Pablo Picasso Coffee maker 1943
Fun fact.
July 8, today, turns out to be the day that most people around the planet experience daylight at the same time.
This means, 99% of Earth's 8 billion residents will be on the sunlit side of Earth at the same time. pic.twitter.com/ycc9NJDaH9
— Massimo (@Rainmaker1973) July 8, 2025
This 2-minute clip makes Trump and his entire administration look so bad I don't even have words for it. Just watch.pic.twitter.com/Teshm0v6YS
— Clint Russell (@LibertyLockPod) July 8, 2025
— Johnny Midnight ⚡️ (@its_The_Dr) July 7, 2025
FBI
FBI was investigating 36 young girls Epstein raped and trafficked UNTIL Epstein agreed to rat out Wall St hedge fund execs for laundering money. Then Feds agreed to bury the federal charges. Here, FBI admits Epstein is their informant. pic.twitter.com/HSqWtgDfqG
— Thomas Paine (@Thomas1774Paine) July 7, 2025
Giuffre
"I used to be watched by Epstein’s hidden cameras, which I have seen myself. The FBI have the archive footage showing me being abused by other men, used as blackmail."
From Virginia Giuffre's diary
She committed suicide in April pic.twitter.com/jVGOXPt3db
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) July 9, 2025
Watch this and you will understand there is simply no way Jeffrey Epstein was not on the CIA's radar since at least 1983, when Epstein was just 30 years old. At that time, Epstein was managing the covert funds of the CIA's top point man for its biggest covert action. pic.twitter.com/t5f7OCdlqS
— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) July 9, 2025
Fitton
💯 agree!
If there is “no there there”, then why not tell us what the “there” is?
If evidence was destroyed by previous regimes, we need to know that too. AND someone must be held accountable for that.
This “EPSTEIN AFFAIR” is NOT going away anytime soon.
1,000’s of CHILDREN… https://t.co/5hQzgtbow8
— General Mike Flynn (@GenFlynn) July 8, 2025
https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1942599948014346746
Tucker Carlson “The Real Reason Pam Bondi Won’t Release the Jeffrey Epstein Files”
“The current DOJ under Pam Bondi is covering up crimes, very serious crimes — intel services are at the very center of this story, US and Israeli, and they're being protected”
“There have been… pic.twitter.com/CDuHmyHCQm
— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) July 8, 2025
“His perfect war. Television drama at the highest level: War to create a headline. And the headline is ‘WE WON’. I’m in charge now and everybody is going to do what I tell them..”
• Trump Wanted A Perfect War, A Headline Showstopper (Alastair Crooke)
“Depending on who you ask, the U.S. bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan was either a smashing success that severely crippled Tehran’s nuclear programme, or a flashy show whose results were less than advertised … In the grand scheme of things, all of this is just drama”. The big issue – second only to ‘what next in Iran’ and how they might respond – says Michael Wolff (who has written four books on Trump), is “how the MAGA is going to respond”: “And I think he [Trump] is genuinely worried, [Wolff emphasises]. And I think he should be worried. There are two fundamental things to this coalition – Immigration and War. Everything else is fungible and can be compromised. It’s not sure those two elements can be compromised”.
The signal from Hegseth (‘we are not at war with the Iranian people – just its nuclear programme’) clearly reflects a message being ‘walked back’ in the face of MAGA pushback: ‘Pay no attention. We’re not really doing war’ is what Hegseth was trying to say. So, what’s next? There are basically four things that can happen: First, the Iranians can say ‘okay, we surrender’, but that’s just not going to happen; the second option is protracted war between Iran and Israel with Israel continuing to be attacked in a way that it has never been attacked before. And thirdly there is attempted regime change – although this has never been successfully achieved by air assault alone. Historically, America’s regime changes have been accompanied by mass slaughter, years of instability, terrorism and chaos.
Lastly, there are those who warn that nuclear Armageddon is on the table with the aim of destroying Iran. But that would be a case of self-harm, since it likely would be Trump’s Armageddon too – at the midterm elections. “Let me explain”, says Wolff; “I have been making lots of calls – so I think I have a sense of the arc that got Trump to where we are [with the strikes on Iran]. Calls are one of the main ways I track what he is thinking (I use the word ‘thinking’ loosely)”. “I talk to people whom Trump has been speaking with on the phone. I mean all of Trump’s internal thinking is external; and it’s done in a series of his constant calls. And it’s pretty easy to follow – because he says the same thing to everybody. So, it’s this constant round of repetition …”.
“So, basically, when the Israelis attacked Iran, he got very excited about this – and his calls were all repetitions of one theme: Were they going to win? Is this a winner? Is this game-over? They [the Israelis] are so good! This really is a showstopper”. “So again, we’re in the land of performance. This is a stage and the day before we attacked Iran, his calls were constantly repeating: If we do this, it needs to be perfect. It needs to be a win. It has to look perfect. Nobody dies”. Trump keeps saying to interlocutors: “We go ‘in-boom-out’: Big Day. We want a big day. We want (wait for it, Wolff says) a perfect war”. And then, out of the blue, Trump announced a ceasefire, which Wolff suggests was ‘Trump concluding his perfect war’. And so, suddenly – with both Israel and Iran apparently co-operating with the staging of this ‘perfect war headline’ – “he gets annoyed that it doesn’t run perfectly”.
Wolff continues: “Trump, by then, had already stepped into the role that ‘this was his war’. His perfect war. Television drama at the highest level: War to create a headline. And the headline is ‘WE WON’. I’m in charge now and everybody is going to do what I tell them. What we saw subsequently was his frustration at the spoiling of an outstanding headline: They’re not doing what he tells them”. What is the broader ramification to this mico-episode? Well, Wolff for one believes Trump is unlikely to get sucked into a long complex war. Why? “Because Trump simply does not have the attention span for it. This is it. He’s done: In-boom-out”.
There is one fundamental point to be understood in Wolff’s analysis for its wider strategic import: Trump craves attention. He thinks in terms of generating headlines – each day, every day, but not necessarily the policies that flow from that headline. He seeks daily headline dominance, and for that he wants to define the headlines via a rhetorical posture – moulding ‘reality’ to give his own showstopping Trumpian ‘take’. Headlines then become, as it were, a sort of political dominance which can subsequently metamorphose into policy – or not.
“It’s turned out to be tougher,” Trump acknowledged..”
• Trump Admits Ukraine Conflict Difficult To Tackle (RT)
US President Donald Trump has acknowledged that resolving the Ukraine conflict has proven to be more difficult than he expected. He also said he didn’t think his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, is serious about ending the hostilities. Since taking office in January, the Republican has repeatedly vowed to put an end to the conflict between Moscow and Kiev in short order. However, Trump has gradually conceded that the endeavor could take longer than his originally touted “24 hours.” Speaking to the press on Tuesday, the US president said he was “not happy with Putin,” while claiming, “he’s killing a lot of people,” both Russian and Ukrainian troops.
Trump asserted that up to 7,000 people are being killed in the conflict every week at this point. When asked by a reporter whether he planned to “act on that feeling,” Trump replied, “I wouldn’t be telling you,” adding that he wanted his next move to remain “a little surprise” for the time being. The US president cited America’s recent attack on Iran’s nuclear facility as an example of his strategy based on unpredictability. “It’s turned out to be tougher,” Trump acknowledged, referring to his attempts to settle the Ukraine conflict, adding that Washington has given Kiev the “best [military] equipment ever made.”
Two of which may hit their intended target.
• Trump Promises Zelensky Ten Missiles – Axios (RT)
US President Donald Trump has promised to send more Patriot missiles to Ukraine, but the number will apparently be very limited, Axios has reported, citing sources briefed on a recent call between Trump and Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky. Last week, the Pentagon announced the suspension of some weapons shipments to Ukraine, including precision munitions and air defense interceptors, citing concerns over depleting US stockpiles. On Monday, however, Trump stated that Washington would continue sending “defensive weapons” to Kiev. Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell has also confirmed that, at the president’s direction, the Department of Defense would “send additional defensive weapons to Ukraine.”
Trump did not disclose exactly which weapons would be delivered or in what amount, but according to Axios, the US leader told Zelensky during a phone call on Friday that the US would immediately send ten Patriot missile interceptors. Each Patriot missile is said to cost approximately $4 million, and the US defense industry is currently believed to produce around 500 annually. US air defense protocols typically require at least two missiles to be shot to intercept a single incoming target. Trump also pledged to help Kiev find other ways to get munitions. Trump has reportedly been pressing Germany to contribute more of its own weapons to Kiev, including one of its Patriot batteries. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who is said to have personally ordered the recent pause, has reportedly identified available Patriot batteries in Germany and Greece that the US could finance and redirect to Ukraine.
It remains unclear when the promised missiles will be delivered or whether additional shipments will follow. The latest pledge, involving only ten interceptor missiles, comes amid a broader trend under Trump of reducing US military support for Ukraine. Unlike the administration of former US President Joe Biden, Trump has been seeking to negotiate a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine. His administration has resumed direct talks with Moscow and been seeking alternative avenues for resolving the conflict. Meanwhile, Moscow has criticized the conflicting statements coming out of Washington regarding weapons deliveries to Ukraine.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov pointed out that the US is continuing to deliver weapons, while noting that European countries have been particularly active in supplying arms to Kiev. He stressed that such actions do not promote peace and just “help prolong hostilities.” Russia had previously welcomed signs of declining Western military support for Ukraine, with Peskov stating that fewer foreign weapons could help speed a resolution to the conflict. At the same time, he cautioned that it was still too early to determine whether the trend will continue. Moscow has consistently maintained that foreign arms shipments to Ukraine only lead to further bloodshed without affecting the overall outcome of the conflict.
It makes no sense if you want the war to stop.
• Trump Confirms Arms For Ukraine U-Turn Days After Pentagon Halts Delivery (ZH)
Another drastic foreign policy U-turn by the Trump administration, after just a week ago some weapons shipments to Ukraine were halted – and now it’s back ON apparently… President Trump first unveiled Monday after last week’s ‘disappointing’ phone call with President Putin, for which the US leader was “very unhappy”, that he would send “more weapons” to Ukraine. “We’re gonna send some more weapons we have to them. They have to be able to defend themselves. They’re getting hit very hard now,” Trump said, alongside a US and Israeli delegation, on the day Prime Minister Netanyahu visited the White House. Last Thursday night saw what was likely a record aerial attack on Ukraine which lasted for seven hours. Trump has said the US would send “defensive weapons primarily.” He remarked: “So many people are dying in that mess.”
Ukraine’s President Zelensky has tallied that last week Russia launched around 1,270 drones and 39 missiles in total at Ukraine, doing serious damage in many places, including the capital area. The Ukrainian government reacted Tuesday by seeking clarify on the sudden policy shift from the White House: The ministry of defense in Kyiv said in a statement on Tuesday that it had not received official notification of the change in policy and it was “critically important” for Ukraine to maintain “stability, continuity and predictability” in the provision of arms, especially air defense systems. The statement added: “We are grateful to the United States for all its support and highly appreciate the efforts of American partners aimed at achieving genuine peace.”
Adding insult to injury for much of Trump’s base, which has long supported his efforts to disentangle America from Kiev – and stop sending the Ukrainians billions in taxpayers’ money – the Department of Defense is actually touting this move as in keeping with ‘America First’. “Our framework for POTUS to evaluate military shipments across the globe remains in effect and is integral to our America First defense priorities,” the Pentagon said in a new press release. White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told CBS News that in the context of the Russia-Ukraine war the “decision was made to put America’s interests first following” a Defense Department “review of our nation’s military support and assistance to other countries across the globe.”
What actually changed? It remains that the simplest way to wind down this tragic war is for Zelensky to agree to territorial concessions, but he won’t even so much as budge on recognizing Crimea, and it looks like Washington is certainly not trying to convince or pressure him at this point. Zelensky will continue gladly taking his arms handouts from Uncle Sam without willingness to make compromise at the negotiating table. The war, and horrific killing, will go on with no end in sight.
“And as far as cages and detention centers, Obama created them. So, Trump just said, “I’m just following the precedent of Obama.”
• Trump Isn’t Doing Anything Unprecedented (Victor Davis Hanson)
I usually don’t give advice to President Donald Trump, who knows much more about politics, obviously, than most of us. But I think he could use maybe a suggestion on messaging. He’s getting attacked by the Left for autocratic use of presidential powers, he’s dictatorial. You’d almost forget that the Left and the Biden administration, in particular, through five criminal and civil courtrooms, fined him over $400 million, coordinated those legal harassments, and indicted him for 93 felonies. They tried to destroy, not just his candidacy, but his person, to bankrupt him and to jail him. You would’ve forgotten that 25 states tried to take Donald Trump off the ballot. Nobody had ever done that before. Nobody had ever impeached a president twice.
Nobody had ever tried a president, probably unconstitutionally, as a private citizen in the Senate, when he had already left office. No presidential candidate had been the subject of two ex-presidential assassination attempts. No ex-president ever had his home raided by the FBI. So, we’ve forgotten all this and we’re supposed to think that Donald Trump is acting extra-constitutionally. But Donald Trump, I think, could remind people that he’s just following the precedents that he inherited. I’ll give you a few examples. So, they’re saying he is deporting, deporting, deporting people. Well, former President Barack Obama deported more people in his tenure than any other prior president—2.5 million. And he focused on criminal aliens. He said so. Just like Donald Trump did. And as far as cages and detention centers, Obama created them. So, Trump just said, “I’m just following the precedent of Obama.”
They’re talking about extra powers of the president to harass people. Donald Trump had two members of his administration—Steve Bannon, in the first term, and Peter Navarro, his trade adviser—who were subpoenaed by Congress and they felt for no other reason but harassment in connection with Jan. 6. And they didn’t show up. And they tried to negotiate with Congress. And Congress jailed them. Former Attorney General Merrick Garland was also subpoenaed by Congress, remember? And he just refused and there were no consequences. Former Attorney General Eric Holder was subpoenaed by Congress. There was no—and he refused. And so, all Donald Trump should say, if anybody wants to be subpoenaed from the Biden administration, “We’re just following his example. We don’t really know what the rules are.”
He should also say that he didn’t really know what the rules were about using presidential power and bombing. He was in enemy airspace for about 30 minutes. And it was a successful strike to neutralize and put out of commission the Iranian nuclear infrastructure. Almost immediately, people said that he was tyrannical, he had violated the Constitution. And all he should have said: “I don’t know quite what the rules are. It’s ambiguous. So I just followed the example of Barack Obama.” In 2016, Barack Obama bombed seven different countries. He bombed—26,000 bombs he released. The last day he was in office, in 2017, he sent B-2 Spirit bombers all the way to Libya—the same planes that Donald Trump did—again, without congressional authorization. Donald Trump should just say, “The law is ambiguous, so I’m following the precedent set by Barack Obama.”
And so, what I’m trying to say is that whether it’s executive orders—and I could mention that Barack Obama issued about 260 executive orders. He got, at one point, so exasperated, he said, “I have a phone and I have a pen, and I’m going to bypass Congress.” So, whether it’s executive orders or the border, or the president’s executive powers as commander in chief, or the question of subpoenas and presidential counselors or Cabinet members, all he has to say is he’s doing nothing, nothing ahistorical or unprecedented. He came into office and he looked to prior precedent. And the prior precedent was established by former President Joe Biden and Barack Obama. And if there was criticism of them, he never heard about it. And he is just following in their illustrious tradition.
“There are literally injections that are bioweapons, and this is the weaponization of our healthcare system.”
• Omniwar – Weaponization of Everything – Catherine Austin Fitts (USAW)
Catherine Austin Fitts (CAF), publisher of “The Solari Report,” is back with a new cutting-edge publication called “Omniwar.” Mankind is under attack from all angles, and it’s not simply to control us but to kill us too. CAF says, “Omniwar is the weaponization of everything. It’s the weaponization of all the different systems we use, including food, health and finance. . .. There are literally injections that are bioweapons, and this is the weaponization of our healthcare system. I do a screen for a mutual fund, and one of the funeral home companies is a stock, which has more than doubled or about doubled since we bought it. So, you’ve got a recent healthcare insurance stock going down 40%, while the funeral homes are going up significantly. People have been observing this because this is not the first insurance company to take a nosedive from the drop in life expectancy and acceleration of the deaths.”
The poison we are getting is being delivered to us on purpose. It is high tech, and it’s not just in the CV19 bioweapon injections. Fitts says, “We are ingesting these nanoparticles or nanobots. We have done interviews at Solari.com about the mysterious ingredients in the food. So, it’s in the injections, it’s in the spray and it’s in the food. This is one of the things I believe causes all this sickness. . .. This is all part of the great poisoning. I have subscribers who have been hip to this for more than a decade. They understand the great poisoning is happening. They are in a war, it’s an Omniwar and they started to take action on how they organized their health, food and finances. You know something, they are doing great. . . . I know it’s depressing. As Curtis Mayfield says, ‘It’s a New World Order. It’s a brand-new day. It’s a New World Order, and brother, you are the prey.’ It is not supportive of your social prestige knowing you are in a war and you are the prey. At the same time, once you understand, and you can get in the game, you can start to protect your health, finances and food, and what a difference it makes.”
CAF talks about many war fronts in “Omniwar.” She does a deep dive on the ever-increasing control grid. Writer David Hughs (PhD) describes the phenomenon of “Omniwar” as “a war in every conceivable domain by a transnational ruling class against the rest of humanity.” They uncover how evil forces are “targeting your brain.” CAF shows how humans are being reengineered with “synthetic biology.” CAF encourages people and shows them how freedom “starts with one person at a time.” These are just a few of the Omniwar fronts. CAF shows you how to fight back too with an “action check list.” In closing, CAF points out why she is still bullish on gold. CAF says, “One of the reasons I am bullish on gold is what the Trump Administration is going to do with Stablecoins. . .. they will have a lot of the big banks and other companies working on creating subsidiaries to issue Stablecoins.
This is very much like a CBDC (central bank digital currency) but more dangerous. . .. the first goal of Stablecoin is to get people not using the dollar on to the dollar. . . . I think there are going to be a lot of countries with big debt problems to switch to the dollar. The goal is to build a vast new market for Treasuries. There is going to be an explosion or tsunami of Stablecoin along with credit. That could be one of the biggest hyperinflationary events in the world. This could give a whole new meaning to ‘helicopter money’ because it’s going to be global. Think of the Iraqi pallets of cash. This is the Iraqi pallets of cash in digital form. We are just going to spread dollars all around the world. This could give another 10-15 years to the dollar as the reserve currency. . .. Real assets are going to shine. That means gold, and that means silver. . .. There is a big push to monetize gold.”
“The CIA’s internal review torches John Brennan for prioritizing “narrative consistency over analytical soundness” when pushing to include the Steele dossier in the 2017 [ICA]..”
• Brennan, Comey Under Criminal Investigation for Trump–Russia Hoax (Margolis)
Former Obama CIA Director John Brennan and disgraced ex-FBI chief James Comey are now officially under criminal investigation for their roles in the Trump–Russia hoax. According to Justice Department sources who spoke with Fox News Digital, both men are being investigated for potential crimes—including allegedly lying to Congress—stemming from their involvement in one of the most dishonest political smear campaigns in modern history. The case was reportedly kicked into gear by CIA Director John Ratcliffe, who referred evidence of Brennan’s misconduct directly to FBI Director Kash Patel for potential prosecution. That referral has now escalated into a full-blown criminal probe—something that should have happened years ago.
For Americans who watched the Russia collusion narrative unravel in real time, this is long overdue accountability. Brennan and Comey weaponized their positions to wage a political vendetta against Donald Trump, and now, they may finally face justice for it. Sources confirmed to Fox News Digital that the referral was received and that a criminal investigation into John Brennan is now officially underway. While DOJ officials declined to go into specifics, the probe reportedly centers on Brennan’s apparent false statements to Congress—though it’s unclear if that’s the full extent of the investigation. The DOJ sources also confirmed that Comey is under investigation, but remained tight-lipped about the exact nature of the probe. Given Comey’s track record of political maneuvering and abuse of power, there’s no shortage of potential misconduct to examine.
What is clear, however, is that both men—once hailed by the media as guardians of democracy—are now facing the very kind of scrutiny they once weaponized against others. The full scope of the criminal investigations into Brennan and Comey is unclear, but two sources described the FBI’s view of the duo’s interactions as a “conspiracy,” which could open up a wide range of potential prosecutorial options. The Brennan investigation comes after Ratcliffe last week declassified a “lessons learned” review of the creation of the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA). The 2017 ICA alleged Russia sought to influence the 2016 presidential election to help then-candidate Donald Trump. But the review found that the process of the ICA’s creation was rushed with “procedural anomalies,” and that officials diverted from intelligence standards.
The review concluded that top intelligence officials broke with standard protocol when they insisted on including the discredited Steele Dossier in the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA)—a move that “ran counter to fundamental tradecraft principles and ultimately undermined the credibility of a key judgment.” The Steele dossier, of course, was nothing more than an opposition-research hit job packed with unverified and flat-out false claims about Donald Trump. It was funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC through Fusion GPS, and has since been thoroughly discredited. But that didn’t stop Obama-era political appointees from jamming it into the ICA anyway—something career CIA officials are now, for the first time, admitting was politically motivated.
Declassified records from that review confirmed that it was John Brennan who actively pushed for the dossier’s inclusion. Yet in a 2023 appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, Brennan claimed he didn’t believe the dossier belonged in the ICA. Ratcliffe was not surprised by the review’s findings, a source familiar told Fox News Digital, given the director’s long history of criticizing Brennan’s politicization of intelligence. But Ratcliffe was compelled to refer aspects of Brennan’s involvement to the FBI for review of possible criminality, the source said. The source was unable to share the sensitive details of Ratcliffe’s criminal referral to the FBI with Fox News Digital, but said that Brennan “violated the public’s trust and should be held accountable for it.”
The false statements portion of the probe stems from a newly declassified email sent to Brennan by the former deputy CIA director in December 2016. That message said that including the dossier in the ICA in any capacity jeopardized “the credibility of the entire paper.” The CIA’s internal review torches John Brennan for prioritizing “narrative consistency over analytical soundness” when pushing to include the Steele dossier in the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. Despite warnings from seasoned CIA officials who flagged serious flaws in the dossier, Brennan favored its alignment with preexisting anti-Trump theories and formally recommended its inclusion.
But when he testified before Congress in May 2023, Brennan told a very different story—claiming the CIA opposed including the dossier and treated it as separate from the main assessment. In other words, Brennan’s public testimony directly contradicts his own written position at the time. Credit goes to John Ratcliffe and Kash Patel for doing what others wouldn’t—taking real steps to hold Brennan and Comey accountable. While the media once hailed them as heroes, these men weaponized their power to target a sitting president. This isn’t just about the past—it’s about restoring integrity to institutions that were shamelessly politicized. It’s long overdue, but at last, accountability is on the table.
I AM VERY THANKFUL TO HEAR THIS NEWS. BOTH OF THESE CORRUPT INDIVIDUALS MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS TO UNDERMINE A DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT.
GO PICK UP CLAPPER FOR QUESTIONING TONIGHT AND THE INVESTIGATION OF THESE TWO WILL GO MUCH QUICKER. @FBIDirectorKash… pic.twitter.com/E9y6lSjNBP
— General Mike Flynn (@GenFlynn) July 8, 2025
”..Judge Indira Talwani, sitting on the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, decided that Congress—yes, Congress—doesn’t actually get to decide how taxpayer money is spent..”
• Obama Judge Blocks Defunding of Planned Parenthood in OBBB (Margolis)
It’s almost impossible to overstate the sheer audacity of what’s just happened in Massachusetts. In a move that defies both logic and the very foundation of our constitutional order, an Obama-appointed judge has swooped in to protect Planned Parenthood from the will of the American people as expressed through their elected representatives. Judge Indira Talwani, sitting on the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, decided that Congress—yes, Congress—doesn’t actually get to decide how taxpayer money is spent, at least not when it comes to the Left’s sacred cow. Let’s be clear: This wasn’t a rogue executive order or some bureaucratic sleight of hand. Congress passed a law. The people’s representatives, accountable to voters, made a decision to defund Planned Parenthood as part of the One Big, Beautiful Bill.
That’s how our system is supposed to work. If you don’t like it, you organize, you vote, you persuade your fellow citizens and change the law. That’s democracy. But apparently, that’s not good enough for the activist bench. Instead, Judge Talwani issued a temporary restraining order, telling the executive branch not to enforce the law. Not because the law was found unconstitutional or even legally questionable—no, the judge didn’t bother to offer any real legal reasoning at all. The ruling simply halted the will of Congress in its tracks, leaving Americans and even seasoned legal professionals scratching their heads. How does a judge order the executive branch to ignore a duly-enacted statute without first declaring that statute invalid? On what grounds?
This isn’t just a technicality. It’s a direct assault on the separation of powers and the legitimacy of our system. If judges can simply override Congress whenever they don’t like the outcome, what’s the point of elections? Why bother sending representatives to Washington if their decisions can be nullified on a whim by an unelected judge with a political axe to grind? Even those who despise Donald Trump and support abortion rights should be outraged. Every time a judge pulls a stunt like this, it chips away at the credibility of the courts and the very idea of self-government. If the courts can simply invent new rights for their political allies while ignoring the plain text of the law, we’re not living in a constitutional republic anymore—we’re living under the rule of lawyers.
“These radical leftwing Democrat rogue judges will not stop as they burn through the Constitution and defy the Supreme Court,” Mark Levin said, reacting to the news on X. “This Obama fraud has blocked the defunding of Planned Parenthood in the budget bill just passed by Congress and signed by the President. Under what authority does this judge, whose very job was created by Congress and whose jurisdiction was granted by Congress, have the power to do this? NONE!” The judiciary was never meant to be a tool of the Left, weaponized to override the will of the people. If courts can no longer be trusted to uphold the Constitution over ideology, then it’s time to consider serious consequences—up to and including impeachment. The American people deserve better, and the stakes are too high to let this stand.
Lawfare articles galore today. Are all the courts closing for the summer holiday?
• Supreme Court Reverses Judge’s Move Blocking Trump’s DOGE Executive Order (DS)
The Supreme Court Tuesday stayed a district judge’s injunction blocking President Donald Trump from carrying out a “critical transformation of the federal bureaucracy.” Trump signed Executive Order 14210 on Feb. 11, implementing the Department of Government Efficiency Workforce Optimization Initiative. On Feb. 26, Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought and Office of Personnel Management acting Director Charles Ezell sent a memorandum applying the order. The American Federation of Government Employees, the largest federal government employee union, and other unions filed suit to block the order, and U.S. District Judge Susan Illston issued a preliminary injunction blocking the order on May 22. The Supreme Court explained that Illston blocked the actions “based on [her] view” that the order and the memo “are unlawful.”
Yet the Supreme Court ruled that Trump’s administration “is likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful.” The Supreme Court expressed no opinion on the legality of any agency reduction in force and reorganization plan produced pursuant to the order and the memo. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an appointee of President Barack Obama, wrote a brief concurrence with the order. “I agree with [Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson] that the president cannot restructure federal agencies in a manner inconsistent with congressional mandates,” Sotomayor wrote. “Here, however, the relevant executive order directs agencies to plan reorganizations and reductions in force ‘consistent with applicable law,’ and the resulting joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and Office of Personnel Management reiterates as much.”
“The plans themselves are not before this court, at this stage, and we thus have no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law,” the justice added. “I join the court’s stay because it leaves the district court free to consider those questions in the first instance.” Many of the same groups that staffed and advised the Biden administration (which I expose in “The Woketopus: The Dark Money Cabal Manipulating the Federal Government”) have filed lawsuits to block Trump’s policies, choosing jurisdictions with more friendly judges in order to secure injunctions.
The Supreme Court has recently reined in federal judges. After activist groups sued the Trump administration to block various policies, judges issued temporary injunctions preventing the administration from acting against anyone, not just against the people who filed the lawsuit. In Trump v. CASA, the Supreme Court ruled that these nationwide injunctions violate the law that established the courts in the first place.
Last month, Massachusetts-based District Judge Brian Murphy openly defied the court. He had issued a temporary injunction on April 18, blocking the Trump administration from deporting illegal aliens to South Sudan. He issued a follow-up order on May 21, clarifying and enforcing the injunction. The Supreme Court struck down his April 18 order on June 23, but he issued another order that same day, stating that the May 21 order remained in effect. On Thursday, the court issued an order clarifying that the May 21 order “cannot now be used to enforce an injunction that our stay rendered unenforceable.” Even Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee, wrote of that opinion, “I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this court has stayed.”
The DOGE Order. Trump’s Feb. 11 executive order fleshed out how DOGE—a temporary federal initiative to root out waste, fraud, and abuse that will wrap up its activity by July 4, 2026—will help streamline the government. The order instructs the director of the Office of Management and Budget to submit a plan to reduce the size of the federal workforce, requiring that each agency “hire no more than one employee for every four employees that depart.” The order will not block the hiring freeze at the Internal Revenue Service and it will not apply to the military, law enforcement, and border enforcement agencies. According to the order, each federal agency will receive a DOGE team lead, who will help each agency draft a “data-driven plan” to ensure that new career hires “are in highest-need areas.” The DOGE team lead will have the authority to block agencies from filling any vacancies, unless the agency head disagrees.
Also, according to the order: “All offices that perform functions not mandated by statute or other law shall be prioritized” for reductions in force, “including all agency diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives,” among others. Trump has directed the federal government to minimize DEI efforts, as they encourage discrimination on the basis of skin color, urging people to judge others based on appearance rather than merit. The order also instructs the director of the Office of Personnel Management to tighten the requirements for federal employees, barring applicants who failed to comply with generally applicable legal obligations; those who lack appropriate citizenship status; those who refuse to follow nondisclosure agreements; and those involved in the theft or misuse of government resources or equipment. “By eliminating waste, bloat, and insularity, my administration will empower American families, workers, taxpayers, and our system of government itself,” the order states.
“..Murphy is bound by the prior order and cannot “enforce an injunction that our stay rendered unenforceable.”
• Supreme Court Tells Judge to Fall in Line (von Spakovsky)
In polite but firm judicial language, the Supreme Court made it clear on July 3 that Massachusetts federal district court Judge Brian Murphy wouldn’t get away with dodging the stay the court had issued against him in an important immigration case. According to the court, Murphy is bound by the prior order and cannot “enforce an injunction that our stay rendered unenforceable.” Murphy’s misbehavior comes as no surprise given that he’s one of President Joe Biden’s “Midnight” judges. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., rushed him through the Senate during its lame-duck session after the 2024 election, with Murphy’s nomination barely confirmed on Dec. 2 by a 47-45 vote. Even Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, arguably the most liberal Republican in the Senate, voted against Murphy because he is so radical.
The case in question involved a preliminary injunction issued by Murphy preventing the removal of criminal illegal aliens to third-world countries—in this case, South Sudan. On June 23, the Supreme Court granted the U.S. Justice Department’s emergency request for a stay in Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. The court’s order, issued over the entirely predictable and banal dissent of Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, stayed Murphy’s April 18 injunction, “pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought.” Even a first-year law student would understand that meant that Murphy could no longer enforce his injunction or take any actions to stop the government from removing deportable illegal aliens to third countries. But apparently not Brian Murphy.
As the Justice Department wrote in a motion filed the very next day, Murphy issued an order just hours after the Supreme Court’s order, stating that his related ruling enforcing the injunction “remains in full force and effect … not withstanding todays[sic] stay of the Preliminary Injunction.” The “related ruling” was a second order Murphy issued on May 21 that clarified the April 18 injunction order and remedied what Murphy claimed were supposed “violations” of his April 18 injunction by the government in attempting to remove criminal aliens to South Sudan. Murphy claimed the Supreme Court’s stay applied to his April 18 order but didn’t apply to his May 21 order, and that the government could still not move any aliens to South Sudan.
The Justice Department’s motion called Murphy’s action an “unprecedented defiance of this Court’s authority.” This, the government continued, is a “lawless act of defiance that, once again, disrupts sensitive diplomatic relations and slams the brakes on the Executive’s lawful efforts to effectuate third-country removals.” When an appellate court stays an injunction, the DOJ pointed out, the injunction cannot be enforced because the court that issued it has been divested of its judicial authority to enforce that order. But Murphy simply ignored that and told the government it had to comply with his injunction. Murphy’s misconduct was the equivalent of the Wizard of Oz telling Dorothy, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!” In this case, the man behind the curtain was the Supreme Court.
In response to the Justice Department’s motion for clarification, the man behind the curtain (the Supreme Court) issued the July 3 order, reiterating that it meant what it had said and that Murphy’s power to enforce his injunction is null and void. The Justice Department also asked the Supreme Court to consider taking two other actions: • Directing Murphy “not to issue further injunctions in this case without first obtaining pre-clearance from this Court” or
•“ordering that the case be reassigned to a different judge.” Either action would have been appropriate given Murphy’s misconduct, but the court declined both. But that declination was based on the Supreme Court “‘assuming as we do’ that the District Court will now conform its order to our previous stay and cease enforcing the April 18 injunction through the May 21 remedial order.”Based on that assumption, the court said that “we have no occasion to reach the Government’s other requests for relief.” In other words, the court is assuming that Murphy will now quit defying the Supreme Court. As one would expect, both Sotomayor and Jackson issued a defiant dissent—which the majority dismissed, despite its “provocative language,” since “a claim that a lower court has failed to give effect to an order of this Court is properly addressed here.” Interestingly, Kagan did not join that dissent, even though she had dissented from the court’s original grant of the stay. Instead, she concurred in this “clarification,” stating that while she would have denied the original request for the stay, she could “not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this Court has stayed.”
One final note on the substantive merits of this case. In issuing his injunction, Murphy misinterpreted the applicable immigration statute, ignoring language specifically giving the government the ability to “disregard” the request of an illegal alien to be returned to his native country when it is “impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible” or when it would be “prejudicial to the United States.” Making that determination remains totally within the discretion of the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and there is no provision for it to be second-guessed by a judicial ideologue. And who are the criminal aliens that Sotomayor and her cohorts are so intent on protecting in this case? They’re aliens convicted of homicide, armed robbery, assault, kidnapping, battery, larceny, drug trafficking, and sexual assault, including of children. Those are the new heroes of the Left.
$35 billion. Most of it never used.
• Von der Leyen Hides Truth About Vaccine Purchases – Russian Envoy (Sp.)
Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) CEO Kirill Dmitriev, who is also the Russian special presidential envoy for investment and economic cooperation with foreign countries, believes that European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is hiding the truth about the EU’s purchase of coronavirus vaccines. In late June, Financial Times reported that a number of members of the European Parliament were initiating a vote of no confidence in the head of the European Commission due to the scandal surrounding the purchase of coronavirus vaccines during the pandemic. On Monday, a debate on a vote of no confidence in the head of the European Commission was held at the plenary session of the EP in Strasbourg. The vote on this issue will take place on Thursday.
“Pfizergate is Real. Hidden Pfizer texts? Real. €4 billion in destroyed unnecessary vaccines? Real. The coverup? Also real. Just facts. @vonderleyen hides the truth,” Dmitriev said on X. Earlier, media reported that the entire European Commission would be forced to resign if a vote of no confidence was passed against von der Leyen. It was noted that at this stage, the vote was mainly “symbolic” in nature, since the majority of EU parliamentarians had already made it clear that they would not support the vote of no confidence. At the same time, the initiative with the vote itself, according to media reports, underscores the growing dissatisfaction with von der Leyen in Brussels after a series of “contradictory actions and scandals.”
The EU Court of Justice in Luxembourg previously ruled that the European Commission had committed violations in the procurement of coronavirus vaccines in 2020 and 2021 by blocking public access to information on drug prices, and also failing to prove the absence of a conflict of interest in making such purchases.
In 2021, the New York Times reported that von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla discussed the largest vaccine purchase contract in the history of the European Union in a text message exchange. Von der Leyen was already suspected of directly influencing the negotiation process; the scandal in the media was called “Pfizergate.” The total value of the deal could have reached 35 billion euros, and the 1.8 billion doses purchased significantly exceeded the needs of EU residents. Von der Leyen was called for the contents of the correspondence to be published, but the European Commission refused to make it public in June 2022.
https://twitter.com/AndersonAfDMdEP/status/1942509210505523627
The unelected Ursula calls the dozens of elected MEPs who want the motion “conspiracy theorists” and “extremists”. AND: “..there is ample proof that many are supported by our enemies and by their puppet masters in Russia or elsewhere.”
• Von der Leyen Blames Russia For No-Confidence Motion (RT)
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has dismissed efforts by members of the European Parliament to oust her, branding her critics “conspiracy theorists” and accusing them of acting on behalf of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Von der Leyen is facing a parliamentary motion of no-confidence in her presidency, which is scheduled for a vote on Thursday after being tabled by Romanian MEP Gheorghe Piperea. Addressing the parliament during a debate on Monday, von der Leyen said those backing the proposal were following “the oldest playbook of extremists” and were attempting to undermine public confidence in the EU with “false claims.” “There is no proof that they have any answers, but there is ample proof that many are supported by our enemies and by their puppet masters in Russia or elsewhere.”
“These are movements fueled by conspiracies, from anti-vaxxers to Putin apologists. And you only have to look at some of the signatories of this motion to understand what I mean.” In his remarks to parliament, Piperea accused the Commission of centralizing decision-making in a non-democratic fashion and of interfering in the internal affairs of member states. Russian officials have claimed that EU leaders are using fear tactics to shield themselves from criticism. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov dubbed von der Leyen, who is German, a “fuhrer” for her efforts to push a multi-billion euro militarization program on member states. Russia maintains that unlike Western states it does not interfere with other nations’ domestic affairs.
Von der Leyen urged “all the pro-Europeans, pro-democracy forces” in the chamber to support her agenda, arguing that unity was essential to uphold the EU’s foreign policy strength. Criticism of von der Leyen’s leadership has centered on her handling of the EU’s Covid-19 response during her first term, particularly the lack of transparency in finalizing a 2021 vaccine procurement deal with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla. Earlier this year, the European Court of Justice found her office at fault for failing to retain text messages exchanged with Bourla and for refusing to release them to journalists with adequate justification.
Piperea is a member of Romania’s AUR party, led by George Simion, who narrowly lost a presidential runoff this year to a pro-EU candidate. The election followed a scrapped first-round vote earlier in 2024, in which outsider Calin Georgescu emerged as the frontrunner. The country’s Constitutional Court annulled the results, citing government allegations of Russian interference. Critics of the EU claim the episode reflects a broader anti-democratic trend allegedly enabled by Brussels.
Can we also stop Bill Gates fom buying farmland? That would help.
• Trump Admin Unveils National Farm Security Plan On Foreign Ownership (JTN)
Senior Trump administration officials announced a plan Tuesday to protect U.S. farmland from Chinese ownership and other threats to American agricultural resources. “Every family, every home, every community depends upon what our farmers do, and they support and sustain us, not merely by keeping us materially fed, but by keeping us spiritually strong,” Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said at a press conference. “The farm’s produce is not just a commodity, it is a way of life that underpins America itself, and that’s exactly why it is under threat from criminals, from political adversaries, and from hostile regimes that understand our way of life as a profound and existential threat to themselves.” The new plan seeks to secure U.S. farmland from adversaries like China, ensure a strong supply chain, and protect American agricultural research security – especially after recent attempts by Chinese researchers to smuggle deadly plant pathogens into the United States.
In response to this vulnerability, Rollins said that she had terminated contracts or research arrangements between the U.S. Department of Agriculture and 70 scientists who are citizens from countries of concern, like China. Last month, two Chinese nationals working in a university laboratory in Michigan were charged for attempting to smuggle a fungus called Fusarium graminearum into the United States in 2024, Just the News reported. The fungus is classified in the scientific literature as a “potential agroterrorism weapon” because it affects wheat, barley, maize, and rice by causing “head blight,” according to the Justice Department. A Just the News investigation found that these scientists were working for researchers at the laboratory who were receiving funding from the federal government.
She also said that her department “canceled seven active agreements with entities in foreign countries of concern.” Rollins’ announcement follows years of growing concerns about Chinese ownership of U.S. farmland and the potential threats to national security, including to the food supply chain. Some lawmakers have also raised concerns about the proximity of Chinese-owned land to military bases and sensitive installations.
In recent years, foreign countries, including China, have increased their purchases of American land. In 2023 the federal government assessed that foreign parties held more than 43.4 million acres, of which 48% was forest land, 28% cropland, 21% pasture and other agricultural land, and 2% non-agricultural land. In response, several states passed legislation targeted at Chinese-owned farmland. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis championed a law banning citizens from foreign countries of corners—like China, Russia, and Iran—from owning farmland in the state.
“The United States cannot afford to continue down the unstable and dangerous path of energy subtraction previous leaders pursued, forcing the closure of baseload power sources like coal and natural gas..”
• US Energy Generation Retirements Increase Blackout Risk by 100x in 2030 (ET)
The planned retirement of more than 100 gigawatts (GW) of power generation capacity by the end of the decade could increase the risk of blackouts in the United States by 100 times, the Department of Energy (DOE) said in a July 7 statement. “Allowing 104 GW of firm generation to retire by 2030—without timely replacement—could lead to significant outages when weather conditions do not accommodate wind and solar generation,” the DOE said. “Modeling shows annual outage hours could increase from single digits today to more than 800 hours per year. Such a surge would leave millions of households and businesses vulnerable. We must renew a focus on firm generation and continue to reverse radical green ideology in order to address this risk.”
Firm power generation refers to power that can be generated at all times and includes coal, natural gas, and nuclear. This is in contrast to intermittent power sources such as wind and solar, which are dependent on factors such as weather. The warning is part of the DOE’s report, titled “Evaluating the Reliability and Security of the United States Electric Grid,” which criticizes the “radical green agenda of past administrations” for existing generation retirements and delays in adding new firm power generation capacities, according to the statement. This will lead to a “growing mismatch” between electricity demand and supply, caused especially by demand from data center growth driven by artificial intelligence (AI), the DOE said in the statement.
If the current schedule of planned retirements and incremental power additions remains unchanged, the country’s electric grid will be “unable to meet expected demand for AI, data centers, manufacturing and industrialization while keeping the cost of living low for all Americans,” the agency said in the statement. Continuing on the present course will undermine the United States’ economic growth, leadership in new technologies, and national security, the DOE said. While the 104 GW in retirements are set to be replaced by 209 GW of new power generation by 2030, only 22 GW of these replacements are set to be firm generation, according to the department.
“The United States cannot afford to continue down the unstable and dangerous path of energy subtraction previous leaders pursued, forcing the closure of baseload power sources like coal and natural gas,” Secretary of Energy Chris Wright said in the statement. “In the coming years, America’s reindustrialization and the AI race will require a significantly larger supply of around-the-clock, reliable, and uninterrupted power. President [Donald] Trump’s administration is committed to advancing a strategy of energy addition, and supporting all forms of energy that are affordable, reliable, and secure.” The DOE report is a response to Trump’s April 8 executive order calling for strengthening the reliability and security of the United States’ power grid.
To ensure reliable electric generation in the country and meet the growing demand for electricity, the United States’ power grid “must utilize all available power generation resources, particularly those secure, redundant fuel supplies that are capable of extended operations,” the order states. The DOE issued its warning following a May report from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, which cautioned that parts of the United States could struggle to meet electricity demand this summer. The corporation’s report cited intermittent energy sources, such as solar and wind, as posing a potential risk to the reliability of the power supply. The DOE report on grid reliability came out on the same day that Trump signed an executive order directing his administration to end “market distorting subsidies for unreliable, foreign controlled energy sources.”
The order directs the Treasury secretary to terminate clean electricity production and investment tax credits granted to solar and wind facilities, the White House said in a July 7 fact sheet. It also directs the Interior secretary to revise rules to eliminate preferential treatment given to these facilities compared with dispatchable, firm power generation sources. “Unreliable wind and solar energy sources displace affordable, dispatchable energy, compromise America’s electric grid, and denigrate the beauty of our Nation’s natural landscape,” the fact sheet states. “Reliance on so-called ‘green’ subsidies threatens national security by making the United States dependent on supply chains controlled by foreign adversaries.”
Some renewable energy policies are already on the chopping block after Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law on July 4. The bill terminates multiple clean energy tax credits established under the Inflation Reduction Act signed by former President Joe Biden, with some cuts taking effect as early as this year. The electric vehicle tax credit is now scheduled to be terminated by the end of September. Tax credits for clean energy projects will only be available if the projects are operational by Dec. 31, 2027, or Jan. 1, 2028.
Andromeda
The largest and sharpest image ever taken of the Andromeda galaxy — otherwise known as M31.
It is the biggest Hubble image ever released and shows over 100 million stars, thousands of star clusters in a section of the galaxy’s disc stretching across over 40 000 light-years. pic.twitter.com/tTHdBvCs4z
— Massimo (@Rainmaker1973) July 9, 2025
Kaieteur
https://twitter.com/gunsnrosesgirl3/status/1942473923058119043
Elon
https://twitter.com/ShawnRyanShow/status/1942260072966390073
Ruidoso
https://twitter.com/rawsalerts/status/1942718815483158872
Donkey
Timeline cleanse‼️
This donkey loves his new peg leg pirate chicken toy. He’s so funny! Be sure to watch until the end. 🤣🤣🤣 pic.twitter.com/c4mLJOgmgV
— 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕷𝖎𝖔𝖓𝖊𝖘𝖘™️ (@CL4WS_OUT) July 8, 2025
Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.
Conservative influencers leaving the White House with ‘The Epstein Files: Phase 1’, February 27, 2025. © AP / Evan Vucci
