. “I guess you could say they could appeal it, but for the most part I think we’re going to be very fair, but it’s not possible to meet the number of people that want to see us,” Trump said.” And the results are already rolling in. The United Kingdom, showing remarkable foresight, quickly secured a deal that limits its tariffs to just 10%, the first formal agreement since Trump’s “Liberation Day” announcement in early April. That’s what happens when you negotiate in good faith with the Trump administration. But perhaps the most significant development is happening with China. The communist regime, which initially tried to play hardball, is now singing a different tune.

According to Trump, they “wanted to make that deal very badly.” Both nations have temporarily suspended tariffs that had reached a staggering 100%, with a 90-day window to hammer out a permanent agreement. This is exactly why the American people elected Trump to a second term. He understands that the only way to fix decades of terrible trade deals is to negotiate from a position of strength. The administration’s approach is that countries should either come to the table ready to deal fairly or face the consequences. The liberal media might wring its hands about trade wars, but Trump is proving once again that his approach works. With 150 countries practically begging to negotiate, it’s obvious who holds the cards. As these next few weeks unfold, we’re about to see which nations understand the new reality of trading with America and which ones need to learn the hard way. That’s what real leadership looks like.

Read more …

“..[that] [the Republicans] had always been “war and peace,” that Trump had changed it to “peace and war.”

• Scott Jennings, Bill Maher Light It Up on Trump’s Powerful Speech (Arama)

President Donald Trump gave a stirring speech in Saudi Arabia this week of what might be termed an outline of the “Trump Doctrine,” a revival of peace through strength, but recognizing that you don’t always have to be interventionist.

“Before our eyes, a new generation of leaders is transcending the ancient conflicts and tired divisions of the past and forging a future where the Middle East is defined by commerce, not chaos,” the president said, “where it exports technology, not terrorism; and where people of different nations, religions, and creeds are building cities together, not bombing each other out of existence — we don’t want that.” He skewered those who failed, saying that, “in the end, the so-called ‘nation builders’ wrecked far more nations than they built, and the interventionalists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves. They told you how to do it, but they had no idea how to do it themselves.”

In that, you can see how ridiculous the “dictator” talk about Trump is. He’s the man of the Abraham Accords, who brought more peace in the Middle East, who’s trying even now to bring peace to Ukraine. But he’s also the guy who will act with strength and take out people who attack us; he will put America first. How unique was that speech? Even Bill Maher thought it was a radically different take, on HBO’s “Real Time” show on Friday, which included guest Scott Jennings.

Jennings then went on to say how we [the Republicans] had always been “war and peace,” that Trump had changed it to “peace and war.” “He talks about peace more than he talks about war. He’s still hawkish enough to bomb people who need to be bombed like the Houthi rebels,” Jennings said. He’s “Peace through Strength,” like Reagan. Jennings continued, “Putting peace ahead of war is pretty popular with the American people.” That got big applause from Maher’s audience, which Jennings termed a seismic shift. It’s not just foreign policy where Trump is bringing transformative change in policy, bringing the government back to reality and more in touch. You can also see it by moving the FBI out of its ivory tower in D.C. and to middle America. Jennings spoke about breaking up that D.C. concentration to put the workers into the middle of the country, so they would have a “better understanding”:

https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1923626513221537931?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1923626513221537931%7Ctwgr%5E6c720826bbbde35fc82cd8b4a40e023c7f52a9ce%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Fnick-arama%2F2025%2F05%2F17%2Fscott-jennings-and-bill-maher-talk-trumps-powerful-speech-transformative-change-hes-bringing-n2189210

That also got a lot of cheers. Peace through strength, and getting more in touch with what Americans want. It’s hard to argue with that as a doctrine. Team Trump has been thinking outside the box, and it’s refreshing after four years of Biden malaise.

Read more …

“..Moody’s “would not have stayed silent as the fiscal disaster of the past four years unfolded” if the agency “had any credibility.”

The timing is curious. Is this the worst situation in 108 years?! Or has Moody’s gone TDS woke?

• Moody’s Delivers First US Credit Rating Downgrade Since 1917 (RT)

Moody’s has stripped the US of its perfect triple-A credit rating, citing increasing concerns over debt affordability. The rating agency had held the country’s sovereign credit rating at the highest possible level since 1917. The move brings the 116-year-old agency into line with its global rivals. Fitch Ratings downgraded the US rating to AA+ from AAA in August 2023, and Standard & Poor’s cut it to AA+ from AAA in August 2011. The reduction to Aa1 “reflects the increase over more than a decade in government debt and interest payment ratios to levels that are significantly higher than similarly rated sovereigns,” Moody’s said in a statement released on Friday.The agency noted that successive US administrations and Congress have failed to reach an agreement on measures to reverse the pattern of large annual fiscal deficits and rising interest costs.

Moody’s stated, however, that the US retains exceptional credit strengths, citing its size, resilience, dynamism, and the role of the dollar as the global reserve currency. Earlier this month, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warned about the possibility of a default as soon as August, calling for either raising or suspending the debt ceiling – a statutory limit on how much the federal government can borrow – to avoid running out of money to cover federal expenses. The US reached its ceiling of $36.1 trillion in January. Once the limit is hit, the government is legally barred from borrowing further to meet its obligations. The total federal debt has climbed to $36.2 trillion, according to official figures.

The Treasury has avoided default by using so-called “extraordinary measures” – mainly accounting maneuvers such as suspending contributions to federal employee retirement funds – to keep up with its financial commitments. Under former President Joe Biden, the debt ceiling was raised three times. The current president, Donald Trump, has argued that the cap should be eliminated entirely, calling it pointless if it’s routinely lifted. He has argued that the concept of a debt ceiling “doesn’t mean anything, except psychologically.” Commenting on the rating downgrade, White House spokesperson Kush Desai said on Friday that Moody’s “would not have stayed silent as the fiscal disaster of the past four years unfolded” if the agency “had any credibility.” He also claimed that the Trump administration is currently dealing with the “mess” left by the previous administration.

Read more …

‘sundance’ deep dive.

• Biden’s DOJ – Merrick Garland was AG In Name Only for a Specific Reason (CTH)

There has been a lot of discussion about who was running the Biden administration against the backdrop of numerous revelations about his cognitive incapacity while in office. However, one key point keeps being overlooked about the DOJ during his tenure. Merrick Garland was not selected to be Joe Biden’s Attorney General because the crew in control of the events wanted Merrick Garland as Attorney General. Garland was removed from his position as DC Circuit Court Justice in order to make room for Ketanji Brown-Jackson to take Garland’s place, get Senate confirmed and then await the resignation of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Bryer. {GO DEEP} As a standalone Supreme Court nominee, Judge Ketanji Brown-Jackson would have been a radical pick.

Judge Brown-Jackson was a known activist in the DC District Court; however, by removing Garland as chief circuit justice and replacing him with KBJ, who needed Senate confirmation as chief circuit justice, she could get through a later Senate confirmation easier and then sit on the Supreme Court for thirty years. Garland was removed to make room for KBJ. It was a strategy. Garland was a U.S. Attorney General in name only. The actual lead of the DOJ was from Obama’s crew, Deputy AG Lisa Monaco. WHY? Back in 2009 President Obama selected Eric Holder to be Attorney General. AG Holder’s role was to lead the Lawfare ‘fundamental transformation’ we have seen in the 16 years since. In the 2010 midterms, Obama was “shellacked,” that triggered AG Holder to ask the Treasury Department to participate in a “special research project.” {Go Deep}

The IRS was asked for the Schedule-B’s of groups who were registered as “patriot” groups (Tea Party Patriots) and other names associated with the political uprising against Barack Obama and the takeover of federal healthcare, ie Obamacare. The Cincinnati field office of the IRS then sent the DOJ a batch of CD-ROM’s containing the names of the individual donors listed on the IRS 501-c (3)(4) forms. That list was then compiled and used by the federal government to target the donors and supporters. A whistleblower came forward; the IRS controversy swirled in 2012. On September 25, 2014, the Justice Department said Attorney General Eric Holder would resign as soon as his successor is confirmed. Holder was succeeded by Loretta Lynch on April 27, 2015. Lynch was selected because she was the bridge to Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016. Remember the Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch tarmac meeting? It’s all connected. [Sidebar – the reporter who broke the story of the Arizona Clinton/Lynch tarmac meeting later died from “suicide.”]

Summary so far: Obama appointed Holder to lead and create the weaponized Lawfare transition within Main Justice. Eric Holder did just that, and also created the DOJ-National Security Division (to use FARA investigations against DC operatives as leverage). Holder then left the DOJ, took the special research project data, and went to work in California. Loretta Lynch was then appointed as the transitional AG between Obama and Hillary Clinton. That was the plan. The DOJ/FBI would protect Clinton’s interests, and that’s exactly what they did in 2015 and 2016. Eric Holder was then hired by the State of California right after the surprising and unexpected election result of 2016. Eric Holder then began constructing the BETA test for what was to come later. Eric Holder organized the motor-voter rolls in California to auto-register illegal alien voters. The California legislature passed a law permitting illegal aliens to get drivers licenses.

Eric Holder’s program linked those drivers licenses automatically to voter registration. Do you remember the 2018 mid-term election in California? For weeks after 2018 election day in California, the new process of mail-in ballots changed the entire election day outcome. California was the BETA test for the national 2020 mail-in ballot fraud system. It all links back to the California ballot and illegal alien voter registration operation carried out by Eric Holder. Eric Holder was Obama’s weaponized Attorney General (2009-2015). Loretta Lynch was the Attorney General in place to facilitate the transition to Hillary Clinton (2015-2016). Merrick Garland was Biden’s Attorney General (2021) to pave the way for Ketanji Brown-Jackson to be a U.S. Supreme Court Justice (2022). Lisa Monaco was the person running the day-to-day DOJ operations (2021-2025). KBJ was put into the planning book back in February 2020, yes, 2020!

It was February 25th, 2020, to be precise, just four days before the South Carolina Democrat primary. South Carolina Representative James Clyburn went backstage at the presidential debate and told Biden, “You’ve had a couple of opportunities to mention naming a Black woman to the Supreme Court,” Clyburn lectured his friend of nearly half a century, like a schoolteacher scolding a child. “I’m telling you, don’t you leave the stage tonight without making it known that you will do that.” {link} Unbeknownst to Biden at the time, just two days earlier Barack Obama and James Clyburn came to an agreement and created the most consequential alliance of the 2020 Democrat campaign. Barack Obama the figurative and ideological leader of the movement known as “Black Lives Matter”, and James Clyburn the figurative and ideological leader of the political construct within the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) church, had struck a deal.

Obama and Clyburn really had no choice but to come to an agreement and form the alliance. If they did not act fast, Bernie Sanders was gaining momentum, and they could not have Sanders at the top of the 2020 ticket, because he was too outside the club system which was now almost exclusively focused on racial identity as a tool for political power. A Bernie Sanders -vs- Donald Trump general election would have been a disaster; and it would be almost impossible for the racial operatives in the key precincts [Atlanta (GA), Philly (PA), Clark County (NV), Wayne County (Mich), Madison (WI)] to feel inspired enough to risk themselves and commit fraud to help Bernie win.To get rid of Sanders, BLM and AME aligned. This was the actual moment when Hillary Clinton was cast into the pit of irrelevance in Democrat politics. Within the agreement, Obama and Clyburn selected Biden as the tool they could easily control to deliver on their larger, progressive, leftist intentions.

A few days later, James Clyburn then endorsed Biden while Barack Obama began making phone calls telling each of the other candidates to drop out in sequence and support Biden or else the club would destroy them. The only one told not to drop out yet was Elizabeth Warren, as she would be needed as the insurance policy, the splitter against Bernie Sanders. Each of the candidates was promised the traditional indulgences for toeing the party line, and the rest is history. Joe Biden wandered around doing what everyone told him to do, which was mostly stay in his basement and let the club work on his behalf, until the club delivered the nomination. Inside that process, the strategic map was modified to ensure Ketanji Brown-Jackson would advance to the Supreme Court.

With Biden installed, he would select Merrick Garland as his Attorney General. Judge Garland was an important judge on the important DC Circuit Court. Garland’s replacement would need to be a Senate confirmed seat for that Circuit Court assignment. Brown-Jackson would be put into Garland’s open spot, and the Senate could not deny her the SCOTUS confirmation, having just confirmed her months before. {Go Deep} It was always the team around -and including- Barack Obama operating in the background of Biden.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Schneider
https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1923214689124876687

Cole

Yeadon

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1923525533159027176

Lipstick
https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1923699988049072173

Paint
https://twitter.com/RobSchneider/status/1923423415182008704

Elk

Hammer

Rap1946

Cliff

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle April 6 2025

Apr 062025
 
 April 6, 2025  Posted by at 10:36 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,  29 Responses »


Salvador Dali Remorse, or Sphinx Embedded In Sand 1931

 

• The First of Many – Vietnam Negotiates Zero Tariff Policy (CTH)
• Cambodian PM Offers To Reduce Tariffs, Negotiate With Trump (JTN)
• Here’s When Canada Will Cave on Trump’s Tariffs (Margolis)
• Mr. Wonderful Destroys CNN With Masterful Defense of Trump Tariffs (Margolis)
• China Delays Approval of TikTok’s US Asset Spin-Off Due to New Tariffs (Sp.)
• Vance Warns Of ‘Greatest Threat To Europe’ (RT)
• Marine Le Pen and Her Party Refuse to Back Down (Sp.)
• Clarity About Ukraine Peace ‘A Matter Of Weeks’ – Rubio (RT)
• Washington Calls Kiev: The Plan Has Changed (Pacini)
• IRS To Sack 25% Of Its Employees – WaPo (RT)
• Hundreds of Law Firms Oppose Trump Order Against Perkins Coie (DS)
• Judge Orders Trump Admin to Return Alleged MS-13 Gang Member to the US (Heine)
• The Clash Between Trump and Activist Judges Is About to Go Nuclear (Margolis)
• Obama Lashes Out At Trump (RT)
• Obama’s Masterclass in Gaslighting (Margolis)
• US Research Highlights RT’s Role In Media Landscape (RT)

 

 

 

 

Interesting talk with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Who, also interesting, is a hedge fund man, not a central banker.


https://twitter.com/MJTruthUltra/status/1908369961715704240

 

 

Full interview

 

 

Miller
https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1908234227474104648
https://twitter.com/DerrickEvans4WV/status/1908322429358788785

Obama Tesla

Ursula
https://twitter.com/JimFergusonUK/status/1908431783000993956

VDH
https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1908535796438610335

EU

 

 

 

 

“..poorer nations will be faster to lower import tariffs on USA goods because they have lower lobbying (bribe) income from corporations to govt. That’s what we should expect to see.”

• The First of Many – Vietnam Negotiates Zero Tariff Policy (CTH)

On March 27th, CTH shared the following: “Wealthy nations will attempt to maintain exports against President Trump tariffs by subsidizing their industries. Corporations have deeper pockets, and the politicians are used to the bribes, we call it “lobbying.” Therefore, the government responds by subsidizing the corporations [ie. the WEF business model]. How does the politics of opposition surface? …”Canada will subsidize their export industries, Germany will subsidize their auto industry, the EU will provide subsidies to their manufacturing powerhouses, and China will once again start subsidizing their manufacturing industry. Each of these nations will in turn, eventually, devalue their currency. However, poorer nations will be faster to lower import tariffs on USA goods because they have lower lobbying (bribe) income from corporations to govt. That’s what we should expect to see.” With the tariffs now triggered, it begins exactly as anticipated:

The economics of the thing is now colliding with the politics and the ideology, of the thing. Globalists are being confronted. The proverbial West will cleave according to their financial self-interest.The World Economic Forum (Build Back Better) model no longer views the USA as an ally. The MAGAnomic “Big Ugly” is underway. Countries will thrash and gnash their teeth; then surge in opposition, fail, then attempt to refoot and realign, then surge again and fail again. And so it will go… In 2019 Asia (ASEAN) was aligned as China was being confronted. The EU was the intended target for President Trump’s trade reset in term two as scheduled (2021-2025). However, COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting 2020 election threw a wrench in the plan. In 2025 the EU focus is now a priority. ASEAN nations quickly reassemble on the original terms of Trump T-1. For Trump T-2, China is quickly moved back into adversarial position and focus returns to the previously scheduled look at Europe.

Yes, the EU understand the agenda; they know what was planned then and put aside. In Trump T-2 there is no avoidance mechanism that can be deployed. The only play the EU has is defense. Europe is currently trying to arrange and coordinate a group of ideological allies to assist them. Those allies include Canada and to a lesser extent, Mexico. President Trump has shown a keen awareness of their best defense. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) will not battle Donald J Trump. Factually, they all aligned their economic investment policy to gain from Trump confronting China. ASEAN countries will not battle President Trump; they will comply. Africa will try to walk a fine line between China and the USA. However, Africa will not confront President Trump directly and, if push comes to shove, they will likely not support China using their belt-and-road leverage to attempt transnational shipping as a tool for U.S tariff avoidance. [Insert a Trump-favorable Russia into this regional dynamic.]

It is the EU and the workaround relationships they created within Mexico and Canada who will fight the global trade reset with ferocity. Everything in the geopolitical world of economic opposition to President Trump will center around Europe. PARIS, April 3 (Reuters) – “French President Emmanuel Macron called on Thursday for European companies to suspend planned investment in the United States after U.S. President Donald Trump announced sweeping global tariffs on American imports. “Investments to come or investments announced in recent weeks should be suspended until things are clarified with the United States,” Macron said during a meeting with French industry representatives. The comments come weeks after French shipping firm CMA CGM announced plans to invest $20 billion in the U.S. to build shipping logistics and terminals, a plan that was hailed by President Trump at the time and mentioned again in his Wednesday speech unveiling the tariffs. French electrical equipment supplier Schneider Electric (SCHN.PA) said late last month it would invest $700 million in the country to support U.S. energy infrastructure to power AI growth.”

The EU judicial and intelligence services hit Marine Le Pen for a reason. Canada – Mark Carney, France – Macron, Ukraine – Zelenskyy, the EU Commission and Ursula Von der Leyen, all the way through NATO and into the German/Romanian elections and beyond, it’s all connected to the geopolitical dynamics of money, power and globalist economics. Stay elevated. Keep watching. President Donald Trump is a master at the big picture stuff. [ps. President Trump assigned every single one of those country specific tariff rates personally. Few understand why.]

Zero tariff
https://twitter.com/GeorgePapa19/status/1908212617036128400

Read more …

“Cambodia proposes to negotiate with Your Honorable’s administration at the earliest convenient time..”

• Cambodian PM Offers To Reduce Tariffs, Negotiate With Trump (JTN)

Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet wrote to President Donald Trump offering to drop tariff levels certain U.S. imports and negotiate. “Cambodia proposes to negotiate with Your Honorable’s administration at the earliest convenient time and wishes to request that your esteemed government consider postponing the above-mentioned tariff implementation,” he wrote on Friday. “I would like to inform Your Honorable President that the existing practice of Cambodia’s maximum tariff rate tops at 35%. In expression of our good faith and in spirit of strengthening our bilateral trade relations, Cambodia is committed to promote U.S. based product imports with an immediate reduction of 19 product categories from our maximum 35% tariff bound rate to 5% applied tariff rate,” he added.

He wrote that Cambodia “remains fully committed to engaging in constructive and productive dialogue with the U.S. government to further deepen our bilateral trade, so that both nations and peoples can enjoy the tangible benefits from these significant trade relations.” Many shoe manufacturers have located in Cambodia.

Read more …

When the elections are over. That an unelected candidate will likely win.

• Here’s When Canada Will Cave on Trump’s Tariffs (Margolis)

I have no doubt that Canada will cave to Trump on tariffs. The question is: when? “Shark Tank” star Kevin O’Leary expressed confidence that the ongoing trade tension between Canada and the U.S. would eventually lead to a resolution, and he even predicted when. In an interview with Yahoo Finance, O’Leary said he believes that while the current rhetoric surrounding tariffs might appear grim, there is a strong economic incentive for both nations to come to the negotiating table and reduce the barriers that have caused friction in recent years.

O’Leary emphasized the importance of distinguishing between the “noise” of political rhetoric and the underlying “signal” that points toward economic cooperation. While current tensions have made it seem nearly impossible for the two nations to agree on trade policies, O’Leary argued that a combined economic effort between the U.S. and Canada could pose a significant challenge to China. “If you combine those economies… it would be much stronger against China if there were no tariffs between Canada and the United States,” he said.

The logic behind this argument lies in the historical and economic interdependence of the two countries. According to O’Leary, Canada’s economy has been deeply tied to the U.S. for over a century, with 75% of Canada’s output sold to the U.S. for more than 120 years. Furthermore, 17 U.S. states consider Canada their top trading partner, while 28 states rank Canada as their second-largest partner. “It would be economic suicide not to work this out,” O’Leary stated, underscoring the critical importance of a favorable trade agreement for both nations. O’Leary predicted that Canada will wait until after Canada’s upcoming election, which is set to take place in about five weeks, before caving to Trump on tariffs. Until then, he sees no substantive progress taking place.

He speculated that the next leader of Canada will quickly prioritize resolving trade issues with the U.S. “That person will fly to Washington immediately and start negotiations, which I would call NAFTA III,” O’Leary remarked, referring to the possibility of a new trade deal similar to the USMCA (formerly NAFTA) that would replace the existing tariff policies. The potential resolution is also tied to Canada’s political dynamics. O’Leary pointed out that the current Canadian leadership has been distracted by the trade dispute and other domestic issues. He specifically criticized Mark Carney, the interim prime minister, for attempting to use the Trump trade issue as a means of deflecting attention away from Canada’s internal economic struggles. O’Leary implied that Carney’s leadership has only exacerbated Canada’s difficulties. “Maybe he’ll get elected; maybe he won’t. Nobody knows right now,” he said, adding that no meaningful changes will occur until after the election.

In conclusion, O’Leary’s outlook suggests that, while the current trade situation between Canada and the U.S. is fraught with challenges, both countries stand to benefit immensely from removing tariffs and working together. The next Canadian leader, O’Leary believes, will be compelled to seek a deal with the U.S. once the political dust settles, which means that a breakthrough will likely occur soon after the election.

Read more …

“Carney is basically saying, ‘I know I wiped out the economy… but don’t worry about that. Let’s just stay focused on the evil Trump south of the border.’”

• Mr. Wonderful Destroys CNN With Masterful Defense of Trump Tariffs (Margolis)

Businessman and “Shark Tank” star Kevin O’Leary — also known as Mr. Wonderful — delivered a pointed and unapologetic defense of President Donald Trump’s reciprocal tariffs on CNN Friday night, brushing aside media hysteria and market hand-wringing with characteristic bluntness. “You know, I try and focus on the signal, not the noise,” O’Leary said, cutting through the typical cable news panic. “Harris is not president. Trump is. And if you didn’t like him 12 years ago and don’t like him now, I get it. But that’s not the issue.” What is the issue, according to O’Leary, is trade fairness — something that has been ignored for far too long in favor of politically correct diplomacy that left the U.S. at a disadvantage. “Reciprocal tariffs… we’ve got 60 countries on the list,” he explained. “Already, you’ve heard from Thailand, Cambodia, the EU, and Sen. Kennedy in Louisiana calling for zero tariffs between Canada and the United States. The whole point is it’s a negotiation.”

The investor made it clear that Trump’s hard-nosed approach is how you get to free trade—by making it costly not to come to the table. “If you can get the zero tariffs, that’s the best outcome. That’s called free trade. That’s 50% of why these tariffs are put on.” Even when host Laura Coates challenged him over the economic pain some Americans feel from market instability, O’Leary didn’t flinch. “Yeah, I hate volatility,” he admitted. “But the market corrects all the time. It generally goes down 15 to 20%. It has proven over a hundred years plus — it’s a great buying opportunity.” Former White House official Anthony Scaramucci, now a regular Trump critic, tried to refute O’Leary’s stance by claiming that the tariffs weren’t actually reciprocal and calling the policy “arbitrary nonsense.” He argued that global trust in the Trump administration had eroded.

“The risk premium in the global markets has now gone up,” Scaramucci warned, adding that “they have no idea what they’re doing.” But O’Leary wasn’t buying it. Pressed on reports that big-name CEOs are preparing to freeze hiring or lay off workers due to tariff uncertainty, O’Leary said their concerns are overblown. “They shouldn’t be worried. At the end of the day, the opportunity is immense.” He also dismantled the idea that Trump’s trade stance is alienating allies, turning the focus back on Canada’s struggling leadership. “Carney in Canada… is not an elected official. He is a stop-gap measure. He has no mandate from the Canadian people,” O’Leary said. “His party wiped out the Canadian economy. It’s highly likely he won’t win the election.”

Calling Carney’s anti-Trump rhetoric a diversion tactic, O’Leary argued that Canadians are waking up. “Carney is basically saying, ‘I know I wiped out the economy… but don’t worry about that. Let’s just stay focused on the evil Trump south of the border.’” “Canadians aren’t that stupid,” O’Leary added. “They figured out that their biggest trading partner is the United States… this will, too, just like a marriage — sometimes there’s a tiff. And you kiss and make up.” While others hyperventilate over style, O’Leary focused on substance and came out swinging with a calm, reasoned, and deeply pragmatic case for Trump’s trade agenda.

Read more …

Once it’s banned: no value. Before that: a very valuable negotiating tool.

• China Delays Approval of TikTok’s US Asset Spin-Off Due to New Tariffs (Sp.)

Chinese authorities have not approved a deal to spin off TikTok’s US assets due to recently announced US tariffs on Chinese goods, Reuters reported, citing two sources familiar with the matter. The report said the deal was largely finalized by April 2, and would have involved spinning off the social media’s US operations into a new US-based company with a majority stake in it held by US investors. ByteDance’s stake in the deal would have been 20%.
The report said the deal has already been approved by TikTok’s existing and new investors, ByteDance and the US authorities. On Friday, US President Donald Trump revealed that he would sign an executive order allowing TikTok to continue operating in the United States for another 75 days as negotiations regarding its acquisition progress.

Later in the day, ByteDance, the Chinese parent company of TikTok, said that it has been in discussions with the US government on a potential way forward to resolve the ongoing issue concerning the video app company operation in the United States. On Wednesday, US President Donald Trump signed an executive order imposing a 10% base tariff on all imports to the United States starting April 5, while higher, reciprocal tariffs on countries and territories with which the US has the largest trade deficits will take effect on April 9. NBC News reported on Friday, citing a person familiar with the talks, that Trump’s announcement of reciprocal tariffs disrupted a deal for TikTok’s US division that had already been approved by the Chinese government.

Read more …

“The rhetoric in Europe just doesn’t match the reality,” Vance said. “And they start trying to throw presidential candidates and political leaders off the ballot.”

““[She’s] leading in some polls and [this is] over an incredibly minor charge that implicates, by the way, her staff not even Marine Le Pen herself.”

• Vance Warns Of ‘Greatest Threat To Europe’ (RT)

US Vice President J.D. Vance has taken aim at the EU’s leadership, warning that the bloc faces its greatest threat not from external powers like Russia or China, but from internal policy failures. Speaking in an interview with Rob Schmitt of Newsmax on Thursday, Vance voiced concerns about Europe’s approaches to migration, defense spending, and treatment of political opposition. “We have to appreciate that the greatest threat to Europe is not China or Russia,” Vance said. “The greatest threat to Europe is from within. It’s migration policies that destroy the fundamental cultural bedrock of Europe. It’s economic policies that make them less competitive.” Vance criticized what he described as a contradiction between European rhetoric and action, particularly in relation to Russia.

“These guys on the one hand, their leadership I’m talking about, say that Russia is the biggest threat in the entire world,” he said. “Meanwhile, they buy billions and billions of dollars of Russian gas, and they spend 1% of their GDP on defense, while we’re spending three or four percent of our GDP.” He further argued that Europe’s political direction was straying from democratic norms, especially in how opposition figures are treated. “The rhetoric in Europe just doesn’t match the reality,” Vance said. “And they start trying to throw presidential candidates and political leaders off the ballot.” Referencing French presidential hopeful Marine Le Pen, Vance suggested the EU establishment was targeting her unfairly.

“[She’s] leading in some polls and [this is] over an incredibly minor charge that implicates, by the way, her staff not even Marine Le Pen herself. They’re trying to throw her in prison and throw her off the ballot. Look, that’s not democracy.” While reaffirming the US alliance with Europe, Vance expressed concern that ongoing internal issues could undermine the transatlantic relationship. “We want our friends to share our values. And the Europeans, they are absolutely 100% our friends. But that relationship, we’re just saying it’s gonna get stressed and it’s gonna get tested if they keep on trying to throw opposition leaders in jail and they stop respecting their own borders.” Vance made similar remarks in February when he told the Munich Security Conference that while Washington would make every effort to achieve a reasonable settlement between Russia and Ukraine, Europe has bigger problems.

Read more …

“The real battle is one of mobilization. Eleven million voters chose the National Rally in the last election. Their voices must be heard..”

• Marine Le Pen and Her Party Refuse to Back Down (Sp.)

The National Rally (RN) party will continue serving as the voice of millions of French citizens who support RN parliamentary faction leader Marine Le Pen by fighting for her return to the presidential race in 2027 despite her recent conviction, Thierry Mariani, an RN party member, told Sputnik. On Monday, a Parisian court convicted Marine Le Pen of embezzling European Parliament funds by employing fictitious assistants for party members. She was sentenced to a five-year ban from running for public office, effective immediately, as well as to four years in prison, including two years suspended and the other two to be served with an electronic bracelet outside of jail.

“We will keep running and defending the voice of millions of French citizens. Right now, the fight is to ensure Marine Le Pen’s right to run in the presidential election. She remains our candidate as long as there is even a glimmer of hope. She is a fighter, and she’s confident she will win this battle,” Mariani said. He argued that the ruling raised questions about the motivations behind the legal proceedings and the broader implications for democracy in France. “If Marine is barred from running, it will mean that France has crossed into an anti-democratic regime,” the lawmaker stressed. Mariani insisted that Le Pen’s case was weaponized by her political opponents to undermine her candidacy.

“This is a politically motivated conviction! Originating from an administrative disagreement with the European Parliament, this case has been weaponized by our political opponents, who accuse Marine Le Pen of employing parliamentary assistants to do political work… which is precisely what they are supposed to do!” Mariani said. According to him, the timing of the ruling could be seen as an effort to sideline Le Pen and her party at the next presidential election. “And after ten years of waiting to be judged, the conviction conveniently comes just ahead of a crucial presidential election for France in 2027,” he pointed out.

According to the RN lawmaker, Le Pen remains resolute in her commitment to “fight to the end” as legal avenues are still open, with an appeal expected in spring 2026. The National Rally recognizes that the battle has extended beyond the courtroom, Mariani said. He said the party needed to continue mobilizing its voter base and ensuring that their voices are heard. “The real battle is one of mobilization. Eleven million voters chose the National Rally in the last election. Their voices must be heard,” Mariani concluded. Le Pen said she would appeal the ban on public office with France’s Constitutional Council and the European Court of Human Rights. She said she hoped the sentence would be overturned in time for the election.

Read more …

Rubio need to talk to Lavrov.

• Clarity About Ukraine Peace ‘A Matter Of Weeks’ – Rubio (RT)

Russia’s stance regarding the potential peace settlement of the Ukraine conflict will be known in the near future, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has claimed. During a March 18 phone call, Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to his US counterpart Donald Trump’s suggestion that both sides implement a 30-day halt on attacks on energy facilities. Since then, Moscow has repeatedly accused Kiev of violating the terms of the agreement. Speaking to journalists on Friday, Rubio reiterated that Trump wants to put an end to the Ukraine conflict. However, “you can’t end a war unless both sides agree,” Rubio stated. “We will know soon enough – in a matter of weeks, not months – whether Russia is serious about peace or not. I hope they are. It would be good for the world if that war ended, but obviously we have to test that proposition,” he said.

Rubio also claimed that the Ukrainian side had shown “a willingness to enter, for example, into a complete ceasefire to create space for negotiation.”However, the Russian Ministry of Defense stated on Saturday that starting from the morning of Friday, April 4, “the Kiev regime, contrary to all statements and commitments made by Zelensky to the American side regarding a 30-day cessation of strikes on Russian energy facilities, significantly increased the number of unilateral attacks using drones and artillery munitions against the energy infrastructure of Russian regions.”

Rubio stated that if Russia isn’t ready for peace, “we’ll have to re-evaluate where we stand and what we do moving forward about it, but we’ll be in no different a position than we are today or we were when he took office.” This week, Putin’s investment envoy Kirill Dmitriev visited Washington for talks with White House officials. Commenting on the results of the negotiations, he said that some progress was made and highlighted the parties’ understanding of how they can move towards finalizing the conflict. Still, Dmitriev warned that third parties were trying to derail normalization efforts initiated by Trump in February.

Read more …

“..Trump is in no hurry to conclude what we will call “The Ukrainian Problem”, a sort of “quantum politics” puzzle, to add a touch of irony. The problem is simple to solve, but he keeps it complex because it suits him..”

• Washington Calls Kiev: The Plan Has Changed (Pacini)

Washington’s evolving position on Ukraine reflects a broader shift in U.S. foreign policy, particularly in its approach to security commitments. Trump’s story that he would end the conflict in 24 hours was fine for saying goodnight to the children, but for adults it never worked. However, the Kremlin has not underestimated this argument, and for some time now has been conducting parallel negotiations to agree on the resolution of some very delicate international issues (to which I will dedicate at least two of my next articles). Ukraine has been a thorn in the side of all of Europe, a move that was clear from the start, a move by the U.S. administration to destabilize the old continent, in particular to undermine the dominance of the United Kingdom and try to redefine the thalassocratic maps. But first things first.

Initially, after the 2014 Maidan revolution and Russia’s annexation of Crimea, the United States framed its support for Ukraine as a principled stand against so-called “Russian aggression”, supporting Kiev with military aid, specific training and diplomatic support. Even then, it resembled NATO’s broader deterrence framework, in which U.S. commitments, while not formal security guarantees, were seen as a demonstration of American resolve. This was later confirmed by the facts. Over time, and especially under the Trump and Biden administrations, Washington’s position has increasingly aligned with a model of transactional delegation: allies and partners are expected to bear a greater financial burden in exchange for protection. This echoes a neo-feudal logic in which the hegemon offers selective security assistance, subordinated to its own interests and to the contributions of the “vassal”. After all, NATO was born for this very reason… at the behest of London, but with delegation to Washington.

Aid as an investment, not as a guarantee Problems arose when Russia – and the truly free world in general – decided not to fall into the classic input/output trap. Although Washington has provided Ukraine with significant military and financial aid, this support lacks the binding security guarantees that NATO membership would entail. This is a condition that is always requested by European leaders, whose interests are certainly more direct and immediate than those of a power that is several thousand kilometers away. The United States carefully avoids direct military intervention en masse, emphasizing that its assistance is conditional rather than absolute. This is a fact. If the presence of American soldiers in Ukraine since the beginning of the year 2000 is a known fact and confirmed by several sources, it is equally true that America has not cleared its own soldiers from the front line, leaving this burden and honor to its European cousins.

A sort of protection mechanism was therefore set in motion, based on the balance of costs and benefits, as is normal in a low-profile international war. The Biden administration, despite public rhetoric of “standing with Ukraine for as long as it takes,” has not moved without prolonged and exhausting negotiations, reflecting an evolving strategy in which security assistance is designed not to guarantee victory, but to sustain a controlled conflict without overextending U.S. commitments. In fact, the interest in this extension is mainly European: In short, it allows Germany to save itself from banking collapse and to save the Euro, which is now worthless, it allows France to save its own banks, which without the income from the colonies no longer function as before, and it allows the UK to keep the pound high in the skies of Europe, even if Anglo-Saxon realpolitik is no longer as old fashioned as it once was.

In recent debates on aid packages, U.S. lawmakers, particularly Republicans, have pushed for assistance to be conditional on Europe sharing the burden or Ukraine self-financing through assets held abroad. This suggests that Washington does not see Ukraine as a dependent client, but as a party that should “pay” for protection, similar to the U.S. position towards NATO allies under Trump. Unlike Cold War-era alliances, in which Washington’s security commitments were relatively clear, the Ukrainian situation demonstrates a more fluid model in which support is subject to political calculations. The United States deliberately avoids clarifying the final scope of its support, using ambiguity as a tool both to dissuade Russia and to put pressure on Kiev to accept Washington’s conditions. It is therefore logical that Trump is in no hurry to conclude what we will call “The Ukrainian Problem”, a sort of “quantum politics” puzzle, to add a touch of irony. The problem is simple to solve, but he keeps it complex because it suits him. Elementary, my dear Watson.

Read more …

“..7,000 probationary workers were laid off in February but are being reinstated due to court orders..”

• IRS To Sack 25% Of Its Employees – WaPo (RT)

The US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) plans to eliminate around 20,000 jobs, The Washington Post reported on Friday, citing internal records and people familiar with the matter. The downsizing of nearly a quarter of the agency’s workforce comes as part of a broader White House cost-cutting campaign. Shortly after assuming office on January 20, US President Donald Trump launched a program to eliminate “wasteful spending” and bureaucracy across federal agencies. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), established by Trump and led by Elon Musk, has been pressing ahead with efforts to streamline federal operations in an attempt to cut $2 trillion in spending by 2026.

The IRS will reportedly eliminate its Office of Civil Rights and Compliance, dismissing around 130 employees from a division responsible for protecting taxpayers from discrimination in the tax code, audits, and investigations. The remaining staff of the office is expected to be transferred to other departments. “This action is being taken to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the IRS,” an email sent to employees cited by the newspaper reads. Over 4,000 employees reportedly accepted deferred resignation offers earlier this year, while an additional 7,000 probationary workers were laid off in February but are being reinstated due to court orders. At least some of those employees have been told they could return to work on April 14, according to the Post.

It remains unclear if the current downsizing includes the staff already targeted earlier this year, the outlet noted, adding that the IRS employed around 100,000 people as of January. In March, employees at the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) told the Post that the Department of State had fired up to half of the institute’s 600-person staff. Some employees were reportedly offered severance packages or extended health insurance in exchange for signing waivers of their right to sue. USIP was founded by Congress in the mid-1980s with the declared goal of promoting conflict resolution worldwide. At the same time, Reuters reported, citing an internal memo, that all remaining jobs at the US Agency for International Development (USAID) would be eliminated in July and September. USAID missions worldwide would reportedly be closed, and the agency’s remaining functions would be folded into the State Department.

Read more …

Do they have a legal right to conspire against politicians?

• Hundreds of Law Firms Oppose Trump Order Against Perkins Coie (DS)

More than 500 law firms led by former Barack Obama solicitor general Donald Beaton Verrilli Jr. came out on Friday against an executive order targeting the firm that represented Hilary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2016. President Donald Trump issued an order targeting Perkins Coie’s access to government contracts, buildings and security clearances in early March, prompting the firm to sue the administration. “The Executive Order at issue in this case, and the others like it, take direct aim at several of the Nation’s leading law firms and seek to cow every other firm, large and small, into submission,” over 500 law firms argued in an amicus brief supporting Perkins Coie. Trump has issued several orders against major law firms with ties to Democrats that limited their ability to do business with the government.

Some, like Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, the firm that hired former Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff, have struck deals to provide pro bono services to the administration in exchange for Trump dropping the orders. Others like Perkins Coie have challenged the orders in court. “On the basis of almost-decade-old allegations, the Executive Order subjects an entire firm, as well as its clients and personnel, to draconian punishment—including the revocation of its attorneys’ security clearances, the potential loss of clients that contract with the United States, and denial of access to federal buildings and facilities,” the law firms’ brief continues. “Such disabilities would threaten the survival of any law firm.”

District Court Judge Beryl Howell temporarily blocked parts of the order involving the firm’s government contracts and access to government buildings in March. She denied the Trump administration’s effort to disqualify her from the case due to “partiality” against the president on March 26, writing their strategy was “designed to impugn the integrity of the federal judicial system.” Several legal advocacy groups with different ideological leanings, including left-wing groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and others like the Foundation For Individual Rights and Expression, also joined a brief in support of Perkins Coie on Thursday.

“If allowed to stand, these pressure tactics will have broad and lasting impacts on Americans’ ability to retain legal counsel in important matters, to arrange their business and personal affairs as they like, and to speak their minds,” the organizations wrote. The Department of Justice argued Wednesday that the order is “within the bounds of established executive authority.” “The Executive Order directs agencies to do what they should already be doing, declines to contract with entities who act inconsistently with valid social policies regarding discrimination, and calls for the lawful examination of security clearances and government access of employees of Plaintiff’s firm,” the DOJ stated in a filing.

Read more …

? You tell me.

• Judge Orders Trump Admin to Return Alleged MS-13 Gang Member to the US (Heine)

A federal judge ruled Friday the U.S. government acted illegally when it deported an MS-13 gang member to El Salvador and ordered that he must be returned to the United States.“This was an illegal act,” said U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis of Maryland, an Obama appointee. She gave the administration until 11:59 p.m. Monday to free Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a citizen of El Salvador, from the El Salvadoran prison where he is being held, and return him to the United States where he is not a citizen. Abrego Garcia, 29, was among the hundreds of illegal immigrants—a large percentage of them MS-13 and Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua gang members —expelled from the U.S. to El Salvador last month.

Although the Trump administration acknowledged in court records earlier this week it made an “administrative error” when it deported Garcia without an interview, the fact remains that he has no legal status in the United States. Garcia crossed the border illegally in 2012 by his own admission, and claimed he had to flee El Salvador as a teenager to escape gang violence when he was detained in 2019. Both the original immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals found there was sufficient evidence that Garcia was a member of MS-13 and, as such, a danger to the public. According to USA Today, “Garcia was pulled over by federal immigration agents near his home in Beltsville, Maryland, on March 12 and arrested.” Three days later, he was expelled and sent back to El Salvador even though he had won a court order six years earlier barring his removal.

Abrego Garcia’s wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, and their 5-year-old son, who are both U.S. citizens, sued the government demanding his return. During a hearing on Friday, Xinis ripped into Justice Department lawyers over Abrego Garcia’s arrest and questioned the government’s claim it could not get him back. If federal authorities were able to strike terms and conditions for his placement in El Salvador, “then certainly they have the functional control to unwind the decision – the wrong decision,” she said. The judge questioned the government’s claim that Abrego Garcia is a member of MS-13. “In a court of law, when someone is accused in such a violent and predatory organization, it comes in the form of an indictment, complaint, a criminal proceeding that has then a robust process so that we can assess the facts,” she said. “I haven’t heard that from the government.”

In response to the ruling, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt suggested on X that the judge take it up with the president of El Salvador. “We suggest the Judge contact President @nayibbukele because we are unaware of the judge having jurisdiction or authority over the country of El Salvador,” she wrote. Bukele, meanwhile, responded to the judge’s order on X with a gif of a confused bunny.

Department of Homeland Security Spokeswoman Tricia Ohio told Fox News’ Martha MacCallum Friday that Garcia was “involved in human trafficking.” “He’s actually a member of MS-13 and was involved in human trafficking,” Ohio insisted, arguing that he needed to be “locked up” either in the U.S. or in El Salvador. She added that MS-13 “is a gang that rapes, maims, and kills Americans for sport” who “should not be on U.S. soil.” DHS Secretary Kristi Noem also told Newsmax Friday that Garcia was a “gang member and violent criminal” who didn’t belong in the United States.

Read more …

“..radical judges” will “soon learn that denying” President Trump his “constitutionally granted authorities is a gross infringement of the law and will not stand on appeal.”

• The Clash Between Trump and Activist Judges Is About to Go Nuclear (Margolis)

As President Donald Trump attempts to enact the agenda that Americans elected him to do, a serious showdown is brewing with federal judges who have taken it upon themselves to challenge his directives. Officials close to the administration are signaling that activist judges who oppose Trump’s orders may soon face accountability for their rogue decisions after yet another activist judge blocked its efforts to remove intelligence agency employees connected to DEI programs. The administration warned that “radical judges” will “soon learn that denying” President Trump his “constitutionally granted authorities is a gross infringement of the law and will not stand on appeal.”

U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga, a President George W. Bush appointee in Virginia, issued the preliminary injunction on Monday ahead of a 5 p.m. deadline issued by CIA Director John Ratcliffe for the agents to resign or be fired, allowing them to appeal and stay on the federal payroll. The injunction was part of a lawsuit filed by more than a dozen intelligence agents from the CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence who were found to be involved in, or working on, DEI programs in the department. “The plaintiffs face termination without any suggestion of wrongdoing or poor performance,” Trenga said after the ruling, according to Politico. “Simply requiring the government to follow its regulations is a minimal burden.”

The employees, who were abruptly placed on administrative leave in January, were facing termination as part of the Trump administration’s effort, supported by Elon Musk, to eliminate DEI-related programs and initiate a large-scale government overhaul. Musk also visited the CIA headquarters on Tuesday to discuss his government efficiency program. The 19 unnamed employees behind the lawsuit claimed last month that their involvement in DEI programs was part of “temporary assignments” and that they also carried out other duties as intelligence officers. They also insisted that “poor performance” had nothing to do with their termination. The Trump administration has repeatedly argued that federal district judges have overstepped their authority by issuing nationwide injunctions. These instances of judicial activism have sparked outrage among administration officials, who argue that the courts are abusing their power.

“These radical judges will soon learn that denying the Chief Executive his constitutionally granted authorities is a gross infringement of the law and will not stand on appeal,” Trump administration spokesperson Harrison Fields told Fox News Digital. Several U.S. District Court judges have issued nationwide injunctions against key Trump policies that were well within the authority of the president. More nationwide injunctions have been issued against the Trump administration than any other in history due to left-wing organizations forum-shopping for judges whom they know will rule how they want without any regard to the U.S. Constitution. “Ending the bigotry of DEI and ensuring the federal government runs efficiently might be a crime to Democrats, but it’s in line with the law,” Fields added.

Read more …

“..history zigs and zags and there are times of conflict and there are times of stupidity and there are times of danger.”

• Obama Lashes Out At Trump (RT)

Former US President Barack Obama has said that he is “deeply concerned” by the policies that the country’s current leader, Donald Trump, has pursued since the start of his second term in office. During his speech at Hamilton College in New York State on Thursday, Obama criticized the Trump administration’s protectionist economic policies, attempts to tackle federal spending, clampdown on immigration, and treatment of the media. He denounced the sweeping tariffs imposed by Trump earlier this week on the majority of US trading partners, saying: “I do not think what we just witnessed… is going to be good for America.”

However, the 63-year-old Democrat stressed that the tariffs are just one policy, and that he is “more deeply concerned with a federal government that threatens universities if they don’t give up students who are exercising their right to free speech,” referring to actions taken against pro-Palestinian demonstrators. The Trump administration’s pressure on law firms and its decision to bar AP journalists from accessing the Oval Office reflect “a kind of behavior [that] is contrary to the basic compact we have as Americans,” the former president said.

“Imagine if I had pulled Fox News’ credentials from the White House press corps. It is unimaginable that the same parties that are silent now would have tolerated behavior like that from me or a whole bunch of my predecessors,” he argued. The former president concluded his message by saying that “history zigs and zags and there are times of conflict and there are times of stupidity and there are times of danger.” Trump slammed Obama at the height of the race for the White House last year, calling the former president “a jerk” and saying that he “divides this country” by campaigning for then-Democratic contender Kamala Harris.

Read more …

“..how dare Obama imply that he was somehow held to a high standard that Trump is not..”

• Obama’s Masterclass in Gaslighting (Margolis)

Allegedly, Barack Obama was going to take a step back from meddling in politics after the 2024 election, but he spoke at Hamilton College this week, and, of course, he had to weigh in on the new Trump administration. His stunning display of historical revisionism and self-righteous indignation would be comedic if it weren’t so dangerous to our republic. “Uh, let… Imagine if I had done any of this,” Obama pontificated to his adoring audience, playing his favorite game of hypotheticals while conveniently ignoring his own track record. “Let, let, let me just… I, I, I just wanna be clear about this. I- i- i- ima- imagine that… Imagine if I had pulled Fox News’ credentials from the White House press corps.”

His lack of comfort talking about this is obvious from his stammering. “Ima- i- i- i- i- imagine if I had, had said to law firms that were representing parties that were upset with policies my administration had initiated, that you will not be allowed into government buildings. We will punish you economically for dissenting from the Affordable Care Act or the Iran deal. We will ferret out students who protest against my policies. It’s unimaginable that the same parties that are silent now would have tolerated behavior like that from me or a… whole bunch of my predecessors.” Just watch how uncomfortable Obama is pushing this nonsense. It’s like he knows he’s full of it:

Seriously, how dare Obama imply that he was somehow held to a high standard that Trump is not. We all remember his presidency, the scandals and corruption that the mainstream media ignored and his own party pretended didn’t happen. Let’s talk about what’s really “unimaginable.” The Obama administration was under a dark cloud of scandal from even before he took office. Obama was implicated in trying to sell his Senate seat. He had wanted Valerie Jarrett to take his place in the Senate and would have given Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich a cabinet position for doing so, but she ultimately declined the Senate seat to become Obama’s top White House advisor. Blagojevich went to prison for his role in the scandal. Obama did not.

And then there’s Obama’s Justice Department labeling Fox News reporter James Rosen as a criminal conspirator and potential spy. Or when it secretly seized phone records from Associated Press journalists. Apparently, those memories have conveniently slipped from the former president’s mind. The breathtaking hypocrisy doesn’t stop there. Obama’s sudden concern for press freedom and government overreach would be more convincing if his administration hadn’t been the most hostile to press freedom in modern history, weaponizing the Espionage Act against journalists and their sources with unprecedented aggression. Let’s not forget the IRS targeting scandal, where conservative groups were systematically harassed and delayed in their nonprofit applications. Or Operation Fast and Furious, which resulted in the death of a border patrol agent and was subsequently covered up. And who can overlook the massive NSA surveillance program that spied on countless American citizens?

But perhaps Obama’s most egregious abuse of power was his administration’s orchestration of the Russia collusion hoax against Donald Trump — a campaign of political persecution that makes Watergate look like a parking ticket. Secret meetings in the dying days of his presidency laid the groundwork for the DOJ’s continued harassment of Trump, all based on charges that have been thoroughly debunked. The cherry on top? When 47 inspectors general wrote to Congress about the Obama administration’s systematic obstruction of justice, in which the administration blocked their access to information needed for proper investigations. That’s not speculation or partisan rhetoric; that’s documented fact. So while Obama plays “what if” games at cushy college speaking engagements, the rest of us remember what actually happened during his eight years in office. His performance at Hamilton College wasn’t just tone-deaf; it was a masterclass in gaslighting the American public. The next time Obama wants to lecture anyone about governmental overreach or abuse of power, he should first take a long, hard look in the mirror. His administration wrote the book on it.

Read more …

“Since 2014, the New York Times has published more than five-hundred articles about RT alone..”

• US Research Highlights RT’s Role In Media Landscape (RT)

The New York Times published over 500 RT-related articles over the course of a decade, research published by Johns Hopkins University this week has claimed. The Russian multimedia organization RT has faced unparalleled levels of scrutiny and limitations imposed by Western nations in recent years. Actions directed against the broadcaster escalated between 2022 and 2024. According to the review, RT, as well as Chinese national broadcaster CCTV, “tend to dominate both popular and scholarly discourse about propaganda.” “Since 2014, the New York Times has published more than five-hundred articles about RT alone, while the vast majority of articles about propaganda published in top political science journals explore the effects of media run directly by the state,” the review stated.

Washington imposed new sanctions against RT in September, with then US Secretary of State Antony Blinken accusing it of engaging in “covert influence activities” and “functioning as a de facto arm of Russian intelligence.” The head of the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC), James Rubin, told reporters that the “broad scope and reach” of RT was one of the reasons many countries around the world did not support Ukraine. The GEC itself was closed in December 2024. Also in September 2024, RT Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan and three other senior RT employees were sanctioned by the US over alleged attempts to influence the 2024 presidential election. Moscow branded the crackdown on Russian media, including RT, “a declaration of war on free speech.”

In March, the former head of RT America, Ben Swann, called on US President Donald Trump to drop restrictions that his predecessor Joe Biden imposed against several Russian media outlets, including RT and Sputnik.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/Lauria1960/status/1908501373420777902

 

 

1996

 

 

Indivisible

 

 

CORLEO

 

 

TRee
https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1908475436113314274

 

 

Dragonfly

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 Older Entries