Menu Icon

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle March 28 2025

Mar 282025
 
 March 28, 2025  Posted by at 10:33 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,  57 Responses »


Georges Seurat Bathers at Asnières 1884

 

• Putin Proposess Temporary Governance of Ukraine Under UN Auspices (Sp.)
• Key Points of Putin’s Idea To Place Ukraine Under UN Control (RT)
• EU Leaders Fear Peace in Ukraine – French Army Veteran (Sp.)
• US Planning To Annex Greenland Since 1860s – Putin (RT)
• Zelensky Lashes Out At Trump Envoy Witkoff (RT)
• Zelensky Speaks Of ‘Hatred Of Russians’ (RT)
• Rep. Goldman: FBI Probe of Tesla Attacks “Political Weaponization” (Turley)
• Signal Leak A ‘Witch Hunt’ – Trump (RT)
• Trump Says ‘Disgraceful’ That Boasberg To Preside Over Signal Lawsuit (JTN)
• Judge Declines Trump Admin Request T0 Recuse Herself From Perkins Coie Case (ET)
• Appeals Court Halts Judge’s Order Requiring Musk to Hand Over DOGE Records (ET)
• Auto Workers Union Applauds Trump’s New Tariffs (JTN)
• Auto Tariffs: German Carmakers Face Billions in Losses (CTH)
• Liberalism Is Dead, This Is What Comes After (Trenin)
• Will This Scandal Be The End Of ‘Unsinkable’ Netanyahu? (Sadygzade)

 

 

 

 

Kash hoax

Nap Sachs

Elon Signal
https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1904951618162118853

HHS
https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1905246820282081292

Tucker votes

Doge team

 

 

 

 

Losing patience? “I said not long ago that we would push them out, but there is reason to believe that we will finish them off,”

• Putin Proposess Temporary Governance of Ukraine Under UN Auspices (Sp.)

The possibility of introducing temporary governance in Ukraine could be discussed under the auspices of the United Nations together with the United States, European countries and Russian partners, Russian President Vladimir Putin said. The introduction of temporary governance in Ukraine would allow democratic elections to be held in the country, Putin added. “And for what? To hold democratic elections, to bring to power a viable government that enjoys the people’s trust. And then begin negotiations with them on a peace treaty, sign legitimate documents that will be recognized throughout the world and will be reliable and stable. This is only one option, I am not saying that there are no others,” the president noted.

The Russian President made other statements regarding foreign policy and the conflict in Ukraine while talking to sailors of the nuclear-powered submarine cruiser Arkhangelsk. Russia has a strategic initiative along the entire front line, the President stressed. Russia controls 99% of the territory of the Lugansk People’s Republic and more than 70% of the territory of the DPR, Kherson and Zaporozhye regions, Putin noted. “I said not long ago that we would push them out, but there is reason to believe that we will finish them off,” he added. Russia is ready to cooperate with all countries that want to eliminate the causes of the Ukrainian conflict for a peaceful settlement. Moscow is ready to collaborate with Europe on Ukraine, but the EU behaves inconsistently and constantly tries to “lead Russia by the nose,” he added.

“The curators from Europe have convinced Kiev to continue the war to the last Ukrainian in order to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia,” the Russian president said. Russia will no longer make mistakes based on excessive trust in its so-called partners, Putin stressed. The Russian President mentioned the BRICS countries and the DPRK among the partners Russia is ready to work with for a peaceful settlement of the conflict in Ukraine.

Read more …

“.. the notorious Azov battalion – which receive Western weapons and actively recruit followers – could increasingly exert de facto control in Ukraine..”

• Key Points of Putin’s Idea To Place Ukraine Under UN Control (RT)

Russian President Vladimir Putin has proposed placing Ukraine under a temporary international administration as one possible way of resolving the ongoing conflict. The idea, he said, draws on international precedent and would aim to restore legitimate governance before any peace deal could be finalized. During his meeting with Russian nuclear submarine officers on Thursday, President Putin described a possible international mechanism for stabilizing Ukraine – placing it under temporary external administration coordinated by the United Nations. Here are the key takeaways from Putin’s proposal:

1) Problem: Collapse of legitimacy in Kiev

Putin argued that Ukraine’s constitutional legitimacy has broken down due to the expiration of Vladimir Zelensky’s presidential powers last year and the lack of elections since – rendering all of his government’s claims to authority invalid.
“Presidential elections weren’t held… under the constitution, all officials are appointed by the president. If he himself is illegitimate, then so is everyone else.”

2) Consequence: Power vacuum filled by radicals

Putin has warned that groups with neo-Nazi views, such as the notorious Azov battalion – which receive Western weapons and actively recruit followers – could increasingly exert de facto control in Ukraine, potentially replacing formal civilian authorities. “Amid the de facto illegitimacy… Neo-Nazi formations are receiving more weapons,” and could take “the actual power in their hands.” Putin argued that this makes negotiating with Ukraine’s current government even more unreliable and unstable: “It’s unclear who you’re even signing any documents with – tomorrow new people could come and say, ‘We don’t know who signed this – goodbye.’”

3) Suggestion: UN-led temporary external administration

Putin proposed the use of a UN-led transitional authority, referencing prior international missions such as in East Timor, Papua New Guinea, and parts of former Yugoslavia. “In such cases, international practice often follows a known path – under UN peacekeeping, through what is called external governance, a temporary administration.”

4) Purpose: Restoring constitutional order and setting legal framework for stable peace

The main goal, according to Putin, would be to organize democratic elections and install a functioning, legitimate government trusted by citizens and recognized globally. He stated that only such leaders could sign peace agreements that would be recognized worldwide and upheld over time. “Why do this? In order to hold democratic elections, in order to bring to power a government that is capable and enjoys the trust of the people, and then begin negotiations with them on a peace treaty, sign legitimate documents that will be recognized worldwide and will be reliable and stable.”

5) Not the only option – but a viable one

Putin emphasized that this idea is not the only possibility, but an example drawn from historical precedent. “This is just one option… I’m not saying other options do not exist, but it is hard right now, or maybe even impossible, to lay everything out clearly because the situation is changing so fast,” he said.

6) Multilateral cooperation beyond the West

Putin said such an initiative should involve not just the UN or the US, but a broader coalition, including BRICS nations and others Russia considers reliable. “We will work with any partners – the US, China, India, Brazil, South Africa, BRICS countries… and, for example, North Korea.” He also stressed that Russia remains open to working with the EU, even though Moscow’s trust in the Western European countries has been fundamentally undermined by their manipulation of peace efforts as a tactic to buy time and rearm Ukraine.

Read more …

“They have made a bargain on the war in Ukraine, and they have lost the war. They cannot accept peace imposed by Russia and America.”

“..it will be a strategic agreement between Russia and America. Then in this framework, in this kind of agreement, Europe has nothing to do and nothing to suggest..”

• EU Leaders Fear Peace in Ukraine – French Army Veteran (Sp.)

US President Donald Trump’s efforts to secure peace in Ukraine have caused panic among European leaders like Emmanuel Macron, Keir Starmer and Friedrich Merz, who desperately want to “escape from their political death,” retired French Army Colonel Alain Corvez tells Sputnik. “They have made a bargain on the war in Ukraine, and they have lost the war. They cannot accept peace imposed by Russia and America. So they are doing things that are completely unrealistic and illogical,” says Corvez, an international strategy consultant and former international relations consultant for France’s Defense and Interior Ministries. Macron and the likes of him do not care about Ukraine – all they care about is “their own fate” amid the prospects of the European Union’s dissolution.

Macron’s decision to oppose the Black Sea ceasefire deal conditions is a “stupid decision,” Corvez notes, as France and other European powers hold no sway in the Ukrainian conflict peace process. “They are not able to do anything unless they want to declare war on Russia, which is the first nuclear power in the world, which is completely stupid,” he observes. “But unless they declare war to Russia, they have no option. They have nothing that they are able to do.” France’s plans to establish some kind of buffer zone in Ukraine is “absolutely impossible” as well, since “peace will be established by Russia and America with an agreement, a strategic agreement, which will officialize the necessity of security for Russia and that Ukraine would be neutral and not in NATO.”

“And then it will be a strategic agreement between Russia and America. Then in this framework, in this kind of agreement, Europe has nothing to do and nothing to suggest, and it’s impossible to send troops to control a buffer zone along the Dnepr or along any other rivers or lines,” Corvez adds.

Read more …

Imagine the talk at birthday parties in Denmark.

• US Planning To Annex Greenland Since 1860s – Putin (RT)

Washington has long harbored plans to get its hands on Greenland, and the ongoing tensions around it should be taken seriously, Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned. Speaking at the International Arctic Forum in Murmansk on Thursday, Putin touched upon the ongoing tensions around Greenland, a Danish semi-autonomous territory, and US President Donald Trump’s repeated promises to annex it. Trump invoked the topic of Greenland once again on Wednesday, claiming the US ownership of the island is needed to “properly defend a large section of this Earth” and would be universally beneficial – including for Denmark. “We have to have the land because it’s not possible to properly defend a large section of this Earth – not just the US – without it. So we have to have it, and I think we will have it,” he said.

The statements of the US president should be taken seriously, Putin warned, pointing out the US has been harboring plans to annex Greenland for over a century and a half already. “Everyone knows about the US plans to annex Greenland. You know, this may surprise someone only at first glance. And it is a deep mistake to believe that this is some kind of extravagant talk of the new American administration,” Putin warned. The American plans to seize Greenland date back to 1860, but at the time they did not get supported by the Congress, the Russian president pointed out. “Let me remind you that by 1868, the Alaska purchase was being ridiculed in American newspapers. It was called madness, an ‘ice box,’ and ‘the polar bear garden’ of Andrew Johnson, then-US president. And his Greenland proposals failed,” Putin said.

The US, Germany, and Denmark also neared a land-swap deal in 1910, with the proposed agreement ceding Greenland to America, Putin noted. However, the deal ultimately fell through. From the early 19th century to the 1950s, Greenland was a territory under the full control of Denmark. During World War Two, it was occupied by the US after Denmark proper was captured by Nazi Germany. Currently, the island hosts a US military base and the infrastructure for an early warning system for ballistic missiles. In recent decades, the island has grown increasingly autonomous and was granted home rule in 1979, ultimately receiving the right in 2009 to declare independence if a referendum passes.

Read more …

“I understand Steve Witkoff. He is a clever and energetic person who thinks that everyone should be aware of the things he regards as obvious. Judging by the statements he made during his conversation with Tucker Carlson, the essence of this conflict is clear to him,” Lavrov said..”

• Zelensky Lashes Out At Trump Envoy Witkoff (RT)

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has reproached US President Donald Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, accusing him of disseminating “Kremlin narratives.” Zelensky made the remarks on Wednesday in an interview with European broadcasters, including France 2. He accused Witkoff, a key official in opening negotiations on resolving the Ukraine conflict, of taking Moscow’s side and “helping” Russian President Vladimir Putin. “I believe that Witkoff really does quote Kremlin narratives very often. I believe that this will not bring us closer to peace. And I believe that, unfortunately, this will weaken the American pressure on Russia. We can only fix this information backdrop through our actions. We’re trying to do that,” Zelensky stated.

“Witkoff’s statements are very much a hindrance to us, because we are fighting Putin and we really do not want him to have many helpers,” he added. Zelensky was apparently referring to remarks made by Witkoff in a recent interview with American journalist Tucker Carlson, during which the special envoy spoke about the status of former Ukrainian territories that have joined Russia, describing the issue as “an elephant in the room” that “no one wants to talk about.” “They’re Russian-speaking. There have been referendums where the overwhelming majority of the people have indicated that they want to be under Russian rule,” Witkoff said. “The Russians are de facto in control of these territories. The question is: Will the world acknowledge that those are Russian territories? Can Zelensky survive politically if he acknowledges this? This is the central issue in the conflict,” he added.

The remarks outraged Kiev, with the head of Ukraine’s Foreign Affairs Committee, Aleksandr Merezhko, condemning what he called “disgraceful, shocking statements” and urging Washington to dismiss “completely unprofessional” Witkoff from his role. Witkoff’s statements were welcomed by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, however, who suggested that, judging by his remarks, the special envoy had understood the very “essence” of the hostilities between Moscow and Kiev. “I understand Steve Witkoff. He is a clever and energetic person who thinks that everyone should be aware of the things he regards as obvious. Judging by the statements he made during his conversation with Tucker Carlson, the essence of this conflict is clear to him,” Lavrov said in an interview with Russia’s Channel 1 this week.

Read more …

He is Russian by birth.

• Zelensky Speaks Of ‘Hatred Of Russians’ (RT)

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has admitted that his “hatred” of Russians is one of the driving forces propelling him to “keep going” in the conflict against Moscow. In an interview with the French daily Le Figaro published on Wednesday, Zelensky identified the emotion as one of his three key psychological drivers since the escalation of the conflict in February 2022. Zelensky said he hated “Russians who killed so many Ukrainian citizens,” adding that he considered such an attitude appropriate in wartime. His other motivations included a sense of national dignity and the desire for his descendants to live “in the free world.” Ukrainian officials have accused Russia of being a historic oppressor while Zelensky has previously touted Ukrainians’ “love of freedom” as a trait that distinguishes them from Russians.

Zelensky, whose presidential term expired last year, was elected in 2019 on a platform of defusing tensions with Moscow and reconciling ethnic Russian Ukrainians in Donbass, many of whom opposed the 2014 Western-backed coup in Kiev. However, his initial diplomatic efforts were thwarted by radical Ukrainian nationalists in the body politic.Since the coup, Kiev has enacted various policies undermining the rights of ethnic minorities, with Russians as the primary target. Moscow has accused Zelensky of intensifying the crackdown, particularly by attacking the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the country’s largest religious denomination, which now faces potential prohibition for having historic links with Russia.

In a recent interview, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov asserted that Zelensky caters to “the segment of the population that holds radical, ultra-right, revanchist, Banderite views,” as his image as a national leader increasingly deteriorates. “Zelensky does not want to display weakness, as he realizes that his days are numbered,” the Russian official claimed.

Read more …

“..the FBI investigating attacks on Tesla cars and facilities is nothing but “lawfare” and “political weaponization.”

• Rep. Goldman: FBI Probe of Tesla Attacks “Political Weaponization” (Turley)

For many of us who were long active in Democratic politics, it is becoming increasingly difficult to recognize the party as a new generation of foul-mouthed, censorship-supporting, mob-enabling leaders take over. That sense returned this week when Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-NY) claimed that the FBI investigating attacks on Tesla cars and facilities is nothing but “lawfare” and “political weaponization.” Goldman’s latest controversy captures how Democrats have now entirely cut the cords of decency and moderation that once tethered their party to the mainstream of our society. Democratic leaders have been fueling the attacks on Musk and his companies, even putting national security interests aside to seek to punish him. Goldman (and other Democrats) have previously pushed back on criticism of Antifa and left-wing attacks.

However, Goldman’s criticism of the FBI task force on these widespread attacks is otherworldly. Goldman this week declared: “This is the political weaponization of the DOJ. Trump uses his official authority to defend his benefactor Elon Musk. The FBI then creates a task force to use our law enforcement to ‘crack down’ [sic] on adversaries of Musk’s [sic]. Where are the Republicans so opposed to ‘lawfare’?” There are have widespread attacks on Tesla charging stations, vehicles, and dealerships, including multiple arson attacks. It is clearly political violence orchestrated against an American company and American property owners, including individual citizens, to push consumers away from buying Musk products and associations.

That sounds a lot like the definition of terrorism. The Justice Department defines domestic terrorism as “Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.” I have long criticized the expansion of terrorism definitions. However, this fits even the narrowest definitions. It is political violence designed to intimidate and harm those with opposing political views. The fact that they are lone wolves like Daniel Clarke-Pounder, 24, who set himself on fire after throwing Molotov cocktails, does not change that criminal intent. The Democrats have long been accused of belittling or dismissing the seriousness of such crimes. That was the case with Molotov-cocktail throwing lawyers in New York who were given relatively light sentences under the Biden Administration.

It is also evident in the reaction to the recent attack on a conservative in the New York subway. There is a sense of license among some on the left in carrying out attacks on those on the right. This is how rage rhetoric of leaders like Goldman can fuel violent rage in the most unhinged elements of their party. As I previously wrote: “What few today want to admit is that they like it. They like the freedom that it affords, the ability to hate and harass without a sense of responsibility. It is evident all around us as people engage in language and conduct that they repudiate in others. We have become a nation of rage addicts; flailing against anyone or anything that stands in opposition to our own truths.” Once released by the rage from the confines of reason and civility, it is easy to dismiss the investigation of political violence as “political weaponization.” In attacking the FBI investigation, Goldman is the very voice of an age of rage.

Read more …

“Goldberg said he gained access to a Signal group chat from a user identified as “Mike Waltz.”

Why on earth would Waltz do that? Up to him to explain/ Or deny.

• Signal Leak A ‘Witch Hunt’ – Trump (RT)

US President Donald Trump has cast doubt on the Signal messaging platform following the leak of a private conversation among senior members of his administration about military strikes in Yemen. He has dismissed the media response to the episode as a “witch hunt.” The Trump administration confirmed this week that a journalist had been mistakenly added to a private chat on Signal discussing a planned attack on Houthi militants. The US launched large-scale airstrikes on March 15 in the Yemeni capital Sanaa and the northern province Saada, reportedly killing dozens, in response to Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping. Asked by reporters on Wednesday about the leak, Trump said he was not concerned, insisting that “there was no harm done, because the attack was unbelievably successful.”

He dismissed the media’s interest as “a witch hunt,” accusing journalists of exaggerating the situation after a question about whether the administration was downplaying the scandal. “I think Signal could be defective, to be honest with you,” Trump said. “We use Signal, and everybody uses Signal, but it could be a defective platform, and we’re gonna have to find that out,” he added.On Monday, The Atlantic magazine published a report by editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg revealing a discussion among senior administration officials about military strategy for targeting the Houthis. Goldberg said he gained access to a Signal group chat from a user identified as “Mike Waltz.” The chat, titled “Houthi PC small group,” reportedly included Vice President J.D. Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and other cabinet officials. The group had been engaged in what The Atlantic described as a “fascinating policy discussion” in the days leading up to Trump’s order for the strikes.

Following the White House’s denial that any classified information was leaked, The Atlantic released additional screenshots on Wednesday. Hegseth has insisted that “nobody was texting war plans.” Asked whether the leaked material was classified, Trump replied: “Well, that’s what I’ve heard. I don’t know[.]” National Security Adviser Mike Waltz has taken “full responsibility” for the incident, calling it “embarrassing” in a Fox News interview on Tuesday. Trump defended Waltz amid calls for his resignation, telling reporters “I guess he said he claimed responsibility.” He also rejected speculation about Hegseth’s future, stating the defense secretary “had nothing to do with this” and that he is doing an “excellent job.” Signal dismissed media reports of possible “vulnerabilities” on Tuesday, calling its software “the gold standard for private, secure communications.”

Tulsi Signal
https://twitter.com/PapiTrumpo/status/1904938349883797850

Read more …

677 district judges, and Trump gets the same one all the time.

• Trump Says ‘Disgraceful’ That Boasberg To Preside Over Signal Lawsuit (JTN)

President Donald Trump on Thursday criticized Judge James Boasberg for having been assigned another important case regarding him and his administration – this one for a lawsuit brought against top officials over a journalist accidentally being included in their group chat about a planned Houthi air strike. Boasberg, who serves on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and was appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama, and is also presiding over a case on whether the administration has the authority to deport illegal migrants under the Alien Enemies Act. (An appeals court on Wednesday denied a request to overturn his ruling early this month to temporarily halt the deport effort.)

“How disgraceful is it that “Judge” James Boasberg has just been given a fourth “Trump Case,” something which is, statistically, IMPOSSIBLE,” he wrote on TRUTH Social. “There is no way for a Republican, especially a TRUMP REPUBLICAN, to win before him.” He said Boasberg had massive “Trump derangement syndrome.” The watchdog group American Oversight filed a group chat lawsuit against Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the National Archives and Records Administration.

“Plaintiff American Oversight brings this action … to prevent the unlawful destruction of federal records and to compel Defendants to fulfill their legal obligations to preserve and recover federal records created through unauthorized use of Signal for sensitive national security decision-making,” the lawsuit reads. Trump’s senior national security officials accidentally shared sensitive details about strike plans on the Houthi group in Yemen with editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg through the encrypted messaging app Signal.

Read more …

Russiagate ain’t dead. This line is peculiar: “..he said that Howell found “reason to believe that the former President would ‘flee from prosecution.’” How would a President do that? Put on a wig?

• Judge Declines Trump Admin Request T0 Recuse Herself From Perkins Coie Case (ET)

A federal judge has declined a request by the Trump administration that she remove herself from overseeing a lawsuit challenging an executive action targeting Perkins Coie LLP, accusing the Justice Department of attacking her character in an effort to undermine the integrity of the judicial system. U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell wrote in a March 26 ruling that a Trump administration filing seeking her recusal was “rife with innuendo” and that none of the claims it put forward “come close to meeting the standard for disqualification.” “Though this adage is commonplace, and the tactic overused, it is called to mind by defendants’ pending motion to disqualify this Court: ‘When you can’t attack the message, attack the messenger,’” U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell wrote in a March 26 ruling.

President Donald Trump’s action issued on March 6 prevents law firm Perkins Coie from doing business with federal contractors and blocks its lawyers from accessing government officials. Additionally, it suspends any active security clearances held by individuals at the firm, pending a review of whether such clearances are consistent with the national interest. Perkins Coie was hired by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee in 2016. According to the presidential action issued by Trump, the law firm has engaged in “dishonest and dangerous activity” that has affected the United States “for decades.” The firm sued the administration over the order in federal court in Washington on March 11, alleging Trump’s actions violated its rights under the U.S. Constitution.

Roughly a week after Trump’s executive action was first issued, Howell temporarily blocked the administration from enforcing much of it, finding the law firm was likely to win its lawsuit. Last week, the Department of Justice (DOJ) asked for the case to be moved to another judge in Washington’s federal court, citing Howell’s public comments about the president and her connection with key aspects of the case. “This Court has not kept its disdain for President Trump secret,” Chad Mizelle, acting associate attorney general at the DOJ, wrote in a motion seeking her disqualification. “It has voiced its thoughts loudly—both inside and outside the courtroom.”

Speaking inside the court, Mizelle also pointed to now-former special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump, during which he said that Howell found “reason to believe that the former President would ‘flee from prosecution.’” The judge also “pierced attorney-client privilege, ordering President Trump’s attorney to testify before a D.C. grand jury” investigating his alleged retention of classified documents in the South Florida case, he said. Mizelle added that Howell also previously rejected Trump’s view that the indictments against individuals involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol were a “national injustice” and called his supporters “sore losers.” In her 21-page ruling, Howell wrote that when the DOJ “engages in this rhetorical strategy of ad hominem attack, the stakes become much larger than only the reputation of the targeted federal judge.”

“This strategy is designed to impugn the integrity of the federal judicial system and blame any loss on the decision-maker rather than fallacies in the substantive legal arguments presented,” she added. The judge said she welcomed the Trump administration’s opportunity “to set the record straight, because facts matter.” “Every litigating party deserves a fair and impartial hearing to determine both what the material facts are and how the law best applies to those facts,” she wrote. “That fundamental promise, however, does not entitle any party—not even those with the power and prestige of the President of the United States or a federal agency—to demand adherence to their own version of the facts and preferred legal outcome.”

Read more …

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan. It’s a small world.

• Appeals Court Halts Judge’s Order Requiring Musk to Hand Over DOGE Records (ET)

A federal appeals court has temporarily blocked a discovery order from U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan that would have required Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to turn over documents and respond to written questions about their role in advising cuts in certain parts of the federal government. In a ruling issued on March 26, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted an emergency stay of Chutkan’s March 12 order, which had largely granted limited, expedited discovery to a coalition of 13 Democratic-led states, requiring Musk and DOGE to produce documents and respond to questions within 21 days. The appeals court ruled that Musk and DOGE had “satisfied the stringent requirements for a stay” and showed that they are likely to prevail in their claim that the lower court must resolve their motion to dismiss before allowing discovery to proceed.

“In particular, petitioners have shown a likelihood of success on their argument that the district court was required to decide their motion to dismiss before allowing discovery,” the three-judge panel wrote in its ruling. Following the appellate court ruling, Chutkan entered a minute order acknowledging the decision. She canceled a status hearing previously scheduled for March 27. The case, brought by New Mexico and a coalition of 12 Democratic-led states, challenges the legality of DOGE’s sweeping cost-cutting efforts, which have included the cancellation of federal grants and mass terminations of government employees from jobs identified by DOGE as unneeded. The plaintiffs argued in their original complaint that Musk is effectively running DOGE without Senate confirmation, allegedly in violation of the Constitution’s Appointments Clause.

“Oblivious to the threat this poses to the nation, President Trump has delegated virtually unchecked authority to Mr. Musk without proper legal authorization from Congress and without meaningful supervision of his activities,” the plaintiffs allege. “As a result, he has transformed a minor position that was formerly responsible for managing government websites into a designated agent of chaos without limitation and in violation of the separation of powers.” In a subsequent motion for a temporary restraining order against Musk and DOGE, the states further accused Musk of unlawfully exercising sweeping executive power without Senate confirmation by directing federal agencies to fire employees, cancel contracts, dismantle programs, and access sensitive government data.

In response, government lawyers urged the court to reject the emergency motion. They argued that the states had failed to show any imminent or irreparable harm, and said the restraining order sought was overly broad, legally unsupported, and disconnected from core constitutional claims made by the plaintiffs. Even if Musk were improperly appointed, they argue, sharing data with him or others at DOGE does not, by itself, constitute an illegal exercise of government power. Musk also is not empowered to act without the president’s approval, they said.

Chutkan partially sided with the Democrat-led states on March 12, ordering Musk, DOGE, and related entities to turn over documents related to firing federal workers and altering government databases. She also required DOGE to identify everyone who has led or worked at the agency since President Donald Trump took office, and list all agencies where DOGE or Musk canceled contracts, cut grants, or terminated employees. Trump and Musk have both said that DOGE has been assisting various agencies that have fired or offered buyouts to tens of thousands of federal workers since Trump returned to office on Jan. 20, 2025.

Read more …

“..it is now on the automakers, from the Big Three to Volkswagen and beyond, to bring back good union jobs to the U.S.,”

• Auto Workers Union Applauds Trump’s New Tariffs (JTN)

The United Auto Workers Union (UAW) on Wednesday applauded President Donald Trump’s new tariffs on cars and autoparts coming into the United States from other countries.The president announced the new 25% tariffs at the White House earlier Wednesday, stating that he expects all car companies to expand operations in the U.S. or relocate their businesses to the U.S. if they are not already in the country. The UAW said in a news release that the move marks the “beginning of the end of a thirty-plus year ‘free trade’ disaster,” which “devastated the working class” in the U.S. Ending the race to the bottom in the auto industry starts with fixing our broken trade deals, and the Trump administration has made history with today’s actions, UAW President Shawn Fain said in a statement.

“The UAW/ and the working class in general couldn’t care less about party politics; working people expect leaders to work together to deliver results. “These tariffs are a major step in the right direction for autoworkers and blue-collar communities across the country, and it is now on the automakers, from the Big Three to Volkswagen and beyond, to bring back good union jobs to the U.S.,” he added. The announcement comes ahead of next week’s “liberation day,” where Trump is expected to impose large scale tariffs on U.S. allies and trading partners, including Canada and Mexico. Those tariffs are expected to go into effect on April 2.

Read more …

Spreading far and wide: “..German automakers currently have 330 automotive suppliers in Mexico..”

• Auto Tariffs: German Carmakers Face Billions in Losses (CTH)

The atomic sledgehammer that President Trump just delivered to the German auto industry simply cannot be overemphasized. A 25% tariff on imported cars and car parts completely negates hundreds of billions in pre-positioned investment dollars by German auto companies in Mexico. To give scale to the impact on Germany, consider that German automakers currently have 330 automotive suppliers in Mexico according to information from VDA. Audi (a subsidiary of Volkswagen) has no U.S. production sites; every Audi sold in America will be subject to a 25% tariff. The Audi brand access to the U.S. market was/is 100% dependent on Mexico, including for manufacturing the Q5 SUV, its top-selling U.S. model. According to prior reporting from Politico, “Volkswagen’s most popular model for American consumers is the Tiguan, an SUV that is entirely manufactured in Mexico.

The German automaker sold over 30,000 of the vehicles in the final quarter of last year, a nearly 50 percent year-over-year increase.” But wait, it gets worse…. French-Italian-American automaker Stellantis is the most exposed of Europe’s automakers as it makes Jeep and RAM models in Mexico. The tariffs will make European automakers’ Mexican factories completely redundant. They could make them in Germany for the same tariff impact. Making them in Mexico is now useless. They were only being made/assembled in Mexico to gain access to the U.S. market without tariffs. This reality will push all EU automakers to shift production to the U.S. There could also be an explosion in UAW membership depending on where in the USA the EU car companies end up manufacturing.

The auto industry is only one industry, but it is a huge economic driver for multiple countries, especially those countries who depend on access to the U.S. market in order to sell their cars and trucks. German automakers will need three things, quickly: (1) Subsidies from German govt to help offset the impact of tariffs [Short term 2-5 years]. (2) Shift production of autos for U.S market into USA [Make in USA]. (3) Interim access to new markets to help offset the anticipated drop in demand [think Russia without sanctions]. Each of these facets plays into current geopolitics. That’s mainly just the German impact. Then overlay Canada and Mexico (big impact), along with South Korea and Japan (lesser impact due to pre-positioned manufacturing/assembly in the USA). The auto-tariffs carry a huge economic outcome around the globe.

Read more …

“The new US president has shelved the rainbow banners of BLM and the alphabet soup of Western liberalism..”

• Liberalism Is Dead, This Is What Comes After (Trenin)

The phrase “changing world order” has become a familiar refrain in international affairs. But what’s often missed is how rapidly that change is now unfolding – and who is accelerating it. Regime changes in international relations are usually the result of crises: wars between great powers or upheavals within them. This was the case in 1939-1945 and again in 1989-1991. Usually, the problems accumulate over years and decades, and the resolution comes unexpectedly: the slow movement of tectonic plates suddenly accelerates dramatically, an avalanche begins that rapidly changes the landscape. We have had the opportunity to observe something similar in recent weeks. The most striking thing is that the main factor in the changes has been the leadership of the state which until now has defended the remnants of the old world order most stubbornly, even fiercely.

The fall of unipolarity, once long predicted and cautiously awaited, has arrived ahead of schedule. The United States, long the enforcer of liberal internationalism, is no longer trying to stop the shift toward a multipolar world. Under Donald Trump, it has joined it. This pivot is not a mere campaign promise or rhetorical shift. It is a structural break. In the space of weeks, the US has gone from resisting the multipolar order to attempting to dominate it on new terms – less moralism, more realism. In doing so, Washington may inadvertently help deliver the very outcome that previous administrations worked so hard to prevent. Trump’s turn has broad and lasting implications. The world’s most powerful actor has abandoned the guardianship of liberal globalism and embraced something far more pragmatic: great power rivalry.

The language of human rights and democracy promotion has been replaced with “America First,” not just domestically, but in foreign relations as well. The new US president has shelved the rainbow banners of BLM and the alphabet soup of Western liberalism. Instead, he waves the American flag with confidence, signaling to allies and adversaries alike: US foreign policy is now about interests, not ideologies. This is not theoretical. It is a geopolitical earthquake. Firstly, multipolarity is no longer hypothetical. Trump has shifted the US from an enforcer of unipolarity to a player in multipolarity. His doctrine – “great power competition” – aligns more with the realist tradition than with the post-Cold War liberalism that dominated Washington for decades.

In this view, the world is made up of sovereign poles: the US, China, Russia, India – each pursuing its own interests, sometimes in conflict, sometimes overlapping. Cooperation arises not from shared values, but from shared necessities. This is a world Russia knows well – and one in which it thrives. Secondly, Washington’s pivot to realism means a fundamental shift in how it engages with the world. The era of liberal crusades is over. Trump has defunded USAID, slashed “democracy promotion” budgets, and shown a willingness to work with regimes of all types – so long as they serve American interests. This is a departure from the binary moral frameworks of the past. And ironically, it aligns more closely with Moscow’s own worldview. Under Trump, the White House no longer seeks to export liberalism, but to negotiate power.

Thirdly, the West, as we knew it, is gone. The liberal “collective West” – defined by shared ideology and transatlantic solidarity – no longer exists in its previous form. The US has effectively withdrawn from it, prioritizing national interest over globalist commitments. What remains is a fractured West, split between nationalist-led governments like Trump’s and more traditional liberal strongholds in Brussels, Paris, and Berlin. The internal clash between these two visions – nationalism versus globalism – is now the defining political struggle across the West.

Read more …

“..leaking classified documents to foreign media and orchestrating leaks from high-level government offices, allegedly with Netanyahu’s own approval..”

• Will This Scandal Be The End Of ‘Unsinkable’ Netanyahu? (Sadygzade)

A major scandal known as “Qatargate” has erupted in Israel, involving alleged Qatari interference in Israeli politics. At the center of the investigation is Eliezer Feldstein, former chief aide to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He was arrested in November 2024 on charges of leaking classified documents to foreign media and orchestrating leaks from high-level government offices, allegedly with Netanyahu’s own approval, under the pretext of combating disinformation.

The investigation revealed Feldstein’s connections with Qatari authorities. While serving as an employee of the press office in Netanyahu’s administration, Feldstein had for several years combined his government work with private practice, offering political consulting and branding services. One of his clients was Qatar. Specifically, on behalf of Doha, Feldstein and his team of Israeli consultants developed a reputation protection strategy during preparations for the 2022 FIFA World Cup. Later, they helped Qatari brands regain their positions in Gulf markets that had been lost during the 2017-2021 diplomatic crisis.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Chemo

 

 

Hee haw
https://twitter.com/AMAZlNGNATURE/status/1904910177347772736

 

 

Chewey

 

 

Ketchup
https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1905211149940830537

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle December 9 2022

Dec 092022
 
 December 9, 2022  Posted by at 9:35 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,  74 Responses »


Salvador Dali Back the girl 1926

 

• Second Wave Of Twitter Docs Reveal ‘Blacklists’ And ‘Shadow Bans’ (JTN)
• Saxo Bank Predictions Warn Of A Wild 2023 (Spears)
• Merkel’s ‘Confession’ May Be Ground For Tribunal – Moscow (RT)
• US Trying To Make Ukraine Conflict Last For Years – Russia (RT)
• Kremlin Explains When Ukraine Conflict May End (RT)
• Bandera’s ‘Insurgency-in-Waiting’ (Robeson)
• ADL: Ukraine’s Azov Battalion No Longer ‘Far-right’ (GZ)
• EU Lacks ‘Critical Defense Capabilities’ – Borrell (RT)
• The Russian Oil Price Cap Isn’t As Simple As It Seems (OP)
• “People Are Losing Faith In This Institution”: ECB Staff (ZH)
• FBI Sees ‘Threat’ In Apple Encryption Move (RT)
• The Coming Purge of the China-Hands (Pattberg)
• The Fixed-pPice Shopping Basket: Greece’s Answer To Cost Of Living Crisis (G.)
• Daniel Ellsberg: Indict Me Too (Lauria)
• Disinformation Down 92% As NYT Writers Go On Strike (BBee)

 

 

In 2018, Twitter was doing fine with the same amount of people they now employ. What was the rest doing? Just censoring?

 

 

Shadow ban

 

 

Zelensky

 

 

@CelineDion reveals she has ultimately been diagnosed with Stiff Person Syndrome. This is a known vaxx side effect that Pfizer kept quiet until the court forced them release the side effects in the first Pfizer dump.

 

 

Tucker board

 

 

 

 

Christine Anderson
https://twitter.com/i/status/1599487419530629120

 

 

 

 

Interesting discussions on Twitter about Twitter. Much more to come. It’ll be hard on Elon too. For instance, he tweeted that Twitter doesn’t employ the Perkins Coie law firm. And then someone sends a Dec. 8 paper that says it does. How now?

• Second Wave Of Twitter Docs Reveal ‘Blacklists’ And ‘Shadow Bans’ (JTN)

Former New York Times editor Bari Weiss on Thursday released internal documents on Twitter’s censorship efforts and detailed the creation of blacklists and use of shadow ban technique to throttle “disfavored” tweets. Last week, Musk released information on the company’s censoring of the Hunter Biden laptop story via alternative journalist Matt Taibbi. Thursday’s dump came through a team of reporters Weiss led and to whom Musk granted broad access to the company’s files to investigate on condition they first publish their findings on Twitter. “[T]eams of Twitter employees build blacklists, prevent disfavored tweets from trending, and actively limit the visibility of entire accounts or even trending topics—all in secret, without informing users,” Weiss posted in the first of a series of tweets.

Weiss subsequently outlined how conservative personalities or individuals with “disfavored” positions would end up on internal blacklists to stunt the spread of their messaging. Talk-show host Dan Bongino was featured on a “search blacklist” while Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk’s account was set to “Do Not Amplify,” Weiss detailed. COVID-19 lockdown critic Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University wound up on a “trends blacklist” that prevented his tweets from featuring on the website’s trending section. Weiss then recalled prior comments from Twitter executives denying that the company used shadow bans to stifle traffic on accounts without their knowledge.

“We do not shadow ban. And we certainly don’t shadow ban based on political viewpoints or ideology,” said then Head of Legal Policy and Trust Vijaya Gadde and Head of Product Kayvon Beykpour in 2018. Weiss then outlined testimony from Twitter engineers detailing an identical process the company termed “Visibility Filtering” in which the platform would quietly limit the reach of specific posts. VF decisions would go through the Strategic Response Team — Global Escalation Team Weiss explained, which she said often handled up to 200 cases per day. She further asserted that a secret dubbed “Site Integrity Policy, Policy Escalation Support” included top-level officials who made the biggest decisions. Weiss asserted that former CEO Jack Dorsey participated in the group’s deliberations.

Read more …

‘If I was a strategic thinker in the non-western world I would be thinking about what to do with my US dollar reserves..’

• Saxo Bank Predictions Warn Of A Wild 2023 (Spears)

From Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to a British prime minister being ousted after six weeks, it has been a year of shocking events. More volatility lies ahead if Saxo Bank — whose previous annual list of ‘outrageous predictions’ did not see those two coming — is accurate with its prophecies for 2023, which include the reversal of Brexit and the end of dollar dominance. Some of Saxo Bank’s predictions are more outrageous than others, admits Steen Jakobsen, chief investment officer, who has been overseeing the annual project for more than 20 years. He says the most likely prediction of Saxo’s 10 for 2023 could see the US dollar’s dominance assailed by concerted action among non-Western countries.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine led to the ‘US weaponising the US dollar,’ as part of the sanctions response, says Jakobsen. ‘If I was a strategic thinker in the non-western world I would be thinking about what to do with my US dollar reserves going forward.’ Oil-producing nations could agree with large consumers such as China and India to do deals in a new reserve asset, leaving the dollar behind. Saxo’s possible scenario sees non-US allied countries create an international clearing union (ICU) and a new reserve asset. Based on an idea by economist John Maynard Keynes after the Second World War, the idea would make the purchasing price for oil more stable in currency terms. ‘Why would Saudi Arabia and China do deals in dollars?’ adds Jakobsen. He believes it would be a natural move ‘at a time when the US has stepped back from being a world policeman.’

Saxo’s predictions suggest a splintering world in which national economies ‘shift into War Economy mode, where sovereign economic gains and self-reliance trump globalisation.’ But closer regional links are also foreseen, most notably in the UK, which votes to ‘un-Brexit’ and rejoin the EU in the wake of economic turmoil and political demonstrations. Jakobsen does not think Rishi Sunak’s more measured approach as prime minister will be any more effective than predecessor Liz Truss’s attempts to create a laissez-faire economy. ‘Neither is going to do anything for the debt or inflation (problems) in the UK,’ he says. ‘Maybe this leads to dissatisfaction, demonstrations and ultimately an election which will see Labour come in. Maybe the Liberal Democrats show up as a Europe-friendly party, (popular) with young people in particular.’

Read more …

Merkel made clear that the “collective west” spent years trying to create a war with Russia. It’s that simple.

A tribunal would have no effect. Because all tribunals these days listen to only one side. A “Russian war crimes tribunal” will exclude Ukraine war crimes. Useless. Or worse.

• Merkel’s ‘Confession’ May Be Ground For Tribunal – Moscow (RT)

A confession by former German chancellor Angela Merkel regarding the true nature of the Minsk agreements – a roadmap for peace in Ukraine that was brokered by Berlin – could be used as evidence in a tribunal involving Western politicians responsible for provoking the ongoing conflict between Moscow and Kiev, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said. The former German leader admitted in an interview with Die Zeit on Wednesday that the actual purpose of the Minsk agreements was to give Ukraine time to prepare for a military confrontation with Russia. “They talk a lot about legal assessments of what is happening around Ukraine, certain tribunals and so on in all sorts of ways,” Zakharova said during a media briefing on Thursday. “But this is a specific reason for a tribunal.”

She claimed that Merkel’s comments were nothing short of the testimony of a person who had openly admitted that everything done between 2014 and 2015 was meant to “distract the international community from real issues, play for time, pump up the Kiev regime with weapons, and escalate the issue into a large-scale conflict,” Zakharova added. She said Merkel’s statements “horrifyingly” reveal that the West uses “forgery as a method of action,” and resorts to “machinations, manipulation and all kinds of distortions of truth, law and rights imaginable.” The spokeswoman claimed that the West had known well in 2015, when it spent hours negotiating the second part of the Minsk accords, that it would never even attempt to fulfill any part of the agreements and would instead pump weapons into Kiev.

“They did not feel sorry for anyone: women, children, the civilian population of Donbass or the whole of Ukraine. They needed a conflict and they were ready for it back then, in 2015,” Zakharova said. Earlier this month, a number of Western officials called for the creation of a special UN-backed court to investigate alleged war crimes committed by Russia during its ongoing military campaign in Ukraine. The Kremlin has said the West has no legal or moral right to set up any courts to investigate or prosecute Russia over the conflict, which Moscow claims was ultimately provoked by the US and its allies.

Read more …

“She also said that Zelensky should watch his back, considering last week’s visit to Ukraine by Victoria Nuland..”

• US Trying To Make Ukraine Conflict Last For Years – Russia (RT)

US arms procurement documents show that Washington intends to fuel the conflict in Ukraine for at least three more years, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said. Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky should take notice of it when assessing the future of his country, she added. “Washington plans to fuel hostilities in Ukraine at least till the end of 2025. That’s what their plans are, judging by documents, which they don’t hide from anybody,” the Russian diplomat told journalists during a briefing on Thursday. Zakharova was referring to a contract for Raytheon’s National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS), which the Pentagon announced last week.

The US Army will buy $1.2 billion worth of hardware for Ukraine, according to the announcement, with an estimated completion date in late November 2025. The US, which pledged to provide military assistance to Kiev for “as long as it takes” to defeat Russia, previously supplied this type of anti-aircraft system to Ukrainian troops. Advisors to President Vladimir Zelensky should tell him about the procurement timeline, Zakharova suggested, so that he didn’t promise his people that the conflict would end next year, as he did this week. “Washington has different plans. There is a lot of money to be embezzled” through Ukraine aid programs, she alleged. Zakharova claimed that Western assistance was “a corruption marathon” going from the White House to Kiev and back again and profiting grifters on a global scale.

She also said that Zelensky should watch his back, considering last week’s visit to Ukraine by Victoria Nuland, a veteran US diplomat, whom Zakharova called “a harbinger of tragic shocks, caused by the Washington-orchestrated bloody putsch” of 2014. “A new palace coup may be in the making or some other reshuffle. I believe the Zelensky regime, which has repeatedly tested Washington’s patience, has some things to consider,” she remarked, adding that the US didn’t care who was in power in Kiev. Nuland, who served as US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs in 2014, was recorded discussing with then-US Ambassador to Kiev, Geoffrey Pyatt, the composition of the post-coup Ukrainian government. The private conversation was leaked online by unidentified parties. Her preferred candidate for prime minister subsequently got the job.

Read more …

“Zelensky knows when all this can end, it can end tomorrow if desired..”

• Kremlin Explains When Ukraine Conflict May End (RT)

Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky knows that if desired the fighting between Moscow and Kiev could end at any moment, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said during a press call on Thursday. “You can talk about when all of this will end until you are blue in the face,” Peskov said in response to the Ukrainian president’s recent prediction that the conflict could be over next year. “Zelensky knows when all this can end, it can end tomorrow if desired,” the spokesperson added. In a recent interview with Politico – which named him ‘the most powerful person in Europe’ – Zelensky stated that Ukrainians “will be the most influential next year, but already in peacetime.”


Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday that Moscow’s military operation in Ukraine could turn out to be a “lengthy process” because achieving all of Russia’s objectives could take quite some time. Earlier, the Russian leader also said that it was wrong to talk about the timing of the special operation or try to adjust it. He noted that it was impossible to set an exact date for when the conflict could end because the fighting is still intense. “We are working calmly, the troops are moving, reaching the lines that are set as tasks. Everything is going according to plan,” Putin said back in June.

Read more …

“[Zelensky] can’t go forward with full peace negotiations with Russia, with Putin, unless America has his back..”

• Bandera’s ‘Insurgency-in-Waiting’ (Robeson)

In early February 2022, a couple weeks before Putin’s invasion, Ragozin observed, “While downplaying the risk of a Russian offensive and even reprimanding the West for sowing panic, the Ukrainian leadership appears preoccupied with a different threat – that of a coup.” In the same article (“What is Zelenskiy afraid of?”), he described the “Capitulation Resistance Movement” as “a radical street force dedicated to toppling Zelensky” and “a paramilitary force associated with the nationalist opposition that coalesced around former president Petro Poroshenko.” Nationalists officially launched the “Capitulation Resistance Movement” (Rukh Oporu Kapitulyatsiyi, ROK) in October 2019 to sabotage Zelensky’s peace mandate after the political newcomer crushed Poroshenko and his political party in elections held earlier that year.

“No Capitulation” became the slogan of a broader, far-right-led campaign against Zelensky and his government, with protests typically spearheaded by the neo-Nazi Azov movement and the ROK. “Zelensky ran as a peace candidate,” and the hardliners vigorously opposed him, the late Russia expert Stephen F. Cohen explained to journalist Aaron Maté that month. “He won an enormous mandate to make peace. So, that means he has to negotiate with Vladimir Putin.” But there was a major obstacle. Ukrainian fascists “have said that they will remove and kill Zelensky if he continues along this line of negotiating with Putin… His life is being threatened literally by a quasi-fascist movement in Ukraine.” Peace could only come, Cohen stressed, on one condition. “[Zelensky] can’t go forward with full peace negotiations with Russia, with Putin, unless America has his back,” he said.

“Maybe that won’t be enough, but unless the White House encourages this diplomacy, Zelensky has no chance of negotiating an end to the war. So the stakes are enormously high.” That was three years ago. After Russia invaded, the ROK became the FURM, or the Free Ukraine Resistance Movement, which has mostly flown under the radar. After interviewing a representative of the FURM in early March, a neoconservative US journalist referred to the “Resistance Movement” as an “insurgency-in-waiting, one of many, no doubt, that plans to resort to guerrilla warfare in the event that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s attempted conquest of Ukraine turns into a prolonged occupation of major population centers.”

After keeping tabs on this “quasi-fascist” movement for a few years (although it mostly went dark after Russia invaded), I feel comfortable speculating that the ROK was partially responsible for making Zelensky feel that negotiating peace with Russia would be too dangerous for him. I also suspect that once Putin declared war, Zelensky as an actor felt his only choice was to become an action hero, not just to rally international support for his country, but to become so popular in Ukraine and the West to rule out a coup d’etat.

Read more …

“The New York Times has even referred to the unit as the “celebrated Azov Battalion.”

• ADL: Ukraine’s Azov Battalion No Longer ‘Far-right’ (GZ)

A November 9 email from the Anti-Defamation League to The Grayzone provided a twisted defense of Ukraine’s Azov Battalion. Despite its self-proclaimed “anti-hate” mission, the ADL insisted in the email it “does not” consider Azov as the “far right group it once was.” The Azov Battalion is a neo-Nazi unit formally integrated into the US government-backed Ukrainian military. Founded by Andriy Biletsky, who has infamously vowed to “lead the white races of the world in a final crusade…against Semite-led untermenschen,” Azov was once widely condemned by Western corporate media and the human rights industry for its association with Nazism. Then came the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

In the months that immediately followed, Azov led the Ukrainian military’s defense of Mariupol, the group’s longtime stronghold. As the militia assumed a frontline role in the war against Russia, Western media led a campaign to rebrand Azov as misunderstood freedom fighters while accusing its critics of echoing Kremlin talking points. The New York Times has even referred to the unit as the “celebrated Azov Battalion.” Like the Washington Post and other mainstream outlets, the ADL ignored Azov’s atrocities this April in Mariupol, where locals accused the group of using civilians as human shields and executing those who attempted to flee. One video out of Mariupol showed Azov fighters proudly declaring the Nazi collaborator and mass murderer of Jews, Stepan Bandera, to be their “father.”

The Azov Battalion has long served as a magnet for the international white nationalist movement, attracting recruits from the terrorist Atomwaffen Division to a US Army Specialist arrested on charges of distributing bomb-making instructions. Back in March 2022, just a month before the battle of Mariupol, the ADL itself issued a report acknowledging that white nationalists see Azov “as a pathway to the creation of a National Socialist state in Ukraine.” Eight months later, however, the ADL has changed its tune, asserting to this outlet that Azov has rooted the fascists from its ranks. So did Azov change its Nazi ways, or did the ADL simply shift its messaging to conform to the imperatives of a Biden administration still intent on sending billions in military aid to Ukraine?

Read more …

Does Borrell work for Raytheon? His spending demands will make Europe a lot poorer…

• EU Lacks ‘Critical Defense Capabilities’ – Borrell (RT)

Europe must begin to take more responsibility for its own security, EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell has said, announcing that total expenditure by member states will grow by €70 billion over the next three years. Speaking at the ‘Investing in European Defence’ forum on Thursday, Borrell, who also heads the European Defence Agency (EDA), called on European nations to cooperate more on upping defense capacities in the common interest of bloc security. They should also look past the current conflict in Ukraine and anticipate “future threats.” Borrell said states’ spending on defense had surpassed the €200 billion-level in 2021 for the first time, though they’re still playing catch-up. “After the Cold War, we shrunk our forces to small-size armies without coordination … We lack critical defense capabilities,” he said.

“We have to compensate for years of underspending.” “Total defense expenditure that Member States have announced will grow by another €70 billion in the next three years,” Borrell said, adding that “people don’t fight with banknotes.” Borrell said Brussels faced a challenge to spend the money “in a coordinated manner” and that national decisions should not be focused solely on present needs, an apparent reference to the turmoil in Ukraine. If the focus remains only on current requirements, Europe will once again be faced with “a fragmented European capability landscape,” he warned. The top diplomat said a balance must be found between responding to current needs and preparing for future threats. Those threats are “close by and likely to get worse,” he said.

The EU has committed around $2.5 billion in weapons to Ukraine since Russia’s offensive began in February. Borrell’s pledge comes as European nations are running out of weapons to give Ukraine as they see their own stocks dwindling. The constant transfers of weapons to Ukraine has left most NATO nations’ stockpiles strained, according to a New York Times report last month, which said the bloc’s smaller nations had “exhausted their potential” and at least 20 of NATO’s 30 members were “pretty tapped out.” Politico reported last week that France unofficially admitted it has run out of weapons to send Kiev due to the state of its own supplies, while Germany also faces a €20-billion shortfall in ammunition.

Read more …

“..wondering how a fixed price would work in a market that trades oil on a forward floating basis against international benchmarks..”

• The Russian Oil Price Cap Isn’t As Simple As It Seems (OP)

The $ 60-per-barrel price cap on Russian crude oil, which came into effect on Monday, looks pretty straightforward. Buyers paying $60 or less per barrel of Russia’s crude will have full access to all EU and G7 insurance and financing services associated with transporting Russian crude to non-EU countries. However, the physical oil market doesn’t usually see trades with fixed prices of crude – oil is being sold at a price premium or discount against the forward prices of the major international benchmarks such as Brent or the Oman/Dubai average. So, the price cap is much more complicated than a straightforward $60 per barrel ceiling. As a result, traders of physical oil cargoes are confused by the price cap on Russian crude, wondering how a fixed price would work in a market that trades oil on a forward floating basis against international benchmarks.

Physical oil traders, those who are willing to trade crude in compliance with the price cap, are also concerned that they could end up inadvertently violating the cap if, for example, the price of Russia’s flagship grade, Urals, with a discount to Brent, is higher than $60 per barrel weeks after the oil trade has been made. In such cases, traders would be stuck with above-$60 Russian crude that violates the price cap and would significantly limit access to EU/G7 tankers and maritime transportation services such as insurance and financing, oil traders tell Bloomberg. This could complicate the physical handling of Russian crude oil cargoes and hedging, they say. “Physical traders rarely trade on a fixed price,” John Driscoll, chief strategist at JTD Energy Services Pte Ltd, told Bloomberg.

“It’s a much more complex space where they trade on formulas and spot differentials to a benchmark crude for the trading of actual cargoes as well as for hedging that follows,” said Driscoll, who has more than 30 years of trading oil in Singapore. The price cap is not set in stone – it “is fixed for now but adjustable over time,” the EU said last week. A price revision would “take into account a variety of factors, which can include the effectiveness of the measure, its implementation, international adherence and alignment, the potential impact on coalition members and partners, and market developments,” the EU says. Even within the price cap, banks are generally wary of providing financing, industry officials told Global Trade Review this week.

Banks are concerned by the high compliance risk and fear they will have to increase scrutiny and due diligence to avoid being caught in a trade or deceptive shipping practices. Adding further confusion for physical oil traders is Russia’s position on the matter. Moscow says it will not trade its oil with countries that have joined the price cap. The EU says that “With the price cap, there are clear incentives for Russia, oil importing countries and market participants to maintain the flow of Russian oil. This will achieve both objectives at the same time.” But Russia says the price cap artificially limits prices—a mechanism Moscow will not accept.

Read more …

In times of plenty, incompetence tends to remain hidden. But today, almost everyone working in European institutions turns out to be incompetent. They’ve been selected not for their skills, but for loyalty to some ideology or another.

• “People Are Losing Faith In This Institution”: ECB Staff (ZH)

This one is just too funny to pass by: having watched as their incompetent and clueless “leaders” sparked the biggest surge in European inflation since Weimar, crushing the purchasing power of ordinary people across the continent, it is only when their own purchases were suddenly threatened that the ECB’s rank and file decided to make some noises. According to the FT, workers at the world’s biggest hedge fund (or at least it was until the Euro hit parity), known as the European Central Bank, will discuss protest action and even potential strikes after rejecting a pay offer well below the rate of eurozone inflation, a union official has warned. The ECB’s proposal to increase pay by “only” 4.07% in January is – hilariously enough – consistent with the bank’s own opposition to deals that link wages to inflation that it believes risk fuelling a damaging wage-price spiral.

There is just one problem: its own employees think Christine Lagarde – herself a multimillionaire who barely avoided jail time despite being a convicted felon – is full of it and demand much higher pay… which if extended to all European workers will result without doubt in a wage-price spiral, as higher wages will mean higher prices, which mean even higher wages, and so on. The ECB’s latest pay offer, up from a 1.48% rise at the start of this year, is less than half what annual eurozone inflation is expected to be this year and will leave its staff with a significant pay cut in real terms (don’t tell them, but most Europeans won’t even get a 4.07% nominal wage increase: are they supposed to strike too). “People are losing faith in this institution,” said Carlos Bowles, vice-president of the Ipso union that represents ECB staff. “What the ECB leadership is telling us is ‘sorry we missed our own inflation target and now you, the staff, are going to pay the price’. “We really see an issue in the way the ECB stance is damaging the bargaining power of workers,” said Bowles.

“This is playing a role in increasing inequality.” Of course, that’s what we have been saying since 2009. But it was only when their own livelihood was on the line, did workers for Europe’s money printer figure it out too. A recent survey by the union found “the vast majority of colleagues are angry” about the ECB’s pay offer, he said. “The pay consultation is due to finish at the end of the year and we will decide in January if we protest.” The union reportedly met with the ECB’s ultra wealthy president Christine Lagarde – who doesn’t care what food costs, after all with the help of Bernard Tapie she embezzled enough to last her a lifetime – a few weeks ago and she made it clear there was no room for negotiation, he said. A strike, as happened at the ECB over pension reforms in 2009, was “not excluded” but it would only “come after an escalation curve”.

Read more …

“In this age of cybersecurity and demands for ‘security by design,’ the FBI and law enforcement partners need ‘lawful access by design.’”

• FBI Sees ‘Threat’ In Apple Encryption Move (RT)

The FBI has issued a warning about upcoming security updates for Apple products, insisting the company’s plans to strengthen end-to-end encryption will interfere with efforts to track down criminals and terrorists. The agency sounded alarms soon after Apple announced several “advanced security features” set to be introduced in the coming months – including new protections for files stored in the cloud – telling the Washington Post it is “deeply concerned with the threat end-to-end and user-only-access encryption pose.” “This hinders our ability to protect the American people from criminal acts ranging from cyber-attacks and violence against children to drug trafficking, organized crime and terrorism,” an unnamed FBI spokesperson said in a statement on Wednesday.

“In this age of cybersecurity and demands for ‘security by design,’ the FBI and law enforcement partners need ‘lawful access by design.’” US and allied law enforcement officials have long demanded tech firms to provide open access to all devices, with the FBI frequently citing the aftermath of a 2015 terrorist attack in San Bernadino, California, when agents were unable to get into an Apple phone used by the shooter. Though the bureau pressed the company to help it break in, Apple refused, leading to a lengthy legal battle centered on encryption. Between 2015 and 2016 alone, Apple received at least 11 separate court orders to help police access various devices thought to be involved in criminal activity, but objected to all of them. A New York City court would later conclude that Apple could not be compelled to unlock its phones on the basis of the 1789 All Writs Act, which the FBI had repeatedly cited in prior cases.

Alongside agencies in the UK and Australia, the US Department of Justice has placed similar pressure on other tech giants in the past. In 2019, the three countries issued an open letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg which argued that “companies should not deliberately design their systems to preclude any form of access to content.” Officials suggested encryption could interfere with investigations into “the most serious crimes,” effectively asking for the ability to crack any device at any time. Privacy advocates, including famed national security whistleblower Edward Snowden, have pushed back on the drive to undermine strong encryption, saying it is impossible to create a backdoor exclusively for law enforcement, and that any such security loophole will also be open to everyone, including bad actors.

Read more …

How our impression of China is shaped. Read!

• The Coming Purge of the China-Hands (Pattberg)

There comes a time during or shortly after the academic training of every “Student of China” when he frequently runs into one of the many agents of Western anti-China state security. They are adverse hostile forces, they run a complete background-check on you, and then they‘ll make you a simple offer: You either produce anti-Chinese content for the West, or they‘ll mark you as anti-democratic and enemy of freedom, a traitor. In that case, you’ll never find work in the West again. And if you make a big fuss about it and cry coercion or blackmail, they are gonna start decomposing you. Like most young students back then, I, too, was completely ignorant about the inner workings of Western world hegemony. And, like the idiot I always was, I threw myself heedlessly into “China Studies” at a respective University in the United Kingdom, Edinburgh to be exact.

Immediately, the conceited profs and lecturers, they taught us the horrors of Han chauvinism, the horrors of Qing China and the horrors of the Maoists and the horrors against the poor people of Tibet, Hong Kong and Taiwan. When I looked it up, those were all former British colonies and/or places of interest to the British Crown. We were told LIES by the very British people whose soldiers raped, looted and colonized China, and were now angry that China somehow stood its ground and survived. I do not expect you to believe at first what I am about to tell you. I would not have believed it myself, back then I mean, before I joined some of the many “Studies” invented by the Western Empire of LIES. “China Studies” is not about China. It could be, but it is not. It is warfare against China. To keep China down. To sabotage her. To control her people and her history. In this war, it is the West or you perish.

Joining the enemy, China, is a capital crime. Have you ever wondered why there are no pro-China talking heads in the books, in the papers or on telly? It is because pro-China people in “China Studies” were the enemy. They didn’t make it through graduation, they weren’t hired, etc.. Our common sense is often betrayed by what sociologists call ‘the survivor bias’: We believe that since all we hear or read about China is negative, this must be sure proof that China is a very nasty place. What we fail to see, however, is that all the negative stuff we heard and read about China was the product of just 1 “China Studies” graduate for every 1,000,000 people or so of the general Western population. Nobody who was pro-China survived the selection process or came anywhere near central power.

Read more …

“For many it was not in the increased number of homeless on the streets, or beggars huddled around tourist sites, or eye-wateringly high energy bills – although all of those existed before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. ”

• The Fixed-pPice Shopping Basket: Greece’s Answer To Cost Of Living Crisis (G.)

Even before the cost of living crisis was formally pronounced, it had arrived in Greece. For many it was not in the increased number of homeless on the streets, or beggars huddled around tourist sites, or eye-wateringly high energy bills – although all of those existed before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. “It was there for everyone to see on the supermarket shelves,” says Panagiota Kalapotharakou, who heads the consumer rights association Ekpizo. “Eighteen months ago there were so many products with price labels that a great number of Greeks could not afford. Costs were going up long before the war in Ukraine.” It came as little surprise for consumer groups, then, that when talk turned to the need for relief measures to counter rising inflation the government chose to focus on staple goods.

What emerged was the novel concept of the “household basket”: supermarkets agreed with the government to sell about 51 staples – from flour to fish – at fixed prices. The measure, thrashed out around a long mahogany table in the ministry of commerce, went into effect in early November. Officials in the centre-right government intend the scheme, scheduled to run to the end of the winter, as a bulwark for the most vulnerable against the inflationary storm. No government subsidies are involved. “We spent weeks sitting around this table working on it with supermarket market representatives and our competition committee,” says Sotiris Anagnostopoulos, the ministry’s fresh-faced general secretary. “In politics you have to anticipate what is coming next. The cost of living crisis is a huge challenge, maybe the biggest we have faced since the adoption of the euro.”

Nationwide chains have signed up to the programme, selling products under blue household basket labels. With the country’s annual consumer inflation rate currently at 10% – down from a high of 12% in September – the government insists the initiative has succeeded in stabilising prices at a time of uncertainty and, in some cases, driving them lower. “What was never expected was the price war that we have seen among the big supermarket chains,” says Anagnostopoulos. “It’s been a surprise and a pleasant one because in general Greeks have much lower purchasing power.” Forced to survive on some of the lowest wages in the EU – at less than €1,200 a month, the average monthly salary is about a quarter of that in Germany – Greeks have felt the impact of soaring prices perhaps more than other EU nations.

Read more …

“Anyone who has downloaded a classified document from WikiLeaks, Cryptome or any other source, or posted it online is liable to prosecution under the Act..”

• Daniel Ellsberg: Indict Me Too (Lauria)

Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg has told the U.S. Justice Department and President Joe Biden that he is as indictable as WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange for having unauthorized possession of classified materials before they were published by WikiLeaks and that he would plead “not guilty” because the Espionage Act is unconstitutional. Ellsberg revealed this week to the BBC interview program Hard Talk that Assange had given him the files leaked by U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to keep as a backup before they were published by WikiLeaks in 2010. Assange has been charged with violating the Espionage Act for possession and dissemination of classified information and faces 175 years in a U.S. prison if he is extradited from Belmarsh Prison in London.

Ellsberg is the second figure this month to come forward calling on the U.S. government to indict them for the same reasons Assange has been charged. “Cryptome published the decrypted unredacted State Department Cables on September 1, 2011 prior to publication of the cables by WikiLeaks,” John Young wrote in a Justice Department submission form, which Young posted on Twitter last week. “No US official has contacted me about publishing the unredacted cables since cryptome published them,” he wrote. “I respectfully request that the Department of Justice add me as a co-defendant in the prosecution of Mr. Assange under the Espionage Act.” The 1917 Espionage Act does not exempt journalists from receiving and publishing classified information, which Ellsberg says is a clear violation of the First Amendment and should be challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Anyone who has downloaded a classified document from WikiLeaks, Cryptome or any other source, or posted it online is liable to prosecution under the Act, which would include millions of people around the world. Receiving and publishing classified information is routine work for journalists at major publications. Five newspapers partnered with WikiLeaks to publish Manning’s material in 2010 but only Assange has been charged. Those five newspapers last week called on the Biden administration to drop the charges on Assange because of the threat to the First Amendment. The Obama administration declined to indict Assange in 2011 because it understood that it would also have to indict New York Times editors and reporters for having published the same materiel Assange did. That is the only material Assange was indicted for.

He was not charged for releases exposing Central Intelligence Agency hacking activities in 2016, though that so infuriated then C.I.A. Director Mike Pompeo that Pompeo later asked for plans to be drawn up to either kidnap or kill Assange while he was living under asylum in Ecuador’s London embassy. The Trump administration then had Assange arrested and charged under the Espionage Act in 2019. Despite being part of the Obama administration, Biden has refused to drop the case. When those plans were first revealed at Assange’s extradition hearing in 2020, Ellsberg said that the government was treating Assange worse than he had been treated and that it should have set Assange free.

Read more …

“..all other news outlets around the country reported feeling “lost” as they were so used to just copying and pasting from the New York Times each morning.”

• Disinformation Down 92% As NYT Writers Go On Strike (BBee)

Researchers are reporting that disinformation on Twitter, Facebook, and mainstream news sources is already down by 92% in the wake of a 24-hour writer’s strike at the New York Times. “We always wondered where all this harmful disinformation was coming from,” said Darryl Ball, a researcher with the Center for Combatting Bad Things Online. “Turns out, it was all coming from those knuckleheads at the Times. Who knew?” Several studies indicate the country has seen a sharp decrease in hate speech, foreign propaganda, and shockingly dumb hot takes since the entire writing staff walked out of the building in New York City, which experts believe could lead to an outbreak of peace and harmony across the nation.


“All this time, the threat to democracy was us all along!” said NYT Union Boss Fuggs Crullers to reporters from other news organizations not on strike. “We have begun negotiations with leadership to pay us more money to never come back to work in hopes of saving America.” At publishing time, all other news outlets around the country reported feeling “lost” as they were so used to just copying and pasting from the New York Times each morning.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Paul Marik

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tucker dreamers

 

 

 

 

Referee
https://twitter.com/i/status/1600902123486470145

 

 

Polar bear cub

 

 

 

 

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