Menu Icon

Debt Rattle May 11 2025

May 112025
 
 May 11, 2025  Posted by at 9:53 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  30 Responses »


Henri Matisse The terrace, St. Tropez 1904

 

• Trump Touts “Great Progress” In China Tariff Talks, Suggests “Total Reset” (ZH)
• India and Pakistan Agree To ‘Immediate Ceasefire’ – Trump (RT)
• Putin Proposes Direct Talks With Ukraine On May 15 In Turkey To End War (JTN)
• Zelensky Voices Demands To Russia After High-Profile Talks In Kiev (RT)
• Moscow Says It Won’t Be Pressured Over Ukraine 30-Day Truce (RT)
• Russia Is Not Afraid of Western Sanctions – Kremlin (RT)
• Ukraine Seeks to Reload, Not Negotiate Peace – US Army Vet (Sp.)
• Zelensky Will Reject Putin’s Proposal in Order to Stay ALIVE (Sp.)
• Ukraine’s Cause Is ‘Doomed’ – Bulgarian President (RT)
• George Galloway: UK Troops in Ukraine Would Constitute ‘National Suicide’ (Sp.)
• Ukraine’s European Backers Can’t Replace US Military Aid – NYT (RT)
• German Spies Grant AfD Reprieve (RT)
• Why History Is Alive In Russia But Dead In The West (SCF)
• The Soviet Union Defeated More Than Just The Nazis In 1945 (Ibrahim)
• Trump’s Houthi Deal Channels America First, Leaving Out Allies (JTN)
• Justice Roberts Admits It’s His Job to Rein in the Judicial Insurrection (O’Neil)
• Federal Judge Halts All Large-Scale Firings by Trump Administration (Turley)
• Trump Eyes Suspending Habeas Corpus In Border Invasion (Margolis)
• Trump Redirects Funds From Illegals to Homeless Veterans (Salgado)
• Deep State, Deep Church: Welcome to the New Pope! (Pacini)

 

 

 

 

Waltz

https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1921004517132304785

Greenwald RFK

RFK https://twitter.com/itscarterhughes/status/1921021374300139910

Jolani

 

 

 

 

We await China’s response to Trump coming down to 80%.

• Trump Touts “Great Progress” In China Tariff Talks, Suggests “Total Reset” (ZH)

President Donald Trump said late on Saturday that “great progress” was being made in ongoing U.S.-China talks over tariffs menacing the global economy, and even suggested a “total reset” was on the table as tariff negotiations are set to continue Sunday in Switzerland.No major breakthrough was announced in discussions that lasted over 10 hours between U.S. officials, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, and a delegation led by Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng. Still, Trump struck an upbeat tone.“A very good meeting today with China, in Switzerland. Many things discussed, much agreed to. A total reset negotiated in a friendly, but constructive, manner,” the president wrote on his Truth Social platform. “We want to see, for the good of both China and the U.S., an opening up of China to American business. GREAT PROGRESS MADE!!!”

He gave no further details, and officials at the White House also offered little information during and after the opening day of discussions. Trump’s post followed reports that talks would continue Sunday, after extending late into the day on Saturday. Talks have been shrouded in secrecy, and neither side made comments to reporters as they left. Several convoys of black vehicles left the residence of the Swiss ambassador to the UN in Geneva, which hosted the talks aimed at de-escalating trade tensions between the world’s two biggest economies. Diplomats from both sides also confirmed that the talks took place. The opening day of negotiations were held in the sumptuous 18th-century “Villa Saladin” overlooking Lake Geneva. The former estate was bequeathed to the Swiss state in 1973, according to the Geneva government.

Trump’s assessment aside, while prospects for a major breakthrough appeared dim when the talks opened there is hope that the two countries will scale back the tariffs they have slapped on each other’s goods, a move that would relieve world financial markets and companies on both sides of the Pacific Ocean that depend on US-China trade. Trump last month raised U.S. tariffs on China to a combined 145%, and China retaliated by hitting American imports with a 125% levy. Tariffs that high essentially amount to the countries’ boycotting each other’s products, disrupting trade that last year topped $660 billion. And even before talks got underway, Trump suggested Friday that the U.S. could lower its tariffs on China, saying in a Truth Social post that “80% Tariff seems right! Up to Scott” Bessent.

Sun Yun, director of the China program at the Stimson Center, noted it will be the first time He and Bessent have talked. She doubts the Geneva meeting will produce any substantive results: “the best scenario is for the two sides to agree to de-escalate on the … tariffs at the same time,” she said, adding even a small reduction would send a positive signal. “It cannot just be words.” Goldman Sachs expects both sides to cut tariffs by more than half when negotiations are over. Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has aggressively used tariffs as his favorite economic weapon. He has imposed a 10% tax on imports from almost every country in the world. But the fight with China has been the most intense. His tariffs on China include a 20% charge meant to pressure Beijing into doing more to stop the flow of the synthetic opioid fentanyl into the United States.

The remaining 125% involve a dispute that dates back to Trump’s first term and comes atop tariffs he levied on China back then, which means the total tariffs on some Chinese goods can exceed 145%. During Trump’s first term, the U.S. alleged that China uses unfair tactics to give itself an edge in advanced technologies such as quantum computing and driverless cars. These include forcing U.S. and other foreign companies to hand over trade secrets in exchange for access to the Chinese market; using government money to subsidize domestic tech firms; and outright theft of sensitive technologies. Those issues were never fully resolved. After nearly two years of negotiation, the United States and China reached a so-called Phase One agreement in January 2020. The US agreed then not to go ahead with even higher tariffs on China, and Beijing agreed to buy more American products. The tough issues – such as China’s subsidies – were left for future negotiations.

But China didn’t come through with the promised purchases, partly because COVID-19 disrupted global commerce just after the Phase One truce was announced. As a result, America’s trade deficit with China came to a staggering $263 billion last year. The fight over China’s tech policy now resumes.

Read more …

“He also hailed both sides for demonstrating “common sense and great intelligence.”

• India and Pakistan Agree To ‘Immediate Ceasefire’ – Trump (RT)

India and Pakistan have agreed to cease hostilities, US President Donald Trump has said, adding that a deal was reached following a “long night of talks” mediated by Washington. Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar has confirmed that a deal was reached but did not mention US involvement. New Delhi has said the truce came into effect at 5 pm local time. “I am pleased to announce that India and Pakistan have agreed to a full and immediate ceasefire,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social on Saturday. He also hailed both sides for demonstrating “common sense and great intelligence.” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also said that the two neighbors had decided to “start talks on a broad set of issues at a neutral site.”

According to Rubio, he and US Vice President J.D. Vance were involved in talks with senior Indian and Pakistani officials over the past 48 hours, including Prime Ministers Narendra Modi and Shehbaz Sharif, India’s top diplomat, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, and Pakistani Chief of Army Staff Asim Munir.Shortly after the announcement, India’s Foreign Ministry said that the heads of military operations of the two nations had agreed to cease all hostilities in a phone call earlier on Saturday initiated by the Pakistani side. Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar took to X to say that “Pakistan and India have agreed to a ceasefire with immediate effect.” The truce follows a brief but rapid military escalation between the two nuclear powers. Earlier this week, New Delhi launched ‘Operation Sindoor’, a series of strikes on suspected terrorist facilities in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. The strikes were in retaliation for a terrorist attack in April in the India Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir that claimed the lives of 26 civilians.

The attack was initially claimed by “The Resistance Front”, a group believed to be linked to the Pakistani-based jihadist organization Lashkar-e-Taiba. New Delhi said its investigators had been able to identify communication nodes of terrorists in and to Pakistan. Islamabad has vehemently denied that it had any role in the attack and has called for an impartial probe. Islamabad has condemned India’s actions as a “heinous provocation” and responded with shelling across the Line of Control, the de facto border between the countries in Kashmir, as well as with drone strikes. Late on Friday, Pakistan announced that it had launched a large-scale military operation against India called ‘Bunyan Al Marsoos’ (Unbreakable Wall) in what it called retaliation for the Indian strikes. Strikes targeting Indian military sites ensued.

Read more …

Ukraine will screw them up with demands it knows Russia will not meet.

• Putin Proposes Direct Talks With Ukraine On May 15 In Turkey To End War (JTN)

Russian President Vladimir Putin early Sunday proposed direct talks with Ukraine on May 15 in Turkey to end Europe’s longest military conflict since World War II. Putin’s offer came in response to requests from Kyiv and President Donald Trump for a 30-day ceasefire. The Russian president said there would be no conditions for the restart of negotiations. “We are committed to serious negotiations with Ukraine,” Putin said, adding it was possible Russia could agree to a ceasefire during the talks. There’s no immediate reaction from Washington, which has pressed for months for a peaceful solution to the three-year war between Russian and Ukraine.

Read more …

Haven’t seen a great write-up of this meeting in Kiev. We’ll make do.

“..a 17th package of EU sanctions, which will be coordinated with measures from the UK, Norway, and US..”

Hmm. Wonder what the US is doing there. Not clear.

Meanwhile, “the leaders of the UK, France, Germany, and Poland..” are all highly unpopular at home, and dead set on war with Russia. Which is why they went to Kiev. Where they can seem relevant.

• Zelensky Voices Demands To Russia After High-Profile Talks In Kiev (RT)

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has demanded that Russia agree to a full and unconditional ceasefire lasting at least 30 days starting May 12. Moscow has previously argued that such a truce would merely give Ukraine time to regroup its forces. On Saturday, the leaders of the UK, France, Germany, and Poland met with Zelensky in Kiev as part of the so-called “coalition of the willing.” “After the conclusion of the summit in Kiev, we all spoke with @POTUS [US President Donald Trump]. It was a good conversation – positive and concrete. I am grateful to President Trump,” Zelensky wrote on X following the meeting. “We share a common view: an immediate, full, and unconditional ceasefire is needed for at least 30 days,” he added. Zelensky said Kiev is ready to begin talks with Russia “in any format” once a full and unconditional 30-day ceasefire is in place.

He warned that if Moscow refuses the truce, stronger sanctions should be imposed on Russia’s energy and banking sectors. Preparations are already underway for a 17th package of EU sanctions, which will be coordinated with measures from the UK, Norway, and US, Zelensky claimed. Kiev has demanded an immediate 30-day ceasefire on numerous occasions over the past few months. Moscow has opposed the initiative, arguing that Ukraine would use the time to regroup its troops and restock weapons inventories. In an interview with ABC News on Friday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Ukraine “will continue their total mobilization, bringing new troops to the front line. They will use this period to train new military personnel and give rest to their existing ones. So why should we grant such an advantage to Ukraine?” He added that arms shipments from the West would also need to stop during any ceasefire. “Otherwise, it will be an advantage for Ukraine,” he said.

Moscow has repeatedly stated its readiness to begin negotiations with Ukraine without any preconditions. In March, it agreed to a US-brokered 30-day partial ceasefire focused on halting strikes on energy infrastructure. However, according to the Russian military, Kiev repeatedly violated the truce. Last week, Vladimir Putin announced a unilateral 72-hour Victory Day ceasefire, describing it as a humanitarian gesture to mark the 80th anniversary of the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany. He said the gesture could also serve as a catalyst for “the start of direct negotiations with Kiev without preconditions.” The initiative was dismissed by Zelensky as “a manipulation.” Kiev even intensified drone strikes on Russian territory during the pause.

Read more …

The other side demands a full truce literally as per tomorrow morning.

• Moscow Says It Won’t Be Pressured Over Ukraine 30-Day Truce (RT)

The Kremlin has rejected what it describes as external pressure surrounding the 30-day truce demanded by Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky and supported by Western leaders. Speaking to CNN on Saturday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Russia had already declared a three-day ceasefire earlier in the week, which was met with silence from Kiev. “Actually, a couple of days ago, Putin announced a ceasefire for three days,” Peskov said. “Did you hear any reaction from Kiev? No, we didn’t either. Did you hear any criticism of Kiev for not being able to respond or not willing to respond? No.” Leaders from the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Poland gathered in Kiev on Saturday for high-level talks with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky. According to him, the gathering also included virtual participation from more than 30 countries.

Following the meeting, Zelensky wrote on X that participants agreed a full and unconditional ceasefire must begin on Monday, May 12, and last for at least 30 days. “Together, we demand this from Russia,” he stated. He warned that if Moscow refuses the truce, stronger sanctions should be imposed on Russia’s energy and banking sectors. Preparations are already underway for a 17th package of EU sanctions, which will be coordinated with measures from the UK, Norway, and US, Zelensky claimed. Peskov told CNN that the Kremlin was still evaluating the latest developments. “We have to think about that. We have our own position.” He also criticized what he described as an increasingly hostile posture from Western European states. “Yes, definitely we see that Europe is confronting us. We feel it, we know it, and we are quite accustomed to that.”

The Kremlin spokesman reiterated Moscow’s willingness to engage in talks. “We are open for dialogue. We are open for attempts to have a settlement in Ukraine,” he said, expressing appreciation for the mediation efforts coming from the Trump administration. “But at the same time, it’s quite useless to try to press upon us,” he added. Kiev has repeatedly called for an immediate 30-day ceasefire in recent months, framing it as essential for starting diplomatic efforts. Moscow argued that such a pause would primarily benefit Ukraine by allowing its forces to regroup and replenish weapons stockpiles. Speaking to ABC News on Friday, Dmitry Peskov also stressed that any truce would require a halt to Western arms deliveries, saying, “Otherwise, it will be an advantage for Ukraine.”

Read more …

“..a total of 28,595 sanctions were imposed on Russian companies and individuals in recent years..”

• Russia Is Not Afraid of Western Sanctions – Kremlin (RT)

Russia is used to Western pressure and is not concerned about new sanctions, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said. He was commenting on a new round of sanctions recently imposed by the UK. ”We already know what we will do once the sanctions are announced and how we will minimize their effect,” Peskov told journalist Pavel Zarubin on Saturday. Russia has learned effective ways to counteract Western pressure, he said. “Therefore, scaring us with sanctions is pointless.” On Friday, the British government announced what it called the “largest-ever” sanctions package against Russia, targeting its oil transportation network in order to deliver a blow to the country’s energy revenues. The new measures blacklisted up to 100 oil tankers that the West claims are part of a Russian ‘shadow fleet’, older vessels operating outside Western insurance systems.

Since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict over three years ago, successive British governments have introduced more than 2,000 sanctions on Russian individuals and entities. Moscow has said the move will not harm Russia’s economy and will instead increase energy costs and inflation in Europe. Earlier, US President Donald Trump called for an “unconditional ceasefire” between Moscow and Kiev, threatening punitive measures if the truce is not observed. “The US and its partners will impose further sanctions” if it is violated, he said. In March, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that a total of 28,595 sanctions were imposed on Russian companies and individuals in recent years – more than the total number on all other countries combined. According to the president, the West sought to eliminate Russia as a competitor but its economy has only grown more resilient under pressure.

Read more …

“..he’s got pressure from Western backers. Maybe not so much of the US, but definitely from France. Germany and the UK, primarily the UK on that. And he has pressures to continue this conflict from his ultra-nationalists within the Kiev government and military.”

• Ukraine Seeks to Reload, Not Negotiate Peace – US Army Vet (Sp.)

As Russian President Vladimir Putin proposes renewed direct peace talks with Ukraine—offered without preconditions and suggested to take place in Istanbul on May 15—Sputnik contributors are weighing in on Kiev’s likely response. Retired US Army Lieutenant Colonel Earl Rasmussen voiced strong skepticism about Ukraine’s willingness to engage in the peace process. “We’ve had one side—President Putin—open to negotiations all along,” says Rasmussen. “But it’s Ukraine that keeps walking away from the table and violating every ceasefire,” he stresses. “Putin’s latest offer is a counterstrike—not with missiles, but with diplomacy. But don’t expect Kiev or its NATO patrons to bite. They’re not looking for peace. They’re looking for an opening shot in the next round,” Rasmussen emphasizes.

Putin’s latest talks initiative follows several ceasefire proposals over the past month. According to Moscow, Ukrainian forces not only ignored the proposed truce but launched large-scale attacks on Russian territory. Nevertheless, Russia maintains that it is open to serious negotiations aimed at addressing the root causes of the conflict. When asked about Volodymyr Zelensky’s potential response, Rasmussen pointed to both internal and external pressure that might prevent any meaningful dialogue. “[Zelensky] is not going to accept this because he’s got pressure from Western backers. Maybe not so much of the US, but definitely from France. Germany and the UK, primarily the UK on that. And he has pressures to continue this conflict from his ultra-nationalists within the Kiev government and military.”

With the conflict grinding on, Rasmussen sees little chance of immediate diplomatic progress. “I do not picture him accepting a negotiation at all. Maybe I’m wrong. I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t think it’s going to happen.” He concluded with a direct appeal to American leadership, suggesting the United States could play a decisive role in halting the conflict. “President Trump needs to get involved. They need the US can end this. They need to cut support to Ukraine. And they need to get the Europeans on board.” As the world watches to see whether Ukraine will respond to Moscow’s latest proposal, skepticism remains high among some analysts about the willingness—or ability—of Kiev to pursue direct peace talks with no preconditions.

Read more …

“..this is where the Europeans are just absolutely nuts… that if they wanted to impose sanctions that would go after the oil deliveries by Russia, that will automatically, literally overnight, raise the prices that would actually benefit Russia and hurt the Europeans.”

• Zelensky Will Reject Putin’s Proposal in Order to Stay ALIVE (Sp.)

As Russian President Vladimir Putin publicly proposed renewed peace talks with Ukraine to be held in Istanbul on May 15, accompanied by an expressed willingness to negotiate without preconditions, a former senior US security analyst has offered a stark assessment of the political pressure facing Volodymyr Zelensky. “Zelensky will reject Putin’s proposal in order to stay alive,” warned Michael Maloof, a former senior security policy analyst at the Pentagon, in a blunt analysis of the Ukrainian leader’s predicament.Moscow’s latest offer comes in the wake of what it claims were several attacks by Ukrainian forces even during Russia’s proposed Victory Day ceasefire. Despite these incidents, Putin has insisted that Russia remains open to talks aimed at achieving a lasting peace and addressing the root causes of the conflict.

“Zelensky does not want to meet alone with Mr. Putin,” Maloof explained. “And I think that if he decides to go ahead and negotiate something, and first of all, I question whether he’ll be ALLOWED to do that because of internal politics… I think the Azov* group and his military will rebel,” he emphasized. “Putin has basically put Zelensky in a really tight position. Between that proverbial rock and hard place,” Maloof stressed. Moscow’s proposal has stirred debate globally, particularly in Europe, where the political appetite for reconciliation with Russia remains minimal. Maloof was sharply critical of the European approach, describing it as counterproductive and self-destructive.“Turn that down, because that’s not the way, the direction they wanted to go, because the Europeans are very anxious and interested in wanting to pursue their antagonistic approach toward Russia, not only in containing, but trying to overthrow the government and wanting to impose these even additional sanctions,” he said.

He argued that despite thousands of sanctions, Russia’s economy has adapted: “I think Russia is basically immune now because… they’ve had over 20,000 sanctions already imposed. And yet they want to impose some more that are not working.” According to Maloof, Western policies have backfired, particularly on energy: “And this is where the Europeans are just absolutely nuts… that if they wanted to impose sanctions that would go after the oil deliveries by Russia, that will automatically, literally overnight, raise the prices that would actually benefit Russia and hurt the Europeans.”

He did not hold back in his criticism: “They just want to continue a conflict with Russia that, frankly, particularly the UK, that has been going on for almost 250 years. Their antagonism toward Russia is historic.” Maloof pointed to recent international events to underscore Russia’s continued global standing: “If they thought that their new sanctions were going to isolate Russia, I think the Victory Day parade demonstrated, as well as the BRICS conference last October in Kazan, demonstrated that Russia is not isolated. In fact, it has drawn the support and the backing of more than half the people world, from the global south, all of Asia.” As the proposed date for talks nears, all eyes will be on Kiev and its Western allies, whose response—or silence—may define the next stage of the war.

Read more …

Keeping score: Hungary, Serbia, Slovakia and now Bulgaria.

• Ukraine’s Cause Is ‘Doomed’ – Bulgarian President (RT)

Bulgarian President Rumen Radev has openly criticized the EU’s continued military support for Ukraine, warning that Kiev’s path to victory against Russia is “doomed.” He made the remarks in a Facebook post on Friday, timed with Russia’s Victory Day celebrations in Moscow marking the 80th anniversary of the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany in World War II. Radev called it “the tragedy of our time” that decades after World War II, international disputes in Europe “are once again being resolved by military means.” “Europe does not have its own vision for the end of the [Ukraine conflict] and the establishment of peace, but continues to invest in a cause that, in my opinion, is doomed,” the Bulgarian leader wrote. He added that “pouring more weapons” into Ukraine would not bring peace closer, calling it a “utopian hope” that leads instead to “the opposite – even more victims, destruction and lost territory every day.”

Radev also questioned the EU’s goals in prolonging the Ukraine conflict. “Is Europe afraid of the return of peace? Because the return of peace also means returning public attention to the crises that are smoldering within our countries and societies,” he stated, stressing that Europe must learn the lessons of World War II, abandon its militaristic approach, and focus instead on diplomatic solutions. “Europe must remember that unity and prosperity were made possible by joint efforts to eradicate the rivalries, hatred, and disputes that led to the Second World War,” he said.

Radev has opposed sending military aid to Kiev and is one of the few EU leaders to speak out against Brussels’ hardline stance against Moscow. He previously warned against prolonging the conflict, dismissing the idea of Ukraine defeating Russia as “impossible,” while urging for peace. Russia has warned against Western military aid to Ukraine, saying it would only drag out the conflict. Moscow offered a 72-hour ceasefire from midnight May 8 to midnight May 11 to mark Victory Day, describing the offer as a humanitarian gesture aimed at paving the way for direct peace talks without preconditions. Ukraine dismissed the overture as “manipulation” and demanded a 30-day ceasefire instead. The Russian Defense Ministry said Ukraine launched multiple attacks of various kinds, including four attempted cross-border incursions into the Russian regions of Kursk and Belgorod, following Russia’s ceasefire declaration.

Orban

Read more …

“Now, Galloway says, London is talking about putting 20,000-30,000 troops in Ukraine, a move that would constitute “an act of war against Russia.” “That’s a declaration, literally, of national suicide…that presupposes a Russian nuclear response that would end the existence of the British people”.

“..that military-industrial complex is fine when it comes to selling unnecessary and very expensive kits, airplanes and so on, to countries, I won’t name them, who really don’t know how to use them, have no need for them and if they were ever forced to use them, they wouldn’t last for long…”

• George Galloway: UK Troops in Ukraine Would Constitute ‘National Suicide’ (Sp.)

From WWII’s forgotten heroes to the UK’s ‘suicidal’ Ukraine policy, seasoned politician, Workers’ Party of Britain leader and prolific political commentator George Galloway doesn’t hold back in his interview with Sputnik. Without the Soviet people, entire nations would have been wiped out, and survivors would be speaking German, Galloway said. The “extraordinary lengths” to which British leaders have been ready to go to drive a wedge between erstwhile WWII allies Russia and Britain comes down to rivalry and jealousy, Galloway says. The British government wrecked the 2022 Russia-Ukraine peace deal in Istanbul as the conflict was just getting started, and proved more than willing to freeze its own seniors to death to grant Zelensky 1.5 billion pounds in aid, the prolific commentator recalled. Now, Galloway says, London is talking about putting 20,000-30,000 troops in Ukraine, a move that would constitute “an act of war against Russia.”

“That’s a declaration, literally, of national suicide…that presupposes a Russian nuclear response that would end the existence of the British people” and effectively put an end to “our island’s story,” Galloway emphasized, when asked what would happen if Britain used a Ukraine troop deployment as a nuclear tripwire. The UK can’t even be sure that it’s in control of its own deterrent, Galloway said, much less rely on support from the US. “I remind you that Britain no longer has even a steel industry,” the veteran statesman said, commenting on the glaring gap between the government’s loud ‘bark’ and its actual military ‘bite’. “The only piece of manufacturing that you could readily identify on the British industrial landscape is the military-industrial complex and that military-industrial complex is fine when it comes to selling unnecessary and very expensive kits, airplanes and so on, to countries, I won’t name them, who really don’t know how to use them, have no need for them and if they were ever forced to use them, they wouldn’t last for long.

That is the kind of racket that we are involved in. But when it comes to the production of shells, when it come to the protection of tanks, comes to production of drones that we discussed earlier, we’re not at the races.” “It’s as obvious as the nose on your face when you think about it that without the Americans there is no NATO, without the American army there is no military threat,” the veteran statesman said. A US withdrawal from Europe would force “a reckoning” in Western Europe and Ukraine, resulting in a speedy negotiated settlement. As long as the US remains, and the root “fundamental causes of the conflict remain unresolved” (NATO expansion), the meatgrinder will continue, Galloway laments.

Read more …

They still count on Trump.

• Ukraine’s European Backers Can’t Replace US Military Aid – NYT (RT)

Ukraine’s European sponsors lack the manufacturing capacity to replace US arms supplies to Kiev, the New York Times wrote on Saturday. The administration of US President Donald Trump has shifted from spending billions on supporting Ukraine to focusing on domestic issues. It has also signaled to its European NATO allies that Washington has no interest in propping up the military bloc alone. The NYT noted that the US has not announced a new arms package for Ukraine for more than 120 days. While the Pentagon still has $3.85 billion in armaments earmarked for Kiev under the previous administration, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declined to answer when asked if the arms would be sent to Ukraine, the newspaper wrote.

Kiev is running low on long-range missiles, artillery and, most of all, ballistic aid defense systems – which are mostly manufactured in the US – the NYT wrote, citing a Ukrainian official. While European leaders and investors appear willing to pump more funds into arms manufacturing, “industry executives and experts predict it will take a decade to get assembly lines up to speed,” according to the newspaper. This comes on the backdrop of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s proposal to mobilize up to €800 billion for military spending in the EU, citing threats from Russia and the inability to rely on long-term US support. The Trump administration has consistently demanded that the European NATO states increase their annual military spending to 5% of GDP, calling the longstanding 2% target insufficient.

Russian officials have condemned the steps being taken in Europe toward militarization, and dismissed claims that Moscow intends to attack either the EU or NATO. Moreover, Russia has expressed concern that, rather than supporting the US peace initiatives for the Ukraine conflict, the EU is instead gearing up for war with Russia. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov previously noted that the EU is “becoming militarized at a record pace,” and said that there was now “very little difference” between the EU and NATO.

Read more …

“..incoming Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt warned against banning the AfD. Dobrindt has argued that the party should be made irrelevant through good governance rather than drastic measures. He also insisted on a discussion over the reasons that the AfD has risen to prominence..”

• German Spies Grant AfD Reprieve (RT)

Germany’s domestic intelligence agency has temporarily suspended its classification of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party as a “confirmed right-wing extremist” group, pending the outcome of a legal appeal. The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) suspended the label on Thursday and removed a press release about the designation from its website. The classification, which was announced by the BfV last week, was based on a comprehensive report alleging that the AfD promotes policies excluding individuals with migrant backgrounds, particularly Muslims, from full societal participation. The BfV claimed that the party “disregards human dignity” and uses terms such as “knife-wielding migrants” to ascribe violent tendencies to non-European ethnic groups.

The AfD leadership condemned the decision as “a severe blow to German democracy” and filed a lawsuit in a Cologne court, arguing that the classification was politically motivated and lacked sufficient evidence. As a result, the BfV temporarily withdrew the classification, but said it would monitor the party as a “suspected case” of an extremist organization. The suspended designation would have empowered the BfV to carry out broad surveillance of the AfD’s activities. The lower-level designation also allows surveillance, but under stricter judicial oversight. AfD co-leaders Alice Weidel and Tino Chrupalla welcomed the temporary suspension, calling it “a first important step” that will help “counter the accusation of right-wing extremism.”

The ‘extremist’ label was met with skepticism by many German politicians. Then-German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and incoming Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt warned against banning the AfD. Dobrindt has argued that the party should be made irrelevant through good governance rather than drastic measures. He also insisted on a discussion over the reasons that the AfD has risen to prominence, referring to recent polls indicating that it has become the most popular party in Germany, reaching 26% support. The AfD’s surge has often been attributed to public frustration over the immigration policies of the mainstream parties, as well as economic challenges and perceived government ineffectiveness.

Read more …

“In the West, history is dead because it is used to bury crimes past and present..”

• Why History Is Alive In Russia But Dead In The West (SCF)

Eighty years after the defeat of Nazi Germany, this week the world witnessed a spectacular, solemn and joyous event to commemorate that historic achievement. The victory parade in Moscow’s Red Square was a glorious pageant incomparable to anywhere else. Rightly so, because the defeat of Nazi Germany on May 9, 1945, was largely the result of heroic sacrifices of the Soviet and Russian people. The annual commemoration remains as poignant and proud to Russians as ever. Russian President Vladimir Putin was accompanied by many international dignitaries this year to observe the parade. Significantly, with honorable exceptions, Western leaders were absent, prohibited by their toxic Russophobic propaganda and historical contradictions. China’s President, Xi Jinping, was prominent in the Red Square tribune. Again, rightly so.

The Russian and Chinese nations suffered the most in the Second World War. The worst military conflagration in human history is estimated at a death toll of around 80 million. More than half of all those victims were among the Soviet and Chinese people. Victory Day on May 9 is usually commemorated as signifying the end of World War II. But Nazi Germany’s Axis partner Imperial Japan was not defeated until August 1945. Imperial Japan’s war in China was conducted with the same genocidal barbarity as Nazi Germany’s in the Soviet Union. It is profoundly revealing that the end of World War II is largely now a muted event in the Western nations of the United States, Britain, and the rest of Europe. It is eerie that such a world-shattering episode has become an increasingly non-descriptive date in the official Western calendar. By contrast, in Russia, the anniversary of the Great Patriotic War’s victory is more relevant and revered than ever.

The difference is explicable. The so-called “Allied victory” over Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan was always something of a charade. Eighty years on, the charade is exposed more than ever to the point where it has become untenable and embarrassing for the Western states. The Soviet Red Army and the Russian people won the war against the Nazi Third Reich with great human sacrifice. The defeat of Japan was brought about by the United States in a cowardly and despicable act of genocide when it dropped two atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The United States and Britain, the Soviet Union’s nominal allies during World War II, made a marginal contribution to defeating Nazi Germany. The indisputable facts that the Nazi Wehrmacht lost 80 per cent of its total casualties fighting against the Soviet Union, and the raising of the Hammer and Sickle over Hitler’s Berlin bunker are testaments to who were the pivotal victors.

No sooner had the Nazi regime been vanquished than the Western powers began their acts of treachery against the Soviet Union. World War II immediately transitioned into the Cold War with the United States and Britain rehabilitating remnants of the Nazi regime. The dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan was not so much about crushing the Japanese enemy as committing a calculated act of terror to intimidate the Soviet Union. As author Ron Ridenour recounts in his book, The Russian Peace Threat, the Americans and British had covert, diabolical plans to attack the Soviet Union with atomic weapons in the aftermath of World War II. However, the subsequent development of the bomb in 1949 by the Soviets prevented the Western powers from carrying out their annihilation of Russia.

[..] This week, at its pale imitation of a “victory parade” in London, the British royals, politicians and military were joined by Ukrainian NeoNazi forces waving their odious Wolf Hook flags. In essence, the four-year proxy war in Ukraine against Russia, fully instigated and weaponized by the Western powers, is but a continuation of World War Two. This time, however, there is no pretense about whose side the Western powers are on. In the West, history is dead because it is used to bury crimes past and present. For Russia and other people who seek the truth and genuine international peace, history is very much alive and worth fighting for.

Read more …

The end of Nazism in Africa took quite a bit longer. And the Nazism there was not German.

“If a system as monstrous as Nazism could be crushed, then surely the British, French, Portuguese, and Belgian empires—those well-dressed relatives of fascism—could be kicked out too..”

• The Soviet Union Defeated More Than Just The Nazis In 1945 (Ibrahim)

Victory Day, marked every year in May, is remembered for the defeat of Nazi Germany by the Red Army of the Soviet Union and its allies in 1945. The world saw fascism crumble under the weight of mass resistance, both military and moral. But while Europe swept its streets and held its parades, across the African continent, colonized peoples watched with a different kind of hope. For them, Victory Day was not just about the fall of Hitler. It was about the idea that brutal regimes could fall at all. That whitewashed myths of European superiority, fortified by tanks and treaties, could be buried in the rubble of Berlin. Africa in 1945 was still largely in chains. From the deserts of North Africa to the forests of Central Africa, Europeans governed through coercion, racial hierarchy, and theft dressed in the language of “civilization.” And so, when fascism lost, Africa’s revolutionaries leaned in.

If a system as monstrous as Nazism could be crushed, then surely the British, French, Portuguese, and Belgian empires—those well-dressed relatives of fascism—could be kicked out too. Victory Day planted a powerful seed: the idea that no system, however armored in ideology or bullets, is eternal. Colonialism and fascism were not just neighbors on the historical timeline. They were ideological cousins who often shared the same tailor. Both relied on military terror, racial supremacy, and the economic logic that some people existed to be ruled, and others to rule. In Algeria, France perpetuated forced labor, mass internments, and massacres. In Egypt, the British occupation entrenched inequality and racial hierarchy until the 1952 Free Officers Revolution ended King Farouk’s reign. In the Congo, Belgian rule left a legacy of mass violence and extraction so extreme that a UN report in 2020 called it a “colonial genocide.” Mozambique, Kenya, and Angola were ruled by the gun, not by consent.

African leaders like Kwame Nkrumah, Julius Nyerere, Samora Machel, Gamal Abdel Nasser, and the National Liberation Front (FLN) in Algeria didn’t need textbooks to define fascism. They lived it. Nkrumah declared in 1960: “The colonial territories are not free… unless we consider colonialism a form of democratic rule. But colonialism is the rule of a foreign minority over the majority.” Victory Day helped ignite African resistance in very real and practical ways. It wasn’t long after the Nazi defeat that uprisings, protests, and movements surged across the continent. In 1947, the West African National Secretariat was formed in London, pushing for decolonization. In 1952, Egypt exploded with revolution, as young officers led by Gamal Abdel Nasser overthrew the British-controlled monarchy. In 1954, the FLN launched its full-scale revolt against France. Ghana gained independence in 1957 under Kwame Nkrumah, declaring not just Ghana’s freedom, but that of all Africa.

“The independence of Ghana is meaningless unless it is linked to the total liberation of Africa,” Nkrumah famously declared. His words were not mere rhetoric—they were a blueprint. That same year, thousands of Kenyans were locked in British detention camps during the Mau Mau uprising. In 1960, 69 unarmed protestors were gunned down in Sharpeville, South Africa. In 1961, South African communists, African nationalists, and Pan-Africanists formed Umkhonto we Sizwe. In 1963, the Organization of African Unity was born in Addis Ababa with a charter committed to the total liberation of the continent. While the so-called “free world” supported colonial powers—France in Algeria, Britain in Kenya and Malaya, Portugal in Mozambique and Angola—the USSR made its position clear: the war against fascism did not end in 1945. It had merely shifted geography.

Moscow supported African and Arab liberation movements with military training, arms shipments, medical aid, diplomatic backing at the United Nations, and ideological education. The Soviet Union trained fighters at military academies in Tashkent, Odessa, and Moscow. Cuba, a close Soviet ally, sent over 36,000 troops to Angola between 1975 and 1988 to help defeat South African apartheid forces during the Angolan Civil War. Soviet arms were sent to Algeria, Mozambique, Angola, Guinea-Bissau, and Zimbabwe. Leaders like Agostinho Neto, Amílcar Cabral, Samora Machel, and Oliver Tambo were all beneficiaries of Soviet logistical and ideological support.

Read more …

[t]he United States isn’t required to get permission from Israel to make some type of arrangement that would get the Houthis from firing on our ships.”

• Trump’s Houthi Deal Channels America First, Leaving Out Allies (JTN)

President Donald Trump’s recent ceasefire agreement with the Yemen-based Houthis exempted U.S. ships from their strikes in the Red Sea, but excluded U.S. allies, a provision that has many nations that refused to support Washington’s efforts livid. The Houthis are one of three main combatants in the ongoing Yemeni Civil War and occupy a sliver of highly strategic territory on the Red Sea coast near the Bab al Mandeb, called the “Gate of Tears” in the Arab world. Their forces have, since the outbreak of the Israel-Gaza War, conducted missile strikes and seizures against vessels traveling the Red Sea in support of Hamas. The Houthis, also called Ansarallah, famously withstood joint operations from the U.S. and UK under the Biden administration. President Joe Biden tried but failed to organize an international coalition to keep the Red Sea open. Upon taking office,

Trump vowed decisive action against the Houthis and the U.S. largely acted unilaterally, albeit with some Israeli support. Israel destroyed the Sanaa Airport in Yemen on May 7, leaving burning aircraft and cratered landing strips in two days of retaliation for a ballistic missile attack by the Houthis that landed near Ben-Gurion Airport in Tel-Aviv. Trump announced this week that he had reached a separate agreement with Yemen’s Houthi rebels to end their attacks on American-flagged vessels in the Red Sea after intense U.S. and Israeli bombing raids led them to reach out.”They just don’t want to fight, and we will honor that,” Trump said. “We will stop the bombings, and they have capitulated. But more importantly, we will take their word. They say they will not be blowing up ships anymore.”

But the agreement between the United States and the Houthis does not include any provisions requiring that the Houthis stop their attacks on Israel itself, an omission that has led a bipartisan group of lawmakers to warn Trump that it “sends the wrong message to both our allies and adversaries: that U.S. resolve is negotiable and that aggression against our allies will go unpunished by the United States,” according to Jewish Insider. U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, a strong supporter of that country, pushed back on such criticisms and told Israeli news outlets that “[t]he United States isn’t required to get permission from Israel to make some type of arrangement that would get the Houthis from firing on our ships.” “There’s 700,000 Americans living in Israel. If the Houthis want to continue doing things to Israel and they hurt an American, then it becomes our business,” he added.

“This is the President that leads by example, and he leads by force, and he knows when to use American strength and American power to secure deals for peace and for not just for us, but for the world and so absolutely, I think again, this is a stunning example of the President’s leadership on the world stage, delivering for the American people,” said White House press secretary Kush Desai on the Just the News, No Noise television show on Friday. Israel struck a defiant tone after Trump eased out of the conflict, with Netanyahu saying “Israel will defend itself by itself.” The Houthis, however, called it a “victory that separates American support for the temporary entity and a failure for Netanyahu, who must resign.”The Omani foreign minister confirmed the details of the ceasefire, which appears limited entirely to the Houthis and the United States.

“In the future, neither side will target the other, including American vessels, in the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandab Strait, ensuring freedom of navigation and the smooth flow of international commercial shipping,” Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi said. The Omani announcement appeared to confirm that the UK, which assisted efforts against the Houthis in earlier operations, as well as Israel, would not benefit from the Houthi agreement. Previously leaked messages between members of the administration from Signalgate seem to suggest that Vice President JD Vance got his way by leaving out the Europeans and other American allies in the cold. “@Pete Hegseth if you think we should do it let’s go,” Vance wrote in the chat. “I just hate bailing Europe out again.” Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth appeared to share a similar sentiment toward America’s European allies, but highlighted their inability to contribute in a meaningful way.

“VP: I fully share your loathing of European freeloading. It’s PATHETIC,” Hegseth replied. “But Mike is correct, we are the only ones on the planet (on our side of the ledger) who can do this. Nobody else even close. Question is timing. I feel like now is as good a time as any, given POTUS directive to reopen shipping lanes. I think we should go; but POTUS still retains 24 hours of decision space.”

Read more …

“Lee said the judges “have presumed to run the military, the civil service, foreign aid, and HR departments across the Executive Branch—blatantly unconstitutional overreach.”

• Justice Roberts Admits It’s His Job to Rein in the Judicial Insurrection (O’Neil)

The deep state and its allies have launched a judicial insurrection against President Donald Trump, and Chief Justice John Roberts effectively just admitted he’s not doing his job to stop it. Roberts made a rare public statement back in March, criticizing Trump and other Republicans who have suggested impeaching judges to prevent them from taking it upon themselves to make national policy through injunctions. Yet Roberts refused to address the underlying issue, and he dodged again in public remarks Wednesday.“What do you think of these calls for impeachment of judges based on the decisions that they’ve made?” Judge Lawrence Vilardo asked Roberts in an interview in Buffalo, New York. “Impeachment is not how you register disagreement with decisions,” the chief justice said, repeating the substance of his comments in March.

“That’s what you’re there for,” Vilardo responded. “That’s what we’re there for,” Roberts agreed. Again, Roberts overlooked the underlying issue. Republicans aren’t calling for the impeachment of justices because they disagree with one particular decision—they’re exasperated because judge after judge after judge is effectively usurping the president’s authority by issuing so many nationwide injunctions. When woke bureaucrats stared down the barrel of a second Trump term, they strategized about how best to tie the new president’s hands. Public-sector unions made new collective bargaining agreements to protect work-from-home perks. Employees changed their titles to hide “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” Perhaps most importantly, bureaucrats and their allies outside the administration geared up to sue the Trump administration, targeting friendly judges.

Sure enough, the ink was barely dry on the president’s executive orders rooting woke ideology out of the government before public-sector unions (which represent federal bureaucrats) and leftist groups had taken the new administration to court. Many of these groups also hand-picked jurisdictions with judges more likely to give them the injunctions they seek. According to the Congressional Research Service, judges issued 86 nationwide injunctions against President Trump in his first administration, with 36 of them involving immigration and 10 involving federal funding related to immigration. By contrast, judges issued only 28 nationwide injunctions against Biden. Between Jan. 20 and March 27 of this year, judges issued 17 injunctions—more than half of the number in Biden’s entire term.

Many of the unions and leftist groups filing these lawsuits also staffed and advised the Biden administration, as I expose in my book, “The Woketopus: The Dark Money Cabal Manipulating the Federal Government.” The ACLU, for instance, pushed the Biden administration to open the border, and now the ACLU is filing lawsuits to block Trump’s border policies. The judges—many of them appointed by Democrats, surprise surprise!—have taken the opportunity to issue “nationwide injunctions.” While temporary injunctions allow a judge to protect one of the parties in a case from harm while the court considers the case, judges have weaponized this power, claiming to protect people across the country who aren’t parties to the suit.This practice of “judge shopping” enables activist groups to succeed in early stages of litigation before ultimately failing when the case reaches the Supreme Court.

This gives judges a chance to carry out a judicial insurrection. It also gives the case the appearance of success, motivating the leftist groups and their supporters, while tying up the government in the meantime—all in pursuit of a vain claim. For instance, judges blocked Trump’s order removing gender ideology from the military and ordered the government to re-hire probationary employees after they had been fired.The Supreme Court rightly struck down these injunctions, but the judges only handled them on a case-by-case basis. Judges have blocked the State Department’s move to restructure the U.S. Agency for International Development, ordered the administration to halt its freeze on federal spending, demanded the government restore deleted websites, and more. This deluge of injunctions calls for a robust response from the nation’s highest court—or, at the very least, direction from the man who heads the entire U.S. judicial system, Chief Justice Roberts.

Roberts only got involved after Trump expressed exasperation over the injunctions. Trump has pledged to comply with the judges’ orders, though he has rightly contested them in court. He responded angrily to a judge’s order directing him to turn around planes carrying alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, however. The president noted that he won the 2024 presidential election in part by promising to oppose illegal immigration.“I’m just doing what the VOTERS wanted me to do,” Trump wrote. “This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!” Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, introduced articles of impeachment against the judge in question, but Trump and other Republicans have taken efforts to address the systemic issue, as well.

The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the injunctions last month. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, introduced the Restraining Judicial Insurrectionists Act of 2025, establishing a three-judge panel to swiftly review injunctions or other forms of declaratory relief against the president and the executive branch, with a quick appeal process to the Supreme Court. Lee said the judges “have presumed to run the military, the civil service, foreign aid, and HR departments across the Executive Branch—blatantly unconstitutional overreach.” Meanwhile, Trump issued a memo in March directing the heads of executive agencies to request that judges follow the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), which requires the party requesting an injunction to put up “security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” Rule 65(c) may not apply to every legal case, however.

Each of these efforts addresses one aspect of the problem, and Lee’s bill would likely address the issue most effectively. However, there is one person who has authority over the U.S. judiciary and could direct judges to be more circumspect before they issue nationwide injunctions that effectively make policy. His name is… drumroll please… John Roberts. When Roberts says reversing lower court mistakes is “what we’re there for,” he’s exactly right. In fact, as head of the judiciary, addressing major nationwide issues like the judicial insurrection is what he’s there for, specifically. Perhaps, instead of complaining about Trump’s call to impeach judges, Roberts could solve the underlying problem himself by outlining how judges should act when considering temporary injunctions. If he wants Trump and others to stop talking about impeaching judges, maybe he should step up and address the root problem.

Read more …

Roberts!

• Federal Judge Halts All Large-Scale Firings by Trump Administration (Turley)

Many of us have been waiting for the arguments on May 15th before the Supreme Court in the birthright citizenship case to see if the justices will put long-needed limits on district courts issuing national injunctions. Critics object that Democratic groups are going to blue states in open forum-shopping to secure such injunctions from favorable judges — a record number of injunctions for an Administration that only just passed its 100th day mark. Those complaints are likely to only increase after the new order by District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco. It is arguably the most expansive yet in its scope and assertion of judicial power. At the request of unions and other groups, Judge Illston (a Clinton appointee) imposed a temporary restraining order (TRO) for 14 days to stop the Trump administration from carrying out large-scale layoffs and program closures across two dozen agencies. For those calling for district courts to be restrained, Judge Illston’s TRO (which often leads to a preliminary injunction) will seem like another court ruling with total abandon.

Trump is carrying out his pledge to dramatically downsize the government, including targeting waste and unnecessary or superfluous programs. One can certainly disagree with that judgment. The unions and Democrats opposed the pledge during the campaign. However, after the public elected him, the question is whether a single district judge has the ability to stop a president from implementing such policies. Unions insist that Congress set up a specific process for the federal government to reorganize itself and that that process is not being followed. Specifically, Illston is arguing that the process includes consultation with Congress. The law, 5 U.S.C. § 903 states in part: (a) Whenever the President, after investigation, finds that changes in the organization of agencies are necessary to carry out any policy set forth in section 901(a) of this title, he shall prepare a reorganization plan specifying the reorganizations he finds are necessary. Any plan may provide for—

(1) the transfer of the whole or a part of an agency, or of the whole or a part of the functions thereof, to the jurisdiction and control of another agency; (2) the abolition of all or a part of the functions of an agency, except that no enforcement function or statutory program shall be abolished by the plan; (3) the consolidation or coordination of the whole or a part of an agency, or of the whole or a part of the functions thereof, with the whole or a part of another agency or the functions thereof; (4) the consolidation or coordination of part of an agency or the functions thereof with another part of the same agency or the functions thereof; (5) the authorization of an officer to delegate any of his functions; or (6) the abolition of the whole or a part of an agency which agency or part does not have, or on the taking effect of the reorganization plan will not have, any functions.

The President shall transmit the plan (bearing an identification number) to the Congress together with a declaration that, with respect to each reorganization included in the plan, he has found that the reorganization is necessary to carry out any policy set forth in section 901(a) of this title. The law has always occupied a gray area since a president has the authority under Article II to run the executive branch and remove individuals. Judge Illston recognizes that inherent authority as a “prerogative of presidents to pursue new policy priorities and to imprint their stamp on the federal government. But to make large-scale overhauls of federal agencies, any president must enlist the help of his coequal branch and partner, the Congress.” The lawsuit was filed last week, and the court issued its order not long after arguments.

Judge Illston did acknowledge that two courts of appeal recently rendered decisions against jurisdiction in such cases in Widakuswara v. Lake, No. 25- 5144, 2025 WL 1288817 (D.C. Cir. May 3, 2025) and Maryland v. U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture, No. 25- 1248, 2025 WL 1073657 (4th Cir. Apr. 9, 2025). The court notes that those decisions are not binding on a San Francisco district court and rejects their value as “persuasive authority.” Judge Illston declared that “Tthe [sic] Fourth Circuit offers no reasoning for its conclusion that the district court lacked jurisdiction, and this Court finds the dissenting opinion in that case more robust and more persuasive. ” It similarly embraced the dissent in the D.C. Circuit case.

Danielle Leonard, a lawyer representing the challengers, told the court that Trump is destroying the government, insisting, “It’s an ouroboros: the snake eating its tail.” For critics, it may look more like Article III devouring Article II. The order will only heighten the pressures leading into the May 15th arguments in Washington. It will also increase pressure on Congress to move forward with legislation designed to rein in district courts in the use of national or universal injunctions.

Read more …

Shake AND stir.

• Trump Eyes Suspending Habeas Corpus In Border Invasion (Margolis)

Joe Biden inherited a secure border in 2021—and by the time President Trump returned to office this January, he was handed a full-blown crisis. In just a few months, Trump has made remarkable strides in restoring order, ramping up deportations, and plugging the holes Biden left wide open. His administration has already developed innovative, cost-effective strategies to speed up removals. And now, it appears the next move could be the boldest yet—one that’s almost guaranteed to trigger a full-scale political meltdown on the left.

Speaking with reporters this week, Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller confirmed that the Trump administration is actively considering invoking the Constitution’s allowance for suspending habeas corpus — the right to challenge unlawful detention — in the context of the ongoing border invasion. “Well, the Constitution is clear and that, of course, is the supreme law of the land,” Miller began. “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion. So, it is an option we’re actively looking at.”

Miller made clear that the move is not being taken lightly, but it may be necessary to protect national security and uphold the rule of law. “A lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not,” he said, referencing the frequent obstruction from activist judges who have long interfered with immigration enforcement. He pointed to a key piece of legislation, the Immigration and Nationality Act, which includes what’s known as “jurisdiction stripping.” “At the end of the day, Congress passed a body of law known as the Immigration and Nationality Act, which stripped Article III courts — that’s the judicial branch — of jurisdiction over immigration cases,” Miller explained.

Many Americans, he noted, are unaware of just how far Congress has gone to prevent judicial overreach in immigration matters. “Congress actually passed what’s called jurisdiction stripping legislation. It passed a number of laws that say that the Article III courts aren’t even allowed to be involved in immigration cases,” he said.Miller offered a concrete example involving the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program. “By statute, the courts are stripped of jurisdiction from overruling a presidential determination or a secretarial determination on TPS,” he said. “So, when Secretary Noem terminated TPS for the illegals that Biden flew into the country — when the court stepped in, they were violating explicit language that Congress had enacted saying they have no jurisdiction.”

The broader issue, Miller argued, is not merely an executive-judicial conflict, but a judicial rebellion against Congress itself. “The courts aren’t just at war with the executive branch, the courts are at war—these radical rogue judges—with the legislative branch as well,” Miller stated. All of this, Miller said, will factor into President Trump’s final decision on whether to suspend habeas corpus for illegal aliens—a move certain to ignite a firestorm on the left. As the border crisis continues to spiral, the administration appears increasingly determined to push back—not only against illegal immigration itself, but against the institutional forces that have helped sustain it. Will Democrats defend national sovereignty, or once again side with the chaos? That question may soon be answered.

Read more …

Makes sense. Though not sure the new Pope agrees.

• Trump Redirects Funds From Illegals to Homeless Veterans (Salgado)

Donald Trump has redirected taxpayer money from housing illegal aliens to housing homeless veterans, again putting Americans first. The president signed an executive order Friday establishing a center for housing homeless veterans in the Los Angeles area, and whatever funding has been used by the federal government to house illegal aliens is now to go to this center for veterans. Trump also started a voucher program and announced reform at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), expanding medical services for vets and investigating corruption and misconduct from the previous administration. Finally, our veterans are a priority for the federal government. “Our Nation’s security, prosperity, and freedom would not be possible without our veterans. Many service members paid the ultimate sacrifice. Many others bear visible and invisible wounds from their service,” Trump’s executive order stated. “Too many veterans are homeless in America. Each veteran deserves our gratitude.”

Unfortunately, Trump continued, “The Federal Government has not always treated veterans like the heroes they are.” The Biden administration, in particular, “treated them shamefully, failing veterans when they needed help most and betraying the taxpayers who rightfully expect better,” by prioritizing lawbreaking foreigners instead. The EO specifically cited the West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center, once a thriving community for housing disabled veterans, but gradually leased off to various entities, including a private school and the baseball team of the University of California, Los Angeles. Speaking of Democrat-run LA, it topped the list of American cities with the largest homeless veteran populations, with 3,000 last year.

But no more. Trump is establishing the National Center for Warrior Independence on that LA campus and is coordinating with multiple agencies to try to ensure that not only California veterans but also homeless veterans from other areas will be able to move to and live there. Significantly, the Health and Human Services and Housing and Urban Development secretaries are to help “ensure that funds that may have been spent on housing or other services for illegal aliens are redirected to construct, establish, and maintain this National Center for Warrior Independence.”

The EO also announced an initiative to “restore self-sufficiency and the warrior ethos among homeless veterans through any guidance, requirements, or services needed to ensure that homeless veterans can access housing, receive substance abuse or addiction treatment, and return to productive work and community engagement.” Furthermore, the Biden administration’s decision to rehire the VA employees who were previously fired for misconduct is to be rectified, and an investigation is to be made into any unaddressed misconduct. This executive order from Trump is a prime example of America First policies, and hopefully will provide much-needed help for our brave veterans who were disabled and/or have fallen on hard times.

Read more …

“I was a young theology student, and he was a superior of the Religious Order of St. Augustine..”

• Deep State, Deep Church: Welcome to the New Pope! (Pacini)

The author of this article personally knew the newly elected Pope Leo XIV, formerly Robert Prevost. Those were different times: I was a young theology student, and he was a superior of the Religious Order of St. Augustine. I have fond memories of him, of pleasant moments spent together and activities we did together. I can only wish him all the best. Now, however, let us move on to serious matters.

The first US pope and a member of the Order of Saint Augustine, he is the second American pontiff after Francis. He was born on September 14, 1955, in Chicago, Illinois, to Louis Marius Prevost, of French and Italian descent, and Mildred Martínez, of Spanish descent. He has two brothers, Louis Martín and John Joseph. He spent his childhood and adolescence in the United States, studying first at the Minor Seminary of the Augustinian Fathers and then at Villanova University in Pennsylvania, where he graduated in mathematics in 1977 and studied philosophy. On September 1 of the same year, he entered the novitiate of the Order of Saint Augustine in Saint Louis, continuing his studies at the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, where he graduated with a degree in Theology. At the age of 27, he was sent by his superiors to Rome to study Canon Law at the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas (Angelicum). He was ordained a priest in Rome on June 19, 1982, at the Augustinian College of Santa Monica.

He obtained his licentiate in 1984 and the following year, while preparing his doctoral thesis, he was sent to the Augustinian mission in Chulucanas, Piura, Peru (1985-1986). In 1987, he defended his doctoral thesis and began his career in the Order to which he belongs, living half his time in the missions and half in the Roman Curia. In 1999, he was elected provincial prior of the Augustinian Province of Chicago, and two and a half years later, his confreres elected him prior general of the Order, confirming him in 2007 for a second term. On December 12, 2014, called by Bergoglio to take up pastoral duties, he was appointed bishop and began his mandate in Peru. His episcopal motto is “In Illo uno unum,” words that St. Augustine uttered in a sermon, Exposition on Psalm 127, to explain that “although we Christians are many, in the one Christ we are one.”

After several years of activity and assignments in South America, on January 30, 2023, Pope Bergoglio called him to Rome as prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops and president of the Pontifical Commission for Latin America, promoting him to archbishop. In the consistory of September 30 of the same year, he created and proclaimed him cardinal, assigning him the diaconate of Santa Monica. In the meantime, he was counted among the members of the Dicasteries for Evangelization, Section for First Evangelization and New Particular Churches; for the Doctrine of the Faith; for the Eastern Churches; for the Clergy; for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life; for Culture and Education; for Legislative Texts; and the Pontifical Commission for the Vatican City State. On February 6 of this year, he was promoted to the order of bishops by the Argentine pontiff, obtaining the title of the suburbicarian church of Albano. Who knows what remains of dear old Father Robert.

Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost, we recall for the record, was involved in controversies concerning the handling of allegations of sexual abuse during his episcopate in the diocese of Chiclayo, Peru. In 2024, three women accused two priests of the diocese of Chiclayo, Eleuterio Vásquez González and Ricardo Yesquén, of sexual abuse suffered when they were minors. The victims claim that Cardinal Prevost did not open an adequate canonical investigation and sent incomplete documentation to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, thus hindering effective action. It has also emerged that in 2000, while he was provincial superior of the Augustinians in Chicago, Prevost authorized the transfer of priest James Ray, who had already been accused of child abuse, to a residence located near a Catholic elementary school, a decision that has raised further criticism of his handling of abuse cases.

Incidentally, as I write this article, many websites that reported on the allegations and scandals are being shut down. The real truth must never be discovered, right? It will be equally curious to see what positions he will take on the most burning issues for the Catholic world, those where Bergoglio has destroyed millennial doctrine. On issues such as climate change or migrants, he takes progressive positions, even though he has been considered a moderate by the press, as he is more cautious on social issues and LGBT rights. The choice of the name Leone is perhaps a sign of continuity with the figure of Leo XIII, Vincenzo Gioacchino Raffaele Luigi Pecci, Pope from 1878 to 1903, who distinguished himself for his strong social openness, so much so that he was given the nickname “Pope of the workers.” Even more interesting will be to observe his geopolitical position. He is a man from the hegemonic country, who has worked extensively in the southern hemisphere, creating a liaison with Rome, but without ever turning to the East.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Soon-Shiong

Bamboo

Chapelle https://twitter.com/iAnonPatriot/status/1921069989513081326

https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1921249743805563317

https://twitter.com/hussmanjp/status/1921245440583798938

Starship

0-100

Bouncer

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle Victory Day 2025

May 092025
 
 May 9, 2025  Posted by at 9:50 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  54 Responses »


Samuel Peploe Paris-plage 1907

 

• Berlin Bans Soviet Flags On 80th Anniversary Of Nazi Defeat (RT)
• Vance Outlines Changed US Strategy On Ukraine (RT)
• Trump Calls For ‘Unconditional Ceasefire’ In Ukraine (RT)
• Ukraine Ready For Immediate Ceasefire – Zelensky (RT)
• Ukraine’s Debt Doubles In Three Years – Finance Minister (RT)
• Russia and China Will Never Forget WWII Victims – Putin (RT)
• Russia-China Ties Most Important Stabilizing Factor – Putin (Sp.)
• The West Is Dismantling The Foundations of 1945 (Lukyanov)
• Von der Leyen Has No Business Telling Vucic And Fico Where They Can Go (Borges)
• Kennedy Defends Casey Means’ Nomination For Surgeon General Amid Backlash (JTN)
• Some of Hegseth’s Passwords Exposed in Cyberattacks, Shown on Internet (Sp.)
• Western Canada Puts the Rest of Canada on Notice (David Solway)
• Trump’s Ultimate Troll Move Would Send DC Leftists Into Meltdown (Margolis)
• How Pollsters Rig the Numbers Against Trump (Victor Davis Hanson)
• Trump Urges GOP To Raise Taxes On The Wealthy To Fund Economic Agenda (ZH)
• Trump’s Unprecedented Trade Deal With Britain (Victoria Taft)

 

 

Leo

https://twitter.com/RussiaIsntEnemy/status/1920170584094486686

https://twitter.com/simpatico771/status/1920377564096254257

Casey Means

Patel

Alex

 

 

 

 

Deadly symbolic.

“..degrading to human dignity..” indeed.

• Berlin Bans Soviet Flags On 80th Anniversary Of Nazi Defeat (RT)

A Berlin court has upheld a ban on displaying Soviet flags and symbols at World War II memorials during the city’s events marking the defeat of Nazi Germany, citing concerns over public peace and the Ukraine conflict. Moscow, has decried the “degrading” and “discriminatory” prohibition. Earlier this week, Berlin police issued a ban on the demonstration of numerous Soviet-linked symbols during the May 8-9 events in the capital, including singing Soviet songs in public. An unidentified local association filed an appeal against the ban, arguing that it unfairly restricted freedom of assembly for their planned commemoration at a Soviet Memorial in Treptow. Berlin’s Administrative Court ruled on Wednesday that the police prohibition, which applies to Soviet flags, the Victory Banner, St. George’s ribbons, historical military uniforms, and even wartime songs, stands.

The symbols, according to the court, could be “interpreted as an expression of sympathy for the [Russian] war effort” against Ukraine and “endanger public peace”. The Russian embassy in Berlin strongly criticized the ban, saying it violated the rights of descendants of Soviet soldiers and concerned residents to honor the 80th anniversary of the defeat of Nazism. Up to 27 million Soviet citizens died in their efforts to defeat Nazism. “We deem the ban unjustified, discriminatory, and degrading to human dignity and view it as clear manifestations of historical revisionism and political opportunism,” the embassy statement read.

”We are convinced that on these significant days, everyone… should have the opportunity, regardless of the current political context, to honor the memory and pay tribute to the fallen Red Army soldiers and victims of Nazism in accordance with established long-standing traditions. Any attempts to prevent this deserve condemnation. We urgently demand that the relevant decision be repealed,” it stressed. In 2023, Berlin police prohibited both Russian and Soviet flags during Victory Day commemorations, and in 2024 authorities outlawed Russian and Soviet symbols, including the red Victory Banner and the letters “Z” and “V,” associated with the Russian campaign against Ukraine. In both cases, some people defied the ban by wearing Soviet military attire and displaying the prohibited flags.

Read more …

I’m still not sure that Vance did his homework. He says here: “We’ve tried to move beyond the obsession with the 30-day ceasefire..” But whose obsession is that? We know it’s not Russia’s, it took them all of 5 seconds to say Njet. So it’s probably just US and Ukraine. But since Russia must be part of any deal here, that is useless to think about, let alone obsess.

Russia doesn’t want that 30-day ceasefire because all sorts of things must be agreed first. ‘Demilitarization’ is a big one. But while Vance obsesses over the 30 days, Trump signs a minerals deal that promises Ukraine more weaponry.

“Certainly, the first peace offer that the Russians put on the table, our reaction to it was you’re asking for too much..” We don’t know the exact offer, but we do know that when Russia says ”no preconditions”, they mean the status of Crimea is not a (pre)condition, it is a fact. Sort of like ‘Demilitarization’. And Putin doesn’t care what Zelensky or Trump or Vance think. Some things are open to negotiation, others are not.

• Vance Outlines Changed US Strategy On Ukraine (RT)

Washington wants to move away from the “obsession” with a 30-day ceasefire proposed by Ukraine, US Vice President J.D. Vance has said. The US is more interested in shaping a durable peace agreement with Moscow, he told a Munich Leaders Meeting on Wednesday. Ukraine had floated a one-month ceasefire as a counter to Russia’s 72-hour truce proposal to mark the 80th anniversary of the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany. However, Moscow has rejected Kiev’s plan, arguing that Ukrainian troops, which have been on the backfoot for months, would use it to regroup and strengthen their military posture. Vance stressed that the US remains interested in a “long-term settlement” of the conflict rather than a short-term one.

“We’ve tried to move beyond the obsession with the 30-day ceasefire and more on the what would the long-term settlement look like? And we’ve tried to consistently advance the ball,” the vice president said. Vance also noted that the US has deemed Moscow’s initial negotiation proposals as excessive. “Certainly, the first peace offer that the Russians put on the table, our reaction to it was you’re asking for too much,” he said. “But this is how negotiations unfold.” Vance added that US President Donald Trump is prepared to abandon negotiations if there is no progress, urging Moscow and Kiev to engage in diplomacy. “We would like both the Russians and the Ukrainians to actually agree on some basic guidelines for sitting down and talking to one another.” Russia has repeatedly said it is open to talks with Kiev but noted that Ukraine has low credibility, especially when it comes to honoring ceasefire commitments.

Moscow’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has accused Ukraine of sabotaging earlier efforts on this front, including a US-brokered 30-day moratorium on strikes on energy infrastructure and a Moscow-backed Easter truce. In light of this, she noted that Russia would view Ukraine’s conduct during the 72-hour Victory Day ceasefire, which went into effect on Thursday, as a test of good faith. Moscow earlier described the initiative as a humanitarian gesture and a move to pave the way for direct peace talks with Ukraine without preconditions. Meanwhile, Trump appeared to support the three-day ceasefire, noting that it “doesn’t sound like much, but it’s a lot, if you know where we started from.”

Read more …

As long as he doesn’t confuse facts with conditions, no problem.

• Trump Calls For ‘Unconditional Ceasefire’ In Ukraine (RT)

US President Donald Trump expressed hope that Moscow and Kiev would soon agree on a month-long truce following his Thursday call with Vladimir Zelensky, amid a 72-hour Victory Day ceasefire that was unilaterally declared by Russia Starting at midnight on Thursday, Russian forces ceased hostilities and remained at previously occupied positions, only providing a “tit-for-tat reaction” to violations by Ukraine, according to the Defense Ministry in Moscow. Ukrainian troops reportedly carried out at least 488 attacks and attempted two incursions into Russia’s Kursk Region, according to the ministry. Zelensky, who had previously dismissed the Russian peace initiative as “manipulation” while Kiev intensified drone strikes on Russian territory, held a phone call with Trump later in the day.

After the call, he claimed that “Ukraine is ready for a complete ceasefire today, right from this moment,” but insisted that the truce should last for at least 30 days. “Talks with Russia/Ukraine continue,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social after the call. The US calls for, ideally, a 30-day unconditional ceasefire. Hopefully, an acceptable ceasefire will be observed, and both countries will be held accountable for respecting the sanctity of these direct negotiations. Trump warned that if a ceasefire is reached but “is not respected, the US and its partners will impose further sanctions.” Moscow has repeatedly stated its readiness to begin negotiations with Ukraine without any preconditions. In March, it agreed to a US-brokered 30-day partial ceasefire focused on halting strikes on energy infrastructure. However, according to the Russian military, Kiev violated the truce on numerous occasions.

When announcing the ceasefire last week, President Vladimir Putin described it as a humanitarian gesture to mark the 80th anniversary of the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany – and one that could also serve as a catalyst for “the start of direct negotiations with Kiev without preconditions.” While calling for a longer “unconditional ceasefire” on Thursday, Trump stressed that the truce “must ultimately build toward a Peace Agreement,” reiterating his commitment to secure a “lasting” peace between Russia and Ukraine. “It can all be done very quickly, and I will be available on a moment’s notice if my services are needed,” he added.

Read more …

Just not on Russia’s conditions. Who won that war again?

• Ukraine Ready For Immediate Ceasefire – Zelensky (RT)

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky has announced that Kiev is ready for a “complete ceasefire” without any preconditions. A truce could be implemented “from this very minute,” he stated in a message published on his official Telegram channel following talks with US President Donald Trump on Thursday. According to Zelensky, the discussions focused on ways to “bring a real and lasting ceasefire closer,” as well as the “situation on the front lines” and ongoing “diplomatic efforts.” He maintained that the truce should last for at least 30 days, claiming it would “create many opportunities for diplomacy.” “Ukraine is ready for a complete ceasefire today, right from this moment,” he said, adding that it should include “no missile strikes, drone attacks, or hundreds of assaults along the frontline.”

He called on Russia to give an “adequate” response to the offer and to “demonstrate their willingness to end the war.” Zelensky also urged Washington to support this initiative. His statement came amid a 72-hour Victory Day ceasefire unilaterally declared by Russia. President Vladimir Putin announced the truce last week, describing it as a humanitarian gesture to mark the 80th anniversary of the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany that could also serve as a catalyst for “the start of direct negotiations with Kiev without preconditions.” Zelensky dismissed the Russian initiative at the time as “a manipulation,” while Kiev intensified drone strikes on Russian territory ahead of the ceasefire’s scheduled start. On Thursday, the Russian Defense Ministry reported that Ukrainian forces had launched nearly 500 attacks since the ceasefire took effect.

The Russian military also repelled two attempted cross-border incursions by Ukrainian troops during the truce, according to data from the ministry. Kiev has repeatedly demanded an immediate 30-day ceasefire over the past few months. Moscow has opposed the initiative, arguing that Ukraine would use the time to regroup its troops and restock weapons inventories. Russia recently said that it is ready for direct talks with Ukraine “without preconditions,” and has advocated for a permanent resolution to the conflict that addresses the root causes. In March, it agreed to a US-brokered 30-day partial ceasefire focused on halting strikes on energy infrastructure. However, according to the Russian military, Kiev violated the truce on numerous occasions.

Read more …

“..we are talking about the fact that in the next 30 years… we will not pay these debts..”

• Ukraine’s Debt Doubles In Three Years – Finance Minister (RT)

Ukraine will be unable to repay its foreign creditors in the next 30 years, with public debt nearing 100% of GDP, Finance Minister Sergey Marchenko said on Thursday. He added, however, that Kiev intends to continue borrowing. Since the escalation of the conflict with Russia in 2022, Ukraine has received billions in military, financial, and humanitarian aid and loans from the US, the EU and other donors. Kiev’s mounting state debt, which is approaching 7.1 trillion hryvnas ($171 billion), has raised concerns about the country’s fiscal stability and its capacity to meet future obligations. According to Marchenko, before 2022, Ukraine’s debt-to-GDP ratio “was quite safe” at 55%, however, the country is now approaching 100%. The minister downplayed the situation, stating that the public debt was “not a problem” as the funds that Kiev received from foreign creditors came on preferential terms.

“That is, we are talking about the fact that in the next 30 years… we will not pay these debts,” Marchenko said. “In any scenario… we need additional sources of funding…we will not be able to hold the situation together on our own, whether there is war… or peace,” he added. The minister went on to suggest that Kiev’s western backers could decide to service Ukraine’s external debts from their own budgets. For the time being, interest generated by Russian central bank assets frozen in the West due to sanctions has been used to service Kiev’s debt. In April, Japan agreed to issue a loan of about $3 billion, to be repaid from Moscow’s money. Also last month, Ukraine received the third tranche of €1 billion from the EU, secured by proceeds from the frozen funds.

Russia has vehemently opposed the move, labeling it “theft” and threatening retaliation. The US, Ukraine’s largest donor, has moved to recoup its financial aid to Ukraine by signing a natural resources deal with Kiev. The agreement grants the US preferential access to Ukrainian mineral resources without providing security guarantees. The deputy head of the Russian Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev, has commented that the US essentially “forced the Kiev regime to pay for American aid,” with “the national wealth of a vanishing country.” Ukraine also faces a potential default on nearly $600 million in payments due in May for GDP-linked securities. Negotiations with hedge funds for restructuring the debt have so far been unsuccessful.

Read more …

“..a “no limits” partnership where there are “no forbidden zones.”

• Russia and China Will Never Forget WWII Victims – Putin (RT)

Moscow and Beijing remain staunch defenders of the historic truth and remember the countless people their countries lost during World War II, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said during talks with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping. Xi is among the more than two dozen world leaders who are expected to attend the events in Moscow commemorating the 80th anniversary of the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany. The Chinese president is also poised to hold negotiations with Russian officials. During a meeting on Thursday, Putin thanked his “dear friend” Xi for the visit and for joining him in celebrating a “sacred holiday for Russia.” “The sacrifices that both our nations made should never be forgotten. The Soviet Union gave 27 million lives, laid them on the altar of the Fatherland and on the altar of Victory.

And 37 million lives were lost in China’s war for its freedom and independence. Under the leadership of the Communist Party, this victory was achieved,” he said. Putin highlighted the significance of the triumph over fascism, adding that Russia and China “defend historical truth and the memory of the war and fight against current manifestations of neo-Nazism and militarism.” The Russian leader also thanked Xi for inviting him to his country’s celebrations of its victory over Imperial Japan in WWII. “I will be glad to come back to friendly China on an official visit,” he said.

In echoing remarks, Xi emphasized shared historical memory and the strategic alignment between Beijing and Moscow. “The Chinese and Russian peoples, at the cost of heavy losses, achieved a great victory” and made an “indelible historic contribution to global peace and the progress of humanity,” he noted.Russia and China have long enjoyed close ties, with the two countries describing their relations as a “no limits” partnership where there are “no forbidden zones.” Beijing has also consistently refused to support Western sanctions against Moscow over the Ukraine conflict.

Read more …

Hard to beat.

• Russia-China Ties Most Important Stabilizing Factor – Putin (Sp.)

Ties between Russia and China are the most important stabilizing factor in the international arena, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday. “In the context of a difficult geopolitical situation and global uncertainty, the Russian-Chinese foreign policy nexus is the most important stabilizing factor in the international arena,” Putin said at the expanded-format talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping in the Kremlin. The cooperation of the two nations will continue to develop for the benefit of the Chinese and Russian peoples, he added. Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the conclusion of agreements on the promotion and mutual protection of investments between Russia and China.

“Today we will sign updated intergovernmental agreements on the promotion and mutual protection of investments, which, I am sure, will have a positive impact on the formation of a more favorable business environment and will give a serious impetus to the development of our economic cooperation,” Putin said. Russia has become the world’s top importer of Chinese cars, the president said, adding that Russia is also ready to expand the range of Russian agricultural products to China. “For our part, we intend to continue to create comfortable conditions for the activities of companies from China in Russia,” the president said. Additionally, Putin said that Russia and China intend to further modernize the transport infrastructure. Putin also proposed to review in detail practical aspects of China-Russia cooperation.

“Mr. Xi Jinping, dear friend, distinguished colleagues, today at the expanded talks with the participation of delegations, we will review in detail the practical aspects of our cooperation in various areas. Traditionally, the chairmen of the five intergovernmental commissions from both sides will report on the work of the five intergovernmental commissions, and our foreign ministers will discuss cooperation in the global arena,” Putin said at the beginning of the expanded talks. The Russian leader also said that he and Xi Jinping held an in-depth, meaningful exchange of views and outlined plans for future work during the narrow-format talks earlier in the day. “The governments of our countries are working effectively. Systematic measures are being taken that will increase the level of financial and technical independence of our cooperation,” Putin added.

Read more …

“This isn’t about nostalgia – it’s about remembering what was at stake and why that memory mattered. Without a renewed commitment to these principles, no amount of military hardware or technical measures will ensure lasting global stability.”

• The West Is Dismantling The Foundations of 1945 (Lukyanov)

Eighty years is a long time. Over such a span, the world changes almost beyond recognition, and events that once felt close fade into legend. Yet while history may become distant, its imprint remains. The Second World War created a political order that shaped global affairs for decades – an order many assumed was permanent. But today, the world is shifting rapidly and irreversibly. The events of the first half of the 20th century are no less significant, but their role in contemporary politics is no longer the same. The war’s outcome, culminating in the defeat of Nazism, defined the modern world order. In many ways, it was seen as a near-perfect struggle: a battle against an unquestionably aggressive and criminal regime that forced nations with deep-seated ideological differences to set aside their disputes.

The Allied powers – divided by political systems and long-standing mistrust – found themselves united by necessity. None of them entered this alliance out of pure goodwill; pre-war diplomacy was focused on self-preservation and maneuvering to deflect the worst consequences elsewhere. Yet when the existential threat became clear, those ideological rifts were temporarily bridged. It was precisely because of this that the post-war order proved so resilient. This framework weathered the storms of the Cold War and even lingered into the early 21st century, despite major shifts in the global balance of power. What helped hold it together was a shared moral and ideological narrative: the war was seen as a fight against absolute evil, a rare moment when the divisions between the Allies seemed secondary to their common cause. This consensus – centered around the defeat of Nazism and symbolized by milestones like the Nuremberg Trials – gave moral legitimacy to the post-war order.

But in the 21st century, that shared narrative has started to fray. As it weakens, so too does the stability of the world order it helped create. One key reason lies in Europe’s own internal transformations. In the post-Cold War era, Eastern European countries – long vocal about their dual suffering under both Nazi and Soviet regimes – have pushed a revisionist interpretation of the war. These nations increasingly define themselves as victims of “two totalitarianisms,” seeking to place the Soviet Union alongside Nazi Germany as a perpetrator of wartime crimes. This framing undermines the established consensus, which had placed the Holocaust at the moral center of the conflict and recognized European nations’ own complicity in allowing it to happen.

The growing influence of Eastern European perspectives has had a ripple effect. It has allowed Western Europe to quietly dilute its own wartime guilt, redistributing blame and reshaping collective memory. The result? An erosion of the political and moral foundations established in 1945. Ironically, this revisionism – while often framed as a push for greater historical “balance” – weakens the very liberal world order that Western powers claim to uphold. After all, institutions like the United Nations, a pillar of that order, were built on the moral and legal framework forged by the Allies’ victory. The Soviet Union’s enormous wartime contribution, and its political weight, were integral to this architecture. As the consensus around these truths crumbles, so too do the norms and structures that arose from them.

A second, subtler factor has also contributed to the unraveling. Over eight decades, the global political map has been redrawn. The end of colonialism brought dozens of new states into existence, and today’s United Nations has nearly double the membership it did at its founding. While the Second World War undeniably affected nearly every corner of humanity, many of the soldiers from the so-called Global South fought under the banners of their colonial rulers. For them, the war’s meaning was often less about defeating fascism and more about the contradictions of fighting for freedom abroad while being denied it at home.

This perspective reshapes historical memory. For example, movements seeking independence from Britain or France sometimes viewed the Axis powers not as allies, but as leverage points – symbols of the cracks in the colonial system. Thus, while the war remains significant globally, its interpretation varies. In Asia, Africa, and parts of Latin America, the milestones of the 20th century look different from those commonly accepted in the Northern Hemisphere. Unlike Europe, these regions aren’t pushing outright historical revisionism, but their priorities and narratives diverge from the Euro-Atlantic view. None of this erases the war’s importance. The Second World War remains a foundational event in international politics.

The decades of relative peace that followed were built on a clear understanding: such devastation must never be repeated. A combination of legal norms, diplomatic frameworks, and nuclear deterrence worked to uphold that principle. The Cold War, while dangerous, was defined by its avoidance of direct superpower conflict. Its success in averting World War III was no small achievement. But today, that post-war toolkit is in crisis. The institutions and agreements that once guaranteed stability are fraying. To prevent a complete breakdown, we must look back to the ideological and moral consensus that once united the world’s major powers. This isn’t about nostalgia – it’s about remembering what was at stake and why that memory mattered. Without a renewed commitment to these principles, no amount of military hardware or technical measures will ensure lasting global stability.

Read more …

“..that day when Nigel Farage, in the European Parliament, looked then Commission President Herman van Rompuy in the eye and asked him: “Who the hell do you think you are?”

• Von der Leyen Has No Business Telling Vucic And Fico Where They Can Go (Borges)

Come May 9th, Serbian president Aleksandar Vucic and Slovak prime minister Robert Fico will stride into Moscow’s Red Square for the Victory Day parade, marking 80 years since the defeat of Hitler’s Germany and of the final destruction of the odious creed of Nazism. Their decision, a bold assertion of sovereign prerogative, has drawn the EU’s wrath. Threats of sanctions, diplomatic ostracism, and new obstacles for Serbia’s future membership of the Union have predictably followed; as always, the EU mandarinate has no qualms about showing just how hostile to national democracy it is. The episode really brings to mind that day when Nigel Farage, in the European Parliament, looked then Commission President Herman van Rompuy in the eye and asked him: “Who the hell do you think you are?”

The EU’s reaction to Vucic and Fico’s sovereign decision is a study in arrogance. Kaja Kallas, the bloc’s foreign policy czar, warned that attending Moscow’s parade would carry “consequences”, threatening to stall Serbia’s EU membership and scolding Slovakia, a member state, for daring to chart its own course. Estonian diplomat Jonatan Vseviov called the event a “test of alignment,” as if sovereign nations must genuflect to Brussels’ edicts or face punishment. This is not partnership; it is diktat. The EU, which in 2022 urged members to boycott Russian-hosted events, now brandishes that stance as a whip. Fico, defiant, declared that “No one dictates my travel,” while Vucic stressed that he would “proudly represent Serbia” in the event. Their resolve is a rebuke to a bloc that persistently—and intolerably—mistakes coercion for unity.

Brussels’ threats only bolster the argument for Vucic and Fico’s presence. You don’t need to be a Russophile to remember that, whatever their faults and despite the crimes of the post-1945 division of Europe, the Russians were ultimately on the good side of World War Two. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact notwithstanding, they did storm the Berlin Reichstag. It is morally repugnant that, 80 years after the liberation of Auschwitz and so many other death camps, Brussels is trying to prevent European leaders from paying their fair tribute to the more than 20 million Russians who, alongside millions of British, Commonwealth, and American servicemen, fought and fell in the battle against Nazism. For Serbia and Slovakia, attending is an act of historical gratitude to those who saved both nations from genocidal occupation, not a statement on contemporary geopolitics. The EU’s attempt to paint participation as a betrayal ignores this context, weaponising history to enforce conformity. It is also an act of arrogance wholly out of touch with the spirit of the times, even more absurd at a time when the Russian and American presidents are sharing envoys in an effort to return peace to a much bloodied Ukraine.

The EU’s conduct reveals its true face: that of a prison of nations, stifling the autonomy of members and aspirants alike. Slovakia, despite its EU membership, is lectured to as if foreign policy were Brussels’ domain, not the inalienable right of the Slovak people. Serbia, a candidate for over a decade, faces ultimatums to abandon its independent stance, with accession talks hostage to compliance. This is no union of equals but a bureaucratic empire, demanding ideological lockstep over sovereignty. The bloc’s pressure on Serbia mirrors its treatment of Hungary’s Viktor Orban, whose pragmatic diplomacy has been studiously vilified by the Commission’s propaganda machine. The EU’s “solidarity” is a sham, a one-way demand that silences dissent and belittles smaller states’ histories, preferences, and aspirations. Indeed, after this, why would Serbia want to join at all? Why would anyone?

It is no different for the other European nations still exposed to Brussels’ whims. Consider the consequences if Fico had not stood his ground. What nation worthy of the name could accept the institutionalisation of the principle that it is not their national, elected representatives, but a class of foreign, unelected imperial functionaries, who is to decide on our foreign policy, where our leaders go or don’t, or how to vote at the United Nations Security Council? Could anyone accept an EU in which, say, Meloni is bullied for daring to visit Washington against the desires of Mrs. Kallas? What believer in national sovereignty could accept that Mr. Orbán, for instance, is prevented from flying to Israel—or from inviting the Israeli Prime Minister to Budapest—simply because of the EU mandarinate’s known hostility for that country?

Fico

https://twitter.com/MyLordBebo/status/1920434001728164184

Read more …

Not everyone agrees.

• Kennedy Defends Casey Means’ Nomination For Surgeon General Amid Backlash (JTN)

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Thursday defended Casey Means’ nomination for surgeon general on social media, after the nomination faced serious backlash. President Donald Trump nominated Means for the post after withdrawing Janette Nesheiwat’s nomination over allegations she inflated her credentials by claiming she had a degree from the University of Arkansas School of Medicine, when she actually graduated from a medical school in the Caribbean instead and did her residency in Arkansas. Means has largely been criticized over her reputation as a “wellness influencer” and her lack of experience in public health administration. Means graduated from Stanford medical school, but dropped out of her surgical residency as a head and neck surgeon in her fifth year to practice functional medicine instead.

Kennedy claimed that the backlash over Means’ nomination “reveal[s] just how far off course our healthcare conversations have veered,” and that she was the perfect replacement because she left the traditional medical system, not in spite of it. “Casey has excelled in every endeavor she has undertaken,” Kennedy wrote on X. “She had the courage to leave traditional medicine because she realized her patients weren’t getting better. The attacks that Casey is unqualified because she left the medical system completely miss the point of what we are trying to accomplish with [Make America Healthy Again]. “Her leadership has inspired many doctors to reform the system and forge a new path away from sick care, which fills corporate coffers, and toward health care, which enriches all of us,” he added.

Kennedy also applauded Means’ background as a “stand out” at Stanford, her achievement of creating a business and writing a New York Times best-selling book, which he credits as helping to inspire his Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement. “This ability of Casey’s to inspire Americans to rethink our healthcare system is also an existential threat to the status quo interests, which profit from sickness,” he said. “Every day, I wake up emboldened to drive change because I know the support of MAHA moms has my back. Casey has played an integral role in galvanizing these moms. “Casey will help me ensure American children will be less medicated and better-fed — and significantly healthier — during the next four years. She will be the best Surgeon General in American history,” he concluded. Means will still need to be confirmed by the United States Senate.

Latypova

Read more …

it’s piling up. What’s behind that?

• Some of Hegseth’s Passwords Exposed in Cyberattacks, Shown on Internet (Sp.)

A number of passwords that Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth used to register for various websites have been compromised in cyberattacks and are available online, the New York Times reported. The report said this raises new questions about Hegseth’s use of personal devices to share military information. According to the report, the US secretary of defense probably did not use the exposed passwords for sensitive accounts, but did use at least one password multiple times for personal email accounts. It said at least one of the passwords was a simple combination of letters followed by numbers, possibly representing initials and a date. The same password was exposed in two separate personal email account breaches in 2017 and 2018.

According to cybersecurity experts, as Hegseth’s phone number is easily found online, it could be a potential target for hackers and foreign intelligence agencies. On March 24, Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic editor-in-chief, revealed in an article that he was accidentally added by then-National Security Advisor Mike Waltz to a private chat on the Signal app regarding impending strikes on the Houthis in Yemen. According to Goldberg, the chat included senior officials such as Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance. Goldberg presented screenshots of the correspondence, in which the Pentagon chief, several hours before the start of the operation, reports on the types of aircraft and targets, which, according to the journalist, could threaten servicemen if leaked.

Read more …

“..a vote for the Carney Liberals is a vote for Western secession—a vote for the breakup of Canada as we know it.”

• Western Canada Puts the Rest of Canada on Notice (David Solway)

Though diehard loyalists will disagree, it is now time for Western Canada, in particular Alberta, to get its revolutionary act together. There is no longer any doubt that Canada is a broken, dysfunctional country, a disjointed collection of ten semi-independent provinces and three sparsely populated northern territories, superposed upon a chasm-wide divide between the East-Central “Laurentian” elite of bankers, Crown corporations, government agencies, media Jacobins and powerful political families on one side and the agricultural and energy-producing, partially rural-based, Texan-like, hardworking and self-reliant prairie West on the other. The West was never fully integrated into the Confederation as an equal partner, being consistently exploited by the Upper Canadian Anglo-Presbyterians, Québécois grandees, and their descendants who still rule the upper tier of Canadian politics.

In his 1954 book “Social Credit and Federal Power in Canada,” political scientist James Mallory described the Prairie additions to the nation as “provinces in the Roman sense.” The Prairie provinces were regions dominated by the administrative center in the East to whom they owed fealty and paid tribute. Similarly, in his recent C2C essay on Alberta’s future, University of Calgary professor Barry Cooper explains: “Ottawa acted as a new Rome on the Rideau.” The Western provinces “existed to strengthen and benefit Laurentian Canada by analogy with Roman Italy, and to enrich its leading citizens.” It is appropriate in this connection to recall the policy recommendations of Clifford Sifton, a cabinet member in Wilfrid Laurier’s Liberal government from 1896 to 1905.

As J.W. Dafoe writes in his biography, “CLIFFORD SIFTON in Relation to HIS TIMES,” Sifton was responsible for immigration to the Prairie, what he called the Last Best West, and defended the “stalwart peasants in sheep-skin coats” who were turning some of the most difficult areas of the West into productive farms. Yet he plainly had a change of heart, unless his real intentions were covert. In a speech to Parliament, quoted by the Alberta Prosperity Project, Sifton said: “We desire, and all Canadian Patriots desire, that the great trade of the prairies shall go to enrich our people to the East, to build up our factories and our places of work.” The fact is not in dispute. In the immortal words of the late, Liberal “rainmaker” Keith Davey, “Screw the West. We’ll take the rest,”—which makes neither economic nor practical sense.

In any event, Alberta and the Prairie West, Canada’s food and energy breadbasket, have gotten a raw deal from the central establishment since their inception as part of the Dominion. Tensions are now about to reach a boiling point. No demon that was ever foaled is or was as perilous for Canadian unity as Mark Carney, except perhaps for Pierre Elliott Trudeau, whose 1980 National Energy Program (NEP), as noted, critically depressed Alberta’s economy. Carney is demonstrably bad news for the prairie West, and the spirit of independence is now circulating in Alberta and Saskatchewan. As Preston Manning, one of Canada’s most influential public figures and a force for good, wrote, “Voters, particularly in central and Atlantic Canada, need to recognize that a vote for the Carney Liberals is a vote for Western secession—a vote for the breakup of Canada as we know it.” Unfortunately, it’s rather too late now. The people have misspoken.

Carney’s plans are well known, as touched on above: caps on oil and gas emissions, a phased-in fossil fuel ban, a hidden tax on heavy industry, no more pipelines (Bill C-69), increased investment in failed renewables, a continued Tanker Ban, and more. He makes this clear in his 500-page globalist manual for national destruction, “Values.” A meme making the rounds these days has to do with Justin Trudeau rhetorically asking the country: “Miss me now?” Of course, Trudeau was merely Carney’s stooge, a wavy-haired soyboy the country took to its bosom. His non-telegenic master is now in full control, his aura as a cosmopolitan banker proving irresistible to the average Canadian voter. As things now stand, and as they have stood since the incorporation of Alberta and Saskatchewan into the Confederation in 1905, the federal state will persist in feeding parasitically off the West while paradoxically hampering the very infrastructure that supports it.

Read more …

Let’s bring back Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. He knows a thing or two.

• Trump’s Ultimate Troll Move Would Send DC Leftists Into Meltdown (Margolis)

Last week, I wrote about how Trump’s pick of Mike Waltz for UN ambassador was the ultimate trolling of the left. I even suggested that Trump could up the ante by nominating Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn to replace Waltz. Flynn, a seasoned intel veteran, was one of the earliest and most high-profile victims of the Democrats’ Russia hoax. Whether Trump goes that route remains to be seen, but it would be a power play.And it looks like Flynn is on board. During an interview on “The Benny Show,” with Benny Johnson, Flynn declared he’s prepared to return to the role of national security advisor under President Trump—if called upon. Flynn, who briefly held the post at the start of Trump’s first term before being railroaded by the Deep State, left little doubt about his willingness to serve again.

“I am ready to serve,” Flynn said, referencing a post he made on social media that stirred speculation about his return. “The first question—yes. The second question—no,” he added, confirming that while he hasn’t been contacted yet by Trump directly, his hat is firmly in the ring. “I’ve been watching everything, listening, and observing intensely,” Flynn explained. “We are in a place where we cannot afford to have, as Trump likes to say, unforced errors. We cannot afford to drop a glass ball right now.” Flynn emphasized that despite not being in government anymore, he has never stopped serving the country. “I’m serving now, Benny. I serve in just a different way… I’ve been engaging people in government. I’m still out doing stuff,” he said. “That’s my message to every American: How are you serving this country?”

With his extensive military and intelligence background, Flynn made clear he hasn’t retreated from public life. “I didn’t go off into the sunset and go, ‘Woe is me,’” he said. “I know we have great leaders out there… There are a lot of people who have reached out to me to help get their name put forward for some position in the government, and I’ve done that.” Flynn also didn’t mince words about the fear he believes his return would generate among entrenched bureaucrats and the media. “Yeah, is there a group of people in the Deep State that fear me? You’re dam* right they do. They fear me for a good reason,” he said. “The mainstream media—they would blow a gasket.”

When asked directly if he had any breaking news to share, Flynn reiterated his commitment to rejoin the fight: “I would say to you, Benny, that I am ready. I am ready to come out of that glass, that is for sure.” Flynn noted that while President Trump is already doing “wonderful things,” the ideological battle in America is far from over. “We are still in a massive, massive ideological war going on in this country,” he warned. “There aren’t going to be any friendlies if we get to another election and we lose the majority in the House of Representatives—never mind the next presidential election.”

Flynn https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1920196536555782325

Read more …

“..they were deliberately not counting people who surveyed that they were Trump voters in 2024. That was half the country.”

• How Pollsters Rig the Numbers Against Trump (Victor Davis Hanson)

We’ve touched on polls before, but I don’t think I’ve seen anything quite as egregious in pollsters’ bias as recently when they apparently or supposedly or purportedly surveyed the first 100 days of President Donald Trump and the public reaction. Almost immediately headlines blared, “Worst First 100 Days in History.” “Trump Drops From 52 to 42.”Everybody was confounded because the economic news was pretty good. Job growth was just spectacular. Over 170,000 jobs. Inflation was down. Energy prices were down. Corporate profits were up. There was a movement on the trade question. Ukraine still—there was no bad news except the controversy and chaos of a counterrevolution. So, what were the pollsters trying to tell us? Or were they trying to manipulate us? And I think it’s the latter.

Larry Kudlow, for example, the Fox, former Fox Business—I think he still is at Fox. He pointed out that when he examined The New York Times and The Washington Post polls, they were deliberately not counting people who surveyed that they were Trump voters in 2024. That was half the country. They were only polling about a third. Think of that. A third of the people that said they voted for Trump they polled. Not half. So, of course, their results were going to be disputed or suspect. But here’s another thing. There were analyses after each of the 2016, the 2020, and the 2024 elections about the accuracy of polls, post facto, of the election. And we learned that they were way off in 2016. They said they had learned their lessons. They were way off in 2020. They said they learned their lesson. And they were way off in 2024.

And why are they way off? Because liberal pollsters—and that’s the majority of people who do these surveys—believe that if they create artificial leads for their Democratic candidates, it creates greater fundraising and momentum. Kind of the herd mentality. “Oh, Trump is down by six. I don’t wanna vote for him. Then he won’t win.” That’s the type of thing that they want to create. I’ll give you one example. The most egregious. The most egregious of all these polls was the NPR/PBS/Marist poll. They have Donald Trump just very unpopular after 100 days. Very unpopular. This is the now-defunded Corporation for Public Broadcasting, that umbrella organization from which this poll was funded and conducted.

Do we remember that poll? It was the one poll that came out the night before the 2024 election. They said that then-Vice President Kamala Harris would win by four points. And they said it was beyond the margin of error. And one of the pollsters said, “It’s her race to lose.” She lost by a point and a half. They were five and a half points. Did they apologize? No. Here they are again. And David Plouffe, one of the directors of the Harris campaign, just recently came out and said, “Well, we had all these inside polls we never disclosed. But not one of them—not one of them—had Harris ever ahead of Trump.” Inside polls don’t lie because you pay somebody to tell you the truth. Nothing will get you fired and lose income quicker than to lie about a poll so that your candidate will be happy and rely on your false information. People don’t pay for that kind of stuff.

So, in other words, they knew the whole time—the Harris campaign—that 15 of those 20 polls, 19 polls that all had Harris winning the election, they were all false. Of course, they never said anything. And so, here’s my point. If you look at the polls that were the most accurate—Mark Penn was very accurate. He’s a Democratic pollster. But especially, the Rasmussen poll and the Insider Advantage and the Trafalgar poll. They joined together and they had a 100-day survey. Rasmussen—each day of the 100-day period that he’s issued a poll. And guess what? They have Trump ahead by anywhere from two to three points after 100 days. And they were the most accurate.

And yet, what do these news outlets say that Trump—it’s a disaster. That he’s polling—no. He’s polling very well. Things are going very well. The pollsters that indicate that people support him are the only pollsters that have any reputation after this decade-long polling disaster in which their prejudices, their biases, and their hatred of Donald Trump affected their results. And they were effectively in league with the Democratic candidate to create momentum rather than to adhere to a spirit of professionalism and honor.

Read more …

According to some, Trump and Musk run a government for billionaires.

• Trump Urges GOP To Raise Taxes On The Wealthy To Fund Economic Agenda (ZH)

President Donald Trump is urging Republican lawmakers to raise taxes on some of the wealthiest Americans as part of his sweeping new economic package – a move that US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick says he’s ‘in favor’ of doing. According to individuals familiar with the discussions, Trump is pushing for the creation of a new 39.6 percent tax bracket for individuals earning at least $2.5 million annually or couples making $5 million. The current top rate stands at 37 percent. If enacted, the measure would restore the top marginal rate to its pre-2017 level, effectively rolling back a key piece of President Trump’s own first-term tax cuts. According to Bloomberg, Trump made his case in a phone call Wednesday with House Speaker Mike Johnson, where he also reiterated support for ending the carried interest tax break – a longstanding benefit claimed by private equity and venture capital managers, one source said.

Representative Jason Smith, the Missouri Republican who chairs the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, is expected to meet with President Trump on Friday. A congressional aide said Smith plans to assure the president that the forthcoming tax bill ‘will deliver on the president’s priorities,’ according to the aide. While the proposal’s full contours remain under negotiation, it is not yet clear whether it would include an expansion of the existing small business income exemption under the individual tax code. The push to raise the top rate comes as House Republicans face mounting fiscal pressure in drafting what President Trump has labeled the “one big beautiful bill” — a multi-trillion-dollar package aimed at extending the 2017 tax cuts while enacting a range of new promises, including eliminating taxes on tips and overtime pay.

To finance the plan, GOP leaders have struggled to find consensus on cuts to entitlement programs such as Medicaid, prompting President Trump to float alternatives. Despite concerns that taxing high earners could harm Republicans politically or drive wealth abroad, President Trump has increasingly suggested such a move might be necessary. Raising taxes goes against long-standing Republican orthodoxy. Trump’s willingness to propose a tax hike for millionaires demonstrates how much he has remade the GOP in his own populist image. Top Republicans have balked at other proposals that would raise levies on affluent households. -Bloomberg “Anytime the president asks for something, we will consider it,” said Representative Kevin Hern of Oklahoma, a member of the House tax-writing committee. He confirmed that both the new top rate and carried interest repeal are “under discussion” but emphasized that “there is no agreement yet.”

In the Senate, the reaction has been more measured. Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, told conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt on Thursday that he’s “not excited” about the tax hike but acknowledged that “there are a number of people in both the House and the Senate who are.” “If the president weighs in in favor of it,” Crapo added, “then that’s going to be a big factor that we have to take into consideration.” As Republicans weigh how to advance President Trump’s second-term tax ambitions, the question of who pays — and how much — is shaping up to be a defining test of the president’s enduring sway over the party’s economic direction.

Read more …

US carmakers are complaining about conditions for the “first 100,000 U.K. made cars coming to America”. As for US beef, let RFK tell us what’s in it.

• Trump’s Unprecedented Trade Deal With Britain (Victoria Taft)

The first of the cascade of trade and tariff deals expected under the new Trump administration was announced in the Oval Office on Thursday. The “unprecedented” deal was the first time in decades that American producers will have freer and “streamlined customs” access to the U.K. markets. The announcement allows the sale of U.S. beef into the U.K. for the first time in decades and ensures an increase in the purchase of Boeing commercial jetliners. Flanked by Vice President J.D. Vance and on a conference call with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, President Donald Trump announced an agreement “worth billions of dollars” with the U.K. that reconfigures tariff prices on goods, expands the market for American farmers and ranchers, and added a phalanx of Boeing jetliners to that nation’s commercial fleet. The Trump White House called it “a breakthrough” and “a good deal.”

The “unprecedented” deal not only includes U.S. tariffs but also a reduction in tariffs by the U.K. The deal introduces a reset of the baseline framework for trade, which will create a $5 billion in exports opportunities for American farmers, ranchers, and other producers can sell into the U.K. That includes beef. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said that the beef deal with “exponentially” increase the amount of beef that ranchers sell. The U.K. has effectively cut off U.S. beef supply for nearly 40 years due to added hormones and completely cut off U.S.-produced beef 20 years ago due to BSE or mad cow disease concerns. In another win for farmers, Rollins announced that ethanol tariffs were brought to zero percent from an initial 19% announced. In a statement, the president said, “The U.K. will reduce or eliminate numerous non-tariff barriers that unfairly discriminated against American products.”

Remarkably, the two countries also announced the creation of a “trading zone” between them. The initial deal also raises about $6 billion in revenue from the 10% tariffs imposed by the U.S. on U.K. imported products and creates a supply chain between the two countries for pharmaceuticals and plane parts. Trump initially announced a 25% tariff on many British products, and under this deal he reduced some of those to 10%, including adjustments to tariffs on steel and aluminum. He also reduced tariffs from 25% to 10% on the first 100,000 U.K. made cars coming to America. Some of America’s most beloved luxury cars come from the U.K., including Rolls-Royce, Aston Martin, Rover, McLaren, Bentley, Lotus, MG, and Jaguar. In addition to opening markets for American farmers and ranchers, Trump announced an increase in the number of jetliners that would be purchased by British companies, without naming them.

British airlines already had 18 Boeing planes on order before the announced deal. The new deal alludes to a $10 billion order, but doesn’t specify which U.K. airlines would be taking delivery. Simple Flying reports that “there are only two UK airlines that could be in the running for placing such a big Boeing order.” “In October 2023, frequent flyer site Head For Points wrote that IAG, the parent company of British Airways, Iberia, and others, had been in contact with both Airbus and Boeing about further wide-body purchases to replace its older Boeing 777s,” the publication reported. It should be noted that the U.K. companies previously had a stake in Airbus, which is the rival to Boeing’s commercial business, but divested from the airline in 2006. Airbus is owned by several other European countries. Trump noted that the announcement of the deal on Thursday fell on the 80th anniversary of Victory Day for World War II.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has recently said that Trump has done an extraordinary job of creating leverage where there was none before. “President Trump creates what I would call strategic uncertainty in the negotiations,” he told Fox Business. “Nobody’s better at creating this leverage than President Trump,” he said. There’s no one better “at giving himself maximum leverage.” The United States has had near-zero tariffs with the United Kingdom before Trump came along, and now Britain has opened up its markets to American farmers, ranchers, and airplanes more than ever before. As Trump put it Thursday at the announcement in the Oval Office, “It can’t be understated… how important this deal is and what this means to American farmers and ranchers.”

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Shavo https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1920341642009096680

99

Mama bear

Underground

https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1920159970655391818

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle May 6 2025

May 062025
 
 May 6, 2025  Posted by at 9:41 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , ,  30 Responses »


Pablo Picasso Portrait of Dora with bun 1937

 

• 2025: Wars, Depressions, Defaults & Debt Crisis Begin – Martin Armstrong (USAW)
• Western Memory of WWII Is Basically Fan Fiction (Kortunov)
• Trump Bans Federal Funding For Dangerous Gain-of-Function Research (ZH)
• USDA Secretary Warns Chronic Diseases Will ‘Bankrupt’ America (ZH)
• Zelensky Testing US Patience – Jailed MP (RT)
• Trump Claims Putin Won’t Talk To EU Leaders (RT)
• Trump Reveals His Red Line in Ukraine Peace Push (Sp.)
• EU’s von der Leyen ‘Beyond Deplorable’ On Gaza – UN Rapporteur (RT)
• There Will Be Boundaries (James Howard Kunstler)
• Trump Offered Troops But Mexican President ‘Afraid Of The Cartels’ (JTN)
• Trump Is Destroying America, but He Is Making Israel Great (Paul Craig Roberts)
• German Opposition Proposes Replacement For NATO (RT)
• Yemen – They Defeated The Saudis, Then Biden, Now Trump (MoA)
• US Electricity From Fossils Fuels Below 50% for the First Time Ever (Rapier)
• Trump Blocks Harvard From New Federal Grants (ZH)
• Elon Musk Is a National Treasure (Margolis)
• Elon Musk: AI Will Replace Bloated, Inefficient Federal Gov’t (ZH)
• Chinese Space Program Copying Elon Musk’s Starlink (ZH)

 

 

 

 

Shoelace https://twitter.com/ClownWorld_/status/1918998060354371646

DOGE

Aidar https://twitter.com/DD_Geopolitics/status/1919313482136117736

Alex

Rogan RFK https://twitter.com/JimFergusonUK/status/1919279392896995511

Welker

Anderson https://twitter.com/AndersonAfDMdEP/status/1919560962660590025

Yeo

Bowes

 

 

 

 

The ever cheerful Martin Armstrong.

“If I am Putin, there is no way I am signing a peace deal. Putin signed a peace deal (in 2015) and what did they do? They built an army while Russia didn’t.”

“I have been talking to people in Washington, and I have told them to ‘Get the hell out of NATO.’ There are plenty of people warming up to that idea.” Armstrong predicts if that happens, capital will leave Europe and flow into the US as a safe haven.”

• 2025: Wars, Depressions, Defaults & Debt Crisis Begin – Martin Armstrong (USAW)

Legendary financial and geopolitical cycle analyst Martin Armstrong is back with an avalanche of problems coming to the world starting in 2025. Depressions, defaults, debt crises and wars are going to sweep the globe, according to Armstrong and his “Socrates” predictive computer program. Armstrong has called every big economic turn in the past three decades. He predicted Trump would win the 2024 Presidential Election in a landslide many months ahead of November. Armstrong called the huge stock crash of 1987 to the day. He predicted the dot com boom and bust in 2000. He was spot on calling for the Great Recession of 2008 and 2009, and now, we are headed for more big turns. Armstrong says, “The last one turned on May 7th of last year. That was the same day Putin had his inauguration, and it was the same day a couple of Ukrainian colonels tried to assassinate Zelensky.

From there, we are turning down into a global recession, which won’t bottom until about 2028. Central banks started cutting rates right after that, and I think Canada was the first. It’s going to be more of a depression in Europe, a very sharp recession in China, and it won’t be as bad in the United States. . . . When you create a debt crisis, that’s what causes a depression. The stock market going down is the least damage to an economy.” Europe has trillions of dollars of unpayable debt, and Armstrong says, “The leadership knows if they don’t have war, the people will come after them.” What will be the next big turn? Spoiler alert, it has to do with war in Ukraine and Russia. Armstrong says, “Europe does not want peace.”

Look at things the EU has said: that Russia is too big and has to be broken up. I have very good contacts very high up, and they really do think they can conquer Russia. It has $75 trillion in natural resource assets. They will then control that . . . Once they get their hands on that . . . they will rise to the top of countries of the world, like the Roman Empire will be resurrected or something.” But instead of the EU winning a war against Russia, Armstrong predicts, “They will lose bigtime. The third time is not going to be the charm. . . . The euro will disappear, not the dollar.” The timing of the next big turn for war? Armstrong says, “After May 15, war is turning up (in Ukraine) and it will be turning up into 2026. If I am Putin, there is no way I am signing a peace deal. Putin signed a peace deal (in 2015) and what did they do? They built an army while Russia didn’t.”

Armstrong predicts China will come in on the side of Russia, and there could be as many as “one billion dead and wounded” as a result. What should the US do? Armstrong says, “I have been talking to people in Washington, and I have told them to ‘Get the hell out of NATO.’ There are plenty of people warming up to that idea.” Armstrong predicts if that happens, capital will leave Europe and flow into the US as a safe haven. Armstrong also thinks gold will hit $5,000 per ounce at the next target, but it will not hit that price until war takes off in Europe and Ukraine. Armstrong also thinks the Democrat party will split in two, and they will not retake the House of Representatives in 2026. Does the conflict between Pakistan and India blow up or blow over? Armstrong says, “My computer (Socrates) says it blows up.”

Read more …

“.. it is often overlooked in contemporary Western discourse that the Soviet Union and China suffered the heaviest human cost of WWII – with casualties reaching 27 million and 35 million, respectively.”

• Western Memory of WWII Is Basically Fan Fiction (Kortunov)

Historians seldom completely agree with one another even on some of the most important events of the past. There are different views on various historical events, such as World War II (WWII). With new documents being declassified and new excavations at the sites of the main battles, we are likely to see new theories and hypotheses emerging that will feed more discussions and offer contrarian narratives of the most devastating military conflict in the history of humanity. However, there is a clear red line between looking for new facts and deliberately trying to falsify history. The former is a noble quest for truth and understanding, while the latter is a deplorable attempt to revise past events in favor of political goals or personal ambitions.

An honest scholar entering a research project cannot be completely sure what will be found at the end of the road; an unscrupulous politician presenting a falsified version of history knows perfectly well what picture to present to the target audience. Truth is skillfully mixed with lies, while fabrications are dissolved in real facts to make the picture more credible and attractive. The most graphic manifestation of the WWII falsifications is the now very popular assertion that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were jointly responsible for the beginning of the war. The narrative equating Nazis and Soviets is nonsensical because it completely ignores the history of fascism in Europe and repeated attempts by Moscow to convince London, Paris and Warsaw to form an alliance against it.

Only after the “Munich Betrayal” by the West, the 1938 pact among Germany, the United Kingdom, France and Italy that forced Czechoslovakia to cede territory to Germany without Czechoslovakian consent, did Moscow decide to go for a non-aggression treaty with Germany to buy itself time before invasion. Likewise, the dominant Western narrative of WWII increasingly frames the conflict as a stark moral battle between good and evil. As a result, there is a growing reluctance to fully acknowledge the pivotal roles that Russia and China played in the defeat of Nazi Germany and militarist Japan. Neither do they recognize the contributions of communist-led resistance movements in countries like France, Italy, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Greece.

This is largely due to ideological biases that exclude these groups from the dominant narrative of “heroic liberal forces” in the fight against the Axis nations, the coalition led by Germany, Italy, and Japan. Instead, the predominant view in most Western countries credits the US as the primary force behind victory, along with limited support from other allies. This reading of WWII has nothing to do with reality, but it nicely fits the now popular Manichean interpretation of world politics. Another typical distortion of history is the selective portrayal of the victims of the war, often shaped by a distinctly Eurocentric perspective. Much attention is given to the atrocities endured by Europeans under Nazi occupation or by Europeans in Asia at the hands of the Japanese, while the immense suffering of non-European populations frequently receives far less recognition.

Every human life is of equal value, and all victims deserve empathy. Even those who served in the German and Japanese armed forces during WWII should not be indiscriminately labeled as criminals; the notion of “collective guilt” must not override the principle of individual responsibility for verifiable war crimes. However, it is often overlooked in contemporary Western discourse that the Soviet Union and China suffered the heaviest human cost of WWII – with casualties reaching 27 million and 35 million, respectively. A significant portion of these losses were civilians, and the scale and brutality of wartime atrocities committed on Soviet and Chinese territories far exceeded those experienced in most other regions.

Contemporary politics inevitably shapes how we interpret the past, as people often seek historical narratives that align with their present-day beliefs and agendas. Yet history should be approached with integrity, not as a tool to justify current political positions. This is not about defending national pride or preserving comforting myths; every nation, regardless of size or wealth, carries both moments of honor and episodes of regret in its historical journey. A balanced national narrative includes both triumphs and failures. But when history is deliberately manipulated to serve short-term political interests, we risk blurring our understanding of the present and undermining our vision for the future. Such willful distortion is not only intellectually dishonest but could also lead to grave consequences.

Read more …

RFK is going places.

• Trump Bans Federal Funding For Dangerous Gain-of-Function Research (ZH)

President Donald Trump on Monday afternoon signed an executive order stopping federal funding for dangerous gain-of-function research in high-risk countries like China and Iran, as well as in nations with insufficient research oversight. Joined in the Oval Office by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and National Institutes of Health official Jay Bhattacharya, Trump underscored his commitment to protecting America’s public health and national security. The order equips U.S. research agencies to identify and terminate funding for biological research—both ongoing and future—that could threaten public safety or national security. It specifically targets federally funded studies abroad that risk triggering another pandemic, focusing on gain-of-function experiments like those conducted on bat coronaviruses by the EcoHealth Alliance and China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology.

The measure also seeks to shield Americans from lab accidents and biosecurity incidents, such as those believed to have contributed to the COVID-19 pandemic and the 1977 Russian flu. “It’s a big deal,” Trump said of the order. “It could have been that we wouldn’t have had the problem we had.” Kennedy Jr., who emerged during the pandemic as one of the most vocal critics of vaccination mandates and forced lockdowns, celebrated the order, declaring, “In all of the history of Gain-of-Function research, we cannot point to a single good thing that has come of it.”

Bhattacharya also praised the order, noting that many scientists believe that dangerous gain-of-function research is “responsible for the COVID pandemic.” “This is a historic day,” Bhattacharya said. “This proclamation makes it so that—most science is possess no threat to human populations—but the fraction of research that has the risk of causing a pandemic and harming every single person on the face of the earth, this executive order puts in place a framework to make sure the public has a say that if such risk is being taken, only scientists alone won’t be able to decide that.”

Back in 2014, Dr. Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases funneled a $3.7 million grant through EcoHealth, with nearly $600,000 sent to WIV for bat coronavirus studies—research many Republicans slam as dangerous gain-of-function experiments that could have sparked the pandemic. Last month, the Trump White House unveiled a revamped COVID-19 website on titled “Lab Leak: The True Origins of COVID-19,” replacing the previous COVID.gov site that provided public health resources. The new site strongly endorses the lab leak theory, asserting that the SARS-CoV-2 virus likely originated from a laboratory incident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China, involving gain-of-function research. In the final days of his presidency, President Joe Biden issued a preemptive pardon of Fauci—shielding him from potential prosecution over allegations he misled Congress about the research.

Read more …

RFK came just in time..

“..In America today, through USDA—this is not all the other agencies, this is just here at USDA—we spend $370 million a day on nutrition programs..”

• USDA Secretary Warns Chronic Diseases Will ‘Bankrupt’ America (ZH)

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has issued a dire warning about the United States’ chronic disease crisis, declaring that poor nutrition is fueling a healthcare cost surge that threatens to bankrupt the nation. During a recent Cabinet meeting with President Donald Trump at the White House, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. outlined plans to reform the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) with Rollins, targeting sugary drinks and junk food that the USDA chief argues drive an unprecedented obesity epidemic. “We have 13 nutrition programs. Listen to this number. This is going to astound you. In America today, through USDA—this is not all the other agencies, this is just here at USDA—we spend $370 million a day on nutrition programs,” Rollins told All-In podcast host David Friedberg in an interview released Sunday. “So, not just SNAP, but food banks and all of the other ones. That’s just USDA. That is a stunning number. We’ve got to do better.”

The stakes are extraordinarily high, with Rollins pointing to alarming health trends that she warns pose an existential threat to the nation’s future, disproportionately harming the country’s most vulnerable and low-income populations. “Why are billions of taxpayer dollars being spent on sugary drinks and junk food in our supplemental nutrition program for food-insecure, lower-income populations? This contributes to an obesity and chronic disease epidemic unlike any developed country has ever seen. 74% of our adolescents would not pass the military readiness test today. This is a massive challenge facing America,” she told Friedberg, adding, “Taxpayers fund junk food and sugary drinks at the front end, leading to diabetes and other issues, while the back-end costs of treating chronic diseases are bankrupting states through Medicaid.”

Kennedy, a longtime champion of the Make America Healthy Again movement and a fierce critic of industrial food interests, is closely aligned with Rollins in transforming the nation’s food supply. “In the first administration, health care was under my portfolio in domestic policy. As conservatives, we’ve long discussed how to make America healthy again, focusing on the cost to the health care system,” Rollins said. “Enter Bobby Kennedy—while we don’t agree on everything, we align on most things. I was with him yesterday touring farms and discussing nutrition and agriculture. The opportunity for the agriculture and health leads to work together daily to solve this is key. You can’t solve it through government regulation, but through nutrition, empowering farmers, and getting good food into these programs.”

Last month, Kennedy unveiled a plan to eliminate eight artificial food dyes and colorings from the U.S. food supply by the end of 2026, collaborating with food companies to ensure a seamless transition. ABC News reported: Federal officials are taking steps to pull the authorization for two rarely used synthetic food colorings — Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B — within the coming months. In addition, the six other petroleum-based dyes that federal health agencies are seeking to eliminate by the end of next year are Green No. 3, Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5, Yellow No. 6, Blue No. 1 and Blue No. 2. “I just want to urge all of you, it’s not the time to stop; it’s the time to redouble your efforts, because we have them on the run now, and we are going to win this battle,” Kennedy said of the historic move. “And four years from now, we’re going to have most of these products off the market, or you will know about them when you go to the grocery store.”

Read more …

“By imposing sanctions against media people and political scientists, Zelensky is also testing the US tolerance for his dictatorship..”

• Zelensky Testing US Patience – Jailed MP (RT)

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky is testing America’s tolerance for abuses of power by sanctioning his critics, jailed Ukrainian MP Aleksandr Dubinsky has said. Last week, Zelensky announced measures targeting his former top adviser Aleksey Arestovich, historian Konstantin Bondarenko, who published a biography of the Ukrainian leader, titled “The Joker,” and several other journalists and political analysts. Penalties have included asset freezes, restrictions on trade and financial transactions, travel bans and the revocation of state awards. “By imposing sanctions against media people and political scientists, Zelensky is also testing the US tolerance for his dictatorship,” Dubinsky, who was detained by Kiev authorities in November 2023 on charges including high treason, wrote in a post on Telegram on Sunday.

The fact that the restrictions were announced a day after the signing of the minerals deal between the US and Ukraine was no coincidence, he suggested. Zelensky is trying to find out “if there will be any reaction” to such a move from Washington when “the agreement is signed, but not yet ratified” by Ukraine’s parliament, the ousted legislator wrote. The deal, which was agreed upon on Wednesday after months of difficult negotiations, established a joint investment fund and gave the US preferential access to Ukraine’s natural resources. The American security guarantees which Zelensky’s government had been demanding were not part of the agreement, according to Ukrainian Prime Minister Denis Shmigal.

“Furthermore, Zelensky is also needed to sign the peace treaty [with Russia]. This gives him the opportunity to test the limits of what is allowed. Europe is satisfied with him, and the US seems to be satisfied with him now too,” Dubinsky stressed. The Ukrainian leader sees the situation as an opportunity to get rid of his political opponents, he added. Legislators from Zelensky’s Servant of the People party, who are “joyfully applauding the tyranny… do not understand that they are next. A dictator does not need fellow travelers, he only needs a show of force,” the MP wrote. Zelensky remains in power in Ukraine despite his presidential term officially expiring last May. He canceled the election citing the martial law he had imposed due to the conflict with Russia. In mid-April, the Ukrainian leader prolonged the emergency measures another three months.

Read more …

“Trump said his administration is “closer with one party, and maybe not as close with the other,” regarding a peace agreement..”

• Trump Claims Putin Won’t Talk To EU Leaders (RT)

US President Donald Trump has claimed that EU leaders are imploring him to engage diplomatically with Russian President Vladimir Putin, as the Kremlin allegedly refuses to respond to their calls. The Trump administration is acting as a mediator between Russia and Ukraine in an effort to broker an end to the ongoing conflict. Most European NATO members have pledged continued military support to Kiev, with some discussing potential troop deployments to the region. Trump emphasized his role as a mediator during an interview with NBC News on Sunday, stating, “Do you know that the European Union leaders have asked me to call Putin so many times? Because he doesn’t return their phone calls.”

He remarked that his Democratic predecessor, Joe Biden, had not reached out to Putin at all, seemingly referencing the period following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022. Trump said his administration is “closer with one party, and maybe not as close with the other,” regarding a peace agreement, without specifying which is which. Moscow has consistently expressed a desire to resolve its differences with the West through diplomatic means, although its proposals concerning NATO expansion in Europe were dismissed in 2021. The Russian government had been open to engaging with EU leaders, notably German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who reached out to Putin last November. Kiev criticized Berlin for the move, which it labeled a form of appeasement towards Russia.

Russia aims for an indivisible security framework in Europe, where the safety of one nation cannot come at the expense of another, Putin stated during a government meeting in February. “We understand that not everyone welcomes the revival of Russian-American contacts. Some Western elites are intent on perpetuating global instability, and those forces will attempt to undermine or sabotage our dialogue,” he added. In March, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov criticized French President Emmanuel Macron for publicly stating his willingness to talk directly with Putin but never acting on it.

Read more …

Ukraine and EU don’t want peace. Trump and Putin do.

• Trump Reveals His Red Line in Ukraine Peace Push (Sp.)

US President Donald Trump said that the United States may one day decide to withdraw from the process of negotiations on the settlement of the Ukraine conflict. “Well, there will be time, when I will say: okay, keep going, keep being stupid, keep fighting … There will be time when I may say that,” Trump said in an interview for the NBC News broadcaster out on Sunday. The US leader noted that sometimes he is close to making such a decision, but then “positive things happen.” On Friday, State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce said the US was not ready yet to exit efforts to reach peace in Ukraine, but would no longer act as a mediator if no progress is made. Trump said that there is a “very good chance” to reach peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. “I think we have a very good chance of doing it,” Trump said in an interview for the NBC News broadcaster out on Sunday.

At the same time, there is a possibility that the United States will not be able to settle the conflict due to “tremendous hatred,” which he sees between the leaders of Russia and Ukraine. The US president also said that Washington had reached significant progress in talks with one of the sides to the conflict. “I do believe we are closer with one party and maybe not as close with the other,” Trump said. He did not clarify with which side the US had made better progress. Russian President Vladimir Putin, at a meeting with US Presidential Special Envoy Steve Witkoff last week, reaffirmed Moscow’s readiness to negotiate with Kiev without preconditions, according to Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov. On Monday, Russia announced a ceasefire that would run from the start of May 8 to the end of May 10 to honor the 80th anniversary of the Soviet Victory in the World War II. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said that the ceasefire should be immediate and last for at least 30 days, and refused to uphold the three-day truce.

Donald Trump said that he intended to serve for only eight years in the White House despite his previous statements about entertaining the idea of a third term. “I’ll be an eight-year president, I’ll be a two-term president. I always thought that was very important,” Trump said. The US leader noted that his ultimate goal was to transfer the power to someone else. He intended to “have four great years and turn it over to somebody, ideally a great Republican to carry it forward.” Four years would be enough to do a good job, the president said. In late March, Trump told NBC News that he was “not joking” about the possibility of seeking a third term in the White House, although it is prohibited by the US Constitution.

Read more …

She’s not going to challenge israel. It would risk her nice job. Remember, she wasn’t elected.

• EU’s von der Leyen ‘Beyond Deplorable’ On Gaza – UN Rapporteur (RT)

The EU leadership should be held accountable for supporting Israel’s “war crimes” in Gaza, UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories Francesca Albanese has said. In an interview with The Intercept published on Saturday, Albanese singled out European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and the EU’s top diplomat Kaja Kallas. “The fact that the two highest figures of the EU continue business-as-usual engagements with Israel is beyond deplorable,” she said. “I’m not someone who says, ‘History will judge them’ – they will have to be judged before then. And they will have to understand that immunity cannot equate with impunity,” the UN expert added.

Albanese said she has been working on a report exposing the role of institutions and organizations –including banks, pension funds, tech companies, and universities – in crimes against the Palestinian population of Gaza. “All those implicated and involved in the unlawful occupation, in providing it with support, are aiding and abetting violations of international law and human rights violations, and a number of these amount to crimes,” Albanese said. “There can be individual responsibility and individual liability for those who have been aiding and abetting or enabling such crimes.”

Albanese has repeatedly urged von der Leyen to use her powers as head of the EU executive to stop the “genocide” in Gaza. She also criticized Kallas for not pressuring Israel to end its military operation during her visit to Tel Aviv in March, when the diplomat said “both sides lose” in the conflict. “A shocking low for the EU: one of its top leaders stands with Israel’s foreign minister, representing a state responsible for killing 50,000 people (in 16 months), 70% women and children, with Western-made weapons,” Albanese wrote on X at the time. The UN official claimed she and her family have faced death threats since she released a report in March 2024, insisting that Israel’s actions should be classified as genocide.

European Commission spokeswoman Gioia Franchellucci told The Intercept that Brussels was committed to international law, and that the bloc’s relationship with Israel allows officials to express their “positions and concerns.” “The association agreement with Israel is the legal basis of our ongoing dialogue with the Israeli authorities, and it provides mechanisms to discuss issues and advance our points of view,” the spokeswoman said. West Jerusalem launched its operation in Gaza following a surprise attack by Hamas on October 7, 2023, during which militants killed around 1,200 Israelis and took around 250 hostages. Over 52,000 Palestinians have been killed since the conflict broke out, according to the enclave’s health authorities.

Read more …

“Fascism is when Dad says ‘no'” —Aimee Terese on “X”

• There Will Be Boundaries (James Howard Kunstler)

It’s vain and futile to suppose that the disordered minds of Western Civ’s entrenched Wokester Jacobins might ever be subject to polite persuasion about anything they believe. They believe only in the power of pushing their fellow citizens around, and so, alas, the only persuasion that might conceivably work to stop their infantile assaults on liberty, truth, and decency is to push back harder until they suffer and break. This is something that most parents with young children instinctively understand. You don’t negotiate with two-year-olds. You tell them how things are and what sort of behavior is required of them, as plainly and simply as possible. Mr. Trump, having been the father of many two-year-olds over time, appears to get this. It has been apparent for years that Mr. Trump’s symbolic role as a father figure is the most deeply resented feature of his role in US politics.

It also appears that many men in this country likewise get this, perhaps because nature conditions them early on to understand that some day they might have to play the role of father, meaning they will have to push back hard against emotional disorder, hysteria, illogic, and untruth, and violence. Hence, you might see the peril of living in a land with so many fatherless households. This lamentable state of things defines the Democratic Party, where raging, inchoate, resentment-driven Jacobinism dwells, a party now with no leader, a household with no father, no one to regulate its frenzied, power-seeking behavior. This also tells you how the Democratic Party has become the party run by women, and by particular types of women — women who have traded the management of children and households for bureaucratic careerism, women too lacking in feminine appeal to attract mates, women attempting to become the men missing in their lives — and men wishing to become women, or pretending to be women.

And so you see how these disorders play out in the ongoing melodrama of men in women’s sports, a proposition so obviously insane that no healthy society has ever abided it for a moment until the American Jacobins ran with it as a cardinal political irritant to vex their opponents (and really for no other reason). The state of Maine’s governor, Janet Mills, clashed openly with Mr. Trump over his executive order to desist from allowing biological men in women’s sports. The matter is currently making its way through the courts.

This week, a “trans” athlete named Soren Stark-Chessa, beat the field of females in a Maine track-meet by a country mile in the 800-meter and 1600-meter runs. No one, except the political leadership of Maine, was fooled about the fairness of this, of course. Fairness is not the point. Intransigent defiance of reality was the point. It is always the point for Jacobin politicians. What is most obviously insane in matters like this, is that the female governor is so eager to punish and humiliate her younger fellow females in order to merely press a political point — that she is the boss of Maine, and nobody can tell her what to do, even if she deranges the cultures of schooling and sports. This illustrates, by the way, a principal difference in the way men’s and women’s brains work. Men typically understand boundaries, where things begin and end. It is a necessary cognitive device for regulating behavior in the household and for acting in the face of danger when required.

Sports is just a microcosm of our politics. The whole gestalt of Woke-Jacobin politics is driven by the wish to dissolve boundaries. That is, it is driven by female minds, and what the Woke-Jacobins might call female-adjacent minds. That is why the open border fiasco was another point-of-principle for the Democratic Party — and why “Joe Biden” the phantom president (actually the shadowy figures behind him) pretended that nothing could be done about it. Mr. Trump demonstrated that was a lie in a New York minute. The damage from four years of a wide-open border is immense, much worse than men running in girls’ races. The motive for it is also obvious: to jam as many illegal aliens as possible into the country so as 1) to disorder the next census count in swing states to keep congressional districts safe, and 2) to install a base of new “voters” — qualified to vote or not — who will be eternally grateful to the Democratic Party for letting them flood into the country and gifting them with housing, social services, transportation, free meals, and walking-around money.

And now, a Woke-Jacobin judiciary, assisted by an infrastructure of Lawfare ninjas, led by the outlaw Norm Eisen, and financed by George Soros, and what remains of Soros-adjacent NGOs, is using the courts to keep all those illegally-admitted aliens in place here at all costs. So, you see, they are attempting to dissolve a boundary crucial to the Republic’s survival: who is a citizen and who is not a citizen, and what are the privileges entailed? The objective is to keep this dispute alive in the courts long enough to affect the 2026 midterm elections in the hopes of winning Congress back. You can also see how this will oblige Mr. Trump to marshal the most aggressive legal force possible to crush this seditious legal insurrection. He has executive powers and perquisites in reserve that he has not used yet, or even revealed. He will defeat these monsters in the end just as he is methodically disassembling their scaffold of psychopathic ideology and their pipelines of funding. It will really be something to see.

Read more …

“..so afraid of the cartel she can’t walk,” then added that he believes she is “a lovely woman.”

• Trump Offered Troops But Mexican President ‘Afraid Of The Cartels’ (JTN)

President Trump confirmed Sunday that he offered to send U.S. troops into Mexico to help eradicate the country’s illegal drug trade and said the country’s president rejected the offer because she is “afraid of the cartels.” Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said on Saturday that she rejected Trump’s offer to send troops into Mexico to combat drug trafficking. She said Trump told her: “How can we help you fight drug trafficking? I propose that the United States military come in and help you.’ And you know what I said to him? ‘No, President Trump.’”

Sheinbaum also said: “Sovereignty is not for sale. … We can work together, but you in your territory and us in ours.” Trump said Sunday on Air Force One that “it’s true” that he made the offer, The Hill newspaper reports. However, he claimed that Sheinbaum is “so afraid of the cartel she can’t walk,” then added that he believes she is “a lovely woman.” “She is so afraid of the cartels she can’t even think straight,” Trump said.

Read more …

“Hegseth let some confidential information out via some communication service to the delight of the Israel Lobby, which is using the mistake to have Hegseth removed.”

• Trump Is Destroying America, but He Is Making Israel Great (Paul Craig Roberts)

Presidents, like corporate CEOs and everyone else, have a limited span of control. They can’t know everything or focus on everything. Most presidential decisions are just acceptances of subordinate’s decisions. I know it. I have been there. I have seen it, both the President of the United States and the CEOs and boards of corporations are dependent on information that comes from below. And often in the case of government the information from below is from outside. We are now witnessing this in the Trump regime. Real ID is a George W. Bush/Cheney regime measure from the fake “war on terror” that was used by Washington to remove Arab governments opposed to Greater Israel. Until Trump, no president wanted the flack of imposing it on “free” American citizens, thus revealing to them how unfree they are. But the police state crowd see Trump’s concern with illegals as an opportunity to finally get their old handiwork from the “war on terror” Implemented. And Trump has obliged.

We are also witnessing the ruling establishment’s success in removing Trump’s people in the hopes of replacing them with one of theirs. Having learned nothing from failing to stand by General Flynn, Trump’s national security adviser for ten minutes in Trump’s first term, Trump has repeated his mistake. He kicked his national security advisor upstairs to be US Ambassador to the UN. Why? Because someone mistakenly included the Jewish editor of the leftwing magazine, The Atlantic, in on a meeting about bombing Yemen. Clearly, the invitee list was a staff responsibility. The real problem is that Atlantic editor Goldberg did not announce at the meeting that he doubted he was supposed to be present in a national security discussion.

Instead he kept silent, took notes, and published an article. I do think that his dishonest behavior displaying a total lack of integrity is indictable. Instead of kicking his national security advisor upstairs, Trump should have had AG Bondi arrest and prosecute Goldberg for revealing national security secrets. But Trump would be too afraid to treat an Israeli-protected person that way. So Trump sacrificed his national security advisor. Trump’s failure signals weakness or inattention, and now they are after his Defense Secretary. Same kind of charge. Hegseth let some confidential information out via some communication service to the delight of the Israel Lobby, which is using the mistake to have Hegseth removed.

People are confused about this, because Hegseth is a Zionist, a full-time supporter of Israel. What got Hegseth in trouble is that he listened to knowledgable Pentagon personnel who explained to him that a US war with Iran for Israel was fraught with danger. He was advised, correctly, that once the US ignited a war Washington had no ability to control it. The consequence could be the destruction of Washington’s bases in the Middle East and loss of every Navy aircraft carrier in the vicinity. Hegseth backed off, Israel hit the roof, and Hegseth had to fire the advisers who told him the truth. According to the liberal/left, the Democrats, and the media, Trump is tyrannical strength itself, imposing dictatorship on America, but neither Trump nor his administration have the strength to stand up to Israel. What Trump is going to do is to make Israel great, not America.

All over the Western world it is already the case in many countries, such as Great Britain and Germany that criticism of Israel or of Jews is a criminal offense, and it is becoming the same in every Western country, eventually even in Russia. In America the Trump regime is deporting students who protest Israel’s American-supported genocide of the Palestinians. Long ago Israeli propagandists convinced Americans that every Palestinian, even 3-year old children, was a terrorist who wore bomb vests in order to kill Israelis. All the while Israel killed Palestinians, 3-year olds included, by the bomb load. Even in the Red State of Texas, if you protest Israel’s genocide of Palestine, you are ineligible to have a state contract. America is totally owned by Israel. So is Trump. So how can America be “made great again”?

Read more …

Merz was just now as I write this, voted down in the Bundestag as the new chancellor. Trouble in the heartland.

• German Opposition Proposes Replacement For NATO (RT)

The co-leader of the German Left party, Jan van Aken, has called for NATO to be replaced with a new security alliance involving both Russia and the United States, arguing that the US-led military bloc “has no future.” In an interview with Die Zeit published on Saturday, van Aken said the party continues to support its 2011 platform, which called for Germany to exit NATO and help create a new collective security system. “We never wanted to abolish NATO without replacement but rather replace it with a cooperative security system,” van Aken said when asked whether Germany and its European allies could defend themselves without US support. He proposed a new model similar to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), focusing on peacekeeping and joint defense.

“Something like OECD 2.0. A peace and defense alliance, together with Russia and the US. But of course, if we were to rebuild it, it would certainly require another ten years of confidence-building measures. NATO would still exist that long, but it no longer has a future,” he stated. Van Aken also called for the withdrawal of US troops stationed in Germany. “Yes, and they should take their nuclear weapons with them,” he said, noting that the nuclear stockpiles in France and the UK are already “more than enough.” He confirmed that the vision of a demilitarized Europe remains central to the party’s agenda. “Of course I want to live in a country without an army. Don’t you?”

Last month, Germany unveiled a new military aid package for Ukraine, including vehicles, air-defense rockets, and howitzers. Incoming Chancellor Friedrich Merz has indicated support for supplying Ukraine with Taurus cruise missiles capable of striking deep into Russian territory. The Social Democrats, who are holding coalition talks with Merz’s Christian Democrats, have opposed the move as a needless escalation. Moscow has warned that supplying the missiles would make Germany directly involved in the conflict, arguing that Ukrainian forces cannot operate the Taurus without the help of German personnel.

Read more …

Israel should be in among those names. They all fall for the illusion that the Houthis are easy to beat.

“The Houthi can not be defeated. Soon a U.S. ship will get hit. From there the war could easily escalate into a war against Iran.”

• Yemen – They Defeated The Saudis, Then Biden, Now Trump (MoA)

In January 2024, the nine years long war Saudi Arabia waged against Yemen had just calmed down after the Saudis had been mostly defeated, the Houthi movement declared to shut down Israel related traffic through the Red Sea. The move was made in solidarity with the besieged people in Gaza. To cover for Israel’s genocide in Gaza the U.S. and UK decided to fight down the Houthi and to reestablish marine traffic through the Red Sea. Their bombing campaign showed little results. Eight month later a hawkish British commentator conceded defeat: “The Houthis have defeated the US Navy” – Telegraph, Aug 24 2024. Soon thereafter the Biden administration recognized that the effort was useless and refrained from launching further strikes on Yemen. In March 2025 the Trump administration repeated the error of the previous U.S. regime and engaged in a new bombing campaign against Yemen:

“Announcing Saturday’s strikes, Trump said “we will use overwhelming lethal force until we have achieved our objective”. “Funded by Iran, the Houthi thugs have fired missiles at US aircraft, and targeted our Troops and Allies,” Trump said on social media, adding that their “piracy, violence, and terrorism” had cost “billions” and put lives at risk. Addressing the Houthis directly, Trump wrote that if they did not stop, “HELL WILL RAIN DOWN UPON YOU LIKE NOTHING YOU HAVE EVER SEEN BEFORE”. But the Houthis have been unwavering in their response, saying the aggression would not diminish their support for Palestinians.” I made a short comment on the renewal of the U.S. bombing campaign: •”Bombing Yemen is stupid. The Saudis tried for years to get their way by doing that and were defeated. • Yemen can and does shoot back. • It is only a question of time until it hits a U.S. war ship and causes casualties. • Then Trump will be hard pressed to escalate the war towards Iran. • Iran can not be defeated.

The U.S. and UK military have since continued to bomb Yemen. There are signs that they have run out of identified targets as they are bombing just random stuff. Recently they hit a detention center that was holding African migrants killing some 60 of those. They dropped bombs on civilians near a quarry because some random guy on Twitter posted coordinates of the quarry claiming that it was a military site. Eight people died. On Sunday a Yemeni missile hit Israel’s main airport Ben Gurion. U.S. supplied Patriot and THAAD, as well as Israel Arrow air defense system had failed to intercept the missile. The Houthi warned of more to come:

“Houthi military spokesman Brig.-Gen. Yahya Saree posted on Telegram that the missile strike was in response to expand its operations against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The decision to expand operations was agreed upon by the Israeli security cabinet on Friday night. Several IDF reserve brigades will be mobilized for the operation’s expansion. The Yemen-based terror organization “calls upon all international airlines to take into consideration” their plans to target Israeli airports, Saree said in his Telegram post, and also recommended that airlines “cancel all schedules flights to the airports of the ‘criminal enemy’ to preserve the safety of their aircraft and their agents.”

Trump’s military campaign against Yemen, just like Biden’s previous one, has failed: “The Houthis have the upper hand. This is why (archived)” – The Times, May 4 2025. Despite concerted American efforts, the Iran-backed Yemeni group continues to launch missile attacks against Israel and merchant shipping in the Red Sea. President Trump has promised to “annihilate the Houthis” and a campaign that involved 202 strikes during its first two months, under the Biden administration, has intensified to the point that more than 800 have been delivered. … The Houthis combine the nimbleness of a non-state group and an insurgent army, while having Iranian support, and boasting an arsenal of strike weapons that would put most countries to shame. So, there is danger for British and American pilots — the Houthis have shot down 19 Reaper drones (which cost $30 million each) since this blitz started. And Monday’s attempt to hit the Truman shows their continued ability to threaten nearby shipping with a blend of ballistic and cruise missiles as well as uncrewed aircraft and boats, testing their defences from all angles. … Intercepting these occasional launches of long-range Iranian-made weapons is one of the most expensive issues facing the Pentagon. The Israeli Arrow missiles used to counter them are $4 million each, the American Thaad missile defence systems cost $8.4 million, and the ship-launched SM-3 anti-ballistic missile is an eye-watering $27 million. As for protecting naval vessels off Yemen, a salvo of defensive missiles costs millions, but the price of such a strike getting through, crippling a warship, could easily top a billion dollars.nA hit on a U.S. or British ship is sure to happen should the U.S. and UK continue its campaign. But there is no hope that any bombing will defeat the nobles of Yemen:

Ultimately though, the Houthis, ruling through a combination of activism and coercion, have withstood attempts by western countries and Saudi Arabia to coerce them so will retain some capability to continue launching missiles. There are ideas of instigating a local ground campaign against the Ansar Islam ruled parts of North Yemen. The Saudis, with help of the Emirates and al-Qaeda had tried that too. It had failed and will fail again should the Trump administration be stupid enough to try it again. The Houthi can not be defeated . Soon a U.S. ship will get hit. From there the war could easily escalate into a war against Iran. There is a good chance that the U.S. would lose it. It is high time for the Trump administration to pull back from its Yemen campaign. The reopening of the Red Sea for all maritime traffic can only be achieved by reining in the Zionist maniacs. Unfortunately Trump lacks the balls to even attempt that.

Read more …

Old Oil Drum friend Robert Rapier. Doesn’t mention Spain.

• US Electricity From Fossils Fuels Below 50% for the First Time Ever (Rapier)

For the first time in history, fossil fuels supplied less than half of the United States’ electricity generation for an entire month, according to new data released by energy think tank Ember. This milestone, achieved in March 2025, represents a turning point in the evolving energy mix of the world’s largest economy. Historically, fossil fuels—primarily coal and natural gas—have dominated U.S. electricity production. But the steady rise of renewables over the past two decades has chipped away at their dominance. In March, wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear collectively overtook coal, oil, and gas, with fossil fuels accounting for just 48.9% of total generation. However, note that this is an estimate of total generation, including small scale systems that are not connected to the grid. According to EIA data, fossil fuels still account for about 64% of electricity generation by utilities.

What’s Driving the Shift? Several factors converged to make this moment possible. First, renewable energy capacity has expanded rapidly. Wind and solar are now mainstream technologies, supported by state mandates, federal tax incentives, and falling costs. Wind generation alone grew 12% in March year-over-year, and solar jumped by a remarkable 37%. Second, seasonal demand patterns played a role. March is typically a shoulder month for electricity demand—warmer than winter but not yet summer hot—which tends to reduce the need for gas-fired peaking power plants. Lower demand allows zero-marginal-cost renewables like wind and solar to play a more prominent role on the grid.

Third, coal continues its long decline. Once the backbone of U.S. power generation, coal’s share of the mix has been in free fall since the mid-2000s. In March, coal accounted for just 15% of overall electricity generation (and ~18% of electricity produced by utilities). Nuclear power also remains a steady contributor, generating around 19% of electricity, while hydro added another 7%. Combined, these non-fossil sources provide a rapidly growing part of the U.S. grid, with gas providing backup during peaks and seasonal extremes.

A One-Month Wonder, or a Trend? It’s important to view this milestone in context. April’s low fossil fuel share is partly seasonal, and likely to rebound in the hotter summer months when demand for air conditioning increases and natural gas generation ramps up. Indeed, in 2023, fossil fuels still provided 60% of total annual electricity generation. However, the trajectory is clear: renewable energy is rapidly scaling, and fossil fuels—especially coal—are losing ground. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), passed in 2022, has accelerated investment in clean energy infrastructure. Billions of dollars are now flowing into solar, wind, battery storage, and transmission upgrades. Analysts project that renewables will continue to take a growing share of the power mix, driven not just by policy, but by economics. In many parts of the country, new wind and solar projects are already the lowest-cost option for new generation.

Grid Reliability and the Energy Transition One lingering concern is reliability. Fossil fuels, especially natural gas, still provide critical dispatchable power when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing. The challenge now is to scale clean, reliable alternatives, such as long-duration energy storage, advanced nuclear, and grid-interactive demand response. There are also regional differences to consider. Some states—like California and Texas—have made significant strides in renewable integration, while others remain heavily reliant on fossil fuels. Building out the national transmission grid will be essential to balancing these disparities and ensuring a reliable, resilient system.

A Glimpse Into the Future The March data doesn’t mean the U.S. has “solved” the energy transition—but it does offer a preview of what the grid could look like in the not-so-distant future. As technology improves, costs continue to fall, and policy support remains strong, it’s likely that fossil fuels will make up less than half of the annual electricity mix within this decade. For investors, utilities, and policymakers, the message is clear: the momentum behind clean electricity is real. Those who prepare for this transition—by investing in clean infrastructure, modernizing the grid, and rethinking electricity markets—will be best positioned for the energy system of tomorrow.

Read more …

Harvard demands to be a state within the state. But if your student body doesn’t reflect the country’s, why should they give you billions?…

• Trump Blocks Harvard From New Federal Grants (ZH)

Harvard University will no longer be eligible for government grants, the White House informed the acclaimed scandal-plagued, institution on May 5. Trump’s Education Secretary Linda McMahon sent a letter to Harvard President Alan Garber on Monday night to inform the university that it is not eligible for federal grants until it makes significant changes to its management, the official said. The letter cites low public confidence in higher education, Harvard’s continued racial profiling, and takes issue with the virtually untaxed status of Harvard’s significant financial endowment.

“Perhaps most alarmingly, Harvard has failed to abide by the United States Supreme Court’s ruling demanding that it end its racial preferencing, and continues to engage in ugly racism in its undergraduate and graduate schools, and even within the Harvard Law Review itself. Our universities should be bastions of merit that reward and celebrate excellence and achievement. They should not be incubators of discrimination that encourage resentment and instill grievance and racism into our wonderful young Americans”, McMahon wrote, before advising the university to no longer seek Federal grants, “since none will be provided.”

“The above concerns are only a fraction of the long list of Harvard’s consistent violations of its own legal duties. Given these and other concerning allegations, this letter is to inform you that Harvard should no longer seek GRANTS from the federal government, since none will be provided. Harvard will cease to be a publicly funded institution, and can instead operate as a privately-funded institution, drawing on its colossal endowment, and raising money from its large base of wealthy alumni. You have an approximately $53 Billion head start, much of which was made possible by the fact that you are living within the walls of, and benefiting from, the prosperity secured by the United States of America and its free-market system you teach your students to despise.”

On Friday, President Trump threatened to go after Harvard’s tax-exempt status: “We are going to be taking away Harvard’s Tax Exempt Status. It’s what they deserve!” he wrote in a social media post. Two weeks earlier, Harvard filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, arguing its freeze on research funding is unconstitutional and “flatly unlawful” and called on the court to restore more than $2.2 billion in research dollars. Earlier this year, the Department of Education sent Harvard a list of demands, including combating anti-Semitism on campus and eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, that the university needed to fulfill or risk losing billions in federal funding, the Epoch Times reported In its response, Harvard said it was “not prepared to agree to demands that go beyond the lawful authority of this or any administration.”

The Trump administration then froze $2.26 billion from the university, with nearly $9 billion in funding set aside for Harvard put under review. The administration had also pushed for Harvard to disclose information about potential foreign ties, with the Department of Homeland Security threatening to remove the university’s ability to enroll foreign students. Weeks later, Harvard released two reports describing how Jewish, Israeli, Zionist, Muslim, Arab, Palestinian, and pro-Palestinian students all reported feeling marginalized or targeted over their identities and views after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas terrorist attack on Israel and the campus protests that followed. “Especially disturbing is the reported willingness of some students to treat each other with disdain rather than sympathy, eager to criticize and ostracize, particularly when afforded the anonymity and distance that social media provides,” Garber wrote in a letter to the campus community.

Trump suggested on April 30 that his administration would no longer give government grants to Harvard if it did not agree to fulfill his demands to eliminate DEI and combat on-campus anti-Semitism. “A grant is at our discretion, and they are really not behaving well. So it’s too bad,” Trump said. Harvard has sued the administration to unfreeze its funds, and Garber said on Friday that it would be “highly illegal” for Trump to compel the Internal Revenue Service to revoke the university’s tax-exempt status. “If the government goes through with a plan to revoke our tax-exempt status, it would … be highly illegal unless there is some reasoning that we have not been exposed to that would justify this dramatic move,” Garber told The Wall Street Journal.

“The message that it sends to the educational community would be a very dire one, which suggests that political disagreements could be used as a basis to pose what might be an existential threat to so many educational institutions.” On Monday, the White House official announcing McMahon’s letter took issue with recent Harvard data showing that less than 3 percent of surveyed faculty identify as conservative, and suggested the school could do more to bring diverse viewpoints to campus. The official also accused the university of abandoning rigor and academic excellence, citing a plagiarism scandal involving former Harvard President Claudine Gay. All future funds to the university will be at the Trump administration’s discretion, the official said.

Read more …

“..self-driving cars, space colonization, brain-computer interfaces, and artificial intelligence..”

• Elon Musk Is a National Treasure (Margolis)

There’s been so much talk about Elon Musk’s patriotic work with the Department of Government Efficiency that I thought it would be a nice change of pace to talk about what Musk is up to with his tech companies. He gave a wide-ranging interview with Lara Trump on Fox News, where he laid out an ambitious vision for the future, spanning self-driving cars, space colonization, brain-computer interfaces, and artificial intelligence. Musk, who has become an increasingly visible figure in both the tech world and public policy, also discussed his growing collaboration with President Donald Trump in Washington, D.C., where he’s pushing for innovation while helping respond to national emergencies. Lara Trump opened the interview by thanking Musk for his direct assistance during natural disasters.

“You have done so much to help people in this country,” she said, referencing how Musk deployed Starlink satellites to restore communication in North Carolina after hurricanes. Musk confirmed the effort and added, “Some people have said thank you,” but he didn’t ignore the critics either: “Maybe 20 or 25%… really don’t like me. That is obvious because they’re hanging me in effigy at these protest rallies. They’re being very violent about it.” Despite the noise, Musk’s supporters are still backing his ventures in droves. “There are a lot of people who have supported you by going out and buying Teslas,” Lara said. “My parents just bought their first Tesla to support you.” “Well, thank you,” Musk replied, expressing his gratitude to customers who stood by him. “A friend in need is a friend indeed.” I bought a Tesla last week myself.

Tesla remains a central focus for Musk, and he revealed that the company is on the brink of releasing a major breakthrough. “Tesla in a few months will release unsupervised full self-driving,” Musk announced. According to Musk, Tesla vehicles “will be driving around by themselves with no people in them.” He said this rollout will begin in Austin by June and expand rapidly across the country. “In the future, I think it’ll be unusual to see a manually driven car,” he predicted. “It’ll be like seeing a horse.” Another development Musk touted is the Tesla Optimus project — humanoid robots designed to serve as personal assistants. “Who wouldn’t want their own personal R2D2, C3PO robot buddy?” he asked. “That’s gonna be a massive, massive product.”

On the medical front, Musk highlighted incredible advancements from Neuralink. “The first part is called telepathy. It allows someone who has lost the use of their body to control a computer or a phone just by thinking,” he said. Remarkably, Musk claims users are already engaging with people on X through thought alone. He went on to describe the “Blindsight” project, aimed at restoring vision. “It will enable people who are blind to see — including people who have been blind from birth,” he said. He hopes to perform the first human implant within the next 12 months. Musk also believes that Neuralink may eventually allow people with severed spinal cords to walk again. “You can just think of it like some wires got broken,” he explained. “If you can bridge the signals, your body will work again.”

On the AI front, Musk emphasized the importance of truth in programming. “It’s very important that AI be programmed with good values, especially truth-seeking values,” he warned. “We must have a maximally truth-seeking AI… and if we don’t, it’ll be very dangerous.” When asked about what he wants his legacy to be long after he’s gone, Musk offered a simple but profound answer: “That I was useful in the furtherance of civilization, that I helped move civilization forward, added to the store of knowledge and capability, that I helped understand the universe.”

Read more …

But how do you control that? Which AI?

• Elon Musk: AI Will Replace Bloated, Inefficient Federal Gov’t (ZH)

Since President Donald Trump took office in mid-January, the Trump administration has employed Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to streamline government operations. This initiative eliminates redundancies, fraud, and waste while leveraging artificial intelligence to automate and reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies. On Sunday, Elon Musk attended the closed-door Milken Institute Global Conference, where he provided further details on deploying AI to eliminate government inefficiencies, potentially replacing some public sector workers, according to Bloomberg, citing an attendee of the prestigious conference at the Beverly Hilton in Los Angeles. Musk told financier Michael Milken at the closed-door event, which tickets start at $25,000 and features high-level individuals, including US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Nvidia’s Jensen Huang, Citigroup’s Jane Fraser, and Citadel’s Ken Griffin, how AI will replace some of the federal government’s workforce.

Musk also spoke about his brain implant company, Neuralink, and the development of Starship at his rocket company, SpaceX. DOGE and the Trump administration bet that AI can replace a sizeable portion of the government workforce—particularly those in administrative, data processing, and customer service roles—to dramatically reduce federal payroll costs, eliminate inefficiencies, and modernize public services. Last week, the latest data from global outplacement and executive coaching firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas showed the government had led all sectors in job cuts this year, with 281,452 of those cuts attributed to DOGE-related cost-cutting.

In an interview, late last week on Fox News’ Jesse Watters Primetime, DOGE staffer Edward Coristine, nicknamed “Big Balls,” described some shocking examples of waste and mismanagement by unaccountable bureaucrats. Yet efforts to eliminate waste and fraud from the federal government have been met with intense opposition from the Democratic Party as the era of unchecked spending ends.

Starbase

Read more …

“..launching 84% of all mass to orbit globally. This is 15 times all Chinese launches combined in the quarter..”

• Chinese Space Program Copying Elon Musk’s Starlink (ZH)

Eric Berger, the senior space editor at Ars Technica, quoted a post on X from a China space observer detailing how Beijing appears to be copying Elon Musk’s Starlink space internet company, operated by SpaceX. “The Chinese space program copying SpaceX? Well, I never …,” Berger wrote. Berger quoted Blaine Curcio, founder of Orbital Gateway Consulting and an expert on China’s space industry, who identified SpaceSail—a Chinese space company backed by the Shanghai municipal government—as having unveiled its “commercial” version of Starlink satellites at China Space Day 2025.

The only problem China has is its launch cadence. For the year, SpaceX has 50 launches. This includes 48 Falcon 9 launches and 2 Starship launches. They have also launched 17 non-Starlink missions and 45 reused boosters. The latest count of Starlink satellites in low Earth orbit has surpassed 7,000, delivering high-speed internet to five million customers across 125 countries, territories, and other global markets. SpaceX’s third quarter 2024 launch report showed the US leading the global space race, launching 84% of all mass to orbit globally. This is 15 times all Chinese launches combined in the quarter, according to data from BryceTech.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Fertility

Immune

Ad

Motherland https://twitter.com/leandroOnX/status/1919289642425196667

Putin

Mammo

Lemur

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle May 5 2025

May 052025
 
 May 5, 2025  Posted by at 9:51 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,  40 Responses »


Felix Vallotton On the beach 1899

 

• Russia Alone in Confronting Entire Collective West – Putin (Sp.)
• Russia Standing Alone Against West – Putin (RT)
• The Summit In The Sand – Putin To Meet Trump In Abu Dhabi May 15-16 (Helmer)
• Ukraine Ignores Russia’s Truce Request, Prepares To Sabotage Victory Day (SCF)
• No Peace And No Respect: Zelensky Threatens The May 9 Parade (Pacini)
• No Ukraine in EU Without Budapest’s Approval – Orban (RT)
• Slovak PM Fico Pledges To Defy ‘Unacceptable’ Zelensky Threats (RT)
• Musk Reacts To Video of Forced Mobilization In Ukraine (RT)
• How to Win the PR War on Tariffs (Scott Pinsker)
• Trump Just Got a Game-Changing Legal Victory (Matt Margolis)
• Trump Orders Reopening Of Notorious Alcatraz Prison (NYP)
• Trump Will Start Nominating Federal Judges ‘Rapidly’ (DS)
• Trump’s 100 Days and the Legal War in Washington (Hans von Spakovsky)
• Romania Hits All-Time Low With Fake Elections, Manipulated By The EU (Jay)
• Right Wing George Simion Wins First Round of Voting in Romania (CTH)
• The Bell Tolls for All White Gentile Ethnicities (Paul Craig Roberts)

 

 

 

 

Biden’s the worst thing that ever happened to old people :-))

Ballroom

JD

Bannon https://twitter.com/JanJekielek/status/1918696577448747095

FSD+

Sachs

GOP

Roosevelt

 

 

 

 

“..if Russia doesn’t rely on its traditional values, it risks losing its identity, and, ultimately, its existence.”

• Russia Alone in Confronting Entire Collective West – Putin (Sp.)

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Russia did not initiate its military operation in Ukraine any earlier because it believed in the Minsk agreements and aimed to resolve the Donbass issue peacefully. Russia did not prepare specifically for a military operation, but instead sought a peaceful resolution to the Donbass conflict, Vladimir Putin told journalist Pavel Zarubin in a documentary dedicated to the 25th anniversary since the president’s first inauguration. The country could not proceed with drastic action on Ukraine without first addressing key issues in the spheres of security and the economy. The president pointed out that the United States is now openly acknowledging that the West is engaged in an existential war with Russia. Putin emphasized that Russia is essentially standing alone in its confrontation with the collective West.

Until 2022, Russia had approached agreements with its Western partners with cautious trust. The signing of the Minsk agreements was a hopeful moment for Russia, expecting compliance from all parties. However, Putin pointed out that the country was ultimately deceived. The West used the pause under the guise of complying with the Minsk agreements to rearm Ukraine and prepare for war with Russia, he added. Putin said that as Western companies began to leave Russia, many risks loomed over the country’s economy. But despite these challenges, Russia did not fall into crisis, thanks to strong economic fundamentals that kept the country resilient. The president underscored the danger of a nation becoming too dependent on external factors, stressing that if Russia doesn’t rely on its traditional values, it risks losing its identity, and, ultimately, its existence.

Read more …

“I was responsible for the future of the country. Of course, I began working to ensure that this never happened..”

• Russia Standing Alone Against West – Putin (RT)

Russia is standing alone against the West, which is waging an “existential war” against the country, President Vladimir Putin has said. Putin made the remarks in a documentary titled ‘Russia. Kremlin. Putin. 25 years,’ filmed by Rossiya-1 broadcaster and released on Sunday. The film marks the 25-year anniversary of Putin becoming the country’s president for the first time. He inaugurated on May 7, 2000. The documentary features conversations between Putin and journalist Pavel Zarubin on various matters, including the hostilities between Ukraine and Russia, as well as a broader conflict between Moscow and the West. “Russia is essentially standing alone against the collective West. This required a serious attitude to the possible development of the situation in this particular sense,” Putin stated.

It has been clear from the early 2000s that the West has been acting “insidiously” against Russia, speaking about one thing and doing the opposite, Putin noted. The West’s failure to hear Russia’s repeated warnings, as well as its refusal to fully recognize the country’s sovereignty and respect its national interests, has ultimately led to the ongoing crisis, the president explained. “This ‘civilized world’ decided that Russia had weakened, historical Russia called the Soviet Union had collapsed, and the remaining parts needed to be finished off. The largest of them was the Russian Federation, and it also needed to be partitioned into 4-5 pieces. I was responsible for the future of the country. Of course, I began working to ensure that this never happened,” he said.

Moscow has repeatedly described the hostilities in Ukraine as a Western proxy war against Russia, in which Ukrainians are being used as “cannon fodder.” Russian officials have argued that the US and other Western powers intentionally escalated tensions by disregarding Moscow’s security concerns over NATO’s expansion in Eastern Europe and its growing military cooperation with Ukraine. Russia and the collective West ended up locked into an “existential war,” Putin stressed, adding that many in the West have now openly admitted that. Back in March, for instance, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the conflict as “frankly, a proxy war between nuclear powers – the United States, helping Ukraine, and Russia” and said the West should abandon its dead-end strategy of propping up Kiev “for as long as it takes.”

Putin

Read more …

Only reference to this meeting I have seen.

• The Summit In The Sand – Putin To Meet Trump In Abu Dhabi May 15-16 (Helmer)

After the Victory Day celebration later this week, President Vladimir Putin has agreed to hold a summit meeting with President Donald Trump. “The Americans have repeatedly asked for a summit and the Kremlin has finally decided,” according to a reliable Moscow source, “that there is no need to spurn the extended hand.” The source believes Abu Dhabi, in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), is the likely location. Preparatory discussions were held last week in Moscow when Putin telephoned the UAE President, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan. The Kremlin communiqué claimed “the current state of Russia-UAE relations…constitute a strategic partnership and…enables ongoing dialogue even on the most sensitive international issues.” That was on May 1. The next day Putin met with Saif bin Zayed Al Nahyan, one of the President’s sons and his personal security chief, titled deputy prime minister.

The Moscow source says “the messages have been sent that it will not be a conclusive deal, only a meeting. This is a climb-down from the previous, public Russian position that a lot of work needs to be done first, before a presidential summit, by specialists. The Russians have understood there are no specialists on the US side yet, and the opportunity is right to shake hands first, then work out the details later.” The White House press spokesman has announced Trump “will travel to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates [in this order] from May 13th, until May 16th.” “It’s a display of the Russian hand of friendship and mutual security,” the Moscow source adds. “The Americans are offering nothing concrete but we believe Trump is disposed to giving Russia the security steps it needs.”

The source says the Kremlin is “neither surprised nor disappointed” at Trump’s May 1 tweet declaring that “many of our allies and friends are celebrating May 8th as Victory Day, but we did more than any other Country, by far, in producing a victorious result on World War II.” “It shows you how foolish the Kremlin faction was which has advocated inviting Trump to Red Square for May 9. Putin will give Trump his PR opportunity – but in the sand, not in Red Square.” The shift in the Moscow consensus – from resistance on the part of the General Staff, the intelligence agencies, and the Foreign Ministry – has followed remarks by Vice President JD Vance. “It’s going to be up to them [Russia and Ukraine] to come to agreement and stop this brutal, brutal conflict,” he said on Friday (May 2).

“It’s not going anywhere right [now]. It’s not going to end any time soon…Look, I am optimistic, but it’s hard to say…confident because the Russians and the Ukrainians – they’re the ones who have to take the final step. We got ‘em talkin’. We got ‘em offering peace proposals. We got the minerals deal done. I think we’re in a place where they’ve got to say we’re done with the fighting…but only Russia and Ukraine can make that decision. That’s not something even President Trump can do for ‘em.” In Moscow this is interpreted as acceptance by Washington that the war will continue on Russia’s terms – slow advance westward, no massed offensive – and that it’s now up to “direct” negotiations between Russia and Ukraine to reach an agreement.

“This is a double signal prompting Putin”, another Moscow source says, “to agree to a summit meeting with Trump now without preconditions and without pressure to agree on the Kellogg or Witkoff term sheets. In all likelihood, this will be a feel-good summit. No negotiations at all.” The source adds a caution. “The planned meeting may be derailed at the last minute if the Ukrainians violate the Victory Day ceasefire [between May 8 and 11], and if Trump is either shown to be incapable of controlling the Kiev regime, or duplicitous in aiding the violations. If the Ukrainians do not observe it, the Russians will hit back hard, very hard, and then ask Trump if he still wants to meet. It might go to the wire.”

Read more …

“As the world prepares to honor those who gave their lives in the fight against fascism, Kiev prepares to attack those who once defeated Ukraine’s infamous so-called “heroes.”

• Ukraine Ignores Russia’s Truce Request, Prepares To Sabotage Victory Day (SCF)

Behind its “democratic” rhetoric and constant appeals for Western support, the Kiev regime continues to display its true nature: belligerent, provocative, and increasingly engaged in terrorist practices. The most recent demonstration of this is Ukraine’s plan to sabotage the Victory Day celebrations in Moscow, scheduled for May 9, 2025—a date that symbolizes the Soviet Union’s triumph over Nazism and thus holds profound historical and civilizational significance for Russia and the world. Despite ongoing international tensions, leaders from more than 20 countries have confirmed their attendance at the event. Among them are high-profile figures such as Presidents Lula da Silva (Brazil), Ibrahim Traoré (Burkina Faso), Nicolás Maduro (Venezuela), To Lam (Vietnam), Miguel Díaz-Canel (Cuba), and Aleksandar Vucic (Serbia), along with Chinese President Xi Jinping and Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico.

The diversity of the guest list highlights that the event goes far beyond Russia’s national interest—it stands as a global tribute to the defeat of fascism and a reaffirmation of our shared historical memory. However, on the other side of the border, in Kiev, President Vladimir Zelensky’s government is taking a radically different path. According to diplomatic and intelligence sources, Ukrainian authorities have openly discussed the possibility of launching provocations and terrorist attacks to disrupt the Moscow event. The presence of foreign dignitaries does not appear to deter such plans, revealing a flagrant disregard for basic norms of international law and diplomatic conduct. Zelensky himself, in recent statements, advised world leaders not to attend the May 9 parade, a clear attempt to sow fear and discourage participation.

His suggestion that the event may be targeted echoes earlier remarks in which he stated that “they are worried their parade is under threat—and they should be,” signaling awareness of or complicity in potential sabotage operations. These threats are not vague or speculative. Influential figures within Ukrainian nationalist circles, such as Dmitry Korchinsky—the leader of the radical “Bratstvo” party—have used social media to call on followers to prepare terrorist attacks on Russian soil. In public messages, Korchinsky even recommended planting improvised explosive devices in Moscow’s Red Square ahead of the celebration and proposed using fiber-optically guided drones. The range of potential attacks is wide and deeply concerning: from direct terrorist acts in Moscow and other Russian cities to infrastructure sabotage, targeted assassinations, disinformation campaigns, and psychological operations.

There is also evidence suggesting the possible deployment of foreign mercenaries and nationalist militant groups such as the “Freedom of Russia Legion” or the “Sheikh Mansur Battalion” to destabilize Russian border regions like Belgorod, Bryansk, and Kursk. A full-scale incursion by the Ukrainian regular army into these regions to spread panic and terror cannot be ruled out. In contrast, Russia has formally called for a ceasefire during the Victory Day period—a humanitarian gesture that any state truly committed to international law and human rights should respect. However, all indications suggest that Kiev will not only ignore this appeal but will deliberately violate it. This reinforces the growing perception that the Ukrainian regime acts as a perpetual agent of destabilization, supported—either tacitly or explicitly—by the West.

By aligning themselves with a government that threatens to sabotage a historic and internationally respected commemoration of the defeat of Nazism, Western countries are, whether knowingly or not, siding with reckless historical revisionism and disorder. This raises a serious question: how far are NATO allies willing to go in tolerating the increasingly extreme methods of the Kiev regime? As the world prepares to honor those who gave their lives in the fight against fascism, Kiev prepares to attack those who once defeated Ukraine’s infamous so-called “heroes.” The West and its institutions may absolve the Maidan junta—but History will judge it differently.

Read more …

“The invitation, as is well known, was also extended to US President Donald Trump, in continuation of the peace talks that have been ongoing since January..”

• No Peace And No Respect: Zelensky Threatens The May 9 Parade (Pacini)

Volodymyr Zelensky, in his delusions as self-proclaimed president-without-end of Ukraine, continues to spout nonsense even during this festive period: referring to the May 9 celebrations, he rejected Vladimir Putin’s proposal for a truce, similar to what happened at Easter. Unfortunately, the rejection was widely predictable, as is the fact that he will try to provoke Russia at the height of the celebrations. Zelensky has called for a 30-day ceasefire, which Russia has no reason to accept given the situation on the battlefield, which is entirely in Russia’s favor. On the other hand, Putin has always said, since the beginning of the SMO, that he would only agree to stop the war permanently, i.e., through genuine and comprehensive peace negotiations, as is customary in diplomacy.

The arrogance of Washington’s puppet knows no bounds, remaining completely outside the bounds of diplomatic decorum. Not even in the worst war schools would they have gone this far. It is almost embarrassing how the Ukrainian president is seeking direct confrontation at all costs. It is no longer a simple repetition of provocation, it is much more: it is a strategy to exhaust the enemy’s patience. The most suicidal move one could attempt. Zelensky has also stated that Ukraine cannot guarantee the safety of the leaders who will participate in the May 9 parade in Red Square. We are witnessing an explicit threat against heads of state who, in theory, could apply restrictive measures and sanctions against Ukraine if they wanted to. How can it come to this? It is a wicked statement.

Clearly, no one is afraid of the threat posed by the ‘loneliest man in the world’, the leader ignored by all, who, like a parasite, has sucked money from European states and NATO members in the name of an impossible war, protecting only his own interests. Imagine you have a crazy friend whom you would never give anything important to do because you are afraid he might ruin everything. That’s Zelensky. But now it’s time to stop playing games. If Ukraine really attacks Moscow, the retaliation will be devastating. And so will the international response. Numerous politicians from around the world are expected in Moscow on May 9. The invitation, as is well known, was also extended to US President Donald Trump, in continuation of the peace talks that have been ongoing since January, as well as to Chinese President Xi Jinping, at a time of particular tension between the US and China.

Once again, it is a lesson in life and diplomacy. Russia seeks mediation and puts it into practice with authority, being in an international position where it certainly does not have to ask anyone’s permission; on the contrary, it sets an example. An example that Kiev should keep in mind. The opportunity is of enormous value: symbolically, it is the repetition of a principle that has been engraved in history, that of anti-fascism and the historical truth of the defeat of Nazism in Europe thanks to Soviet Russia. It is also the repetition of an objective historical victory of socialism, in the Soviet model, over the other ideologies of a century ago (a victory that did not last uninterrupted, unfortunately suffering a severe blow from liberalism after 1989). And today, it is a sign of a clear desire: to reunite the peoples of Eurasia in a bloc that will serve as a guide for all peoples who do not want to submit to Western hegemony, under any name or flag.

Read more …

“..Orban warned that Ukraine’s EU membership “would bankrupt the Hungarian economy,” describing Kiev’s potential accession as a “collective economic trap.”

• No Ukraine in EU Without Budapest’s Approval – Orban (RT)

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky have clashed over Kiev’s prospects of joining the EU. Orban reminded the Ukrainian leader that Kiev has no chance of becoming part of the bloc without Budapest’s approval. The war of words started on Friday when Orban warned that Ukraine’s EU membership “would bankrupt the Hungarian economy,” describing Kiev’s potential accession as a “collective economic trap.” The Hungarian leader also criticized the EU’s goal of admitting Ukraine by 2030, a target recently reiterated by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. “We know when they want to bring them in. It’s not some vague future; it’s here, knocking at our door,” he said. “Forget the fairy tales about when and how. They want to do it now, as fast as possible.”

Zelensky responded by citing domestic polling in Hungary. “70% support Ukraine joining the EU. That means people in Hungary are with us,” Zelensky claimed. However, the poll conducted by the opposition Tisza Party to which Zelensky referred showed only 58% support. An earlier poll by the Hungarian newspaper Nepszava showed even lower figures, with 47% in favor and 46% against. Orban fired back at Zelensky on X, writing: “What the Hungarian people think is not decided by the president in Kiev or the bureaucrats in Brussels. There is no Ukrainian EU accession without Hungary. Every Hungarian will have their say on this. Whether you like it or not. That’s how we do things here.”

All EU member states must unanimously approve any new country joining the bloc. Hungary has repeatedly cited widespread graft and minority rights issues as reasons to oppose Ukraine’s fast-track membership, with Orban at one point describing the nation as “one of the most corrupt countries in the world.” Ukraine, which has designated EU membership as a national priority, formally applied to join the bloc in February 2022, just days after the escalation of hostilities with Russia. Despite support from several EU members, the timeline for Ukraine’s membership remains uncertain. Brussels has cited the need for Kiev to undertake significant legal, political, and economic reforms.

Read more …

“..Fico, however, stated that the threats issued by Kiev would not deter him from participation in the commemoration.“In my opinion, it’s ridiculous. I reject such threats..”

• Slovak PM Fico Pledges To Defy ‘Unacceptable’ Zelensky Threats (RT)

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has confirmed he will attend Russia’s Victory Day celebrations in Moscow on May 9, dismissing warnings by Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky of potential security risks as “ridiculous.” The May 9 parade in Moscow will mark the 80th anniversary of the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany. The Kremlin has extended invitations to the event to the leaders of Serbia, Slovakia, China, India, and Brazil, among others. In April, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed a unilateral 72-hour ceasefire in the Ukraine conflict to coincide with the Victory Day celebrations. Zelensky rejected the offer, labeling it a “theatrical performance” and advocated for a more substantial, unconditional 30-day ceasefire. Russian officials argue that a new temporary truce would simply allow Kiev to regroup and rearm.

Earlier this week Zelensky urged foreign leaders to avoid visiting Moscow, citing potential security risks. Russian officials accused Zelensky of endangering the safety of civilians attending the May 9 events. Fico, however, stated that the threats issued by Kiev would not deter him from participation in the commemoration.“In my opinion, it’s ridiculous. I reject such threats,” Fico said at a press conference on Sunday. “I will go to the celebrations of the 80th anniversary [of Victory Day in Moscow].” Fico claimed Zelensky was effectively warning invited leaders not to attend, with the veiled threat that Ukraine might retaliate in some way. “Well, celebrate, we might throw you a drone or something like that. These are unacceptable things for me,” he said.

Referring to Zelensky’s claim that Kiev could not guarantee the security of attending leaders, Fico responded: “If Zelensky thinks that his cries will prevent foreign delegations from coming there, it is a huge mistake. Ensuring the security of participants [in the celebrations] is the responsibility of the Russian Federation,” said the Slovak prime minister. The EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, warned in April that the bloc does not want any member or candidate states attending. During a meeting last month with Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic, who earlier pledged to attend, EC Commissioner for Enlargement Marta Kos reportedly cautioned that his attendance would be held against Serbia in its bid to join the EU. Fico recommended “Kallas and others to deal with more serious problems than whether I will go or not to the celebration of the 80th anniversary.”

Read more …

“Elon Musk has drawn attention to a viral video showing Ukrainian military recruiters forcibly detaining a deliveryman in Lutsk..”

• Musk Reacts To Video of Forced Mobilization In Ukraine (RT)

Elon Musk has drawn attention to a viral video showing Ukrainian military recruiters forcibly detaining a deliveryman in Lutsk, in the western part of the country. Kiev has pursued a violent mobilization campaign for months, often resulting in clashes between reluctant civilians and military personnel. On Saturday, a media user on X shared a video showing three Ukrainian soldiers approaching a man on a bicycle carrying a large yellow bag and wearing a vest, who appears to be a delivery worker. After a brief conversation, the soldiers attempt to drag him into a white van parked nearby, but he resists. Following a struggle, the recruitment officers manage to shove the man into the vehicle, which then drives off. The fate of the detainee is unknown. Reacting to the video, Musk posted “!!” on his social media platform. The X owner and close ally of US President Donald Trump has repeatedly called on the Ukrainian leadership to sign a ceasefire with Russia to avoid further casualties.

Last November, he also criticized reported calls by the US government for Ukraine to lower the minimum conscription age to 18, writing: “How many more need to die?” On Friday, another mobilization video from Lutsk surfaced on social media, with recruitment officers – potentially driving the same van as in the first clip – forcibly detaining a man riding a scooter. Ukraine announced a general mobilization following the escalation of the conflict with Russia in 2022, barring most men 18 to 60 years old from leaving the country. In 2024, faced with manpower shortages and mounting losses, Kiev lowered the conscription age from 27 to 25, while introducing stricter penalties for draft evasion and tightening other mobilization rules. As the mobilization drive continues, numerous videos have emerged on social media showing Ukrainian officials trying to forcibly recruit reluctant civilians, often leading to violent clashes.

Read more …

How to win? Talk about jobs. Talk about no income taxes.

“If we can lift 800 million Chinese peasants out of poverty, then there’s no excuse for leaving any Americans behind..”

• How to Win the PR War on Tariffs (Scott Pinsker)

“In a few moments, I will sign a historic executive order instituting reciprocal tariffs on countries throughout the world, reciprocal. That means they do it to us and we do it to them, very simple, can’t get any simpler than that.” —Donald Trump’s very first mention of tariffs during the May 2 “Liberation Day” event.

That was an honest lead, but it wasn’t optimal PR. There are zillions of truthful, accurate, interesting facts about tariffs. It’s a complex subject that’s intertwined with global trade, international diplomacy, geography, history, and economic policy — textbooks can (and certainly have) been written about it. You could yak about it 24/7 for a decade and still find something new to say. When it comes to tariffs and PR, there’s an embarrassment of riches. I know that sounds like a good thing, but it’s actually a problem.

[..] Experts in highly skilled fields (engineers, medical, tech) are often difficult to train for media appearances… because they know so damn much! For example, if a doctor is representing a hospital during a news segment and is asked about a new procedure they’re offering, he’ll instinctively want to share all the info he’s most excited about: the new research, new clinical studies, new data, new equipment, and new theories! To a doctor, all that stuff is incredibly important — and medically relevant, too. He’s right. But the guy sitting at home just wants to know if it’ll make him feel better. Truth and tactics are different. Let’s get back to tariffs. More often than not, the standard MAGA answer for “why” is twofold: Liberation Day was necessary because other countries were ripping us off, and because what they’ve been doing to us is unfair.

Fairness is almost always accentuated. Even the name reflects it: The “Fair and Reciprocal Plan” on Trade. In fact, that was the very first bullet-point listed under the announcement: The “Fair and Reciprocal Plan” will seek to correct longstanding imbalances in international trade and ensure fairness across the board. Well, fairness is very nice. Most people would support that. But fairness to whom? The guy sitting at home doesn’t associate himself with global trade. He’s indifferent to Walmart’s stock price. For him, tariffs are connected to higher prices.[..] Tariffs are about FAIRNESS, eh?! The way it’s currently being positioned, it sounds a helluva lot “fairer” for those big corporations than for the guy at home, ‘cause he’s the one who’s gonna pay more! Those rich guys don’t seem to be suffering. Asking Joe Sixpack to sacrifice so Walmart, Apple, Google, and Boeing can claim a bigger piece of the pie is a pretty big ask.

Other countries’ tariffs have been grossly unfair and decidedly un-reciprocal; that’s a true statement. And even the media doofuses who’ll call Trump a liar at the drop of a (red) hat are actually taking his word on tariffs: Trump really, truly believes that other countries were unfairly ripping us off; it’s not a put-on. Nobody’s doubting the sincerity of his convictions. But for PR purposes, we need to recalibrate the trajectory of who is being ripped off: We don’t want our audience to think about the Walmarts, Apples, and Boeings of the world. We want them to think about themselves. If the American people personalize this issue — i.e. if they identify with the struggle — then MAGA will win the political war over tariffs. And if they don’t? We won’t. The answer, then, to WHY we have tariffs must always be a four-lettered word: JOBS!

“Fairness” is an abstraction; a job is tangible. I’d be furious with the politician who gave me higher prices, just so Google’s shareholders could make more money — but I’ll gladly sacrifice so my friends, neighbors, and colleagues will have better jobs. Everyone recognizes the value of high-paying jobs. The American economy is unfathomably large. It’s the envy of the world. It’s so big and prosperous, we’ve employed BILLIIONS of foreign nationals over the last 40 years! We’ve made hundreds of millions of Chinese, Indians, Vietnamese, Europeans, and others incredibly wealthy. Since 1978, global trade has lifted 800 million Chinese people out of poverty. Good for them. Maybe the limousine liberals in the Democratic Party haven’t noticed, but our own people are hurting. We need to lift our friends and neighbors out of poverty, too. There aren’t enough good jobs available!

If we can lift 800 million Chinese peasants out of poverty, then there’s no excuse for leaving any Americans behind. So, this isn’t just “Make AMERICA Great Again” — it’s Make AMERICANS Great Again. This is about us! There’s an affordability epidemic in our country: 67% of Americans now believe that homeownership is “unrealistic” for young people. It’s gotten so bad, 73.8% of millennials are living paycheck-to-paycheck. Without your own home, it’s really tough to raise children. And without more children, our entire system collapses. It’s literally an existential threat. Unless we bring high-paying jobs back to our country ASAP, our children and grandchildren won’t have a country left anymore — because greedy, corrupt politicians gave our country away in crooked trade deals. The status quo was destroying the American Dream.

Read more …

“The court noted that the district court likely lacked jurisdiction to interfere with the administration’s personnel actions and funding decisions..”

• Trump Just Got a Game-Changing Legal Victory (Matt Margolis)

When President Trump returned to the White House, he didn’t just get to work cleaning up Joe Biden’s mess—he set his sights on dismantling decades of entrenched bureaucratic bloat, waste, and corruption. With a relentless series of executive orders and policy directives, Trump reignited his mission to drain the swamp—this time with laser precision and zero patience for the status quo. Predictably, the left went into full-blown panic mode. Liberal legal groups immediately launched a barrage of lawsuits, cherry-picking friendly courts in a shameless attempt to stall Trump’s agenda. They’re terrified of losing control over the bloated regulatory state they’ve used for years to push policies they could never pass through Congress. But that strategy just hit a major roadblock.

In a landmark ruling on Saturday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals handed the Trump administration a decisive legal victory—one that could fundamentally change how activist judges and forum-shopped cases interfere with executive authority. “This is a huge victory for President Trump and his Article II powers granted in the United States Constitution. It’s also a victory for US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) and VOA,” Kari Lake told Fox News Digital. Lake now serves as a USAGM senior advisor to the Trump administration. “We are eager to accomplish President Trump’s America First agenda which has always been to modernize and make our government efficient while cutting waste, fraud, and abuse.” The appeals court’s 2-1 ruling Saturday emphasized the judiciary’s deference to executive authority in matters concerning federal employment and contractual decisions.

The court noted that the district court likely lacked jurisdiction to interfere with the administration’s personnel actions and funding decisions, particularly regarding grant agreements with non-federal entities like Radio Free Asia and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks. This ruling Trump’s March 14 executive order (EO), which aimed to dismantle USAGM operations. This ruling effectively reins in district courts that have been sidestepping proper jurisdictional channels in cases challenging Trump administration actions. The decision serves as a clear reminder that courts themselves must operate within their prescribed legal boundaries. According to Margot Cleveland, senior legal correspondent for The Federalist, the D.C. Circuit’s ruling hinges on a critical point: jurisdiction, which has sweeping implications.

As Cleveland explains, many of the legal challenges being hurled at the Trump administration involve employment decisions—precisely the kind of disputes Congress has explicitly said federal district courts have no authority to adjudicate. The court’s decision also strikes at the heart of a broader legal strategy being used by leftist groups to stymie Trump’s reforms—namely, the claim that the administration is engaging in “wholesale dismantling” of agencies. But as the ruling makes clear, the Administrative Procedure Act was never designed to handle such broad-based political grievances, and Congress never waived sovereign immunity to allow them. In another key point, the court found that the lower court also overstepped its bounds by trying to restore federal grants—something Congress assigned to the Court of Federal Claims, not the district courts. All told, the decision is a sharp rebuke to the legal overreach being used to obstruct the Trump administration’s agenda.

The significance of this decision extends far beyond these specific cases—it establishes clear jurisdictional parameters that could affect dozens of pending lawsuits against Trump administration policies. While the administration won’t prevail in every case, this ruling suggests courts may need to more carefully consider their jurisdictional authority before issuing sweeping injunctions against executive actions.

Read more …

Strong symbols.

• Trump Orders Reopening Of Notorious Alcatraz Prison (NYP)

President Trump called on his administration to reopen and expand Alcatraz so authorities could send the “dregs of society” to the notorious California prison more than six decades after it closed. The commander in chief announced Sunday that he was directing the Bureau of Prisons and other federal agencies to get the massive island facility off the San Francisco bay — which has long been the lore of Hollywood — back up and running again to lock away homegrown, repeat criminals. “For too long, America has been plagued by vicious, violent, and repeat Criminal Offenders, the dregs of society, who will never contribute anything other than Misery and Suffering,” he wrote on Truth Social. “When we were a more serious Nation, in times past, we did not hesitate to lock up the most dangerous criminals, and keep them far away from anyone they could harm.

“That’s the way it’s supposed to be. No longer will we tolerate these Serial Offenders who spread filth, bloodshed, and mayhem on our streets.” Trump, 78, also said the “substantially enlarged and rebuilt” prison would “serve as a symbol of Law, Order, and JUSTICE.” But the logistics behind the presidential order are thornier. The island is now a major tourist attraction that is run by the National Parks Service and attracts thousands of visitors each year. It’s also a designated National Landmark. Alcatraz was initially closed because its infrastructure was crumbling and it was too expensive to keep running — given all food, supplies and other necessities had to be delivered by boat. The facility was operated as a major federal detention center between 1934 and 1963 and was nearly inescapable because the island was surrounded by strong currents and ice-cold water. Some of its most famous prisoners included gangsters Al Capone and George “Machine Gun” Kelly.

The island has become the subject of several Hollywood blockbusters, including “The Rock,” starring Sean Connery and Nicolas Cage and the 1979 film “Escape from Alcatraz,” starring Clint Eastwood. During Alcatraz’s 29 years as a prison, 36 men made a bid for freedom — with nearly all of them dying or getting captured by guards. To this day, it remains unknown if three inmates – brothers John and Clarence Anglin, and fellow inmate Frank Morris – successfully made it off the island alive during their attempted escape in 1962. Trump, in his social media post, said the country can’t be held hostage by “criminals, thugs, and Judges that are afraid to do their job and allow us to remove criminals, who came into our Country illegally.” The Republican has railed against federal judges who have slowed his effort to boot alleged gangbangers and ship them off to the infamous El Salvador megaprison.

Just last Thursday, District Judge Fernando Rodriguez – who was appointed by Trump – blocked the US government from using the Alien Enemies Act to deport suspected members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. Trump also ordered the FBI, the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security to help get Alcatraz reopened. The president previously reopened a detention center at Guantanamo Bay, where criminal migrants have been sent. When that announcement was made in late January, one of the president’s sons, Donald Trump Jr., floated the idea of dumping prisoners in Alcatraz. “Now this is a great idea,” he said in reference to Guantanamo Bay. “Maybe we should also reopen Alcatraz?!?!”

Read more …

“..we have thousands of murderers in this country, we’re getting them out and they say ‘we don’t want them out, we want them to stay in our country until we have a trial..”

• Trump Will Start Nominating Federal Judges ‘Rapidly’ (DS)

President Donald Trump will nominate federal judges “rapidly,” he told The Daily Signal on Sunday night. “We’re putting them in rapidly and trying to get very good ones, but we need judges that are not going to be demanding trials for every single illegal immigrant,” Trump said on Air Force One. “We have millions of people that have come here illegally, and we can’t have a trial for every single person, that would be millions of trials.” Trump is off to a slower start in nominating judges than his first term, having only nominated one federal judge, Whitney Hermandorfer, who will serve on the 6th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, Ohio. About 100 days into Trump’s first term, the Senate had already confirmed a new Supreme Court justice, Trump had nominated an appeals court judge, and several other prominent judicial nominees were in the queue to be announced within days.

But according to the president, his slow start to judicial nominations is about to morph into a sprint. Trump said America needs federal judges who won’t insist on a trial for the deportation of every illegal immigrant. “The people elected me in a landslide… We won every swing state… by big numbers… not only swing state, but the popular vote by millions of votes… they elected me, this was the number one issue,” Trump said, “and now we have judges that are radicalized, and they’re crazy because … if you believe this, they want us to have a trial for every person that came illegally into our country.” “So they come into our country illegally, and we’re supposed to take weeks, I guess, and months to have a trial, you want every criminal, and we have murderers that are all over the country,” the president continued. “I don’t think the Supreme Court will stand for that, I can’t believe it, because you know what? If they do, we’re not gonna have a country.”

The Daily Signal asked the president how he will ensure his nominations are different than the judges blocking his agenda, and he said all he can do is his best. “All you can do is do the best you can,” he said. “You try to appoint the best people to being judges or anything else that you appoint, but so far you know we’re very disappointed with the decisions that come out, mostly from people appointed by others than me.” “But it’s so hard to believe that you have a murderer, you know we have 11,888 or whatever the number is, we have thousands of murderers in this country, we’re getting them out and they say ‘we don’t want them out, we want them to stay in our country until we have a trial,’” Trump said. Trials take years, and America doesn’t have that much time to curb illegal immigration, according to the 47th president. “They take years,” he said. “It’s so crazy. We won’t have a country left. We can’t have that happen.”

Read more …

” If the Supreme Court doesn’t take steps to do that, Congress may remove it from the court’s hands and deal with the problem itself.

• Trump’s 100 Days and the Legal War in Washington (Hans von Spakovsky)

During his first 100 days in office, President Donald Trump acted with unprecedented speed to make major changes in government policies and root out the pervasive waste, fraud, and diversity, equity, and inclusion poisoning our government and its programs. Still, he was hampered by a handful of biased judges who abused their authority to keep him from implementing the policies the American people voted for. Jurisdiction is limited to the federal districts where the hundreds of district court judges reside. However, some of these judges arrogantly assert that they can override the president in areas of core executive branch competency and issue sweeping injunctions that affect the entire nation. They even claim they can act on behalf of people who aren’t parties in the cases before them.

These judicial tyrants seem to believe that the Constitution gives them more power than the president to make decisions on the size of the federal government, how it spends its money, and whom it can hire and fire. They say they have a right to overrule the president’s national security judgment on issues that affect our relations with foreign governments, our military readiness, and the safety of the public from unchecked illegal immigration. The Constitution does not give that authority to the judiciary. Perhaps these judges would like to rewrite President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address to say we must preserve “government of the judges, by the judges, for the judges.” Make no mistake: These judges are acting far outside their authority, and their actions are unprecedented.

Last year, the Harvard Law Review noted that of the 127 nationwide injunctions issued since 1963, 64 were against the first Trump administration. Similarly, Justice Clarence Thomas noted in Trump v. Hawaii (2018) that district courts had issued such injunctions in recent years “without considering their authority to grant such sweeping relief.” Thomas said these injunctions “did not emerge until a century and a half after the founding” and are “inconsistent with long-standing limits on the equitable relief and the power of Article III courts.” In the case in question, district courts had issued nationwide injunctions against Trump’s proclamation restricting entry of aliens from eight nations, many of them terrorist states, because of the security threat they posed. As in many of today’s cases on dangerous criminal gangs and terrorist organizations, those judges thought their national security judgment overrode that of the president.

Trump won that case when the Supreme Court ruled that he was well within his authority to make that judgment and that the admission and exclusion of aliens is a “fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.” Over the past 100 days, we have again witnessed numerous injunctions against actions well within Trump’s constitutional authority as the chief executive and commander in chief. Justice Neil Gorsuch warned against this type of judicial activism in 2020 in Department of Homeland Security v. New York, a case involving rulemaking on the definition of “public charge” as used in federal immigration law. In that case, multiple lawsuits had been filed with conflicting rulings by different courts. Gorsuch cynically said these different rulings didn’t matter.

“Despite the fluid state of things—some interim wins for the government over here, some preliminary relief for the plaintiffs over there—we now have an injunction to rule them all: the one before us, in which a single judge in New York enjoined the government from applying the new definition to anyone, without regard to geography or participation in this or any other lawsuit.” The Supreme Court stayed that injunction, but it never ruled on the legitimacy of the rulemaking. As soon as the Biden administration came in, it withdrew the government’s appeal and revoked the rule as part of its open borders policy. Today’s bout of lawfare is still in its preliminary stages, and the substantive merits of the various claims have not yet been decided by federal courts of appeals or the Supreme Court. However, the president has had some significant wins.

Notably, the Supreme Court recently dissolved temporary restraining orders issued by Chief Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in a decision that told Boasberg he lacked jurisdiction over the removal of members of the terrorist group Tren de Aragua. Similarly, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stayed a Biden district judge’s injunction that had told the administration it couldn’t root out DEI poison from the executive branch. The lawfare against the administration is undoubtedly frustrating, but we’ll see what happens when these cases reach the Supreme Court. In Trump v. Hawaii, Thomas said that if the “popularity” of nationwide injunctions continues, “this Court must address their legality.” Let’s hope the justices do that soon. If the Supreme Court doesn’t take steps to do that, Congress may remove it from the court’s hands and deal with the problem itself.

Read more …

“How convenient it was for Brussels to cancel an election in a country where corruption is so endemic that the people simply didn’t question how anti-democratic the stunt was in the first place..”

• Romania Hits All-Time Low With Fake Elections, Manipulated By The EU (Jay)

The European Union continues to sink deeper and deeper in its own political excrement as it not only believes its own manufactured consent by its Brussels cabal of wasters who call themselves journalists but is also tightening down its grip on its 400 million citizens. The EU never pretended to be a democracy but these days it is surpassing even the Stalinist period of the Soviet Union in its determination to control every thought of its citizens, which, of course means hunting down and persecuting any journalists who even simply question the narrative. The latest example – as there are many – is good ‘ol Chay Bowes, an RT presenter-come-journalist who was sent to Romania to cover the presidential elections – second time around, as the original result in March, which didn’t please the EU, was cancelled.

It’s what the EU does quite frequently. It simply cancels democratic processes which don’t come up with the results it prefers. Ireland and France experienced the same with their own referendums which had to be done a second time to get the right result. These days the EU simply calls any results which it doesn’t like ‘Russian interference’ and everyone just rolls over and accepts it, amazingly. Well, perhaps not amazingly for Romania which entered the EU in 2007 as its sort of Third World member state with corruption so bad that the narrative in Brussels at the time was “we’ll let them it and then reform them”. Not much has changed. The elite in Bucharest quite confidently takes its instructions from Brussels these days which told the Romanians to arrest Bowes when he arrives in Bucharest and get him to sign some bullshit fake police statement admitting all kinds of nonsense before kicking him out of the country.

Only the EU elite would go this far to block any kind of old school reporting on the ground by polemics like Bowes, who is probably considered very odd in his native Ireland, but was really only going to report what he saw and heard. Only the EU would be this obsessed with using the example of his arrest as a warning to any other odd journalists who don’t believe the EU script, that this is what happens to you. Bowes may well be wondering what will happen to him if he ever has to return to Ireland to see loved ones. Will his own police, on the instructions of the fabulously corrupt EU, have him arrested on some fake charge? At the heart of the matter is a man called Georgescu who, in basic terms, stands against everything that the corrupt EU and its boss – Ursula von der Leyen – stand for and so he got branded as being ‘pro-Russian’ and they have the piece of paper to prove it. From their own secret service goons. Oh yes they have.

Although he didn’t stand this second time around, back in March he got very close to winning outright the election before the EU stepped in. How convenient it was for Brussels to cancel an election in a country where corruption is so endemic that the people simply didn’t question how anti-democratic the stunt was in the first place. Romania, it would seem, is an irony-free zone. And I should know. In 2007 I travelled there to interview the PM for Euronews, only to find that once I arrived the interview was cancelled. I protested in a sarcastic email offering a couple thousand euros bribe to the press officer, only to receive a very angry email back. The press honcho had taken my offer seriously. Undeterred, I comforted myself by interviewing Romania’s new, young anti-corruption minister who, somewhat on cue, was forced to resign a few days after the interview. Yes, you’ve guessed it. He was accused of graft on a grand scale himself.

Democratically speaking, Romania is not at all a serious country, which has allowed the EU to meddle in its internal workings quite effortlessly rather like Moscow might have done at one point in its history. The elite in Bucharest and their EU masters have a real problem with Georgescu and is policies which are remarkably similar to those of Victor Orban, the EU’s in-house irritant who holds back the project from thinking big. “His frequent posts channelled widespread frustration over persistent poverty and endemic corruption in the country” Bloomberg wails. “Reprising themes popular with prominent nationalists such as Hungary’s Viktor Orban and Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, he condemned LGBTQ rights, questioned the use of vaccines, portrayed the coronavirus pandemic as a hoax and espoused the “Great Replacement” theory — the idea that Christian populations are being systematically replaced by non-Christians and immigrants”.

Read more …

“Simion hoped to harness the election support Georgescu built last year by saying he’ll have a job for him, even possibly as prime minister.”

• Right Wing George Simion Wins First Round of Voting in Romania (CTH)

The original winner of the previous Romanian election in 2024, Calin Georgescu, was removed as the election winner and barred from ever running again because Georgescu did not support the EU security state and did not want war with Russia. The election was thrown out because the wrong person won the vote of the Romanian people. A second election was organized, and the man who represents the voice of Georgescu, George Simion, has won the first round. However, do not get too excited; remember, NATO is building their biggest military base in Romania, and they will not accept any impediments. Like Moldova, the second round will likely see massive numbers of “Romanians voting from abroad” to help shape the final result. The people living in Romania will not technically be the ones deciding the Romanian election. In the new era of intelligence systems controlling “democracy,” all votes from people with an interest in the matter will be counted in favor of the candidate chosen by the EU national security apparatus.

Politico: “BUCHAREST — George Simion, the hard-right leader of the Alliance for the Union of Romanians, is projected to win the first round of Romania’s presidential election with around 40 percent of the vote, according to partial results from the country’s election authority. Simion badges himself as a supporter of U.S. President Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” movement, wants to stop military aid to Ukraine and will leave the EU quaking as another key country threatens to turn its back on mainstream European policies. “I promise I will always heed the will of the people. I am here to serve Romanians, not the other way around,” Simion said in a statement early Monday. He will face centrist Bucharest Mayor Nicosur Dan, who edged out establishment figurehead Crin Antonescu to make it into a runoff on May 18.

Dan won 20.7 percent of the ballots of Romanians voting at home, barely ahead of Antonescu, who received 20.5 percent. But Dan won 26 percent of the votes of Romanians voting abroad, with nearly 80 percent of the polling stations counted. Antonescu only received 7.3 percent of the votes abroad. […] The election results are being closely watched in Brussels and Washington, as Romania has become the latest battleground between the far right and the political establishment. […] Sunday’s vote was part of the election do-over that Romania’s top court ordered in December, after canceling the November ballot over allegations of illegal campaigning and potential Russian interference in favor of Calin Georgescu, an ultranationalist firebrand who came out of nowhere to win the first round.

That was the first time a candidate backed by a mainstream political party did not make it into the second round. Georgescu was set to face reformist Elena Lasconi in the second round. Lasconi, whose center-right Union Save Romania party leadership abandoned her to support Dan, only received some 2.8 percent of the votes of Romanians voting at home, according to the partial results. Simion hoped to harness the election support Georgescu built last year by saying he’ll have a job for him, even possibly as prime minister. “We are approaching an exceptional result, far beyond what the system’s TV channels present, which stirred up division, sprayed venom and distorted everything I said,” Simion said in a message projected at his party’s headquarters after the exit polls were released.

Read more …

“President Trump’s effort to restore power to ethnic Americans is being blocked by an anti-American judicial system that represents immigrant-invaders, not American citizens.”

• The Bell Tolls for All White Gentile Ethnicities (Paul Craig Roberts)

The Vice President and Secretary of State of the United States have called attention to the tyrannical behavior of the current German government, a corrupt anti-democratic government, controlled by Israel, that is holding on to power by designating its rival, AfD, the rapidly growing second largest party as “extremist.” Recent polls indicate that the AfD has pulled even and perhaps a bit ahead of the government that is trying to suppress it. By applying the “extremist” label to its rival, the government gives itself the power to use its spy agencies to keep the AfD under surveillance. This permits the current corrupt government to know in advance the AfD’s electoral plans while demonizing the AfD as so extreme that it must remain under surveillance.

On what grounds is the AfD designated extremist? The German Domestic Security Service BfV explains: The AfD represents ethnic Germans. Representing “people based on ethnicity and descent” disregards the human dignity of immigrant-invaders and is “incompatible with the democratic basic order.” Here we have it stated clearly just as Jean Raspail put it in The Camp of the Saints. It is anti-democratic for a government to represent the citizens from whose ethnicity the name of the country is derived. Democracy requires representation of those who entered the country illegally or under false pretenses. All government enforcement measures are then directed against the ethnic citizens who are coerced to accept the invasion. As Jean Raspail showed, this is a formula for the extinction of white ethnicities. President Trump’s effort to restore power to ethnic Americans is being blocked by an anti-American judicial system that represents immigrant-invaders, not American citizens.

Hanne Herland of the Herland Report tells us accurately that this is the situation all over Western Europe, the UK and Ireland: “In Europe, non-Western immigrants were given the victim card, and the current discrimination against the indigenous native Europeans by their own leaders began. Instead of listening to their needs, they demonized their views and attacked their own populations. “Europeans were told to step aside and allow immigrants to behave however rudely they wanted, since they came from poor countries and ‘didn’t know any better.’ They were to be excused from law-breaking behavior such as violent rapes, murders or entering the country illegally.” In other words, the immigrant-invaders weren’t civilized sufficiently to know any better, and it is all the fault of racist white ethnicities. What representing immigrant-invaders means in the EU is the loose enforcement, if any enforcement at all, of criminal and rape laws against immigrant-invaders.

Holding immigrant-invaders accountable would be racism, like what the Germans did to Jews. In effect, what is happening all over Europe and in Britain is that immigrant-invaders are becoming overlords over the ethnicities that comprise the former nations, now towers of babel. So, on top of their Israeli overlord, Europeans have immigrant-invaders as another overload. What a joke that Europeans and British and Irish are “free people.” They are the most enslaved in history. Even their tongues have been cut out. They cannot speak. The entire Western World is a dead man walking. Every person who rises to the defense of Western civilization is demonized, arrested, fired, dismissed from his university, framed in a false prosecution and imprisoned. The Insouciant West was insouciant for too long, It has lost its life.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Genes

Birth rate

Giga

Trump 1980

BR

Mess

Ali Baba

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle April 25 2025

Apr 252025
 
 April 25, 2025  Posted by at 10:20 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  56 Responses »


Salvador Dali Archeological Reminiscence of Millet’s Angelus 1933

 

• Trump: Russia’s Concession To Ukraine Is Not Taking The Whole Country (ZH)
• Trump Slams Zelensky Again (Margolis)
• Peace Will Come When Ukraine Withdraws From 4 Annexed Territories – Peskov (ZH)
• Russia Launches ‘Massive’ Missile Strike On Kiev, Leaving 9 Dead (ZH)
• Ukraine Preparing To Lose US Support – Bild (RT)
• Rubio and Witkoff Slam Politico Over ‘Fake Crap’ And ‘Fiction’ (RT)
• European Leaders Rejected US Proposal On Crimea – FT (RT)
• Russia Watches Western Europe Closely. It Has Reasons To Worry (Bordachev)
• Strategy Does Not Rhyme With Hypocrisy (Pacini)
• Russia Can Break Any Naval Blockade (Leiroz)
• Rubio and Trump’s Unfinished Business with ‘Bloated’ State Department (Devlin)
• ‘Coalition of The Willing’ Resolve Eroding – The Times (RT)
• Leading Liberals Call Upon Europeans to Resist the United States (Turley)
• China Dismisses Reports Of US Trade Progress As “Fake News” (ZH)
• The Method Behind the Madness of Trump’s “Tariff Wars” (Victor Davis Hanson)
• About the Judge Blocking Trump’s Election Integrity Order (Fred Lucas)
• UK To Greenlight Experiments To “Dim The Sun” In Bid To Stop Global Warming (ZH)
• EPA Head Demands Answers From Company Putting Sulfur Dioxide Into The Air (JTN)
• ‘Rewrite The Rules’ – Trump Store Teases Potential 2028 Reelection Bid (JTN)

 

 

 

 

Bessent

Tucker Massie https://twitter.com/BryceMLipscomb/status/1915089434405491163

Hegseth

Racist

 

 

 

 

He’s completely right, but the story has been so distorted over the past three years that few people in the West will recognize that. Ukrainians claim that their army saved the country. But three years ago, in the initial invasion, Russia had Kiev largely surrounded. They retreated because they were tricked by Merkel et al into a “peace deal”.

Point of contention: “..the US will push Russia to acknowledge Ukraine’s right to maintain its military..” Seems doubtful. Russia already beat that military.

• Trump: Russia’s Concession To Ukraine Is Not Taking The Whole Country (ZH)

Reporters in the White House press pool challenged President Trump over some of his latest remarks regarding Ukraine and the possibility of peace. While in the Oval Office sitting across from Norway’s prime minister Jonas Gahr Støre, Trump was asked what concessions Russia has “offered up thus far to get to the point where you’re closer to peace.” He quipped somewhat sarcastically, “Stopping the war, stopping from taking the whole country” — which he called a “pretty big concession.” Zelensky has made clear over the last few days that he’s not on board with Trump’s strategy, which has featured offering recognition of Russian ownership of Crimea as a key concession. These latest words from the US President yet again illustrate that he believes Ukraine has no chance of winning the war, and that he’s being a pragmatist and realist in seeking substantial concessions by Kiev.

When asked about whether the US might (again) cut weapons to Kiev and intelligence-sharing, Trump responded, “Let’s see what happens; I think we’re going to make a deal; ask that question in two weeks.” But Trump apparently plans to keep up the pressure on Moscow. A Thursday Bloomberg report says the US will push Russia to acknowledge Ukraine’s right to maintain its military and defense sector as part of any future peace deal. Steve Witkoff is expected to present the demand to Putin in the next upcoming round of negotiations. Among Putin’s key objectives in the war remains the ‘demilitarization’ of Ukraine.

Read more …

Crimea is -again- Russian, since 2014. But Zelensky says there isn’t even anything to talk about. Of course Putin gets tired of that. It’s not a serious conversation.

• Trump Slams Zelensky Again (Margolis)

President Donald Trump sharply criticized Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Wednesday after Zelensky rejected a U.S.-backed proposal that would have acknowledged Russian control over Crimea as part of a potential peace agreement. Amid ongoing efforts to broker a peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia, Zelensky reaffirmed that Ukraine would not recognize Russia’s control over Crimea. It’s a firm stance, to be sure, but hardly unexpected given the circumstances. “Ukraine will not legally recognize the occupation of Crimea,” Zelensky said in a press conference. “There’s nothing to talk about here. This is against our constitution.”

Trump, however, saw things differently, and in a post on Truth Social called his statement “very harmful to the Peace Negotiations with Russia in that Crimea was lost years ago under the auspices of President Barack Hussein Obama, and is not even a point of discussion.” Trump continued, “Nobody is asking Zelenskyy to recognize Crimea as Russian Territory but, if he wants Crimea, why didn’t they fight for it eleven years ago when it was handed over to Russia without a shot being fired?”

“The area also houses, for many years before “the Obama handover,” major Russian submarine bases. It’s inflammatory statements like Zelenskyy’s that makes it so difficult to settle this War. He has nothing to boast about! The situation for Ukraine is dire — He can have Peace or, he can fight for another three years before losing the whole Country. I have nothing to do with Russia, but have much to do with wanting to save, on average, five thousand Russian and Ukrainian soldiers a week, who are dying for no reason whatsoever. The statement made by Zelenskyy today will do nothing but prolong the “killing field,” and nobody wants that! We are very close to a Deal, but the man with “no cards to play” should now, finally, GET IT DONE. I look forward to being able to help Ukraine, and Russia, get out of this Complete and Total MESS, that would have never started if I were President!”

The President’s remarks underscore the delicate balance required in international diplomacy. While Zelensky may be acting in what he believes is his nation’s best interest, Trump views his stance as a significant impediment to achieving a swift resolution. The Wall Street Journal has more: “Zelensky’s dismissal upends Trump’s latest gambit to halt the war in Ukraine—now in its fourth year—and casts new uncertainty on the future of the relationship between Kyiv and Washington, which Trump has made conditional on a quick deal. American officials had presented a series of ideas for ending the war, including the Crimea proposal, to Ukrainian officials last week and expected an answer on Wednesday at a summit in London, where Ukrainian, U.S. and European officials will gather. Zelensky said Russia should agree to a cease-fire before further talks to demonstrate “serious steps, and not childishness.” He said that Ukrainian officials meeting with U.S. and European officials in London would have a mandate to discuss a partial or full cease-fire, which Ukraine agreed to last month but Moscow rejected.”

A recent poll shows that while more Ukrainians are open to territorial concessions to end the war, rising from 8% in 2022 to 39% now, half the country still firmly opposes giving up any land. Even among those open to compromise, the idea of formally ceding Crimea remains politically untouchable in Ukraine. Officials have denounced the idea as a breach of international law and a dangerous precedent. Crimean Tatar lawmaker Tamila Tasheva warned that such a move would legitimize aggression and encourage future conflicts. Meanwhile, skepticism persists over whether Vladimir Putin is genuinely interested in peace, despite reports of productive talks with intermediaries like special envoy Steve Witkoff.

Read more …

Plus: No Nukes, No NATO, No Nazis. Nothing changed.

• Peace Will Come When Ukraine Withdraws From 4 Annexed Territories – Peskov (ZH)

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has filled in a little bit more of the details in the wake of a Financial Times report issued Tuesday which said President Putin is offering to freeze the current battle lines for the sake of a peace deal. The significant concession came as a surprise to many, who asked what’s the catch. Peskov in Wednesday comments filled in the missing information, stressing that peace can be achieved if Ukrainian forces fully withdraw from territory in the four oblasts Moscow annexed in 2022. Financial Times wrote that “The proposal is the first formal indication Putin has given since the war’s early months three years ago that Russia could step back from its maximalist demands to end the invasion.”

Peskov in the fresh statement emphasized that Russia’s claim to the territories of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia remain enshrined in its constitution. He was asked directly whether a Ukrainian withdrawal would end the war, to which he responded, “If Ukraine withdraws its troops from these four regions, then yes.” “According to the results of the referendums, these territories have entered the administrative borders of Russia. From our point of view, this is a de jure and de facto situation,” Peskov said. But so far Zelensky hasn’t even been willing to cede Crimea, despite the Russian-speaking population of the strategic peninsula long being firmly in Russian hands, also with its naval Black Sea fleet being stationed there since Soviet Times and throughout recent history.

President Trump said Wednesday that Ukraine “lost” Crimea years ago, and so it is “not even a point of discussion”. But Washington’s demands that Ukraine finally compromise on the issue has been rejected by Zelensky. Peskov commented on this too, expressing total agreement with Trump. “This completely corresponds with our understanding, which we have been saying for a long time,” he said. If the Ukrainian government did finally accede to Russia’s demands, it would lose 20% of its total territory, given this is about how much Russian forces currently occupy. The US is also said to currently be offering Ukrainian neutrality vis-a-vis NATO, alongside international recognition of Crimea as Russian territory. But talks have still not gotten off the ground, and the Trump admin is ramping up the pressure on Zelensky especially.

Read more …

Deaths updated to 12. If there really was such a massive strike, “center of Kiev, large-scale death”, there would be 12,000 deaths, not 12. Russia aims at infrastructure, not people.

• Russia Launches ‘Massive’ Missile Strike On Kiev, Leaving 9 Dead (ZH)

Amid stalled US-led peace talks, Russia launched a massive overnight attack on Ukraine, including raining down ballistic missiles on the center of Kiev, unleashing large-scale death and destruction. At least nine people have been reported killed and over 70 injured in the capital city, in what was one of the largest and deadliest missile strikes on Ukraine in months. Some other cities, including Kharkiv, were also hit. Anti-aircraft systems began engaging inbound missiles and drones at about 1am local time. But after drones and missiles were able to make it through, several buildings – including a factory – and a house, as well as cars, were set on fire. BBC writes, “An apartment block was completely flattened during the attack and the windows of surrounding buildings were blown out and balconies ripped down.” “Russia has launched a massive combined strike on Kyiv,” Ukraine’s state emergency service announced on Telegram. “According to preliminary data, nine people were killed, 63 injured.”

President Trump early Thursday condemned the attack, saying he’s “not happy” with the Russian move. “Vladimir, STOP!” he wrote on Truth Social. “5000 soldiers a week are dying. Let’s get the Peace Deal DONE!” A large rescue effort has been underway given a missile head a densely populated area, with Ukraine’s interior minister, Ihor Klymenko, saying of Svyatoshinsky district of Kiev, “Mobile phones can be heard ringing under the ruins. The search will continue until everybody is got out. We have information about two children who cannot be found at the scene of the incident.” Ukrainian officials have cited that some 70 missiles and up to 150 drones were used against several cities in the devastating overnight attack. This new Thursday attack on the capital was the deadliest since last year’s July 8 attack on Kiev, which left 34 people dead and 121 injured.

It comes after the Zelensky government has expressed frustration that the White House should be more concerned and standing by Ukraine’s side, instead of holding bilateral talks toward diplomatic normalization with Russia. The latest Trump and Zelensky back-and-forth has focused on Crimea. Trump on Wednesday slammed the Ukrainian leader for rejecting a US proposal that would see Kiev give up all claims on Crimea. Trump pointed out that Crimea “was lost years ago” and that Zelensky has “no cards to play”. Zelensky then cited the 2018 “Crimea declaration” by Trump’s then secretary of state Mike Pompeo, which laid out that the United States “rejects Russia’s attempted annexation”. “There is nothing to talk about. This violates our Constitution. This is our territory, the territory of the people of Ukraine,” Zelensky had initially told reporters of the question of giving up Crimea permanently.

But Vice President JD Vance had also articulated while traveling in India, “We’ve issued a very explicit proposal to both the Russians and the Ukrainians, and it’s time for them to either say yes or for the United States to walk away from this process.” He emphasized “The only way to really stop the killing is for the armies to both put down their weapons, to freeze this thing and to get on with the business of actually building a better Russia and a better Ukraine.” Freezing the war now would certainly give Russian forces a huge advantage, given the immense territory in the East they now hold, and this is in large part why Zelensky is refusing such a deal.

Read more …

“..Kiev is now trying to renegotiate with Washington while simultaneously seeking support from its European sponsors..”

• Ukraine Preparing To Lose US Support – Bild (RT)

The leadership in Kiev is bracing for a “worst-case scenario” in which US President Donald Trump cuts off all American support, the German tabloid Bild has reported, citing anonymous sources within the Ukrainian government. Trump has reportedly increased the pressure on Ukraine to quickly accept Washington’s “final offer” to resolve the conflict. He has also warned that if negotiations between Moscow and Kiev stall, the US may “take a pass” and withdraw from its role as a mediator. “What is on paper and what is being signaled to us in the negotiations is unacceptable,” Bild wrote on Thursday, quoting a Ukrainian diplomat. “We are preparing for the worst-case scenario… and that means an end to US support,” another unnamed government insider told the paper.

The US president has been pushing for a resolution to the conflict, while also seeking a minerals extraction agreement with Ukraine to help offset the billions of dollars Washington has spent on military and financial aid. Trump temporarily halted military supplies and intelligence sharing with Kiev following a public dispute with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky at the White House in February. On Wednesday, Trump reiterated that Zelensky – who he once described as a “dictator without elections” – has been “more difficult to deal with” than Russian President Vladimir Putin. The remark came after Zelensky publicly rejected a reported provision of the US peace framework, insisting earlier this week that Kiev will not even discuss formally recognizing Crimea as Russian territory.

According to Bild, some officials in Kiev hope that Trump’s personal jabs at Zelensky were merely his way to apply pressure. “Our hope was that it was Trump’s negotiating tactic,” the outlet cited a Ukrainian government insider as saying. The report added that Kiev is now trying to renegotiate with Washington while simultaneously seeking support from its European sponsors. Kiev is still receiving weapons pledged by the previous US administration, but no new aid packages have been authorized since Trump took office, Zelensky said on Monday. His recent pleas for additional Patriot batteries and missiles have also gone unanswered.

Moscow has maintained that it is open to peace talks, provided its core security demands are addressed. It opposes any NATO presence on Ukrainian soil and has demanded that Kiev recognize Russia’s new borders and abandon its plans to join the US-led military bloc. Moscow has condemned the continued flow of Western weapons as detrimental to any lasting peace. The Russian government has also said it will not accept a temporary freeze of the conflict, which would only lead to renewed hostilities later on, citing Ukraine’s multiple violations of an Easter ceasefire and an earlier US-mediated moratorium on strikes against energy infrastructure as proof of Kiev’s untrustworthiness.

Read more …

“Politico said Witkoff was the “main proponent” of the plan, allegedly due to a developing “friendship” with Russian President Vladimir Putin in his role as Trump’s envoy..”

• Rubio and Witkoff Slam Politico Over ‘Fake Crap’ And ‘Fiction’ (RT)

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and President Donald Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, have accused Politico of publishing “fiction” and “fake crap,” over a report by the media outlet on a potential Ukraine peace deal. In an article on Wednesday, Politico claimed that Washington is considering lifting sanctions on Russia’s Nord Stream pipeline and “other Russian assets in Europe” as part of its peace efforts. Citing “five people familiar with the discussions,” Politico said Witkoff was the “main proponent” of the plan, allegedly due to a developing “friendship” with Russian President Vladimir Putin in his role as Trump’s envoy. The piece also claimed Rubio opposed the idea and quoted analysts warning it could hurt US LNG exports by reopening the EU market to Russian gas. Rubio was quick to respond, writing on X that the “piece of fiction” was “unequivocally false.” Witkoff responded with sharper language, calling the article “fake crap.”

Rubio and Witkoff are among the key figures in US-Russia discussions aimed at ending the Ukraine conflict. While the US-proposed peace framework has not been made public, reports suggest it could involve recognizing Crimea as Russian territory. Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky recently dismissed any such proposals as “unconstitutional,” prompting Trump to accuse him of jeopardizing the peace process with “inflammatory statements” and warning that he could “lose the whole country” if he does not compromise.

US Vice President J.D. Vance echoed the sentiment, warning on Wednesday that Washington might “walk away” from talks unless Kiev and Moscow reach a deal soon, and stating that “both will have to give up some of the territory they currently own.” Russia has repeatedly said that the status of Crimea and the four other former Ukrainian regions that joined Russia after referendums is not up for negotiation. Moscow insists recognition of the “reality on the ground” is vital for lasting peace. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov cautioned this week against relying on media reports regarding US-Russia talks, warning that “a lot of fakes are being published now, including by respected publications.” He advised the public to trust official sources instead.

Read more …

If a tree falls in a forest…

• European Leaders Rejected US Proposal On Crimea – FT (RT)

European leaders have rejected a US proposal to recognize Russia’s sovereignty over Crimea as part of a draft peace deal on the Ukraine conflict, the Financial Times reported on Thursday. European officials told the outlet that such a move could cause a rift within NATO and force Kiev’s backers to choose between sticking with Ukraine or siding with Washington. According to the report, US President Donald Trump’s team has presented Ukraine with a take-it-or-leave-it deal that includes Washington formally recognizing Crimea as Russian territory. US Vice President J.D. Vance has also suggested freezing the conflict along the current lines of control. A senior European diplomat told the FT that it would be “impossible” to accept the US proposal, while one EU official claimed that “Crimea and future NATO membership aspirations are red lines for us.”

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has also refused to even consider conceding Crimea, stating that the country’s constitution prohibits such a move. Trump has criticized Zelensky’s stance, calling it “very harmful” to peace negotiations and stating that “Crimea was lost years ago.” “He can have Peace or, he can fight for another three years before losing the whole Country,” the US president wrote on social media this week. Officials cited by the FT said that if Trump unilaterally recognizes Crimea or lifts sanctions on Russia, it could trigger a severe split within NATO as well as the EU.

The Trump administration recently warned that the US could end its involvement in Ukraine peace talks if there is no progress soon, but also noted he has found it easier to negotiate with Russia than with Zelensky. Moscow has expressed appreciation for the Trump administration’s efforts to negotiate a settlement of the conflict, and has indicated that it will maintain contact with Washington on the issue. At the same time, Russian officials have said that Kiev and its European backers don’t appear to want the conflict to end and are consistently undermining peace efforts.

Read more …

“The EU’s turn toward Russophobia is not strategic—it is compensatory. Western Europe’s global credibility continues to erode. The reason is simple: a lack of empathy and introspection. The continent views the world through a mirror, seeing only itself.”

• Russia Watches Western Europe Closely. It Has Reasons To Worry (Bordachev)

Western Europe is once again returning to a familiar role: a primary source of global instability. For Russia, this presents a critical question—should we simply turn our backs on the West and focus entirely on our eastern partners? Judging by the current trend in Russian foreign trade of Asian countries steadily taking a larger share, this conclusion may appear reasonable. Yet such a strategy, while tempting, is short-sighted. From antiquity to the present, Europe has often served as a destabilizing force. From the Greek island raiders who disrupted the Nile Valley civilizations, to modern Western European meddling in Africa and aggression in Ukraine, the continent has rarely chosen diplomacy over division. The dismantling of colonial empires and Western Europe’s post-war subordination to the United States softened this tendency. But today, old habits are re-emerging.

European political rhetoric may sound hollow, even absurd, given the continent’s dwindling economic and demographic weight. However, that does not make it less dangerous. Europe is no longer the heart of global politics, yet paradoxically remains its most likely flashpoint. Here, the possibility of a direct military clash between great powers remains disturbingly real. For Russia, Western Europe is a historical adversary, one that has long sought to dictate terms or impose its will. From Napoleon to Hitler, and now to Brussels’ bureaucrats, attempts to subdue or marginalize Russia have been met with fierce resistance. This enduring conflict defines much of our shared history. Today, facing its own developmental dead ends, Western Europe once again turns outward in search of a scapegoat. This time, the preferred solution is militarization, supposedly to counter a “Russian threat.”

The irony is obvious. The EU’s grand vision of integration is in disarray. Its socio-economic models are faltering. Britain, now outside the bloc, is no better off. Aging populations, failing welfare systems, and uncontrolled migration are stoking nationalist sentiments and pushing elites toward more radical postures. Finland, once neutral and pragmatic, now also leans into anti-Russian rhetoric to mask its growing internal malaise. Meanwhile, the institutions that once underpinned European unity are crumbling. The EU’s central structures in Brussels are widely viewed with disdain. National governments resist ceding further power, and the criteria for leadership within the bloc seem to have become cynicism and incompetence. For over a decade, the top posts have gone not to visionary leaders, but to pliable figures chosen for their loyalty and lack of ambition.

Gone are the days of Jacques Delors or even Romano Prodi, who at least understood the value of dialogue with Russia. In their place, we have figures like Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas, whose inability to achieve anything meaningful within the bloc leads them to seek relevance by provoking confrontation with Moscow. The EU’s turn toward Russophobia is not strategic—it is compensatory. Western Europe’s global credibility continues to erode. The reason is simple: a lack of empathy and introspection. The continent views the world through a mirror, seeing only itself. This solipsism, coupled with economic stagnation, makes it harder for its leaders to convert its shrinking economic advantages into geopolitical influence. Africa offers a telling case. France’s influence, once substantial in its former colonies, is rapidly vanishing. Local governments, tired of paternalistic lectures and ineffective policies, are turning instead to Russia, the United States, or even China to build new partnerships.

Even Western Europe’s relationship with the United States is entering a phase of uncertainty. As internal divisions grow in America, European elites accustomed to strategic dependence now find themselves increasingly anxious. They are unsure whether Washington will continue to shield them, or whether they will be left to face the consequences of their own miscalculations. This insecurity partly explains the EU’s heightened hostility toward Russia: it is a desperate bid for attention and relevance. Representatives of the new US administration have already hinted at the lack of real strategic contradictions with Russia. Such statements provoke panic in Brussels. Western European elites fear a US-Russia thaw that could leave them sidelined. They know Washington will not grant them independence in foreign policy, but they also fear that its patronage will no longer come with privileges.

Read more …

“Not even at Easter was it possible to have a little respite, because, ultimately, no one in the West really wants peace.”

• Strategy Does Not Rhyme With Hypocrisy (Pacini)

The President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, had called for an “Easter truce” on the occasion of the liturgical solemnity, celebrated this year throughout the Christian world. This was a sign of strong attention to the human dimension of war, too often forgotten in favor of journalistic narratives and the utility of politicians who profit from the blood of young people dying at the front, but also further proof of Russia’s willingness to find sensible and rational solutions to the conflict. Solutions that, once again, have been manipulated and exploited by the enemy. There is no peace even at Easter. In fact, Ukraine took advantage of the truce to turn the media narrative in its favor. The attack was twofold:

– In the media, Ukraine first accused Moscow of spreading falsehoods and, once the truce actually began (only on the Russian side), repeatedly accused Russia of continuing its attacks, repeatedly violating the truce. – The affair served to cover up and make people forget as much as possible about the events in Sumy, or Bucha 2025. – Strategically, Ukrainian soldiers tried to resupply some frontline positions and break through at some sensitive points, failing to do so but effectively firing on the enemy even though they knew it was a pause in the conflict. In Jus in bello, the law of war, a truce is a temporary suspension of hostilities agreed upon by the parties. When declared unilaterally by one party, it is not usually considered legally binding, but may nevertheless have practical and legal implications.

The Hague Convention of 1907, in Article 36, defines a truce as “the suspension of hostilities between the belligerents for a period fixed by them, either directly or through mediators.” Therefore, when only one party calls for a truce, there is no international legal obligation, but there is nevertheless a strong moral and political value, which generally demonstrates a clear willingness to respect and protect the needs and safety of civilians, as well as to attempt negotiation. There is always an open military risk. It is precisely the political nature of the affair that is strategically interesting. Kiev deliberately sabotaged the Easter truce because it is interested in continuing the military conflict. The Russian Ministry of Defense reported more than 50 attacks within the border areas with civilian casualties, including a 2-year-old girl in the Belgorod region. In addition to the bombing of Russian army positions, civilian areas in Kherson, Zaporizhzhya, Donetsk, and Lugansk were also attacked. On the global political scene, the unelected permanent president Zelensky has shown great hypocrisy, trying to manipulate Putin’s goodwill, but without success. The result is a demonstration of war mongering and a lack of humanity.

After the expiry of the “Easter truce,” Russian troops attacked the industrial zone of the “Storm” research institute in Odessa. The Russian Ministry of Defense also reported the detonation of an ammunition depot in the Kirzhach area due to a violation of safety regulations. Towards Sumy, Russian troops continued their offensive and liberated the Gornalsky monastery, also advancing into the fields towards Oleshnya. Towards Dzerzhinsky, Russian troops moved to fight on the outskirts of Dachnoye, partially surrounding Ukrainian Armed Forces units in the village. Fighters from the Russian Armed Forces’ 68th Tank Regiment are advancing north of Valentinovka and driving the enemy out of most of Sukha Balka. In terms of international politics, however, it is interesting to draw attention to what was announced by Donald Trump, who had planned to stop the war by Easter, or to obtain a truce of at least 30 days. None of this worked. The U.S. has once again confirmed that it is far from having any real capacity to intervene and influence the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.

[..] On the EU/NATO side, Kaja Kallas chastised the U.S. for not using effective tools to put pressure on Russia, stating that “They have tools in their hands to actually put pressure on Russia. They have not used those tools,” and acknowledging that Russia is winning the game. She said that the EU, for its part, will never recognize the peninsula as Russian: ”Crimea is Ukraine. It means a lot to those who are occupied that others do not recognize this as Russian.” The EU therefore wants endless war with Russia under Washington’s umbrella, because it knows that Europe alone would not be able to survive a single day. Not even at Easter was it possible to have a little respite, because, ultimately, no one in the West really wants peace.

Read more …

“In the end, any blockade attempt will only amount to another strategic failure by the West — which continues to underestimate an adversary historically accustomed to resisting — and winning — when encircled.”

• Russia Can Break Any Naval Blockade (Leiroz)

The West’s hostile rhetoric against Russia has taken on increasingly aggressive tones, revealing a coordinated effort to isolate Moscow across all spheres — including the maritime domain. Russian presidential aide Nikolay Patrushev recently stated that the European Union and the United Kingdom are currently preparing a naval blockade against Russia, a measure that constitutes a clear violation of international law and signals an unprecedented escalation in geopolitical tensions. More than a symbolic or diplomatic gesture, such a naval siege amounts to a declaration of economic and strategic warfare. Patrushev warned that Russia has more than enough means to respond to any provocation of this kind. He made it clear that, in the event of diplomatic failure, the Russian Navy would be authorized to take whatever measures are necessary to protect the country’s shipping.

First, it is necessary to understand what kind of “blockade” the West is planning to impose. In recent times, Western countries have threatened Russian vessels in various areas of the Atlantic Ocean, particularly in the Baltic Sea, which NATO increasingly treats as its own “lake” — while ignoring the military stronghold of Kaliningrad. Russian ships have also faced patrols and threats near ports and territorial waters of European nations, a situation that is becoming increasingly troubling. However, while there is still insufficient information to determine the West’s real intentions, it is essential to consider the possibility of a full-scale physical encirclement strategy. Although clearly impossible in a direct and frontal manner, such an idea could be pursued progressively through small-scale naval provocations along multiple routes close to Russian shores.

In this context, two key pillars would define Russia’s defensive strategy: the Arctic — where Moscow has built one of the world’s largest military infrastructures — and Russia’s colossal nuclear capability. Over the past decades, Russia has turned the Arctic into a strategic bastion. It now hosts not only highly equipped naval and air bases, but also alternative trade routes and power projection corridors — such as the Northern Sea Route, which is becoming increasingly viable with the melting of polar ice caps. Russia’s Northern Fleet, equipped with next-generation nuclear submarines and cruisers armed with long-range missiles, is strategically positioned to ensure the country’s maritime sovereignty and to prevent any logistical strangulation attempts. More than a defensive zone, the Arctic now functions as an offensive platform allowing Russia to project power not only across the North Atlantic and the Barents Sea, but also along European coastlines, if necessary.

The Western attempt to encircle Russia fails to consider this critical factor: Moscow is not bound by traditional routes, nor does it rely on the goodwill of European ports — its ability to break blockades is real and already operational. In parallel, Moscow is advancing an ambitious naval modernization program, incorporating autonomous systems, new operational doctrines, and a strategic posture that avoids the trap of an arms race but ensures regional superiority. Russia is not seeking direct confrontation, but it is prepared for it — across multiple domains, including the strategic one. And this is where nuclear deterrence comes into play — an element the West insists on ignoring or downplaying in its propaganda, but which remains the primary guarantor of Russian security. The nuclear doctrine of the Russian Federation is clear: in the face of an existential threat — even if not in the form of a direct nuclear attack —, the response may escalate to the use of nuclear weapons. This is not an empty threat, but a pillar of global stability — the same one that prevented direct conflict throughout the Cold War.

Russia’s strategic patrol submarines, many of them operating from Arctic bases, maintain a constant second-strike capability. Their warheads, dispersed and well-protected, ensure that any Western aggression can be met with devastating force. Thus, a naval blockade becomes not just a provocation, but a global risk — one that could trigger a conflict of unpredictable scale. Given this, it is up to the West to reflect on the consequences of its actions. London and Brussels may believe they can suffocate Russia with unilateral measures, but they deliberately ignore the military and geostrategic realities of the 21st century. The Russian Federation is not a vulnerable state; it is a fully capable power, ready to defend its vital interests — whatever the cost. The illusion of a successful naval siege says more about Western arrogance than about any Russian weakness. In the end, any blockade attempt will only amount to another strategic failure by the West — which continues to underestimate an adversary historically accustomed to resisting — and winning — when encircled.

Read more …

“Prior to Rubio’s arrival in Foggy Bottom, the State Department had 734 different offices, many with redundant tasks and responsibilities. Now, Rubio aims to decrease that number to 604 with the closure of 132 offices..”

• Rubio and Trump’s Unfinished Business with ‘Bloated’ State Department (Devlin)

If it hasn’t been made clear enough by now, President Donald Trump and his administration have unfinished business from his first term.That feeling is especially acute at the State Department. The first Trump administration’s plans to revive the American system were undermined by leakers and turncoats who sought to preserve the status quo. Such was the case at the State Department: When Trump proposed transformative cuts in 2017, the president faced resistance not just from deep state actors but from his own political appointees and Republicans in Congress. The four-year interregnum of President Joe Biden culminated in Trump’s return to Washington more powerful and more popular than ever. The mandate victory exposed just how wrong the establishment was in thinking the American people wanted Trump-lite—the American people wanted full-bodied Trump.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has brought that message to Foggy Bottom. On Monday, Rubio announced the most aggressive reorganization of the State Department in modern American history. This “comprehensive reorganization plan,” Rubio said in a statement, “will bring the department into the 21st Century.” Prior to Rubio’s arrival in Foggy Bottom, the State Department had 734 different offices, many with redundant tasks and responsibilities. Now, Rubio aims to decrease that number to 604 with the closure of 132 offices, according to a report from The Free Press. The nearly 20% reduction in State Department offices will come with the elimination of 700 civil service and foreign service employees. Beyond the closure of 132 offices, 137 offices will be consolidated into other divisions of the agency. Furthermore, the elimination of 700 foreign and civil service roles is just the tip of the iceberg, as Rubio has instructed his undersecretaries to produce plans within 30 days to slash their staff by 15%.

Some of the offices Rubio is looking to downsize employ thousands of people, thanks to the rapid growth of state department staffing over the last few decades. Prior to World War II, the State Department employed about 1,000. By 1946, the State Department had grown to 17,000 employees, somewhat understandable to meet the needs of the war and its aftermath. Today, the State Department employs around 80,000 people between foreign service, civil service, and locally employed staff. Cold War hires? No. In the year 2000, State Department employees numbered just over 30,000. In 25 years, the agency has nearly tripled in size. All the while, the Department of Defense has played an increasingly important role in international diplomacy at the expense of the State Department. Core State Department functions and efficacy have been undermined, due in no small part to over bureaucratization and left-wing capture that has diverted oodles of taxpayer dollars to liberal pet projects.

Rubio himself described the department as “bloated, bureaucratic, and unable to perform its essential diplomatic mission in this new era of great power competition”: In the early days of Trump 1.0, the administration proposed a 28% cut to the State Department budget, with a $25.6 billion budget between the State Department and USAID. The proposal, Tillerson told State Department employees in an email at the time, “acknowledges that U.S. engagement must be more efficient, that our aid be more effective, and that advocating the national interests of our country always be our primary mission.” Those deep cuts failed to materialize, and Democrats were not solely to blame. Republicans in Congress opposed the plan, as well. Then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he was “not in favor” of the cuts.

The late Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., also said he was “very much opposed.” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., went further, claiming Trump’s State Department cuts were “dead on arrival” and that “it would be a disaster.” Even Rubio expressed concerns at the time. Graham’s prediction turned out to be true: Republicans in Congress failed to deliver on the cuts that would have assisted Trump’s reform efforts. By 2021, the State Department saw a 2,000-person drop in foreign service staffers and still fewer reductions in civil service staff, but this was mostly credited to attrition and retirements. Now, Rubio is prepared to go farther than anyone in the first Trump administration—much less Rubio himself—imagined in 2017.

Read more …

“According to The Times, the UK-French plan was rolled back during talks in the UK capital on Wednesday.”

• ‘Coalition of The Willing’ Resolve Eroding – The Times (RT)

France and the UK displayed a weakening resolve to put boots on the ground in Ukraine, during recent talks in London, The Times has reported, citing anonymous sources.Defense chiefs from a number of European NATO states have been debating deploying forces to Ukraine as part of a self-titled “coalition of the willing.” The idea, led by France and the UK, was proposed as a means of providing Kiev with security guarantees in the event of a ceasefire with Russia. Moscow has rejected outright the idea of troops from the US-led military bloc being deployed to Ukraine under any pretext. According to The Times, the UK-French plan was rolled back during talks in the UK capital on Wednesday.

“Sir Keir Starmer and President Macron of France have offered to deploy troops to Ukraine to keep the peace as part of a ‘coalition of the willing,’ but during talks in London sources told The Times there appeared to be a softening of the commitment,” the newspaper wrote on Wednesday. However, a defense source told the outlet that the UK is not prepared to abandon the plans entirely. Some European officials realise that Moscow would never tolerate the deployment of a force of NATO members’ troops to Ukraine, The Times reported. Russia has warned that it will consider such a troop presence as a NATO deployment, under the guise of peacekeepers or otherwise, and will treat it as a valid military target. Moscow has repeatedly stated that NATO’s eastward expansion and Kiev’s aspirations to join the military bloc are among the root causes of the Ukraine conflict.

The deployment of NATO troops in Ukraine could lead to a direct clash between the US-led bloc and Russia, setting off World War III, Russia’s National Security Council Secretary and former Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu has said. The troop deployment plan comes as EU states have floated a $840 [billion] militarization plan for the bloc, citing a perceived threat from Russia. Moscow has repeatedly criticized the EU’s continued flow of armaments to Ukraine, arguing that Western European nations appear more interested in prolonging the fighting rather than resolving the conflict diplomatically.

Read more …

“..the conference that declared “A New World Order with European Values.” Various Americans were present to reaffirm the worst about the United States..”

• Leading Liberals Call Upon Europeans to Resist the United States (Turley)

In his historic speech in Munich this year, Vice President J.D. Vance confronted the Europeans over their attacks on free speech, declaring “If you are running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you.” That is manifestly true, but it appears that there is something that certain Americans can still do for Europe. As the European Union ramps up its long-standing campaign against free speech, it is increasingly calling upon Americans to make the case against both free speech and the United States. The Europeans and globalists see the Trump Administration as a threat in the effort to create transnational governance systems. German diplomat Christoph Heusgen became emotional in responding to Vance, declaring “It is clear that our rules-based international order is under pressure. It is my strong belief that this more multipolar world needs to be based on a single set of norms and principles.”

American politicians and journalists quickly added their voices of condemnation. CBS anchor Margaret Brennan confronted Secretary of State Marco Rubio to suggest that Vance’s support for free speech was outrageous because he was “standing in a country where free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide.” Brennan’s bizarre suggestion that free speech contributed to the death camps was amplified by Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) who accused Vance of using “some of the same language that Hitler used to justify the Holocaust.” After the Munich speech, some of the leading anti-free speech figures in the world gathered at the World Forum in Berlin. I was one of the few speakers from the free speech community at the conference that declared “A New World Order with European Values.” Various Americans were present to reaffirm the worst about the United States as a nation descending into tyranny.

The two most celebrated figures were Bill and Hillary Clinton, who also criticized the current Administration. The appearance of Hillary Clinton was particularly chilling for the free speech community at the Forum. Clinton has been unrelenting in her attacks on free speech and is a favorite of globalists who want to create this new world order. After Musk bought Twitter with the intention of restoring free speech protections, Clinton called upon the European Union to use its infamous Digital Services Act to make Musk censor her fellow Americans. She has also suggested arresting those spreading disinformation. The EU did precisely that and is now threatening Musk with confiscatory fines unless he resumes the censorship of Americans and others. After returning from Berlin, I testified in the Senate Judiciary Committee and warned about the building threat to free speech from the use of the DSA.

Read more …

China sends out all sorts of people commenting. But Trump wants to talk to XI one-on-one. No “point person for the dialogue..” or anything like that.

Xi bets on Americans turning on Trump, if things get more expensive. But China, too, has domestic breaking points.

• China Dismisses Reports Of US Trade Progress As “Fake News” (ZH)

Wednesday’s equity market rollercoaster—sharp pops and drops—was driven by conflicting reports on headlines surrounding potential U.S.-China trade talks. Markets surged after a Wall Street Journal report suggested President Trump considered cutting steep tariffs on Chinese imports. But sentiment quickly reversed when Reuters poured cold water on the claim. Further declines followed after Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent clarified there had been “no unilateral offer from Trump” to reduce Chinese tariffs and that a trade deal could take two to three years to finalize. In the overnight hours, China demanded Washington remove unilateral tariffs before engaging in trade talks and rejected the claim that any negotiations had progressed.

“The US should respond to rational voices in the international community and within its own borders and thoroughly remove all unilateral tariffs imposed on China, if it really wants to solve the problem,” Ministry of Commerce’s spokesman He Yadong told reporters at a regular briefing on Thursday in Beijing. Yadong rejected any signs of progress in bilateral communications, indicating that “reports on development in talks are groundless.” He said Washington needs to “show sincerity” if both sides want to make a deal. Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Guo Jiakun also called any rhetoric coming from the Trump administration about deal progress “fake news” in a press conference.

The Trump administration’s softening stance—reported by the WSJ, which sent US equity markets higher early Wednesday—may signal a willingness by the US to de-escalate the trade war with Beijing in order to shift to the negotiating phase. Trump told reporters on Wednesday: “Maybe we’ll make a special deal, and we’ll see what it will be. Right now, [the tariffs are] 145%, that’s very high.” One day earlier, Treasury Secretary Bessent told investors at a closed-door meeting: “No one thinks the current status quo is sustainable, at 145% and 125%, so I would posit that over the very near future, there will be a de-escalation. We have an embargo now on both sides.” Alfredo Montufar-Helu, senior adviser at The Conference Board’s China Center, told the Shanghai Morning Post that “news today confirms China has no intention to reach out first with a proposal of its own.”

“The impasse in negotiations is driven by a very simple dynamic; no side wants to bear with the political costs of being seen as capitulating to the other side,” Montufar-Helu explained. According to Zhang Zhiwei, chief economist at Pinpoint Asset Management, even if the negotiations between China and the US start immediately, reaching an agreement could take time, and mounting risks exist. The tariff war on both sides could soon unleash pain across global trade. “It takes time for trade negotiations to proceed between the US and other countries. This means the tariffs will hit global trade and economies for at least several months. It is not clear to what extent inventory build-up and pre-loading of trade in the past few months will help to soften the immediate damage. The question now is how bad trade and other macro data will be in China, the US and other countries,” Zhiwei said.

[..] Bloomberg reported last week that Beijing wants to see several things from Trump’s administration before trade talks begin, such as more respect and naming a point person for the dialogue. Neither side has announced any upcoming bilateral trade meetings despite Trump’s announcement this week to ease tariffs potentially.

Read more …

“..the EU people want to help the American Left, and one of the ways they think they can is to stonewall and watch the bond and stock market go down.”

• The Method Behind the Madness of Trump’s “Tariff Wars” (Victor Davis Hanson)

Where are we in the trade wars, the tariff wars? The stock market recently has recovered somewhat. We’re about where it was in August. I didn’t think it was too bad in August of 2024. It’s recovering 1% to 2%, on occasion. And why is that? Because Donald Trump has announced that JD Vance and his wife, who is of Indian legacy—her family was born in India—met with the Indian government officials, and there may be a trade deal. Japan has been talking with us. They both want—us and Japan—want a deal. Japan says we moved the goalpost. We say, “They’re not serious.” But there’s going to be a deal there. And more importantly, Donald Trump said he was willing to lower tariffs on China. Now the Left says, “Oh, he’s caving, he’s caving. This was all unnecessary.” You could interpret it that way. But it’s more likely “Art of the Deal.”

In other words, “We’re going to invade Panama,” but we’re not going to invade Panama. We just want Panama to let American companies run the exit and the entry to the canal—and that’s probably going to happen. “Canada’s going to be the 51st state.” No. It’s not going to be the 51st state. But Canada should defend themselves and pay 2% of their GDP, and they need to address a $65-$100 billion deficit. But, “We want to absorb Greenland.” No. We don’t. We want Denmark—a colonial power with this huge North American colony—we want them to help them a little bit. And indeed, they’re starting to put Greenland on their imperial flags, and they gave them a billion dollars, and the base is secure. And the Greenland people, 50,000 or so, will want U.S. security. So, that is the “Art of the Deal.”

And to get China to come and reduce its $300 billion trade surplus with the United States, Donald Trump talked about these huge tariffs. Now, he will talk down and we’ll probably get a deal in an “Art of the Deal” fashion. We saw that with NATO. He harangued them in 2018. They were furious. Said he might not come to their aid. They haven’t met their 2%, 2014 promises. And guess what? They started to spend more in defense. Timely so, because when the Ukraine war broke out, Europe had spent a billion dollars more on defense expenditure. And more importantly, they had Finland and Sweden, two of the most muscular of all the European nations in terms of munitions and defense readiness, now both part of NATO. That worked.

And I think the same thing is happening with trade. Here’s the dynamic: the Europeans detest Donald Trump more than they see their self-interest. In other words, they would rather be on the outside of these trade negotiations and punish Donald Trump than they would be with the Asian powers and make a deal and profit, mutually with the United States. And partly that’s because they’re akin to the American Left. And, as we saw with Jamie Raskin, a representative in the Congress, he said to each country, “If you cut a deal with this administration [the Trump administration] we’re going to remember that.” So, the EU people want to help the American Left, and one of the ways they think they can is to stonewall and watch the bond and stock market go down. And then they could come in later with more favorable concessions from the United States.

The problem with that thinking is that if India cuts a deal and South Korea cuts a deal—and now they’re talking about Japan, Taiwan, Australia—the Trump administration has already established, openly, transparently, that those countries that are first to cut a deal will get the most favorable terms. And so, the more people that come in and have a reciprocal agreement with the United States—I’m not saying it’s going to be parity. I’m not saying we’re going to get down to zero deficits—but if we cut this trillion-dollar deficit by half, that will be a considerable achievement. The Europeans, then, will see that they’re left out. And especially if we come to an accord in the next month or so with China—not that we’re going to be able to force China to have no tariffs on their part. But we might be able to lower them and then make them buy American products to reduce that $300 billion—If that were to be true, then Europe has missed the boat.

Read more …

Lawfare doesn’t rhyme with election integrity. The President can’t order fair elections, only Congress can.

“The Democratic National Committee and left-leaning nonprofit groups sued to block the order from being implemented, claiming it would cause voter suppression..”

• About the Judge Blocking Trump’s Election Integrity Order (Fred Lucas)

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly blocked part of President Donald Trump’s executive order on election integrity. Kollar-Kotelly, who was appointed to the District Court for the District of Columbia by President Bill Clinton in 1997, has a history of left-leaning decisions on free speech, transgender policy, terrorist detention, and more recently, the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. The Democratic National Committee and left-leaning nonprofit groups sued to block the implementation of the order. Kollar-Kotelly granted the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary injunction and noted they are likely to prevail. “Our Constitution entrusts Congress and the states —not the president–with the authority to regulate federal elections,” Kollar-Kotelly wrote in the opinion.

“Consistent with that allocation of power, Congress is currently debating legislation that would effect many of the changes the president purports to order. And no statutory delegation of authority to the executive ranch permits the president to short-circuit Congress’s deliberative process by executive order.” The judge blocked provisions in the executive order to add documentary proof of citizenship to the standardized national voter registration form. She also blocked the portion of the order that requires federal agencies to assess citizenship before providing a federal voter registration form to people receiving public assistance. Trump’s order adds citizenship scrutiny to the national mail voter registration form, withholds federal grants from states that count mail ballots arriving after Election Day, gives states more access to a federal database to better verify voter registration lists, and directs the Justice Department to prioritize enforcing voting laws.

Trump’s order addressing voter registration lists is significant. As noted in my book, “The Myth of Voter Suppression,” states and localities across the United States have failed to update their voter registration lists to eliminate dead people, people who have moved, or people who are not citizens. Failing to update the voter rolls is a violation of the 1993 National Voter Registration Act. The Democratic National Committee and left-leaning nonprofit groups sued to block the order from being implemented, claiming it would cause voter suppression. Here are six things to know about Kollar-Kotelly.

Read more …

Mass hysteria manifested in the flesh.

• UK To Greenlight Experiments To “Dim The Sun” In Bid To Stop Global Warming (ZH)

It’s a project reminiscent of the movie Snowpiercer, in which governments institute a global experiment to spray chemicals into the atmosphere to stop global warming and end up creating a new ice age instead. Once again reality is downstream from fiction as the UK is set to bankroll an experiment to “dim the sun”. This goal will be pursued in field trials which could include injecting aerosols into the atmosphere, or brightening clouds to reflect sunshine. The project is being considered by scientists as a way to prevent “runaway climate change”, despite the fact that there is zero evidence to support the claim of runaway climate change. Aria, the Government’s advanced research and invention funding agency, has set aside £50 million for projects, which will be announced in the coming weeks.

Prof Mark Symes, the program director for Aria (Advanced Research and Invention Agency), said there would be “small controlled outdoor experiments on particular approaches”. “We will be announcing who we have given funding to in a few weeks and when we do so we will be making clear when any outdoor experiments might be taking place,” he said. “One of the missing pieces in this debate was physical data from the real world. Models can only tell us so much. Everything we do is going to be safe by design. We’re absolutely committed to responsible research, including responsible outdoor research. We have strong requirements around the length of time experiments can run for and their reversibility and we won’t be funding the release of any toxic substances to the environment.” One major area of research is Sunlight Reflection Methods (SRM), which includes Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) whereby tiny particles are released into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight.

Another potential project is Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB) in which ships would spray sea-salt particles into the sky to enhance the reflectivity of low-lying clouds. Climate scientists say efforts to reduce carbon emissions are not working fast enough and that levels are “too high”, leading to irregular weather patterns and eventually the temperature “tipping point” in which an exponential crisis is created by heat creating carbon and then carbon creating more heat. The problem is that nothing in this theory is backed by causational evidence or the climate history of the Earth. In other words, climate scientists are siphoning up government grant money to create solutions to a problem that doesn’t exist. The vast majority of climate change theories are based on data collected since the 1880s – 140 years of data is a insignificant window of time in the long lifespan of the Earth’s climate.

When we look at the temperature data over millions of years, we find that today’s temps are near the lowest in our planet’s history (we just exited an Ice Age not long ago and climate scientists want us to believe it’s too hot).

When comparing millions of years of carbon data to parallel temperature data, it becomes clear that there is no correlation between carbon levels and global warming. This graph also proves that carbon and temperature levels can rise and fall independently of human industry and human industry’s effects on these patterns is negligible or non-existent.

There is also no data to prove correlation or causation between carbon emissions and extreme weather patterns. The entirety of the climate change theory is based on lab models with no corresponding examples in nature. It is pure hysteria. This makes the use of atmospheric manipulation by governments all the more disturbing. If they truly are trying to “dim the sun” for the sake of preventing global warming, then they are doing so based on a delusion. There is also the possibility that they know man-made climate change is nonsense and these experiments serve another purpose. In either case, they should be stopped. No one voted for politicians to blot out the sun (or to find a way to blot out the sun). No one gave them permission to pump particulates or chemicals into the sky. Their actions constitute a radical violation of the public trust.

Read more …

50 years ago, sulfur dioxide meant acid rain. Today it must save the world. This is far worse than mass hysteria. Stop these fools. Lock them up with Al Gore.

• EPA Head Demands Answers From Company Putting Sulfur Dioxide Into The Air (JTN)

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin is demanding a company that deliberately sends sulfur dioxide into the air to combat global warming provide detailed information on its practices. Critics of the practice, which is called geoengineering, say it puts potentially harmful pollutants into the air and needs more oversight. The company Zeldin is scrutinizing, Make Sunsets, sells “cooling credits.” The credits pay to launch weather balloons made of biodegradable latex containing hydrogen and sulfur dioxide. According to the company, each $5 credit it sells offsets the warming impact of one ton of carbon dioxide for one year. Last year, the company posted on its X account videos of balloon launches. According to the Make Sunsets website, the company has sold 125,717 “cooling credits” since February 2023, delivered by 147 balloons.

As the balloon rises, the decreasing air pressure causes it to burst. They try to make the balloon burst above 66,000 feet, upon which they issue the “cooling credits.” Make Sunsets was founded by entrepreneur Luke Iseman and former account executive Andrew Song. The company is backed by venture capitalists Boost VC, Draper Associates, Pioneer Fund and unnamed “angel investors.” The company isn’t the only company looking at various approaches to geoengineering, nor is it a new concept. More than a decade ago, billionaire Microsoft founder Bill Gates was lobbying governments and international organizations to back research into how sulfur dioxide could be used to counteract global warming.

Last year, The New York Times reported on an experiment by University of Washington researchers on the deck of a decommissioned aircraft carrier in Alameda, California. The researchers sprayed an aerosol of sea salt to brighten clouds and make them reflect more sunlight. This May, experts and advocates of geoengineering – also called solar radiation modification (SRM) – are gathering for a conference on the topic. The “Degrees 2025 Global Forum” features an agenda full of speakers from around the world. The interest in geoengineering is driven by claims that climate change is producing dangerous outcomes, which many experts dispute. With global emissions continuing to rise despite trillions spent pursuing “net zero” – which is balancing the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere with the amount removed – geoengineering proponents say it’s a “Plan B” to stop global warming.

Critics of geoengineering say it’s potentially dangerous and possibly unnecessary. Steve Milloy, senior legal fellow with the Energy and Environmental Legal Institute and publisher of “JunkScience.com,” told Just the News that the balloons Make Sunsets is sending up are likely harmless because the scale of the operation is so small. To have any significant impact on global temperatures, Milloy said, the operation would have to put tons of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, which would cause harm. “All this stuff is just kind of crazy because – well, it’s not kind of crazy, it’s just crazy. In the first place, it’s really not going to work. For it to work, you’d have to do it on such a scale that we would have acid rain again,” Milloy said.

During the 1970s and 1980s, acid rain became a widespread environmental concern, explored in situation comedies and news reports. Acid rain falls when sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are emitted into the atmosphere and transported by wind and air currents. The two gases react with water, oxygen and other chemicals to form sulfuric and nitric acids. They mix with water condensing in the atmosphere and fall to the ground. Dr. Matthew Wielicki, a geologist and author of the “Irrational Fear” Substack, explains in an article on geoengineering that beginning in the 1990s, the U.S. began implementing regulations aimed at sulfur emissions from diesel engines. Ultra-low-sulfur diesel was expensive and drove up the cost of shipping, which drove up the cost of everything, Wielicki explains.

Unlike carbon dioxide, which stimulates plant growth, sulfur dioxide, Wielicki wrote, causes genuine environmental harm, including soil acidification, forest degradation, infrastructure corrosion and severe aquatic ecosystem damage. “This tangible harm justified sulfur regulations,” Wielicki warns. “Yet now, geoengineering advocates want to intentionally pump sulfur into our atmosphere, ignoring decades of clear scientific evidence regarding sulfur’s proven environmental and health damage.” Just the News reached out to Make Sunsets to ask about the safety of their operation and Zeldin’s request for details about its operation, but didn’t receive a response. Make Sunsets co-founder Iseman told the MIT Technology Review the company is part entrepreneurial and partly an act of geoengineering activism meant to get attention. “We joke slash not joke that this is partly a company and partly a cult,” he told the Review. With the threat of climate change, he said, “It’s morally wrong, in my opinion, for us not to be doing this.”

In a press release, Zeldin said Make Sunsets is banned in Mexico, and it’s not clear the company has been in contact with state, local or federal agencies. Noting the potential environmental and respiratory health impacts of sulfur dioxide, the EPA states that the gas has been regulated since 1971. The EPA told Just the News that Make Sunsets is the only entity in the U.S. currently launching sulfur dioxide balloons with the intention of geoengineering. The agency gave the company a deadline of May 14 to answer its questions. In a letter to the company, the EPA warns that a failure to comply in a timely manner could result in monetary penalties. The EPA is asking Make Sunsets to provide information on the physical location of the company, the number of employees, its annual revenues and its expenditures for carbon credits. It’s also asking for detailed information on its balloon launches and their contents, including what gases they contain and how they’re sourced.

The agency is also asking about any communications the company has had with federal, state and local authorities, and any enforcement actions, such as consent decrees, related to air emissions that apply to Make Sunset’s operations. Milloy said that the science behind the cooling effect of sulfur dioxide is solid. Research has shown, for example, the 2001 Mount Pinatubo eruption lowered global temperatures for about 15 months after the eruption due to the cooling effect of the particles it put into the atmosphere. The problem with geoengineering, he said, is that lowering temperatures by increasing sunlight reflection will impact agriculture, in addition to acid rain. On a global scale, it could create all kinds of problems. “Do we really want the Chinese getting involved in this and trying to control our weather?” Milloy asked.

Read more …

“The future looks bright! Rewrite the rules with the Trump 2028 high crown hat..”

• ‘Rewrite The Rules’ – Trump Store Teases Potential 2028 Reelection Bid (JTN)

First son Eric Trump on Thursday shared a link to the Trump store that appeared to tease a third term for President Donald Trump, with hats and shirts that read “Trump 2028 (rewrite the rules).” The president has floated that there are ways for him to run for a nearly unprecedented third term, which has only been achieved by the late President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and which is now prohibited under the 22nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. President Trump has not specified how he would be able to skirt the 22nd Amendment, except to acknowledge that Vice President JD Vance running, winning and then allowing Trump to be president is a possibility.

The Trump store website charges $50 for the Trump 2028 hat, and $36 for the shirts. “The future looks bright! Rewrite the rules with the Trump 2028 high crown hat,” a description of the item reads. “Fully embroidered with a snap closure in the back, this will become your new go-to hat.” One lawmaker, Tennessee GOP Rep. Andy Ogles, has suggested making it possible for presidents to serve three terms if they do not serve more than two terms back to back. This would allow Trump to seek a third term, because of the gap in his presidencies.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Autism https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1915205991664099623

 

 

 

 

Growth

 

 

Lions

 

 

Eco

 

 

Dressed https://twitter.com/Suzierizzo1/status/1914901582140809390

 

 

Today I swung my front door wide open and placed my Remington 30.06 on the deck rail. I left six cartridges beside it, then left it alone and went about my business. While I was gone, the mailman delivered my mail, my neighbor across the street mowed his lawn, a girl walked her dog down the street, and quite a few cars stopped at the stop sign near the front of my house. After about an hour, I checked on the gun. It was still sitting there, right where I had left it. It hadn’t moved itself off the deck rail. It hadn’t killed anyone, even with the numerous opportunities it had presented to do so.

In fact, it hadn’t even loaded itself. You can imagine my surprise, with all the hype by the Left and the Media about how dangerous guns are and how they kill people. Either the media is wrong or I’m in possession of the laziest gun in the world. The United States is third in murders throughout the World. But if you take out just four cities: Chicago , Detroit , Washington DC and New Orleans , the United States is fourth from the bottom, in the entire world, for murders.

These four Cities also have the toughest Gun Control Laws in the U.S. All four of these cities are CONTROLLED BY DEMOCRATS. It would be absurd to draw any conclusions from this data – correct? Well, I’m off to check on my spoons. I hear they’re making people fat .

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle April 23 2025

Apr 232025
 
 April 23, 2025  Posted by at 9:50 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , ,  47 Responses »


Edward Hopper Sailing 1911

 

• Trump Makes ‘Final Offer’ To End Ukraine Conflict – Axios (RT)
• Trump Signals Step Back On China Tariffs (DC)
• ‘Only Trust Primary Sources’ On US-Russia Talks – Kremlin (RT)
• Ukraine Not Ready to Discuss US Peace Plan Proposal – Reports (RT)
• Ukraine Will Not Recognize Russia’s Crimea – Zelensky (RT)
• Rubio and Witkoff To Skip London Ukraine Talks (RT)
• EU and UK Preparing Naval Blockade of Russia – Patrushev (RT)
• Zelensky Could Easily Rig Wartime Election – Ex-Campaign Chief (RT)
• US To Propose Crimea Recognition As Part of Ukraine Peace Deal – WaPo (RT)
• Putin Offers To Halt Fighting Along Current Front Lines In Ukraine: FT (ZH)
• Tesla Shares Pop 5% After Musk Says He’ll Limit Time With DOGE In May (ZH)
• Rubio Announces MAJOR State Department Overhaul (PJM)
• Trump’s Courage to Fight the Good Fight (DS)
• How Trump ‘Restored Law and Order’ to US Borders (Allen)
• Woke Blackout in Tinseltown (Ryumshin)
• The Big Short and The Bigger Long (Egon von Greyerz)

 

 


Nikas Safronov (gifted to Trump by Putin)

 

 

https://twitter.com/iam_smx/status/1914636471778111601

JFK

Nap/Sachs

Rice

Zeldin

BlackRock https://twitter.com/JimFergusonUK/status/1914581682675449912

 

 

 

 

“..the US is said to be prepared to grant “de jure” recognition of Crimea as part of Russia, and unofficially acknowledge Moscow’s “de facto” control over the[four regions]..”

Zelensky simply says no, not acceptable. For Kiev, It’s just a game.

• Trump Makes ‘Final Offer’ To End Ukraine Conflict – Axios (RT)

Washington has presented Kiev with what US President Donald Trump is calling a “final offer” to end the conflict in Ukraine, according to a report by Axios. The Kremlin, however, has urged the public to rely on official sources for developments in US–Russian talks. The one-page document was reportedly drafted following Trump envoy Steve Witkoff’s four-hour meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier this month, and was presented to Ukrainian officials in Paris last week, Axios reported on Tuesday, citing unnamed sources with direct knowledge of the discussions. Under the proposed deal, the US is said to be prepared to grant “de jure” recognition of Crimea as part of Russia, and unofficially acknowledge Moscow’s “de facto” control over the Lugansk and Donetsk People’s Republics, as well as the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions.

The plan also includes provisions for lifting post-2014 sanctions on Moscow and enhancing bilateral economic cooperation. In addition, Washington would formally oppose Ukraine’s bid to join NATO. In return, Ukraine would reportedly receive a “robust security guarantee” from a coalition of EU and other like-minded countries, though the proposal lacks details on how this “peacekeeping” operation would function. Russia has consistently rejected the deployment of NATO forces to Ukraine under any pretext. The framework also promises Kiev unimpeded access to the Dnepr River and potential compensation for reconstruction efforts, although it does not specify where the funding would originate. The plan references a minerals deal between the US and Ukraine, which Trump expects to be signed on Thursday.

Another component of the proposal, according to Axios, involves designating the area around the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant (NPP) as neutral territory under US administration. Washington reportedly expects Kiev to respond to the proposal during a multinational meeting in London on Wednesday. Both Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio will skip the event, with General Keith Kellogg, another Trump envoy focused on Ukraine, leading the US delegation instead. Witkoff is expected to travel to Moscow for a follow-up meeting with Putin. Rubio warned last week that the US could abandon the peace initiative and “move on” to other issues if negotiations fail. Trump said on Monday there is “a good chance of solving the problem” this week.

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has repeatedly ruled out ceding any territory to Russia and continues to urge the US and other allies to provide sustained military support. Moscow has consistently stated that the status of Crimea – which joined Russia in 2014 following a referendum held after a Western-backed coup in Kiev – and the four other former Ukrainian regions that voted to join Russia in 2022 is not open to negotiation. Russian officials insist that any peace agreement must address the “root causes” of the conflict. Putin has added that a viable ceasefire would require Western nations to halt arms deliveries to Ukraine.

Read more …

“..I think they’re going to be happy, and I think we’re going to live together very happily and ideally work together.”

• Trump Signals Step Back On China Tariffs (DC)

President Donald Trump signaled Tuesday evening from the Oval Office that the U.S. will ease tariffs on China, saying they’ll “come down substantially” but won’t be eliminated entirely. On April 2, Trump announced reciprocal tariffs on several countries, with higher rates for nations like China due to their own trade barriers against the U.S. When asked Tuesday about the tariffs against the foreign country, Trump said that the 145% hit would not last forever. “I’m sure 145% is very high, and it won’t be that high, not going to be that high,” Trump said. “It got up to there. We were talking about fentanyl where, you know, various elements built it up to 145. No, it won’t be anywhere near that high.” Following Trump’s initial tariff announcement, the U.S. and China entered a tariff war, with China responding by imposing steep tariffs of its own.

By April 9, Trump said the U.S. would raise tariffs on China from 104% to 125% — after the country refused to lift its retaliatory measures — while implementing a 90-day pause on tariffs for other countries. “It’ll come down substantially, but it won’t be zero. It used to be zero,” Trump said. “We were just destroyed. China was taking us for a ride and just not going to — it’s not going to happen. We’re going to be very good to China. I have a great relationship with President Xi, but they would make billions and billions and billions of dollars a year, and they were building a military out of the United States on what they made.” By April 10, the White House said that Trump’s announced 125% tariff would actually total 145% on all Chinese imports, according to The New York Times.

The administration said the 125% would be added on top of a previously announced 20% tariff already in place on goods from China, the outlet reported. “So that won’t happen. But they’re going to do very well, and I think they’re going to be happy, and I think we’re going to live together very happily and ideally work together. So I think it’s going to work out very well, but, no, it’s at 145%. It will not be anywhere near that number,” Trump said. During a speech Tuesday, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said he expects a “de-escalation” in the tariff war between the U.S. and China, adding that the ongoing conflict would be unsustainable in the long run, according to the Associated Press.

Read more …

Maybe the no.1 item for the day. If the Kremlin feels they must warn about what everybody already knows, it’s serious. The other day I mentioned NPR, NYT, Politico as suspicious sources on the topic. Today the FT very much joins those ranks.

“A lot of fakes are being published now, including by respected publications..”

• ‘Only Trust Primary Sources’ On US-Russia Talks – Kremlin (RT)

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has urged people to go to the primary sources regarding developments in talks with the US on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, warning of fake news. In an interview with RIA Novosti on Tuesday, Peskov was asked to comment on a recent report from the Financial Times claiming that Moscow is ready to freeze the conflict along the current front lines. “A lot of fakes are being published now, including by respected publications, so you should only listen to the primary sources,” he said. According to the FT article from Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin offered to freeze the conflict during his meeting with US special envoy Steve Witkoff earlier this month in St. Petersburg.

Russian presidential foreign policy aide Yury Ushakov confirmed on Tuesday that Moscow is expecting another visit from Witkoff later this week. This will be the diplomat’s fourth visit to Russia since the start of the US diplomatic push regarding the Ukraine conflict. US President Donald Trump has touted a big reveal of his plan to wrap up the hostilities in Ukraine. “I will be giving you a full detail over the next three days,” he told journalists on Monday, adding that the US has “had very good meetings on Ukraine, Russia.” The Kremlin stated that while work is underway, the peace process is unlikely to conclude soon.

“This topic is so complex that it probably shouldn’t be constrained by strict timeframes,” Peskov told the press on Tuesday. Trump and his administration have signaled growing dissatisfaction with the pace of the peace talks. “If it is not possible to end the war in Ukraine, we need to move on,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters last Friday. Throughout the conflict, Moscow has said it is open to talks with Kiev. Negotiations must be based on the realities on the ground and address the root causes, such as Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO. The Kremlin previously stated that it would not accept a temporary halt in the hostilities, saying this would simply allow Ukraine’s Western backers to rearm its military.

Read more …

“Not ready yet.” Trump is being played.

• Ukraine Not Ready to Discuss US Peace Plan Proposal – Reports (RT)

Ukraine appears to be reluctant to discuss the peace plan framework, prepared by the United States, during the upcoming talks in London, Axios reports, citing a US official. In the past 24 hours, there had been “indications from the Ukrainians” that they only planned to discuss a 30-day ceasefire on Wednesday, instead of US President Donald Trump’s complex peace plan proposal, Axios said on Tuesday night. The Washington Post reported earlier on Tuesday, citing people familiar with the matter, that the Trump administration was going to propose during the upcoming talks with Ukrainian and European representatives in London that Crimea gets recognized as part of Russia and that the front lines get freezed as part of a peace agreement.

The Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday, citing a person with knowledge of the negotiations, that British and French officials were “open to a scenario” where Ukraine would “accept the loss of control of some of the territories taken by Russia,” in exchange for economic support and security guarantees. The newspaper specified that France and the United Kingdom would prefer a Ukraine peace deal that acknowledged control of territories “only in a de facto way.” The New York Post reported, citing a senior US administration official, that Kiev was seemingly “willing to give up 20% of its land,” but only if it was considered a “de facto” recognition of the territory and not “de jure.”

Last week, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Steve Witkoff, the US special presidential envoy for the Middle East, held talks on the conflict resolution with representatives from Germany, the United Kingdom and Ukraine, as well as with French President Emmanuel Macron, in Paris. On April 18, Rubio said he hoped the next meeting between Ukrainian and European representatives would lead to progress in the Ukrainian settlement. On Tuesday, US State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said that Rubio was not going to attend the upcoming talks in London. The US will be represented by special envoy Keith Kellogg. Axios suggested on Tuesday that the decision to send Kellogg was made because of Kiev’s reluctance to discuss Trump’s peace plan framework.

Read more …

Zelensky claims Russia wants to prolong the war…

• Ukraine Will Not Recognize Russia’s Crimea – Zelensky (RT)

Kiev refuses to discuss recognizing Crimea as a Russian territory, Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky told journalists on Tuesday, according to Ukrainian outlet Suspilne. “[Crimea] is our territory, the territory of the people of Ukraine. We have nothing to talk about on this topic – it is outside our Constitution,” Zelensky said. The Ukrainian leader claimed that discussing the issue of Crimean ownership will only lead to prolonging the war. “As soon as we start talking about Crimea, about our sovereign territories, we enter the format of prolonging the war,” he said, adding that this is “what Russia wants.”

Read more …

The US will now send Kellogg, who was recently demoted to make place for Witkoff.

“Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov reportedly told the US envoys that Kiev is “90%” aligned with Washington’s proposed peace framework..”

• Rubio and Witkoff To Skip London Ukraine Talks (RT)

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio will not attend the upcoming Ukraine talks in London, despite earlier plans to take part, the State Department has confirmed. President Donald Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, has also withdrawn from the meeting, according to the Financial Times, and is expected to visit Moscow instead. State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce cited scheduling conflicts as the reason for Rubio’s withdrawal from Wednesday’s talks, insisting this does not signal a change in the US commitment to the peace process. “Secretary Rubio is a busy man… And so when there’s certain plans, they’re conditional. And in this particular instance, while the meetings in London are still occurring, he will not be attending. But that is not a statement regarding the meetings; it’s a statement about logistical issues in his schedule,” Bruce told journalists on Tuesday.

General Keith Kellogg, another Trump envoy tasked with negotiating with Kiev directly, will represent Washington at the London discussions. The talks will include officials from the UK, France, and Germany – countries that advocate continued military support for Ukraine – as well as representatives from Kiev. The London talks follow a series of high-level meetings in Paris last week, where Rubio and Witkoff held discussions with European and Ukrainian officials. According to the New York Post, Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov reportedly told the US envoys that Kiev is “90%” aligned with Washington’s proposed peace framework, which has not yet been made public. Sources cited by the Washington Post on Tuesday claimed that the US proposals include formally recognizing Crimea as Russian territory and potentially lifting sanctions on Moscow as part of a future agreement.

Meanwhile, the Financial Times claimed that Russia is prepared to halt the hostilities along the current front line. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov urged the media and public to rely on official sources regarding developments in US–Russian talks on the Ukraine conflict, warning that “a lot of fakes are being published now, including by respected publications.” Both Washington and Moscow have officially confirmed that Witkoff will travel to Russia for talks “later this week.” Moscow has stated that the status of Crimea – which joined Russia in 2014 following a referendum held after a Western-backed coup in Kiev – and the four other former Ukrainian regions that voted to join Russia in 2022, is not subject to negotiation. Russian officials maintain that recognizing the “reality on the ground” is essential to achieving a lasting peace.

Read more …

Russia would have to react. EU and UK hope that starts a war with NATO.

• EU and UK Preparing Naval Blockade of Russia – Patrushev (RT)

The EU and the UK are gearing up to impose a naval blockade on Russia, Nikolay Patrushev, a senior aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin, has said. He warned that Moscow has a fleet powerful enough to respond to any such move. In an interview published on Monday by Kommersant, Patrushev, who chairs Russia’s Maritime Board, a body which oversees national policy in this domain, stated that Moscow is facing escalating threats and challenges at sea amid growing geopolitical tensions. “The collective West no longer hides its intentions to expel our shipping from the seas, while sanctions plans mulled, for example, by the British and some EU members increasingly resemble a maritime blockade,” he said. Patrushev warned that these steps would “meet an adequate and proportionate response” from Moscow.

“If diplomatic or legal instruments do not take effect, the security of Russian shipping will be ensured by our navy. The hotheads in London or Brussels need to clearly understand this,” he said. Patrushev emphasized that Russia is pursuing a large-scale naval modernization program, including the development and deployment of unmanned systems while refining navy tactics. However, Moscow does not intend to get involved in a “naval arms race,” he added. Western countries introduced maritime restrictions on Russia in 2022 over the Ukraine conflict, and have sanctioned dozens of Russian ships for allegedly circumventing an oil price cap. Russian ships have also faced major obstacles in accessing EU ports, insurers, and financial institutions.

The British Navy has been shadowing Russian ships passing near its waters for months, citing concerns about a perceived threat to national security and maritime infrastructure. Maritime tensions have also been heightened in recent months following several ruptures in underwater infrastructure in the Baltic Sea. While there has been speculation about alleged Russian involvement, Western officials have offered no evidence. The Kremlin has dismissed the speculation as “absurd.” NATO has increased its military presence in the Baltic Sea following the sabotage allegations, prompting Russia to warn that it would respond appropriately to any “violations” by the bloc’s vessels.

Read more …

You can’t have a fair election with him as a candidate, or an organizer.

• Zelensky Could Easily Rig Wartime Election – Ex-Campaign Chief (RT)

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has the ability to manipulate the outcome of a presidential election under the current martial law, according to his former campaign chief, Dmitry Razumkov. Zelensky’s presidential term expired last year, but he asserts that no leadership change can occur while the conflict with Russia persists. In an interview with journalist Anna Maksimchuk on Monday, Razumkov, a seasoned political strategist who propelled Zelensky to power, expressed concern over his former client’s ability to maintain control. ”If someone devises a system for elections under martial law, Zelensky will end up with 102% of the vote,” he quipped. “They’ll station conscription officers at every polling station and draft on the spot anyone who dares not support the current government.”

Razumkov further criticized the notion of conducting a remote election via Ukraine’s e-government service, asserting that “whoever controls Dia will then secure that same 102%.” He quipped that Russia could engineer Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko’s election in Ukraine through such a faulty system. “Dia,” which translates to “the state and I,” is an app closely associated with Digitalization Minister Mikhail Fedorov. Razumkov managed the successful 2019 campaign that turned Zelensky from a comedian into a head of state. Subsequently, he served as the speaker of parliament until 2021, when he was ousted by fellow lawmakers from the president’s party in what many observers said was a consolidation of power.

Zelensky has continuously extended martial law in Ukraine roughly every three months, with the latest prolongation last week pushing the expiration date to early August. His emergency rule has even been condemned by US President Donald Trump, who called Zelensky a “dictator without elections” in February. Moscow contends that, according to the Ukrainian constitution, Zelensky should transfer presidential authority to the current parliamentary speaker, Ruslan Stefanchuk. Zelensky’s refusal to do so casts doubt on the legal validity of any documents he signs, including potentially a peace treaty with Russia, President Vladimir Putin has observed.

Read more …

“.. it was “Witkoff’s idea” for the US to designate Crimea as Russian “without forcing Ukraine to recognize it.”

• US To Propose Crimea Recognition As Part of Ukraine Peace Deal – WaPo (RT)

Washington will propose a peace deal recognizing Russian sovereignty over Crimea and freezing the front lines in the Ukraine conflict at a meeting with Ukrainian and European officials this week, the Washington Post has reported, citing sources. The US is expected to hold talks in London on Wednesday with Ukrainian and European officials as US President Donald Trump continues his push for a deal. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Trump’s envoys Steve Witkoff and Keith Kellogg are reportedly set to meet foreign ministers and security advisers from France, Germany, the UK, and Ukraine. People familiar with the matter told the outlet on Tuesday that US proposals, presented to Ukraine in Paris last week, include Washington formally recognizing Crimea as Russian territory and eventually lifting sanctions against Moscow under a future accord.

One Western official described the pressure on Ukraine as “astounding.” European officials are expected to push for security guarantees for Ukraine and postwar reconstruction efforts, possibly funded in part by frozen Russian assets, the report said.Trump has threatened to walk away if progress is not made soon, and told reporters on Monday that he would be releasing details of the US proposals “over the next three days.” US special envoy Steve Witkoff, who has had multiple rounds of talks with senior Russian officials, including President Vladimir Putin, will visit Russia later this week, Moscow has confirmed. According to one of the Post’s sources, it was “Witkoff’s idea” for the US to designate Crimea as Russian “without forcing Ukraine to recognize it.”

Crimea held a referendum to join Russia in 2014 following a Western-backed armed coup in Kiev. The new Ukrainian government, along with its Western supporters, has refused to recognize the vote’s legitimacy.Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has ruled out relinquishing any territorial claims against Russia and has urged the US and other nations to continue providing military aid – a policy the Trump administration has said it will end. Moscow insists that the status of Crimea, the city of Sevastopol, and the four former Ukrainian regions which voted to join Russia in 2022, is not up for negotiation. Russian officials have emphasized that recognizing the “reality on the ground” is key to achieving lasting peace.

Read more …

This is the report the Kremlin warns about.

• Putin Offers To Halt Fighting Along Current Front Lines In Ukraine: FT (ZH)

In a huge development, President Vladimir Putin has offered to halt his invasion of Ukraine across the current front line as part of ongoing efforts to work with US President Donald Trump toward reaching a permanent peace deal. This reportedly happened during ongoing dialogue with Trump’s top envoys. This is according to several sources which spoke to Financial Times, which wrote further in a Tuesday report, “The proposal is the first formal indication Putin has given since the war’s early months three years ago that Russia could step back from its maximalist demands to end the invasion.” “The Russian president told Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy, during a meeting in St Petersburg earlier this month that Moscow could relinquish its claims to areas of four partly occupied Ukrainian regions that remain under Kyiv’s control, three of the people said,” FT continues.

The Kremlin side has not publicly acknowledged this, and so the breaking report should be taken with a grain of salt, given this contradicts Putin’s public stance that Russia will never relinquish the four territories which were declared part of the Russian Federation after the Moscow-backed referendums of Sept. 2022. However, if Russian forces did simply halt their advance based on an agreed-upon freeze in fighting, there would be portions of these territories still not under Russian military control. The FT report goes on, “The US has since floated ideas for a possible settlement that includes Washington recognizing Russian ownership of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula, the people added, as well as at least acknowledging the Kremlin’s de facto control over the parts of the four regions it currently holds.”

All of this is being reported hours after Ukraine’s President Zelensky said he has rejected the possibility of ceding over Crimea, after the Trump administration reportedly offered the ‘gift’ to Putin of US recognition of Russian sovereignty over the strategic peninsula and home to the Russian navy’s Black Sea fleet. According to Ukrainian media: “Ukraine will not legally recognize Russia’s occupation of Crimea under any circumstances, President Volodymyr Zelensky said during a briefing in Kyiv on April 22. “There is nothing to talk about. This violates our Constitution. This is our territory, the territory of the people of Ukraine,” Zelensky told reporters. Zelensky added, “As soon as talks about Crimea and our sovereign territories begin, the talks enter the format that Russia wants — prolonging the war – because it will not be possible to agree on everything quickly.”

Kiev has also recently accused Moscow of using negotiations as a smokescreen while in actuality prolonging the war, also coming off the 30-hour Eastern truce, which saw both sides accuse the other of many violations. The Financial Times acknowledged this possibility, and the fact that Moscow is in the driver’s seat related to any potential settlement that would end the conflict, in the following: But European officials briefed on US efforts to end the war cautioned that Putin would probably use the apparent concession as bait to lure Trump into accepting Russia’s other demands and forcing them on Ukraine as a fait accompli. “There is a lot of pressure on Kyiv right now to give up on things so Trump can claim victory,” one of them said.

The reality remains that if Zelensky can’t so much as admit that Crimea will be permanently in Russia’s hands, with no hope of Kiev ever getting it back, the prospect of a peace settlement happening anytime soon seems very remote. But clearly Moscow is seeking to show itself willing to compromise by these overtures, but whether there’s much substance or genuineness behind the offer to halt all frontline fighting is another question. At the moment, at least 99.5% of Kursk territory is back in Russia’s control. Russia’s military also still continues to advance in remaining parts of Donetsk still held by Ukraine, but slowly and village by village.

Read more …

Tesla will be alright. So will Musk.

• Tesla Shares Pop 5% After Musk Says He’ll Limit Time With DOGE In May (ZH)

In a candid call with analysts on Tuesday, Elon Musk announced that he will begin scaling back his involvement with the federal government starting in May, signaling a shift in priorities back toward Tesla. As a result, Tesla shares were up 5% late in the after hours session.“I think starting probably next month, May, my time allocation to DOGE will drop significantly,” Musk said. Musk has been a central figure in the effort to streamline the federal government under the Trump administration through an initiative he dubbed the “Department of Government Efficiency,” or DOGE. That effort has involved an aggressive reduction of federal workforce levels, targeting DEI programs, and a broad reorganization of agency resources. Despite growing protests against Tesla and Musk’s role in Washington, he remains unapologetic. “The work with DOGE is critical,” he stated, while dismissing the backlash as “organized and paid for.”

Although the billionaire entrepreneur holds the title of “special government employee”—a designation that legally limits him to 130 days of federal work per year—his presence in the capital has been nothing short of influential. Musk indicated that the heavy lifting to establish DOGE is “mostly done,” allowing him to reallocate his schedule. “I will spend ‘a day or two’ per week on government matters if President Trump wants me to,” he said, but emphasized that more of his attention will now return to Tesla. Despite his pullback from the capital, Musk said he will “continue to advocate for lower tariffs, rather than higher tariffs,” noting that this is the extent of his ongoing engagement on trade policy. Tesla remains the only publicly traded firm among Musk’s sprawling portfolio, which includes SpaceX, Neuralink, XAI, and The Boring Company. As such, it has absorbed much of the public response—both praise and criticism—related to Musk’s deepening political ties.

Yet, the CEO expressed confidence in Tesla’s direction. “I remain extremely optimistic about Tesla’s future,” he said, pointing to the company’s ambitions in autonomous vehicles and humanoid robots. He reiterated his forecast that Tesla will become the most valuable company in the world, noting that robotaxis are expected to deliver a meaningful financial impact by mid-2026. He also revealed that Tesla aims to have thousands of its Optimus humanoid robots operational in factories by the end of the year, with plans to scale to one million units annually within five years—a pace he described as faster than any product in the company’s history. Closing the call with idealism, Musk said, “I like this phrase sustainable abundance for all,” and affirmed his commitment to continue leading Tesla through its next phase of innovation and expansion. Tesla reported earnings after the market closed that were worse than analyst expectations. The stock, with most of the bad news seemingly already priced in, held its ground in after hours trading. The results were:

• Revenues $19.34BN, big miss to estimates of $21.37BN • EPS 27c, missing estimates of 43c • Gross margin 16.3% (down from 17.4% y/y), and beating estimates of 16.1% • Automotive gross margin ex reg credits 12.5%, beating estimates of 11.9% • Operating income $399 million, -66% y/y, missing estimates of $1.13 billion • Free cash flow $664 million (vs. negative $2.53 billion y/y) missing estimate $1.08 billion • Capital expenditure $1.49 billion (down -46% vs $2.77Bn y/y and down 47% vs $2.78BN Q/Q), missing estimates of $2.49 billion Of note, Tesla eked out positive free cash flow number by slashing capex almost in half compared with the prior quarter and a year ago. Absent that, it would have burned cash.

Tesla offered a measured outlook during its earnings report, signaling that it will revisit its 2025 guidance in the Q2 update, while notably omitting any concrete forecast for a return to growth. The company emphasized that its rate of growth will hinge on a range of variables, including global trade policy, which it admitted is difficult to quantify in terms of impact. Tariffs, in particular, are expected to weigh more heavily on the company’s energy unit than its automotive business, with Tesla cautioning that the broader tariff landscape could have a larger effect on demand and operational strategy. Nevertheless, the company maintained that actions are being taken to stabilize performance over the medium to long term, and it expressed confidence in having sufficient liquidity to fund its product roadmap. Tesla confirmed that plans for new, more affordable vehicle models remain on track for production in the first half of 2025, though it acknowledged that these models may lead to less dramatic cost reductions than previously expected. Even with trade headwinds, the company reiterated a growing need for energy storage solutions across markets.

Read more …

“In its current form, the Department is bloated, bureaucratic, and unable to perform its essential diplomatic mission..”

• Rubio Announces MAJOR State Department Overhaul (PJM)

Secretary of State Marco Rubio made a huge announcement on Tuesday regarding the State Department and the Donald Trump administration’s “America First” agenda. It’s being called the biggest shakeup at State in decades. “Today is the day,” Rubio began in a post on X, adding, “Under @POTUS’ leadership and at my direction, we are reversing decades of bloat and bureaucracy at the State Department. These sweeping changes will empower our talented diplomats to put America and Americans first.” The post included an official statement from the State Department, which reads (emphasis mine): We are facing tremendous challenges across the globe. To deliver on President Trump’s America First foreign policy, we must make the State Department Great Again. In its current form, the Department is bloated, bureaucratic, and unable to perform its essential diplomatic mission in this new era of great power competition.

Over the past 15 years, the Department’s footprint has had unprecedented growth and costs have soared. But far from seeing a return on investment, taxpayers have seen less effective and efficient diplomacy. The sprawling bureaucracy created a system more beholden to radical political ideology than advancing America’s core national interests. That is why today I am announcing a comprehensive reorganization plan that will bring the Department into the 21st Century. This approach will empower the Department from the ground up, from the bureaus to the embassies. Region-specific functions will be consolidated to increase functionality, redundant offices will be removed, and non-statutory programs that are misaligned with America’s core national interests will cease to exist. Under President Trump’s leadership, we have a commander in chief committed to putting America and Americans first. As his Secretary of State, I am confident a reformed State Department will meet the moment and help make our country great once again.

So what exactly does a “comprehensive reorganization” of the State Department look like? According to The Free Press, which Rubio says has the “real exclusive,” — by the way, how do we get one of those exclusives here at PJ Media? — internal documents show that the Department “will close 132 agency offices, including those launched to further human rights, advance democracy overseas, counter extremism, and prevent war crimes.” That’s a 17% reduction to start. Additionally, “under secretaries at the State Department are also being instructed within 30 days to present plans to reduce their U.S. personnel in individual departments by 15 percent,” including “six top offices employing thousands of people.”

Rubio also wrote about the shakeup in what appears to be a new Substack for the State Department, stating that “The Department has long struggled to perform basic diplomatic functions, even as both its size and cost to the American taxpayer has [sic] ballooned over the past fifteen years. The problem is not a lack of money, or even dedicated talent, but rather a system where everything takes too much time, costs too much money, involves too many individuals, and all too often ends up failing the American people.” He also expanded on a topic I covered last week, the shuttering of the Global Engagement Center — an office that censored U.S. citizens — citing it as just one of many reasons why this overhaul is necessary.

“An example of an out-of-control Department is the Global Engagement Center (GEC) that I shuttered last week. The office engaged with media outlets and platforms to censor speech it disagreed with, including that of the President o the United States, who its director in 2019 accused of employing ‘the same techniques of disinformation as the Russians.’ Despite Congress voting to shutter it, the GEC simply renamed itself and continued operating as if nothing had changed. Unless we confront the underlying bureaucratic culture that prevents the State Department from carrying out an effective foreign policy, while allowing offices like GEC to flourish in the shadows, nothing will change. That is why I am initiating a broad reorganization of the Department to address the steady growth of bureaucracy, duplication of functions, and capture by special interests that have crippled American Foreign Policy.

Read more …

“Courage means feeling fear but behaving in a way that is noble and good..”

• Trump’s Courage to Fight the Good Fight (DS)

When the White House invoked the “Immortal Chaplains” to illustrate the history between the United States and Greenland, it touched on a theme emerging in the second Trump administration: the importance of courage. On Feb. 3, 1943, the American steamship SS Dorchester embarked with 902 souls—soldiers, merchant seamen, and civilians—bound for a U.S. Army base in southern Greenland to support the buildup of military personnel during World War II. The ship’s captain ordered those on board to sleep in their uniforms and life jackets in case of an attack by German submarines, but many disregarded the order because of heat from the ship’s engine. Just after midnight, a U-boat’s torpedo slammed into the Dorchester’s starboard side below the water line. Four Navy chaplains—a rabbi, a Methodist minister, a Catholic priest, and a Protestant reverend—gave up their own life vests and guided panicked crew members to the lifeboats.

The Dorchester sank in 20 minutes. One of the 230 survivors later recalled what he saw as he swam away from the ship: “The bow came up high and she slid under. The last thing I saw, the four chaplains were up there praying for the safety of the men. They had done everything they could.” Courage means feeling fear but behaving in a way that is noble and good, as the chaplains did when they acted on their deepest convictions aboard the Dorchester. Donald Trump once wrote that courage is not the absence of fear but “the ability to act effectively, in spite of fear.” In 2016, Trump showed moral courage when he spoke the truth to American voters: A parasitic “establishment” of political and corporate interests had been exploiting our workers, farmers, and soldiers. When Trump challenged 16 opponents in the Republican primary, he exposed untruths in a conservative orthodoxy passed down from Ronald Reagan through George W. Bush.

Establishment foes hounded him with investigations and impeachment proceedings throughout the four years of his presidency, but Trump refused to compromise his principles or check his ambition to “make America great again.” Emboldened by Joe Biden’s inauguration in 2021, the establishment connived to use the 14th Amendment to prevent Trump from running for president a third time. They leveled charges against him in two federal district courts, tried him in a New York state court, and indicted him in Georgia for alleged RICO Act violations. Though Trump was unbowed, his campaign manager, Susie Wiles, was concerned: “I just worry that if they can’t get him this way, they’ll try to kill him.” And that almost happened on July 13 at the fairgrounds in Butler, Pennsylvania, when an assassin’s bullet grazed Trump’s ear.

Where Trump modeled courage, the establishment shows only cowardice—their decade-long effort to destroy Trump has been prosecuted from the shadows, hiding behind the anonymity that bureaucratic power affords. They falsely claimed that Trump “colluded” with Vladimir Putin and Russia. They used a cloak-and-dagger plan to scuttle the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. And, in 2022, someone leaked a copy of the Dobbs decision overruling Roe v. Wade. In spite of Chief Justice John Roberts’ promise, the leaker remains unidentified and unaccountable. Some say that Trump’s opponents exemplify courage in their bold attacks on his character and reputation. But talk doesn’t make them courageous, least of all because it costs them nothing. Their admonitions are purely performative means to curry favor with the media and the establishment at large, which are viciously opposed to Trump’s reforms.

There is nothing courageous about yelling “F–k Trump” into a microphone. Whatever force it has in the political sphere depends on showing that the saying is accompanied by a doing. Trump’s been talking tough for years and backs it up by action of some kind. In the moment that he rose to his feet in Butler, with his face bloodied and yelling, “Fight! Fight! Fight!,” he gave the final proof that he’s more than a tough talker. Biden’s presidency is a rich example of cowardice: Insiders worked for years to conceal that the sitting president was incapable of executing the duties of the office. In the book “Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House,” longtime political reporters Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes pull back the curtain on Biden’s presidency, detailing how his staff stage-managed a declining president and hid his impairment from the American people. Biden “lived in bubble wrap inside bunkers,” the authors write.

Though “the signs of decline were clear to anyone who was willing to see them,” Biden’s inner circle believed that “no one walks away from the house, the plane, the helicopter,” so, onward they went. When the scam was exposed at the presidential debate last June, the power players in Washington again retreated to the secrecy of the back room and hatched a scheme to cede the delegates that Biden had secured to nominate a candidate of their choice rather than the people’s choice. For decades, presidents talked about moving the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, but no one did until Trump. For years, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and Bernie Sanders called for tariffs to restructure world trade. But when Trump did what he said he would do and imposed tariffs? That was all it took for the same people to discover their opposition to tariffs.

The cowardice of Biden and the leading lights in the Democratic Party contrast sharply with the new administration. Trump and many others have gambled their reputations, fortunes, and future interests on a bold but polarizing agenda. They face the American people, every day, openly and fearlessly. For Trump, the most important quality for aides and Cabinet members is not loyalty but courage—and the willingness to pay a price for things that matter.

Read more …

Turns out, the border is a problem only if you invite people over.

• How Trump ‘Restored Law and Order’ to US Borders (Allen)

The House Homeland Security Committee released its latest “Border Brief” Tuesday, highlighting significant changes at the border since President Donald Trump took office, and a staggering year-over-year decline in the number of illegal immigrants attempting to enter the United States. “Southwest border crossings have hit another record-low because we now have a president and [a Department of Homeland Security] secretary who enforce the law,” Rep. Mark Green, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, told The Daily Signal. “In less than three months, President Trump has restored law and order to our nation’s borders, removed criminal illegal aliens from our communities, and helped ensure the safety of the American people by empowering Department of Homeland Security law enforcement to do their jobs,” according to a committee press release.

In March, encounters with illegal aliens between ports of entry at the southern border fell by 94% compared to March 2024. Customs and Border Protection encountered 29,065 illegal aliens nationwide last month, down 88% from the 246,505 encountered in March 2024. Border Patrol’s daily apprehensions nationwide were the lowest in recorded history in March, averaging 264, a 94% decline from the previous year. The House Homeland Security Committee credits the decline in illegal crossings to the “Trump administration’s sustained deployment of military and federal law enforcement across the Southwest border, as well as partnerships with countries like El Salvador.” Since Jan. 20, the Trump administration has deployed thousands of troops and additional military resources to the southern border. The U.S. also formed an agreement with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele to house deported illegal aliens in El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center.

The Trump administration has also ended various parole programs set in place or expanded under the Biden administration, such as the CBP One mobile application that allowed illegal aliens to schedule an appointment at a port of entry to claim asylum. The result of ending the Biden administration’s parole programs, according to the House committee, is an 80% decline in migrant encounters at U.S. ports of entry since March 2024. The daily average of known “getaways,” illegal aliens who manage to evade Border Patrol apprehension, has also fallen by more than 90% since Trump took office. Last week, a Maryland jury found Victor Martinez-Hernandez, a reported illegal alien gotaway from El Salvador, guilty of murdering Rachel Morin, a mother of five. The number of unaccompanied alien children arriving at the southern border declined by 92% last month when compared with March 2024.

Border Patrol has also witnessed a 97% year-over-year decline in the number of Chinese nationals crossing the southern border between ports of entry. Rather than “commending this return to law and order,” Green, R-Tenn., said his “colleagues across the aisle are working to defend an illegal alien MS-13 gang member who was rightfully removed from our country.” Democrats are advocating for the return of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, an illegal alien with ties to MS-13 who the Trump administration recently deported to a prison in El Salvador. Some Democrats, such as Mayland Sen. Chris Van Hollen who traveled to El Salvador to meet with Abrego Garcia, claim the man was wrongfully removed from the U.S. “To the American people, the contrast could not be clearer,” Green continued.

“Make no mistake—our communities are safer because the Trump administration has empowered DHS law enforcement to do their jobs, remove violent criminals, and dismantle the cartels’ business model. Now, Congress must codify President Trump’s homeland security agenda and provide the necessary funding to continue successfully securing our borders.” The House Homeland Security Committee’s March “Border Brief” celebrates the 32,809 arrests of illegal aliens at the hands of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers during the first 50 days of the Trump administration. The nearly 33,000 arrests included “14,111 convicted criminals, of whom 1,155 were criminal gang members, as well as 39 aliens on the Terrorist Screening Data Set,” according to the committee. ICE has also arrested more than 300 members of the violent prison gang Tren de Aragua since Trump took office.

The committee in April advanced legislation introduced by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., that would require the DHS to publish the known number of special interest aliens, that is illegal aliens who pose a possible national security risk to the U.S., who cross U.S. borders. In its first border-related hearing of the 119th Congress, the committee highlighted the changes at the border during a Border Security and Enforcement Subcommittee hearing on March 28, aimed at showcasing the Biden administration’s “failure” at the border. “President Trump continues to deliver on the promises he made to secure our border,” Rep. Michael Guest, R-Miss., told The Daily Signal. “As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement, I am honored to have the opportunity to work alongside President Trump to continue delivering results for the American people.”

Read more …

Woke has bankrupted Hollywood. Or almost. Bad for business.

• Woke Blackout in Tinseltown (Ryumshin)

The conservative winds that have swept across America since January 20, 2025 have reached all the way to California. Hollywood, once the global capital of progressive values, is rapidly turning its back on the previous narrative. Transgender characters are quietly being cut from scripts, LGBT-themed productions shelved, and studios are shifting toward content with Christian and family-oriented values. Entire projects have been dropped. Others are being rewritten on the fly to avoid positive portrayals of LGBT characters. Just a year ago, such a reversal seemed unthinkable. Hollywood, which had long been synonymous with ‘woke’ ideology, appeared firmly entrenched in its liberal agenda. Anti-Trump themes were being churned out with near industrial efficiency, and conservative attempts at counter-programming lacked the budget or reach to compete. In the cultural trenches, liberals were not just winning, they were dominating. But now, studios are backing off.

The liberal press, already ringing alarm bells, has pinned the blame squarely on Donald Trump. In this rare case, they might have a point. Following his re-election, President Trump wasted no time in asserting ideological control. He signed executive orders recognizing only two genders, reinstated the ban on transgender individuals serving in the military, and scrapped federal Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) guidelines. In the cultural sphere, he made a bold appointment: Brendan Carr, a staunch Trump supporter and co-architect of the ‘Project 2025’ conservative reform blueprint, was named chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC might seem bureaucratic, but under Carr, it has become a powerful cultural weapon. Investigations were quickly launched into media outlets seen as hostile to Trump.

Disney, one of the most vocal progressive corporations, was accused of violating equal opportunity laws through its DEI policies. After making some adjustments, Disney still found itself under pressure, with Carr even threatening to revoke ABC’s broadcasting license. The result? Rapid, widespread self-censorship. Studios aren’t backpedaling because they’ve had a change of heart, they simply don’t want to attract the regulatory wrath of Washington. Amazon, led by Jeff Bezos, was ahead of the curve. Bezos cultivated ties with the Trump camp, quietly axed DEI advisors, and began investing only in “safe” content. The reward? Government scrutiny vanished. Still, it would be unfair to credit Trump alone for Hollywood’s pivot.

The shift had begun before the 2024 election, driven by cold economic realities. The traditional business model of cable TV is collapsing. Streaming services, flooded with progressive content, have failed to turn a profit. Worse, many of those “inclusive” productions have sparked controversy, underperformed at the box office, and alienated large swathes of the audience. Family-oriented and religious films, by contrast, often require modest budgets and cater to a mainstream audience. Conservative content, it turns out, is not just safer – it’s more profitable. There’s also the matter of public fatigue. Americans are tired of being lectured. Box office returns, streaming numbers, and network ratings all tell the same story. Once-dominant liberal cable channels are in freefall. As of December 2024, CNN and MSNBC had lost half their prime-time audiences, plunging to 30-year lows.

Fox News, meanwhile, is thriving. So are conservative-leaning podcasters like Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan, now the dominant voices in America’s ‘new media’ landscape. None of this is a coincidence. The broader cultural and economic environment in the United States has shifted. Hollywood’s liberal monopoly was unsustainable, both financially and ideologically. Trump’s return to power merely accelerated a transformation already underway. Will this rightward turn change the face of global culture? Almost certainly. Will it return Hollywood to its former glory? Time will tell. But what is already clear is that the old narrative is dead – and the new one is being written with a red pen.

Read more …

“..the total collapse which is about to happen, is not “Trump’s fault”. He just happened to be the right person to execute the inevitable downfall of a major monetary era. But even if it is not his fault, history will unfairly blame him as the villain who brought the world economy down, and thus see him as probably the worst president in history. So not the best of timing for Mr Trump.”

• The Big Short and The Bigger Long (Egon von Greyerz)

For at least 35 years, the monetary system has been telling us that the current era is coming to an end. That means a debt collapse, a currency collapse and a collapse of most bubble assets like stocks and property. THUS THE BIG SHORT! As I am writing this on Easter Monday, the Dow is down 1,100 points (2.9%) and the Nasdaq is down 3.3%. Anyone who buys the dips will be slaughtered. As I have said for a very long time, before this is over, stocks will be down 90-99% in real terms, which is gold. More importantly, this total collapse has very little to do with TRUMP. More later.

And don’t for a moment believe that gold is overvalued. As many have used conventional technical tools to predict a gold correction, I have been saying for a long time that gold is in an acceleration phase and will reach multiples of the current price. (Yes, of course, there will be corrections on the way up, but most probably not yet.) THUS THE BIG LONG! As many have used conventional technical tools to predict a gold correction, I have been saying for a long time that gold is in an acceleration phase and will reach multiples of the current price. (Yes, of course there will be corrections on the way up but most probably not yet). THUS THE BIG LONG!

END OF A MONETARY ERA The end of a monetary era is always the same, with bubble assets going up in smoke. The majority of investors haven’t got a clue what is happening. They are hanging on to their stocks, hoping that Trump will save them by firing Powell and telling the next Chairman of the Fed to lower interest rates. But the time of manipulating rates is over. The market will now determine rates, which it should always do. And with uncontrollable debt escalation in the US and many other countries, the cost of debt can only go one way – UP! Remember, there is only one buyer of US debt, which is the Fed. But the Fed can only buy debt if the US government issues more debt. And therein lies the crux. More debt must be created in a futile attempt to save the ever-growing and out-of-control finances of the US. This is without doubt the biggest Ponzi scheme in history. Madoff would certainly have enjoyed it.

And still, it would have been so easy, as all of this has been totally predictable. To paraphrase Churchill, the more you study history, the more self-evident the future becomes. Still no government, no central banker, no journalist and virtually no market student spends any time on learning from the past. Why, why, why, you ask yourself. Well, it is clearly sheer arrogance in believing that we know better today and that we have better tools. And of course, “The times are different today”. Hmmm! But they are not and have never been. Every monetary system has collapsed in history, and every currency has gone to ZERO, without fail. As I witnessed Greenspan’s expansionary policy after the property market collapse in the 1990s and how debt and derivatives quickly continued to grow, I was certain that we were seeing the end of a major monetary system.

I had, since the late 1980s, been convinced that gold was the best insurance against yet another coming failure of the monetary system. As major central banks like the UK and Switzerland were selling their gold in the mid to late 1990s, it was clear that we were near the bottom. So we waited until the 1999 gold bottom at $250 and confirmation of the gold price recovery in the early 2000s before buying physical gold. BACK TO TRUMP – the culprit. But everything is, of course, Trump’s fault! All the misery hitting the world now is due to Trump’s capricious actions. Here are just a few examples of how TRUMP is now wrecking not just the US but the whole world economy, according to the general public as well as the media and politicians in most countries:

Stocks crashing, bonds crashing, rates up, dollar crashing, trade wars with massive daily tit for tat yo-yo swinging tariffs between 10% and 145%, much higher Inflation, collapse of global trade etc, etc. Yes, all of the above is happening and much more and it is all Trump’s fault.But is it really? No, Trump is not the culprit. Instead, Trump happens to be the catalyst. An absolutely superb analysis of the US-China trade war was given by this very acute Chinese influencer: “Leaders are instruments of their time, and they appear at the time in the cycle to carry out what was going to happen anyway.

Just like Thatcher and Reagan were the right leaders to lead the upturn in the early 1980s, Trump is perfect for creating the havoc and chaos that comes with the end of a major monetary era. What is happening in the US and global economy today, and the total collapse which is about to happen, is not “Trump’s fault”. He just happened to be the right person to execute the inevitable downfall of a major monetary era. But even if it is not his fault, history will unfairly blame him as the villain who brought the world economy down, and thus see him as probably the worst president in history. So not the best of timing for Mr Trump.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

 

 

ivm

 

 

Malhotra

 

 

Hotez

 

 

https://twitter.com/DiedSuddenly_/status/1914837101486518732

 

 

 

 

Phone

 

 

Mom

 

 

Goose

 

 

https://twitter.com/Lin11W/status/1914406273602277705

 

 

Feynman

 

 

Goats https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1914628619722281004

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle April 15 2025

Apr 152025
 
 April 15, 2025  Posted by at 9:32 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , ,  28 Responses »


Mathew Brady Abe Lincoln 1864

 

• Lincoln Was a ‘Threat to Democracy’ (Al Perrotta)
• Trump’s Life’s Work Culminates in Confronting Communist China (Josh Hammer)
• Living on the Edge (Martin Armstrong)
• Temporary Tariff Terror Examined (Steve McKee)
• Zelensky Started The War Then Begged For Missiles – Trump (RT)
• Trump Slams Biden, Zelensky & Putin For Ukraine War: ‘Everybody Is To Blame’ (ZH)
• West Seeks To Partition Ukraine – Senior Russian Diplomat (RT)
• Zelensky Urges Trump To Visit Ukraine Before Pressing Negotiations (ZH)
• Trump Slams ‘Dishonest’ CBS After Zelensky Interview (RT)
• We Have Proof Sumy Strike Targeted Ukrainian Troops and Foreign Mercs – Lavrov (Sp.)
• The Sumy Missile Strike: War, Propaganda, and Hypocrisy (Amar)
• Medvedev Brands Incoming German Chancellor ‘Nazi’ (RT)
• Meta’s Monopoly Trial Kicks Off (ET)
• Now We Know Why Democrats Are Losing the Messaging War (Margolis)
• El Salvador’s Bukele Won’t Return MS-13 Gang Member Mistakenly Deported (JTN)
• Why the Beatified MS-13 ‘Father’ Was ‘Mistakenly’ Deported (Victoria Taft)
• Systemic Considerations (James Howard Kunstler)

 

 


Holy Week at the White House

 

 

Tea

5,000 years https://twitter.com/Zlatti_71/status/1911706962795831524

Speaker

Left

Homeless

Titan

Tariffs https://twitter.com/ImMeme0/status/1911513456249127332

Cop

 

 

 

 

Exactly 160 years ago, the US lost a major part of its innocence. That reveberates to this day, and the attempts at Trump’s life.

• Lincoln Was a ‘Threat to Democracy’ (Al Perrotta)

One hundred sixty years ago tonight, at Ford’s Theater, John Wilkes Booth put a bullet in the head of President Abraham Lincoln. What motivated the 26-year-old actor? Fame? No, he had plenty of that. His photos were outsold only by Honest Abe himself. Acclaim? No, contrary to tales told in school that he was jealous of the critical raves afforded his father Junius and brother Edwin, Booth earned reviews any young actor would die for. He even refused to perform under his real name until he earned reviews worthy of the name. To avenge the Confederacy’s defeat? You’re getting closer. Booth raged and despaired over the suffering incurred by the South. Actually, John Wilkes Booth told us his motivation. After shooting Lincoln and making his dramatic leap to the stage, Booth shouted “Sic Semper Tyrannis!” (“Thus always to tyrants.”) Or to put it another way, “Lincoln was a threat to democracy.”

Twice last summer, amid a daily drumbeat from former President Joe Biden, Democrats, and the media that Donald Trump was a “threat to democracy,” a budding tyrant, two would-be assassins came very close to killing him. Ryan Routh was charged Thursday in Florida for his attempt. A recent study indicates 55% of self-described leftists think the assassination of Trump would be “justifiable.” Given the rhetoric, given the vast numbers with a similar heart, it’s no wonder Routh thought he was doing the world a favor. “Everyone across the globe from the youngest to the oldest know [sic] that Trump is unfit to be anything, much less a U.S. president,” Routh wrote in a letter found after his arrest. “U.S. presidents must at bare minimum embody the moral fabric that is America and be kind, caring and selfless and always stand for humanity.”

So did Booth, who wrote while on the run: “Our country owed all her troubles to him, and God simply made me the instrument of his punishment. A country that groaned beneath this tyranny, and prayed for this end, and yet now behold the cold hands they extend to me. ” Booth grew increasingly dismayed at being vilified and rejected. “I am here in despair. And why? For doing what Brutus was honored for. What made Tell a hero? And yet I, for striking down a greater tyrant than they ever knew, am looked upon as a common cutthroat.” In a letter attempting to justify his actions, Booth wrote: “When Caesar had conquered the enemies of Rome and the power that was his menaced the liberties of the people, Brutus arose and slew him. The stroke of his dagger was guided by his love of Rome. It was the spirit and ambition of Caesar that Brutus struck at.” “Oh, that we could come by Caesar’s spirit, And not dismember Caesar. But, alas! Ceasar must bleed for it.”

Booth, a man steeped since birth in Shakespearean drama, sought the death of Lincoln as Shakespeare’s Brutus did Caesar’s. This fear stemmed not from what the president had done, but from the belief that with his enemies conquered, Lincoln would keep his war powers and reign as a tyrant. This gets to one of the most tragic elements of Lincoln’s assassination, positively Shakespearean in its awfulness. John Wilkes Booth failed to realize that with the war over, Lincoln was the best friend the South had. And Booth had a role to play. The greatest of his life. Lincoln wanted a gentle reconciliation between North and South, “with malice toward none, and charity for all.” Many powerful forces around him had plenty of malice toward the Confederacy, and no mood for charity. Those in the South whose towns had been laid waste and their sons laid to rest by the hundreds of thousands, would also have trouble with reconciliation.

Lincoln’s mission of unifying the country in peace looked to be as difficult as winning the war. He would need all the help he could get. Author Michael Kauffman discovered an intriguing tidbit when researching his book “American Brutus.” A worker at Ford’s Theater saw Booth hand an attendant a card, and the attendant bring the card into the Presidential Box. What happened next is not known. But is it not possible that Lincoln received Booth’s card, and knowing Booth’s fame, his oratory gifts and his sympathies, realized the actor could prove very valuable in helping “bind the nation’s wounds”? Who better than America’s First Family of Theater to help bring the nation together? Perhaps the theater-loving president even knew the three acting Booth brothers would be sharing the stage at a benefit the following week.

With the war over and the comedy romp “Our American Cousin” playing out beneath him, did Lincoln see in Booth’s card a golden opportunity? Is it not likely an excited Lincoln told the attendant, “Yes, send Mr. Booth in”? Rather than summon a potential partner, Lincoln summoned his own executioner. Booth killed not only the president, but all hope for a gentle reconciliation. How much better for his beloved South had Booth pulled up a chair instead of a pistol? How much better for our nation and their own dreams if liberals sought Trump’s cooperation rather than destruction? The future is in their hands. The 55% who believe Trump’s assassination would be justified would heed well the lesson of John Wilkes Booth. After being cornered in a barn in Port Royal, Virginia and shot, Booth looked down at his hands and uttered his final words: “Useless. Useless.”

Read more …

Much of what happens with regards to the tariffs surprises people, and they think it’s -largely- new. Donald Trump has been preoccupied with the issues for 40 years. In this 1988 video he says he doesn’t want to be president. But he would probably have been a strong candidate even then. Reagan at that point had just slapped a 100% tariff on a lot of Japanese imports.

• Trump’s Life’s Work Culminates in Confronting Communist China (Josh Hammer)

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump abruptly announced a 90-day pause on most of his planned country-specific “reciprocal” tariffs—with the notable exception of China. In so strikingly singling out China as the focus of America’s economic and geopolitical ire, Trump was not merely clarifying that the United States views China and its regnant Communist Party as our leading 21st-century threat—he was also taking yet another notable step toward fulfilling his own lifelong goal of fundamentally resetting the terms of the U.S.-China bilateral relationship. As an “outer-borough” native New Yorker from Queens, Trump has long seen things differently than most of his white-shoe brethren and fellow one-percenters living across the (literal and proverbial) river in Manhattan.

Throughout virtually his entire career, Trump has served as a “class traitor” archetype—someone who, as I wrote in an essay last year, “may hold ‘elite’ ruling class credentials, but whose hearts, minds, concerns, and general sensibilities are decidedly with the country class.” That is the essence of Trump’s nationalist-populist MAGA political coalition. But it’s also who Trump has been since his earliest interviews with the New York City tabloids and TV hosts all those decades ago. There is no better example than trade, Trump’s most consistently held political position. In the 1980s, he was alarmed at the rise of Japan as an economic superpower, arguing that America’s trade deficit with Japan was problematic and that the U.S. should respond with crippling tariffs. (It seems that Ronald Reagan, who in 1987 slapped a 100% tariff on many Japanese goods, was listening.)

In recent decades, Trump has applied the same logic to the newer threat of China. In 2011, for instance, four years before he launched his successful presidential run, Trump railed against widely practiced Chinese currency manipulation: “They have manipulated their currency so violently towards this country, it is almost impossible for our companies to compete with Chinese companies.” During the first year of his first presidential term, Trump directed his Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to investigate Chinese trade practices. The subsequent report was damning, and Trump implemented numerous tariffs on Chinese goods—tariffs that, to his rare credit, former President Joe Biden largely kept in place and even built upon. In addition to his first-term tariffs, Trump also filed a formal World Trade Organization case against China, alleging deceptive trade practices and intellectual property theft.

As Trump put it at the time in a tweet: “Today I directed the U.S. Trade Representative to take action so that countries stop CHEATING the system at the expense of the USA!” Trump’s tariff escalation this week against Communist China—even as he paused many other tariffs to allow for bilateral trade negotiations and give jittery bond markets some relief—is a natural culmination of the work to reset the U.S.-China economic relationship that he commenced during his first term. For that matter, it is also the natural culmination of his short-lived third-party presidential run in 2000 with the trade protectionist Reform Party, as well as his 1988 “Oprah Winfrey Show” interview, where he teased a future presidential run that would focus on trade. Immigration may be the issue most readily associated with Trump’s MAGA movement, but there is no issue that has been nearer and dearer to Trump’s heart over the decades than trade—first with Japan and then with China. Most important, Trump has not just been outspoken on the issue of trade with China—he has been proven correct.

https://twitter.com/benfergusonshow/status/1909047756183785829

Ever since Richard Nixon’s fateful trip to visit Mao Zedong in Beijing in 1972, American elites of all political stripes promised that welcoming China into the global economy would be good for all parties involved. American consumers, we were reliably informed, would get cheaper and more abundant goods; American exporters would get a massive and exciting new market to peddle their wares; and the Chinese people themselves would soon reap the rewards of the “political liberalization” that could only come about through “economic liberalization.” This was the dominant thinking when Nixon visited China over a half-century ago, when the George W. Bush administration welcomed China into the World Trade Organization in 2001, and when Barack Obama hosted and toasted Chinese leader Xi Jinping at the White House in 2015.

Read more …

Martin Armstrong highlights the “lose face” angle, “don’t do it in public”. But China has done very little since Trump’s first term, when he’s certain to have brought it up, though not in public, so why would Trump wait now?

• Living on the Edge (Martin Armstrong)

The U.S.-China trade war is an ongoing economic conflict that began in January 2018, characterized by the imposition of tariffs and trade barriers by both countries. Recently, tensions escalated as the U.S. raised tariffs on Chinese goods to 145%, prompting China to retaliate with tariffs of 125% on U.S. imports, affecting global supply chains and market stability. Trump’s decision not to grant China the same reprieve as other nations explained: “China wants to make a deal, they just don’t know how quite to go about it.” I disagree. If I were China, I would do a full embargo, and the Achilles’ heel in this trade war is more than just the manufacture of values for municipalities – the big ones, steel and aluminum, but also medicines. Personally, I would put a full embargo on everything, and without the medicines, people would be screaming, and their lives would be put in danger. I have dealt with Asia for some 40 years. You do not do this sort of thing publicly. It is an insult and a loss of face that forces China not to yield.

The developing U.S.-China trade war keeps ratcheting up. China has suspended exports of rare earth minerals. Meanwhile, Commerce Secretary Lutnick said that the electronics the Trump administration exempted from reciprocal tariffs could be subject to different levies in the future. This is not good. You do not air your dirty laundry in public.

Beijing’s perspective is dramatically different. Xi Jinping has taken the view that his country would lose face if it simply capitulated to what it calls America’s “unilateral bullying.” The danger with this trade war is that publicly, it only supports fervent nationalism, and that feeds into what will become World War III. China has been quietly preparing for a trade war for quite some time. Trump’s actions may spark negotiation in Western circles, but in Asian circles, they create the image that the US doesn’t want to negotiate. My concern is that Xi is brilliant. This trade war is playing into his domestic approval of anti-Americanism. Like the Russian sanctions that boosted Putin’s approval rating calculation, sources say, China is also seeing a rise in popular support to strengthen its position by preparing not just to fight back. Trump’s trade war with China is definitely strengthening Xi’s own position.

All of my sources have said that Xi fully understands that China has entered a period of protracted struggle in both trade and geopolitics with the United States and Europe. This became painfully obvious, and Europe and the Biden Administration confronted Russia. Xi has taken the position that China needs to prepare for these confrontations ever since the Biden Administration put sanctions on Russia and then threatened China if it dared to help Russia. The Neocon Antony Blinken expressed “serious concern” about China’s support for Russia’s defense industry. He went as far as to threaten Xi that he would impose sanctions if China helped Russia.

The Neocon Antony Blinken threw down the gauntlet and views the world only in his desire for imperial power. He never understood the economy, and this insanity of threatening China and removing Russia from Swift undermined the economy and split it in half, with the formation of BRICS for geopolitical security. I don’t believe Trump understands the damage that the Biden Administration inflicted upon the entire world. Now, go after China with a trade war to bring back manufacturing to America; this is pushing China over the edge.

China previously owned 10% of the US national debt. This is what Trump has not considered. Before this trade war began, in January, foreigners sold a net $13.3 billion of U.S. notes and bonds that had more than one year to maturity. As we approach sovereign debt defaults, I have warned that it may start with Japan and be followed by Europe. We saw almost $50 billion was sold in December 2024 in anticipation of a Trump trade war. Last November saw almost $35 billion dumped following the election.

Canada was the largest net seller in January. The UK needed the cash and was the biggest seller last December. I know some have made the outrageous claim that Japan sold US debt, and that made Trump pause the tariffs for 90 days. These people have ZERO understanding of the markets and even less about Trump. The tariffs over 10% are political, and it is part of his art of the deal. Japan is in economic trouble with its own debt crisis, and selling US debt had nothing to do with the tariffs – this is about creating a real debt crisis. That said, China has the capacity to dump US debt in a big way, and that would send US rates higher on the long-end. U.S. stocks rallied with Trump pausing the tariffs, yet this was cyclically on point, which our computer had forecast months in advance. People just try to come up with some fundamentals to explain each move in a market, whether true or false. Our computer is projecting that 2025 will be the low in Chinese interest rates both on the 2-year and 30-year.

While stocks rallied, Treasury yields rose so much that lower rates benefited stocks. China has been quietly selling U.S. debt, which began over a year ago. This was not something new out of the blue in response to new tariffs. Bond markets were flashing warning signs based on the hidden risks behind the entire dynamics of trade and geopolitics. Behind the scenes, U.S. Treasury yields have been rising during the overnight sessions, indicating foreign market selling. Nevertheless, the prospects of war in Europe are reflected in our models, for they do not support a collapse in the bond markets, implying that war will bring still capital inflows. When we look at the Baltic Freight Index, 2025 was a Double Directional Change, indicating that we would have this trade war. We have a Directional Change in 2026 and a Panic Cycle in 2027, with the culmination of this war extending into 2028. This might also be influenced by the war starting in Europe.

Read more …

“No one knows the extent to which he will succeed. But if conventional thinking could solve our existential issues, it would have by now.”

• Temporary Tariff Terror Examined (Steve McKee)

When President Donald Trump made his Liberation Day announcements, his harshest critics immediately declared him an economic arsonist playing with fire he didn’t understand, while his strongest acolytes insisted he was 10 moves ahead, playing 4D chess with geopolitical mastery. Both camps jumped the gun. His was the opening salvo in a high-stakes game. Sometimes, the most effective strategy isn’t conventional. Sometimes it breaks the mold. Trump’s tariff gambit had the same disruptive effect. He was never under the illusion that his first offer would be the last word. That’s not how negotiation works. It’s not even how business works.

Trump’s not playing chess. It’s more akin to Go His announcement was surprising, yes. But that doesn’t necessarily make it wrong. In fact, it was reminiscent of a similarly shocking moment in another high-stakes arena: the legendary 2016 Go match between world champion Lee Sedol and DeepMind’s AlphaGo computer program. In move 37 of Game Two of the board game, AlphaGo played an unexpected, unconventional move. At first, it looked like a mistake. But as the game unfolded, it became clear that move 37 wasn’t just valid; it was, literally, game changing. It altered the way top players—and AI developers—understood the game and, to some extent, AI itself. That’s why chess is the wrong analogy in this tariff situation. No president can be expected to know the implications of every move like chess masters do. But they can know there will be implications from their move and as those implications unfold they will have a window to adjust their next move.

Trump understands negotiation This president, in particular, understands the rhyme and rhythm of negotiation. He knew this negotiation, being played out in full public view, would draw out the critics and opportunists and have real world impacts. That was baked into the cake, and it’s why, I surmise, he waited until just hours after the special House elections were decided to do it. This isn’t a private boardroom deal behind closed doors. It’s an unfolding negotiation taking place on the world stage, with millions of spectators and infinite scrutiny. That complicates things. But Trump, being Trump, accounted for that. He knew pushback would be inevitable. He couldn’t know the exact shape or timing, but he knew the opportunity to respond would come. And when it did, he took it.

Whether you agree with his tactics or not, he’s not capitulating or backtracking, he’s managing an unfolding negotiation. What makes Trump different—and maddening to many—is that he’s not cut from traditional presidential cloth. He’s a developer, a dealmaker, someone for whom negotiation is second nature. His presidency brought that skill set into a realm where every feint and pivot is broadcast and critiqued in real time. It’s a high-wire act, sure. But not one he has entered blindly.

The dynamics of the game needed to change The real takeaway here isn’t about trade policy. It’s about process. About resisting the impulse to rush to judgment based on ideology or tribal loyalty. These are dynamic, complex negotiations with layers most commentators either don’t understand or refuse to acknowledge. Yes, last week was a terrifying ride, but so is our future if something doesn’t change. Lest we forget, we’re going bankrupt. Something needs to happen. The U.S.—and by extension, much of the global economy—is hurtling down an unsustainable path. Somebody had to start changing the dynamics of a game which everybody is about to lose. Trump has done so. You don’t have to like him to see that he understands the stakes.

So sure, scratch your head. Raise your eyebrows. Ask hard questions. That’s part of the process. But don’t assume you’re watching 4D chess, and don’t call the man a fool. Instead, hold back the full ire of your fire. Accept that you may not be seeing the whole game board—none of us are. Call balls and strikes as you see them, but don’t call it “game over” when it has only just begun. There are many moves yet to come, and I don’t pretend to know how it’s all going to turn out. But as events continue to unfold, it’s unhelpful—and frankly unfair—to reduce Trump to either a genius or a fool. He is a man with a unique set of skills, forged in a different fire than most politicians, who is doing his best to deploy them in service of long-term trends in dire need of fixing. And he’s doing it none too soon. No one knows the extent to which he will succeed. But if conventional thinking could solve our existential issues, it would have by now.

Read more …

CBS turns on Trump again.

• Zelensky Started The War Then Begged For Missiles – Trump (RT)

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky should never have started a war with Russia, US President Donald Trump has said. In a press conference alongside El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele in the Oval Office on Monday, Trump commented on Zelensky’s recent offer to finance $15 billion worth of Patriot air defense batteries with the aid of Kiev’s European backers. “He’s always looking to purchase missiles,” the US presided noted. “When you start a war, you got to know that you can win the war,” he said of Zelensky. “You don’t start a war against somebody that’s 20 times your size and then hope that people give you some missiles.” Trump added that he gave Kiev American-made Javelin man-portable anti-tank missiles during his first presidency.

In an interview with CBS News on Sunday, Zelensky called on the US to supply Ukraine with more air defenses. Kiev is ready to buy or lease up to ten Patriot air defense systems, and some European backers have offered to help with the money, he claimed. During the interview, the network suggested that Trump tried to cut Kiev out of peace talks with Russia, and that he lied in his statements about the conflict. Trump allegedly “rewrote history, saying, falsely, that Ukraine had started the war and calling… Zelensky ‘a dictator without elections’,” according to CBS. The US president lashed out at the news network on Truth Social on Monday, calling the interview inaccurate and fraudulent.

Trump has repeatedly claimed that the Ukraine conflict would never have escalated had he been in the White House, rather than his predecessor Joe Biden. According to the US president, the previous administration invested more than $300 billion into supporting Kiev. Trump has promised to “get back” the money, entering talks with Ukraine about jointly exploiting its mineral resources. He also suggested taking over Ukrainian nuclear power plants. The Kremlin has hailed the Trump administration’s peace efforts, but cautioned that resolving long-standing issues will take time and “painstaking work.”

Read more …

Keeping Zelensky around is counterproductive.

• Trump Slams Biden, Zelensky & Putin For Ukraine War: ‘Everybody Is To Blame’ (ZH)

President Donald Trump while speaking with the press in the Oval Office on Monday once again blasted President Biden for the start of the Russia-Ukraine war, a war which Trump has repeatedly stressed should have never happened. “That’s a war that should have never been allowed to start and Biden could have stopped it and Zelensky could have stopped it and Putin should have never started it,” Trump said. “Everybody is to blame.” Trump added: “If Biden were competent and if Zelenskyy were competent, and I don’t know that he is, we had a rough session with this guy — he just kept asking for more and more.” But he seemed to reserve his most aggressive criticisms for Zelensky, once again blasting him for asking for more and more weapons and money, while knowing full well Ukraine can’t defeat Russia, which is “twenty times your size” – as Trump said. Watch:

Clearly last month’s Oval Office showdown involving J.D. Vance and Zelensky going at it still looms large in Trump’s mind. Trump had separately in a Monday Truth Social post also lamented that Biden and Zelensky “did an absolutely horrible job in allowing this travesty to begin.” Here’s what he said in the post: “The war between Russia and Ukraine is Biden’s war, not mine. I just got here, and for four years during my term, had no problem in preventing it from happening,” Trump wrote, adding that he “had nothing to do with this war” but is working “diligently to get the death and destruction to stop.” “If the 2020 presidential election was not rigged, and it was, in so many ways, that horrible war would never have happened,” he continued. “President [Volodymyr] Zelenskyy and Crooked Joe Biden did an absolutely horrible job in allowing this travesty to begin. There were so many ways of preventing it from ever starting. But that is the past. Now we have to get it to stop, and fast. So sad!”

Much of this seems in reaction to the Zelensky “60 Minutes” interview from Sunday, wherein the Ukrainian leader claimed that “Russian narratives are prevailing” in the US, while singling out Vance in particular. Zelensky had said, “It’s a shift in tone, a shift in reality, really yes, a shift in reality, and I don’t want to engage in the altered reality that is being presented to me,” And on Vance, he described: “First and foremost, we did not launch an attack [to start the war]. It seems to me that the Vice President is somehow justifying Putin’s actions. I tried to explain, ‘You can’t look for something in the middle. There is an aggressor and there is a victim. The Russians are the aggressor, and we are the victim’.”

Despite Trump’s newest attack on Zelensky, it remains that the United States is still supplying weaponry to Kiev, though reportedly in lesser quantities that previously, and is still providing limited intelligence. Zelensky has likely had to restrain some of the criticisms he wishes to hurl back, give Kiev is deeply fearful the US could once again cut off the flow of arms and ammo, as it did briefly soon after Trump took office.

Read more …

“We intended to partition Russia. Since we couldn’t pull that off, let’s divide Ukraine instead.”

• West Seeks To Partition Ukraine – Senior Russian Diplomat (RT)

European nations hostile towards Moscow are advocating for the partitioning of Ukraine, according to Rodion Miroshnik, the Russian Foreign Ministry’s ambassador-at-large overseeing war crime investigations. Last week, The Times of London reported an alleged US proposal to divide the country, reminiscent of Germany’s division following World War II. Keith Kellogg, the US presidential envoy for Ukraine cited by the newspaper, later stated that his remarks had been misinterpreted by the British outlet. Miroshnik criticized the approach on Saturday as an embodiment of what he called the UK’s colonial mindset. “Europe has a habit of slicing up other continents and nations and parceling them out,” he stated in an interview.

He read the underlying message as the West saying: “We intended to partition Russia. Since we couldn’t pull that off, let’s divide Ukraine instead.” The diplomat drew parallels between the proposal in The Times and the aftermath of World War I, noting that turning Arab regions of the former Ottoman Empire into mandate territories governed by the UK and France did not ultimately bode well for the Middle East. Moscow opposes the presence of any NATO member states’ troops in Ukraine, including the post-ceasefire security force suggested by the UK and France. Miroshnik insisted that an “occupation” by those nations would merely confirm Ukraine’s status as a de facto “mandate territory” with a puppet government, primarily handled by the British. He added that Russia would not accept such a “toxic” neighbor.

“The time Kiev needs to lick its wounds may be alarmingly brief,” he cautioned. “It needs to reflect on its experiences, prepare, and train tens of thousands more militants via Britain before going to war again.” Certain European NATO members have advocated for a “resilience force” to be stationed in Ukraine, presenting them as a deterrent. Kellogg said he did not propose dividing the country but rather discussed with the Times the idea of “zones of responsibility,” controlled by Russia, a British-French contingent, and Kiev itself, respectively. Moscow views the Ukraine conflict as a NATO proxy war. Russian officials have argued that a lasting peace can only be achieved by addressing the fundamental issues, including the expansion of the US-led military bloc in Europe since the 1990s and the “neo-Nazi” character of the current Ukrainian government, which discriminates against ethnic Russians.

Read more …

Not a word about peace.

• Zelensky Urges Trump To Visit Ukraine Before Pressing Negotiations (ZH)

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is urging for President Donald Trump to visit Ukraine and see the war’s devastation first-hand before pressing for peace negotiations with Russia. “We want you to come,” the Ukrainian president pleaded in reference to Trump while speaking with CBS’ “60 Minutes” on Sunday. Zelensky hit out at what he strongly hinted was Trump’s lack of understanding of the conflict and Russian brutality. “You think you understand what’s going on here. Okay, we respect your position. You understand. But, please, before any kind of decisions, any kind of forms of negotiations, come to see people, civilians, warriors, “Come, look, and then let’s — let’s move with a plan how to finish the war,” he added. He further suggested that with such a trip, Trump will finally grasp Putin’s true nature.

“You will understand with whom you have a deal. You will understand what Putin did,” the Ukrainian leader said. This comes as the US and Russia are seeking diplomatic normalization through a series of bilateral meetings which have cut out any Ukrainian or EU representation. “We will not prepare anything. It will not be theater, with preparing actors in the streets and the [city] center. We don’t do this. We don’t need it,” he continued. “You can go exactly where you want, in any city which been under attacks, just to come and to understand.” The CBS interview aired the same day that Russian ballistic missiles pummeled the Ukrainian city of Sumy, resulting in a mass casualty event which was quickly condemned by the United States and European Union. Ukrainian emergency authorities said the Sumy attack killed at least 34 people and wounded more than a hundred.

Trump’s special envoy to Ukraine, retired lieutenant general Keith Kellogg, reacted by saying it “crosses any line of decency”. He suggested the strikes intentionally targeted civilians. “As a former military leader, I understand targeting and this is wrong,” Kellogg posted on X. He said there are “scores of civilian dead and wounded.” However, Trump’s reaction was one in which the Russians were less singled out and condemned, instead the US president highlighted that this “horrible war” shows the urgency of ending the war before more people die… But the White House has strongly complained over the past months that Zelensky has appeared unwilling to genuinely engage in peace talks with Moscow, also at a moment more hawkish European allies are seeking to fill the gap of waning Washington support. Zelensky knows he’ll have to make serious concessions for peace.

It is especially the tense February meeting in the Oval Office which still stings and looms large. Zelensky in the CBS interview took the opportunity to once again slam Vice President J.D. Vance. “It’s a shift in tone, a shift in reality, really yes, a shift in reality, and I don’t want to engage in the altered reality that is being presented to me,” Zelensky said. “First and foremost, we did not launch an attack [to start the war]. It seems to me that the Vice President is somehow justifying Putin’s actions. I tried to explain, ‘You can’t look for something in the middle. There is an aggressor and there is a victim. The Russians are the aggressor, and we are the victim’.” Below: RT’s Editor-in-Chief responded sarcastically to Zelensky once again complaining that Russian ‘propaganda’ is winning in America…

Meanwhile, Trump has since made clear where he stands concerning 60 Minutes’ repeat efforts to make him look bad.”Almost every week, 60 Minutes … mentions the name ‘TRUMP’ in a derogatory and defamatory way, but this Weekend’s ‘BROADCAST’ tops them all,” the president complained on Truth Social, in apparent reference to both the Ukraine report and another on Greenland. “CBS is out of control, at levels never seen before, and they should pay a big price for this. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

Read more …

“..that he “rewrote history, saying, falsely, that Ukraine had started the war and calling… Zelensky ‘a dictator without elections.’”

• Trump Slams ‘Dishonest’ CBS After Zelensky Interview (RT)

CBS News must have its broadcasting license revoked, US President Donald Trump has said. He has accused the network of spreading politically biased misinformation in its coverage of the Ukraine conflict and Washington’s push to acquire Greenland. In a Truth Social post on Monday, Trump lashed out at the broadcaster after it aired an interview with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky and a segment revisiting the US president’s controversial idea to purchase Greenland. In the Zelensky interview, the network suggested that Trump had sought to exclude Kiev from peace talks with Russia and that he “rewrote history, saying, falsely, that Ukraine had started the war and calling… Zelensky ‘a dictator without elections.’”

The US president’s “dictator” comment in February was referring to the fact that Zelensky’s presidential term expired last year and that he has refused to call a new vote, citing martial law. Trump has since softened his rhetoric about the Ukrainian leader. The CBS report on Greenland focused on the island’s residents’ purported reluctance to become part of the US. “Almost every week, 60 Minutes… mentions the name ‘TRUMP’ in a derogatory and defamatory way, but this Weekend’s ‘BROADCAST’ tops them all,” Trump wrote. “They did not one, but TWO, major stories on ‘TRUMP,’ one having to do with Ukraine, which I say is a War that would never have happened if the 2020 Election had not been RIGGED… and, the other story was having to do with Greenland, casting our Country, as led by me, falsely, inaccurately, and fraudulently,” he added.

“They are not a ‘News Show,’ but a dishonest Political Operative simply disguised as ‘News,’ and must be responsible for what they have done, and are doing,” Trump suggested. “They should lose their license!” The US leader stressed that CBS “should pay a big price” for being “out of control,” recalling his previous stand-off with the network over a heavily edited interview with Kamala Harris, his main Democratic rival prior to the November election. The controversy over the Harris interview erupted in October when CBS aired two versions of an interview with the then-vice president. In one, she gave a long and convoluted answer about the Middle East conflict, but in the other, she gave a much clearer and more concise answer. Trump subsequently lodged a $10 billion lawsuit against CBS, calling the interview “word salad” and accusing the network of “deceitful, deceptive manipulation of news” and favoritism to the Democratic Party. CBS has admitted to editing the interview but rejected allegations that it attempted to doctor it.

Read more …

The Sumy narrative (Russia targets civilians!) carried the international airwaves for a whole weekend.

• We Have Proof Sumy Strike Targeted Ukrainian Troops and Foreign Mercs – Lavrov (Sp.)

Russia possesses information that Ukrainian troops met with their foreign counterparts at the facility targeted by Russian forces in the strike on Sumy, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Monday. On Sunday, Russian forces carried out a missile strike on the Ukrainian city of Sumy, targeting a site of a meeting of the Seversk tactical and operational command’s leadership. Earlier on Monday, the Russian Defense Ministry said that the strike killed over 60 Ukrainian servicepeople. “International humanitarian law categorically prohibits the placement of military facilities and weapons around civilian objects. Since the first days of the [Ukraine] crisis, and earlier, even during the Minsk agreements … there have been a million cases of artillery and air defense systems being placed in city blocks near kindergartens.

How many videos are posted online of Ukrainian women shouting for the military to get away from stores and playgrounds? But this practice continues. We have facts about who was at the facility that was hit in Sumy. There was another ‘gathering’ of Ukrainian military commanders with their Western colleagues, who were disguised either as mercenaries or I do not know who,” Lavrov told Russian newspaper Kommersant. It is widely known that NATO forces are present in Ukraine, the minister added. “The New York Times recently reported that Americans have been playing a leading role in strikes on Russia. Without this part, the majority of [Ukrainian] long-range missiles would never have taken off at their deployment sites,” he said.

Read more …

“Macron, Merz, Starmer, Kellogg, the New York Times, The Telegraph – to name only a few examples – all follow Zelensky’s and Kiev’s lie that this was a deliberate attack on civilians..”

• The Sumy Missile Strike: War, Propaganda, and Hypocrisy (Amar)

On April 13, Russia launched an attack on a target in the eastern Ukrainian city of Sumy. All reports –Western, Ukrainian, and Russian – agree on some basic facts: The attack consisted of two ballistic missiles; substantial numbers of people were killed (over 60, according to the Russian Defense Ministry; over 20 in Western and Ukrainian reports) and injured (over 80, per Ukrainian reports). Beyond that, however, a thick fog of war has descended. Or rather, a fog of propaganda. Western media and politicians have denounced the Russian strike as, in essence, an atrocity or war crime. The New York Times, for instance, presented it as slamming “into a bustling city center […] on Sunday morning, […] killing at least 34 people in what appeared to be the deadliest attack against civilians this year.” Incoming German chancellor Friedrich Merz (to be sworn in at the beginning of May), speaking on one of his country’s most popular TV shows, condemned what he called a “perfidious act” and “serious war crime.”

In the US, President Donald Trump’s special – if largely sidelined – envoy for Russia and Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, has invoked his experience as a “former military leader” who “understand[s] targeting” to denounce the Russian strike as “wrong,” adding that the attack “on civilian targets in Sumy crosses any line of decency.” Britain’s prime minister, Keir Starmer, is “appalled at Russia’s horrific attacks on civilians in Sumy.” Both Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron saw an opportunity to call for “imposing” a ceasefire on Russia. Merz, for his part, felt the need to talk, once more, about providing Kiev with German Taurus missiles. The fact that Ukraine has made a point of not complying with the partial ceasefire officially already in place seems to make no difference. Neither, clearly, does the fact that neither France nor Britain has the means to compel Moscow. That the use of the German Taurus to strike at, for instance, the Kerch Bridge may well invite – perfectly justifiable – Russian retaliation against German targets, whether in Germany or elsewhere, seems to appear equally irrelevant to Merz.

More examples could be added, but the trend should be clear: In the West, almost everyone agrees that the Russian attack on Sumy was an atrocity and in the EU there is talk – if we are lucky, it will remain just that – of exploiting it as a pretext to escalate further the proxy war in which Ukraine is being used up against Russia. Yet there are two major problems with this escalatory approach: Most importantly, it is not based on facts but on disinformation originating with the Kiev regime, taken over uncritically and spread enthusiastically by Western mainstream media and many political leaders. Though not, actually, all of them. That is the second, as it were, practical problem for the escalation brigade: The single most powerful Western figure is not playing along. Trump has not condemned Russia. He did call the attack “terrible” and “horrible” and claimed that he was told that “they [presumably meaning Russia] made a mistake.”

Whatever basis (US signal intelligence? Hearsay?) he has – or not – for this statement, politically, the key point of Trump’s first reaction was that he demonstratively refrained from joining the rest of the West in escalating, while stressing that the war as such is the issue and ending it the solution. A similar approach in a statement on X by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirms that this is not a fluke but Trump’s and therefore Washington’s policy, at least for now. America’s president has clearly – and unsurprisingly – decided that his halting and open-ended yet still at least ongoing attempt to achieve a normalization with Moscow is more important than joining the latest propaganda campaign against Russia. Trump – so criminally wrong in the Middle East – is right on this one, even if he is pursuing extremely pragmatic purposes. He is also, as it happens, right here in a more fundamental sense, which brings us back to problem number one with the Western mainstream treatment of the Sumy attack:

Despite Kiev’s endless record of deception, the Western claim that the Russian attack was a crime is once again based on that very murky source alone. Ukraine’s past-due-date president Vladmir Zelensky, for instance, has decried a “horrific” attack hitting “an ordinary city street, ordinary life.” Macron, Merz, Starmer, Kellogg the New York Times, The Telegraph – to name only a few examples – all follow Zelensky’s and Kiev’s lie that this was a deliberate attack on civilians. Yet, in reality, Russia struck at a gathering of Ukrainian soldiers. Soldiers, yes, even on Sunday and also on Palm Sunday, are legitimate targets in armed conflict. It is not criminal to attack them. That is an elementary legal reality, rooted in the Law of Armed Conflict. And, when the boot is on the other foot, the West knows this well: No one there decried a Ukrainian “war crime,” when Kiev’s Western-supplied artillery wiped out almost 100 Russian troops sleeping in their quarters behind the front line in January 2023.

Read more …

“..after he allegedly suggested that Kiev should destroy the Crimean Bridge..”

• Medvedev Brands Incoming German Chancellor ‘Nazi’ (RT)

Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has branded incoming German chancellor Friedrich Merz a Nazi after he allegedly suggested that Kiev should destroy the Crimean Bridge. In an interview with state broadcaster ARD, Merz, the leader of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party and the likely future leader of Germany, stated that Berlin could supply long-range Taurus missiles to Ukraine, but only if it is done in coordination with other EU nations. Kiev should in the future use Western-supplied missiles to go on the offensive and destroy, for example, “the most important land connection between Russia and Crimea,” Merz said. Merz did not clarify if he meant the Crimean bridge, which stretches from Russia’s Krasnodar Region to Crimea, or the ‘land bridge’ that Russian forces established with the peninsula when the former Ukrainian region off Kherson joined Russia.

However, many critics have interpreted Merz’s words to mean the Crimean bridge, especially given that Kiev has already conducted a number of attacks on it since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. In a post on X on Monday, Medvedev, who currently serves as the deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, suggested that Merz was following in the footsteps of his Nazi father. “Chancellor candidate Fritz Merz is haunted by the memory of his father, who served in Hitler’s Wehrmacht. Now Merz has suggested a strike on the Crimean Bridge. Think twice, Nazi,” Medvedev wrote. According to media reports, Merz’s father Joachim was conscripted into the Wehrmacht – the unified armed forces of Nazi Germany – around 1941. His grandfather, Josef Paul Sauvigny, had also been a member of the Nazi party since 1933.

Russia’s ambassador to Germany, Sergey Nechaev, warned that delivering Taurus missiles to Ukraine would not alter the battlefield situation but could escalate the conflict, as the missiles would be guided by German specialists. He suggested this might provoke Moscow to take retaliatory measures. Germany is Kiev’s second-largest military donor, after the US. Earlier this month, Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock announced that Berlin would provide the country with an additional $12 billion worth of military aid over the next four years and would continue to support it regardless of the upcoming change of government in Germany. Russia has repeatedly slammed continued foreign assistance to Ukraine, arguing that it only serves to prolong hostilities and cause more bloodshed without affecting the ultimate outcome of the conflict.

Read more …

Guess who the judge is? Boasberg.

• Meta’s Monopoly Trial Kicks Off (ET)

The fate of social media giant Meta, billionaire Mark Zuckerberg’s primary company, is on the line as a trial begins in Washington on Monday to determine whether the tech giant is violating antitrust laws. The Federal Trade Commission, which has spent the past six years investigating Meta, is expected to argue before U.S. District Judge James Boasberg that Meta’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp created an illegal monopoly over social networking. In the worst-case scenario for Meta, the company could be forced to divest both subsidiaries in a breakup on a scale not seen since the dismantling of AT&T’s telephone empire more than 40 years ago. Here’s what to know about the most important trial in Meta’s history.

Trial The case is being held at the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse, just a few hundred yards from the U.S. Capitol. It’s a bench trial, meaning Boasberg alone will decide the outcome, not a jury. That gives the judge extraordinary influence over the future of one of the most powerful companies in the world.

FTC Claims The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigation into the company began during President Donald Trump’s first term and was aggressively pursued under President Joe Biden . The FTC has taken issue with the company’s 2012 purchase of the image-based app Instagram and 2014 purchase of WhatsApp, a messaging platform that’s particularly popular outside of the United States. During the trial, the FTC is expected to argue that Meta’s purchase of the two platforms was part of a calculated effort to “buy or bury” any potential rivals to Facebook. In a 2008 email presented by the FTC in a past federal court filing, Zuckerberg wrote, “It is better to buy than compete.” FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson has said that his agency is “raring to go” against Meta but also that he’ll follow lawful orders from the president to close the case.

Meta’s Response Meta has consistently denied the allegations of operating an illegal monopoly and has argued that the FTC’s case is both outdated and out of step with current market realities. A spokesperson for Meta said in a statement to The Epoch Times that the acquisitions were approved by regulators at the time and that the company has always operated competitively. He cited the presence of competitors such as TikTok, YouTube, X, iMessage, and others. The spokesperson said the lawsuit “defies reality” and that it would send a message that “no deal is ever truly final” if Boasberg sides with the FTC. The company has also suggested that dismantling its integrated platforms would harm users, who’ve come to rely on interconnected services and shared back-end systems. Since Trump was elected to a second term, Zuckerberg has visited Mar-a-Lago, ended the company’s controversial fact-checking efforts, rolled back diversity and inclusion programs, and staffed the company with GOP-friendly executives.

‘Creaking Antitrust Precedents ’Boasberg has heard years of pretrial motions in this case and has made clear he isn’t fully sold on the government’s argument He threw out the FTC’s original filing in 2021, citing a lack of clear market definitions. While he allowed the revised case to proceed, he’s continued to express skepticism, warning in recent months that the FTC’s claims “strain this country’s creaking antitrust precedents.” Antitrust statutory law and litigation are among the most labyrinthine areas of the federal code. Boasberg has given both sides a chance to make their case in court. Witness lists include Zuckerberg himself, former Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg, and executives from rival platforms such as TikTok and Snapchat. The trial is expected to last through the summer, with a decision potentially arriving by July.

Read more …

A curious contortion.

• Now We Know Why Democrats Are Losing the Messaging War (Margolis)

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) just reminded everyone why Democrats are losing the messaging war. In what might be the most awkward attempt at political wit this year, Jeffries recorded himself delivering what he apparently thought was a clever takedown of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Spoiler alert: It wasn’t. Picture a middle schooler trying to land an insult at the lunch table—that’s basically what happened when Jeffries attempted to rebrand “DEI” as “dumb effing individuals” in his attack on Hegseth. That’s right, the House Minority Leader, one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress, thought his comment was the kind of zinger that would go viral. Instead, it went cringey. “The DEI hires in the Trump administration, like Pete Hegseth, the so-called secretary of Defense, dumb effing individuals, continue to try to test our resolve and cancel our history,” Jeffries said in a video shared to X.

The irony is rich. Here we have the leader of a party that lives and dies by the DEI religion suddenly using “DEI hires” as a slur. The same Democrats who spent years insisting that DEI is the highest moral good are now tossing around the term like it’s a smear when it suits their narrative. So which is it? Is DEI a noble pursuit, or is it code for incompetence when someone like Hegseth is in the crosshairs? If you needed more proof that the left’s commitment to its pet causes is purely performative, Jeffries just handed it to you. Making matters worse, Jeffries built his entire rant on a foundation of misinformation about the Naval Academy’s book relocation policy. He breathlessly claimed the Academy was banning books about slavery, civil rights, and the Holocaust while keeping Hitler’s works. That’s cute, but it’s also completely false.

The reality? The books were simply moved to a different location in response to President Trump’s executive orders on DEI policies. They weren’t banned, burned, or whatever other dramatic scenario Jeffries conjured up for his social media performance. Hegseth’s response on “Sunday Morning Futures” was the coup de grâce. “It’s astonishing, not surprising,” he said. “Of course, they don’t like the fact that we’re ripping DEI out of the military and making it colorblind and merit-based. If their whole strategy is, I don’t even know how long the video was, didn’t see it, minute-long videos on TikTok to call us names while we secure the southern border, kick out Chinese influence, provide the warrior culture inside our military, that’s why they lost in a historic fashion to President Trump last time, and their future looks bleak as well.”

Read more …

It’s easy to feel sorry for the guy. Maybe don’t.

• El Salvador’s Bukele Won’t Return MS-13 Gang Member Mistakenly Deported (JTN)

President Donald Trump on Monday declined to ask El Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele to return an El Salvadoran citizen whom authorities mistakenly deported. Bukele, for his part, suggested that to return the man to the U.S. would be to smuggle a terrorist into the United States and that he would not do so. Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a citizen of El Salvador, was deported by the Trump administration by mistake, though the Supreme Court ruled that the administration must facilitate his return. During an Oval Office meeting between Trump and Bukele, neither leader committed to returning the man. “Well, I’m supposed to have suggested that I smuggle a terrorist into the United States, right?” Buekele retorted when pressed on returning the man to the U.S. “Return him to the United States. I smuggle him into the United States. I’m not going to do it.”

“How can I smuggle a terror[ist] to the United States? I don’t have the power to return him to the United States,” Buekele said. Trump also asked White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller to weigh in. “So it’s very arrogant, even for American media to suggest that we would even tell El Salvador how to handle their own citizens. As a starting point, as two immigration courts found that he was a member of MS-13,” Miller said. “When President Trump declared MS-13 to be a foreign terrorist organization, that meant that he was no longer eligible under federal law… for any form of immigration relief in the United States.”

“So he had a deportation order that was valid, which meant that, under our law, he’s not even allowed to be present in the United States and had to be returned because of the foreign terrorist designation,” he added. “This issue was then by a district court judge completely inverted, and a district court judge tried to tell the administration that they had to kidnap a citizen of El Salvador and flying back here. That issue was raised to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court said the district court order was unlawful and its main components were reversed.”

Read more …

“..in 2019, two judges refused to grant him bond because he was a verified member of the MS-13 gang..”

• Why the Beatified MS-13 ‘Father’ Was ‘Mistakenly’ Deported (Victoria Taft)

It’s worth reminding readers of the reasons the man being described as the innocent “Maryland father” was “mistakenly” deported from Los Estados Unidos. Kilmar Abrego Garcia is now cooling his heels in the most famous El Salvadoran prison in the world. He’s gotten more love from America’s left than, say, the 14-year-old girl MS-13 hacked up with machetes in 2019 in Maryland. It’s strange, isn’t it? Ariana Funes-Diaz was hacked with a machete and hit with a baseball bat, and her lifeless and bloodied body was left in a ditch, but nobody seems to remember or care. Now, I’m not suggesting that Abrego Garcia had anything to do with the gang murdering that girl; no one has ever suggested or proven any connection whatsoever. It’s just that MS-13 is tied, if you will, with Tren de Aragua for brutality. They intentionally shock the conscience to stay in power like the Third World knuckle draggers they are.

Rachel Morin was murdered by a man illegally in the country from El Salvador. He was found guilty of her murder by a Maryland jury after one hour of deliberation on Monday evening, after a two-week-long trial. We contend that the United States stop importing violent criminals from other countries. But the left would have us believe that Señor Abrego Garcia is just a normal family man who’s done nothing wrong and has never put a toe out of line and that he’s sorta kinda quasi-legally here. In 2019, his Holiness, St. Abrego, was rolled up by the feds while hanging around in a Home Depot parking lot, allegedly looking for work. Sounds normal. Lots of illegal aliens do this. But don’t ask him why he hadn’t found more than day jobs since he’d illegally come into the country years before because that’s racist. His attorney says he had a job in construction.

Anyway, the truth is, the local Maryland cops didn’t actually believe he was just looking for a day gig. Indeed, he showed up to work in his Chicago Bulls gear. MS-13 shares its affinity with the Bulls’ colors and gear with the Bloods and the Latin Kings. MS-13 also likes to use devil horn symbology in hand signals, and some members carry their tell-tale machetes. And of course, there are always the MS-13 tattoos. There are reports that he has one, but authorities have offered no photos of the granddaddy of all symbols proving unmistakably that he’s an MS-13 gang member. But in 2019, two judges refused to grant him bond because he was a verified member of the MS-13 gang and a “danger to the community.” The conundrum for most is that a guy who came into the U.S. illegally in 2011 and was identified by Maryland police and U.S. immigration officials as an MS-13 member by 2019 isn’t a benign presence in Los Estados Unidos. Capice?

And now in 2025, President Trump has issued a directive that all members of MS-13 and Tren de Aragua are members of designated terrorist organizations. El Salvador President Nayib Armando Bukele Ortez was asked by reporters in the White House Oval Office today if he would bring Abrego Garcia back to the U.S. “How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States?” was his reply. So here’s the issue. St. Abrego was put on a deportation list as an alternate without anyone noticing that he should not be sent back to El Salvador. He was bumped up the list of deportees and was indeed sent to the El Salvadoran prison by mistake.

The “mistake” the feds made in sending this guy out of the country was that they sent him back to El Salvador, where a rival gang threatened him and his family years back. His parents moved to other Central American countries, but he moved to the U.S. at the age of 16. If DOJ officials had sent him to another country, such as Guatemala with which we have a third-party agreement, we likely wouldn’t be having this issue right now, and St. Abrego would have disappeared into the ether — maybe even with his family in tow. Issues involving due process are serious. We should demand that people receive theirs. Attorney General Pam Bondi in the above video said Abrego received two court hearings when he was designated an MS-13 member. Thanks to President Trump, illegal immigration into our great country has virtually stopped. Despite the radical left’s lies, new legislation wasn’t needed to secure our border, just a new president.

Read more …

“The vast bottom of humanity already has plenty of nothing, and their abundance will abide…”

• Systemic Considerations (James Howard Kunstler)

Whatever else you think is happening in our world, contraction is the reality-based order-of-the-day, and everything else is downstream of that. The world has to get by with less. Nothing is going to fix this for everybody, though any number of schemes for redistributing what’s left will preoccupy the political mojo. Right now, it’s tariffs, which are an attempt to restore industry ceded to the formerly left-behind people elsewhere in the world — taking back what we used to do. You are correct to wonder if this is even possible. The wish is surely understandable, if a bit fuzzy and over-simplified: to be again a nation of people occupied purposefully in the service of a bright future. Redemption stories are deeply appealing.

Many of us are aware that the hour for this is late. We’ve already lived through our decades of pumping cheap oil out of American ground, extracting the ores, fashioning the metal into I-beams and rails, raising the skyscrapers, laying the asphalt ribbons of highway, and strewing the landscape with split-level houses and strip-malls. Let’s not try a re-run of that. What have we got to work with? An overly-complex matrix of systems and subsidiary systems operating on the verge of failure at excessive scale. For example, our cities and their asteroid belts of suburbs. The rot is already well-advanced in many of them from their centers outward, and we can see the process underway of strip-mining the remaining assets on-the-ground. Detroit, Cleveland, Baltimore. . . all occupy important geographically strategic sites. All are populated by dwindling societies of the cope-less, floundering their way out of existence. The geographies will abide without them. Others will come along and make something of these places’ virtues.

Agri-business is a method for strip-mining the value from what remains of our fruited plains. Everything about it is on an arc of failure, mortgaged to a futureless giantism. It seemed like a good idea at the time, and now that time has passed. The remaining soil itself can probably be rescued with heroic ant-like peasant labor over generations, which is to say a long and rather desperate project with no quick resolution. Even if Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., hadn’t come along to read America the riot act on food, anyone can see that the age of Froot Loops is drawing to a close. Town and country, what human society at its best was composed of, has got to be rearranged. This is something that MAGA is not talking about. MAGA looks like it is seeking a reenactment of the years 1950 to 1964. That isn’t going to happen. What then? The tech broz propose something that looks like an A-I printed robotic future. They are drunk on their own Stanford University brand Kool-Aid, hallucinating a future that is little more than math dressed in spandex.

It is nearly impossible to grok the size of their vast fortunes, their billions. Thousands upon thousands of millions. From what? From marshaling squadrons of lawyers to draw up ownership documents for this and that venture enabling idiots with nose-rings to lecture each other about sexual etiquette on cell-phone screens? Warning: don’t become infatuated with singularities, journeys beyond biology and the ecology of planet earth. That’s a story for saps, cargo-cultists, the mentally ill. Speaking of all that money, one thing you can surely depend on is a violent unwinding of global finance. The vast bottom of humanity already has plenty of nothing, and their abundance will abide. The hedge fund broz and related broz in the shared hallucinations of capital can make some provision for wealth preservation if they have half-a-brain. It’s the great wad in the middle that has the worst problem: they get wiped out and then they discover they have no Plan B. That’s when the fun really kicks off in America (and other sovereign lands, of course.)

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Hep B https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1911479588535882235

 

 

Vax

 

 

Bhattacharya https://twitter.com/sophiadahl1/status/1911580633035334115 https://twitter.com/Humanspective/status/1911680285772849217

 

 

https://twitter.com/mamboitaliano__/status/1911367206371275242 https://twitter.com/mamboitaliano__/status/1911512270149919189

 

 

AI Jesus https://twitter.com/mamboitaliano__/status/1911292594669425151

 

 

Amur https://twitter.com/gunsnrosesgirl3/status/1911392004862263730

 

 

Orangutan

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle March 31 2025

Mar 312025
 
 March 31, 2025  Posted by at 10:01 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , ,  29 Responses »


Keith Haring Untitled 1984

 

• Trump and Putin Could Bring Peace to the World (Paul Craig Roberts)
• Trump Teases New Putin Call – NBC (RT)
• Trump ‘Very Angry’ & ‘Pissed Off’ At Putin, Threatens New Tariffs (ZH)
• Kremlin Blasts EU For ‘Not Wanting Peace’ As It Refuses To Ease Sanctions (ZH)
• Baltic States Fear Ukraine Ceasefire – FT (RT)
• Zelensky Has Plan To Take Out Election Rivals – Economist (RT)
• Diplomat Explains Putin’s Proposal For Temporary Ukraine Administration (RT)
• Inside President Trump’s Ambitious Policy Strategy (Devlin)
• Trump Inks $100 Million Deal With Skadden Law Firm (ET)
• ‘100%’ US Gets Greenland – Trump (RT)
• Trump Says He Is ‘Not Joking’ About Running for 3rd Presidential Term (ET)
• Interest Costs On US Debt To Exceed Economic Growth By 2045 (JTN)
• Biden Admin Accused of Burying Conflicting Climate Change Report (Turley)
• The Party That Woke Broke (Suzanne Bowdey)
• What Made America Great In The Gilded Age (Loyola)

 

 

 

 

Elon Ukr

40 years https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1906423104391561632

Big election in Wisconsin tomorrow

DOGE SS

Leavitt

Tesla

 

 

 

 

“..we could enter a golden era of peace. Of course, the military-security complex would assassinate both Trump and Putin. Nevertheless, I believe both would risk it if only they could think of it.”

• Trump and Putin Could Bring Peace to the World (Paul Craig Roberts)

England and France, American puppet states for decades until the advent of Trump 2, are visibly at work disrupting Trump’s effort to reach a deal with Putin that ends the conflict in Ukraine. The Russian Defense Ministry said that the second strike on the Sudzha pipeline infrastructure in Russia’s Kursk Region last Friday, which completed the destruction of the facility, was the work of Britain and France. According to the Russian Defense Ministry, the targeting and navigation of the American HIMARS missiles (missiles Biden said he would not give to Zelensky but did) was provided by France. British specialists input the target coordinates and the launching command came from London.

What explains two American puppet states working against the United States government? Is it another CIA operation against Trump? Is it the US military-security complex paying the British and French governments to keep the profitable (for the US military-security complex) conflict going? Is it the Israeli-backed US Zionist neoconservatives continuing their efforts to diminish Russia’s influence in world affairs? Whatever is the answer, the Russian Foreign Ministry has no better idea than I do. The spokeswoman, Zakharova, blames Zelensky for failing to observe the negotiated agreement that both sides cease attacking the other’s energy infrastructure. Russia agreed to Trump’s proposal as a way of protecting nuclear power plants, the destruction which could be deadly for large numbers of civilians in Russia, Ukraine, and Europe.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov blamed the Ukrainian military for not following Zelensky’s orders. It is a mystery how Zakharova and Peskov can continue to describe the situation as a Ukrainian issue when the two nuclear-armed (armed by Washington) NATO countries, Britain and France, are at work undermining the Trump-Putin peace negotiations. If Trump and Putin were in the league with the great strategists in history, what would they do to bring this clown act to an end? They would announce a military alliance. Putin can have Ukraine, the Baltics and as much of Europe as he wants. Trump will take Canada, Greenland, and Panama. No one on earth could do anything about this.

Putin does not want Ukraine, the Baltics, or Europe. He only wants Russia to be left alone and to engage freely with the countries that comprise the world. What Trump really wants, we don’t yet know. But a Trump-Putin alliance would establish dominion over the rule of earth, Israel included. Israel’s agenda of Greater Israel could easily be deep-sixed, Israel’s nuclear weapons destroyed, and justice given to the Palestinians. Israel would be reduced, instead of expanded, in boundary, and the Jews could use their talent for business to make the Middle East a prosperous area of the world.

President Trump seems to have the idea that the pursuit of mutual interests in business is far superior to the pursuit of war. Putin has shown himself to be the least combative of leaders of powerful countries. If only Trump and Putin could realize that a US-Russia military alliance would establish peace in the world, no more NATO, no more CIA overthrowing governments, no more propaganda about false news threats, we could enter a golden era of peace. Of course, the military-security complex would assassinate both Trump and Putin. Nevertheless, I believe both would risk it if only they could think of it.

Read more …

“..he was “very angry” and “pissed off” about Putin’s statements about the legitimacy of Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky..”

• Trump Teases New Putin Call – NBC (RT)

US President Donald Trump has said he may have another phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the coming days, NBC News reported on Sunday. Trump and Putin last spoke over the telephone on March 18 and agreed to work toward a peaceful end to the Ukraine conflict. Following the call, Russia and Ukraine carried out a prisoner swap and agreed to a partial ceasefire, although Moscow claims that Kiev has repeatedly broken it since. In an interview with NBC news on Sunday, Trump said the two presidents plan to speak again this week. The US president also stated he will sanction Russia if he considers that it is to blame in the event a ceasefire in the Ukraine conflict fails.

“If Russia and I are unable to make a deal on stopping the bloodshed in Ukraine, and if I think it was Russia’s fault – which it might not be – but if I think it was Russia’s fault, I am going to put secondary tariffs on oil, on all oil coming out of Russia,” he was quoted as saying. He added that he was “very angry” and “pissed off” about Putin’s statements about the legitimacy of Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky. In a speech on Thursday, Putin said that because Zelensky has not held elections, both he and the officials he has appointed have no legitimacy. The Ukrainian leader’s presidential term expired last May. Neo-Nazi units such as the notorious Azov are now effectively beginning to run Ukraine, empowered by continued Western military support, he emphasized.

The repeated Ukrainian ceasefire violations show that officials in Kiev no longer have control over the country’s military, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Friday. Putin and Trump had their first call on February 12 in what was the first time that the leaders of Russia and the US had spoken in years. This was followed by two rounds of high-level talks between Russian and American delegations in Saudi Arabia. Additional discussions have also been held in Istanbul, focusing on diplomatic funding and a proposal from Moscow to reinstate direct flights between the two countries. Peskov said on Thursday that the next conversation between Trump and Putin had not yet been planned.

Read more …

“Trump’s attacking Putin for denouncing Zelensky as illegitimate will surely not be taken as a very serious critique by the Kremlin, given the irony of Trump himself not too long ago having himself blasted Zelensky as a “dictator without elections”.”

• Trump ‘Very Angry’ & ‘Pissed Off’ At Putin, Threatens New Tariffs (ZH)

Why should Russia’s refusal to make big concessions come as any surprise to either the White House or mainstream media, given Russian forces are clearly steadily gaining on the battlefield? In a phone interview with NBC on Sunday, President Donald Trump said, “if Russia and I are unable to make a deal on stopping the bloodshed in Ukraine, and if I think it was Russia’s fault — which it might not be — but if I think it was Russia’s fault, I am going to put secondary tariffs on oil, on all oil coming out of Russia.” Trump went on to say he’s “very angry” and “pissed off” particularly at President Vladimir Putin’s attacking the legitimacy of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s and his leadership:

“I was very angry, pissed off” when Putin “started getting into [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelensky’s credibility” and “started talking about new leadership” in Ukraine, Trump told NBC’s Kristen Welker in a phone call. Trump said that Putin’s comments on Zelensky are “not going in the right location.” This was in reference to a Friday plan pitched by Putin for a “transitional administration” for Ukraine under the auspices of the UN. The immediate aim would be ceasefire leading toward “democratic” election, followed by the negotiation of a peace agreement with the new authorities.

“We could, of course, discuss with the United States, even with European countries, and of course with our partners and friends, under the auspices of the UN, the possibility of establishing a transitional administration in Ukraine,” Putin said while visiting the northwestern Russian city of Murmansk. He laid out that “we could discuss the possibility of introduction of temporary governance in Ukraine,” while Ukraine holds “democratic elections, to bring to power a capable government that enjoys the trust of the people.” After this, he explained, the two warring sides would “start talks with them about a peace treaty.” Putin has in the recent past complained that Zelensky is ‘illegitimate’ and thus can’t legally be negotiated with, since he has canceled democratic elections on an indefinite basis.

So Trump has clearly brushed this aside in the new Sunday comments… However, Trump’s attacking Putin for denouncing Zelensky as illegitimate will surely not be taken as a very serious critique by the Kremlin, given the irony of Trump himself not too long ago having himself blasted Zelensky as a “dictator without elections”. Trump confirmed to NBC that he will speak again with his Russian counterpart this week. Russia has indicated that the question of the Black Sea ceasefire is still being negotiated, and is awaiting the removal of sanctions on agricultural exports which necessitates specific banks being reconnected to the Swift payment system. But Europe has that no, it won’t go along with any plan which results in easing sanctions.

Read more …

War gives Brussels access to unlimited funds. That they themselves vote for. Re-armament, threat of Putin conquering all of Europe.

In case of peace, no such money flows.

• Kremlin Blasts EU For ‘Not Wanting Peace’ As It Refuses To Ease Sanctions (ZH)

Moscow has blasted the European Union’s declaration that it will not lift sanctions on Russia in the context of the US-backed Black Sea ceasefire deal. The Russian side has made clear that for the deal to be implemented the West must remove sanctions from the state-owned Rosselkhozbank as a precondition. “An integral part of the Black Sea deal is the lifting of sanctions on a Russian bank,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters in reference to the primary financial entity overseeing Russian agricultural products. “If European countries don’t want to go down this path, it means they don’t want to go down the path of peace in unison with the efforts shown in Moscow and Washington,” he added. Rosselkhozbank has remained cut off from the SWIFT financial messaging network due to EU sanctions, and Russia is seeking immediate reconnect if peace is to be secured in the Black Sea.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen explained at the end this week, “The sanctions are very significant; they are painful; they have an impact on the Russian economy, and they represent a powerful lever.” So clearly Europe is not ready to let go of this ‘power lever’. Von der Leyen made clear that the sanctions “will remain in effect until a just and lasting peace is established in Ukraine.” But she did also say that “when the war is over, the sanctions might be removed.” Other European leaders have echoed this viewpoint, for example with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz calling sanctions relief a “grave mistake” which “makes no sense” without a ceasefire first. The Zelensky government too stands against the easting of anti-Russia sanctions.

The Kremlin has further described that Europe is actively blocking Trump’s good-faith efforts to establish peace, and that this is ultimately behind the EU’s refusal to lift sanctions. Russian sources have meanwhile pointed out that Russia is still thriving despite the West’s record number of sanctions on the country. Trump admin is increasingly openly clashing with the EU on the Black Sea deal…

https://twitter.com/FiorellaIsabelM/status/1905033950084370863?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1905033950084370863%7Ctwgr%5E551bca574affbef7d0775d8124338bc30c8af20c%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fgeopolitical%2Fkremlin-blasts-eu-not-wanting-peace-it-refuses-ease-sanctions

“Earlier this week, President Vladimir Putin asserted that the Russian economy has become the fourth largest in the world in purchasing power parity terms after those of China, the US and India, despite a record 28,595 sanctions being placed on it by Washington, Brussels and their allies,” wrote RT. “According to the Russian government’s data, the country’s economy grew 4.1% in 2024, surpassing the official forecast of 3.9%,” the same report said.

Read more …

Another way of saying the same thing; peace is a bigger threat than war.

• Baltic States Fear Ukraine Ceasefire – FT (RT)

The Baltic nations believe a ceasefire in the Ukraine conflict would increase the security threat they face, the Financial Times has reported, citing the defense ministers of the countries. In recent weeks, a 30-day pause on strikes against energy infrastructure by Moscow and Kiev has been agreed upon, while there have been moves toward reviving the Black Sea grain deal as part of efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the conflict. The FT said in an article on Sunday that “a full ceasefire is still seen as far off,” but officials in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, who have been among the most vocal backers of Ukraine in the EU and NATO since the escalation between Moscow and Kiev in February 2022, are already concerned that it might be achieved at some point.

“We all understand that when the war in Ukraine will be stopped, Russia will redistribute its forces very quickly. That means also the threat level will increase significantly very quickly,” Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur told the outlet. Pevkur claimed that Moscow could redeploy 300,000 troops from the contact line with Ukraine to Russia’s western borders once a ceasefire takes effect. Meanwhile, the Estonian defense minister rejected a plan by the UK and France to send a so-called “reassurance force” made up of Western European soldiers to Ukraine after the fighting stops. “We cannot jeopardize the security of the eastern flank of NATO. We cannot fall into the trap that our forces are somehow fixed in Ukraine. Then we will have risks at our border,” he explained.

The article also cited Lithuanian Defense Minister Dovile Sakaliene, who said earlier this week that “Russia will use this time following a ceasefire to speed up its military capabilities. They already have a huge, battlefield-trained army, which is going to get even bigger.” “Let us not have any illusions. Let us not lie to ourselves that Russia is going to be done after Ukraine,” she said. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly dismissed claims that Moscow has any aggressive plans towards NATO as “nonsense” that is meant to scare the European population and justify increases in military spending. US President Donald Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, who met with Putin at the Kremlin earlier this month, told American journalist Tucker Carlson last week that Russia is “100% not” interested in invading NATO countries. Suggesting that Moscow harbors such plans is “preposterous,” according to Witkoff.

Read more …

How to say Azov without saying Azov. Problem is, Zelensky will not be accepted as winner.

• Zelensky Has Plan To Take Out Election Rivals – Economist (RT)

Vladimir Zelensky and his team have begun laying the groundwork for a summer presidential election in Ukraine in order to “catch rivals off guard” and be reelected before the fragmented opposition has a chance to regroup, The Economist reported, citing senior government sources. Zelensky’s five-year presidential term expired in May 2024, but he refused to call new elections, citing martial law. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly questioned Zelensky’s legitimacy, arguing that his status prevents him from signing legally binding documents, including a peace deal with Moscow. US President Donald Trump once referred to Zelensky as a “dictator without elections.” According to the Economist article published on Sunday, Zelensky “called a meeting last week to task his team with organising a vote after a full ceasefire, which the Americans believe they could impose by late April.”

A senior government source claimed that Zelensky intends to move quickly to reduce electoral competition by giving potential rivals little time to prepare and virtually “run unopposed.” The source justified the move by saying, “a long campaign would tear the country apart.” Zelensky claimed in an interview last month that the “population is against elections,” arguing that holding a vote would undermine the country’s defense posture. “If we suspend martial law, we will lose the army,” he said. The Ukrainian parliament is set to vote on whether to extend martial law for another 90 days before it expires on May 8. Most sources cited by The Economist expect Zelensky to push for a summer election, with early July cited as the earliest possible date under Ukraine’s 60-day minimum campaign law.

Former Ukrainian President Pyotr Poroshenko, described by the outlet as “a sworn foe” of Zelensky, predicted that elections could take place “any time from August to October.” Poroshenko claimed the campaign had already de facto begun in February, when Zelensky placed him under sanctions in an attempt to write off his candidacy and dissuade former commander-in-chief Valery Zaluzhny from challenging him.Zelensky’s sanctions also targeted exiled Ukrainian opposition leader Viktor Medvedchuk. Medvedchuk led the Opposition Platform – For Life party, formerly the second-largest faction in the Ukrainian parliament, until his arrest in April 2022. The party was later banned, and Medvedchuk was transferred to Russia in a prisoner exchange in September 2022.

Putin has claimed that Zelensky has “absolutely no chance” of winning a fair election due to his low approval ratings, “unless something is grossly rigged.” An internal poll last month suggested that Zelensky would be defeated by Zaluzhny 30% to 65%, as many Ukrainians are “clearly frustrated with their war leader.” Critics also say that a fair election would require dismantling censorship and ending government control over media coverage. In 2022, Kiev introduced what it called the United News TV telemarathon – a 24/7 joint information program produced by the country’s major media outlets – while cracking down on alternative narratives viewed as pro-Russia propaganda.

Read more …

Medvedev: “The nit is illegitimate. There’s nothing to respect him for. He failed, his people are dying, and his country is disappearing.”

• Diplomat Explains Putin’s Proposal For Temporary Ukraine Administration (RT)

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s proposal to establish a temporary international administration in Ukraine under UN supervision is based on historical precedents, according to Kirill Logvinov, who heads the Foreign Ministry’s Department of International Organizations. He told TASS on Sunday that the UN already has experience with this process. Moscow has repeatedly stated that it is not possible to sign a peace agreement with Kiev because the current Ukrainian leadership lacks legitimacy. Vladimir Zelensky’s presidential term expired in May 2024, though he has remained in office without holding elections, citing martial law.

Putin suggested earlier this week that creating “external management or temporary administration” under the UN could facilitate elections in Ukraine and provide a legitimate foundation for negotiations. A peace deal signed with a newly elected leader, he said, “would be recognized around the world” and could not be overturned later. There is no formal mechanism for creating such administrations in the UN,” Logvinov acknowledged. However, he noted that the UN has established transitional authorities in several post-conflict areas, including Cambodia, East Timor, and Eastern Slavonia, setting a precedent for this type of arrangement. “In all cases, the first step was reaching an agreement between the parties to the conflict – directly or through intermediaries – on the appropriate transfer of powers to the UN,” he explained.

Once an agreement is reached, the parties or their mediators would then submit a formal appeal to the UN. The Security Council would instruct the secretary-general to prepare a framework for the temporary administration, including a timeline and budget. Logvinov stressed that the final decision rests with the UN Security Council following a report by the secretary-general outlining the form and functions of the proposed administration. Officials in Kiev have rejected the idea. Andrey Kovalenko, the head of Ukraine’s Center for Countering Disinformation, claimed on Telegram that the plan is an attempt by Moscow to delay peace talks.

Washington has not formally commented on the proposal. However, Reuters quoted an unnamed White House national security spokesperson who said Ukraine’s governance should be determined by its constitution and people. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres dismissed the proposal on Friday, insisting that “Ukraine has a legitimate government, and so obviously that must be respected.” Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, currently the deputy chair of the Russian Security Council, criticized Guterres’ remarks, calling them a “double lie.” Referring to Zelensky in a post on X, he said: “The nit is illegitimate. There’s nothing to respect him for. He failed, his people are dying, and his country is disappearing.”

Read more …

“It is catastrophic for [Congress] to not act and to let individual judges nullify laws nationwide in a preliminary postur..,”

• Inside President Trump’s Ambitious Policy Strategy (Devlin)

President Donald Trump’s pace since returning to the White House has surprised the president’s friends, perhaps even more than his enemies. On the 66th day of his administration, Trump signed the 100th executive order of his second term, breaking FDR’s record of 99 executive orders in the first 100 days. While Trump plows ahead, the leftist lawfare complex that once sought to imprison the president is attempting to handcuff his second term by filing more than 130 lawsuits against the administration. As a deputy assistant to the president and Trump senior policy strategist, May Mailman is one of those administration staffers tasked with executing President Trump’s game plan. She sat down for a special episode of “The Signal Sitdown” filmed at the White House. “I think actually the president’s speed has always been this fast,” Mailman said of the offensive posture of the administration. It has always been, ‘I need this, I need this, let’s go, let’s go, let’s go.’”

Mailman said this strategy emerged during the transition to ensure that on Day One, President Trump was keeping his promises. “Everything that he said he was going to do on Day One, we’re going to do on Day One. So there was just that capturing of promises and making sure that that was executed.” The added advantage to the strategy? The president’s opponents are caught off guard: “They can’t keep up if you just keep executing,” Mailman said. The second Trump administration’s personnel, she suggested, are reflecting the dynamism coming from the Oval Office. “I think what you’re seeing with personnel this time is people who are oriented toward action. And so a lot of people are oriented towards process, they’re oriented toward contemplation, they’re oriented toward a lot of other things. But these people? They want to get things done.”

In this administration, “a staffer recognizes that we are here to execute the president’s agenda,” Mailman said. “That is your job, and you should do it smart, and you should do it right, and you should ask questions, and you should do it in a way that’s not idiotic, but your job is to execute.” But, as a four-year veteran of the first Trump White House, Mailman didn’t anticipate coming back to the White House in 2025. “I wasn’t going to do it, but then I worked on the transition and there was so much momentum,” Mailman told The Daily Signal. “So how could you not? And so here we are.”Nevertheless, the administration’s opponents would like nothing more than to kill the president’s momentum. That much has been made clear by the more than 130 lawsuits, an overwhelming majority of them filed by leftist groups, against the administration. Some activist judges are granting these leftist groups injunctions blocking Trump policies.

“The lawfare has been alarming,” Mailman said. “The number, I think, is probably to be expected [because] everybody loves to fundraise off of this,” Mailman explained. “The problem is what happens next… If the Supreme Court continues to allow nationwide injunctions, which is before any trial, before any evidence, before any final legal determination… I think it will forever harm the standing of the judiciary in the minds of the American public.” Part of solving the problem of rogue judges lies with Congress. It’s not only the executive branch being challenged by the judiciary, either. Mailman argued, “the Legislature [is] seeing their laws just get totally shredded by the judiciary,” as well.

Now, Republicans on Capitol Hill are currently weighing impeachment, investigations, and legislation, among other potential solutions. “It is catastrophic for [Congress] to not act and to let individual judges nullify laws nationwide in a preliminary posture,” Mailman said. “And they need to carve back this power if they care at all about their own power.” “The Legislature kind of needs to think about that as an institution,” she told The Daily Signal. “Do we care about the people? Because … when judges take over, who loses? The people.”

Read more …

“$100 million in pro bono legal services..”

• Trump Inks $100 Million Deal With Skadden Law Firm (ET)

A prominent Wall Street law firm has struck a deal with the White House to provide $100 million in pro bono legal services. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP will dedicate the services to causes supported by both the firm and the Trump administration, including assisting veterans and other public servants, ensuring fairness in the U.S. justice system, and combating anti-Semitism. The firm also committed to funding at least five law graduates under a fellowship dedicated to supporting the causes each year and employing merit-based hiring practices, vowing not to deny representation to members of politically disenfranchised groups. This deal comes as President Donald Trump has, in recent weeks, issued executive orders targeting multiple major legal firms, directing government agencies to revoke their security clearances and terminate contracts.

While Trump has not issued one against Skadden, the deal seems to be a way to prevent that from happening. “This was essentially a settlement,” President Donald Trump said in announcing the deal at a White House event. “We appreciate Skadden’s coming to the table. As you know, other law firms have likewise settled the case. And … what’s gone on is a shame.” A White House statement explained that Skadden had approached Trump about its “strong commitment to ending the weaponization of the justice system and the legal profession.” Jeremy London, the firm’s executive partner, said the two parties worked “constructively” to reach an agreement. “The firm looks forward to continuing our productive relationship with President Trump and his administration. We firmly believe that this outcome is in the best interests of our clients, our people, and our firm,” London said.

News of the agreement came just hours after two other law firms, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block, sued the president for ordering the retraction of their security clearances and the termination of their government contracts. In WilmerHale’s case, Trump cited the firm’s employment of former special counsel Robert Mueller and his aides as one of the top reasons for the move. Mueller “wielded the power of the Federal Government to lead one of the most partisan investigations in American history,” Trump wrote in the executive order, referring to Mueller’s investigation of claims Trump colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election. Those claims proved to be unfounded.

Jenner, on the other hand, hired Andrew Weissmann, Mueller’s top prosecutor. In separate legal actions filed in the District of Columbia, the two firms accused the administration of punishing its political opposition and asked the court to find Trump’s orders unconstitutional. Paul Weiss, another Wall Street law firm, brokered a deal with the White House last week to provide $40 million in free legal services for mutually supported causes. In return, the administration revoked an order similar to those targeting Jenner and WilmerHale.

Read more …

The art of the deal incoming. Patience.

• ‘100%’ US Gets Greenland – Trump (RT)

US President Donald Trump has said he is sure that Washington will take over Greenland and that he has already had “absolutely” real conversations about annexing the Danish autonomous territory. “We’ll get Greenland. Yeah, 100%,” Trump told the US broadcaster NBC in a phone interview on Saturday. There is a “good possibility that we could do it without military force,” he stated, adding that he would not “take anything off the table.” According to the American president, the annexation of Greenland is an issue of “international peace” and “international security and strength.” When asked what message the move would send to the rest of the world, Trump stated: “I don’t really think about that. I don’t really care.”

A video shared by Trump earlier this week claimed that the island was threatened by “Russian aggression” and “Chinese expansion.” The clip stated that the partnership between Greenland and the US “is not just history. It is destiny.” Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday that “Russia has never threatened anyone in the Arctic.” The interview came just a day after US Vice President J.D. Vance visited the resource-rich Arctic territory. During his stay, he accused Denmark of doing a poor job for the people of Greenland. “I think that you’d be a lot better coming under the United States’ security umbrella than you have been under Denmark’s,” he said while visiting a US base on the island.

Trump initially proposed buying the Danish autonomous territory during his first term in 2019 and has reignited the discussion after returning to office. He has since repeatedly promised to make the island a part of the US, arguing that it is needed for security purposes. The American president’s statements have drawn an angry reaction from Copenhagen. Danish Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen stated this week that such actions were not appropriate for a close ally and were only “escalating tensions.” He also accused Trump of going “too far.” Danish MP and Defense Committee Chairman Rasmus Jarlov warned in mid-March that the US’ aspirations to annex the island could lead to a war between NATO nations. Greenland’s prime minister, Mute B. Egede, also denounced what he called “aggressive pressure” by the US.

Read more …

“..Trump was asked about why he wants to continue to be president, which Welker described is “the toughest job in the country.” “Well, I like working,” replied Trump, who would be 82..”

• Trump Says He Is ‘Not Joking’ About Running for 3rd Presidential Term (ET)

President Donald Trump on Sunday said that he is “not joking” about recent talk of him potentially seeking a third term in office, although such a move would likely face significant legal hurdles. “A lot of people want me to do it,” Trump told NBC News on Sunday morning. “But, I mean, I basically tell them we have a long way to go, you know, it’s very early in the administration.” When asked about whether he is serious or joking about the third term comments, Trump said, “I’m not joking.” “It is far too early to think about it,” he said, adding elsewhere in the interview that he is “focused on the current” term in office.

Since taking office, Trump has, on multiple occasions, suggested that he wants to run for a third term, which could pose a legal challenge, because the 22nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states “no person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.” That amendment was ratified in 1951 after President Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected four consecutive times. Roosevelt was the only president in U.S. history to be elected to either a third or fourth term.

Days after Trump took office in January, Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) proposed an amendment to the Constitution that could allow presidents to be elected for three terms. However, amending the Constitution would require two-thirds of Congress members to vote for its approval, which would then have to be ratified by three-fourths of state Legislatures. Explaining why he would want to seek a third term, Trump said that, “You have to start by saying, I have the highest poll numbers of any Republican for the last 100 years.” “We’re in the high 70s in many polls, in the real polls, and you see that. And, and you know, we’re very popular,” Trump said. When asked about how he could be elected to a third term, Trump told NBC News there might be ways to do so.

NBC’s Kristen Welker then provided him with a hypothetical situation: “Well, let me throw out one where President Vance would run for office and then would, basically … if he won, at the top of the ticket, would then pass the baton to you.” In response, Trump said, “Well, that’s one. But there are others, too. There are others.” “Can you tell me another?” Welker asked Trump. “No,” he said. The 12th Amendment, which was ratified in 1804, says that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” Also in the interview, Trump was asked about why he wants to continue to be president, which Welker described is “the toughest job in the country.” “Well, I like working,” replied Trump, who would be 82 at the end of his current term.

Read more …

DOGE addresses real problems.

“The Social Security Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund will run out of reserves by 2033 – when today’s youngest retirees turn 70 – leading to an immediate 24 percent benefit cut under the law..”

• Interest Costs On US Debt To Exceed Economic Growth By 2045 (JTN)

The U.S. is on track to hit a dangerous milestone by 2045, according to an analysis of the new Congressional Budget Office’s long term budget outlook. The average interest rate on debt will exceed the economic growth rate by 2045, sparking the beginning of a debt spiral. “Interest costs will reach a record 3.2 percent of GDP this year – exceeding the cost of defense and Medicare – and further grow to 5.4 percent of GDP by 2055,” according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget’s review of the latest CBO data that was released on Thursday. “The average interest rate on debt will exceed the economic growth rate by 2045, sparking the beginning of a debt spiral,” the CRFB added. The watchdog group said that “high and rising debt and deficits would have many negative consequences for the budget and the economy including slower income growth, higher interest rates and interest payments on the national debt, increased geopolitical risks, undue burden on future generations, reduced fiscal space to respond to emergencies, and an increased risk of a fiscal crisis.”

The U.S. national debt is on pace to set new concerning records between now and 2055. “Federal debt held by the public will rise from 100 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 to 156 percent of GDP by 2055 – 50 percentage points above the prior record,” according to the CRFB analysis. “Annual deficits will grow from 6.2 percent of GDP in 2025 – already twice as high as they were as recently as 2016 – to 7.3 percent of GDP by 2055. This is the highest they’ve ever been outside of a crisis.” The CBO is warning that Social Security is just 8 years from insolvency. “The Social Security Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund will run out of reserves by 2033 – when today’s youngest retirees turn 70 – leading to an immediate 24 percent benefit cut under the law,” read the CRFB analysis of CBO data. “If combined with the disability insurance trust fund, the combined trust fund would be insolvent by 2034.”

The CRFB said policymakers will need to make tough decisions this year with respect to the debt and deficit. “CBO’s latest long-term budget outlook reminds us that the federal budget is on an unsustainable long-term path, and policymakers will be faced with decisions this year that will have major implications for the trajectory of our debt over the next 30 years,” read the analysis. The group said extending the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act without ways to fully cover the cost would drive debt to higher than 200% of GDP. The CRFB has encouraged lawmakers to find enough offsets to fully cover the cost of tax reform. “Even without this additional borrowing, the annual budget deficit will reach 7.3 percent of GDP in FY 2055 – higher than at any point outside of World War II, the Great Recession, and the COVID-19 pandemic,” they said.

Scott Hodge, former president of the Tax Foundation, shared his reaction to the CBO’s latest report with Just the News. “CBO’s latest long-term budget forecast should be a wakeup call to the White House and Congress that they must do more to get spending under control or the federal debt will rise to unsustainable levels,” said Hodge, a tax and fiscal policy fellow at Arnold Ventures in Washington, D.C. Arnold Ventures describes itself as a philanthropy “dedicated to improving the lives of all Americans through evidence-based policy solutions that maximize opportunity and minimize injustice.” Hodge noted that the CBO assumes that the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which expires at the end of this year, would “potentially raise more than $4 trillion in new taxes over a decade” if it is extended, but this new tax revenue still falls short of closing the deficit gap since spending is rising faster than taxes.

“We should also note that CBO is forecasting sluggish economic growth for the next decade, which puts a premium on the need to renew the 2017 tax cuts to boost economic growth. Lawmakers will have to find responsible ways to offset the cost of these tax cuts so as to not add to the mounting debt. It will take leadership to meet this twin challenge,” he said.

Read more …

“..they buried the report while allegedly making claims directly refuted by their own experts.”

• Biden Admin Accused of Burying Conflicting Climate Change Report (Turley)

There is a major story developing on Capitol Hill after House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman James Comer, R-Ky, revealed that a long-withheld report from the Biden Administration directly contradicted the claims of climate change used to limit increased U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. The suggestion is that this was an knowing effort to cap carbon admissions rather than carbon emissions. The impact that new U.S. LNG exports have on the environment and the economy was reviewed by U.S. Energy Department scientists and completed by September 2023. It appears that neither President Biden nor Secretary Jennifer Granholm liked the science or the conclusions. Rather than “follow the science,” they buried the report while allegedly making claims directly refuted by their own experts.

The report was finished while Biden was still running for reelection and would have likely enraged environmentalists. The draft study, “Energy, Economic, and Environmental Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports,” found that, under all modeled scenarios, an increase in U.S. LNG exports and natural gas production would not change global or U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. It further found that it would not increase energy prices for consumers. Biden and Granholm reportedly buried the report and then announced a pause on all new U.S. LNG export terminals in January 2024, citing the danger to environmental and economic impacts. Comer’s office told Fox News Digital that DOE repeatedly declined to provide this study to the House Oversight Committee or comply with other requests for information.

What is most concerning is that our LNG exports help reduce the dependence on Russia and would have decreased the revenues to that country to support its war in Ukraine. However, critics charge that Biden ignored the national security and economic benefits. Supporters note that we still exported a massive amount of LNG. When the U.S. ramped up exports to Europe, progressive Democrats like Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., went ballistic. This appears to have worked in shelving the study while slowing demands for further increases. The Biden Administration later released data in December 2024 suggesting that a rise in exports could cause consumer prices to rise by as much as 30%. There are obviously two sides to this debate. The problem is that it seems that only one side was allowed to be publicly presented by the delay in the release of the study.

Read more …

“Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., dared to say he didn’t want his daughters to play sports against biological boys—like 80% of his country—only to turn around and vote against his girls three months later.”

• The Party That Woke Broke (Suzanne Bowdey)

Democrats have been wallowing in the despair of last November’s elections for months, unable—or maybe unwilling—to crawl out of the pit of public opinion they find themselves in. “It’s hard to win if you don’t know why you lost,” Axios’ Alex Thompson observed. But it’s even harder, some would say, if you know and do nothing about it. To most people, the solution to the party’s problems is simple. After a year of losing ground with virtually every demographic—men, black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, young people, Independents, suburban moms—the polling all points to Democrats being completely out of step with everyday voters. So why not just abandon the extremism Americans rejected? For the party of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, the answer is much more complicated.

The crisis facing Democrats isn’t about their identity; they have one. The crisis is that they can’t moderate their ideology—or embrace it—without severe consequences. As National Review’s Rich Lowry put it, “The reason Joe Biden won in 2020 is he didn’t seem like a progressive, and one reason that his party lost in 2024 is that he governed like one.” For Democrats, ideological extremism is their kryptonite and their lifeblood. It’s what excites the base and repels the populace. In other words, it’s a recipe for long-term political disaster. And yet, in several instances, the Democrats who’ve tried to soften their positions or build a temporary bridge to sanity have been beaten back into conformity. After the election, Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., dared to say he didn’t want his daughters to play sports against biological boys—like 80% of his country—only to turn around and vote against his girls three months later. “I was just speaking authentically as a dad about one of many issues where I think we’re just out of touch with the majority of voters,” he explained to the angry mob in November. “ … I stand by my position.”

Or at least he stood by it until the time came to act on it, Americans learned. But lately, even the barest hints of compromise are punished. Look at the hysteria over Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who needs increased security simply for voting with Republicans to stop a government shutdown—something his own party argued would be a disaster for hard-working families a month earlier. For sticking to that position, there’ve been furious calls for his ouster and a leadership mutiny in party ranks. Then, there’s California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, who tested the waters earlier this month with his whiplash comments on Title IX. Sitting down with Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk on his podcast, the governor was asked about the issue of trans-identifying athletes in girls’ sports. To most people’s surprise, the progressive replied, “I think it’s an issue of fairness. I completely agree with you on that.” He emphasized his point by adding, “It’s deeply unfair.”

Newsom, who, by his own admission, has been a “leader” in the “LGBTQ” movement, encouraged his party to admit that a lopsided playing field is cause for concern. He said, “We’ve got to own that. We’ve got to acknowledge it.” His sudden openness to a broader discussion was met with horror on the Left and deep skepticism on the Right—a perfect illustration of the conundrum facing Democrats. As California Family Council President Jonathan Keller pointed out on a recent episode of the “Outstanding” podcast, “He’s trying to set it up in such a way that … he’s going to look like he’s a moderate.” But frankly, Keller said, “I’m not positive that’s actually going to be an effective strategy from him. I think what it may be effective in doing is getting him destroyed in the primaries,” he said, referring to the root problem for Democrats, which is that what wins primaries is the same thing that loses general elections.

In Newsom’s case, even an insincere shift to the middle is next-to-impossible to pull off, thanks to years of activist baggage. As Kirk wrote after the interview, “I’m under no illusions about why I was invited: Gavin Newsom wants to run for president in three years, and he thinks that talking [to] conservative figures like me increase his recognition, help him present as a centrist, and cast him as a champion of the Left in a time when the [L]eft has no real leaders. … We shouldn’t fall for this … ” he warned. “[A]nd fortunately, swerving to the center won’t be that simple for Gavin. … He knows his current record can’t win him the White House, and so he’s trying to rewrite what that record is.” Polling proved the governor’s flirtation with rationality didn’t help his case. Of 1,000 California voters, only 24% said the podcast helped them see Newsom as more moderate, while 17% insisted it made them less likely to see him as a moderate. A majority, 59%, said it made no difference. Americans are not so easily fooled. A few soundbites does not a record make.

“Like the national Democrat[ic] Party and the legacy media,” John Nolte stressed, “Newsom has painted himself into a corner where the only way to survive is through the fealty to the 20% of hard leftists that make up the Left’s base of activist and financial support. … With all their lies and lunacy in support of things like open borders and this transsexual nonsense, Newsom, Democrats, and the corporate media have alienated all the normal people, probably forever. So that 20% is all they’ve got.” The foot soldiers of the Democratic Party grasp the paradox. They’ve tried, unsuccessfully, for the last nine years to turn the heads of leadership to mainstream positions on things like gender, immigration, education, and energy. “I don’t want to be the freak show party like they have branded us,” one DNC member from Florida complained after the election when it was obvious the Left’s social radicalism had cost them every lever of power in Washington.

“When you’re a mom with three kids,” she pointed out, “and you live in middle America, and you’re just not really into politics, and you see these ads that scare the bejesus out of you, you’re like, ‘I know Trump’s weird or whatever, but I would rather his weirdness that doesn’t affect my kids.’” Others echoed her alarm. “The progressive wing of the party has to recognize—we all have to recognize—the country’s not progressive, and not to the far left or the far right. They’re in the middle,” said Joseph Paolino, a DNC committeeman for Rhode Island. It felt like, at least from those comments, that the party was finally going to pivot. “This is basically a rebuild job from the bottom up,” former DNC Chair Donna Brazile emphasized. But what happened when push came to shove?

Against the pleas of their non-elite base, the far-left won even greater control of the party—electing woke, anti-gun, pro-trans, defund-the-police, ICE-abolishing, climate change-pimping DNC leaders in Chairman Ken Martin and Vice Chair David Hogg. To the everyday Democrats, who’d been “begging the party to ditch the radical Left,” it was an astonishing betrayal. “The weaknesses of Democrats among non-white voters, particularly Hispanic and black working-class voters, is pretty significant,” authors of a new book, “Where Have All the Democrats Gone?” insist. “They’re sort of realizing this is a problem. On the other hand, they’re so invested in this whole vector of cultural issues. They’re worried about the blowback on social media and from the college-educated ‘liberalish’ voters who are increasingly a loyal base of the Democratic Party. Trump understood that and he played upon it. He continues to play upon it. He continues to get votes upon it. And the Democrats are oblivious to it.”

Not all Democrats, it seems. A growing chorus of disillusioned officials are starting to speak up about the continued reckoning that awaits the party in future elections. During snippets of his interview with NPR Monday, Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., sounded outright logical in his assessment. “We can’t just resist. It can’t just be why we’re against Trump and what’s wrong with Trump. … The Democratic brand has been damaged.”

“When you ask people … ‘What do the Republicans stand for?’ They say, ‘Well, Make America Great Again. They want to cut the size of government, they want to give tax cuts, stuff like [that].’” Then, Suozzi said, when you ask, “‘What do the Democrats stand for?’ And I think the people are kind of scratching their head a little bit, they believe in, like, [abortion] and LGBT rights—which I believe in those things too—but I don’t know that you can build a whole party around that.” He talked about running on the border issue in 2024, and his consultants protested, arguing, “‘Well, Tom, that’s a Republican issue. I don’t know if you should be talking [about that].’ I said, ‘No, this is what the people of my district are talking about. We can’t ignore what the people are talking about.’”

Read more …

“States competed for capital and labor by keeping their taxes and regulations light and efficient. As a result, America became the world’s most competitive economy, attracting a flood of foreign capital and workers.”

• What Made America Great In The Gilded Age (Loyola)

“We were at our richest from 1870 to 1913. That’s when we were a tariff country,” said President Donald Trump recently, and he’s not wrong. But tariffs aren’t the whole story. The genius of the Gilded Age was interstate regulatory and tax competition. That economy boomed. From 1870 to 1913, America’s gross domestic product grew at nearly 5% per year. Even though America’s population nearly tripled during that time, with 30 million immigrants, per capita GDP doubled. Steel production boomed, surpassing Britain, France, and Germany combined. Railway miles quadrupled. A period that began amid the ruins of civil war ended with America in first place among the world’s great economic powers. Washington collected lots of tariffs then, but little else.

Before the 16th Amendment paved the way for federal income taxes in 1913, Congress was spending barely 1% of GDP—compared with nearly 25% today. Meanwhile, the federal power to regulate commerce was limited to transactions that actually crossed state lines, leaving the vast majority of regulation to the states. States competed for capital and labor by keeping their taxes and regulations light and efficient. As a result, America became the world’s most competitive economy, attracting a flood of foreign capital and workers. It’s no surprise that the booming economy of the Gilded Age was able to sustain tariffs. Of course, that period had its dark sides—political corruption, “Robber Barons,” child labor, and environmental degradation. These excesses sparked the progressive movement.

The sprawling administrative state created by President Woodrow Wilson was soon dictating prices for nearly every major commodity and service, leading to massive economic distortions. By the stock market crash of 1929, the economy was no longer competitive. A new round of tariffs—the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930—devastated the economy, deepening the Great Depression. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal doubled down on progressivism, dramatically expanding the reach of the federal government. His court-packing scheme coerced the Supreme Court into dismantling the crucial constitutional limits on the federal power to regulate commerce, and the federal leviathan was born.

Progressives viewed interstate competition as a “race to the bottom” and held that it was the federal government’s role to stop it. What this meant in practice was protections from competition for every special-interest group that could hire lobbyists in Washington. Government became a system for wealth redistribution through subsidies, unfunded mandates, and government-created cartels—from the farm program to the National Labor Relations Act to socialized medicine. America’s private sector remains the world’s most innovative and productive, but a century of progressive policy has driven companies and jobs offshore. Such policies have proven particularly toxic in areas of low-skill labor, as attested by today’s Rust Belt towns, Appalachian communities, and inner cities.

Investment flows where taxes and regulations are low and production factors like labor and electricity are reliable and affordable. In all those metrics the U.S. is falling further and further behind much of the world. In the energy sector, heavily subsidized renewable energy is pushing America’s electricity rates toward European levels. America could soon be facing the same deindustrialization that Germany and Great Britain are facing today. Even in America’s most innovative sectors—like high technology—warning signs are everywhere. The entire supply chain for semiconductor manufacturing has moved offshore, with only high-end engineering remaining in the U.S. China is already making inroads into these areas, and if America doesn’t act fast, it could soon start falling behind even in the high-tech race.

Today, both parties are trapped in the maze of progressive government, a system that subordinates the public interest to special-interest groups seeking protection from competition—from the Jones Act to the sugar program. That is the real swamp, and escaping it will require thinking outside the box, with ideas such as Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. As President Donald Trump recognizes, the U.S. must become once again the world’s most attractive place to do business. Tariffs alone will not get us there. We must free America’s economy from the stifling burdens of progressive government and tax policy, and return to the interstate competition that made America great in the Gilded Age.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Midwives

 

 

Soon Shiong

 

 

Vietnam

 

 

Bittern

 

 

Caracal

 

 

Zoetrope https://twitter.com/gunsnrosesgirl3/status/1906214825484578864

 

 

Small world

 

 

Emanuel

 

 

Bell https://twitter.com/TheFigen_/status/1906132035220979887

 

 

Whale

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle March 24 2025

Mar 242025
 
 March 24, 2025  Posted by at 10:44 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,  30 Responses »


Henri Matisse Still Life with Apples on Pink Cloth 1925

• Pam Bondi Destroys Judge Boasberg for Meddling in Immigration Policy (Margolis)
• The Agony of John Roberts (Kurt Schlichter)
• Trump Goes Nuclear Against Activist Lawyers Undermining His Presidency (Margolis)
• “The Most Intuitive Man Who Ever Lived” (CTH)
• Zelensky Regime Likely to Collapse Soon – Jeffrey Sachs (Sp.)
• US Sets Easter Target For Ukraine Ceasefire Deal (RT)
• Trump Hails ‘Rational’ Putin Conversations (RT)
• Waltz Reveals Topics Of Russia-US Talks in Riyadh (RT)
• Trump Is The First Leader Who Is Looking To Rebuild Trust With Putin (Proud)
• Putin and Trump Could Have Other Contacts Alongside With Official Ones (TASS)
• Europe’s Policy On Ukraine Conflict ‘Paradoxical’ – Kremlin (RT)
• EU Afraid Trump Will Cut Off Weapons Support – WaPo (RT)
• The Führer of Germany – Friedrich Merz – In A War And Spending Frenzy (Hanseler)
• Hungary’s Orban Continues Blocking EU’s ‘Pro-War’ Stance On Ukraine (ZH)
• Musk Slams South Africa Over ‘White Genocide’ (RT)
• My Time in the Reagan Administration (Paul Craig Roberts)

 

 

 

 

Modi -highly recommend-

Elon https://twitter.com/Girlpatriot1974/status/1903543762783277072

Lutnick

Rescission

 

 

 

 

“He dragged us into court on a Saturday without any notice. And then he’s continuing these hearings. He’s trying to ask us about national security information, which he is absolutely not entitled to.”

• Pam Bondi Destroys Judge Boasberg for Meddling in Immigration Policy (Margolis)

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi unleashed a scathing attack on U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg during a Sunday morning interview on Fox News, accusing him of overstepping his authority and attempting to control U.S. foreign policy from the bench. “This is an out-of-control judge, a federal judge trying to control our entire foreign policy, and he cannot do it,” Bondi told host Maria Bartiromo. “He dragged us into court on a Saturday without any notice. And then he’s continuing these hearings. He’s trying to ask us about national security information, which he is absolutely not entitled to.” The case revolves around the Obama-appointed judge’s attempt to block the Trump administration’s deportation of illegal alien Tren de Aragua gang members, an effort Bondi made clear would not stand.

“We are appealing. We will be in court Monday. Again. We will win. We will prevail,” she stated, showing no hesitation in taking the fight back to court. Boasberg previously ordered a deportation flight for these illegal alien gang members to turn around back to the United States; however, since the ruling was made while the plane was over international waters, he had no jurisdiction, and the deportations continued as planned. According to New York Post columnist Miranda Devine, Boasberg has been “demanding DOJ lawyers provide minute details of the flights—potentially to hold members of the administration in contempt and serve as the basis for a future impeachment of Trump.” Bondi highlighted the administration’s success in swiftly deporting dangerous criminals, arguing that their efforts are already making the country safer.

“There are 261 reasons why Americans are safer today. And that’s because those people are now in an El Salvador prison,” she explained. “We are going to follow the law and we are going to protect Americans.” Slamming the left’s failed border policies, Bondi noted the overwhelming public dissatisfaction with the Biden administration’s handling of immigration, which led to President Trump’s decisive victory in 2024. “There’s a reason why Biden’s approval rating was plummeting because of the border. There is a reason why the current Democrats’ approval rating is at 29%,” she said. She made it clear that the Trump administration’s approach is rooted in basic public safety—something the American people overwhelmingly support. “People want to be safe. This is President Trump’s agenda to keep Americans safe,” she said. “It’s basic public safety. Get these people out of our country as fast as we can.”

Bondi also rejected the left’s attempts to blur the distinction between legal immigration and illegal entry by dangerous criminals. “They’re not immigrants. They’re illegal aliens who are committing the most violent crimes you can imagine on Americans—murder, rapes,” she said. “Ask the parents of all of these young women who have been violently strangled, raped, and murdered.” The Biden administration’s lax immigration policies fueled a surge in crime, making border security a top issue in the 2024 election. Under Trump, Bondi emphasized, those days are over. “We are going to continue to make America safe again because that’s President Trump’s agenda,” she declared.

Despite judicial activism from the left, Bondi reaffirmed the administration’s commitment to upholding immigration laws, deporting violent criminals, and keeping Americans safe. “We are going to follow the law, and we are going to protect Americans,” she reiterated. With the Trump administration refusing to back down and the American people firmly behind stronger border enforcement, it’s clear that Bondi and the White House will not allow activist judges like Boasberg to undermine national security.

Read more …

Schlichter gets it exactly right. Roberts wants things to go “as they should”. Where a court case slowly winds its way up the chain. But there is no time left for that. Moreover, he and the SCOTUS judges also know that Schumer boasts he has 235 judges in his pocket. If they don’t deal with this, soon, Trump will simply ignore them like he ignored Boasberg. Basically, is foreign policy set by the administration or by a dictrict judge?

• The Agony of John Roberts (Kurt Schlichter)

Pity poor John Roberts. No, he’s not corrupt or compromised. He is simply a man who has found himself at a pivotal time and place in a position of great responsibility for which he is utterly unsuited. He’s not a dumb man. He is, in fact, a very smart man – Hugh Hewitt knew him personally in the Reagan administration and testifies to that. I have no doubt it’s true. I know many smart people who have similar flaws. As objectively intelligent as John Roberts is, he is unwise, and he is endangering the institution he wants to preserve because he does not understand human nature or the times he finds himself in. Frankly, I’ll take wisdom over raw intellect any day of the week.

If he had the capacity to lead that he so manifestly lacks, John Roberts could save his institution with decisive and bold action. But that’s not who he is. Understand what John Roberts wants. He is an institutionalist who has always wanted to protect the judiciary branch. He wants it to be a fully co-equal branch that is respected by all. But the very actions he has chosen to take – or not to take – in response to the current crisis of out-of-control subordinate courts are guaranteeing that it will fall. Article III of our Constitution provides for the judicial branch, but it does not expressly provide the judiciary with any powers other than those it earns in the eyes of the other two branches. It cannot self-enforce its decrees.

Article I creates the Congress, and the legislative branch has both the power of the purse and the power to impeach to check the judiciary. Article II establishes the presidency, but the Constitution does not specify its checks and balances over the court. That power is implied, and the implied power is for the executive – who runs the machinery of the federal government, including the cogs and gears that carry guns – to simply say “No” to an out-of-control judiciary. This implied power of defiance is as much a check and balance as any enumerated one, and without it, you would have an unchecked judiciary with hundreds of district court judges presuming to micromanage the legitimate actions of the executive branch. You know, kind of like what’s happening now.

Judge Roberts’s problem is that he wants to return to something like regular order in the judiciary. What we have is highly irregular order. You non-lawyers need to understand that all these temporary restraining orders and injunctions and so forth are insane. This is not how law is done, either procedurally or substantively. I did litigation for 30 years, including in federal courts (up to arguing in front of the Ninth Circuit), and never saw anything remotely like these antics. So, realize that this is abnormal. Abnormal times call for abnormal responses, but that’s not how John Roberts or his ilk work. Remember, he’s a Bushie, the kind of soft Republican who sees his job less as fixing our broken government than managing its gentlemanly decline. We’ve largely booted them out of elective office, but Roberts has his seat for life. His advocation is protecting his institution. He wants the judiciary to be held in respect and obeyed, but he doesn’t want to do the hard, stern work of disciplining his underlings that makes that possible.

John Roberts wants the normal appellate procedures to apply. He’s hoping that if he shuts his eyes and pretends that everything is normal, he’ll open them and it will all be normal again. This was the main takeaway from his unbelievably tone-deaf response to Trump’s, Musk’s, and others’ frustration-driven talk about impeachment. Now, Roberts was right in theory about what he said, but what we’re facing is not theory but practice. Put aside the practical reality that we’re not going to be able to impeach anybody, and don’t fall for the Internet amateur ambulance chasers who think there’s one neat trick where we can somehow get rid of judges by a majority vote because of “bad behavior.” That is a reason to get rid of them, not a means. The means is impeachment, and that takes 67 senators. That’s never going to happen so we should stop talking about it. They would wear a failed impeachment like Tim Walz would have worn his war medals if he had shown up to earn any. Haven’t we learned not to engage in failure theater?

In normal times, the response to a judge over one dumb decision is the appellate process. But these are not normal times. These are not one dumb decision. These are dozens of dumb decisions. And the answer here is not the appellate process because the appellate process is long, drawn out, and deliberate. The goal of this campaign is to use that delay to effectively strip Donald Trump of the ability to govern. To that end, they have sought to wrap him up in a web of orders and injunctions that will prevent him from doing the things he was elected to do. If it was one case or ten cases, you could wait months and months for the appellate process to grind through. Eventually, Trump administration will win most of these cases through the appellate process because they’re procedurally and substantively ridiculous.

But the purpose of these judicial antics is not to fulfill the letter of the law, but to create friction that improperly prevents political actions that the executive has the right to take. In other words, Donald Trump may live in the White House, but he can’t actually be President, thereby disenfranchising the people who elected him. So, we have a system that is not being used normally and that is not being used for a normal purpose. But Chief Justice Roberts, in his lack of wisdom, refuses to see that abnormal actions sometimes require abnormal responses. As I have said before, he will never be able to normal the abnormal back to normality. He thinks he can force normality back onto the judiciary by simply pretending the abnormality doesn’t exist and that everything is hunky-dory. He can’t. He must force normality back on the judiciary by addressing the abnormality directly.

That means he has to take abnormal actions in response. Procedurally, he needs to lead the charge to stop the imposition and use of these bizarre nationwide orders and injunctions by giving the circuit courts of appeal clear guidance to end this nonsense. Substantively, he needs to direct the circuit courts to issue stays on district court orders that far exceed the scope of the judiciary’s proper powers. And if the circuit courts of appeal refuse to do that, then the Supreme Court needs to issue the orders to enforce its will, even if that means issuing dozens and dozens of orders. The Supreme Court only takes 50 or so cases a year. With over 100 lawsuits against the Trump administration as part of this lawfare campaign, that workload no longer works.

What John Roberts is risking by refusing to put an end to these abuses is the Trump administration putting an end to these abuses by exercising its implied power under the Constitution to check an out-of-control judiciary. If an order issues and no one enforces it, is it really an order?

Read more …

“Accountability is especially important when misconduct by lawyers and law firms threatens our national security, homeland security, public safety, or election integrity.”

• Trump Goes Nuclear Against Activist Lawyers Undermining His Presidency (Margolis)

The radical Left’s latest scheme to derail President Trump’s America First agenda has reached a fever pitch, with over 100 frivolous lawsuits filed against his administration since January. But Trump isn’t taking their lawfare lying down. In a bold move that should have Democrats and their army of activist attorneys panicking, Trump directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate anti-Trump lawyers and law firms attempting to hamstring his presidency through baseless litigation. The timing couldn’t be more critical, with an unprecedented 15 injunctions slapped against presidential actions just last month—far more than Obama or Biden ever faced. The Left’s desperation is palpable. After losing the Oval Office, the House, and the Senate in November, they’re resorting to their favorite tactic: shopping for activist judges to block crucial executive actions.

We’ve seen this circus play out with injunctions against Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order and his use of wartime powers to deport Venezuelan gang members terrorizing American communities. “Lawyers and law firms that engage in actions that violate the laws of the United States or rules governing attorney conduct must be efficiently and effectively held accountable,” Trump declared in a memorandum released Saturday. “Accountability is especially important when misconduct by lawyers and law firms threatens our national security, homeland security, public safety, or election integrity.” Trump also named names. Recent examples of grossly unethical misconduct are far too common. For instance, in 2016, Marc Elias, founder and chair of Elias Law Group LLP, was deeply involved in the creation of a false “dossier” by a foreign national designed to provide a fraudulent basis for Federal law enforcement to investigate a Presidential candidate in order to alter the outcome of the Presidential election. Elias also intentionally sought to conceal the role of his client — failed Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton — in the dossier.

Many immigration lawyers, including those from major law firms, are undermining Trump’s power to enforce our nation’s immigration laws. The memorandum notes that these activist lawyers actively coach clients to lie or hide their past to manipulate the asylum process, bypass national security measures, and deceive immigration authorities. The federal government faces a heavy burden in combating this widespread fraud, which not only erodes the rule of law but also fuels mass illegal immigration—leading to tragic crimes against innocent Americans and straining taxpayer-funded resources meant for citizens. Now, Attorney General Bondi has been specifically tasked with recommending additional countermeasures against these frivolous lawsuits, which the administration correctly views as a violation of separation of powers.

“I further direct the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to prioritize enforcement of their respective regulations governing attorney conduct and discipline,” Trump wrote. “I further direct the Attorney General to take all appropriate action to refer for disciplinary action any attorney whose conduct in Federal court or before any component of the Federal Government appears to violate professional conduct rules, including rules governing meritorious claims and contentions, and particularly in cases that implicate national security, homeland security, public safety, or election integrity.”

Trump also directed the attorney general to hold law firms accountable for ethical misconduct, including making senior partners responsible for junior attorneys’ unethical actions when appropriate. If an attorney or firm engaged in litigation against the federal government is found to warrant sanctions or disciplinary action, the attorney general must recommend further steps to the president, such as revoking security clearances or terminating federal contracts. Additionally, the attorney general is ordered to review attorney conduct in cases against the government over the past eight years and, if misconduct is found—such as frivolous lawsuits or fraud—to propose further action, including contract termination or other penalties. It’s about time someone stood up to these legal mercenaries who abuse our court system.

Read more …

Good talker – and thinker.

• “The Most Intuitive Man Who Ever Lived” (CTH)

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick appears for an extensive discussion with the All In podcast. Secretary Lutnick has been a 30-year friend of President Trump and is currently one of the most critical members of the MAGAnomic team who are executing Trump’s agenda to Make America Great Again. Secretary Lutnick outlines the background of what makes President Trump so effective in his position, and within the discussion Lutnick notes at the core of Donald Trump is “the most intuitive person he has ever known.” This is a casual discussion about President Trump and how Lutnick came into the administration.

Read more …

“The government rules by martial law, has failed in its key policies, is reportedly highly corrupt, and lacks public support.”

• Zelensky Regime Likely to Collapse Soon – Jeffrey Sachs (Sp.)

The government of the Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky will probably be replaced soon as it does not have enough public support and is corrupt, renowned American economist and Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs told RIA Novosti. “The Zelenskyy government will likely be out of power sometime soon. The government rules by martial law, has failed in its key policies, is reportedly highly corrupt, and lacks public support. These conditions suggest the likelihood of political change,” Sachs said when asked how did he view the future of Zelensky. The professor noted that his viewpoint was “strongly against regime-change operations” and that the UN doctrine of non-intervention in internal affairs should prevail.

Earlier in March, media reported that senior allies of US President Donald Trump have held talks with possible opponents of Volodymyr Zelensky to assess whether Ukraine could hold a quick presidential election. In February, Trump criticized Zelensky for his unwillingness to hold elections, called him a “dictator,” and also suggested that the Ukrainian leader wanted to keep the “gravy train” going amid the grinding conflict with Russia. Trump also said that Zelensky talked the US into spending $350 billion “to go into a war that couldn’t be won.” Zelensky’s presidential term expired on May 20, 2024. The presidential election in Ukraine was canceled due to martial law and general mobilization

Read more …

4 weeks.

• US Sets Easter Target For Ukraine Ceasefire Deal (RT)

Washington is still hoping to broker a ceasefire in the Ukraine conflict by Easter, Bloomberg wrote on Sunday, citing sources. US President Donald Trump has vowed to bring a swift end to the hostilities in Ukraine, and has moved to restart diplomatic relations with Russia, which were frozen during the term of his predecessor, Joe Biden. Russian and US delegations are set to meet in Riyadh on Monday for the second round of high-level talks since the apparent thaw. Following Tuesday’s phone conversation between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, Moscow agreed to a mutual temporary halt on strikes against energy infrastructure, which it says Kiev immediately violated.

The White House aims to have Russia and Ukraine agree to a full ceasefire by Easter Sunday – April 20 – but realizes that the timeline could be delayed due to significant differences between the sides, Bloomberg wrote, citing anonymous sources familiar with the discussions. Prior to talks with Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, in Moscow last week, Putin stated that while he is open to a 30-day ceasefire, all military supplies to Kiev as well as the Ukrainian draft campaign need to stop to avoid strengthening Ukraine during the pause. Washington, which briefly stopped intelligence sharing and military aid to Kiev earlier this month, has not agreed to any of the demands, US officials told Bloomberg. According to the newspaper’s US sources, Trump wants any potential deal to be acceptable to Kiev, and isn’t prepared to concede too much.

Despite agreeing to the terms of the US-brokered partial truce, Ukraine struck an oil depot in southern Russia the day after the agreement, and blew up a gas metering station in Russia’s Kursk Region on Friday. The violations show that Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky is not trustworthy, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in an interview on Sunday. “The Kiev regime’s words and Zelensky’s word are not worth much,” he said. Ukrainian claims that Russia shelled its own gas metering station in Sudzha are “absurd,” he added. Earlier this week, Putin stressed that Russia needs to hear a concrete plan on how a full ceasefire would be enforced and regulated before Moscow agrees.

Read more …

“I don’t think there’s anybody in the world that [is] going to stop [Putin], except me, and I think I’m going to be able to stop him..”

• Trump Hails ‘Rational’ Putin Conversations (RT)

US President Donald Trump has praised his work relationship with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, describing their conversations as “very rational” and reiterating a desire to end the Ukraine conflict. In an interview aboard Air Force One with the outlet OutKick on Saturday, Trump reflected on his history with Putin and the Ukraine conflict, describing himself as the only person capable of “stopping” the Russian leader. “I don’t think there’s anybody in the world that [is] going to stop [Putin], except me, and I think I’m going to be able to stop him”, he said. “We’ve had some very rational discussions, and I just want to see the people stop getting killed.”

He warned that failure to mediate the conflict could lead to World War III, but noted that “it’s somewhat under control.” “I have a good relationship with President Putin and, actually, a good relationship with President Zelensky too. It’d be a great thing to be able to stop it. And I will say this, nobody else would have been able to.” After his inauguration, Trump actively sought to restore relations with Russia, which were at an all-time low, and to mediate a settlement of the Ukraine conflict. The Russian and US leaders have held at least two phone calls on the matter, while delegations from the two countries have held several rounds of direct talks. During the last phone conversation on Tuesday, which lasted two and a half hours, Putin and Trump discussed the US president’s idea of a 30-day ceasefire.

Putin generally spoke favorably of the initiative but mentioned several major obstacles, including the need to establish a monitoring mechanism and prevent forced mobilization and rearmament in Ukraine during the ceasefire. At the same time, Putin supported the idea of Moscow and Kiev halting strikes on each other’s energy infrastructure facilities for 30 days. Following the talks, Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, suggested that a complete ceasefire in the conflict could be implemented within “a couple of weeks.” He later noted that Kiev had seemingly agreed to stay out of NATO – one of Moscow’s key demands – adding that the key item on the agenda was now the fate of Crimea and the four other former Ukrainian territories that voted to become part of Russia.

Read more …

The Black Sea becomes more important.

• Waltz Reveals Topics Of Russia-US Talks in Riyadh (RT)

A Black Sea maritime truce will be one of the top issues on the agenda of the upcoming US-Russia meeting in Riyadh, US National Security Adviser Mike Waltz told CBS on Sunday. If reached, the ceasefire deal would allow both Moscow and Kiev to “move grain, fuel, and start conducting trade” in the sea again, according to the official.Waltz hailed the US-mediated peace efforts, saying: “we’re closer to peace than we ever have been.” His comments come ahead of a new round of negotiations between Russian and US officials scheduled for Monday.

He described the upcoming event as “proximity talks.” Apart from the Black Sea ceasefire, the sides are also expected to explore options for a wider truce, according to the national security adviser. “We’ll talk the line of control… details of verification mechanisms, peace keeping, you know, freezing the lines where they are.” The issue of a “broader and permanent peace” and “security guarantees” for Kiev will also be on the table, Waltz added. On Wednesday, Waltz said he had a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s foreign policy aide, Yury Ushakov, in which they discussed the details of the upcoming meeting.

Ushakov confirmed that “a conversation did take place,” and said the meeting, which is scheduled to take place in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, will focus on the “safety of navigation in the Black Sea.” The issue of a maritime ceasefire was raised by US President Donald Trump during a phone call with Putin on Tuesday. The Russian president supported the idea and agreed to initiate talks on the details of a potential arrangement.

Read more …

Includes a great story about human trust,

• Trump Is The First Leader Who Is Looking To Rebuild Trust With Putin (Proud)

Western politicians and journalists constantly tell us that President Putin cannot be trusted, and that, under no circumstances should anyone strike a deal with him. But in response to that rhetorical question, I always ask, ‘do you think that he trusts us?’ Trust is a two way thing and it must be built on small gestures and mutual respect. And it is so much more complicated building trust with people of different cultures, languages and worldviews etc. Right back in 2014, a colleague and friend in the Russian Presidential Administration told me that it would take at least a decade to rebuild the trust lost over the Maidan and Yanukovych’s ouster. It will take much longer now, after three years of devastating war. Zelensky, European politicians and the mainstream media scream at us constantly that Putin can’t be trusted. They claim, with no basis in evidence, that Putin has broken 25 (pick any number that you like) ceasefires in Ukraine since 2014.

Yet I wonder when we’ve really trusted Putin to stick to a deal and trusted in ourselves to hold to our end of the bargain? One thing’s for sure; everyone in the Russian state apparatus would say that western leaders have broken every promise that they made in the past, including on NATO expansion, and have acted in shockingly bad faith in other ways, including in orchestrating a coup in Kyiv and in setting up the Minsk 2 agreement to fail. The problem with refusing to talk to President Putin since the war started, and minimising all diplomatic contact with Russia since 2014, is that you reduce opportunities to rebuild trust to almost nought. How do you trust someone you dislike and then refuse ever to talk to again? It’s like schoolkids falling out epically, with 6000 nuclear missiles thrown into the mix. You focus obsessively on owning the media narrative of ‘I’m right and you’re wrong’, as if you are a ten year old using X for the first time in the playground.

You tell all your closest friends and family members about how awful the other person is, and they nod and say, ‘oh, I know’ like Sybil Fawlty. I don’t believe for a minute that Russia can’t ever be trusted or that decision makers in the west are purer than the driven snow. Trust is about making a deal and sticking to it. I often recall taking my family on holiday to Dubai to escape the Moscow winter in early 2015. With the kids still very young, we loaded up the minibus taxi with luggage, pushchairs and car seats etc. and made our way to Sheremetyevo through the morning snow. At the airport, I discovered that I only had a 5000 rouble note for the 2500 rouble fare and the driver, having unloaded our stuff, was clearly in a hurry to get back in his warm cab and drive home. He took one look at the crisp note and said he didn’t have change.

I had absolutely no intention of dashing into the terminal, finding somewhere to break the note, while navigating very young kids, luggage trolleys and a diminutive wife whose saintly patience would only stretch so far. So I looked at the cab driver and he looked at me, wondering how we’d break the deadlock. I could have tried not to pay, but that would have caused an argument and, in any case, that’s not the sort of move I’d ever pull anyway. I could have asked him to check whether, in fact, he did have change, being that he was a taxi driver. But then he may well have been offended, because he’d clearly told me that he didn’t have change, and why shouldn’t I believe him? In the end, I decided that, as it was before 7 in the morning, he probably didn’t have change, and that, as it was minus ten degrees outside on the frosty kerbside, I’d have to trust him. So I said, ‘look, take the 5000 rouble note. Our flight gets back on this date at this time, and if you can come and pick us up and we’ll be even.’

He nodded, shook my hand without much of a smile and disappeared. I had his phone number, but there was practically nothing I could have done had he simply disappeared and left us stranded at the airport upon our return two weeks later. So it was with a certain trepidation that we passed through the diplomatic lane at passport control and I wondered whether he’d be in arrivals. As it happens, he was, just as we’d agreed. I smiled at him, he offered a smile back, we loaded up the minibus, clicked the kids into their car seats, and headed back into the centre of Moscow. Trust is a two-way exchange. Now and then, you have to take a chance on trusting someone, when your instincts raise questions.

Zelensky clearly doesn’t trust Putin, but he also has no interest in peace, from my observation. When he made it illegal to talk to Putin or any Russian official, he was, in my opinion, investing in a continuance of the war, hoping the west would back him come what may. And despite the rapid shift in U.S. policy over the past two months, many decision makers in Europe still do want to back Zelensky come what may, which is a worrying thing.

But peace in Ukraine will only be possible once the grown-ups start talking again. Maybe that’s the difference that Donald Trump is bringing to the war; taking small steps through initial deals towards bridging the vast gulf in trust between Russia and the west and, eventually, ending the death and destruction.In one month, Donald Trump has spoken to Vladimir Putin for four hours, which is probably four times more time that Biden spent in engagement in the preceding four years. There are stark parallels with Reagan and Gorbachev in the Eighties, breaking down barriers to focus on the longer-term good. Right now, Trump and Putin are the only grown ups in the conversation. Let’s hope the small steps towards trust they are taking right now, develop into something lasting. The world needs it. Though I remain sceptical that European leaders are ready to follow Trump’s lead.

Read more …

“Peskov also noted that the meeting between the two presidents must be carefully prepared and requires difficult technical negotiations first. “On Monday, our negotiators will travel to Riyadh to begin this difficult process,” Peskov said.”

• Putin and Trump Could Have Other Contacts Alongside With Official Ones (TASS)

Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov did not rule out that Russian and US Presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump could have other contacts in recent months in addition to those officially announced. “We are informing you about the conversations that we know about, but we cannot rule out everything else,” Peskov said in an interview with VGTRK journalist Pavel Zarubin. The journalist noted that if you listen to Trump’s statements, you can conclude that there were more contacts between the presidents than was officially announced. Talking to the journalist Peskov also noted that the meeting between the two presidents must be carefully prepared and requires difficult technical negotiations first. “On Monday, our negotiators will travel to Riyadh to begin this difficult process,” Peskov said.

Read more …

“This rampant militarist policy of Europe – there is no other way to describe it – is hard to comprehend..”

• Europe’s Policy On Ukraine Conflict ‘Paradoxical’ – Kremlin (RT)

The approach taken by European powers to the Ukraine conflict makes no sense because instead of seeking peace they have decided to engage in reckless militarization, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said. In an interview with Russia 1 TV journalist Pavel Zarubin on Sunday, Peskov also remarked that rather than addressing the root causes of the conflict, European powers “are talking about placing NATO contingents on Ukrainian territory”. “This rampant militarist policy of Europe – there is no other way to describe it – is hard to comprehend,” he added.

At the same time, the Kremlin spokesman acknowledged that the EU has found itself in a tight spot after the return to the White House of US President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly demanded that the bloc pay more for its own defense. “There’s a new sheriff in town… So they are forced to leave their comfort zone — and they’re doing it in an aggressive, militarist way. We hear [French President Emmanuel] Macron talking about a nuclear umbrella for Europe, and that also sounds very dangerous.”

Peskov’s comments come after the UK and France said they are open to sending Western peacekeepers to Ukraine once a ceasefire is reached. Moscow has rejected the idea, saying it does not matter under what disguise NATO troops arrive in the neighboring country. Earlier this month, Macron also signaled that France would discuss the possibility of using its nuclear arsenal to protect its allies in Europe, and urged the EU to ramp up military spending while labelling Russia a “threat.” Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly dismissed speculation that Moscow could attack NATO as “nonsense,” arguing it has no interest whatsoever in doing so.

Read more …

All based on the narrative that Putin plans to overrun Europe. For which there is zero evidence.

• EU Afraid Trump Will Cut Off Weapons Support – WaPo (RT)

Officials from EU member states are worried that the Trump administration could stop supporting US-made weapons systems used by its NATO allies in Europe, the Washington Post reported on Sunday, citing people familiar with the matter. The US has provided nearly two-thirds of Europe’s arms imports in recent years. Many of the systems are maintained and operated by American personnel. Equipment containing US components could also face restrictions if support is withdrawn. According to the Post, officials are afraid that reliance on American missile defense, surveillance aircraft, drones, and fighter jets could become a major vulnerability, given President Donald Trump’s strained relations with the EU. Some are reportedly concerned that US-made platforms could be rendered inoperable if access to parts, software, or data is blocked.

“It’s not as if President Trump could just push a button and all aircraft would fall from the sky,” an EU official told the Post. “But there is an issue of dependency,” particularly in intelligence and communications, the official added. Several member states are reviewing their arsenals to assess how exposed they would be in the event of a support cutoff. French President Emmanuel Macron recently urged the bloc to stop buying American weapons, arguing that European rearmament is pointless if member states remain dependent on US suppliers. German Chancellor-designate Friedrich Merz proposed extending France’s nuclear deterrent to cover its EU neighbors, a move that Macron said could be discussed.

Rasmus Jarlov, the chair of Denmark’s defense committee, said he regrets that Copenhagen purchased US-made F-35 fighter planes. He called them “a security risk that we cannot run,” and warned that the US could deactivate the systems if Denmark refuses its demands, such as handing over Greenland. Portugal has scrapped plans to purchase F-35s, citing the current “geopolitical context.” UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has backed the push for military autonomy, saying Trump “may have a point” about Europe needing to spend more on its own defense.

Read more …

There is a lot of blood thirst in Europe.

• The Führer of Germany – Friedrich Merz – In A War And Spending Frenzy (Hanseler)

After more than 80 years, Germany once again has a Führer who is in no way inferior to the old one in terms of mendacity and megalomania while spending sums that are unimaginable for most people. We do the math while our optimism withers. Peter Hanseler

Introduction Yesterday I read the following lines on the Internet – unfortunately without an author’s reference: This has never happened before: a man who has not even been elected chancellor yet negotiates the biggest borrowing in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany with parties that lost the election, in a Bundestag that has long since been dissolved. If you had described Friedrich Merz’s current behavior to a German 10 years ago, you would have been declared insane and put in a clinic without raising a fuss. Friedrich Merz, who refuses to form a coalition with the AFD because he accuses them of right-wing extremism, is preparing Germany for war against Russia. The AFD wants peace with Russia, Russia seeks peace, the Americans want peace and Merz opposes all those who seek peace. This week the Handelsblatt reported that up to 1.7 trillion could be spent. This article will prove that this plan is madness, simply by putting this astronomical figure into perspective for regular people.

How much is a trillion seconds? I maintain that very few people are able to categorize the size of this number. Let’s give it a try: How much time elapses in one million seconds? – Correct, 11.57 days. How much time elapses in a trillion seconds? – You will be wrong if you say a few years. It is exactly 31,709 years. That is indeed a long time ago. The earth was populated by sabre-toothed tigers and woolly mammoths, the last ice age took place. Rome was only founded a good 28,000 years afterwards. I assume that all readers are somewhat overwhelmed that a trillion is as much as it is. 1.7 trillion in money. Germany’s current debt at federal level. As at June 30, Germany’s federal debt amounted to 1.621 trillion – or 1,621 billion euros. This corresponds to a national debt to GDP ratio of 62.4%.

1.7 trillion is a hundred times more than all DAX companies together earned in 2023. Friedrich Merz will double this debt. This would lead to a debt ratio of 125% – which would put the country in the neighborhood of Greece (158%). The additional interest burden for the 1.7 trillion euros will amount to 47.6 billion euros per year if the current interest rate of the 10-year German government bond of 2.8% is used for the calculation. The cumulative profit of Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz and BMW amounted to 29.2 billion euros in 2024. The German automotive giants would therefore not even be able to pay the interest on this madness if they were to send all their profits to Berlin. In 2024, Germany collected income taxes amounting to 181.95 billion euros at federal level. This means that for nearly 10 years, 100% of total income taxes would have to be spent on the repayment of 1,700 billion euros.

Conclusion Without even mentioning that Friedrich Merz’s actions are more than legally questionable, it is already clear from the figure of 1.7 trillion euros that he has lost his mind. This debt bonanza will drive the former world export champion and the former jewel of industry to the wall financially. For many years, the German political elite has been railing against Russia, the country to which it owed the cheap energy that allowed Germany to become the industrial jewel of the world in the first place. Russia forgave the Germans, who had 27 million Russians on their conscience; the Russians have not forgotten these atrocities, but the Germans, or rather the German leadership, have, because what the German people think, choose or want is once again a thing of the past in Germania. Germany then turned imperiously against China, the current industrial jewel that, unlike the Germans, has not slept through the major trends.

Last but not least, the German leadership is salivating against the US, the colonial master of the Germans, which has made a political U-turn and is now seeking peace with Russia. It is therefore by no means inappropriate to describe Friedrich Merz’s behavior as megalomania. Ms. Baerbock, who made Germany a laughing stock on the international stage during her time as foreign minister, is cuddling up to the new Syrian government, which is made up of terrorists. For about two weeks now, civilians have been slaughtered in Syria, women and children have had their heads cut off, obviously a necessity on the road to democracy. Ms. Baerbock seems to agree with this. Incidentally, I do not recommend our readers to watch videos of these goings-on, thousands of which are posted on social media; they are nightmares that will deprive you of sleep.

Ms. Baerbock is transferring 300 million euros to these very gentlemen. Ms. Baerbock, who will soon no longer have a job, seems to have special talents. She is to become the new President of the UN General Assembly. As a geopolitical analyst, you should always remain an optimist at heart, otherwise you will burn out completely. However, I find it increasingly difficult to carry a spark of hope for Germany: legally, geopolitically, in terms of freedom and emotionally.

Read more …

“There is one way to achieve this: if we get Europe to support the president of the United States in his peace efforts, instead of embarking on war adventures, and then there will be peace.”

• Hungary’s Orban Continues Blocking EU’s ‘Pro-War’ Stance On Ukraine (ZH)

Hungary continued this past week being a lone EU voice blocking the European Union’s collective efforts to ramp up more financial and military aid to Ukraine, at a moment Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has a powerful backer in Washington – the Trump administration. Hungary in a Thursday European Council summit vote refused to endorse a statement reaffirming the bloc’s commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Orbán government slammed the ‘pro-war’ stance of the EU, despite 26 out of 27 EU nations signing off on it. While the statement had only largely symbolic significance, saying Europe backs the “continued and unwavering support for Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity” – Orban described that this only prolongs the war and brings the conflict no closer to peaceful resolution.

“Once again, they wanted to adopt a common position in which we want to give Ukraine even more money and even more weapons, and we are committed to the war,” the Hungarian leader explained after the veto. “Over the past three years, Hungarian families have lost around 2.5 million forints (approximately €6,268) per household as a result of the war. I must stop this, and we must not allow Hungarian families to continue to pay the economic consequences,” Orbán stated. He urged European capitals to get in Trump’s corner, who is seeking a diplomatic solution. But here’s how The Associated Press and other outlets characterized Hungary’s stubborn refusal to go along with Brussels:

“At the same time, Orbán is also emboldened by U.S. President Donald Trump, who is pushing for a ceasefire in Ukraine. Trump has blamed Ukraine for Russia’s unprovoked invasion, all while accusing Kyiv of unnecessarily prolonging the biggest land war in Europe since World War II.” Orban described further in an interview with regional media… “There is one way to achieve this: if we get Europe to support the president of the United States in his peace efforts, instead of embarking on war adventures, and then there will be peace. This debate took place, but we were unable to convince each other.” He continued, “I vetoed the common position, and therefore the European Union has no common position. What will be made public here today is nothing more than the private position of 26 member states, not the common position of the European Union, because without Hungary such a position cannot be accepted.”

“The president of Ukraine is confused about his role, he is behaving as if he were in the European Union and therefore could afford to take a sharper tone when he cannot do so. He is an applicant who wants to join the European Union, about which opinions are divided,” Orbán remarked. Parrel to all of this, NATO is seeking to ‘Trump-proof’ the alliance for the long-term, which reports of closed-door discussions on how to replace United States leadership in the alliance some five to ten years down the road, amid fears that Washington will retreat from leadership, and its majority financial and weapons support to NATO.

Read more …

“Very few people know that there is a major political party in South Africa that is actively promoting white genocide,”

• Musk Slams South Africa Over ‘White Genocide’ (RT)

Elon Musk has once again lashed out at his country of birth, South Africa, over what he claimed was “active promotion” of “white genocide.” In a post on X on Sunday, the tech billionaire wrote that his Starlink satellite internet service cannot operate in the African country because he is “not black.”Musk’s remarks came amid tensions between Pretoria and Washington over a controversial land expropriation law signed in January that allows land seizures without compensation and aims to address longstanding disparities between black South Africans and the Afrikaner minority, who own nearly 75% of the country’s freehold farmland. US President Donald Trump condemned the law as an “egregious action” that unfairly targets white South Africans and signed an executive order directing federal agencies to cut aid to the country in a bid to pressure Pretoria to repeal the policy.

Musk, a close advisor to Trump who was born in Pretoria, has also been vocal in his criticism of the law. In his post on Sunday, he lashed out after sharing footage of a rally led by Julius Malema, head of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) opposition party. The video showed demonstrators chanting an apartheid-era slogan Musk interpreted as calling for the killing of white South Africans. “A whole arena chanting about killing white people,” Musk wrote. “Where is the outrage? Why is there no coverage by the legacy media?” “Very few people know that there is a major political party in South Africa that is actively promoting white genocide,” Musk continued, apparently referring to the EFF. He then alleged for the second time in two weeks that Starlink had been refused a license to operate in the country “simply because I’m not black.”

The rally Musk referred to was held to commemorate the 1960 Sharpeville massacre, where police killed 69 black South African protesters during what is considered the first and most violent demonstration against apartheid in the country. The old chant – “Kill the Boer, kill the farmer” – has been a longstanding point of controversy in South Africa. Malema, whose party advocates for eliminating racial and economic disparities, has been known to sing it at rallies and considers it part of the country’s heritage, despite being found guilty of hate speech over it by the ruling African National Congress (ANC).

Despite criticism from Washington, Pretoria has maintained that its land policy is aimed at correcting historical injustice and does not discriminate against any racial group. South African officials have also called for dialogue with Washington to address what they say is “misinformation” about the new land policy. Foreign Ministry spokesman Clayson Monyela rejected Musk’s claim that Starlink was barred due to his race, saying the entire situation had “nothing to do” with skin color, and that the service could operate in South Africa provided it complied with local laws.

Read more …

“Reagan was considered an outsider, and he was “dangerous” because the Republican establishment could lose its grip on the party to a populist whose basis was in the people and not in the organized interest groups.”

• My Time in the Reagan Administration (Paul Craig Roberts)

Paul Craig Roberts, who played a crucial role in enacting the tax cuts of the 1980s and in forging the political emergence of supply-side economics, reflects on his experience in Washington. He emphasizes that intra-party power struggles, not economics, are the main influence on policy. — Editor, The Independent Review. Paul Craig Roberts is chairman of the Institute for Political Economy. He had academic careers as senior research fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University; journalism careers as associate editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal and columnist for Business Week; government careers as a member of the U.S. congressional staff and as assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration; and business careers as a director of industrial and financial companies.

***** When I was an economics professor, I often wondered if what my faculty colleagues and I were teaching students about economic policy had any validity. I left Stanford University, went to Washington, D.C., and joined the congressional staff in order to experience how policy is made. In the House, I helped Rep. Jack Kemp introduce supply-side economics to his colleagues. I became chief economist of the House Budget Committee on the Republican side, and then staff associate for Senator Orrin Hatch on the Joint Economic Committee. My success in explaining to Congress that there was an alternative to Keynesian demand management, which had no solution for stagflation, led to President Reagan appointing me assistant secretary of the Treasury for economic policy.

Having learned how policy is made (and unmade), I now had the assignment to implement a new one. The story of my experience is useful to economists. As one of my graduate professors, Ronald Coase, used to tell his class, “It would help economists to occasionally look outside the window of the box they keep themselves in.” The conflict between merit and redistribution that is characteristic of the American political system and the influence of established explanations are not the only problems confronting a policymaker, especially if he is introducing a new approach. As Niccolò Machiavelli wrote in The Prince, “There is nothing more difficult, more perilous or more uncertain of success than to take the lead in introducing a new order of things.”

One of the many problems a policymaker faces is that policies affect different interest groups in different ways. Some benefit, some don’t, and I don’t mean just in a material or economic way. Most of the things that influence economic policy have nothing to do with economics. They have to do with power. The party establishments that control the parties intend to stay in control. The organized interest groups that control the party establishments intend to continue in control. Few Americans understand that the main political fight is not between the two parties but within the administration of the party in power. Within the parties the fight is over who controls the party. When the fight is between the establishment and a populist rival like Ronald Reagan or Donald Trump, it can get very nasty.

During the first year of the Reagan administration, much of the battle was between President Reagan and his Treasury allies (primarily me and Secretary Don Regan) on one side and Reagan’s chief of staff, Jim Baker, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Murray Weidenbaum, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director David Stockman on the other. The fight within the Reagan administration had its origin in Reagan taking the Republican nomination for president away from the establishment’s candidate, George H. W. Bush, former CIA director. Reagan was considered an outsider, and he was “dangerous” because the Republican establishment could lose its grip on the party to a populist whose basis was in the people and not in the organized interest groups.

Reagan was advised that he must take the defeated George H. W. Bush Republican establishment into his administration or suffer the fate of Barry Goldwater, who rejected Nelson Rockefeller after he defeated him in the Republican presidential nomination. Consequently, the Republican establishment helped the Democrats defeat Goldwater, the Republican populist candidate. Nancy Reagan judged by appearances, and Bush’s man, Jim Baker, a polished dresser, presented to Nancy a better image than Reagan’s laidback California crew to be standing by her husband. Baker was appointed chief of staff. So, from the start Reagan and his supporters in the administration were handicapped by an establishment operative being chief of staff of the Reagan Revolution. Only Reagan had offered a solution to the problem of “stagflation.” It was called supply-side economics. Lacking a solution to offer during the campaign for the nomination, Bush termed Reagan’s policy “voodoo economics.” This, of course, played into the hands of the Democrat opposition and the liberal media determined to undermine President Reagan as a Grade B movie actor who believed in fairy tales about tax cuts paying for themselves.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Self harm

 

 

 

 

Job loss https://twitter.com/its_The_Dr/status/1903631330321052141

Hand https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1903821746605609121

 

 

Moose

 

 

Plank

 

 

Dogsbabies

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle March 18 2025

Mar 182025
 
 March 18, 2025  Posted by at 11:01 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,  51 Responses »


Robert Campin Portrait of a woman 1430-35

 

• Trump-Putin To Hold Tuesday Call On Ending War In Ukraine (ZH)
• Judge Demands DOJ Reveal Classified Information On Deportation Flights (ZH)
• Trump Slams Federal Judge’s ‘Dangerous’ Ruling on Fired Federal Workers (DS)
• Welcome to FAFO-Land (Kunstler)
• Trump Says Biden’s Autopen-Signed Pardons “Null and Void” (ZH)
• The Brilliance Behind Trump’s Move Declaring Biden’s Pardons ‘Void’ (Margolis)
• Trump Says JFK Files Will Be Released Tuesday Without Redactions (JTN)
• Key to Uncovering Truth About MLK Assassination Lies With Congress (DS)
• The Strongest Case for Trump’s Tariffs I’ve Heard Yet (Margolis)
• Why Has Trump Finally Pulled The Plug On Deep State Propaganda? (Amar)
• NATO ‘Peacekeepers’ in Ukraine Would Snatch War From the Jaws of Peace (Sp.)
• Musk: Feds’ “Magic Money Computers” Issue Payments “Out Of Thin Air” (ZH)
• Bukele: New Partnership With US Advances Fight Against Organized Crime (JTN)
• Celebrate Saint Patrick by Chasing Censors Out of Ireland (Turley)
• Study Destroys Basis of EPA Climate Regulations (Jayaraj)
• People Becoming More Stupid (RT)
• Federal Judge Orders Astronauts Be Returned To Space Station (BBee)

 

 


© AP / Manuel Balce Ceneta (I like this photo)

 

 

https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1901305613721702854

NASA

14

Isaacson

 

 

 

 

 

 

Today: Putin-Trump call, JFK files release (80,000 pages), the astronauts come home.

Call starts at 9AM EDT. Putin doesn’t have a lot of room to move. And he will demand suspension of all weapons deliveries to Ukraine. Not an easy call for Trump.

• Trump-Putin To Hold Tuesday Call On Ending War In Ukraine (ZH)

Both the US and Russian sides have confirmed that Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin will hold another phone call on Tuesday. Trump previewed that he plans to continue discussions to end the war in Ukraine, and he cryptically referenced negotiators having already discussed “dividing up certain assets.” “I’ll be speaking to President Putin on Tuesday. A lot of work’s been done over the weekend,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One while en route back from Florida to Washington.n “We want to see if we can bring that war to an end. Maybe we can, maybe we can’t, but I think we have a very good chance,” Trump said. The US is still proposing a 30-day temporary ceasefire, which Putin has already questioned as a likely means by which Ukrainian forces can simply rearm, replenish, and regroup.

“We will be talking about land. We will be talking about power plants,” Trump said when asked by a reporters about concessions. “I think we have a lot of it already discussed very much by both sides, Ukraine and Russia. We are already talking about that, dividing up certain assets.” Trump’s special envoy who met with Putin in Moscow last week, Steve Witkoff, has said that the Russian president “accepts the philosophy” of Trump’s ceasefire. Still, the Kremlin has repeatedly said it will not accept anything that’s a short-term solution. Putin and Trump had an initial phone call spanning 90-minutes less than a month after Trump was inaugurated, to talk about moving toward a potential Ukraine peace plan. The Russian Defense Ministry has meanwhile indicated that Moscow will demand Kiev’s neutral status and that NATO can never accept Ukraine for membership.

This appears to be Moscow’s only and main ‘security guarantee’ that it wants in place: “Part of these guarantees should be the neutral status of Ukraine, the refusal of Nato countries to accept it into the alliance,” Russia’s deputy foreign minister Alexander Grushko said Sunday. Of course, this is to include a ban on NATO building up military infrastructure in Ukraine as well. But other Western allies are challenging the progress made, and are likely even trying to sabotage any potential deal. “If Ukraine requests allied forces to be on its territory, it is not up to Russia to accept or reject them,” French President Emmanuel Macron has said.

Read more …

A district judge issues orders to the President and his government. Well, Boasberg is all over. Tanya Chutkan, Jack Smith, J6, etc. This is not an accident, it’s the lawfare machine. The only way to stop it is to cut off the money: NGOs. And the Magic Money Computers (see below).

• Judge Demands DOJ Reveal Classified Information On Deportation Flights (ZH)

US District Judge James Boasberg on Monday held a hearing after the Trump administration refused to turn two plane-fulls of criminal migrants around mid-flight, and may have allowed a third plane to depart following his Saturday order halting the deportations of suspected Tren de Aragua gang members. Boasberg on Saturday temporarily halted the Trump administration from using the 1789 Alien Enemies Act to deport the illegal immigrants, however DOJ lawyers told the judge that there were already two planes in the air – one headed for Honduras, and the other headed for El Salvador. While the judge verbally ordered the planes to be turned around, the directive was not included in his written order. As journalist Julie Kelly reports, Monday’s hearing was a complete power play by Boasberg. Kelly documented the exchange on X:

Boasberg: I have scheduled this hearing for fact finding on government’s response to my order. Focus on timeline involved and get a sense of numbers of people here. I just want “facts” not planning to issue any ruling about the government’s conduct. Boasberg asks DOJ if it’s still true that the 5 individual plaintiffs are in the US. DOJ says yes. “How many planes departed the US on Saturday under the proclamation?” DOJ says flights complied with his order but won’t disclose more to anyone. Boasberg: “Anyone including me?” DOJ: “Yes.” Boasberg: “Based on what?” DOJ cites national security concerns, flight patterns. Boasberg: “You’re saying it’s classified? I can receive classified information. Or there is some other basis? Why are you showing up today without answers?”

Nothing but a power play. “I’m just asking how you think my equitable powers do not attach to a plane that has departed the U.S., even if it’s in international airspace,” Boasberg said. Boasberg then demanded the DOJ answer a list of questions, including; How many planes left at any time Saturday based solely on the proclamation. How many people were on each plane. In what country did the planes land. What time did they take off and land. When were they in air space. What time were individuals on the plane transferred to custody.

As Kelly notes further, “There are three flights at issue: two that left before any written order (and that DOJ says did not include individuals covered under the Alien Enemies Act) and one that might have departed after Boasberg’s minute order posted around 7:30pm on Saturday,” adding “ACLU wants a sworn statement that third flight did not include illegals covered by proclamation. Boasberg tells DOJ he will order the govt to file a sworn declaration as to the third flight.” Boasberg then made the argument that the DOJ should not have allowed any planes to take off on Saturday because they knew Boasberg had a hearing scheduled for 5pm… In other words, he’s arguing that the Trump administration should not have executed the President’s lawful order because he (Boasberg) was going to hold a hearing, and maybe stop the government from deporting the immigrants under the Alien Enemies Act.”This is batshit crazy,” said Kelly, adding that she would “love to see Boasberg’s comms with ACLU before lawsuit was filed Saturday morning.”

Miller

Read more …

Different case, same principle.

“..it’s a judge that’s putting himself in the position of the president of the United States, who was elected by close to 80 million votes,” Trump said. “That’s a very dangerous thing for our country..”

• Trump Slams Federal Judge’s ‘Dangerous’ Ruling on Fired Federal Workers (DS)

President Donald Trump said it’s “ridiculous” that a federal judge ruled that the government must rehire fired government employees. “I don’t think that’s going to be happening, but we’ll have to see,” he told The Daily Signal aboard Air Force One on Sunday. A judge appointed by President Bill Clinton ruled Thursday that the Trump administration must reinstate some fired probationary government employees. He ruled that six agencies must give jobs back to thousands of recently hired employees who President Donald Trump fired in an effort to eliminate “waste, fraud, and abuse” from the federal government by cutting the federal workforce.

“I think it’s absolutely ridiculous, absolutely, it’s a judge that’s putting himself in the position of the president of the United States, who was elected by close to 80 million votes,” Trump said. “That’s a very dangerous thing for our country,” the president continued, ”and I would suspect that we’re going to have to get a decision from the Supreme Court, but that’s a very dangerous decision for our country.” U.S. District Judge William Alsup said employees the departments of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, and Treasury must get their jobs back. “These are people, in many cases, they don’t show up for work,” Trump said. “Nobody even knows if they exist, and a judge wants us to pay them even if they don’t know they exist.”

Read more …

“Where did we get the idea that federal judges can just act with impunity, jerking around the public interest like some show-off with a yoyo?”

• Welcome to FAFO-Land (Kunstler)

It’s as simple as this: the orgy of judicial lawfare put on by blob-adjacent Democratic Party seditionists trying to make the USA ungovernable is looking to get swatted. Hubris is a harsh mistress, but Nemesis is more like the gods’ re-po man, and he comes to the door with attitude, meaning bidness. Blob judges will get flushed out of their humid conclaves naked and find themselves, astoundingly, in the FO zone of FAFO-land. Do you think AG Bondi is playing tiddlywinks in Main Justice or that Kash Patel is just sitting there buffing his nails over at 935 Pennsylvania Avenue NW? Where did we get the idea that federal judges can just act with impunity, jerking around the public interest like some show-off with a yoyo? Case in point: Judge James Boasberg, head honcho of the DC federal district court stepped into the FAFO waiting room over the weekend when he ordered two planeloads of deported toxic human trash known as Tren de Aragua, bound for jail in El Salvador, to return to the USA.

Mr. Trump’s White House refused, saying the planes were already over international waters, outside the judge’s jurisdiction. Dem-blob lawyer Mark Zaid made the predictable next move, claiming that the matter will be grounds for Impeachment No. 3 against Mr. Trump post the 2026 midterm election. But, of course: strategery! The general purpose in this latest phase of lawfare is to choke the federal courts with so many restraining orders and injunctions that the White House lawyers find themselves locked into an endless Chinese fire drill of counter-filings, motions, writs, and appearances. It’s all that the so-called “resistance” has left, what with DOGE breaking up the racketeering operation that has funded the Dem’s defense of the blob for a decade. By which I mean the government funding of non-governmental orgs (ha!) to distribute payola to Dem foot-soldiers who do all the dirty work of protecting the rogue bureaucracy in a circle-jerk of power and payoffs. This includes the dirty work of Dem-blob lawyers such as Mark Zaid, Norm Eisen, Mary McCord, Marc Elias, Barbara McQuade, Joanna Lydgate et al.

The history of Judge Boasberg in particular presents a disturbing picture of a tool covering-up every act of the shadowy blob’s war against American citizens. Boasberg presided in the FISA court that fraudulently enabled the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane operation to attempt ousting newly-elected Donald Trump in 2017, and the many RussiaGate pranks that followed. As chief judge of the DC District, he oversaw the Jack Smith Special Counsel op and all the cases associated with it, including the Mar-a-Lago raid and the J-6 case in Tanya Chutkan’s crooked court. Boasberg allowed the prosecution of J-6ers under the unlawful use of the corporate fraud obstruction statute, 18USC§1512c2, a.k.a. the Enron law. He presided over the trial of Ray Epps, the shady character recorded on video repeatedly urging J-6 protestors to “go into the Capitol.” Boasberg gave Epps a suspended sentence while grandmothers who merely “paraded” through the rotunda between velvet ropes that day got sent to jail.

What can be done about judges like Boasberg? The prevailing view is: not much. I’m not so sure that’s true. While Rep. Brandon Gill (D-TX) announced last week that he will file articles of impeachment against Boasberg, a two-thirds majority would be required to convict him in any eventual Senate trial, so fuggeddabowdit. But federal judges are not immune from criminal investigation and prosecution, which is where AG Bondi and FBI Director Patel ought to come in. What’s probably standing in plain sight is a RICO conspiracy involving the aforesaid lawfare artists — Norm Eisen & Co — and the federal judiciary to deliberately bury the executive branch under burdensome fraudulent process, impede the executive branch’s ability to carry out its constitutional duties, and to obstruct justice.

Would you like to know if correspondence exists between these parties? Mr. Patel can ask them to produce it, and if they fail to, there’s a strong possibility that DNI Director Tulsi Gabbard can root it out of the NSA’s server farm. Depositions can be demanded. The lawfare lawyers will have to hire lawyers — just as all the targets of “Joe Biden” and Merrick Garland were obliged to lawyer-up when they were systematically persecuted from January, 2021 to January, 2025. The meters will run, ka-ching, ka-ching. It will be interesting to see who is footing the bill for that. You can be sure that it will be found out. Reid Hoffman? George and Alex Soros? Note: Dan Bongino was sworn in as Deputy Director of the FBIat 8:00 o’clock this morning. Nemesis is open for bidness. The lawfare gang would love all of this to ramp into a king-hell constitutional crisis. Could happen. Let them try. They don’t hold any of the levers of power the way they used to. A lot could go wrong for them. Welcome to FAFO-land.

Read more …

To be precise, he didn’t “declare” it: “It’s not my decision — that’ll be up to a court — but I would say that they’re null and void,.”

• Trump Says Biden’s Autopen-Signed Pardons “Null and Void” (ZH)

Ten days or so after the Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project disclosed that nearly every document bearing former President Biden’s signature during his first term had been signed by an autopen—except for one—questions arose over whether executive orders and pardons could be deemed invalid, as we noted that Biden’s staff likely leveraged his rapid cognitive deterioration to sign those documents via autopen. Overnight, President Trump declared that the 11th-hour pardons, including those given to members of Congress who investigated the January 6 insurrection, were “void, vacant, and of no further force or effect, because of the fact that they were done by autopen.” Some of those last-minute pardons include Deep Staters, such as former Representative Liz Cheney, retired General Mark Milley, and government scientist Anthony Fauci.

“The “Pardons” that Sleepy Joe Biden gave to the Unselect Committee of Political Thugs, and many others, are hereby declared VOID, VACANT, AND OF NO FURTHER FORCE OR EFFECT, because of the fact that they were done by Autopen,” Trump wrote on Truth Social late Sunday night. The president continued: “In other words, Joe Biden did not sign them but, more importantly, he did not know anything about them! The necessary Pardoning Documents were not explained to, or approved by, Biden. He knew nothing about them, and the people that did may have committed a crime.”

He went on to say that members of that House committee are “subject to investigation at the highest level”… “Therefore, those on the Unselect Committee, who destroyed and deleted ALL evidence obtained during their two year Witch Hunt of me, and many other innocent people, should fully understand that they are subject to investigation at the highest level. The fact is, they were probably responsible for the Documents that were signed on their behalf without the knowledge or consent of the Worst President in the History of our Country, Crooked Joe Biden!”

Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One late last night: “It’s not my decision — that’ll be up to a court — but I would say that they’re null and void, because I’m sure Biden didn’t have any idea that it was taking place, and somebody was using an auto pen to sign off and to give pardons.”

https://twitter.com/TheChiefNerd/status/1901530391598555271?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1901530391598555271%7Ctwgr%5Eb15225da52c37de9c468fe65a7fe74f6bab0c219%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Ftrump-declares-bidens-autopen-signed-pardons-void

Read more …

“This isn’t about political parties anymore; it’s about the integrity of the highest office in our land.”

• The Brilliance Behind Trump’s Move Declaring Biden’s Pardons ‘Void’ (Margolis)

President Donald Trump dropped a bombshell Sunday evening. As my PJ Media colleague Catherine Salgado reported, Trump declared Joe Biden’s pardons void due to the suspicious use of an autopen and serious questions about whether Sleepy Joe even knew what he was rubber-stamping. “The ‘Pardons’ that Sleepy Joe Biden gave to the Unselect Committee of Political Thugs, and many others, are hereby declared VOID, VACANT, AND NO FURTHER FORCE OR EFFECT,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social. But here’s what’s really fascinating — and telling. Biden’s social media team remains suspiciously silent. Not a peep from his X account disputing the autopen accusations. These are serious allegations that merit a response, yet we got nothing. Really makes you think, doesn’t it?

Trump’s second Truth Social post cuts right to the heart of the matter: “The necessary Pardoning Documents were not explained to, or approved by, Biden. He knew nothing about them, and the people that did may have committed a crime.” This isn’t just about pardons; it’s about who was really running our government. How is this going to play out? Proving that Biden wasn’t aware of these pardons might be an uphill battle. But something tells me that’s not the point. While I suspect that it will be virtually impossible to prove that Biden didn’t authorize those pardons, I still think this may have been a brilliant move by Trump. Here’s why. Every legal challenge, every court filing, every public statement will keep this scandal front and center.

Even if the pardons ultimately stand, the damage to Biden’s legacy and the Democratic Party will be done. Why we’ve been reporting on this scandal for several days, mainstream media coverage of the scandal has been virtually nonexistent. However, I’m starting to see reports from mainstream outlets trickle out. So far, I’ve seen reports from NBC News, Axios, Bloomberg, The Hill, USA Today, NewsNation, and ABC News. The story is out there now, which means that the American people will see exactly how the Deep State operates behind the scenes with its cognitively challenged puppet, Biden.

Why focus specifically on pardons and not Biden’s executive orders or judicial nominations? Because Trump knows exactly what he’s doing. By challenging these pardons, he’s forcing several sitting Democrats who received preemptive pardons from Biden to publicly defend their get-out-of-jail-free cards and attack Trump for declaring Biden’s pardons void. The mainstream media can’t ignore this story when their favorite Democrats are squirming under the spotlight. The mere fact that we’re having this conversation about whether the President of the United States actually knew who he was pardoning should terrify every American. This isn’t about political parties anymore; it’s about the integrity of the highest office in our land.

As I’ve pointed out in previous coverage of the scandal, the use of an autopen isn’t unprecedented in presidential actions, but using one to sign executive orders and pardons while serious questions exist about the president’s mental faculties and consent? That’s a whole different ballgame. The Trump administration hints at having evidence to support these claims, and given its track record of exposing Democratic corruption, I wouldn’t bet against it. Will that be enough for them to be declared legally void? I’m skeptical, but again, that may not be the actual point. The Democrats thought they could quietly slip these pardons through without scrutiny. Thanks to President Trump’s strategic move, the American people will get to see exactly how the sausage is made in Biden’s White House, and it’s not pretty.

Read more …

“..It’s approximately 80,000 pages..”

• Trump Says JFK Files Will Be Released Tuesday Without Redactions (JTN)

President Donald Trump announced on Monday at the Kennedy Center that the files regarding former President John F. Kennedy’s assassination will be released on Tuesday without redactions. “We are tomorrow announcing and giving all of the Kennedy files,” Trump said. “So people have been waiting for decades for this, and I’ve instructed my people that are responsible, lots of different people, put together by Tulsi Gabbard, and that’s going to be released tomorrow.” The release will happen Tuesday afternoon, The Daily Wire reported.

“We have a tremendous amount of paper. You’ve got a lot of reading. I don’t believe we’re going to redact anything. I said, just don’t redact. You can’t redact,” Trump added. “But we’re going to be releasing the JFK files, and that would be tomorrow.” “It’s approximately 80,000 pages,” he said. “So it’s a lot of stuff, and you’ll make your own determination.” Trump said that the documents will be released without summaries so the public and media could drawn their own conclusions.

Read more …

“..because these were congressional records, the president lacked the authority to release them to the public without the assent of the House of Representatives.”

• Key to Uncovering Truth About MLK Assassination Lies With Congress (DS)

Since his return to the White House, President Donald Trump is close to signing 100 executive orders. The deluge has put the corporate media, and sometimes Congress, on their heels. Nevertheless, Congress is coming alongside Trump to keep one of his more interesting campaign promises: to declassify records related to the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Jr. House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., recently announced the formation of a congressional task force whose purpose is to examine declassified material in the public interest. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., will lead the task force, which will examine the government records that are declassified pursuant to Trump’s Jan. 23 executive order, among other things.

Luna explained that the “mission” of the task force is “to ensure these documents are released swiftly and in their entirety, giving the American people the truth they deserve.” As Luna has repeatedly noted on social media, the task force itself has no declassification authority, which is the exclusive prerogative of the president. Nonetheless, it can support the declassification of government records related to these assassinations by holding government officials accountable for any attempts to obstruct the timely release of these records to the public.Indeed, in a recent post on X, Luna stated, “If @POTUS’ executive order to declassify these files is obstructed, we won’t hesitate to hold those responsible accountable. Remember: [Attorney General] Pam Bondi is at the DOJ [Department of Justice] now. If Congress votes to hold someone in contempt, she’ll back us.

”While it is true that Congress has no declassification authority over records of the executive branch, this does not mean that Congress has no role to play in the complete declassification and public release of government records related to these assassinations. This is particularly true with respect to the assassination of King. In 1977, the House of Representatives established the Select Committee on Assassinations, which was tasked with reinvestigating the assassinations of President Kennedy and King. Two years later, the committee released its findings. Albeit couched in highly tentative terms, the committee concluded that both Kennedy and King were assassinated “as a result of a conspiracy.”

Per House rules at the time, all records associated with these investigations were sealed from public access for 50 years—until Jan. 3, 2029. With the passage of the JFK Records Act in 1992, however, the timeline for the public release of the committee’s records related to the Kennedy assassination was superseded and became subject to immediate release with only the most sensitive records being withheld until Oct. 26, 2017. Although some of these records required declassification by executive agencies prior to public release, the vast majority did not. More importantly, because these were congressional records, the president lacked the authority to release them to the public without the assent of the House of Representatives.

Thus, if Trump intends to declassify and publicly release “all records in the federal government’s possession” pertaining to the assassination of King, he will need the House of Representatives to assent to the release of all its records relating to the committee’s investigation of the assassination in advance of its original Jan. 3, 2029, deadline. Accordingly, Luna and her colleagues can strike an immediate blow for full government transparency by requesting that House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., instruct the House Clerk to make these records available immediately to the public. Undoubtedly, the House Clerk will determine that some of these records require a declassification review by the president, but that doesn’t mean the public has to wait for declassification to see the rest of the evidence committee investigators relied upon to support their conclusion that King was assassinated “as a result of a conspiracy.”

Read more …

Independence.

• The Strongest Case for Trump’s Tariffs I’ve Heard Yet (Margolis)

Donald Trump’s tariff policies remain a lightning rod for debate. Democrats are sounding the alarm, warning of dire economic fallout and painting a picture of looming catastrophe. Batya Ungar-Sargon, deputy opinion editor of Newsweek, made one of the strongest, most effective cases yet for former President Donald Trump’s tariffs during the latest episode of “Real Time with Bill Maher.” She broke down exactly why these tariffs are necessary, and by the end, she left Bill Maher flustered. Ungar-Sargon’s explanation couldn’t have been clearer: manufacturing jobs and economic nationalism are crucial for the American middle class.When the conversation turned to the economy of the 1970s, Ungar-Sargon wasted no time explaining why so many Americans look back on that era with nostalgia. “In the ‘70s, the largest share of our GDP was in the middle class,” she said. “And that was not separate from the fact that 25% of our economy was in manufacturing.”

Maher sought clarification, asking if that meant “most of what was produced came from the middle, and now it comes from the rich.”“Now, the top 20% controls over 50% of the GDP,” Ungar-Sargon confirmed, highlighting how economic power has been funneled away from the working class. “That manufacturing is still being done; it’s just being done in other countries.”Maher interjected, noting that the jobs have moved overseas for “wages we will not work for.”This, of course, is true, but it also proved Ungar-Sargon’s point. “Yes, that’s exactly right. You’re right, Bill,” Ungar-Sargon responded. “That’s what the tariffs are for. They are to make American workers more competitive in the global market.” She then challenged the defeatist attitude that has allowed China to dominate industries once vital to the American workforce.

“Why are we accepting that there should be a race to the bottom? You know, China, what is its competitive advantage over us? It’s that it pays slave wages. Why should we accept that?” She laid out Trump’s argument for protecting key industries, explaining that his trade policies aren’t just about economics but national security. “Trump says there are five industries that we cannot have any kind of national security without having a stake in them—pharmaceuticals, lumber, steel, aluminum,” she said, adding that she had momentarily forgotten the fifth. “These are really important, that we have a stake in the manufacturing of the things that we need as a nation. So that when China decides that it wants to go to war against us, we’re not relying on them for steel and aluminum in order to fight them.”Maher, clearly caught off guard by the well-reasoned argument, could only muster a flustered response: “Okay, well, at least that’s an answer.”And it was an answer—one the left refuses to confront, because deep down, they know she’s right. Maher certainly seemed to. He had no rebuttal. Why? Because there isn’t one.

Read more …

“..what made them “radical” and “crazy” is actually how very American-as-applepie they were.”

• Why Has Trump Finally Pulled The Plug On Deep State Propaganda? (Amar)

He’s done it again. Or rather, they have. As part of their curious slash-and-burn crusade to dismantle – for better or worse – large swathes of the American state from the top, President Donald Trump and his bestie-in-chief Elon Musk with his gang of enforcers at DOGE have put the axe to yet another seven government agencies. Carried out by presidential executive order, this particular blitz is aimed at offices busy with things as diverse as labor dispute mediation and the mitigation of homelessness. The method of Trumpist attack is simple and already familiar: The targeted agencies are not literally shut down, which Trump cannot legally do by decree. Instead, their budgets and staff are pruned so aggressively that they have to cease operations. Yet, tellingly, there is only one kind of cut that has really made centrists, liberals, and the mainstream media furious. Nope, not the hit on the homeless; and not the one on labor relations either.

What caused a ruckus instead is that Trump and Musk have gone after state propaganda. To be precise, state propaganda for the rest of the world. For one of the offices that has been given the Trumpist flamethrower treatment this time is the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM). And that is, in reality, the US ministry for propaganda abroad. While it’s a fairly new (2018) label, USAGM’s roots reach deep into the fetid soil of the last century’s Cold War. Originally, there were Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Liberty. Voice of America was founded during World War II and was quickly retooled afterwards to be used as a Cold War propaganda weapon by the CIA. Its younger cousins, Radio Free Europe, founded in 1950, and Radio Liberty (1951) were, literally, CIA fronts.

But that “involvement was kept secret until the late 1960s for fear of Soviet retaliation,” as Encyclopedia Britannica puts it with fine British understatement as well as a whopping portion of brute disinformation: The fact that the CIA remained in hiding was, of course, not due to the big bad Russians (the Soviets at the time) being so terribly scary. It was simply a means to manipulate publics in the East and the West and present what was geopolitically driven propaganda as ‘independent news’. After 1971, the CIA (officially) ended its (direct) control. If you believe that means an agency specializing in lying – and so much worse – was no longer pulling the strings, I have a Ukrainian ‘democracy’, complete with ‘civil society’ and all the fixings, to sell you. Formally, the Board for International Broadcasting took over. It was appointed by the president, which tells you all you need to know about how important this global propaganda machine was to Washington.

Finally, after further label changes, the board morphed into the USAGM. It ended up controlling not just Voice of America, as well as Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty – long merged into RFE/RL – but a host of other outlets, including Radio Free Asia, and the very honest-sounding (not) Office of Cuba Broadcasting. According to USAGM’s own website, it was reaching an audience of 427 million per week in 64 languages, and via traditional broadcasting as well as the internet. Those lucky viewers, listeners, and readers were fed an unhealthy diet corresponding to the US “national interest” (in USAGM’s own terms) of “more than 3,000 hours of original programming each week.”

Say what you will about this American ministry of foreign propaganda, but it was bigger and richer than anything comparable the poor old Soviets ever managed to rig up. And that is the organization that Trump and Musk have just cut down. The Cold War, of course, has long been over. Any reasonable person’s response to this overdue move would be: ‘What took you so long?’ Elon Musk had a point when posting that the propaganda outlets are “just radical crazy people talking to themselves while torching $1bn/year of US taxpayer money.” Except, they were by no means only talking to themselves, unfortunately. And what made them “radical” and “crazy” is actually how very American-as-applepie they were.

Read more …

“..peacekeeping and NATO are actually incompatible things..”

• NATO ‘Peacekeepers’ in Ukraine Would Snatch War From the Jaws of Peace (Sp.)

Russia’s demands for “ironclad” guarantees on Ukraine include a firm rejection of NATO “peacekeeping forces” on Ukrainian soil, no matter the “nameplate” the alliance may try to insert them under, Deputy Foreign Minister Grushko has said. What are the uncertainties Russia faces amid peace talks with the US? We asked a top political risk consultant. “Any so-called ‘ironclad’ guarantees for Russia will likely come down to one thing: keeping Ukraine out of NATO. That, along with a promise that Western powers will stop meddling in Ukraine’s internal affairs, would be the only realistic foundation for any lasting settlement,” foreign affairs analyst, political risk consultant and lawyer Adriel Kasonta explained.

“But here’s the problem —when has the West ever been good at keeping its promises to Russia? Time and again, Western leaders have made commitments only to walk them back when it suits their interests. NATO expansion was never supposed to reach Russia’s doorstep, yet here we are. Obama and Bush both spoke of ‘resets’ with Moscow, only for relations to deteriorate further,” Kasonta told Sputnik. “Now, Trump is pushing for a deal with Russia, not out of goodwill, but because he sees China as the bigger threat,” the observer said. “The question is, what happens after him? What stops a future U.S. administration from reversing course once again? If history is anything to go by, Russia has every reason to stay on high alert.” “If we’re talking about NATO peacekeeping forces, peacekeeping and NATO are actually incompatible things,” Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko said in an interview with Russian media on Sunday.

“We know the history of NATO, and although they boast very much about being a defensive alliance, the real history of NATO consists of military operations, aggression against unarmed states without justification, just to emphasize once again its hegemony in global and regional affairs,” Grushko said. “Therefore, all these conversations” about NATO peacekeepers in Ukraine “are absolutely inappropriate. They are absurd. And I think that even the average person in the West understands the real cost of this kind of deployment…We absolutely do not care under which nameplate NATO contingents could be deployed on the territory of Ukraine, whether the EU, NATO or in a national capacity. In any case, if they appear there with the consent of Ukraine, that means they are located in the conflict zone, with all the consequences” this entails, Grushko stressed.

“Moscow already views Western involvement in Ukraine—whether through arms shipments or foreign fighters—as an indirect war,” Kasonta said, commenting on the deputy foreign minister’s remarks. “Sending NATO troops would remove any ambiguity, risking escalation on a whole new level.” As for the UK, whose government is reportedly prepared to deploy peacekeeping troops of its own to Ukraine “for years,” “London is just following Washington’s lead,” the observer said.“The UK doesn’t have the military capacity or public support to play a serious role in Ukraine. No one in Britain is eager to send troops to die in a war that doesn’t concern them. The only people who seem to care are politicians who have spent years hyping up the conflict and now can’t admit they were wrong. Rather than face reality, they double down, pretending that the war is still winnable.” Kasonta summed up.

Read more …

Another way to feed the lawfare machine: print money wherever and whenever you want.

• Musk: Feds’ “Magic Money Computers” Issue Payments “Out Of Thin Air” (ZH)

Elon Musk says that DOGE has discovered the US government has “magic money computers” that make payments “out of thin air.” Sitting down with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) for his podcast that was recorded at the White House, Cruz said: “One of the things you told me about is what you called, ‘Magic Money Computers.’ So tell us about it, ’cause I never heard of that ’til you brought it up.”

Musk: “Okay, so, you may think like the government computers all talk to each other, they synchronize, they add up what funds are going somewhere. And, that they’re coherent … And that the numbers that you’re presented as a Senator are actually the real numbers.” Cruz: “One would think!” Musk: “One would think – they’re not … I mean they’re not totally wrong, but they’re probably off by five percent or 10 percent in some cases. So, I call it ‘Magic Money Computer’: any computer that can make money out of thin air. That’s magic money.” Cruz: “So how does that work?” Cruz asked. Musk: “It just issues payments.” Cruz: “And you said there’s something like 11 of these computers at Treasury that are sending out trillions in payments?” Musk replied that they’re mostly at the Department of Treasury, and others are at the Department of Health and Human Services as well as the Department of Defense. Musk: “We’ve found now 14 ‘Magic Money Computers. They just send money out of nothing.”

Musk also told Cruz that DOGE will save taxpayers $1 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2026… “If you look at DOGE now, you look at the government and what you’re finding, what percentage have you guys even gotten to and how much of it is ‘mars’ where you haven’t even gotten there yet because there’s so much you’re finding out here,” asked co-host Ben Ferguson. “You seem like a timeline guy – when you say ‘I want to get in there and get numbers and things’ – how far are we from the endgame, where you’ve seen it all – you know, to process it all, and fix it. Are we years away? Months away?” Musk: “Not years. I’m reasonably confident that we’ll be able to get a trillion dollars of waste and fraud out, meaning that it will have, we’ll have a net savings of FY26 of a trillion dollars, provided we’re allowed to continue and our progress is not impeded.”

Read more …

Very tough and dehumanizing. But the gang members appear dehumanized anyway.

• Bukele: New Partnership With US Advances Fight Against Organized Crime (JTN)

El Salvador President Nayib Bukele said it’s partnership with the U.S. on transferring illegal immigrants linked to gang activity to prison in El Salvador helps both countries crack down on crime. Under Bukele, the homicide rate has dropped to its lowest point since the civil war in El Salvador in 1992.”The first 238 members of the Venezuelan criminal organization, Tren de Aragua, arrived in our country. They were immediately transferred to CECOT, the Terrorism Confinement Center, for a period of one year (renewable). The United States will pay a very low fee for them, but a high one for us,” Bukele wrote on X.”Over time, these actions, combined with the production already being generated by more than 40,000 inmates engaged in various workshops and labor under the Zero Idleness program, will help make our prison system self-sustainable. As of today, it costs $200 million per year,” he added.

Bukele said the partnership is helping dismantle the MS-13 gang. “On this occasion, the U.S. has also sent us 23 MS-13 members wanted by Salvadoran justice, including two ringleaders. One of them is a member of the criminal organization’s highest structure. This will help us finalize intelligence gathering and go after the last remnants of MS-13, including its former and new members, money, weapons, drugs, hideouts, collaborators, and sponsors,” he said. “As always, we continue advancing in the fight against organized crime. But this time, we are also helping our allies, making our prison system self-sustainable, and obtaining vital intelligence to make our country an even safer place. All in a single action. May God bless El Salvador, and may God bless the United States,” he added.

Bukele

Read more …

“..before he became associated with green beer and leprechauns, Saint Patrick was a symbol of freedom of speech.”

• Celebrate Saint Patrick by Chasing Censors Out of Ireland (Turley)

With the arrival of Saint Patrick’s Day, our nation’s close affinity to Ireland was on full display in the White House as President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance hosted Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin. We are two countries joined by blood and tradition. Of course, there are tensions over trade conflicts with the European Union and Ireland, which quickly came to the surface in the meeting. In the end, however, we are likely to resolve those trade problems. The fact is that we need each other, both economically and culturally. Yet, there is one chasm between the two countries that not only remains wide but is widening: the gap between how each country handles free speech. And Martin would much prefer to talk about Irish socks than Irish censorship. Ironically, before he became associated with green beer and leprechauns, Saint Patrick was a symbol of freedom of speech.

Although there is no evidence beyond pious legend that he chased snakes out of Ireland (there likely never were snakes in Ireland), he did chase slavery and human sacrifice out of the country, despite the initial unpopularity of his reforms. A former slave himself, St. Patrick’s public statements against slavery, paganism and longstanding traditions were viewed as harmful to social tranquility and harmony. Does that sound familiar? Today, Ireland, like many of our European allies, is shredding free speech with laws criminalizing viewpoints and regulating speech by its content. “Irish eyes [may be] smiling,” but Irish tongues are increasingly silent in the face of government investigations and prosecutions. The growing conflict between the U.S. and the Irish could not be more telling.

Irish immigrants, including some of my relatives, came to this country to live freely, and many soon became lawyers fighting for individual rights. Just before Martin’s arrival in Washington, his government was hammering Elon Musk and conservative sites in the latest crackdown on free speech. The most recent flashpoint was a small pro-life platform called Gript, a rallying point for many in his Catholic country who oppose abortion. The government demanded that X turn over Gript’s data on sources and users. An Irish court on June 13, 2024, sought the data on private accounts as well as IP addresses and messages linked to Gript coverage of the April protests against Ireland’s housing of documented migrants. The violence in those protests gave the Irish government another justification to curtail free speech.

In yet another defining moment for Musk on free speech, he not only resisted but informed Irish citizens what the government was doing. That transparency and opposition sent the Irish government into a full-on rage. After the arrest of 34 people and extensive property damage in the anti-immigration protests, the government moved to expand on its already draconian anti-free-speech laws. A new bill was introduced criminalizing “preparing or possessing material likely to incite violence or hatred against persons on account of their protected characteristics.” That includes any material concerning national or ethnic origin, as well as protected characteristics including “transgender and a gender other than those of male and female.”

The bill included crimes relating to “xenophobia” and can be committed merely by the “public dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other material.” Then-Prime Minister Leo Varadkar declared his intent to “modernize laws against hatred” by criminalizing speech that his government decides is “incitement.” He stated an intention to not only stop those engaged in violence but those who say things that might arouse their anger. The powerful Irish Green Party was all-in with censorship and speech prosecutions. As Green Party Sen. Pauline O’Reilly admitted, “We are restricting freedom, but we’re doing it for the common good.”

Read more …

“This incomplete picture painted a grim outlook of crop yields declining with only modest warming..”

“The additional information showed “positive average output gains for all crop types across the warming scenarios even up to 5 degrees Celsius..”

• Study Destroys Basis of EPA Climate Regulations (Jayaraj)

For two decades, the public has been bombarded with dire warnings of an impending climate-induced agricultural apocalypse. The claim is that a climate warmed excessively by the carbon dioxide emissions of human activity will ravage the food supply and plunge humanity into famine and chaos. For many reasons, none of this ever made sense. Now, a new study published in Scientific Reports has turned this narrative of catastrophe on its head, revealing that a global temperature rise of even 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit) would not reduce crop yields—and might even increase harvests. The paper, written by economist Ross McKitrick, dismantles a key pillar of the Biden administration’s always-suspect upward revision of the “social cost of carbon”—a metric used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to quantify the supposed economic damage of carbon dioxide emissions.

The fivefold increase of the social cost of carbon—from $51 per ton of carbon dioxide to more than $250—was based partly on the assumption that warming would devastate agriculture. The new findings aren’t just a minor correction to the scientific record; they are a reversal of dangerous conclusions drawn from sloppy—perhaps even fraudulent—analyses. Everything we’ve been told about climate change and food security is wrong. How did the EPA arrive at a social cost of carbon that equates with mass starvation? In 2014, a widely cited meta-analysis of crop-model studies claimed that a warming climate would slash global crop yields, an assertion that fed into subsequent models that influenced the Biden EPA’s social cost of carbon hike.

That original dataset, however, was flawed—crippled by missing variables. Of its 1,722 records, nearly half lacked critical data, such as changes in CO2 concentrations, leaving only 862 usable entries. This incomplete picture painted a grim outlook of crop yields declining with only modest warming. McKitrick, undeterred by what had become climate orthodoxy, dug deeper. By revisiting the source material, he recovered 360 additional records, bringing the total to 1,222—about a 40% increase in usable data. The additional information showed “positive average output gains for all crop types across the warming scenarios even up to 5 degrees Celsius”—a temperature jump far beyond warming predictions of the U.N.’s International Panel on Climate Change. This isn’t cherry-picking; it’s what happens when the full scope of evidence is examined.

“If over the next 100-200 years, yields of all crop types increase, it does not stand to reason that a global trade model could generate global welfare reductions,” writes McKitrick in his concluding remarks. McKitrick’s findings, grounded in a more comprehensive dataset, suggest the doomsday assumption was built on sand. Far from heralding a collapse, the data show crop yields at least holding steady and even improving with significant warming. Moreover, plants are not too frail for a warming world. They’re built to thrive in the contemporary temperatures of the 20th and 21st centuries.

Most crops fall into two categories: C3 and C4 plants, so named to reflect their different photosynthetic processes. C3 crops, such as wheat, rice, and soybeans, flourish in elevated CO2 conditions characteristic of the 21st century.Carbon dioxide is food to plants, necessary for the process of photosynthesis—a process where oxygen is a byproduct. Higher levels of CO2 act like a supercharger, boosting photosynthesis and water-use efficiency. Studies have long shown that CO2 enrichment in greenhouses can increase C3 yields by 20% to 40%. C4 crops—like corn and sorghum—are less responsive to CO2 but do well in hotter, drier conditions. In summary, if crop yields don’t crash—if they hold steady or grow—the rationale for a sky-high social cost of carbon disappears.

Read more …

“..possibly due to increased exposure to visual media..”

• People Becoming More Stupid (RT)

Human intellectual abilities such as reasoning and problem-solving are diminishing, possibly due to increased exposure to visual media, the Financial Times (FT) has reported. Human intelligence appeared to peak in the early 2010s and has been in decline since, the FT added, citing PISA, an international benchmarking test for 15-year-olds that includes reading, mathematics and science, and adult cognitive evaluations. The reported trend comes amid a rise in artificial intelligence (AI) which, by some estimates, may surpass human IQ in a matter of years.The recorded spike in the share of high school students who reported difficulties in PISA tests coincides with a broad change in people’s relationship with information, such as the transition away from reading and towards visual content, the publication explained.

While active, intentional use of digital technologies can often be beneficial, being passively exposed to infinite content on social media coupled with frequent context-switching has been shown to negatively impact attention span, memory, and self-regulation. The documented decline in reading among Americans reportedly comes alongside a decrease in numeracy and other forms of problem-solving in most countries. Human intellectual capabilities, such as critical thinking, have also been impacted by generative AI, according to recent research by Microsoft and Carnegie Mellon University. Outsourcing thoughts to AI leaves people’s minds “atrophied and unprepared,” which can lead to “the deterioration of cognitive faculties that ought to be preserved.”

Companies and governments have poured billions into AI research, focusing on areas such as machine learning, natural language processing, and automation. Tech giants like Google, Microsoft, and OpenAI have introduced increasingly sophisticated models, such as ChatGPT and Gemini, capable of performing complex cognitive tasks.AI could become smarter than humans in the next three years, tech billionaire Elon Musk warned in December, shortly after his AI company, xAI, launched its first image generation model, Aurora.

Read more …

Sums up the day.

• Federal Judge Orders Astronauts Be Returned To Space Station (BBee)

A district judge has issued a ruling saying Trump lacked the Constitutional authority to pick up two astronauts who have been stranded at the International Space Station for several months. SpaceX has been ordered to return the astronauts immediately. “I will not stand by while Donald Trump abuses his power like a dictator,” said Judge Earl Flanders in his ruling. “Trump has no authority to pick up these astronauts, and I can say that because I’m a federal judge, and no one is allowed to argue with me, and everyone has to do what I say.” Eyewitnesses say the judge then donned a Keffiyeh and spray painted a Cybertruck while screaming “Black Lives Matter.”

Sources in Washington say Trump plans to brazenly ignore the lawful order and bring the astronauts home anyway. “This is just the kind of wanton lawlessness we should expect from a dictator who is literally Hitler,” said one legal analyst. The SpaceX craft docked at the ISS on Sunday and was preparing for the return journey to Earth when the orders stopped the process short. “Please bring us home, I just want a cheeseburger and a nap in a horizontal bed,” said one of the crew. At publishing time, Trump was polling at 100% approval among the stranded astronaut demographic.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Extremism

 

 

Feynman https://twitter.com/21WIRE/status/1901604907519467850

 

 

 

 

Scent https://twitter.com/Yoda4ever/status/1901267216043024582

 

 

Mozart

 

 

Scott

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 Older Entries  Newer Entries