
René Magritte The conquerer 1926



Evo
https://twitter.com/i/status/1887475768508252227
Mike Benz exposes USAID for 11 straight minutes
Mike Benz exposes USAID for 11 straight minutes. pic.twitter.com/ja95d0qp0c
— Tucker Carlson Network (@TCNetwork) February 5, 2025
Sen. Kennedy
Senator Kennedy's Defense Of Elon Musk's DOGE Left The Room Speechless.
"I wanna try to put in perspective what many of my Democratic friends have been talking about today. They're very, very, very upset at president Trump, and they're very, very, very upset at Elon Musk.… pic.twitter.com/jjk5yyaToK— Camus (@newstart_2024) February 6, 2025
3rd temple
Regardless if people want to see it or not, or believe it or not- we are in the last seconds of the end times.
We are watching Bible prophecy play out in front of our eyes and for those that know Jesus, this is such an exciting time to be alive!! pic.twitter.com/mWXCISAjvh
— Ashley Hays (@Ashleyhays2089) February 5, 2025
Alwaleed
Prince Alwaleed bin Talal is one of the biggest media investors in the world. Here’s why he thinks X now dominates everything.
(0:00) Prince Alwaleed bin Talal’s Thoughts on Donald Trump
(2:26) Saudi Arabia’s Relationship With Israel and Iran
(6:55) Negotiating With Trump
(7:56)… pic.twitter.com/PwFlDgCper— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) February 5, 2025


Sounds like a bombastic headline. But is it? Do (re)check the Nicole Shanahan clip below that I opened with yesterday. She explains that DOGE has a super search engine for files (data mining research), that finds in seconds/minutes what would otherwise take days or weeks. The USAID “library” is vast and complex but “He did that over the weekend”. USAID is just the start.
• USAID Media Payments Could Be ‘Biggest Scandal In History’ – Trump (RT)
Billions of dollars have been stolen at USAID and used to pay for positive media coverage of Democrats, US President Donald Trump has said. The claim comes in conjunction with a White House announcement that it will stop “subsidizing” Politico. In January, the Trump administration initiated significant changes to the US Agency for International Development (USAID). Trump ordered a near-total freeze on foreign aid, aiming to align assistance with his “America First” policy. Trump took to Truth Social on Thursday to warn that “the biggest scandal in history” was brewing, after White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt acknowledged that American taxpayer money had been used to subsidize government subscriptions to Politico and other media outlets. Leavitt was referring to Politico Pro, a premium legislative and regulatory tracking service used by multiple government agencies.
Politico Pro subscriptions are reported to cost up to $10,000 annually. ”Looks like billions of dollars have been stollen [sic] at USAID, and other agencies, much of it going to the fake news media as a ‘payoff’ for creating good stories about the democrats. the left wing ‘rag,’ known as ‘Politico,’ seems to have received $8,000,000,” Trump wrote. He questioned whether The New York Times and other outlets were also receiving “payoffs.” Politico said it had “never been the beneficiary of government programs or subsidies” and that the “overwhelming majority” of subscriptions come from the private sector.
Some conservative commentators online claimed that Politico, The New York Times and the Associated Press were receiving “government funding” or “grants,” from USAID and other agencies. Kyle Becker, a former Fox News producer, dug into public records on USAspending.gov and discovered that the government paid Politico $8.2 million in the last 12 months. However, only about $24,000 of this total came from USAID, with the largest contributor being the Department of Health and Human Services. Elon Musk, who oversees the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), called the payments “a huge waste of taxpayer money.” “Many media outlets are going to experience a mysterious drop in revenue,” he warned on X on Wednesday.
The outlets in question denied receiving government subsidies, stating that agencies purchased subscriptions like any client, and insisted on their editorial independence. CNN went as far as to decry the accusations as “a false right-wing conspiracy theory,” and accused Leavitt of elevating a “bogus claim.” The freeze on USAID funding has led to the suspension of numerous senior officials, layoffs of contractors, and the halting of various international aid programs. Legal experts have questioned the legality of dismantling USAID without congressional approval. Secretary of State Marco Rubio was appointed as the acting administrator of USAID, with plans to merge it into the State Department. Elon Musk criticized the agency as a “criminal organization” that should “die.”
Nicole Shanahan: "On the topic of of DOGE, I don't think people are hearing exactly what DOGE is. It's yes. It's an efficiency agency, but what really is it? I've heard from, an incoming agency head that what DOGE is, it's a data mining research arm that can answer any budgetary… pic.twitter.com/yPGOMjC3D0
— Camus (@newstart_2024) February 5, 2025

What exactly is the role of German publisher Axel Springer?
• Politico Pleads Innocent (ZH)
During Wednesday’s White House presser, spox Karoline Leavitt confirmed that Politico has been getting ‘more than $8 million taxpayer dollars,’ which has ‘gone to essentially subsidizing subscriptions.’
.@PressSec: "I can confirm that the more than $8 million taxpayer that have gone to essentially subsidizing subscriptions to Politico will no longer be happening."
"The DOGE team is working on canceling those payments now." pic.twitter.com/xfzyzA5Xwd
— CAPITAL (@capitalnewshq) February 5, 2025
* * *
On Tuesday, staffers at Politico were notified that a ‘technical error’ had prevented paychecks from going out. Many joked that this had something to do with the Trump administration putting a freeze on USAID funding. And while there’s no evidence the two are linked, the suggestion prompted internet sleuths to look into Politico’s sources of funding. What they found was absolutely shocking. According to government spending tracker website USASPENDING.gov, Politico – which laundered the Hunter Biden ’51 intel officials’ propaganda during the 2020 election – received up to $27 million (and by some counts $32 million) from various US agencies during the Biden years. In one instance, roughly $500,000 was spent on 37 Politico ‘pro’ subscriptions. Of note, Politico was sold to German media giant Axel Springer (which also owns Business Insider) for $1 billion in 2021, meaning US taxpayer dollars have been flowing to the German media giant to prop up their US propaganda rags.So 90% of "subscribers" to left-wing publications like Politico are fake and "taxpayer funded". And then using fake subs to artificially pump up revenue, Politico gets to sell itself to German propaganda giant Axel Springer for $1 billion. https://t.co/j8wEv5MybL
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) February 5, 2025
It's not just the subscriptions: there are huge "ad contracts", dinner parties DC throws itself under the guise of "media conferences", sponsorships, etc all paid for by taxpayers.
Once done with Politico look at its spawn Axios, founded by Politico veterans https://t.co/ShM4zTbnyX
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) February 5, 2025

That’s a large chunk of the media.
• WikiLeaks: USAID Has Been Funding Over 6,000 Journalists Worldwide (ZH)
Yesterday’s report that the US government has been funding outlets such as Politico, the Associated Press, the BBC, and others raised more questions than it answered – though the obvious implication is that the US government has effectively been propping up regime-friendly media, which then peddles regime-friendly coverage – and spent years attacking independent outlets such as ZeroHedge, The Federalist, and many unlucky ones who have since been starved out of business. And while funding for Politico and others has come from all over the federal government – WikiLeaks, citing a RSF report, highlighted that USAID was funding over 6,200 journalists across 707 media outlets and 279 “media” NGOs, which includes 90% of the reportage out of Ukraine.
USAID was funding over 6,200 journalists across 707 media outlets and 279 "media" NGOs, including nine out of ten media outlets in Ukraine.https://t.co/tLUoBT2GfNhttps://t.co/Siq2RJOXQf pic.twitter.com/LyaUFuq3He
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) February 6, 2025
According to RSF, the Trump administration’s freeze on foreign aid – roughly $268 million earmarked to fund “independent media and the free flow of information,” has ‘thrown journalism around the world into chaos.’ “Almost immediately after the freeze went into effect, journalistic organizations around the world that receive American aid funding started reaching out to RSF expressing confusion, chaos, and uncertainty. The affected organizations include large international NGOs that support independent media like the International Fund for Public Interest Media and smaller, individual media outlets serving audiences living under repressive conditions in countries like Iran and Russia.
…
USAID programs support independent media in more than 30 countries, but it is difficult to assess the full extent of the harm done to the global media. Many organizations are hesitant to draw attention for fear of risking long-term funding or coming under political attacks. According to a USAID fact sheet which has since been taken offline, in 2023, the agency funded training and support for 6,200 journalists, assisted 707 non-state news outlets, and supported 279 media-sector civil society organizations dedicated to strengthening independent media. The 2025 foreign aid budget included $268,376,000 allocated by Congress to support “independent media and the free flow of information.”Note the recurring use of the term ‘independent media.’ Of course, the RSF report, and another from the Columbia Journalism Review are sounding the alarm over the ‘silencing of independent media’ around the world. The critical context they omit, however, is that USAID – despite the best of intentions when it was formed, has been corrupted into a deep-state slush-fund.
My full hit on USAID on Newsmax tonight with @DavidJHarrisJr. If you're a policymaker or legislator involved in USAID oversight, I implore you to listen to this segment very carefully: pic.twitter.com/sTGaVOKrTJ
— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) February 5, 2025
Y’all wanna know why the Democrats are FREAKING OUT over USAID?
WATCH THIS!!👇🏻
— SaltyGoat (@SaltyGoat17) February 4, 2025
The architects behind the Trump impeachments and lawfare were plotting to launder money through USAID for their anti-Trump resistance efforts.
I obtained their “2025 Democracy Playbook” which admits to all of this. pic.twitter.com/izopd5G4P4
— Natalie Winters (@nataliegwinters) February 4, 2025
And so, no matter how ‘independent’ these USAID-funded media outlets are around the world, they’re all eating fruit from the same poisonous tree.

“The EU will reportedly be asked to assist Ukraine in its reconstruction efforts, which may cost as much as $486 billion over the next decade..”
• ‘Leaked’ Plan: Trump To ‘Force’ Zelensky To Agree On Ceasefire By Easter (ZH)
As of the start of this week, the Kremlin said ‘no progress’ had been made in arranging peace talks on Ukraine between Moscow and Washington. Rumors and speculation abound, given that US diplomats under Trump are without doubt working behind-the-scenes to arrange something, with the possibility that talks could be hosted in a ‘neutral’ location like Saudi Arabia or the UAE. A Thursday Daily Mail report has just added immense fuel to the fire of speculation, presenting the allegedly leaked Trump ceasefire plan which he intends to present for Russia’s consideration. The report says Trump will try to ‘force’ Ukraine’s President Zelensky to agree to a ceasefire by Easter, which is on April 20 this year.
The Trump administration is seeking to end the war within 100 days. “The unconfirmed plans, reported by Ukrainian outlet Strana, have been doing the rounds in ‘political and diplomatic circles’ in Ukraine, and will include a ceasefire by April 20 that would freeze Russia’s steady advance, a ban on Ukraine from joining NATO, and a demand for Kyiv to accept Russian sovereignty on annexed land.” While still very much unconfirmed, the headline is having an immediate impact on oil prices. Zelensky’s office has vehemently denied the legitimacy of reports of the peace plans being reported and floated. On top of these alleged key aspects of a ban on NATO admission, freezing the front lines, and agreeing to Russian sovereignty over the four annexed territories in the east, the leaked report says the following is also included in the proposal:
• On top of this, Ukrainian troops will be made to leave Russia’s Kursk region, where it launched a counteroffensive in August, while a contingent of European soldiers, which could include British troops, would be asked to police a demilitarised zone. American troops will not be involved in this contingent.
• The EU will reportedly be asked to assist Ukraine in its reconstruction efforts, which may cost as much as $486 billion (£392 billion) over the next decade according to the German Marshall Fund thinktank.
• The plans will reportedly begin with a phone call between Zelensky and Vladimir Putin in early February, a meeting between the two warring leaders in late February to early March and an official ceasefire declaration of a ceasefire by April 20.
• A declaration on the agreed parameters for ending the war would then be released by May 9, after which Kyiv would be asked not to extend martial law or mobilize troops.This essentially gives Moscow most everything it wants – particularly the ban on NATO admission – and so if true the plan is likely to be entertained positively by Putin. Zelensky has been complaining that talks about Ukraine between the US and Russia must never happen without Kiev’s representation and input, but Zelensky it seems is being left behind. He’ll likely reject the above ‘leaked’ plan, but for Moscow and Washington that probably won’t matter too much. [..]
* * *
Ceasefire by Easter:
• NATO Membership: Ukraine would be barred from joining NATO under the plan.
• Territorial Concessions: Kyiv would recognize Russian sovereignty over annexed lands and withdraw troops from Kursk.
• Demilitarized Zone: European, possibly British, troops would police it; no U.S. involvement.
• Reconstruction: EU assistance sought for Ukraine, estimated at $486 billion over a decade.Timeline:
1) Early February: Zelensky-Putin phone call.
2) Late February to early March: Leaders’ meeting.
3) April 20: Ceasefire declaration.
4) By May 9: Agreement terms released, no further martial law or mobilization.
5) Additional Support: Continued U.S. military aid for Ukraine, with a pathway to EU membership by 2030.

“Let’s be honest about it, we both know that’s not going to happen..”
• Trump Envoy Responds To Zelensky’s Nuclear Weapons Demand (RT)
US President Donald Trump’s envoy to Ukraine and Russia, Keith Kellogg, has brushed aside Kiev’s demand for nuclear weaponry, stating that it is “not going to happen.” Kellogg made the remarks on Thursday while speaking to Fox News Digital. He was asked about the latest call by Vladimir Zelensky for “nuclear weapons” and “missile systems” from Kiev’s Western backers. “The chance of them getting their nuclear weapons back is somewhere between slim and none. Let’s be honest about it, we both know that’s not going to happen,” Kellogg said.The idea of arming Ukraine with nukes goes against “common sense” and is not something the Trump administration would consider, Kellogg stated. “Remember, the president said we’re a government of common sense. When somebody says something like that, look at the outcome or the potential. That’s using your common sense,” he explained.
Zelensky, speaking to British journalist Piers Morgan earlier this week, said that Ukraine must either be fast-tracked into the US-led NATO bloc or given more weaponry to “stop Russia.” “Give us back nuclear weapons, give us missile systems. Partners, help us finance a one-million army, deploy your troops to the areas of our country where we want to stabilize the situation,” he stated. While the Ukrainian leader has raised the issue of nuclear weaponry before, including shortly ahead of the escalation of the conflict in February 2022, he has done so increasingly in recent months. Zelensky has expressed regret that his country surrendered its portion of the Soviet nuclear arsenal after the collapse of the USSR in exchange for security guarantees in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. In 1991, Ukraine possessed some 1,700 warheads, which however, remained under Moscow’s operational control.
Russia insists that Ukraine never possessed any nuclear weapons of its own, as the assets belonged to Moscow as the sole legal successor of the Soviet Union. The 1994 memorandum also envisioned Ukraine’s neutral status, which has been undermined by NATO’s eastward expansion and Kiev’s aspirations to join the US-led bloc, Russian officials maintain. In November, Russian President Vladimir Putin explicitly stated that the any procurement of nuclear weaponry by Kiev was non-starter and would compel Moscow to use all available means to destroy it. “What do you think – on the level of common sense – if the country with which we are essentially now engaged in military operations becomes a nuclear power, what should we do? In this case, use all – I want to emphasize this – precisely all the means of destruction at Russia’s disposal,” the president said.

For Trump and Gaza, do watch this lady first:
Do you really think Netanyahu is just *letting* the U.S. take over land they’ve been using as a pawn for 70 years?
No. Bibi was blindsided.
This is Trump’s policy to contain Israel. pic.twitter.com/52PjXm37Bk
— Lauren Lee (@sheislaurenlee) February 5, 2025
• White House Softens Aspects Of Gaza ‘Takeover’ – No Boots On The Ground (ZH)
Israel announced Thursday it has begun preparations for the departure of large numbers of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip following President Trump earlier this week publicly backing a controversial mass resettlement plan in neighboring Arab countries. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised Trump’s plan for Gaza as “remarkable” in an interview with Fox’s Sean Hannity published Thursday. “The actual idea of allowing Gazans who want to leave to leave. I mean, what’s wrong with that? They can leave, they can then come back, they can relocate and come back. But you have to rebuild Gaza,” Netanyahu said.In the face of fierce condemnation and pushback from an assortment of countries like Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, Ireland, as well as the United Nations – Trump has still doubled down in a Thursday Truth Social post.
He explained that “the Gaza Strip would be turned over to the United States by Israel” after the end of hostilities. He reiterated that Palestinians could be relocated to “far safer and more beautiful communities, with new and modern homes, in the region” and would “actually have a chance to be happy, safe, and free.” The president said the that the US would oversee development teams from across the world, which will “slowly and carefully” begin the construction of what would become “one of the greatest and most spectacular developments of its kind on Earth.” That’s when he emphasized the following: “No soldiers by the US would be needed! Stability for the region would reign,” Trump wrote. Given that it’s an active war zone, and Hamas and Islamic Jihad are still openly displaying their weapons in battalion-sized displays and deployments, it seems doubtful any of this could happen without serious military intervention.
Trump said all of this after on Tuesday he declared he wants to the US to “take over” and “own” the Gaza Strip. Some aspects have been softened or walked back by the White House, however. When pressed for clarification on Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said, “They need to be temporarily relocated out of Gaza for the rebuilding.” Thus the plan has changed to a non-permanent resettlement, apparently, though it’s hard to see the logistics and politics of all of this actually playing out. Leavitt continued, “It’s been made very clear to the president that the United States needs to be involved in this rebuilding effort to ensure stability in the region for all people.” “That does not mean boots on the ground in Gaza. That does not mean American taxpayers will be funding this effort,” she added.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has also sought to distance the administration from criticisms that this looks like a potential major foreign military intervention. He said the idea was of “temporary” relocation, and said the proposal “was not meant as hostile. It was meant as, I think, a very generous move — the offer to rebuild and to be in charge of the rebuilding.” And Trump’s envoy for the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, echoed something similar. He said the US doesn’t want to put any US troops on the ground, and that no US dollars should be spent. He acknowledged that Trump had been “gestating” on the idea for a while.

“..while many interpreted his remarks as catering to the Zionists, the language he used was just the opposite. He did not say that Gaza was Israel’s.”
• What is Trump Really Thinking About Gaza? (Larry Johnson)
I am not making excuses for Donald Trump. I fully understand why many have interpreted his scripted remarks yesterday during the joint-press conference with Bibi Netanyahu about relocating the Palestinian inhabitants of Gaza and the US taking control of Gaza as insane or heartless or both. I want you to entertain another possibility — maybe Trump is really trying to secure a deal that does not cater to the Zionist vision of occupying all territory from the river to the sea.
We are 16 days into the second Trump administration and the flurry of activity coming out of the Oval office is akin to a Category Five hurricane. It is clear that Trump did not spend the last four years in political exile moping and despairing of the lawfare tsunami unleashed by his political opponents. He tacitly conceded that he was totally unprepared to confront the monster of the Deep State when he entered office in January 2017. He did not make that mistake this time. The day after securing his election victory in November he began executing a plan for governing that has left his political opponents and the Washington establishment reeling. This is akin to a military blitzkrieg. He is attacking across a broad front.
With this in mind, let me suggest another way of looking at what he said about taking control of Gaza during the Tuesday press conference with Netanyahu. First, he was reading from a script. This means it was drafted and vetted in advance, most likely with Michael Waltz taking the lead. Second, while many interpreted his remarks as catering to the Zionists, the language he used was just the opposite. He did not say that Gaza was Israel’s. He said that the US should take control of Gaza and oversee the rebuilding. However, he did not propose a specific plan for doing so and made it clear that someone other than the US would foot the bill for the rebuilding. Would Trump entertain a Saudi offer to rebuild Gaza with its funds? I think so, but it would likely be part of a broader agreement to resurrect the Abraham accords.
It is true that Netanyahu has publicly embraced Trump’s plan, but in announcing this proposal, Trump has made it almost impossible for Netanyahu to abandon the ceasefire agreement, at least the second phase, which he reportedly promised finance minister Smotrich he would do. If the Zionists decide to launch a fresh offensive on the Palestinians in Gaza, this would be a direct slap in the face of Trump. Scott Ritter reminded me during the roundtable with Danny Haiphong of Trump’s crazed, insulting remarks about Kim Jong-Un that preceded his face-to-face negotiations with Kim. It is a classic Trump negotiating tactic — bombast and insult up front followed by diplomacy and deal making. Is this Trump’s plan with respect to re-framing the Palestinian issue? I think it is a possibility. I also could be wrong (and I’m sure many of you will let me know).
Trump’s heated rhetoric regarding Iran also appears to be another example of his bad-cop-good-cop routine. Steve Witkoff reportedly is negotiating with the Iranians on orders from Trump. I think it is highly likely that Iran, despite press reports to the contrary, is not pursuing a nuclear weapon, primarily because of the security treaty they signed with Russia on January 17. If Witkoff succeeds in crafting an agreement with Iran then Trump will be able to claim that his tough guy approach created the conditions that made a deal possible. Okay. You are now free to tell me why I am full of crap.

“Netanyahu at this juncture is utterly dependent on Trump. The PM’s wiles will not be enough to get him off the hooks: Trump has him where he wants him.”
• The Greatest Showman’s “Inside Out” Political Solution (Alastair Crooke)
Dissing Putin as a loser in Ukraine perhaps was more addressed to the U.S. Senate and its ongoing confirmation hearings. Trump made these comments days before Tulsi Gabbard faces Senate hearings. Gabbard already is criticised by U.S. ‘hawks’ for allegedly holding ‘pro-Putin’ sentiments, as well as being subjected to a media slur campaign by the deep state. Was Trump’s apparent disrespect toward Putin and Russia (which caused anger in Russia) said primarily for the ears of U.S. Senators? (The Senate is home to some of the most ardent ‘never-Trumpers’). And were Trump’s egregious comments about ‘cleansing’ Gaza’s Palestinians to Egypt or Jordan (co-ordinated with Netanyahu, according to an Israeli Minister) intended primarily for the ears of the Israeli Right? According to that Minister, the issue of encouraging voluntary Palestinian migration is now back on the agenda, just as the Right-wing parties have long wanted – and many in Netanyahu’s Likud had hoped. Music to their ears.
Was it then a Trumpian pre-emptive move, designed to save Netanyahu’s government from imminent collapse over the ceasefire’s second-stage, and the threat of a walk-out by his Right Wing contingent? Was Trump’s target audience in this case then Ministers Ben Gvir and Smotrich? Trump pointedly confuses us – by never making it clear to which audience he is addressing his ruminations at any one time. Is there nonetheless some substance sedimented within Trump’s comment that any Palestinian state must be resolved ‘in some other way’ than the Two-State formula? Maybe. We should not discount Trump’s strong leanings towards Israel. Netanyahu faces harsh criticism for mis-handling both the Gaza and Lebanese ceasefires. He has been guilty of promising one thing to one party and the opposite to the other (an old vice):
He has promised the Right a return to war in Gaza, yet committed to the unequivocal end to war in the actual ceasefire agreement. In Lebanon, Israel was committed to withdrawal by 26 January on the one hand, yet its military is still there, provoking a human wave of Lebanese returning to the south, hoping to reclaim their homes. Consequently, Netanyahu at this juncture is utterly dependent on Trump. The PM’s wiles will not be enough to get him off the hooks: Trump has him where he wants him. Trump will get ceasefires, and will tell Netanyahu,no attack on Iran (at least until Trump has explored the possibility of a deal with Tehran). With Putin and with Russia, the opposite is the case. Trump there has no leverage (the favourite word in Washington). He has no leverage for four reasons:
Firstly, since Russia steadfastly refuses the idea of any compromise that “boils down to freezing the conflict along the line of engagement, that will give time to the U.S. and NATO to rearm the remnants of the Ukrainian army – and then start a new round of hostilities”. Secondly, because Moscow’s conditions for ending the war will prove to be unacceptable to Washington, as they would not be susceptible to being presented as an American ‘win’. Thirdly, because Russia holds the clear military advantage: Ukraine is about to lose this war. Major Ukrainian strongholds are now being taken by Russian forces without resistance. This ultimately will lead to a cascade effect. Ukraine may cease to exist if serious negotiations do not take place before summer, the head of the Ukrainian Military Intelligence Kyrylo Budanov recently warned. But fourthly, because history is not reflected at all in the word leverage. When peoples who occupy the same geography have different and often irreconcilable versions of history, the western transactional ‘split the power spectrum’ simply doesn’t work. The opposed sides will not be moved – unless some solution recognises and takes account of their history.

“..because they don’t know what the heck else to do, the Dems are kneejerk opposing EVERYTHING..”
“.. There’s more “breaking news” in one day of Trump than six months of Biden. Team MAGA is churning through news cycles faster than a jackrabbit on Red Bull.”
• How the Democrats Became the Party of Puppets (Pinsker)
“There’s nothing new under the sun” is found in Ecclesiastes 1:9. But if the statement is correct, then the idea itself must be older than Ecclesiastes; otherwise, that would be something new under the sun. (Right? Or is my Vulcan-like grasp of logic experiencing carpal tunnel? Yeah, I think I’m right.) For the statement “There’s nothing new under the sun” to be truthful, by definition, someone else must’ve already made a similar observation. Which makes sense: Life gets tedious after a while. We all get into ruts of the same-old, same-old. Life is cyclical. If you live long enough, it’s pretty easy to identify all the different cycles. So maybe there really is nothing new under the sun. Heck, as one PJ Media reader pointed out, even my (seemingly original) idea to relocate the Palestinians to Greenland was a blatant rip-off of “The Golden Girls”: (My apologies to Ms. Rose Nylund and/or all the good people of Saint Olaf.)
Perhaps it’s the monotony of life that gives older folks a nagging, unavoidable sense of “been there, done that.” Like Jerry Seinfeld noted, once we realized we could make our own people, we lost interest in the rest of you: But political parties don’t have the luxury of avoiding the real world. Nor do they ever get to suspend operations for a few months and try a soft reboot. They’re always on, always engaged, always connected to current events. It’s less like a play — with actors, actresses, and a well-written script — and more like a never-ending conga line. New faces appear when old faces exit, but the choreography itself never changes. Too much institutional momentum. They’re not the only ones, of course. The GOP has its conga line as well; all political parties do. If politics can be analogized to a dance, then D.C. is a crowded, competitive, cutthroat dancehall.
But the difference today is, the Democrats want us to lead. This hasn’t happened since the early days of the George W. Bush administration, nearly 25 years ago. It’s a generational opportunity for the Republican Party. Usually, even when the Democrats are voted out of power, they shamelessly push their own agenda, manipulating the mainstream media to reframe every news cycle in pro-Democratic terms. They never interpret an electoral defeat as a repudiation of their ideas; instead, the culprit must be misinformation, or Russian interference, or the racist, sexist, homophobic voters. And so, they double down and keep on pushing forward. Not anymore. Not since Donald Trump walloped them in 2024, capturing an electoral landslide. They’re simply too shell-shocked.
It won’t last forever but right now, they’ve given up on their agenda. All they can do is follow Donald Trump’s lead: whatever he supports, they oppose. Which means, Donald Trump has a generational opportunity to rebrand the Democratic Party. Part of their rebranding is already underway. Because Trump is such a kinetic whirlwind of manic activity, he’s firing ideas and initiatives at a million miles a minute. (Those poor Democrats are drinking out of a firehose!) And because they don’t know what the heck else to do, the Dems are kneejerk opposing EVERYTHING. This might’ve worked if Trump moved as slowly as Biden, but Trump is still the Great Disruptor. There’s more “breaking news” in one day of Trump than six months of Biden. Team MAGA is churning through news cycles faster than a jackrabbit on Red Bull.
For the audience at home, the volume and content far exceed their bandwidth. They have lives of their own and can’t keep track of everything. So, from their perspective, Trump is constantly trying SOMETHING… and the Democrats are opposing EVERYTHING. And there’s a whole lot of “everything.” Which is why the Democrats are being rebranded as the party of pearl-clutching. WAH! They’re the party of crybabies.
Whatever Trump says or does, Democrats cry and scream and soil themselves. Every molehill is a mountain; every Republican is “literally Hitler” and “a threat to democracy.” There’s more Democratic “hysteria” than anything Def Leppard did in the 80s. Knowing this, Trump could do one helluva troll move: He can turn the Democratic Party into his puppets. By structuring his agenda specifically and methodically, he can pull their strings and walk them off the cliff. Trump can get ‘em to do whatever he wants — simply by doing the opposite. They can’t help themselves. They’re just too proud and stubborn to change. Once again, the Bible was eerily prescient: “Pride goeth before the fall” (Proverbs 16:18). So maybe there really isn’t anything new under the sun.

He won.
• Investor Demand For X Debt Upsized, Musk Sees Revenue Improving Rapidly (ZH)
Investors want a slice of X as Elon Musk’s social media platform becomes the epicenter of news distribution, while corporate leftist media outlets and their government-funded censorship cartel face a fiery demise (see: Politico). This follows a multi-year advertiser boycott led by mega-corporations and relentless lawfare by an army of leftist nonprofits in their attempt to destroy the platform. However, those efforts have failed, and Musk has gone on the offensive, positioning X for a year of success. In the latest report from The Wall Street Journal, top banks finished up a sale of debt backed by X. Sources familiar with the debt deal stated that the banks initially planned to sell around $3 billion in debt at 95 cents on the dollar. However, due to surging demand from large high-yield fund managers, the deal was upsized to $5.5 billion.
Buyers of the debt included Pimco and Citadel, who agreed to pay 97 cents on the dollar. The floating-rate debt carries an interest rate of 11%, with borrowing costs several percentage points higher than some of the riskiest loans on Wall Street. The upsized sale of X debt marks the end of the multi-year doom loop for Musk’s social media company. Since purchasing the platform in 2022, Musk has faced relentless advertiser boycotts and endless lawfare from shadowy leftist billionaire-funded nonprofit groups. However, X’s ability to circumvent the Biden-Harris regime’s censorship cartel and play a key role in the Trump-Vance presidential victory has placed Musk in Washington as a special government employee leading DOGE efforts. This, in return, has strengthened Wall Street’s confidence in X.
Additionally, Trump’s executive order on “restoring free speech and ending federal censorship” is expected to provide additional tailwinds for X and other alternative media platforms. This is yet another key driver of soaring optimism around X. Last Friday, X CEO Linda Yaccarino and Morgan Stanley bankers presented prospective investors with metrics showing the social media platform’s financial health was set to rebound in 2025.
Revenue should improve rapidly this year, as the advertising boycott winds down
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 6, 2025
“Revenue should improve rapidly this year, as the advertising boycott winds down,” Musk told one X user. WSJ noted: “Financial documents reviewed by investors showed that the artificial-intelligence company transferred hundreds of millions of dollars to the social-media company, the people said. That money has helped X pay its bills and stay current on its obligations, the people said. Growing advertising revenue at X should mean fewer transfers in the coming months and years, the people said.” The financial documents said X now holds a 10% stake in xAI, valued at around $5 billion, people familiar with the matter said. The AI company last year was valued at $50 billion. Musk had previously posted that X investors would own 25% of xAI.
X also reported to the investors 2024 adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization of about $1.25 billion and annual revenue of $2.7 billion. Investors said that was a better picture than they had expected and that X’s finances hit an inflection point a few months before the November election. In 2021, Twitter reported adjusted Ebitda of about $682 million and about $5 billion in revenue. That was the last full year before Musk took the company private.-WSJ . X’s debt sale is a big relief for banks…

“South Africa is doing very bad things. Expropriating private property. Using G20 to promote solidarity, equality, & sustainability. In other words: DEI and climate change..”
• Rubio To Boycott G20 Meeting in South Africa (RT)
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said he will not attend a meeting of the G20 group in South Africa later this month because Pretoria is “doing very bad things.” The decision by the top American diplomat on Wednesday comes amid US President Donald Trump’s feud with the African country’s government over a new land ownership reform. South Africa will host the G20 foreign ministers’ summit in Johannesburg on February 20-21. Last December, Pretoria officially assumed the rotating presidency of the intergovernmental forum, which it will hand over to the US in November 2025. In a speech during the launch of Pretoria’s chairmanship in Cape Town, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa said the group of 20 major economies has enough “shock absorbers” in place against an ‘America First’ policy by the Trump administration.
Ramaphosa promised to advance Africa and the Global South’s development priorities, including addressing the impacts of climate change. However, Trump has repeatedly opposed international cooperation on climate issues. Ramaphosa also announced that he has invited Trump to South Africa for a state visit and to the G20 summit in late 2025, where the US leader will take on the chairmanship role. “I will not attend the G20 summit in Johannesburg. South Africa is doing very bad things. Expropriating private property. Using G20 to promote solidarity, equality, & sustainability. In other words: DEI and climate change,” Rubio wrote on X. “My job is to advance America’s national interests, not waste taxpayer money or coddle anti-Americanism,” he added.
In response, South African Foreign Minister Ronald Lamola said on Thursday that Pretoria’s “G20 Presidency, is not confined to just climate change but also equitable treatment for nations of the Global South, ensuring equal global system for all.” President Trump said on Sunday that he is halting funding to South Africa, accusing the country’s government of “confiscating” land and “treating certain classes of people very badly.” The US leader declared that Washington “won’t stand” for Pretoria’s “massive human rights violation.” The threat followed the passage of the Expropriation Act by Pretoria aimed at addressing racial disparities in land ownership, a long-standing issue in Africa’s most advanced economy since Apartheid ended in 1994.
The government has set a target of transferring 30% of farmland from white farmers, who still own the majority of it, to their black counterparts by 2030. President Ramaphosa has defended the reform, saying his government “has not confiscated any land.” Foreign Minister Lamola also denied the US allegations on Thursday, stating that “there is no arbitrary dispossession of land” or private property under the new legislation. “This law is similar to the eminent domain laws,” he said, referring to US legislation that authorizes the federal government to acquire property for public use. On Monday, Ramaphosa’s office said he spoke with Trump’s close ally, South African-born billionaire Elon Musk, to clarify “issues of misinformation and distortions” after he also accused Pretoria of having “openly racist ownership laws.”

“.. the Administration is moving far more aggressively in this second term. If Trump wanted to defibrillate the federal system and shock the status quo, he is succeeding in doing so.”
• FBI Official Accused of Defying White House Reform Efforts (Turley)
Last week, some of us discussed concerns over the demand of the Trump Administration for the names of all FBI agents involved in January 6th cases. While noting that we did not have all of the details, I wrote that this would be a critical test for the Administration between reform and revenge. Line FBI agents should not face punishment for carrying out the orders of their superiors or courts. Now, the Trump Administration has offered additional information, alleging an alarming defiance by a high-ranking official in sharing information. If true, the controversy involving Acting FBI Director Brian Driscoll is reminiscent of the entirely improper conduct of former acting Attorney General Sally Yates. Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove released a statement stating that FBI agents were never being rounded up or targeted for their work on the cases. A reported force of over 5,000 agents was assigned to these cases.
According to Bove, Driscoll refused to turn over the “core team” involved in Washington, D.C., in the cases as part of its review of the weaponization of the legal system under the Biden Administration. Bove’s memo stated that:“That insubordination necessitated, among other things, the directive in my January 31, 2025 memo to identify all agents assigned to investigations relating to January 6, 2021. In light of acting leadership’s refusal to comply with the narrower request, the written directive was intended to obtain a complete data set that the Justice Department can reliably pare down to the core team that will be the focus of the weaponization review pursuant to the Executive Order.”Bove dismissed allegations of a purging of the ranks:
“Let me be clear: No FBI employee who simply followed orders and carried out their duties in an ethical manner concerning January 6 investigations is at risk of termination or other penalties. The only individuals who should be concerned about the process initiated by my January 31, 2025 memo are those who acted with corrupt or partisan intent, who blatantly defied orders from Department leadership, or who exercised discretion in weaponizing the FBI.” Again, we have not heard Driscoll’s side. Yet, I cannot understand the basis for an FBI official to refuse to share such information with his superiors in the Administration. One can raise concerns over the motivations or even the legality of measures taken against line agents. One can also object that there is no reason to collect the broader information after being allegedly denied the narrower request. However, the Administration has every right to such information, particularly as part of its long-promised review of the agency during the campaign.
The alleged defiance brought back memories from the start of the first Trump term. As previously discussed, Yates was lionized for her stance in the media. She was then selected as one of the featured speakers at the Democratic National Convention in 2020 and presented as the personification of a new Justice Department’s commitment to the rule of law. Yates declared: “I was fired for refusing to defend President Trump’s shameful and unlawful Muslim travel ban.” The problem is, she wasn’t. She was fired for telling an entire department not to defend a travel ban that ultimately was upheld as lawful. I was critical of the initial memorandum supporting the travel ban, particularly its failure to exempt lawful residents. However, I also said Trump’s underlying authority would likely be found constitutional. Despite revisions tweaking its scope and affected countries, opponents insisted it remained unlawful and discriminatory.
They continued to litigate on those same grounds all the way to the Supreme Court, where they lost two years ago. The Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. Hawaii that the president had the authority to suspend entry of noncitizens into the country based on nationality and had a “sufficient national security justification” for his order. It also held that, despite most of the banned countries being Muslim-majority, the ban “does not support an inference of religious hostility.” That is why Yates deserved to be fired. Yates issued her order shortly after learning of the travel ban and despite being told by Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel it was a lawful order. She never actually said it was unlawful, only that she was not sure and was not convinced it was “wise or just.”
Rather than working to address clear errors in the original ban, she issued her categorical order as she prepared to leave the department in a matter of days. Yates maintained afterward that she believed the ban might still be discriminatory, even with revisions. The courts rejected those claims. Yates was due to retire from Justice within days when she engineered her own firing. It made her an instant heroine and allowed her to denounce Trump at the convention for “trampl[ing] the rule of law, trying to weaponize our Justice Department.” But that’s precisely what she did when she ordered an entire department not to assist the recently elected president. It is not clear what transpired between Bove and Driscoll, but I cannot imagine a basis for refusing to share personnel information and records with the Trump Administration.
The initial coverage of the request clearly omitted this context and led to the usual media stampede declaring a purging of the ranks by political commissars. The irony is that, once again, the true story may be even more interesting in an alleged defiance of the Trump Administration within the FBI. We have seen recently the actual locking out of Trump officials from agencies like US AID, leading to a security official being placed on leave. As someone who covered the first Administration, this is a very different profile and approach. Trump learned in his first term how officials could stymie and delay reforms. That process has begun anew, including a plethora of lawsuits designed to slowdown such efforts. However, the Administration is moving far more aggressively in this second term. If Trump wanted to defibrillate the federal system and shock the status quo, he is succeeding in doing so.
I have no problem with officials raising concerns over possible personnel action against agents who were only carrying out their assigned tasks. These officials have a duty to advocate for their agents and insulate their institution from concerns over political retaliation. However, if the FBI refused to supply personnel information, it would move the matter from internal deliberation to outright defiance of a lawful order.

Putin is no longer Brussels’ enemy no. 1. Trump is.
• EU Plays Trump Card To Advance Its Globalist Agenda (Villamor)
The reappearance of Donald Trump on the international political scene has left Brussels in a state of panic. Considering the current international context, it could well signify a revolution within the European Union. However, the European Union, under the leadership of Ursula von der Leyen, is using the American magnate’s return to power as a golden opportunity to strengthen its own supranational integration agenda, further weakening the sovereignty of member states and promoting a centralized vision of the European bloc. If the last term was an example of the ‘new Europe’ designed for us, the next four years will bring more of the same, but now tinged with a particular European patriotism in the face of the expansionism of the ‘Eagle Empire.’
During her speech at the Davos Forum in January this year, von der Leyen made the EU’s new approach clear: continuing climate policies and protecting “our European way of life” (whatever that means to EU leaders) against external threats, particularly those stemming from Donald Trump’s United States and China—after years of declaring that the main enemy was Vladimir Putin’s Russia. “The world is in a ‘race against time’ to tackle global challenges such as climate change and seize the opportunities of AI,” she stated during her speech at the World Economic Forum. Brussels’ stance is clear: continue decarbonizing at any cost. “Europe will continue to seek cooperation and is ‘open for business’ to those who wish to improve clean technology and expand digital infrastructure.”
It is no coincidence that this rhetoric aligns with Brussels’ attempts to reform the EU’s founding treaties, granting even more powers to European institutions at the expense of member states. Although the call on the Commission to initiate these reforms passed in the Parliament with only a paper-thin majority, there’s no doubt the efforts will continue in both institutions. Among the reforms under discussion is the elimination of the unanimity principle in the European Council, the only tool blocking Brussels from making key decisions without the consensus of all member states. There is also talk of creating new powers in taxation, defense, and energy policy, which would significantly curtail the autonomy of countries reluctant to follow the European Commission’s lead.
After Trump’s ascent, the U.S. is continuously being portrayed as an ‘imminent threat’ to European stability, enabling the EU to strengthen its control mechanisms and discipline countries that resist its directives. The European Commission is now promoting a narrative in which only a stronger and more united Europe can withstand the ‘winds’ of populism, protectionism, and the so-called far right. However, this strategy is not only aimed at consolidating power in Brussels. It also serves as a weapon to weaken patriotic and sovereignist movements that have gained strength across the continent. Growing public outrage over mass immigration, draconian climate policies, and the imposition of ideologies alien to national traditions has led to the rise of parties challenging the EU’s globalist consensus.
In response, the European establishment has intensified its offensive: any movement that questions Brussels’ agenda is immediately labeled as “far right”, “fascist”, or even “Nazi”. This phenomenon is not new but has become more aggressive in recent years. Censorship attempts, media persecution, and the systematic exclusion of dissenting voices from public debate have become normalized. Anyone opposing the EU’s policies is presented as a threat to democracy when, in reality, what is at stake is the ability of European peoples to decide their future—if such a possibility even exists today. The tactic is cheap but at least transparent: use the figure of Trump as a scarecrow to justify the centralization of power in Brussels and delegitimize political movements that challenge the EU’s ideological hegemony.
What we are witnessing is, in essence, a perfect excuse to push forward a project of forced integration that many Europeans have neither voted for nor approved. The supposed fight against populism is nothing more than a strategy to consolidate a political elite that refuses to accept that European societies are changing and that more and more citizens reject the progressive dogma imposed by Brussels. This is not the first time the EU has taken advantage of an external crisis to strengthen its control. It happened with the euro crisis when centralized austerity measures were implemented, with the COVID-19 pandemic, which facilitated the expansion of bureaucratic control, and with the war in Ukraine, which was used to justify energy and military policies without the necessary widespread consultation. Now, Trump is the new excuse. Will it also be an opportunity for change in the Old Continent?

“The European Left, like the American Left, devotes unlimited antagonism to anything that does not think like it, talk like it, dream, eat or work like it.”
• What Is Really Destroying Europe? The EU (Godefridi)
The founding idea of the European Union was to build, through shared prosperity, solidarity and a sense of shared destiny among the nations of Europe. That was why three communities were formed: the economy, coal and steel, and nuclear energy. Until around 2000, in terms of growth and innovation, the European economy, year in, year out, was on par with the American one. Of that initial — and fairly brilliant — gesture of “peace through prosperity,” literally nothing remains. None of the EU’s current leaders cares about the financial well-being of Europeans. Coal is regarded as the devil’s fuel, and nuclear energy is abhorred by Europe’s elites, who say they prefer the inefficient and erratic wind turbines. Since 2000, the European economy has been mired in stagnation, which has worsened since 2008 and threatens to reach its height in the coming years — ending in the destruction of Europe.
Green Deal
The EU is a web of institutions with which an American would find nothing familiar, so let us just say that this web is dominated by one institution: the European Commission. It is a kind of European “government'” with a monopoly on legislative initiatives. Nothing is voted on in the EU without the Commission’s assent. The Commission makes no secret of the fact that its absolute priority is the Green Deal: to turn Europe into a “Carbon Neutral Society” by 2050. This means achieving a balance between the greenhouse gas emissions produced and those absorbed by natural or technological carbon sinks. The EU’s key strategies to achieve this balance include reducing emissions by massively increasing the use of “renewable energy” sources such as solar, wind, hydro and biomass, improving the energy efficiency of buildings, vehicles and industries, and moving towards low- or zero-emission industrial processes, particularly in steel, cement and chemicals.They also aim to develop carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies to absorb and store CO2 from combustion sources or from the air. Carbon dioxide captured is typically stored in geological formations such as depleted natural gas fields, or old coal mines. In Europe, the North Sea seabed serves as an ideal location for carbon storage. The problem is that these CCS technologies are extremely expensive. Imposing them in the gigantic way that zero-carbon requires implies additional costs that are impossible for any developed economy to digest. That is probably why these fantastical CCS technologies play such a marginal role in Europe. The truth is that the reduction in CO2 emissions in Europe is almost exclusively due to industry leaving Europe. That is the dirty little secret of the Green Deal: Europe is reducing its CO2 emissions to the extent and in proportion to the destruction of its industry.
[..] If there is one reality that leaders whose power is founded on myths abhor, it is transparency. Whereas in 2020, the power of the American legacy media still allowed it to make people believe that Hunter Biden’s laptop was a Russian disinformation operation, over the last few years, this power was been reduced to shreds. The same shift is happening in Europe, under the influence not of European social media networks, because they do not exist, but of American ones, such as X. The EU elite has lost control of the narrative. Europeans are turning away from the lies and myths of the Green Deal en masse. This is what the EU cannot tolerate. By adopting the Digital Services Act (DSA), the EU wanted to give itself an instrument with which to subdue the American platforms, and are obliged to fund hordes of censors to hunt down content that disagrees with the European Queen-Commission. The EU has been requiring a fine of 6% of worldwide revenue from social media companies, which would inevitably kill off the platforms.
These faceless censor-hunters, who are accountable to no one, are supposed to remove all content that is hateful, discriminatory or transphobic. None of these vague terms can be rigorously defined. Given the absence of precise definitions, the censors do whatever they want. The arbitrariness is total. In practice, these censors massively quash so-called “right-wing” content, while leaving the abundant anti-Semitic, Islamist and Marxist literature untouched. That, apparently, is the whole point. The European Left, like the American Left, devotes unlimited antagonism to anything that does not think like it, talk like it, dream, eat or work like it. By introducing legislation such as the DSA, Europe is asserting itself as a major player in the censorship camp, following the example of China, Iran, Russia and Islamist countries, and contributing to the de-civilization of the European continent. After all, isn’t freedom the definition, the reason for being and the sole distinguishing criterion of Western civilization?

Milei took Argentina out as well yesterday.
• What to Know About US Withdrawal From the WHO (ET)
On the first day in office of his second term, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO), making good on a project from his first administration. Trump’s Jan. 20 order halted U.S. funding to the United Nations body, citing the WHO’s “mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic that arose out of Wuhan, China,” as well as other global health concerns. Negotiations with the group about a pandemic agreement and the International Health Regulations will be suspended while the withdrawal is taking place.Because of the 1948 joint resolution by Congress, the United States has the right to withdraw from the WHO, but it must give a one-year notice. The resolution also requires the United States to fulfill “financial obligations” to the WHO for the current fiscal year.
The United States is currently the largest WHO funder, contributing about $1.28 billion during 2022–2023, the last reported year on the organization’s website. That equates to almost half of the WHO’s joint external evaluation missions for the last fiscal year. The 2024–2025 fiscal year is shaping up similarly, with the United States serving as the largest donor by far, contributing an estimated $988 million, or roughly 14 percent of the WHO’s $6.9 billion budget. Documents obtained by The Associated Press show that the United States covers about 95 percent of the WHO’s work on tuberculosis in Europe and about 60 percent in Africa and the Western Pacific, and that the WHO’s Europe office is more than 8 percent reliant on U.S. contributions. Additionally, U.S. funding provides “the backbone of many of WHO’s large-scale emergency operations,” covering up to 40 percent of that funding.
WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus described relations with the United States as “a good model partnership” during a press briefing in Geneva in December 2024. “[We] have been partnering for many years, and we believe that will be the case. And I believe the U.S. leaders understand that the United States cannot be safe unless the rest of the world is safe,” he told reporters. Following the announcement of Trump’s decision to remove the United States from the organization, Ghebreyesus spoke out, asking world leaders to push the White House to reverse the decision. The WHO chief said during a closed-door meeting with diplomats that the United States would miss out on critical information about disease outbreaks, The Associated Press reported.
George Kyriacou, the agency’s finance director, said if the WHO’s spending continues at its current level without funding from the United States, the organization would be “very much in a hand-to-mouth type situation” regarding cash flow for at least portions of 2026. Officials at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have ordered agency employees to stop working with the WHO, effective immediately. John Nkengasong, the CDC’s deputy director for global health, sent a memo to agency leadership on Jan. 26 calling on staff to cease collaborating with the WHO immediately and wait for further guidance. CDC staff also are not allowed to engage with the WHO, virtually or in person, and staff members are not allowed to visit the WHO offices.
Some public health experts, including Dr. Jeffrey Klausner, a professor of medicine and global health at UCLA who works with the WHO on sexually transmitted infections, have voiced concern about halting the collaboration.“Stopping communications and meetings with WHO is a big problem,” Klausner said. “People thought there would be a slow withdrawal. This has really caught everyone with their pants down.” The Trump administration said the WHO was not able to demonstrate independence from the “inappropriate political influence” of member states and had failed to “adopt urgently needed reforms.” The president’s executive order also cites “unfairly onerous payments” by the United States that Trump said are “far out of proportion with other countries’ assessed payments.” “China, with a population of 1.4 billion, has 300 percent of the population of the United States, yet contributes nearly 90 percent less to the WHO,” the order stated.
This is Trump’s second attempt to withdraw from the WHO. The president began the process in 2020 because of frustration over the WHO’s reaction to China’s coverup of details surrounding the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The House Oversight and Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic released a report in December 2024 on the WHO’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, calling it “an abject failure.” According to the report, the WHO is accused of bending to pressure from the Chinese Communist Party and placing “China’s political interests ahead of its international duties.” As part of the alleged failure, the WHO reportedly ignored warnings by Taiwan on Dec. 31, 2019, about “atypical pneumonia cases” in Wuhan, which it asked the WHO to investigate. “The initial mismanagement of the COVID-19 pandemic not only potentially caused the further spread of the virus, but it created a situation where people lost trust in the global public health organization,” the report stated.

“Freedom is a fragile thing and it’s never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by way of inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people.”
• ‘Gov’t Is the People’s Business’: A Tribute to Ronald Reagan (Salgado)
On this day (Feb 6) in 1911, a boy was born who would go on to be one of the greatest American presidents: Ronald Reagan. “Government is the people’s business, and every man, woman and child becomes a shareholder with the first penny of tax paid,” Reagan said. It is unfortunate that some even in his own party no longer value his legacy much, framing him as a status quo president. He was not — he was a fighter, a reformer, and a great man hated by domestic leftists and foreign Communists alike but beloved by the Americans to whom he brought morning again in America.
Of course, he didn’t just bring America out of the horrible economic and political nightmare of the Jimmy Carter years; he also brought about the fall of the Soviet Union. Rejecting short-sighted pleas to drop the line, he stood fearlessly in front of the Berlin Wall, the physical divide between the free West and the authoritarian East, and cried, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” When the Berlin Wall came crashing down in 1989, in spite of the naysayers and petty dictators, in the same year Reagan had left office, it was Reagan’s victory as much as it was a victory for all the Germans and other Europeans who had defied Soviet tyranny.
There were leftists who sneered at Reagan because he had been an actor, and there were leftists who hated him because he was a Republican not afraid to challenge corrupt politicians. But not even a bullet could stop him. He was undoubtedly one of the greatest and most successful presidents in American history. And Americans knew it so well that in the 1984 election, he won 49 out of 50 states. Like those of so many other great men, Reagan‘s words are not only applicable to his own day but often applicable to ours. America will always be fighting authoritarians, both foreign and domestic; we will always have to struggle to preserve our constitutional republic. Or, as Reagan himself put it, even years before he became president:
Perhaps you and I have lived too long with this miracle to properly be appreciative. Freedom is a fragile thing and it’s never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by way of inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. And those in world history who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again. How true it is that freedom is a fragile thing! Many individuals and groups, most notably the Democrat party, have been trying to limit or destroy our freedom for centuries now in America. Think how great the contrast has been between the Biden-Harris administration and the first couple weeks of the Trump administration.
Reagan knew what so many other politicians deny, that the rulers of America are supposed to be its citizens. “With all the profound wording of our federal Constitution, probably the most meaningful words are the first three, ‘We, the People,’” he said, in his same gubernatorial inaugural address quoted above. “And those of us here today who have been elected to constitutional office and to the legislature are in that three-word phrase. We are of the people, we are chosen by the people to see that no permanent structure of government ever encroaches on the people’s freedom or assumes a power beyond that which has freely been granted to us by the people. We stand between the taxpayer and the tax spender.”
The Founding Fathers would approve, but not the bureaucrats and political hacks who get into government only for their own benefit. It seems somewhat ironic that this address was originally delivered in California, when Reagan was becoming governor there. How far woke California has come from those days. Reagan must also have made his opponents squirm as he added, “Now, it is inconceivable to me that anyone could accept this delegated authority without asking God’s help. And I pray that we of the legislature and the administration can be granted the wisdom and the strength beyond our own limited powers. That with divine guidance we can avoid easy expedience. That we can work to build a state where liberty under law and justice can triumph, where compassion can govern and wherein the people can participate and prosper because of their government and not in spite of it.”




Dana
Peloton tried to cancel Theo Von for interviewing RFK Jr. on his podcast so Dana White responded by removing ALL Peloton bikes from his gyms.
Alpha males always stick together! pic.twitter.com/XshfPc61l0
— Nick Adams (@NickAdamsinUSA) February 5, 2025

Sunglasses
The link between Sunglasses and Health pic.twitter.com/aEHWYfRFAA
— Truthseeker (@Xx17965797N) February 5, 2025

Queen
Moments when the "Queen of the Night" flower blooms one night a year. pic.twitter.com/i5AffThzu1
— Interesting As Fuck (@interesting_aIl) February 5, 2025

Mariana
A camera is lowered to the 11,000-meter depth of the Mariana Trench, the deepest point on earth.
[📹 oceanexploregov]pic.twitter.com/ygUlHXwgzl
— Massimo (@Rainmaker1973) February 6, 2025

Chirodectes
One of the rarest animal sightings in the world: chirodectes maculatus, only seen once before pic.twitter.com/xjtffBNsTu
— Nature is Amazing ☘️ (@AMAZlNGNATURE) February 5, 2025

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


