Supreme Court Archives - The Automatic Earth

Gary Brecka just made a jaw-dropping prediction on Piers Morgan: “If you’re alive five years from today, it will be your choice whether or not you want to live to 120 or 140.”

He says the combo of early detection + AI + big data is about to explode life extension — and we’re… pic.twitter.com/5p2u9Klqqh
— Camus (@newstart_2024) February 20, 2026

Tariffs

President Trump tells the media he’s now going to have to go in a different direction on tariffs — “the direction that I should have gone the first time.”

He then read aloud Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent for all of the press to hear.

TRUMP: “But now I’m going to go in a different… pic.twitter.com/bPaCirCvEw
— Overton (@overton_news) February 20, 2026

ROASTED: Jesse Watters just obliterated the entirety of Trump's opposition to tariffs, and reminded everyone of just how bad Democrats FAFO'd:

"The president's just gonna pick a different law, and put the tariffs back on. That's what happened today."

He hit the Democrats where… pic.twitter.com/0svoU4d5xz
— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) February 21, 2026

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2025002058999288215?s=20

Ask Grok in X Chat https://t.co/BhTfDG4EFi
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 21, 2026

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/2024927551760859293?s=20

Elon Musk explains the wild idea behind the Cybertruck design

"I wanted to do something that looked unique. And the Cybertruck looks unique and has unique functionality
And there were three things where I was like, let’s make it bulletproof, let’s make it faster than a Porsche… pic.twitter.com/dXIIkzJFEB
— X Freeze (@XFreeze) February 21, 2026

“..”Foreign countries that have been ripping us off for years are ecstatic. They’re so happy,” he said. “And they’re dancing in the streets, but they won’t be dancing for long — that I can assure you.”

• Trump Responds to Supreme Court’s Decision on Tariffs (Sarah Anderson)

President Donald Trump came out to speak to the press from the White House on Friday to express his feelings on the Supreme Court’s Decision to rule against his broad tariffs, which he imposed through a series of executive orders last year, under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). He began by saying the ruling was “deeply disappointing,” and that he was “ashamed of certain members of the court — absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country.” The president also thanked Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito for “their strength and wisdom and love of our country.”

Trump claims that when you read their dissenting opinions, there’s no way anyone can argue against them. “Foreign countries that have been ripping us off for years are ecstatic. They’re so happy,” he said. “And they’re dancing in the streets, but they won’t be dancing for long — that I can assure you. Trump said that he knew the Democrats on the court were an automatic “no,” just like the Democrat members of Congress, no matter how great the case. “They’re against anything that makes America strong, healthy, and great again,” he said. He also called them a “disgrace to our nation.”
He said the others, presumably Justices John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett, are being “politically correct,” which happens far too often, and he called them “fools and lap dogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats.” “They’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. It’s my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests, and a political movement that is far smaller people would ever thing,” he said, adding, “I won by millions of votes — we won in a landslide, with all the cheating that went on, and there was a lot of it.” He claimed that “certain justices” are “afraid” of the loud, obnoxious, and ignorant minority.
“This was an important case to me, more as a symbol of economic national security and also, I would say just for our country itself — so important because we’re doing so well as a country,” he said. “The good news is that there are methods, practices, statutes, and authorities, as recognized by the entire court in this terrible decision, and also as recognized by Congress, which they refer to, that are even stronger than the IEEPA tariffs available to me as president of the United States.”
Trump claimed he was actually modest in what he asked of other countries because he was trying to be “well-behaved,” and wanted to be a “good boy” because he knows how the Supreme Court works and knows they’re easily swayed. He also touted some economic wins, like recent stock market records and the decline of fentanyl coming into our country, and how tariffs helped him settle eight wars. The president said it’s ridiculous that the law allows him to “destroy” foreign countries, tell them they can’t do business in the United States, or even embargo them, but he can’t charge them a cent.
“It’s okay because we have other ways — numerous other way,” he added. “Therefore, effective immediately, all national security tariffs, under Section 232 and existing Section 301 tariffs… remain fully in place and in full force and effect. Today, I will sign an order to impose a 10% global tariff, under Section 122, over and above our normal tariffs already being charged.” He said he’s also initiating other investigations to “protect our country from unfair trading practices of other countries and companies.”

Bumped it up to 15%.

• Trump Winds Down IEEPA Tariffs, Imposes 10% Global Tariff To Last 150 Days (JTN)

President Donald Trump on Friday signed an executive order that formally ends a range of tariffs that the Supreme Court shot down earlier in the day, and imposed a new 10% global tariff that will be in effect for 150 days. The Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 split that Trump could not impose massive tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, however the majority opinion did not weigh in on other means to impose the tariffs. Trump said the new 10% global tariff is being enacted under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, which comes as tariffs imposed under Section 232 and Section 301 remain in place
.
“It is my Great Honor to have just signed, from the Oval Office, a Global 10% Tariff on all Countries, which will be effective almost immediately,” Trump said in a series of posts on Truth Social. “Those members of the Supreme Court who voted against our very acceptable and proper method of tariffs should be ashamed of themselves. “Their decision was ridiculous, but now the adjustment process begins, and we will do everything possible to take in even more money than we were taking in before,” he added. The new tariff will take effect just after midnight on Tuesday, Feb. 24.

You can’t do it under IEEPA, but we have plenty other laws…

“,,the Court’s decision is not likely to greatly restrict Presidential tariff authority going forward. (pg, 63 dissent).

• Supreme Court Rule 6-3 Against President Trump’s IEEPA Tariff Authority (CTH)

Economic security is national security, and the hollowing out of our ability to independently sustain our national economic system posed a real and substantive threat to our nation. The court never evaluated the ‘urgency’ behind the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as used by President Donald Trump.Instead, the court began their legal analysis by seeking to define the word “regulate” as it applies to IEEPA. Part II–B, concluding: (a) IEEPA authorizes the President to “investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit . . . importation or exportation.” §1702(a)(1)(B) under the Act.

The majority of the court decided presidential ability to levy countervailing duties is not part of the ability to “regulate” importation. In the opinion of the court, the President can block imports, nullify imports and prohibit imports, but the president cannot “regulate” imports through the use of tariffs. This is the representative logic of a John Roberts court, the voice of Bush Inc.
It is what it is – and many of us saw this nonsense as a likely outcome, but it is still frustrating to see such a detached parseltongue approach to legal opinions when the national security of our nation is at stake. These are the judicial minds who will watch the nation burn to the ground, just so they can remain in power ruling over the ashes. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch joined the court’s three liberals in the majority. Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.
(Via Politico) – […] “The President asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope. In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it,” Roberts wrote, declaring that the 1977 law Trump cited to justify the import duties “falls short” of the Congressional approval that would be needed. The ruling wipes out the 10 percent tariff Trump imposed on nearly every country in the world, as well as specific, higher tariffs on some of the top U.S. trading partners, including Canada, Mexico, China, the European Union, Japan and South Korea.
Several of those countries have entered trade agreements with the U.S. — and before the ruling indicated that they would continue to honor those agreements. That is because the victory for the 12 Democratic-run states and small businesses that challenged Trump’s tariffs is expected to be short lived. The White House has signaled it will attempt to use other authorities to keep similar duties in place. “We’ve been thinking about this plan for five years or longer,” U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer told POLITICO in December. “You can be sure that when we came to the president the beginning of the term, we had a lot of different options” “My message is tariffs are going to be a part of the policy landscape going forward,” Greer said. (read more)”
Justice Thomas agrees with CTH prior position on the issue. IEEPA grants the president the authority to regulate imports, and tariffs are a tool for regulation.

Despite this decision the tariffs will remain in place, perhaps using various authorities which have not been challenged as noted in the Kavanaugh dissent:
“That said, with respect to tariffs in particular, the Court’s decision might not prevent Presidents from imposing most if not all of these same sorts of tariffs under other statutory authorities. For example, Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 permits the President to impose a “temporary import surcharge” to “deal with large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits.” 19 U. S. C. §2132(a). Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 provides that, if the International Trade Commission determines an article is being imported in such quantities that it is “a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industry producing an article like or directly competitive with the imported article,” the President may take “appropriate and feasible action,” including imposing a “duty.”
§§2251(a), 2253(a)(3)(A). Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 authorizes the President through a subordinate officer to “impose duties” if he determines that “an act, policy, or practice of a foreign country” is “unjustifiable and burdens or restricts United States commerce.” §§2411(a)(c). Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 permits the President to impose tariffs when he finds that “any foreign country places any burden or disadvantage upon the commerce of the United States.” §1338(d). And Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 authorizes the President to, after receiving a report from the Secretary of Commerce, “adjust the imports of [an] article and its derivatives so that such imports will not threaten to impair the national security.” §1862(c)(1)(a).
So the Court’s decision is not likely to greatly restrict Presidential tariff authority going forward. (pg, 63 dissent).

“If foreign trade regulation isn’t a core legislative function, then delegating it to the executive doesn’t violate separation of powers at all.”

• Clarence Thomas Unloads on the Supreme Court Over Tariff Ruling

The Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a significant defeat on tariffs Friday morning, and the sharpest voice in the room wasn’t in the majority. It was Clarence Thomas, writing in dissent, methodically dismantling the majority’s reasoning for stripping the president of broad tariff authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The ruling blocks Trump from using IEEPA as the legal foundation for his reciprocal tariff policy. For what it’s worth, the court didn’t wipe out his tariffs entirely — other statutes still provide Trump with opportunities to impose tariffs — but the majority made clear that sweeping executive tariff power requires explicit congressional guardrails.

What made the decision especially striking was the coalition that produced it. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, alongside the court’s three liberal justices. Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented. His dissent goes straight to the constitutional text and history. “I write separately to explain why the statute at issue here is consistent with the separation of powers as an original matter,” he wrote. His argument is grounded in the Founding era’s actual understanding of foreign commerce — not a modern reinterpretation of it.
Thomas draws a hard line between domestic legislative power and foreign trade authority. Congress holds the taxing power and the power to set domestic rules governing life, liberty, and property. Foreign commerce is a different animal entirely. “Power over foreign commerce was not within the core legislative power, and engaging in foreign commerce was regarded as a privilege rather than a right,” he explained. If foreign trade regulation isn’t a core legislative function, then delegating it to the executive doesn’t violate separation of powers at all. In fact, that would mean it’s actually consistent with how the Founders understood the relationship between the branches.
Thomas backed this up with history. From the Founding forward, Congress routinely handed trade regulation, including the power to impose import duties, to the executive branch. Courts upheld that arrangement every time it was challenged. “The power to impose duties on imports can be delegated,” Thomas wrote. He concluded, “Congress’s delegation here was constitutional.” That framing treats unlimited tariff authority the same way the Court treats other major questions — skeptically, demanding Congress speak clearly before the executive acts broadly.Thomas thinks that’s the wrong test applied to the wrong power. His reading of the original Constitution puts the executive branch in charge of foreign commerce. He argues the majority conflated two distinct constitutional functions and punished the president for Congress’s longstanding practice of handing him the wheel on trade.
In his own dissent, Justice Kavanaugh argued that the majority’s decision would lead to chaos. “The United States may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the IEEPA tariffs, even though some importers may have already passed on costs to consumers or others,” he wrote. Kavanaugh also noted that Trump used tariffs as leverage while making trading deals worth trillions of dollars, and that the court’s ruling “could generate uncertainty regarding those trade arrangements,” he wrote.

“.. Thomas, who is the perhaps the single greatest living American ..”

• Will We See a Supreme Court Vacancy (or Two) This Summer? (Josh Hammer)

Few things in Washington, D.C., generate as much as excitement and intrigue as a Supreme Court confirmation showdown. For decades, since the eponymous “borking” of then-Supreme Court nominee Bob Bork in 1987, political battles surrounding the membership of the nation’s high court have been among the most contentious and raucous of Beltway affairs. Which is why it’s rather curious that very few outside the most fervid of court-watchers seem to be discussing the distinct possibility that there could be one or two Supreme Court vacancies after the current term ends this summer.

Justice Samuel Alito is 75 years old — and will be 76 by the end of this term. Justice Clarence Thomas is 77 years old — and will be 78 by term’s end. Alito just celebrated 20 years of service on the high court, and Thomas would mark 35 years of service this October — nice round numbers. Alito has a forthcoming book set for release this October, around the start of the next Supreme Court term. That isn’t anywhere near dispositive — Justice Amy Coney Barrett published a book last September, and Justice Neil Gorsuch has released two books since he was confirmed to the court in 2017 — but it has certainly fed speculation.
Thomas and Alito are, by some order of magnitude, the two most principled conservative justices currently sitting on the high court. It stands to reason that they would like to be replaced by ideological fellow travelers — something that likely requires a likeminded president and a likeminded U.S. Senate majority. As the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who was very much an ideological fellow traveler, told Chris Wallace in a 2012 interview, “I would not like to be replaced by someone who immediately sets about undoing what I’ve tried to do for 25-26 years. I mean, I shouldn’t have to tell you that, unless you think I’m a fool.”
If there is one thing we can say with certainty about Thomas, who is the perhaps the single greatest living American, and Alito, who is perhaps the most authentic Burkean conservative on the high court, it is that they are decidedly not fools.
Republicans currently hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate. What’s more, they face a remarkably favorable map this November: The GOP is defending very few (if any) swing-state Senate seats, and it will have enticing Senate pickup opportunities in Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota and New Hampshire. But to paraphrase the old quip from former Israeli diplomat Abba Eban, Republicans oftentimes never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Accordingly, the increasingly voluble scuttlebutt out of Washington is that there is a chance Democrats retake not merely the nearly evenly divided House, but the Senate as well. Those odds are below 50% — the online exchange Polymarket, for instance, currently places the GOP’s odds of retaining the Senate around 60% — but there is certainly a chance it happens.
That wouldn’t just spell doom for the final two years of President Donald Trump’s second term. It would be potentially calamitous for the future of the Supreme Court as well. Does anyone think that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and his Democratic caucus are not prepared to stall and refuse to confirm any prospective Trump nominee to the high court? (SET ITAL)Of course(END ITAL) they are prepared to do that. If Republicans lose the Senate this November and Thomas and Alito stick around through the 2028 presidential election, they will in essence be wagering on Republicans maintaining the White House and winning back the Senate.
Is that a risk worth taking? In fairness, it might be. Republicans have historically botched few things more than they have Supreme Court nominations — from Justices William Brennan (brought to us by President Dwight Eisenhower), Harry Blackmun (President Richard Nixon), and David Souter (President George H.W. Bush), to some of the more milquetoast Trump selections such as Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh. The track record is not exactly inspiring. And because Thomas and Alito are the two finest conservative jurists on the high court, there is little to no room for improvement, from a constitutionalist perspective — there can only be regression.
Nonetheless, in spite of the GOP’s woeful judicial nominations track record, there are plenty of outstanding potential justices-in-waiting. My former boss Judge James C. Ho of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, a former Thomas clerk, is likely the single most principled originalist of all current lower-court federal judges. His 5th Circuit colleague Andrew Oldham, a fellow stalwart, happens to have the corresponding symbolism of being a former Alito clerk. D. John Sauer, the outstanding current U.S. solicitor general, is a former Scalia clerk and a rapidly emerging dark horse contender. There are other possible rock-solid nominees as well.

“..Democrats argue that requiring free voter photo IDs – even when the ID itself costs nothing – harms eligible voters by creating practical barriers to casting a ballot.

• Virtually All Countries Support Voter Photo ID – So Why the Filibuster? (RCW)

“The bottom line is this: voter ID is not controversial in this country,” Harry Enten, the chief data analyst for CNN, recently reported. Nor is it controversial in virtually any other country in the world. Yet despite massive support among both Democrats (71%) and Republicans (95%), only one Democratic member of the House and one in the Senate are supporting the SAVE Act. Unless seven more of the 47 Senate Democrats step forward, their filibuster will kill the bill. Democrats argue that requiring free voter photo IDs – even when the ID itself costs nothing – harms eligible voters by creating practical barriers to casting a ballot. They contend that blacks would be especially hard hit. Interestingly, every country in Africa requires government-issued identification to vote.

They also argue that such requirements would disenfranchise Hispanic voters. Yet Mexico, all twelve South American countries, and Spain require government-issued photo IDs to vote. All of these countries have lower per-capita incomes than the United States. If citizens in those nations can obtain the necessary identification to vote, why would American Hispanics and blacks be unable to do the same? While 83% of American adults support requiring government-issued photo identification to vote, support is also strong among the very groups Democrats claim would be harmed: 82% of Hispanics and 76% of black Americans favor the requirement. Those figures suggest that most black and Hispanic Americans do not view obtaining a photo ID as the obstacle Democrats describe. Ten U.S. states have similarly strong photo ID requirements.
Democrats claim that women are disproportionately disenfranchised by voter IDs, but women are also strongly supportive of IDs and have exactly the same level of support as men.Democrats argue that voter ID requirements disproportionately disenfranchise people with the least education and lowest incomes. Yet, ironically, survey results show that voters who did not graduate from high school were 27 percentage points more likely to support photo voter ID laws than those who attended graduate school. Similarly, individuals earning less than $30,000 per year were seven percentage points more likely to support photo ID requirements than those earning over $200,000 annually.
The well-educated and higher-income individuals thus express more concern about the impact of ID laws on the less educated and lower-income groups than those groups express themselves.But it isn’t just South American countries and all of Africa that require voter IDs to vote. Both of our neighbors, Canada and Mexico, require them, with Mexico also requiring a thumbprint. All 47 European countries, except parts of the United Kingdom, require a government-issued photo ID .
After widespread vote fraud, Mexico enacted major voting reforms in 1991. The government mandated voter photo IDs with biometric information, banned absentee ballots, and required in-person voter registration. Even though these changes made registration more difficult and eliminated absentee voting, turnout increased after the reforms took effect. In the three presidential elections following the 1991 changes, an average of 68% of eligible citizens voted, compared with 59% in the three elections before the reforms. As confidence in the electoral process grew, more citizens chose to participate. Many countries in Europe and beyond have learned the hard way that fraud can result from looser voting regimes – and they have instituted stricter voting measures in direct response to it. In Northern Ireland, where a bitter sectarian conflict fuels hardball electoral tactics, parties on all sides have engaged in what observers describe as “widespread and systemic“ voter fraud. Both Conservative and Labour governments enacted reforms to curb it. In 1985, under the conservative Margaret Thatcher, the U.K. began requiring voters to show identification before receiving a ballot, but that measure did not solve the problem.
In 1998, a Select Committee on Northern Ireland reported that people could “easily forge” medical cards – accepted as ID under the 1985 law – or obtain them fraudulently, enabling non-existent individuals to cast votes. By 2002, the Labour government strengthened voter identification cards to make them far harder to forge and used the more secure IDs, along with additional rules, to stop people from registering multiple times. These anti-fraud measures immediately reduced total registrations by 11%, suggesting to Labour how extensive earlier fraud had been.

“.. Even the state government of Florida (population 23 million) spends less than New York City’…,”

• Washington Post Editorial Board Brutally Mocks Mamdani (ZH)

Margaret Thatcher once said, “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money,” and New York City’s new socialist mayor, Zohran Mamdani, is learning just how right she was, and New Yorkers are going to pay a hefty price for it. On Tuesday, a mere two months after declaring he would “replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism,” Mamdani announced a $127 billion preliminary budget for fiscal year 2027, a $5 billion increase from the prior year, while simultaneously warning residents of “painful” tax hikes if state officials refused to bail him out to cover his socialist policies.

“That’s a city budget bigger than the state budgets of 47 states. Even the state government of Florida (population 23 million) spends less than New York City’s,” explains The Washington Post editorial board. “And the state still managed to attract hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers in recent years.” “The reality is that Americans may like the idea of ‘free’ stuff — it’s how socialists win elections — but they are less excited about having to pay for it” they continued. “They’re even less excited when they live in a state that ranks at the very bottom of the Tax Foundation’s State Tax Competitiveness Index.”
During a press conference earlier this week, Mamdani called on New York Gov. Kathy Hochul to raise income taxes on the “ultra-wealthy” help fund his budget for New York City. “The onus for resolving this crisis should not be placed on the backs of working and middle-class New Yorkers,” Mamdani said. “If we do not fix this structural imbalance and do not heed the calls of New Yorkers to raise taxes on the wealthy, this crisis will not disappear. It will simply return, year after year, forcing harder and harsher choices each time. And if we do not go down the first path, the city will be forced down a second, more harmful path. Faced with no other choice, the city would have to exercise the only revenue lever fully within our own control. We would have to raise property taxes.”

Mamdani says if Hochul doesn't allow NYC to raise taxes on corporations and highest earners, he will raise property taxes on New York City homeowners. pic.twitter.com/Bm07LxS9OH
— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) February 17, 2026

Hochul rejected the tax hike demand without hesitation, telling Mamdani to expand his “ridiculously low” proposed spending cuts instead. Mamdani has claimed his administration identified $1.7 billion in cuts. The Post’s editorial board was not impressed, calling it a “laughable number.” “The reality is that Mamdani is trying to expand a city government that already does way too much,” they argued. “ The city should provide basic services, such as law and order, but instead it pours billions into social spending like housing and health care.” They even cited California as a cautionary tale, warning that in the Golden State, “a slew of billionaires are fleeing at the mere possibility of a wealth tax. They’ll avoid the wealth tax — and California will miss out on the billions that these individuals otherwise would have contributed before a wealth tax was even imposed.”
More experienced Democrats in New York understand this. Gov. Kathy Hochul, no one’s idea of a fiscal hawk, nevertheless instigated Mamdani’s tantrum by refusing to go along with more tax hikes. The city council speaker and comptroller also have sway and are skeptical of new taxes. This week, it was revealed that acclaimed director and filmmaker Steven Spielberg officially became a New York resident on January 1, effectively avoiding the billionaire tax—though a representative for Spielberg and his wife Cate Capshaw claimed the move was to be closer to family.
Mamdani’s pre-election promises — free buses, expanded child care, cash assistance, rental aid, and smaller class sizes for teachers’ unions — were crowd-pleasers that earned him “tax the rich” chants at campaign rallies. The problem is that governing a city with a structural deficit requires something more than slogans. His preliminary budget now acknowledges a $5.4 billion shortfall for the current fiscal year, with projections that worsen over time. “No one in New York is ambitious enough to dramatically reshape city government, and residents either vote for class warfare or vote with their feet. A reckoning will have to come eventually. The question is how bad it gets before reality sets in,” the board concluded.
Ouch.

“.. Trump fixed the border, lowered crime, and now demands the same common-sense security at the ballot box..”

• President Donald Trump Stands Victim of His Own Success (David Manney)

In the early days of the NBA, George Mikan was so dominant in the paint that the league had to redraw the court. Defenders couldn’t stop him, and coaches couldn’t scheme around him, so the league widened the lane to push him further from the basket. They changed the rules because one man kept winning under the old ones. That’s where we find President Donald Trump today. He clamped down on the southern border, ending the chaos so fast that the crisis faded from daily debate. He renewed the economy and strengthened national security. He slashed narcotics imports while driving the murder rates across the country.

Instead of arguing policy, opponents now look for ways to redraw the political court around him. They protest enforcement agencies, stage walkouts, and shift attention to anything except measurable results. When outcomes favor one side so decisively, critics often stop debating the scoreboard and start questioning the game itself. Migrant encounters fell to the lowest level in more than 50 years; Customs and Border Protection recorded just 237,538 encounters for all of fiscal year 2025. January 2026 brought only 6,070 southwest border apprehensions and marked the ninth straight month with zero releases into the interior. Nationwide encounters dropped 84% in January 2025, while seizures of fentanyl dropped sharply, too.
Violent crime falls to record lows
Nationwide, murder rates fell through the floor, as major cities saw homicides drop 19% to 21% in 2025 alone. The murder rate hit its lowest point since at least 1900, marking the largest one-year decline ever recorded. Robberies fell about 20%, aggravated assaults fell nearly 10%, and overdose deaths shrank as narcotics imports dried up.
National Guard restores order in the capital
In Washington, D.C., Trump declared a crime emergency in August 2025, launching the Make DC Safe and Beautiful Task Force and bringing in federal agents, local police, and National Guard troops. Since then, authorities made more than 10,000 arrests and taken more than 1,000 illegal guns off the streets. Once real help arrived, homicides dropped extremely fast. In 2017, Forlesia Cook lost her grandson to gun violence in Washington. She stood up at the White House Black History Month reception on Feb. 18 and looked critics straight in the eye. The room erupted in applause, and Trump urged her to run for office.
Save America Act highlights the deeper divide
The SAVE America Act requires documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in federal elections and a photo ID to cast a ballot: Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) introduced the bill. President Trump pushes hard for its passage because nothing matters more than clean elections. The House passed it on Feb. 11. Polling shows roughly 75% to 84% of registered voters favor voter ID and proof of citizenship. Support cuts across Democrats, independents, black, and Hispanic Americans. Yet far-left politicians fight it tooth and nail; Senate Democrats, led by Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), vow to block it in the Senate, warning about voter suppression and arguing it harms women who changed their names (I-9 Forms for their jobs, anyone?) or low-income voters who lack
The deeper fear shines through: Secure elections could cut off loose votes some candidates rely on to stay in power. The loudest defenders of democracy often resist clear rules that strengthen it. It’s a familiar enough-looking pattern. Open-border policies under the previous administration flooded the country with millions of people and left voter rolls vulnerable. Record border crossings from 2022 through 2024 raised real questions about who votes. Officials looked the other way while colleges, courts, and much of the legacy media repeated the same, tired story. Trump fixed the border, lowered crime, and now demands the same common-sense security at the ballot box, reaching Americans directly through streaming platforms and rallies because old gatekeepers refuse to carry the message.
Democrats protest the very agents who deliver results
Democrats and the left (pardon the redundancy) limit every argument to that old chestnut: Calling Trump evil, while demanding that he suffer defeat and humiliation. They protest ICE agents who carry out the exact policies voters chose, ignoring the sealed border, safer streets, and stronger economy. Their big idea? Stage-side rallies or boycotts for the upcoming State of the Union Address set for Tuesday, Feb. 24. How convenient. ESPN commentator Stephen A. Smith, definitely not a Republican, spoke plainly, saying Democrats show zero sense of decorum. He said they put raw politics ahead of their own constituents by planning to skip or disrupt the president’s upcoming speech.
Trump’s ready to talk with anybody; he spends the time, shows the patience, and treats people with respect. The other side offers only venom because that’s all they have left, their old arguments collapsed years ago.

“There is absolutely no room for bias in any kind of the CIA’s work..”

• Biased Spies: John Ratcliffe Cleans House at the CIA (Manney)

A rare correction at Langley
CIA Director John Ratcliffe rescinded or revised 19 intelligence reports after determining they contained political bias and violated basic tradecraft standards. The President’s Intelligence Advisory Board reviewed around 300 reports from the past decade and flagged serious problems: 17 were permanently deleted, two were pulled, revised, and reissued. A senior CIA official told Just The News that the reports were initially flagged during a review by the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, then reviewed by career agency officials before being retracted, recalled, or revised. “There is absolutely no room for bias in any kind of the CIA’s work,” the official said. “So when we find instances where our tradecraft did not reach that high bar of impartiality, we must correct the record. And that’s why we’re taking steps to reinforce analytic integrity by ordering the public release, substantive revision, or retraction of these products that do not meet CIA’s tradecraft standards.” The action stands out because a sweeping internal correction like this rarely occurs; intelligence agencies revise their analyses over time, but mass rescissions tied to political bias seldom occur in public.

Reports that read like activism
One report warned that women embracing traditional motherhood could drift toward violent extremism, with analysts describing motherhood as a white supremacist objective, suggesting that women sharing cooking videos or family values content could aid recruitment networks. The product relied heavily on open-source material rather than on classified intelligence collection. One was an Oct. 6, 2021, assessment titled “Women Advancing White Racially and Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremist Radicalization and Recruitment” that waded into “foreign political debates about gender roles rather discussing any actual threats of political violence,” the senior CIA official said.
It had labeled the far-right Canadian YouTuber Lauren Southern as a white racially and ethnically motivated violent extremist and spoke of the dangers such figures pose to societies — in addition to women pursuing traditional roles as mothers. A July 8, 2020 a CIA report also centered on family planning and the disruptions of condom supply chains worldwide using “unobjective sources of information such as Planned Parenthood,” the official noted. Another assessment from 2020 warned that birth control shortages during the pandemic would damage economic growth in Egypt, Nigeria, and Pakistan, using sources such as Planned Parenthood, the Guttmacher Institute, and Marie Stopes International. Another report from 2015 promoted LGBT academic programs in North Africa and the Middle East while criticizing conservative governments.Intelligence Community Directive 203 requires objectivity, independence, and avoidance of any political slant. Ratcliffe said the flawed reports fell short of the high standards the agency must uphold, stressing there’s no room for bias in intelligence analysis.
Directors and oversight
The January 2015 report was issued during the tenure of CIA Director John Brennan; the July 2020 report landed on the desk of CIA Director Gina Haspel; and the October 2021 motherhood report circulated while William Burns served as CIA Director. Each director presided over an agency required to enforce Directive 203’s standards of impartiality. None of the prior directors rescinded large batches of reports over bias concerns. Past intelligence controversies drew scrutiny; the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, produced under George Tenet, later proved deeply flawed.

“There’s a reason why Trump nicknamed him “Sloppy Steve.”

• The Shattered Dreams of Steve Bannon (Scott Pinsker)

Until the impossible became possible — and Donald Trump engineered the political upset of his generation, toppling Hillary Clinton in 2016 — most Americans had no idea who Steve Bannon was. Visually, he wasn’t much to look at. Bannon wasn’t a workout wonder like RFK Jr., with six-pack abs, nor was he blessed with movie star good looks. Some guys were born with oodles of charisma — the kind of raw, undeniable magnetism that leaps off the screen. Bannon, alas, wasn’t one of those people. There’s a reason why Trump nicknamed him “Sloppy Steve.”

But after Trump was elected, the media hunted for an explanation. Surely a bumble-headed dunce like Trump couldn’t get elected president on his own! That’s impossible! So they searched high and low for the behind-the-scenes maestro who pulled all the strings — the shrewd strategist who orchestrated the single greatest political upset since ~~Dewey Defeats Truman~~ Truman Defeats Dewey. At which point, Steve Bannon leapt out of the shadows: Yup, I’m the genius. It was me all along! The media, quite naturally, ate it up:

TIME’s new cover: How Steve Bannon became the second most powerful man in the world https://t.co/EJpO6Qqg9K pic.twitter.com/BdpY4Hw9Xb
— TIME (@TIME) February 2, 2017

And not without reason. As far as personal bios go, Bannon was an odd duck with a helluva story. He had military experience as a Navy officer. He was financially savvy enough to work at Goldman Sachs. He was clever enough to acquire a financial stake in Seinfeld (Bannon still receives residuals for Seinfeld reruns). He knew enough about conservative media to run Breitbart — a platform that had long championed Trump’s candidacy. And then he assumed command of Trump’s campaign in August of 2016, just in time to claim credit for the victory?Maybe he really was the maestro of it all!
Bannon, for very obvious reasons, worked feverishly to advance the narrative of “Steve Bannon, Political Genius.” Within the Trump White House, his media leaks became increasingly self-serving. Instead of leveraging media relations to elevate his boss or the MAGA mission, he sought to mythologize himself. It all culminated with Bannon losing his job in the White House and getting fired from Breitbart after he leaked negative information about Trump’s children to the fierce Trump critic, journalist Michael Wolff. Among the delightful headlines Bannon helped produce was Business Insider’s Jan. 3, 2018, story, “Steve Bannon Says Ivanka Trump Is ‘Dumb as a Brick’.” Trump responded in typically Trumpian fashion:
“Steve Bannon has nothing to do with me or my Presidency,” Trump said. “When he was fired, he not only lost his job, he lost his mind.” […] “Steve doesn’t represent my base — he’s only in it for himself,” Trump said. “Steve pretends to be at war with the media, which he calls the opposition party, yet he spent his time at the White House leaking false information to the media to make himself seem far more important than he was. It is the only thing he does well. Steve was rarely in a one-on-one meeting with me and only pretends to have had influence to fool a few people with no access and no clue, whom he helped write phony books.”

Michael Wolff is a total loser who made up stories in order to sell this really boring and untruthful book. He used Sloppy Steve Bannon, who cried when he got fired and begged for his job. Now Sloppy Steve has been dumped like a dog by almost everyone. Too bad! https://t.co/mEeUhk5ZV9
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 6, 2018

Today, of course, we know the truth: Steve Bannon didn’t control Trump — because NOBODY controls Trump. The very premise is preposterous. For better or worse, Donald J. Trump is his own man. He’s like a wild stallion — uncontrollable. Then in 2024, with Steve Bannon sidelined, Trump proved his point by winning the presidency once again — this time by an even greater margin. Turns out that Bannon was less the leader and more the luggage, because Trump did more to carry him than the other way around. That’s not to say Bannon is a dim bulb. Clearly, he’s an exceptionally bright man. Some of his political calculations are off-the-charts prescient, i.e. his April 2025 prediction that Cardinal Prevost would become the first American-born pope:
https://twitter.com/PiersUncensored/status/1917308154427367583
He’s also a man brimming with ambition. Just 40 days ago, Axios reported that Bannon was planning to run for president in 2028: “Former Trump White House adviser Steve Bannon is laying the groundwork for a 2028 run for president, two people familiar with his thinking tell Axios.” […] Former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), who has appeared on Bannon’s “War Room” podcast, said: “The Bannon campaign will merge the foreign policy of Rand Paul with the tax policy of Elizabeth Warren.” (Not sure if the MAGA base is clamoring for a Warren-Paul themed agenda, but whatever. Not my monkey, not my circus.) Either way, it’s a deeply damaging PR look. Setting up your own presidential bid barely a year into Trump’s term seems awfully arrogant and self-indulgent. That’s a poor plan for winning GOP hearts and minds.
[..] He’s a conspiracy peddler who denies conspiracies — while participating in conspiracies! No matter. The Epstein revelations were a deathblow to Bannon’s presidential ambitions. There’s ZERO demand in Republican circles for a 75-year-old Epstein-whisperer to replace Vance, Rubio, or anyone else as MAGA’s heir apparent. Because, the more we learned about Epstein, the more we realized that Steve Bannon isn’t a political savant, a super-genius, or a 4-D chess mastermind. He’s a lying, duplicitous, self-serving hypocrite who can’t be trusted. And that’s not a “coincidence” either. It’s causation.

It looks easier from the outside.

• When Does Accountability For The Deep State Begin? (Dornik)

We were told this time would be different. We were told that a second Trump administration would not repeat the mistakes of the first, that hard lessons had been learned, and that the Deep State would finally be confronted rather than tolerated. One year into President Trump’s second term, it is both fair and necessary to ask whether those assurances are being honored—not from hostility but from a sincere desire to see the America First agenda succeed, endure, and become irreversible.

President Trump’s first term, Congress squandered its moment. The first two years were consumed by infighting, hesitation, and internal paralysis, even with Republican control. Then came the midterms, control was lost, and meaningful legislative progress effectively ended. What followed were impeachment spectacles and relentless political warfare, while entrenched corruption inside the federal government remained untouched. Now, just past the first year of President Trump’s second term, the pattern feels disturbingly familiar. The urgency voters demanded is not being matched by the actions of those entrusted to deliver it.
The question that must be asked plainly is this: when is the Trump administration actually going to root out the Deep State?
Executive Orders are being signed at a rapid pace, but Executive Orders are not reform. They are temporary directives that can be erased with a single signature the moment someone like Gavin Newsom takes office. Without legislation, without prosecutions, and without accountability, nothing is secured. Power is being exercised, but it is not being anchored, and lasting change is never achieved that way.
Kash Patel built his credibility by telling the truth about corruption in Washington. His book and documentary, Government Gangsters, documented in detail how entrenched bureaucrats and intelligence officials worked against President Trump from within the federal government. He even came on my show and spoke openly about this corruption, and he stated repeatedly across multiple platforms that the FBI, particularly at its highest levels, was deeply compromised and required fundamental reform. He did not argue that the Bureau should be abandoned, but that it could not be trusted without aggressive leadership, restructuring, and accountability for the Deep State operatives within the bureau. He warned that the Deep State would never reform itself and would have to be confronted directly. He also told Glenn Beck that the head of the FBI possessed Jeffrey Epstein’s client list. These were not casual remarks. They were core assertions made publicly and repeatedly.
Now Kash Patel is the head of the FBI, and the public posture has shifted dramatically. The same institution he once described as captured is now treated as credible and restrained. The Epstein client list, once discussed as a known reality, is now dismissed as conspiracy, even as new Epstein-related documents continue to be released to the public over the protest of the Trump administration. Each document release raises more questions, not fewer, and every delay from federal law enforcement deepens public distrust rather than restoring confidence. A reversal this significant demands explanation. Trust is not rebuilt through silence, and credibility is not preserved by pretending prior statements were never made.
These questions extend far beyond the FBI and land squarely on the Department of Justice, where accountability appears to collapse the moment it threatens entrenched power. The removal of Ed Martin from his role inside the DOJ is not just a minor personnel decision; it appears to be a clear signal that real investigations into weaponization and lawfare are not being tolerated. Ed Martin was positioned to expose how the Biden Department of Justice targeted Americans, abused prosecutorial authority, and used federal power as a political weapon. According to Emerald Robinson, whose reporting has repeatedly exposed corruption others refuse to confront, Martin was removed from his position by the same people who refer to parents as terrorists: “Vance Day, senior counsel for Todd Blanche, refers to parents targeted by Biden DOJ as ‘terrorists’ in recent meeting with one parent asking for accountability. Blanche’s office also removed Ed Martin from his role at the DOJ.” That disclosure alone should alarm every American paying attention.
Parents who were targeted and persecuted by the Biden Department of Justice are now being labeled terrorists by senior DOJ leadership, while the man tasked with investigating that persecution is sidelined. Whether this is described as a firing or a demotion is irrelevant, because the outcome is the same. Another one of the good guys has been removed from doing the work voters were promised would finally drain the swamp. This is not an isolated incident or a misunderstanding but a pattern that repeats with disturbing consistency. Every time someone begins making real progress against the Deep State, authority is stripped, investigations are stalled, and momentum is deliberately crushed before accountability can be delivered.
So the questions must be asked: Where are the arrests? Where are the prosecutions? Why has Attorney General Pam Bondi not brought cases against members of the January 6 Committee despite documented misconduct and destroyed records? Why has the Department of Justice taken no action against Anthony Fauci even after Sen. Rand Paul issued criminal referrals? Why is the DOJ actively fighting to shut down Brook Jackson’s case against Pfizer instead of allowing it to proceed and standing with a whistleblower who exposed documented fraud? Why do Epstein-related documents continue to surface while no meaningful accountability follows? What happened to transparency, and what happened to equal justice under the law?

Serious threats.

• Susan Rice Warns Of ‘Accountability Agenda’ When Democrats Return To Power (JTN)

Former Democratic Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice warned corporations Thursday who have “taken a knee” to President Donald Trump and his administration that there would be repercussions when her party returns to power. The comment comes after The Late Show host Stephen Colbert accused CBS News this week of bowing to Trump by allegedly blocking the host from airing an interview with Texas state Rep. James Talarico, a Democrat who is running for the U.S. Senate. CBS has denied blocking the interview, which was posted to YouTube instead.

Rice insisted an “accountability agenda” was coming for the people and corporations who worked with the Trump administration if Democrats win back the majority in the House or Senate this November. “If these corporations think that the Democrats, when they come back in power, are going to play by the old rules, and, you know, say, ‘Oh, never mind. We’ll forgive you for all the people you fired, all the policies and principles you’ve violated, all, you know, the laws you’ve skirted.’ I think they’ve got another think coming,” she told former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara.
Rice, who worked in the Obama and Biden administrations, claimed the corporations and other entities like universities acted in a “very short-term self-interest” when deciding to work with the administration in certain capacities. “Companies are already starting to hear they better preserve their documents,” she said. “They better be ready for subpoenas. If they’ve done something wrong, they’ll be held accountable, and if they haven’t broken the law, good for them. “This is not going to be an instance of, you know, forgive and forget,” she continued. “The damage that these people are doing is too severe to the American people and to our national interest.”

”.. Rubio noted that documents leaked from inside the group outline ambitious plans to “kill Musk’s Twitter” and “trigger EU and UK regulatory action.”

• Deporting Censorship: US Targets UK Government Ally Over Free Speech (Thaccker)

As ICE sweeps in Minneapolis have drawn wide attention, a little-noticed immigration case playing out in a New York federal court has significant implications for America’s relationship with Britain and the ongoing debate over global censorship.

In late December, the State Department announced its intention to revoke the visas of five foreign individuals who have allegedly censored Americans. The most consequential member of this group is Imran Ahmed, a British Labour Party political operative now living in the U.S., who is the CEO of an influential nonprofit, the Center for Countering Digital Hate.
In documents released Feb. 6 in federal court, the State Department claims Ahmed and the Center have been key players in efforts to censor Americans. A memo written by State Department Undersecretary Sarah Rogers asserts that “Ahmed was a key collaborator with the Biden administration on weaponizing the national security bureaucracy to censor U.S. citizens and pressure U.S. companies into censoring, and his group advocates for foreign regulatory action that extraterritorially impacts American citizens and companies.”
In a follow-up memo, Secretary Marco Rubio wrote that Ahmed had led efforts to censor Americans and harm U.S. media outlets, including ZeroHedge and The Federalist. “I have determined that Ahmed’s activities and presence in the United States have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences and comprise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest.” Rubio asserted. While the Center casts itself as a disinterested nonprofit trying to stop online hate, Rubio noted that documents leaked from inside the group outline ambitious plans to “kill Musk’s Twitter” and “trigger EU and UK regulatory action.”
Ahmed has a small army of lawyers working to halt his deportation proceedings, which are now being litigated. Ahmed’s lead attorney is Roberta Kaplan – a former advisor to New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo – who sued President Trump on behalf of his niece, Mary Trump. Ahmed is also represented by Norm Eisen, a Democratic Party fundraiser and former advisor to Obama. Last Thursday, they filed an updated court complaint against the U.S. government to keep Ahmed in the United States.
International Implications
. The effort to deport Ahmed has broader political implications because of the close ties he and his associates have to the highest reaches of the British government. Morgan McSweeney, who co-founded the Center with Ahmed, is widely seen as the architect of Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Labour Party victory in 2024. McSweeney served as Starmer’s chief of staff until earlier this month, when he resigned because of a separate scandal connected to Jeffrey Epstein.
U.K. government documents reviewed by RCI show that the organization’s influence extends throughout Starmer’s government. The Trump administration’s pushback on Ahmed’s weaponization of speech against U.S. citizens and companies suggests a deep concern about foreign intervention and censorship stemming from one of America’s closest allies.In a recent interview with Undersecretary Rogers, RCI noted that the State Department appeared to be “knocking on the door of the Prime Minister’s office.” Rogers demurred, declining to detail her discussion with Starmer officials. “We have a very special relationship with the British government,” she responded. “The issue has been communicated.”
Senior Labour Minister Chi Onwurah accused the Trump administration of attacking free speech after Rubio announced shortly before Christmas that the administration was seeking Ahmed’s deportation. “Banning people because you disagree with what they say undermines the free speech the administration claims to seek,” Onwurah said, adding that Ahmed was an articulate advocate for greater regulation of online speech. However, internal British government documents show that Onwurah is one of Starmer’s many advisors who have been working with Ahmed on activities many consider censorship..

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2024934679493677217?s=20

Scott Jennings takes a moment to remind the CNN panel of the one thing the Supreme Court ruling proved today.

It completely SHATTERED a multi-year Democrat narrative.@ScottJenningsKY: “And I’ll tell you one more thing.”

“For every Democrat and every media person that has gone… pic.twitter.com/k6Bonbcpw2
— Overton (@overton_news) February 21, 2026

https://twitter.com/BryceMLipscomb/status/2024838259751186906?s=20

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

Debt Rattle February 21 2026

Feb 212026

February 21, 2026 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 10:38 am Finance Tagged with: BBC, Brennan, Cleese, EU, Firehorse, grooming gangs, Meloni, Supreme Court, tariffs, VW 56 Responses »

Auguste Renoir The umbrellas 1881-6

• Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump Tariffs – But He Has ‘Backup Plan’ (ZH)

• The Shocking Story Behind the Diplomatic Coup of the Century (Pinsker)

• Does It Smell Like Victory? (James Howard Kunstler)

• Just When You Thought The BBC Couldn’t Get Any More Repugnant… (MN)

• Macron and Meloni Clash Over Murder Of French Right-Wing Activist (RT)

• Inside the EU’s War On Democracy (RT)

• Europe’s Civilizational War Will Be Bloody (AT)

• Prosecutors Zero In On CIA’s Brennan (JTN)

• Matt Taibbi: Epstein Files Uniquely Destructive To Both Parties (QTR)

• VW’s 20% Cost-Cutting Plan Exposes Germany’s Industrial Crisis (ZH)

• London Mayor Sadiq Khan Faces Backlash As BBC Investigates Grooming Gangs (RMX)

• $200 Million Movie in a Day? Welcome to the End of Hollywood (Stephen Green)

• John Cleese; “I’m Afraid They are Going to Have to Arrest Me.” (Turley)

• The Year of the Fire Horse is Back—for The First Time in 60 years (NatGeo)

Yes https://t.co/7q8oblMKq1
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 20, 2026

https://twitter.com/anandchokshi19/status/2024726410359951708?s=20

Those were the days https://t.co/seZZF7nrHk
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 18, 2026

Elon Musk just explained the one breakthrough changing everything about space access. The number sounds impossible but it’s not.

Musk: “It drops the cost of space travel by literally 10,000%. Like, no exaggeration.”

Ten thousand percent. Not incremental improvement. Not a… pic.twitter.com/4QU2knJzKq
— Dustin (@r0ck3t23) February 20, 2026

Big difference between Grok and WokeGPT https://t.co/qjjZpVEONi
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 19, 2026

https://twitter.com/CraigBrockie/status/2024513876197581112?s=20 Eric Schmidt

Ex-Google CEO's BANNED Interview LEAKED: "You Have No Idea What's Coming"

Ex-Google CEO Eric Schmidt recently made headlines with some controversial comments about AI during an interview conduced at Stanford University. This interview was taken down at his request after he… pic.twitter.com/0CrcSPPv6T
— conspiracybot (@conspiracyb0t) February 19, 2026

SpaceX https://twitter.com/iam_smx/status/2024621134159708319?s=20

This is very far from over. I was wondering what the exact legal difference is between Trump and the pre-Fed (1913?) tariffs.

• Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump Tariffs – But He Has ‘Backup Plan’ (ZH)

The Supreme Court on Friday struck down Trump’s tariffs. In a 6-3 decision (170-pages), the court ruled that Trump’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) – which constitute about half of the tariffs we’ve seen under Trump – was not lawful. Kavanaugh, Thomas and Alito dissented. “IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs,” wrote the court.

The ruling stems from a consolidated challenge brought by small businesses and multiple states, including Costco, who argued that the statute – originally intended to authorize sanctions and asset freezes during national emergencies – does not grant the executive branch the power to levy taxes on imports. The Court reasoned that the Constitution vests the authority to impose duties and tariffs with Congress alone, and found that IEEPA’s authorization to “regulate … importation” cannot be interpreted to include the distinct taxing power required to enact broad-based tariffs. The ruling affirms lower-court decisions blocking the challenged measures, concluding that the administration’s emergency-based tariff framework exceeded the limits of the statute.
Trump invoked IEEPA to impose his ‘reciprocal’ tariffs on nearly every foreign trade partner to address what he called a national emergency over US trade deficits. He invoked it again to impose tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico over fentanyl trafficking into the United States.

BREAKING: The U.S. Supreme Court just STRUCK DOWN President Trump’s tariffs.

In a 6-3 ruling, the court invalidated the tariffs.

NEWSNATION: “This is the exact wording from the ruling as we have it now, IEEPA, that International Economic Emergency Powers Act does not authorize… https://t.co/qYcFhUOkbe pic.twitter.com/AmUgZ2owIc
— Overton (@overton_news) February 20, 2026
Friday’s decision rests on the notion that tariffs are not merely a tool for regulating trade, but also a a form of taxation that the Constitution reserves to Congress. Citing Article I, Section 8, the majority stressed that the power to impose tariffs is “very clear[ly] … a branch of the taxing power,” and that the Framers gave Congress “alone … access to the pockets of the people.” The administration had argued that IEEPA’s grant of authority to “regulate … importation” permitted the President to impose tariffs in response to declared national emergencies. The Court rejected that interpretation, noting that while “taxes may accomplish regulatory ends, it does not follow that the power to regulate includes the power to tax as a means of regulation.”

The majority also pointed to the statute’s text, emphasizing that IEEPA authorizes the President to “investigate, block … regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit” certain transactions – yet makes no mention of tariffs or duties. “Had Congress intended to convey the distinct and extraordinary power to impose tariffs,” the opinion states, “it would have done so expressly, as it consistently has in other tariff statutes.”
The Court further highlighted a lack of historical precedent – noting that that in the nearly 50 years since IEEPA’s enactment, “no President has invoked the statute to impose any tariffs,” and that combined with the sweeping economic impact of the measures at issue – it was a “telling indication” that the asserted authority falls outside the President’s legitimate reach.Applying what it characterized as the “major questions” framework, the Court reasoned that Congress would not delegate such sweeping control over trade policy through vague language. The President’s claim that two words – “regulate” and “importation” – authorize tariffs “of unlimited amount and duration, on any product from any country,” the majority wrote, would represent a “transformative expansion” of executive authority over tariff policy and the broader economy.
Tariff Refunds?
Notably, the Court’s ruling does not address what happens to the billions of dollars in tariff revenue already collected under the now-invalidated IEEPA framework, leaving open the possibility of a wave of refund litigation in the months ahead. There are currently hundreds of tariff refund lawsuits pending in US trade court.
While the majority opinion strikes down Trump’s use of IEEPA, it offers no guidance on restitution, repayment, or whether importers may be entitled to recover duties paid pursuant to tariffs the Court has now deemed unlawful. That omission is likely to shift the next phase of the dispute into the U.S. Court of International Trade, where importers may seek retroactive relief through administrative protests or refund actions. Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent notes that the process is likely to be a “mess,” warning that “the Court’s decision is likely to generate other serious practical consequences in the near term,” adding “One issue will be refunds.”
Trump’s administration has not provided tariffs collection data since December 14. But Penn-Wharton Budget Model economists estimated on Friday that the amount collected in Trump’s tariffs based on IEEPA stood at more than $175 billion. And that amount likely would need to be refunded with a Supreme Court ruling against the IEEPA-based tariffs. -Reuters
Any such claims could involve complex questions of sovereign immunity, administrative exhaustion, and the availability of equitable relief – particularly where duties were paid without timely protest. Whether courts ultimately require repayment of unlawfully imposed tariffs may depend not just on the validity of the underlying statute, but on the procedural posture of individual importers and the statutory refund mechanisms available under U.S. customs law.
During arguments on Nov. 5, the court seemed skeptical over Trump’s authority to use IEEPA, leading most observers observers, including betting markets, to conclude a high probability they’re struck down at least in part. The Trump administration is appealing lower court rulings that he overstepped his authority, while Trump himself said a Supreme Court ruling against the tariffs would be a “terrible blow” to the United States.

Trump outsmarted Russsia, China and India in one go? I doubt it.

• The Shocking Story Behind the Diplomatic Coup of the Century (Pinsker)

[..] Shortly thereafter, India seized three shadow fleet oil tankers from Iran. Here’s Peter Zeihan to explain the significance: “Once another country joins the United States and targeting the shadow fleet, it’s probably only a matter of days to weeks before many, many other countries do it. There are a lot of countries that don’t like Venezuela or Iran or Russia — especially the Europeans. And now that India, of all countries, is joining in, we should expect a couple dozen of other countries to do so as well, which would completely remove the shadow fleet from functioning in less than a few months. […] The Russians have been exporting somewhere between 3 and 4 million barrels a day [via the shadow fleet] for four years. And it is their primary source of income now. And if this is about to go away, then we’re going to see some very dramatic changes in a number of things in the Eastern hemisphere.

Number one, the Ukraine War: If the Russians have lost their single largest source of income, that will manifest on the battlefield. The Chinese may be supplying the Russians with all the gear that they can pay for, but the key thing there is: pay for. And if the Russians can’t [pay], then a drone war where the Russians can’t get enough drones is one where the Russians start losing territory. And in a stunning coincidence, Fox News just reported, “Ukraine makes fastest gains in years as Russia talks stall, exploiting cracks in Kremlin command.” Ukrainian forces retook about 78 square miles over five days, according to a report by Agence France-Presse based on an analysis of the Institute for the Study of War battlefield mapping. The gains represent Kyiv’s most rapid territorial advances since its 2023 counteroffensive in the Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia regions.
Not only Russia is reeling. Peter Zeihan predicts China will feel the squeeze, too: If the Indians are stopping crude from Russia getting to India, you can bet your pretty [censored] that they’re going to stop it from getting to China, because now China is the only country that is still taking Russian crude in volume. And now, all of a sudden, we’re talking about the entirety of the 3 to 4 million barrels of the shadow fleet being gouged out of the Chinese economy. All in all, it represents one of the most remarkable under-the-radar diplomatic achievements in recent history. When President Trump’s Russia-Ukraine peace plan reached a dead end, he turned around, cut a deal with India, and strangled the Russian economy overnight.
Along with the economy of Russia’s petro-partner, Iran, which is trapped in gunboat diplomacy. (Venezuela, of course, was already dealt with.) And now China — ludicrously heralded by the BBC as a “Green Superpower”(!) despite Chinese greenhouse emissions exceeding all developed nations combined — will now eat the higher cost, too. All of America’s strategic rivals were caught flatfooted. It didn’t receive the recognition it deserved, but that’s the epitome of 4-D chess. Potentially, this was the week when Russia finally lost the Ukraine war. Putin can’t win a war of attrition if he runs out of money before Ukraine does. And now, for the very first time, Russia is truly, completely isolated. We still need to see how it all plays out, but President Trump just might’ve engineered the diplomatic coup of the century.

“We’re either gonna get a deal or it’s gonna be unfortunate for them.” — POTUS Donald Trump

• Does It Smell Like Victory? (James Howard Kunstler)

The message seems to be something like the USA isn’t messing around with all those strike forces in the waters around Iran. The Islamic Republic suddenly looks like Rock-and-Hard-Place-Land. Everybody and his uncle are trying to figure out the calculus in play, World War Three or a happy ending?You’re seeing the most significant US military build-up over there in memory. Smells a little bit like first Gulf War, 1991 — minus all those allies we roped in then. Mr. Trump (via Marco Rubio) has read Euroland out on this one. We are in a cold war with those birds, in case you haven’t noticed. The UK, France, Germany & Co.? They are as crazy as the ladies of The View and their millions of Cluster-B followers.

Euroland is yet in thrall to the climate nutters, the farm-and-industry-destroyers, the one-worlders, the Jihad-migrationists, the floundering banksters, and the Klaus Schwab wannabes. Euroland seeks to throttle free speech throughout Western Civ and meddle in everyone’s elections. Euroland keeps mouthing off about a war with Russia despite having no military mojo and going broke-ass broke faster than you can say Götterdämmerung. Bottom line: the US is going solo on this one. What is the objective? Ostensibly “a deal” over Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Like, just cut it out, will you, please? By the way, did you know that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei issued a fatwa in 2005 saying production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons was forbidden under Islam.
But then deception is allowed in Islam under the doctrine of taqiyya, against the threat of attack from hostile forces, I’m sure you remember Operation Midnight Hammer in June last year when we attacked and supposedly “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear research and development bunkers at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan? They got pretty banged-up, you may be sure, and nobody in Iran denied there was something nukey going on in those installations. Is there a will there to rebuild the whole darn infrastructure of uranium enrichment and so forth?
The mullahs are not saying, which means: of course, they intend to continue developing nuclear weapons — and even if that’s a stupid and futile gambit, given recent history, they still have factories churning out plain old long-range ballistic missiles and new drones by the thousands. Let’s face it: the mullahs are hardcore for Jihad and martyrdom. Since being elevated to Supreme Leader in 1989, Ayatollah Khamenei has sought relentlessly to transform the traditional Islamic concept of Jihad and establish it as the central pillar of the regime’s ideology.
Are we doing Israel’s bidding there? (Cue: roar of affirmation.) But then, Israel has a point. Iran has been cuckoo for going on forty years. If Israel wasn’t a target of the mullahs’ eternal Shia wrath, there are their other enemies, the Sunni, on the west side of the Persian Gulf (and next door in Iraq). And consider, too, Iran’s obdurate sponsorship of Jihad, wherever possible, both within and outside the Ummah — including especially Western Civ, where low-grade Jihad has been going on for over a decade. . . mass murders, rape gangs, beheadings, trucks through the Christmas markets. . .

https://twitter.com/BryceMLipscomb/status/2024519176556044357?s=20 Read more …

“.. he was fatally beaten by a mob of far-left militants in Lyon, France…”

• Just When You Thought The BBC Couldn’t Get Any More Repugnant… (MN)

The BBC is under fire for a headline that branded 23-year-old conservative student Quentin Deranque as a “far-right student” after he was fatally beaten by a mob of far-left militants in Lyon, France. Critics are calling it blatant bias, turning the victim into the villain while downplaying the attackers’ extremism. This isn’t just sloppy journalism—it’s narrative warfare, shielding violent leftists and ignoring the real threat of Antifa-style thugs running rampant in Europe. Authorities charged nine far-left militants with the fatal beating during a protest. The suspects are linked to the militant group La Jeune Garde (Young Guard), including a parliamentary assistant from the far-left France Unbowed (LFI) party.

The attack stemmed from Deranque providing security for the anti-mass migration feminist group Collectif Némésis, who were protesting a conference featuring MEP Rima Hassan. Tensions escalated when far-left groups confronted the demonstrators, leading to chaotic clashes. Videos shared online captured the violence, including attempts to seize banners and at least one woman being knocked to the ground. Deranque was isolated, viciously set upon by masked attackers, and left for dead after repeated blows to the head. According to Collectif Némésis leader Alice Cordier, “A member of our security…was lynched by the Jeune Garde Antifa.” The group added, “His attackers were masked, armed with reinforced gloves and tear gas, leaving little doubt about the premeditated nature of their attack.”
Deranque, a pious Catholic mathematics student, suffered severe brain injuries consistent with a cerebral hemorrhage. He was rushed to Édouard-Herriot Hospital but was later declared brain-dead. The BBC’s disgusting headline, “Nine arrested in France over death of far-right student,” ignited backlash from conservatives. It framed Deranque as “far-right” and didn’t even mention that he was brutally murdered, just that he died, nor that the mob that set upon him and ended his life were far left militants.
https://twitter.com/TRobinsonNewEra/status/2023872774687924243
The attack also involved a parliamentary collaborator of MP Raphael Arnault, Jeune Garde’s founder. Arnault received support from Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s party, with Mélenchon responding by claiming his side were the real victims.Far-left lawmakers had recently opposed dissolving Jeune Garde, claiming it prevents “neo-Nazi groups increasingly violent in France.”
https://twitter.com/RMXnews/status/2023485636070830243
In Paris, far-left activists tore down posters tributing Deranque, while President Emmanuel Macron condemned the killing but urged calm. Anthropologist Florence Bergaud-Blackler warned, “The circumstances of Quentin’s death as he came to protect the women of Collectif Némésis are a foreshadowing of the civil war that is looming. The petty servile foot soldiers of anti-fascism are the cannon fodder of Islamism which seeks to overthrow our liberal and egalitarian social order and lock women away. Young Quentin is a hero.” The media’s spin, like the BBC’s “Student death puts French far-left under pressure,” minimizes the murder as “just a death,” ignoring the blatant political lynching.
The British state funded broadcaster is already under intense scrutiny owing to President Trump’s $10 billion defamation lawsuit concerning deceptive editing of his January 6, 2021, speech. The suit accuses the BBC of splicing footage to falsely imply Trump incited violence at the Capitol, omitting his calls for peaceful protest. District Judge Roy Altman rejected the BBC’s bid to delay discovery, paving the way for a two-week trial in Miami. Trump’s team blasts the edit as “false, defamatory, disparaging, and inflammatory,” while a BBC spokesman said, “As we have made clear previously, we will be defending this case. We are not going to make further comment on ongoing legal proceedings.” This follows internal turmoil at the BBC, with top executives resigning amid the fallout, and an FCC probe into potential “news distortion.” Leaked memos condemned the edit as “completely misleading.”

Trial Date SET For Trump’s $10 BILLION BBC Lawsuit Over Fake News Editing SCANDAL

As Europe grapples with unchecked far-left extremism, shielded by biased media and complicit politicians, incidents like this expose the real dangers to freedom and safety. Quentin Deranque stood for protecting women against threats—his sacrifice demands accountability, not smears. Meanwhile, the BBC’s globalist propaganda faces its own reckoning in court.

EU decides electioms, not voters.

• Inside the EU’s War On Democracy (RT)

Romania’s 2024 presidential election was already one of the most controversial political episodes in the European Union in recent years. A candidate who won the first round was prevented from contesting the second. The vote was annulled. Claims of Russian interference were advanced without public evidence. At the time, the affair raised urgent questions about democratic standards inside the EU. A congressional investigation reviewed by RT raises even more question. They indicate that the annulment of the Romanian election was accompanied by sustained efforts to pressure social media platforms into suppressing political speech – efforts coordinated through mechanisms established under the EU’s Digital Services Act. What appeared to be a national political crisis now looks increasingly like a test case for how far EU institutions are willing to go in intervening in the political processes of member states.

The Russian narrative. Again.
On February 3, the US House Judiciary Committee published a 160-page investigation into how the EU systematically pressures social media companies to alter internal guidelines and suppress content. It found Brussels orchestrated a “decade-long campaign” to censor political speech across the bloc. In many cases, this amounted to direct meddling in political processes and elections of members, often using EU-endorsed civil society organizations. The report features several case studies of this “campaign” in action in EU member states, the gravest example being Romania. It was around the November 2024 Romanian presidential election, the committee found, that the European Commission“took its most aggressive censorship steps.” In the first round, anti-establishment outsider Calin Georgescu comfortably prevailed, and polls indicated he was en route to win the second by landslide. However, on December 6, Bucharest’s constitutional court overturned the results. While a court-ordered recount found no irregularities in the process, a new election was called, in which Georgescu was banned from running.
By contrast, Romania’s security service alleged Georgescu’s victory was attributable to a Russian-orchestrated TikTok campaign. The allegation was unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. Romanian President Klaus Iohannis went to the extent of claiming this deficit was inversely proof of Moscow’s culpability, as the Russians supposedly “hide perfectly in cyber space.” Despite the BBC reporting that even Romanians “who feared a president Georgescu” worried about the precedent set for their democracy by the move, that narrative has been endlessly reiterated ever since.
The US House Judiciary Committee report comprehensively disproves the charge of Russian meddling in the Romanian election. Documents and emails provided by TikTok expose how the platform not only consistently assessed Moscow “did not conduct a coordinated influence operation to boost Georgescu’s campaign,” but repeatedly shared these findings with the European Commission and Romanian authorities. This information was never shared by either party. But the contempt of Brussels and Bucharest for democracy and free speech went much further.
Digital Services Act in action
The committee found Romanian officials egregiously abused the EU’s controversial Digital Services Act before the 2024 election “to silence content supporting populist and nationalist candidates.” Bucharest also repeatedly lodged content takedown requests outside of the formal DSA process, using what committee investigators call “expansive interpretations of their own power to mandate removals of political content.” This amounted to a “global takedown order,” with authorities perversely arguing court demands to block certain content for local audiences were “mandatory not only in Romania.”
This was no doubt a ploy to prevent outsiders, in particular the country’s sizable diaspora, from accessing content featuring Georgescu. His “Romania First” agenda proved quite popular with emigres, numbering many millions due to mass depopulation since 1989. Perhaps not coincidentally, his diaspora supporters have been widely maligned by Western media as fascist enablers. Still, even critical mainstream reports admit they and the domestic population have legitimate grievances, due to Romania’s crushing economic decline in the same period.

Europe must defend itself from invaders invited in by Europeans.

• Europe’s Civilizational War Will Be Bloody (AT)

It seems as if every month a new story comes out of Britain warning about the likelihood of future civil war. Retired colonel Richard Kemp recently gave a television interview during which he warned that the “Islamification” of the United Kingdom would lead to “inevitable conflict.” Several British academics specializing in the preconditions for civil conflict, including professors David Betz and Michael Rainsborough, have argued the same point.

Kemp’s point of view carries the added weight of someone who has witnessed insurgent fighting firsthand. A former commander who carried out counter-insurgency operations in Northern Ireland, led British forces in Afghanistan, and held intelligence roles in Westminster, Kemp says Islamic immigrants’ refusal to integrate into British society means that things in the U.K. are “getting bad” and about to “get worse.” Among other provocative comments that will no doubt ruffle the feathers of Britain’s “ruling class,” Kemp notes, “There were more British Muslims with the Taliban than in the British Army.”
The combat veteran argues that Britain’s political class has failed citizens by putting them in harm’s way and is simultaneously incapable of mitigating its failures due to suffocating concerns for what can be said out loud. “No government,” Kemp argues, “has the guts to stop…the Islamification of the U.K.” Consequently, ordinary Brits now need to prepare for the likelihood of “civil war in Europe.” Describing the looming conflict in the U.K. as a far more serious and deadly situation than what gripped Northern Ireland for decades, Kemp predicts that the coming civil war will involve “indigenous British and some of the immigrant population and the British government all on three different sides fighting against each other.”
Drawing on his experience with insurgent forces, the retired colonel blames disenfranchisement in Britain for the future violence: “The big problem that British people have is they don’t have political choice. We don’t really live in a democracy….Whatever party you vote for, you get the same policies. That applies also to immigration and to the way in which the Islamic population is allowed to grow in numbers and dominance.” As academics Betz and Rainsborough have also argued, Kemp sees the unwillingness of the U.K.’s political class to respect the will of voters with regards to immigration, Brexit, and the preservation of traditional culture as the proximate cause of the civil war to come.
Democratic institutions provide citizen-voters with a “release valve” through which they can express pent-up frustration without resorting to violence. The problem is that a political “uniparty” operates in the U.K., as it does throughout most of the West. It doesn’t matter whether Brits hand power to a Labour or Tory prime minister; they get non-stop Islamic immigration regardless. When native Brits publicly protest the “Islamification” of the U.K., both Labour and Tory members of parliament call them “racist” and prosecute them for “hate.” When native Brits march through downtown cities to condemn Islamic rape gangs and Islamic terrorism, both Labour and Tory members of parliament call them “racist” and prosecute them for “hate.”
When native Brits rally to prevent the construction of super-mosques in rural parts of Britain, both Labour and Tory members of parliament call them “racist” and prosecute them for “hate.” Therefore, citizens in the U.K. have learned that voting accomplishes nothing and that their so-called political “leaders” are incapable of defending British lives or British ways of life. The British pot is boiling, and Kemp adds his voice to a growing chorus of professionals with expertise in violent civil conflicts who predict a war-ravaged kingdom in the near future. “I think the people will feel they have no option than to take action into their own hand rather than rely on political leaders who are doing nothing,” Kemp stated in another interview. “I think there is every likelihood” of “civil war in the U.K. in the coming years.”

“Brennan’s last known testimony contacts with the Senate date to June 23, 2017 and May 16, 2018, two dates that extend outside the usual five-year statute of limitations.”

• Prosecutors Zero In On CIA’s Brennan (JTN)

Federal prosecutors who are probing the weaponization of intelligence and law enforcement against President Donald Trump and his allies have sent a secret and rare request for evidence from the U.S. Senate regarding former CIA Director John Brennan, signaling that they are zeroing in on his questionable testimony going back nearly a decade on his now-debunked efforts to tie Trump’s 2016 campaign to collusion with Russia. The overtures to the U.S. Senate and its intelligence committee from U.S. Attorney Jason A. Reding Quiñones’ team in Miami began over the last month and were formalized in a written request for documents, transcripts and testimony last Friday, according to multiple people directly familiar with the conversations.

Senate lawyers and prosecutors are negotiating the best way to transfer the evidence, including a possible visit by the prosecution team to Washington in the coming days. The efforts are complicated in part because much of what Brennan discussed in briefings dating to 2016 about alleged Russian interference efforts and now-debunked allegations of Trump collusion are classified, stored in secure briefing rooms and include evidence controlled by the nation’s chief spy agency, the CIA, the sources said.
The House Judiciary Committee last year formally referred Brennan, who oversaw the Obama-era CIA, for prosecution, alleging he gave false testimony in 2023 about his role in trying to bring the discredited Steele Dossier into an intelligence assessment that suggested Russia tried to help Trump beat Hillary Clinton. That testimony is still covered by the five-year statute of limitations for prosecuting false testimony to Congress. The request to the Senate signals a possible longer-term conspiracy case, seeking contacts with the Senate that stretches back nearly a decade. Brennan’s last known testimony contacts with the Senate date to June 23, 2017 and May 16, 2018, two dates that extend outside the usual five-year statute of limitations.
Just the News has reported previously that FBI Director Kash Patel drafted a memo last year recommending that a decades-long string of weaponized intelligence and law enforcement statements and alleged intel against Trump and his allies that stretched from the 2016 Russia collusion probe — codenamed “Crossfire Hurricane” — to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictments against Trump a decade later should be viewed as an ongoing criminal conspiracy to deprive American citizens of their civil rights, allowing prosecutors to charge crimes outside the statute of limitations as overt acts of an ongoing conspiracy.
Attorney General Pam Bondi assigned the task of reviewing the decades’ long trail of evidence for possible crimes and conspiracy to Quiñones, whose team began collecting evidence in front of a federal grand jury in Fort Pierce, Fla., the same courthouse where Smith brought his now-dismissed prosecution for mishandling of classified documents against Trump. Brennan, the CIA director under President Barack Obama, and now a senior national security and intelligence analyst for NBC News and MSNBC, is one of the targets of that probe for his involvement in the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) regarding Russia’s influence in the 2016 election.
That assessment, published in the final days of the Obama administration, concluded that Russia developed a “clear preference” for Trump in that election and that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign to “undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate former Secretary of State [Hillary] Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.”

“Dumping tons of stuff out without any context tends to have a lot of unintended consequences,” he said. The result has been politically damaging across the board.”

• Matt Taibbi: Epstein Files Uniquely Destructive To Both Parties (QTR)

This week I interviewed Matt Taibbi at a moment when, as he put it, “this is a pretty weird time.” He had just learned that his outlet, Racket News, had been investigated by the British government using what he described as “human intelligence sources and all kinds of crazy stuff.” “It’s been pretty weird,” he told me. What struck him most was how normalized this kind of pressure has become. Governments, he said, now routinely “hire out private intelligence firms and private PR firms to devise strategies to undermine negative press.” If you’re doing adversarial reporting, he added, “you’ll get swept up in this. So you probably have been, you just don’t know it.”

From there, we moved into the Epstein story, which has become a political third rail. I asked him whether bipartisan silence around certain issues should worry people. Taibbi said most of what happens in Washington is already bipartisan; the public just doesn’t see it. “The thing that we call the news,” he said, is “a sliver of disagreement” between parties. The rest—“98% of the business that’s done there”—happens with quiet agreement. On the Epstein files, he argued that both parties miscalculated. The Trump camp, he said, built expectations around full transparency and then stumbled. “Dumping tons of stuff out without any context tends to have a lot of unintended consequences,” he said. The result has been politically damaging across the board.
He also pushed back on some of the public narrative. The fascination with Epstein, he said, rests on three assumptions: that Epstein worked for intelligence, that he ran a vast trafficking ring, and that the two were connected through political blackmail. “There’s an abundance of evidence” of serious sexual crimes, he acknowledged. But on the intelligence-blackmail theory, “there’s nothing that puts it all together and says that’s what was happening. It could, but it’s just not there yet.” What he does see is a slow-burn release strategy. “You’ll notice that they never fully release everything,” he told me. “It’s like Zeno’s paradox. We’re never going to get all the way to the wall with this.” Each new tranche fuels public demand and media frenzy, with the promise that the next batch might contain the “kill shot” that takes down someone powerful.
We then shifted to New York politics and the rise of Zohran Mamdani. Taibbi sees his early proposals—like raising property taxes—as predictable. If state-level backing doesn’t materialize, he suggested, the Democratic Party may distance itself. “The Democratic Party has decided not to back this horse,” he said. In his view, the party faces a structural dilemma: a base that is moving left out of economic frustration, and a national electoral map that may not tolerate that shift. He connected that frustration to student debt and monetary policy. When I brought up inflation and deficit spending, he traced the arc back to post-2008 policies and the explosion of quantitative easing. “All you’re doing is accelerating inequality on the one hand,” he said, “and you’re raising the debt burden for everybody else.” The result, he argued, is a generation that feels locked out of homeownership and upward mobility.
On immigration and recent ICE enforcement actions, Taibbi resisted simple partisanship. He said he found neighborhood sweeps and masked agents “scary,” comparing aspects of the approach to “an enhanced federal version of stop and frisk.” At the same time, he criticized the ideological shift that made even basic border enforcement seem taboo. “It’s not like having borders is inherently xenophobic,” he said. “It’s just a part of governance. Part of being a nation.” At the end of the conversation, Taibbi outlined changes at Racket News. He said he had “basically fired” himself as editor-in-chief and brought in new leadership to refocus on document-based investigations. The site, he told me, is doubling down on FOIA-driven reporting and digging into stories like expansive FBI investigations and the British controversy now touching his own outlet.

Germany has killed itself, step by step.

Crucial: when Merkel banned nuclear power in the country.

• VW’s 20% Cost-Cutting Plan Exposes Germany’s Industrial Crisis (ZH)

For too long, Germany’s economy has watched political developments from the sidelines – perhaps far too long. The cost pressures triggered by the energy transition and Brussels’ extensive regulatory policies are now reflected in business results. Following Stellantis and Opel, Volkswagen on Monday announced sweeping measures to confront the existential economic crisis. CEO Oliver Blume presented a cost-saving program that, according to Manager Magazin, is expected to reduce global company costs by one-fifth by the end of 2028. The internal overhaul was presented in mid-January by Blume and CFO Arno Antlitz. A concrete statement from the company on its strategy has not yet been issued. Plant closures in Germany are reportedly also under discussion.

Collapse in Earnings
Pressure to act is immense. The final results for last year are not yet available, but after three quarters, an operating profit (EBIT) drop of roughly 48 percent year-on-year to around €9.9 billion is emerging. The EBIT margin, a key measure of profitability, fell to 3.05 percent from 5.87 percent. Revenue stagnated at around €324 billion, with vehicle sales of roughly nine million units, down 0.5 percent. The fourth quarter in particular saw a 4.9 percent decline, with China and North America suffering the largest losses. European sales remained relatively stable with modest gains, though the negative trend accelerated toward year-end. This may have been the trigger prompting management to implement drastic cost-saving measures.
Free cash flow also collapsed by 90 percent to €514 million, further limiting the company’s ability to invest in R&D and plant development. Fundamentally, cost consolidation remains the only lever to create breathing room amid fierce global competition – particularly with China and increasingly with the United States.
Germany’s Industrial Base Bleeds
By 2030, 35,000 jobs are set to be cut in Germany alone. VW’s core brand currently employs around 130,000 workers. The reduction will be carried out without layoffs, using severance packages and partial retirement plans. Fewer young specialists, less dynamism, fewer jobs – the visible consequence of Germany’s energy-policy isolation and the EU’s climate-policy path.The plants in Wolfsburg and Zwickau are under particular efficiency pressure. Structural production relocations to cheaper locations such as Hungary, as well as further consolidation in China and possibly the U.S., are underway. Germany’s aggressive climate regulations are forcing companies like Volkswagen to recalibrate their global strategy.
Most investments now flow to China, followed by Mexico, Brazil, and the U.S. In Chattanooga, Tennessee, the plant currently produces SUVs like the Atlas and Passat, as well as the electric ID.4. Significant production expansion in Germany is no longer on the agenda. Volkswagen is also pushing suppliers to cut costs, heavily affecting Germany’s SME sector. The VW crisis is thus also a crisis for the German Mittelstand, where a large portion of pre-production value is generated for the country’s industrial core.

Sickening. And then you refuse to look into it. Fire the man,

• London Mayor Sadiq Khan Faces Backlash As BBC Investigates Grooming Gangs (RMX)

London Mayor Sadiq Khan is facing renewed criticism after a major BBC investigation found that vulnerable girls as young as 14 are being lured into forced sex by gangs operating across the capital. The investigation, based on weeks of reporting and interviews with dozens of people, including five survivors of gang-based violence, concluded that exploitation by organised groups is rife in parts of London. Some victims told the BBC they were raped by multiple men as “payment” for unpaid drug debts run up by gangs that controlled them. Others said they had been groomed solely for sex. The investigation also found that girls were often drawn into criminal activity such as drug dealing, weapons trading, and phone theft before being sexually exploited.

One Metropolitan Police officer described young girls and women as the “lowest rung” within gang hierarchies, saying they were groomed and exploited “for everything.” Public debate over grooming gangs in the U.K. has often focused on northern towns such as Rotherham and Rochdale. A government-commissioned report last year found that in Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire, and West Yorkshire, there was evidence of “disproportionate numbers of men from Asian ethnic backgrounds amongst suspects for group-based child sexual exploitation.” Further investigations have found the same in other towns and cities, including Telford, Oxford, Derby, Birmingham, Halifax, Peterborough, and countless others.
Last year, Khan said there was no “indication of […] grooming gangs” of the type seen in Rotherham operating in London. Following the BBC findings, a spokesperson for the mayor said he wanted to support police to tackle “all child sexual exploitation in the capital, including grooming gangs.” Survivors told the broadcaster how exploitation often targeted girls from broken homes or troubled backgrounds. “I didn’t feel like I was groomed or exploited. I didn’t think I was a victim. It’s taken me a while to realise I was used and manipulated,” one victim told the BBC. Another survivor, Milly, said she was 15 when she was passed between different men.
“I was getting passed around different men every night – sometimes 10 or 15 a month,” she said, describing how she was plied with drink and drugs before being taken into bedrooms by different men.“I don’t remember their names really. It sounds horrible, but I just know they were Asian. Sometimes they just said, ‘Oh, you’re a nice, young White girl,’” she added. A third victim, Ruth, said: “They didn’t want anything but sex. I was low and they gave me expensive things so I felt wanted and then slept with them. It felt like I had multiple boyfriends giving me attention.”
Detective Sergeant John Knox, head of the Metropolitan Police child exploitation team in Lambeth and Southwark, said girls inside gangs “cannot say no to sex.” “Within that gang world, the girls are at the lowest rung and they have to do as they’re told. And that includes sexually,” he said, adding that if a girl cannot refuse, “she’s being raped and that’s how we look at it as the police.” Knox estimates at least 60 children in his south London area are currently being exploited by gangs, some as young as 13.The BBC findings prompted sharp criticism from political opponents. https://twitter.com/Daily_Express/status/2016846411778723970

Everything is AI-generated. Including the ‘actress’.

• $200 Million Movie in a Day? Welcome to the End of Hollywood (Stephen Green)

Prepare to be blown away by the Hollywood-quality video AI now generates, and if you work in or even near Hollywood, prepare for a vicious case of the night-sweats. The Dor Brothers, who bill themselves as “pioneers in AI video production,” earlier this week claimed they “just made a $200,000,000 AI movie in just one day.” Well, no. But they did release a three-minute trailer for what looks like it could be a $200 million Hollywood production. In many ways, that isn’t a complement. But in the ways that matter to the bloated movie studios, what the Dor Brothers have done might just represent the future of filmmaking, for better or worse. Before we get into any of that, please take three minutes to watch the “100% AI” trailer for Apex.

There are plenty of nits to pick — palm trees in NYC, really? — but overall, the special effects* are probably at least as good as anything from whatever the hell the most recent Marvel superhero movie was. The asterisk after “special effects” is because there are no special effects. There aren’t any actors, either. If you still watch SFX spectaculars like the big studios spew out several times each year, take a look at the credits and you’ll see a massive list of computer animators responsible for all the CGI. But for Apex, there was no big team of well-paid CGI artists. There were only prompts fed into an LLM server farm, and a big team of Nvidia graphics cards doing the work for “free.”
And while the “actress” is no Oscar contender, she’s probably good enough for Netflix “second screen” streaming slop. And even with all those pricey Nvidia cards behind her, the AI heroine is a lot less expensive than hiring Zendaya for the same role in a “real” movie. Probably more expressive, too. We’re barely into 2026, and the state-of-the-art (or perhaps only nearly so) in AI video generation might have have been Runway Gen-2 or one of its competitors. Compare and contrast what Runway could do then with what the Dor Brothers did on Monday.
In 2024, AI-generated video struggled not to suck, and failed at clearing even that low bar. In February, 2026, we’re complaining that those real-looking trees in the fast-moving action clip don’t belong in New York City. “You’ve come a long way, baby,” the cigarette ads used to boast. “And in such a short time, too,” I’d add.So if we’ve gone from “not even real” to “we’re picking at nits” in two years, does that mean we’re just another year or two away from reaching the Singularity — when AI gets smart enough to reprogram itself faster than we can keep up. And then politely asks if we’d like fries with our obsolescence. That’s where things get complicated.

“You can’t say such things” “It’s how I make a living!”

Would Monty Python be banned today?

• John Cleese; “I’m Afraid They are Going to Have to Arrest Me.” (Turley)

In the classic movie comedy, A Fish Called Wanda, John Cleese lamented, “do you have any idea what it’s like being English? Being so correct all the time, being so stifled by this dread of, of doing the wrong thing.” Now 86, Cleese has a more pressing concern about being English: whether his exercise of free speech will make him a criminal in his own country. In a recent interview, Cleese observed that the government’s new speech standards would classify many citizens, including himself, as presumptive criminals for criticizing certain policies. He observed that”As I am an Islamosceptic, I’m now worried that the Labour government may categorise me as a terrorist…”

The government of Prime Minister Keir Starmer has continued its headlong plunge into the criminalization of speech. The guidelines include a section on cultural nationalism, stating that such views are now the subject of government crackdowns. To even argue that Western culture is under threat from mass migration or a lack of integration by certain groups is being treated as a dangerous ideology. Cleese responded by saying, “I’m clearly a terrorist, so I’m afraid they are going to have to arrest me.”
The tragedy is that this is no wicked Monty Python joke. Cleese has every reason to be concerned. As discuss in Rage and the Republic, the United Kingdom has eviscerated free speech in the name of social cohesion and order. For years, I have been writing about the decline of free speech in the United Kingdom and the steady stream of arrests. A man was convicted of sending a tweet while drunk, referring to dead soldiers. Another was arrested for an anti-police t-shirt. Another was arrested for calling the Irish boyfriend of his ex-girlfriend a “leprechaun.” Yet another was arrested for singing “Kung Fu Fighting.” A teenager was arrested for protesting outside of a Scientology center with a sign calling the religion a “cult.”
Last year, Nicholas Brock, 52, was convicted of a thought crime in Maidenhead, Berkshire. The neo-Nazi was given a four-year sentence for what the court called his “toxic ideology” based on the contents of the home he shared with his mother in Maidenhead, Berkshire. While most of us find Brock’s views repellent and hateful, they were confined to his head and his room. Yet, Judge Peter Lodder QC dismissed free speech or free thought concerns with a truly Orwellian statement: “I do not sentence you for your political views, but the extremity of those views informs the assessment of dangerousness.” Lodder lambasted Brock for holding Nazi and other hateful values:
“[i]t is clear that you are a right-wing extremist, your enthusiasm for this repulsive and toxic ideology is demonstrated by the graphic and racist iconography which you have studied and appeared to share with others…” Even though Lodder agreed that the defendant was older, had limited mobility, and “there was no evidence of disseminating to others,” he still sent him to prison for holding extremist views.After the sentencing, Detective Chief Superintendent Kath Barnes, Head of Counter Terrorism Policing South East (CTPSE), warned others that he was going to prison because he “showed a clear right-wing ideology with the evidence seized from his possessions during the investigation….We are committed to tackling all forms of toxic ideology which has the potential to threaten public safety and security.”
“Toxic ideology” also appears to be the target of Ireland’s proposed Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) law. It covers the possession of material deemed hateful. The law is a free speech nightmare. The law makes it a crime to possess “harmful material” as well as “condoning, denying or grossly trivialising genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace.” The law expressly states the intent to combat “forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law.”
The Brock case proved, as feared, a harbinger of what was to come. Two years ago, the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, vowed to crack down on people “pushing harmful and hateful beliefs.” That includes what she calls extreme misogyny. Now the UK’s most famous writers and comedians believe that they can be arrested under the country’s draconian speech laws from JK Rowling to John Cleese. That leaves free speech much like Cleese’s famous parrot. The British government and its supporters can claim evidence of life or just “resting, but it is in fact “bleedin’ demised…passed on! … no more! … ceased to be! … expired and gone to meet ‘is maker!”

“The aftermath of fire is growth..”

“The fire horse is also a sprinting animal, which indicates that 2026 is a year in which events will unfold rapidly. “

• The Year of the Fire Horse is Back—for The First Time in 60 years (NatGeo)

As Lunar New Year celebrations begin around the world, 2026 ushers in the Year of the Horse—a symbol of forward movement, independence, and endurance. This year ushers in the Year of the Fire Horse—a rare, blazing return that only comes once every 60 years. Lunar New Year, also known as Chinese New Year, falls between late-January and mid-February, with its date set by China’s ancient lunisolar calendar. Since at least the second century B.C., each new year has been named for one of the 12 animals of the Chinese zodiac, which repeat in a 12-year cycle. In Chinese astrology, each of the zodiac animals are believed to have distinct traits which are supposedly reflected in people born in that corresponding year.

For this year’s celebrations, fire horse symbols will be omnipresent, adorning festival decorations, as well as envelopes, cards, and wrapping paper that accompany Lunar New Year gifts. Here’s what the Year of the Fire Horse signals as Lunar New Year unfolds.
What the Year of the Horse means
The horse is revered in Chinese culture due to its long-standing roles in agriculture, transport, and warfare, says Jonathan H. X. Lee, Asian studies professor at San Francisco State University. However, in the Chinese zodiac, this galloping animal symbolizes strength, grace, endurance, loyalty, freedom, and success. Its strength, Lee explains, represents possibilities for personal growth and success. According to Lee, this is exemplified by the Chinese idiom: When the horse arrives, success arrives. “The horse’s energy is associated with yang energy, which is active, dynamic, and life-generating, and speaks to ambition and vitality.” In Chinese astrology, Horse years favor decisive action and independence, while also warning against impulsiveness.
Why the fire horse is so rare
While it’s only been 12 years since the last Year of the Horse, 60 years have passed since the most recent Year of the Fire Horse. = In addition to cycling through 12 animals each year, the Chinese lunar calendar also rotates between the five traditional Chinese elements—earth, wood, fire, metal and water. While the animal rotates each year, the element only rotates every two years. That is why 2024 was the year of the Wood Dragon, and 2025 was the Year of the Wood Snake. Now, 2026 will celebrate the Fire Horse, before 2027 marks the Year of the Fire Goat. This assortment of 12 animals and five elements means that each distinct animal-element combination only occurs once every 60 years. The Year of the Horse was last featured in 2014, when it was paired with the element of wood.
Traits of the Year of the Fire Horse
The Fire Horse shares the horse’s traits: power, stamina, independence, loyalty, and prosperity, Lee explains. But each trait is amplified by its combination with fire, the most volatile of the five traditional Chinese elements. “The aftermath of fire is growth,” he says. “This means that there will be many opportunities for growth, so individuals are encouraged to push forward with personal goals, embrace change, and endure the process for ultimate reward.”
The fire horse is also a sprinting animal, which indicates that 2026 is a year in which events will unfold rapidly. Experts say the Year of the Horse will demand “bold action and risk taking,” in stark contrast to 2025’s Year of the Wood Snake, which was viewed as a time for cautious progress.
Fire horse years, also called Bing-Wu years, historically “disrupt the existing order” of our societies, according to Xiaohuan Zhao, sinology professor at the University of Sydney. “(There) is a long-standing association between Bing-wu years and periods of social or political instability in historical tradition,” he explains. The last Year of the Fire Horse was 1966, a year marked by the start of China’s Cultural Revolution, the Aberfan disaster in Wales, and the escalation of the Vietnam War.

GLOBAL MARKET COLLAPSE STARTS NEXT WEEK

98% of people will get fucked badly before they even realize what hit them

Fed just dropped new macro data. It's way worse than anyone expected. And if you're holding stocks or crypto right now, what comes next is gonna hurt

What's… https://t.co/iKTOp0hAs4 pic.twitter.com/rWqnZIeaym
— Leshka.eth ⛩ (@leshka_eth) February 19, 2026

Rubio https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2024508632679780419?s=20 Fed

A former World Bank president has sounded the alarm, revealing that the Federal Reserve has lost over a trillion dollars—and counting—turning it into nothing more than a massive hedge fund for the rich and powerful.

He claims the Fed is borrowing money from banks at 5.4%… pic.twitter.com/ARFs7vsT5A
— conspiracybot (@conspiracyb0t) February 19, 2026

https://twitter.com/StellarNews007/status/2024536448255336775?s=20

The First and Only documentary in English on the Russia-Iran-India corridor (linking 3 BRICS), filmed last May in Iran, from the Caspian to the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman.

The Empire of Chaos simply cannot allow the corridor to go through.https://t.co/zebRl7kEVT
— Pepe Escobar (@RealPepeEscobar) February 20, 2026

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

Debt Rattle September 16 2025

Sep 162025

September 16, 2025 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 10:25 am Finance Tagged with: Charlie Kirk, China, drone incident, Maidan style, no fly zone, Supreme Court, Tesla, TPUSA, Trump 62 Responses »

Charles Burchfield In a Green Dale 1917

• Charlie Kirk’s Assassination Supercharges Turning Point USA (ZH)

• Top German Football Club To Question Player Over Sympathy For Charlie Kirk (RT)

• Trump Claims He Will ‘Have To Do All The Talking’ For Putin and Zelensky (RT)

• Macron Admitted NATO Behind Ukraine Conflict – Jeffrey Sachs (RT)

• NATO Downing Russian Drones Over Ukraine Will Mean War – Medvedev (ZH))

• EU Plotting Maidan-Style Coup In Serbia – Moscow (RT)

• Polish Drone Incident To Escalate Ukraine Conflict – Finnish Politician (RT)

• Western Europe Hides Its Terrible Condition Behind ‘Threats From East’ (TASS)

• ‘Unite the Kingdom’ : A Good Cause With An Elephant In The Room (Marsden)

• China Warns US Over Russian Oil Threats (RT)

• AfD Party Is Once Again Achieving Record Results In Eastern Germany (RMX)

• Bessent Hails Trump For ‘Breakthrough’ With China In TikTok Talks (Cradle)

• As Supreme Court Set to Return, What to Expect in Trump Cases (Dorman)

• Beginning of Panic Rate Cut Cycle – Ed Dowd (USAW)

• Tesla Soars After Musk Buys Billion Dollars Worth Of Stock (ZH)

https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1967621921283117446

POWERFUL: JD is barely able keep composure as he recounte joining Erika as he escorted Charlie from UT back to AZ.

"I just realized that all of these moments that I get to have, Charlie is not able to have them anymore."

"Maybe the best way that I can contribute and the best… pic.twitter.com/eIvYJEQFgN

— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) September 15, 2025

WOW!

So many people are lined up outside the Kennedy Center to pay tribute to Charlie Kirk and his mission. pic.twitter.com/vK0HXRrGpf

— The Kennedy Center (@kencen) September 14, 2025

"I had a conversation once with Charlie where we talked about the danger we both faced from challenging entrenched interests. He asked me if I was scared to die. I said, there are a lot worse things than dying… Charlie gave his life so the rest of us wouldn’t have to suffer… pic.twitter.com/fT1kn8tH4U

— The Kennedy Center (@kencen) September 15, 2025

https://twitter.com/BoLoudon/status/1967662295561220120

RFK Jr. just shared that he was unsure about taking the HHS role — until Charlie Kirk persuaded him.

“At first, when President Trump asked me whether I wanted this job, I was tentative.”

“I didn't know whether I wanted to handle Medicaid and Medicare, which is the biggest… pic.twitter.com/vwqquRguuy

— End Tribalism in Politics (@EndTribalism) September 15, 2025

Stephen Miller says the very last message he received from Charlie Kirk was about creating a strategy to take on left-wing organizations promoting violence in America.

Now, @StephenM says he will “write those words onto his heart” and make it his life’s mission to carry this… pic.twitter.com/WjBBtiSinm

— Overton (@overton_news) September 15, 2025

They killed our son@ScottAdamsSays “At some point, there'll be a healthy number of Democrats who realized that they were on the side of killing an innocent man, and then they're going to find out that he was nothing like they thought.

And this will be one of the biggest… pic.twitter.com/YTEKfZx0he

— jay plemons (@jayplemons) September 14, 2025

https://twitter.com/AutismCapital/status/1967238275065926020

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1967375298606871027

RFK Jr. is a little too familiar with assassinations, which makes him the perfect person to speak to the nation at this critical time.

This speech is healing. pic.twitter.com/vfw2rhdcMm

— Anna Matson (@AnnaRMatson) September 15, 2025

https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1967800438402543818

Tulsi
https://twitter.com/saras76/status/1967377277030912401
https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1967380533962326508

NEW: FBI Director Kash Patel reveals Charlie Kirk assassin Tyler Robinson’s Discord group included more than 20 members.

He confirms authorities are aggressively investigating and many of these co-conspirators will be questioned.

“Going back to the group chats real quick,… pic.twitter.com/S7q4HlIMWO

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) September 15, 2025

BREAKING – Kash Patel confirms Charlie Kirk’s assassin had a text exchange with another individual stating he “had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and that he was going to do it,” confirming that outside persons or groups had knowledge of the plan ahead of time. pic.twitter.com/bwayM8N4pR

— Right Angle News Network (@Rightanglenews) September 15, 2025

Jennings

"Charlie Kirk was mainstream. He had views that are held by millions, including more than half the country in the last election. So if you're saying this is justified, what you're actually saying is half the country, there's some justification to commit violence against them." pic.twitter.com/xStc3X76g6

— Thomas Hern (@ThomasMHern) September 16, 2025

Missing a few things, like Trump suing the New York Times. Also, lost Strategic Culture and Sputnik due to renewed Russia bans.

What is in my head: I’m sure Trump has gotten a terrible blow from what happened to Charlie Kirk, including blaming himself. He thought the world of Charlie.

“..over 32,000 inquiries in the last 48-hours to start new campus chapters..”

• Charlie Kirk’s Assassination Supercharges Turning Point USA (ZH)

Charlie Kirk’s grieving widow, Erika, delivered one of the most powerful speeches by any woman in recent memory last Friday, just days after her husband was assassinated by what has been described as a “radical left ANTIFA-adjacent creep” with a transgender partner. The FBI’s investigation has widened its focus to a Marxist-aligned militant group calling itself the “Armed Queers.” Erika emphasized to the nation, “If you thought my husband’s mission was powerful before, you have no idea. You have no idea what you have just unleashed across this entire country.” On Sunday, Andrew Kolvet, executive producer of The Charlie Kirk Show, announced that in the past two days, Turning Point USA (TPUSA) has received over 32,000 inquiries from individuals interested in starting new campus chapters nationwide.

https://twitter.com/AndrewKsway/status/1967106572695597566

“I wanted to share a paise report from TPUSA. The organization has received over 32,000 inquiries in the last 48-hours to start new campus chapters. To put that in perspective, TPUSA currently has 900 official college chapters and around 1,200 high school chapters, with a presence on 3,500 total. Charlie’s vision to have a Club America chapter (our high school brand) in every high school in America (around 23,000) will come true much much faster than he could have ever possibly imagined,” Kolvet, who is also a TPUSA spokesman, wrote on X. Google Search trends confirm Kolvet’s claim, with searches “How to start a Turning Point chapter” erupting, along with, and not surprisingly, “Church Near Me”…

Support Turning Point for Charlie, for sanity, for the future of civilization https://t.co/z2Ym0EFyee

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 14, 2025

Kirk’s TPUSA represented a counter-revolution to the Marxist/globalist/Democratic Party’s takeover in schools that has brainwashed an entire generation of young people into leftist radicals. What’s clear is that Democrats brand anyone with dissenting opinions as “fascists,” “Nazis,” and “racists,” and that kind of labeling – straight out of the Communist playbook – ultimately led to Kirk’s political assassination. Now, based Americans are waking up to the woke mind virus, and this counter-revolution is about to be supercharged.

What got him investigated is writing this:

“Celebrating the murder of a husband and a father of two, a man who peacefully stood up for his beliefs and values, is really evil and shows how much we really need Jesus Christ,”

• Top German Football Club To Question Player Over Sympathy For Charlie Kirk (RT)

German football giant Borussia Dortmund will internally review the social media activity of its midfielder Felix Nmecha, after he caused a stir online by expressing his sorrow over the murder of American conservative activist Charlie Kirk, several local outlets have reported. On Friday, Nmecha posted a black-and-white photo of Kirk in his Instagram stories with a caption: “Rest in peace with the Lord.” The post reportedly drew largely negative reactions on social media. The footballer then changed the caption, focusing on Kirk’s family. “Celebrating the murder of a husband and a father of two, a man who peacefully stood up for his beliefs and values, is really evil and shows how much we really need Jesus Christ,” Nmecha wrote in a follow-up post.

He also responded to online criticism by saying that “it is humane to express condolences and that… should not be condemned.” The footballer also stated that he did not agree with Kirk on “some issues” but “different political positions… are perfectly okay.” Eventually, Nmecha deleted all his posts. The German SID sports news outlet reported on Friday that the club would review the posts and seek a dialogue with the player, adding that no punishment was planned for him. However, German tabloid Bild noted the same day that Nmecha’s contract has an “Instagram clause” which states that he could face millions of dollars in penalties for social media posts violating the club’s values.

The incident drew attention of US-based billionaire Elon Musk, who reposted a call for Borussia’s representatives to be barred from travelling to the US for the 2026 FIFA World Cup if they “continue to persecute” Nmecha. Kirk, 31, was killed while addressing students at a college in Orem, Utah, on Wednesday. Many people openly cheered his assassination online. US President Donald Trump vowed to pursue not only Kirk’s murderer but also what he called the “radical left” networks that fuel political violence.

All he has to do is get out of the way.

• Trump Claims He Will ‘Have To Do All The Talking’ For Putin and Zelensky (RT)

A meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky is possible but would be hard to arrange because “they hate each other,” US President Donald Trump has said. He claimed that he would need to “intervene” to bring the two leaders together. Trump met with Putin for a summit in Alaska last month, after which he pledged to prepare a meeting between the Russian president and Zelensky. Speaking to reporters on Sunday during a visit to the memorial of slain activist Charlie Kirk, Trump claimed the hatred between Putin and Zelensky was “unfathomable,” adding he believed he would “have to do all the talking.” The US president also claimed to have “stopped seven wars,” and admitted he thought the Ukraine conflict would “be an easy one for me, but this has turned out to be tough.”

While no Putin-Zelensky meeting has been confirmed, Trump indicated that talks could take place “relatively soon,” without giving details on the potential format. “We’re going to get it worked out one way or the other,” he said. “So I’m going to have to get involved.” Putin has said he is ready in principle to meet Zelensky and suggested the Ukrainian leader could travel to Moscow for negotiations. Kiev has rejected the idea, saying it would not accept “deliberately unacceptable proposals.” At the same time, the Russian president has raised doubts about the legitimacy of Zelensky’s position and whether talks would be “meaningful.” Zelensky’s presidential term expired last May, but he has refused to hold elections, citing martial law.

Putin has also said reaching agreements with Kiev on key issues would be “practically impossible.” He has noted that even with political will there were “legal and technical difficulties” tied to territorial disputes. The remarks referred to Crimea and other regions that voted to join Russia in referendums in 2014 and 2022.Moscow has repeatedly said it is ready for peace negotiations with Kiev if the “reality on the ground” is taken into account. It has also said it would agree to an immediate ceasefire if Ukraine withdrew its troops from the new Russian regions or halted mobilization and Western arms deliveries.

“I just want everyone to know this,” Sachs said, adding that he is “disgusted” by the French president.”

“..there is an easy way to peace” which involves Ukraine committing to neutrality and NATO halting its eastward expansion.”

• Macron Admitted NATO Behind Ukraine Conflict – Jeffrey Sachs (RT)

French President Emmanuel Macron has privately admitted that NATO is the driving force behind the Ukraine conflict, prominent American economist Jeffrey Sachs has said. Macron, along with other Western leaders, has repeatedly claimed that Russia launched its military operation against Ukraine in 2022 without provocation and has insisted that Moscow is solely responsible for the conflict. However, speaking during a foreign policy debate with the Italian daily il Fatto Quotidiano, Sachs recalled that when Macron awarded him the Legion of Honor in May 2022, the French leader privately told him “exactly the opposite of what he says publicly” and admitted that “NATO was causing this war.”

“I just want everyone to know this,” Sachs said, adding that he is “disgusted” by the French president. Sachs further condemned Western European leaders, describing them as warmongers who “just want to go to war.”= The economist emphasized that the Ukraine conflict had actually begun in 2014, when the US “actively participated in a violent coup” that overthrew the government in Kiev. “That’s what started the war,” Sachs said, noting that in the following years Washington helped build the Ukrainian army into the largest in Europe. He added that as Russia sought peace, then-US President Joe Biden rejected Moscow’s overtures and vowed to “crush” Russia with sanctions. Sachs argued “there is an easy way to peace” which involves Ukraine committing to neutrality and NATO halting its eastward expansion.

He suggested that US President Donald Trump might be open to such an approach, but claimed that “now it’s Europe who’s filled with warmongers that continue the war,” singling out Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Moscow has long maintained that Kiev’s NATO aspirations were one of the root causes of the conflict and has repeatedly described the confrontation as a Western-led proxy war against Russia. Russian officials have nevertheless signaled readiness for a peace deal, provided it addresses Moscow’s security concerns and the new territorial realities. However, they have repeatedly noted that neither Kiev nor its European backers appear to be genuinely interested in a settlement.

Declaring a no-fly zone over land you don’t control…

• NATO Downing Russian Drones Over Ukraine Will Mean War – Medvedev (ZH))

Security Council Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev has once again issued a firm warning to the Western military alliance backing Kiev, saying that if NATO countries begin shooting down Russian drones over Ukraine during the ‘special military operation’, this will put Moscow at war with NATO. The words come dangerously after the last week has seen Russian drones allegedly breach Polish and Romanian airspace – both NATO member’s along the alliance’s ‘eastern flank’. Moscow has rejected accusations that it intentionally sent these drones, which were by and large ‘decoy’ UAVs amid broader drone waves targeting inside Ukraine. “Seriously, implementing the provocative idea of Kiev and other idiots to create a ‘no-fly zone over Ukraine’ and allowing NATO countries to down our drones will mean only one thing: NATO’s war with Russia,” Medvedev wrote on Telegram Monday.

He additionally remarked the “powerful European initiative ‘Eastern Sentry’” amuses him as it “seems to be all that remains of the ‘coalition of the willing’.” Over the weekend, a pair of Russian drones were observed and tracked in Romania’s airspace, near Ukraine’s southern border, the Romanian military said. A pair of F-16s were scrambled, but the pilots refrained from firing on them and they exited back to Ukraine territory. The former Russian president also made comments aimed at Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur. He is visiting Ukraine. “An Estonian defense minister has arrived in Kiev. He is threatening. The smaller the country, the more aggressive and foolish its leaders tend to be,” Medvedev noted.

All the while, Ukraine has continued its cross-border drone attacks on Russian territory. Belgorod oblast authorities said two women in a village near the border with Ukraine were killed in such an attack Monday morning. Three other people were injured and a vehicle was destroyed, following a night where anti-air defenses were able to intercept six of the inbound drone wave. The hawks keep pushing for more muscle and present delusional views on the current status of the conflict… Meanwhile, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov in fresh remarks Monday painted a picture of NATO and Russia already being in a de facto state of war. “NATO is at war with Russia. It is obvious and does not require any additional proof,” he told a press briefing. “NATO is de facto involved in this war. NATO provides both indirect and direct support to the Kiev regime. Therefore, it can be said with absolute certainty that NATO is at war with Russia.”

https://twitter.com/RussiaDirect_/status/1967411196686213328?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1967411196686213328%7Ctwgr%5Ef3cc1e2f899c6a9e9eb5a0a4683fbae4c437807d%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fgeopolitical%2Fwestern-countries-downing-russian-drones-over-ukraine-will-mean-war-nato-medvedev

“Brussels plans to exploit the anniversary of the Novi Sad disaster on November 1 to intensify pressure.”

• EU Plotting Maidan-Style Coup In Serbia – Moscow (RT)

The EU is seeking to orchestrate a Ukraine-style ‘Maidan’ in Serbia by fueling the violent protests that have swept the Balkan country since late last year, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) has said. The unrest erupted in Serbia in November 2024 after a roof collapse at the railway station in the city of Novi Sad, killing 16 people. The incident triggered public backlash, with activists accusing the government of corruption and demanding accountability. The list of demands later expanded to holding snap elections and the resignation of President Aleksandar Vucic. The latter has branded the protesters “terrorists” seeking to “bring down the state” under foreign influence. In response to public pressure, the Serbian authorities also agreed to some concessions, including the resignation of several ministers and the publication of documents related to the Novi Sad canopy collapse.

In a statement on Monday, the SVR said that the unrest is “largely a product of EU subversive activity,” adding that the main goal of Brussels is to bring “a compliant and loyal… leadership to power in one of the largest countries in the Balkans.” The agency said EU efforts had radicalized youth, pushing them “from peaceful protests to more revolutionary methods of struggle and violence.” It argued, however, that attempts to reproduce a Western-backed “color revolution” in Serbia were faltering due to “patriotic sentiment, the unifying influence of the Orthodox Church, and memories of NATO aggression and the bombing of the country.”

According to the SVR, Brussels plans to exploit the anniversary of the Novi Sad disaster on November 1 to intensify pressure. It claimed EU institutions were “brainwashing” Serbian youth with promises of a “bright European future” while using supposedly independent media outlets as vehicles for influence. The goal, the SVR said, is to mobilize protesters and stage a “Serbian Maidan,” referring to a series of Western-backed protests in Ukraine in 2013-2014 that resulted in a coup that ousted President Viktor Yanukovich. EU officials have said they are closely monitoring the situation in Serbia while denouncing what they describe as excessive use of force by law enforcement.

“European party of war.”

• Polish Drone Incident To Escalate Ukraine Conflict – Finnish Politician (RT)

Recent allegations of a Russian “drone incursion” into Poland benefited both Brussels and Kiev by potentially escalating the Ukraine conflict, Euroskeptic Finnish politician Armando Mema has claimed. In an interview with RT on Monday, Mema argued that the incident served the EU’s interests by justifying a “tremendous” increase in military spending and reinforcing the alleged “Russian threat.” He described Brussels’ rhetoric as “dangerous” and expressed doubt that Moscow was behind the episode. ”I don’t think personally it is Russia that sent the drones into Poland. I think this is a desperate attempt by the [Ukraine’s Vladimir] Zelensky regime to escalate” and take the conflict to “another level,” said Mema, a former candidate for the European Parliament and a member of Finland’s national conservative Freedom Alliance party.

Poland has claimed its military tracked at least 19 violations of its airspace by Russian drones, calling the incursions “deliberate” and “unprecedented.” European leaders, including Finnish President Alexander Stubb, have pledged solidarity with Warsaw. Moscow rejected the accusations, insisting that Poland’s claims lacked evidence and were being hyped up by what it called the “European party of war.” Since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, several EU and NATO leaders have warned that Russia could attack the bloc within the coming years. Moscow has repeatedly dismissed such predictions as “nonsense.”

“..raise more money to support the Kiev regime and drive themselves deeper into an absolute abyss, into a whirlpool of the machination they have designed themselves,”

• Western Europe Hides Its Terrible Condition Behind ‘Threats From East’ (TASS)

The West is creating an alleged threat from the East to mask its own domestic economic problems, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said. “This is being done because the situation in Western Europe is catastrophic from the economic point of view, from the point of view of the reckless venture around Ukraine they have plunged into. They need to continue imposing this Russophobia and Belarusophobia,” she told reporters.

According to Zakharova, they have to “invent new theses” to keep this Russophobia and Belarusophobia afloat. “They are trying to intimidate their own population by pseudo-aggressive actions from the East to raise more money to support the Kiev regime and drive themselves deeper into an absolute abyss, into a whirlpool of the machination they have designed themselves,” she said.

In this context, she drew attention to Poland’s policy in recent years. “I think this is absolutely evident that Warsaw has adopted an extremely aggressive and destructive position – this is not mere animosity but practical actions against Belarus,” she noted, referring to the closure of the Polish-Belarusian border. The recent incident with drones, in her words, was yet another Warsaw’s provocation. “Regrettably, this was not the first and probably not the last one,” she added.

“Starmer clearly understands that either the migrants go, or he does.”

• ‘Unite the Kingdom’ : A Good Cause With An Elephant In The Room (Marsden)

Call me cynical, but am I the only one who gets side-eye strain every time another anti-immigration protest takes over London’s streets? At this point, it feels less like a grassroots uprising and more like a recurring stage play. But who’s the director? Yes, yes, we know there’s a problem. Our overlords know it too. That’s why they don’t even bother anymore to pretend that they’re “managing” it. Instead, they’re desperately trying to sweep the whole mess under a rug and hoping that nobody notices the bulge.Just a decade ago, the idea of British politicians ringing up African nations like, “Hey lads, we’ve got a few too many imports. Want to warehouse them for us until we figure out what the hell we’re doing?” would’ve been unthinkable. But that’s exactly what the Rwanda deal was. A political yard sale of asylum seekers. And now the EU has been trying to copy the trend.

Outsourcing responsibility is the new badge of enlightened statesmanship. The EU can’t agree on what time to break for lunch, but when it comes to dumping migrants on poorer nations, suddenly it’s kumbaya time. Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer had tried clinging to the ideological fantasy of the establishment left: looking out across Britain and seeing a beautiful rainbow of cultures, conveniently airbrushed of crime stats and housing shortages. When he took office last year, he smugly declared his Tory predecessors’ deportation plan “dead and buried.” Oh, how quickly the corpse has been exhumed! Now he is floating the idea of “return hubs” in foreign countries for asylum seekers. Why the U-turn? Maybe it has something to do with Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party currently polling at 35% – a record 15-point lead over Starmer’s Labour. Self-preservation always trumps virtue signaling.

And nothing shifts a politician’s priorities like the sound of voters measuring you for a political coffin. Starmer clearly understands that either the migrants go, or he does. The luxury of “demographic suicide” policies only exists when your population is oblivious enough to shrug and go back to scrolling. That’s no longer the case in Britain. Or Canada. Or France. Or Germany. Basically, anywhere leaders tried to play open-border humanitarians while voters footed the bill in more ways than one. And right on cue enters Tommy Robinson, forever reinventing himself as Britain’s last line of defense, while somehow always landing face-first in the donation jar. This time, he’s pretending to haul the entire nation up the escalator of destiny by the handrail. Over the weekend, his “Unite the Kingdom” rally drew an estimated 110,000+ people. He called it “the spark of a cultural revolution in Great Britain.” Sure, Tommy. Surf that grift wave.

But here’s the thing that I can’t unsee. Robinson and his crew are sustained by pro-Israel donors. The Observer recently reported, for instance, that Jewish-American tech billionaire, Robert Shillman, has bankrolled him and his colleagues through “fellowships.” Shillman’s hobby appears to be funding anyone who can bang the anti-Islam drum loudly enough to double as PR for Israel. He has also backed folks like the late Charlie Kirk, who was honored at the weekend’s rally.

“..Putin warned the West against speaking to economic powers such as China and India in an “unacceptable” tone, citing their vast populations and strong domestic political systems.”

• China Warns US Over Russian Oil Threats (RT)

China has condemned US efforts to pressure G7 and NATO countries to impose tariffs on Beijing over its purchases of Russian oil, warning that it will retaliate if its interests are harmed. US President Donald Trump has repeatedly called for pressure on Russia’s trading partners to stop buying its oil, saying it could help end the Ukraine conflict. The Financial Times reported last week that Washington had asked G7 finance ministers to consider 50-100% secondary tariffs on Chinese and Indian imports tied to Russian oil. Trump has also urged the EU to impose tariffs of up to 100% on goods from Beijing and New Delhi as part of a joint effort to pressure Moscow.

Asked on Monday about US actions, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian told reporters it was “fully legitimate and lawful” for Beijing to maintain normal economic, trade, and energy cooperation with all countries, including Russia. Lin added that Washington’s request was “a typical move of unilateralism, bullying, and economic coercion.” “Facts have proven that coercion and pressure win no hearts and minds, still less will they solve anything,” the diplomat stated. He added that China’s position on the Ukraine conflict remained “objective and just,” emphasizing dialogue and negotiation as the only viable solution.

Lin said Beijing “firmly opposes” being targeted with “illicit unilateral sanctions and long-arm jurisdiction,” warning that if China’s rights and interests are harmed, it will “resolutely take countermeasures to safeguard our sovereignty, security and development interests.” The FT also reported that EU officials have begun early talks on possible secondary sanctions against China over its purchases of Russian oil and gas, but want US backing before moving ahead. Since the Ukraine conflict escalated in 2022, Russia has become a major supplier of oil to both China and India. During a recent visit to Beijing, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned the West against speaking to economic powers such as China and India in an “unacceptable” tone, citing their vast populations and strong domestic political systems.

Just call them a threat to democracy and ban them..

• AfD Party Is Once Again Achieving Record Results In Eastern Germany (RMX)

Another poll has recorded a record result for the Alternative for Germany (AfD), this time in the eastern German state of Thuringia, which shows the party receiving 37 percent of the vote. The poll comes shortly after the AfD received a record result in another east German state, Saxony-Anhalt. The poll, from Insa, shows AfD has improved its result by 4.2 points from its Sept. 1, 2024, results, when it finished in first place in Thuringia with a large lead.

THÜRINGEN | Sonntagsfrage Landtagswahl INSA/TA, OTZ, TLZ

AfD: 37% (+2)
CDU: 25% (+1)
LINKE: 14%
BSW: 9% (-2)
SPD: 7% (-1)
GRÜNE: 3%
Sonstige: 5%

Änderungen zur letzten Umfrage vom 08. Mai 2025

Verlauf: https://t.co/su156YtjmG #ltwth pic.twitter.com/GwLcDSJdsm

— Deutschland Wählt (@Wahlen_DE) September 11, 2025

The other poll in Saxony-Anhalt, conducted by Infratest dimap, recorded a shockingly high result of 39 percent for the AfD. Both polls are rippling through the German establishment, which appears powerless to challenge the AfD through democratic means. In turn, calls for a ban are growing louder and more shrill as more and more Germans line up behind the policies presented by the AfD.

SACHSEN-ANHALT | Sonntagsfrage Landtagswahl Infratest dimap/MDR, MZ, Volksstimme

AfD: 39% (+19)
CDU: 27% (-6)
LINKE: 13% (+2)
SPD: 7% (-9)
BSW: 6% (NEU)
GRÜNE: 3% (-3)
Sonstige: 5% (-9)

Änderungen zum 24. Februar 2022

Verlauf: https://t.co/x9wTDqkYqA #ltwst #ltwlsa pic.twitter.com/6uZYrAuOHT

— Deutschland Wählt (@Wahlen_DE) September 4, 2025

Currently, the state of Thuringia is led by Minister-President Mario Voigt, who came in second after the AfD in the 2024 elections. In fact, the CDU was 12 points behind, receiving 25 percent. However, a governing coalition arose of the CDU, BSW and SPD, which allowed them to secure a majority. The party is also dependent on the Left Party. It appears that a large number of voters from the left-wing BSW have jumped to the AfD, with the party falling from 15.8 to 9 percent, and the SPD is at 7 percent. Together, this coalition would only have 41 percent, a drop from its 45.5 percent in the state election.

The AfD has seen a sharp surge in support in the west of Germany, but it still retains its highest share of support in the east of the country. This could one day translate into the AfD holding power in some of these states, but in nationwide elections, the eastern states have a far smaller share of the population compared to the west.

“The ADL was founded in 1913 to defend a Jewish businessman who raped and murdered a 13-year-old girl, Mary Phagan.”

• Bessent Hails Trump For ‘Breakthrough’ With China In TikTok Talks (Cradle)

A deal has been reached between Washington and Beijing to keep TikTok accessible in the US, the White House announced on 15 September, after years of negotiations that began under US President Donald Trump’s first term. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Trump will speak with Chinese President Xi Jinping on Friday to finalize the framework agreement. “President Trump played a role in this, we had a call with him last night, we had specific guidance from him, we shared it with our Chinese counterparts,” Bessent stated. “Without his leadership and the leverage he provides, we would not have been able to include the deal today.” The deal was reached during US–China trade talks taking place in Spain. Since coming to office in January, President Trump has implemented stiff tariffs on imports from China and other nations.

“We were very focused on TikTok and making sure that it was a deal that is fair for the Chinese and completely respects US national security concerns, and that’s the deal we reached,” Bessent said. “And of course, we want to ensure that the Chinese have a fair, invested environment in the United States, but always that US national security comes first.” A bipartisan bill passed by Congress during the term of former US president Joe Biden banned TikTok in the US unless its China-based owner, ByteDance, divested its stake in the US assets of the social media company. The bill was passed after Anti-Defamation League (ADL) chief, Jonathon Greenblatt, complained that Israel had a “TikTok problem.” After the start of Tel Aviv’s genocidal war on Gaza in 2023, videos highlighting Israel’s massacres of Palestinian women and children regularly went viral for US users of the app.

The ADL was founded in 1913 to defend a Jewish businessman who raped and murdered a 13-year-old girl, Mary Phagan. The organization now functions as a front for Israeli intelligence in the US. “Protecting Americans from TikTok’s political influence would be a gain to Israel’s standing with its most important ally,” wrote Cole Aronson in the Jewish Review of Books. “One month after the 7 October Hamas attack, TikTok videos with hashtags like #freepalestine were watched by Americans about 50 times more than pro-Israel ones,” Aronson stated. Trump has extended the deadline for reaching a TikTok deal several times. The app was blocked in the US on 18 January, one day before the Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act went into effect. But Trump signed an executive order delaying the enforcement of the law for 75 days to restore access to the popular social media app among US users.

Trump extended the deadline again in June. The US president advocated for banning TikTok during his first term, but changed his stance after crediting the app for contributing to his election victory in 2024. In July, TikTok hired a “proud” American Jewish woman who previously served in the Israeli army as its new “hate speech manager,” the Jerusalem Post reported. Erica Mindel was appointed to the position of Public Policy Manager, which involves developing and driving the company’s policies on censorship. Before joining TikTok, Mindel worked as a contractor for the US State Department. She worked for Deborah Lipstadt, the special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism.

Grab bag.

• As Supreme Court Set to Return, What to Expect in Trump Cases (Dorman)

Months of litigation related to Trump administration policies have made it likely the Supreme Court justices will wrestle with limits on executive power in their upcoming term. Months after President Donald Trump took office, his policy on birthright citizenship prompted the Supreme Court to issue a landmark ruling on judicial authority and the nation’s separation of powers. The ruling opposed lower courts’ imposition of so-called nationwide injunctions, which block a policy on a nationwide basis. The justices did not, however, resolve underlying constitutional arguments surrounding birthright citizenship.

That issue and other Trump policies could return to the Supreme Court, which has used its emergency docket to offer more tentative decisions on blocks by lower courts. If and when the justices give those issues more thorough consideration, it could result in landmark decisions on constitutional law. The Supreme Court’s new term is expected to start in October when the justices return for oral arguments.

Tariffs
The ability to impose tariffs is a power typically understood as reserved for Congress under the Constitution. It’s unclear, though, whether Congress effectively delegated that power to the president in a law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The Supreme Court has already agreed to hear arguments in November over that issue. An appeals court said in August that Congress didn’t delegate that power, but delayed its ruling until October.

The eventual decision could have major economic consequences, altering the balance of trade and revenue inflows for the United States. In August, the United States reported a record $31 billion in revenue under tariffs that Trump implemented.= Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said earlier this month that the Trump administration has backup plans in place in case the court rules against it. Similar to some of Trump’s immigration cases, this issue raises questions about courts intervening in sensitive, ongoing diplomatic negotiations.

Immigration
The 14th Amendment has been interpreted in recent decades to allow birthright citizenship to children born to illegal immigrants. However, after ruling on the preliminary issue of nationwide injunctions, the Supreme Court could reconsider that interpretation and one of its 19th-century precedents. The Trump administration’s eventual appeal will likely force the Supreme Court to confront competing interpretations of the 14th Amendment. Other cases could revisit how far Trump’s authority extends as the chief executive of the nation’s laws. A series of legal disputes has developed over the way that Trump views his authority to deport individuals under laws passed by Congress. One of those is the Alien Enemies Act, which allows the president to remove certain individuals during an invasion.

Trump invoked this law to deport suspected members of Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua gang. While the Supreme Court has addressed whether the detainees received adequate due process, the justices have yet to rule on whether gang members perpetrated the type of invasion that would allow deportation under the Alien Enemies Act. Many lower courts have ruled that Trump invalidly invoked the law, with a recent appeals court ruling teeing up a potential Supreme Court challenge. Other immigration-related cases could also return, such as the administration’s attempt to deport people to “third countries” or those other than their home nations.

That question popped up more recently in yet another case involving Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national who was returned to the United States after an order from a district court judge. Other cases could revisit Trump’s attempt to remove temporary protected status or parole for migrants who would otherwise be subject to deportation.

Spending
In an attempt to reduce excess spending, the Trump administration has attempted to freeze or cut disbursements related to gender, foreign aid, and a wide variety of other issues. And despite months of litigation over cuts, the court system seems far from resolving the legality. That’s in part because the Supreme Court keeps sending the cases back to lower courts with rulings more about the judges’ authority than Trump’s. In at least two cases, the Supreme Court has agreed with the administration’s argument that challenges to Trump’s spending cuts should have been brought in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims rather than a regular district court.

The Supreme Court indicated as much in April when it allowed Trump to freeze millions of dollars’ worth of education-related grants. It later reaffirmed that position in an August decision that focused on health grants. That decision, however, was limited, and the justices sharply disagreed over which aspects of a district court’s block on Trump should be removed. Besides the question of jurisdiction, debate has emerged over how much discretion Trump has in canceling outlays of those funds.

Federal Officials
Trump’s firing of Federal Reserve Board of Governors member Lisa Cook has again raised the prospect that the justices could rule on the president’s ability to remove high-ranking federal officials. While the Supreme Court has allowed many of Trump’s firings to proceed, they’ve yet to issue a full-throated explanation of his authority to do so. The litigation could ultimately prompt the Supreme Court to revisit a precedent known as Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which was decided in 1935 and has been cited by multiple lower courts in their support of fired federal officials. That decision and others limited the president’s ability to fire officials depending on how much executive authority those officials exercised.

Trump’s victories have signaled that those judges may be misinterpreting Humphrey’s and the Constitution by not giving the president more deference. In May, the Supreme Court indicated that members of the Federal Reserve Board, like Cook, could enjoy more protection than heads of other agencies. A majority of the justices had allowed Trump to fire the heads of two labor boards and disputed the officials’ attempts to compare their agencies to the Federal Reserve. According to the majority, the “Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States.” Cook’s firing also included a more detailed explanation from Trump as to why he fired her, raising the prospect that the Supreme Court could judge what is an appropriate cause of termination.

“It’s such an egregious 7 standard deviation. 3.4 standard deviation is the chance of lightning hitting you at least once in your lifetime.”

• Beginning of Panic Rate Cut Cycle – Ed Dowd (USAW)

Former Wall Street money manager and financial analyst Ed Dowd of PhinanceTechnologies.com had a storied Wall Street career. He got out of Enron and Lucent long before they crashed and burned. A few of the many other more recent correct calls Dowd has made include: interest rates topping and heading lower (they did), housing tanking and going lower (happening now), massive fraud propping up the Biden economy with illegal immigration (20 million brought in by Biden Admin) and the BLS just restated job creation numbers for 12 months ending in March. The restatement revealed an eye popping 911,000 jobs were fake. Dowd said just after the 2024 election that “Trump inherited a turd of an economy.”

Now, Dowd says, “Trump has to deal with a turd of a disaster.” On the phony jobs number alone, Dowd says, “You could say this is statistical fraud or bureaucratic incompetence. Let’s say it’s both. It’s such an egregious 7 standard deviation. 3.4 standard deviation is the chance of lightning hitting you at least once in your lifetime. It’s not likely. 7 deviation is suggestive of fraud–full stop.” All the frauds propping up the Biden economy isn’t causing inflation now–just the opposite. Dowd says, “The housing market is rolling over because people can’t afford them. What was keeping a floor in the housing market were rents by the illegal aliens. That’s all going the wrong way. Trump is deporting people, and we closed down the border. Our housing report that we put out a month ago . . . all the indicators are rolling over, and we are going to have a housing recession. We are going to see inflation go lower because housing is 36% of the economy. We expect to see a sub 2% print on inflation.”

What about the Fed cutting interest rates next week? Dowd says, “They cut rates in the Great Financial Crisis starting in 2007. Our stock market did not bottom until 2009. This is the beginning of what I think is the ‘panic rate cut cycle.’ We are going to see the Fed cutting rates all the way down into this asset deflation that we see coming in this panic rate cut cycle. Cutting into slowing growth does not cause assets to reinflate. They are behind the curve, and they are going to be cutting all the way down as we deflate.” Dowd still likes gold and says his clients are acquiring gold and land, not crypto. He also says there are big problems coming in the not-so-distant future from China and Europe. Dowd says his forecast of the world going into a “very deep recession” will come true soon.

“..what better way to mint $100 billion in market cap than with just $1 billion in stock purchases?”

• Tesla Soars After Musk Buys Billion Dollars Worth Of Stock (ZH)

Tesla shares are on the verge of a technical breakout – something that unhinged Democrats (CC: Tim Walz) must be absolutely furious about – after a new SEC filing revealed that Elon Musk went on a Friday shopping spree, snapping up roughly $1 billion worth of stock. The move has boosted Tesla’s market cap by $100 billion, a savvy squeeze on the shorts. According to a newly filed SEC document, Musk purchased 2.5 million shares through a series of trades valued at about $1 billion.

The billion-dollar purchase comes as shares broke out of an ascending triangle on Friday and are now trading near record highs. As of Monday morning’s premarket trading, the stock was up 8.3% around the $428 level. While Elon’s purchases could be tied to creating momentum to break shares to the upside, we must remind readers that the purchase comes days after Larry Ellison briefly surpassed Musk to become the world’s richest person, following a massive jump in Oracle’s stock. We dared Musk to come up with something even more outrageous than Ellison…

not bad response https://t.co/BySZDHlElp

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) September 15, 2025

And, oh boy, did he.

said another way, Musk's $1BN purchase of TSLA stock pushed his net worth higher by $15BN https://t.co/IHX0IYEvPI

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) September 15, 2025

Here’s the latest from the Bloomberg Billionaire Index (as of Friday’s close).

Musk clearly enjoys the title of being the world’s richest – and what better way to mint $100 billion in market cap than with just $1 billion in stock purchases? Now does Ellison have a trick or two of his own…

While everyone was focused on Charlie Kirk’s assassination this Democrat judge in North Carolina ordered Iryna Zarutka’s murderer Decarlos Brown to be released from prison.

They are trying to make sure he doesn’t even go to trial and is set free. pic.twitter.com/ak330sYc7s

— Aesthetica (@Anc_Aesthetics) September 14, 2025

Shiong

RIP Charlie Kirk.
Renowned surgeon & scientist Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong delivered a chilling warning to Charlie Kirk and his audience: The world was facing a global pandemic of "turbo cancers" in young people.

The anecdotal evidence had become a terrifying medical reality. Cancer… pic.twitter.com/tmhCuNNJQL

— Camus (@newstart_2024) September 14, 2025

Former BlackRock fund manager Ed Dowd:

"What [the U.S. has] is a class problem… 1% of the population of the globe owns 50% of the global wealth… this is… why you're seeing the rise of division. Because the way you control the many is you make the many hate each other."… pic.twitter.com/7hhX1LI4Hk

— Sense Receptor (@SenseReceptor) September 14, 2025

DR. FAUCI IS ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR HIV/AIDS.

Dr. Fauci ensured that his ‘Lab Viruses’ from a Chinese Military Lab were untraceable because his first ‘Gain of Function Experiment’ had blueprints.

Dr. Fauci’s FIRST successful ‘Gain of Function Experiment’ was HIV. pic.twitter.com/cCzywMV6Pu

— Liz Churchill (@liz_churchill10) September 14, 2025

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

Debt Rattle September 9 2025

Sep 092025

September 9, 2025 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 10:16 am Finance Tagged with: Banksy, Bayrou, Britain, E. Jean Carroll, JD Vance, Kallas, Le Pen, Macron, spirit of freedom, Supreme Court 68 Responses »

Utagawa Yoshitoshi Ariko weeps as her boat drifts in the moonlight 1886

• Britain’s Spirit of Freedom Is Dying (Chris Queen)

• French Government Collapses (RT)

• French Debt A Danger To Eurozone – DW (RT)

• EU Top Diplomat Kallas ‘Critically Uneducated’ – Moscow (RT)

• Zelensky Claims ‘Victory’ Is Avoiding Total Loss Of Ukraine (RT)

• Zelensky Has Insulted Trump. Is He Suicidal? (Romanenko)

• Russia Has No Desire For Revenge – Lavrov (RT)

• Orban Outlines EU Security ‘Guarantee’ Plan (RT)

• Democrats ‘Hate’ Trump More Than They ‘Love’ Their Communities – Homan (DS)

• ‘The Politics Will Figure Itself Out’: JD Vance (Pero)

• Days of Thunder (James Howard Kunstler)

• Appeals Court Upholds E. Jean Carroll’s $83.3 Million Judgment Against Trump (ZH)

• Trump Admin Asks Supreme Court to Allow Withholding of Foreign Aid Funds (ET)

• Another Tremendous Supreme Court Victory for Trump! (Margolis)

• Is the Western World Degenerating Into Communism? (Paul Craig Roberts)

• Chuck Schumer Tested FAFO and the GOP Will Make Him Pay the Price (Margolis)

• Did Johnson Really Say Trump Was an Informant Against Epstein? (Margolis)

• Elite UK Divers Likely Behind Nord Stream Sabotage – Patrushev (RT)

Now do you understand how much the legacy (fka mainstream) media lies simply by ignoring a subject?

Choice of narrative is their primary form of deception. pic.twitter.com/OAVGo6TED4

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 8, 2025

https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1965073853576831472

Holy shit….

Trump just dropped a red-pill nuclear bomb on Truth Social.

He posted a video showing NIH Geneticist and Biochemist outlining that vaccines have toxic chemicals like Mercury in them, and can cause autism.

Trump just called vaccines “poison”…

MUST WATCH! pic.twitter.com/WspCdJxEMd

— Clandestine (@WarClandestine) September 8, 2025

Letitia James is cooked

She’s been exposed again for mortgage fraud with Citizens Bank in 2021, after allegedly misrepresenting her 5-unit Brooklyn building as a single-family home to secure a $200K credit line.

This allowed her to avoid higher commercial loan costs and… pic.twitter.com/5BY6bhE7Yy

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) September 8, 2025

https://twitter.com/TRUMP_ARMY_/status/1965058356647002444

100s of arrests for Palestine Action protesters. Banksy is quick. Just as quickly, a fence was erected in front of the artwork.
https://twitter.com/GBPolitcs/status/1965030113332056143

Nap Ritter

Britain itself is dying along with that spirit.

• Britain’s Spirit of Freedom Is Dying (Chris Queen)

I’m writing this on the third anniversary of the death of Queen Elizabeth II. I still remember that day so distinctly since I was on breaking news watch for her certain passing. The death of such a long-reigning monarch was heartbreaking to the nation she led, but it was also a sad day for Anglophiles like me.I’ve been an Anglophile as long as I can remember. It’s literally in my DNA; the vast majority of my heritage comes from the British Isles. But British culture, entertainment, and politics have fascinated me for decades (although I have to admit that I’m not as enamored with the royal family after Elizabeth’s passing as some people are). British politics has gotten frustrating in recent years for true conservatives, and watching Britain slide into authoritarianism on free speech is something even a dyed-in-the-wool Anglophile like me can’t support. And I’m not alone.

Last week, Lee Cohen wrote a column in The Spectator that resonated deeply with me: “Today, for the first time, I find Britain indefensible. The affection and historical respect remains. The confidence is gone. Britain now prosecutes her own citizens, not for violence or treason, but for words. Lucy Connolly was sentenced to 31 months in prison for a tweet in the wake of the Southport murders last year. Her crime was expression, harsh perhaps, but still speech. This week, Graham Linehan, the award winning creator of Father Ted, was arrested at Heathrow Airport by armed officers for online comments defending women’s spaces. Arrested, by police carrying weapons, for his opinions. This is the country that gave the world John Stuart Mill.

“Such cases expose what Britain has become: a two tier system of justice. Those branded far right, nationalist, or Islamophobic are persecuted with zeal, Cohen added. Those spreading incendiary rhetoric from Islamist or minority factions are, all too often, met with indulgence. ” Cohen cited not just the crackdown on social media users who express conservative views, but also local governments cracking down on patriotic Britons who fly the Union Jack or St. George s Cross. The same nation that survived the Great Fire of London, the Blitz, and the Falklands War can t handle patriotism in the face of unchecked Muslim immigration. “Meanwhile, foreign flags fly freely across London without question, he wrote. The message is unmistakable: pride in your own country is suspect. Allegiance to any other is acceptable.”

He continued: “From abroad, the shift is impossible to ignore. Elon Musk has called Britain’s censorship Soviet style. JD Vance has condemned its crackdown on speech. The US State Department now lists Britain as a country presenting significant risks to free expression. I never imagined America would place Britain alongside nations that treat liberty as a nuisance. That day has come. For those of us who have long defended Britain, it is heartbreaking. This is the country whose strong institutions enabled America’s own rise and whose commitment to liberty inspired ours. Yet under its current leadership, Britain has stumbled into repression, constraint, and fear, where ordinary citizens look over their shoulders before speaking.”

Cohen appeared on The Spectator’s “Americano” podcast over the weekend, and he told host Freddy Gray that he’s never seen Americans as interested in British politics as they are right now. He mused whether Donald Trump’s Anglophilia and JD Vance’s earnest engagement with British politics might drive the two American leaders to urge the British government to stem the anti-free speech tide. It’s tempting to hope so, but it’s equally tempting to despair that Britain is too far gone. For someone who loves the British and their history and culture, I hope Britons can reverse course and return to shining as a beacon of freedom and hope to the world.

Another PM gone. They go through them like candy.

Still, Macron stays. But: “..the latest Le Figaro poll showing nearly 80% of French no longer trust the president.”

The only person they trust is Marine Le Pen. Who is prohibited from running.

• French Government Collapses (RT)

The French government has fallen after Prime Minister Francois Bayrou lost a crucial confidence vote in parliament on Monday. Bayrou is the second consecutive prime minister under President Emmanuel Macron to be ousted, throwing the nation into political and economic turmoil. A no-confidence motion in the National Assembly requires at least 288 votes to pass. Monday’s motion received 364 votes, with the left-wing New Popular Front and the right-wing National Rally uniting in opposition to end a months-long standoff over Bayrou’s austerity budget. Having previously survived eight no-confidence motions, Bayrou called this vote himself, in a bid to secure backing for proposals that forecast almost €44 billion ($52 billion) of savings to ease France’s debt burden before the budget is presented in October.

The prime minister, who has repeatedly warned that France’s national debt poses a “mortal danger” to the country, appeared to acknowledge his fate. In a bitter remark on Sunday, Bayrou lashed out at rival parties that he said “hate each other” yet joined forces “to bring down the government.” Bayrou is the second French prime minister in succession to be brought down following Michel Barnier’s ejection last December after just three months in office – and the sixth to serve under Macron since he was first elected in 2017. Bayrou’s ouster reportedly leaves the French president to choose between appointing a Socialist prime minister to steer a budget through parliament, effectively ceding control of domestic policy, or call snap elections that polls suggest favour Marine Le Pen’s National Rally.

With Macron’s approval ratings already hitting historic lows, either choice risks further weakening his presidency. Analysts warn that if markets lose confidence in France’s ability to rein in its deficit and mounting debt, the country could face turmoil reminiscent of the UK during the brief Liz Truss premiership. Public discontent with Macron’s leadership has deepened, with the latest Le Figaro poll showing nearly 80% of French no longer trust the president. Thousands marched through Paris at the weekend demanding Macron’s resignation and carrying placards reading ‘Let’s stop Macron’ and ‘Frexit.’

Why Macron needs a war with Russia.

But be careful: he’s a Rothschild banker. He knows people.

• French Debt A Danger To Eurozone – DW (RT)

France’s ballooning sovereign debt coupled with political infighting could threaten the fiscal stability of the Eurozone, Deutsche Welle has reported, citing an expert. France has one of the highest national debts in the EU, currently standing at €3.35 trillion ($3.9 trillion) — about 113% of GDP. The ratio is expected to climb to 125% by 2030. Its budget deficit is projected at 5.4–5.8% this year, well above the bloc’s 3% limit. Friedrich Heinemann of the ZEW Leibniz Center for European Economic Research in Mannheim, Germany, told the outlet in an article published on Saturday “we should be worried. The eurozone is not stable at this point.”

A drastic austerity plan proposed by French minority government Prime Minister Francois Bayrou triggered a no confidence vote that he lost on Monday evening. The plan involved slashing public sector jobs, curbing welfare spending, as well as axing two public holidays. The right-wing National Rally, the Socialists, and the leftist France Unbowed vehemently opposed the proposal. An Elabe poll ahead of the vote also showed most respondents were against the measures. Heinemann told DW he doubts France will find a way out soon, given the bitter political infighting.

In July, Bloomberg, citing ING Groep NV experts, similarly claimed that France’s rising debt could be a “ticking bomb” for EU financial stability. Despite the considerable budget deficit, France plans to hike military spending to €64 billion in 2027, double what the country spent in 2017. President Emmanuel Macron has repeatedly cited a supposed Russian threat. The Kremlin has consistently dismissed the claims as “nonsense,” accusing the EU of rapidly militarizing. In May, member states approved a €150 billion ($169 billion) debt program for arms procurement.

One job requirenent: hatred of Putin. Not even Russia, just Putin. Can we blame her for not knowing much else?

• EU Top Diplomat Kallas ‘Critically Uneducated’ – Moscow (RT)

Remarks by EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas stereotyping Russians and Chinese expose her as “critically uneducated,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Sunday. Speaking at an event organized by the EU Institute for Security Studies last week, Kallas argued that the two nations complement one another in their opposition to the West, describing Russians as strong in social sciences but weak in tech, and the Chinese as the reverse. “Chinese are very good at technology but they are not that good in social sciences,” Kallas said. “The Russians… are not good at technology at all, but super good in social sciences.” Zakharova mocked the remarks in a Telegram post, asking who built the Crimean Bridge or launched rockets from Russia’s Vostochny Cosmodrome if it’s true that Russians lack technological expertise.

“On the same note, China would not be able to govern a billion citizens without being strong in social sciences,” Zakharova wrote. “Kallas is critically uneducated.” The top EU diplomat made the comments while lamenting Western disunity, in contrast to what she described as Russia and China’s unified front. She also claimed that when the two nations highlight their roles in defeating the Axis powers during World War II, it “raises a lot of question marks” for a person who knows history. Moscow has frequently accused officials in the EU of scapegoating Russia for the bloc’s internal problems, arguing that this rhetoric is used to divert public attention from their own failures.

Russia never laid claim to all of Ukraine. So yeah, some victory. But it’s great media fodder, they eat it up, as do their readers and viewers. Who have no clue what really goes on. The same media made sure of that.

• Zelensky Claims ‘Victory’ Is Avoiding Total Loss Of Ukraine (RT)

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky has claimed Russian President Vladimir Putin wants to occupy the whole of the country, and that Kiev can claim “victory” in the conflict as long as this does not happen. Russia has long stressed that it has no intention of occupying Ukraine in full. Putin reiterated this when the conflict escalated in February 2022, and again later that year when Russian troops reached Kiev but then withdrew. Since then, Moscow has consistently said any peace settlement requires Ukrainian neutrality, demilitarization, and recognition of Crimea, Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, and Zaporozhye as Russian territory. Zelensky, however, insisted in an interview with ABC News’ Martha Raddatz which aired on Sunday that Moscow’s ambitions go further.

“Putin’s goal is to occupy Ukraine, it is to destroy us… For him that’s victory,” he claimed. “And until he can do it, the victory is on our side… For us to survive is a victory.” He also accused Putin of “playing games” by holding a summit with US President Donald Trump in Alaska while allegedly refusing to meet with him, and claimed the Russian leader is not truly interested in peace. Putin and Trump met in Anchorage on August 15. Although the summit produced no breakthroughs, both sides described it as a positive step. Trump’s remarks afterward fueled speculation of a potential Putin-Zelensky meeting. Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov later said no agreement had been reached, although Putin has not ruled out a meeting, despite questioning Zelensky’s legitimacy after his presidential term expired.

Putin has stressed, however, that talks can only occur after tangible progress in negotiations. Last week, Putin struck a cautiously optimistic note about the prospects for peace, saying “there is light at the end of the tunnel” given the US shift to peace mediation. Kirill Dmitriev, Putin’s aide on international economic affairs, echoed the sentiment on Sunday, saying that “peace is close precisely because of Trump-Putin dialogue.” On Sunday, Trump told reporters he planned further talks with Putin “over the next couple of days,” vowing “to get it done – the Russia-Ukraine situation” soon.

“Ukraine is exhausting its people, its infrastructure, and its economy. If survival truly is the goal, then ending the war must be the only priority.”

• Zelensky Has Insulted Trump. Is He Suicidal? (Romanenko)

In a weekend interview with ABC News, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky accused US President Donald Trump of giving Russian President Vladimir Putin “what he wanted” at the Alaska summit in August. Whether a passing complaint or a calculated jab, it may come at a steep cost for Zelensky. To suggest that Trump bent to Putin’s will is to imply weakness, and weakness is something Trump never tolerates being accused of. This rhetorical swipe was directed at a man who holds significant sway over the trajectory of the Russia-Ukraine war. For Zelensky, the insult may prove more damaging than cathartic.

Zelensky appears to believe that he has become indispensable in Trump’s calculations, that Washington’s policy revolves around Kiev’s demands. But this overstates his importance. Trump has been consistent about one priority: he wants the war to end, and more than that, he wants the US disentangled from it. His approach reflects the sentiment of much of the American public – weary of sending weapons and aid overseas while domestic problems fester. By framing Trump’s summit with Putin as a giveaway, Zelensky risks alienating the one Western leader positioned to actually shift the direction of the war. Trump is sensitive to personal slights. For years, allies and adversaries alike have learned that once he feels personally insulted, he hardens, not softens. To tell Trump, in effect, that he’s Putin’s stooge is to court precisely that reaction.

Trump’s efforts at the Alaska summit were grounded in a political reality that Zelensky refuses to acknowledge. The battlefield is not tilting in Kiev’s favor. Russia’s position, bolstered by sheer resources and strategic depth, is proving resilient. Ukraine’s European backers continue to speak in lofty terms of standing “as long as it takes,” but they lack the power to deliver a Ukrainian victory. Trump, by contrast, pursued a path that might actually move events forward: direct talks with Russia, engagement on security concerns, and the search for a negotiated framework. It is not an approach designed to satisfy Zelensky and the Europeans’ maximalist goals but rather one rooted in ending an exhausting conflict. To dismiss this effort as capitulation is to ignore that it may be the most realistic option still on the table.

In the same ABC interview, Zelensky says his vision for a Ukrainian victory is Ukraine’s survival. Yet his strategy as evident from his actions appears geared less toward survival and more toward dragging the war on for as long as possible. Each new demand for weapons, each new appeal for escalated sanctions, pushes the conflict forward without changing the battlefield reality of Russia grinding forward toward its objectives – and whatever Zelensky claims, total occupation of Ukraine is not one of those objectives. In the name of “survival,” Ukraine is exhausting its people, its infrastructure, and its economy. If survival truly is the goal, then ending the war must be the only priority. Right now, Trump has the best shot at it, because he is realistically engages with the interests of Russia – the side that has the clear upper hand on the battlefield. And Zelensky is pushing that opportunity away.

“We have never turned away or pushed anyone out. Those who want back in are welcome..”

• Russia Has No Desire For Revenge – Lavrov (RT)

Russia has no plans to exact vengeance on Western countries that cut ties and pressured Moscow over the Ukraine conflict, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said. Speaking at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations on Monday, Lavrov stressed that Russia did not intend to “take revenge or vent anger” on companies that decided to support Western governments in their push to support Kiev and impose economic sanctions on Moscow, adding that hostility is generally “a poor adviser.” “When our former Western partners come to their senses… we will not push them away. But we… will take into account that, having fled at the order of their political leaders, they have shown themselves to be unreliable,” the minister said.

According to Lavrov, any future market access would also depend on whether the companies would pose risks to sectors vital to Russia’s economy and security. The minister stressed that Russia is open to cooperation and has no intention to isolate itself. “We live on one small planet. It was Western-style to build Berlin Walls… We do not want to build any walls,” he said, referring to the symbol of the Cold War that split the German capital from 1961 to 1989. ”We want to work honestly, and if our partners are ready to do the same on the basis of equality and mutual respect, we are open to dialogue with everyone,” he said, pointing to the Alaska Summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart, Donald Trump, as an example of constructive engagement.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said, on Saturday, that Western businesses would be welcomed back if they had not supported the Ukrainian army and had met obligations to the state and their Russian staff, including paying due salaries. Putin this month also rejected isolationism, stressing that Russia would like to avoid closing itself off in a “national shell” as it would harm competitiveness. “We have never turned away or pushed anyone out. Those who want back in are welcome,” he added.

“.. the outcome would only slightly differ from the pre-conflict balance, when Ukraine itself acted as a buffer between Russia and NATO with “50% influence” each..”

• Orban Outlines EU Security ‘Guarantee’ Plan (RT)

Partitioning Ukraine into Russian and Western zones of influence is the likely outcome of the conflict and the only reliable guarantee of the EU’s security, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has said. Kiev has pressed its Western backers for security guarantees as a precondition for a settlement with Russia, first pushing for NATO membership and later floating ideas such as ‘peacekeepers’ and a buffer zone with Western military patrols. Moscow has rejected Ukrainian membership in NATO or Western troops on its territory, stressing that any settlement must include Kiev’s neutrality, demilitarization, and recognition of Crimea, Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, and Zaporozhye as Russian territory.

Orban, however, has suggested it is time for the West to acknowledge Russia’s “inevitable” military victory and to begin deciding how Ukraine should be partitioned. ”Europeans all so elegantly talk around security guarantees, but the security guarantee actually means the division of Ukraine,” Orban told guests at the annual Civic Picnic in Kotcse on Sunday. “The first step has already been taken – the Westerners have accepted that a Russian zone exists.” He referred to earlier remarks by US President Donald Trump that Ukraine regaining Crimea was “impossible.”“The result would be a Russian zone, a demilitarized zone and, eventually, a Western zone…The only question is how many kilometers away from the border of the Russian zone a demilitarized zone should be established,” he stated.

Orban noted the outcome would only slightly differ from the pre-conflict balance, when Ukraine itself acted as a buffer between Russia and NATO with “50% influence” each in the country. He said this division would help end the conflict and benefit all sides, particularly the EU, which he warned is on the verge of “collapse” and lacks the means to fund the conflict further. The Hungarian leader has long criticized Brussels over its “warmongering” stance on Russia and support for Ukraine. In his speech, he repeated his warning that Ukraine’s EU accession would trap the bloc in a permanent conflict with Moscow, calling instead for an EU-Russia security pact.

“.. they’re sanctuary cities and they’re releasing criminals every hour, so that’s where we’re going,” Homan said. “That’s where we’re going to flood the zone.”

• Democrats ‘Hate’ Trump More Than They ‘Love’ Their Communities – Homan (DS)

Trump administration border czar Tom Homan says Democrat leaders in sanctuary states and cities hate President Donald Trump more than they care for their communities. Homan spoke to the State Freedom Caucus Network Summit in Dallas, Texas, Friday night and reiterated the plan to deport illegal aliens in Chicago. While Democrats say Trump is targeting Democrat run cities for political reasons, Homan said that’s not the case. “It’s not because they’re blue, it’s because they’re sanctuary cities and they’re releasing criminals every hour, so that’s where we’re going,” Homan said. “That’s where we’re going to flood the zone.”

Weeks ago, Homan had said they will “flood the zone” with immigration enforcement in Chicago. Last month, Trump said he would send in the National Guard to address public safety, but later hedged that and insisted Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker call for help. Pritzker said he would not call Trump to ask for help, saying there is not an emergency. Saturday, Trump posted a graphic to Truth Social, depicting him as a character in the film Apocalypse Now, but it said “Chipocalypse Now,” “I love the smell of deportations in the morning” and “Chicago about to find out why it’s called the Department of WAR.” Pritzker posted on social media in response that “this is not a joke” and “this is not normal.”

Pritzker and other Democratic leaders also posted on social media over the weekend “know your rights” campaign messaging, with tips like remaining calm, denying entry without a warrant, remaining silent, and declining to sign anything. Homan tried to make sense of the Democrats’ resistance to cooperating with ICE. “They hate President Trump more than they love their communities, there’s no other reason,” Homan said. “I can’t think of why you would not join forces with us.” Illinois law prohibits state and local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration officials. State law also prohibits police from inquiring about an individual’s immigration status. Pritzker said if Trump deploys the National Guard in Chicago, they will immediately take the administration to court.

TOM HOMAN: “Joe Biden’s the first President in history of this nation who came in office and unsecured a border on purpose.”

Listen to the story Tom shares. So sad. pic.twitter.com/7T2qFS2dKM

— TONY™ (@TONYxTWO) September 8, 2025

Peter Thiel and four different names. That’s JD Vance.

• ‘The Politics Will Figure Itself Out’: JD Vance (Pero)

Vice President JD Vance joined “My View with Lara Trump” Saturday where he discussed everything from his best-selling book “Hillbilly Elegy” to whether he will run for president in 2028. Since it’s been 10 years since Vance wrote “Hillbilly Elegy,” he reminisced on his life before he became vice president of the United States. “I was raised by a grandmother who—we didn’t go to church a whole lot—but she prayed everyday. She read the Bible everyday, and she gave me this sense that there was some purpose to this. We might not understand it. God works in mysterious ways, but there was some deeper meaning to what we were experiencing, and that gave me the perseverance to go through it.” Vance said a major motivation for him growing up was knowing his grandmother was very sick and that someone was going to have to step up and hold the family together when she was gone.

“I kind of wanted that person to be me. I wanted to be the person in my family that other people could rely on.” Vance said his wife Usha Vance is starting to “hit her stride” as second lady, getting involved in projects like John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and children’s literacy. Usha is the anchor of their family, Vance said, and she’s making sure their children are having as normal a life as possible as their family’s life has drastically changed with Secret Service protection and living in the vice president’s residence. “This is really weird for the kids. This is really weird for the whole family unit. [Usha’s] main job more than anything else is just to make the kids have as normal a life as possible.

She makes us do normal family stuff as much as possible.” When it comes to working with President Donald Trump, Vance said there are so many surprising things. One surprise has been that Trump “doesn’t have an off switch.” “Sometimes the president will call you at 12:30 or 2:00 in the morning, and then he’ll call you at 6:00 in the morning about a totally different topic.” Trump is also very good about delegating work, empowering his people to do it, and also trusting them to do the work, Vance said. “What’s made this so much fun is that the president all the time is just saying, ‘JD, you go and do this,’ or ‘JD, you go and talk to these leaders about this particular issue … You don’t have to have me looking over you all the time.’”

When it comes to the 2028 presidential election, many people are viewing Vance as a top Republican candidate. Vance said there are a lot of great people and that if he does decide to run, the job won’t be handed to him “either on the Republican side or on the national side.” “I don’t like thinking about it because I like thinking about the job that I have right now,” Vance said. He added that he thinks ”the American people are so fed up with folks who are already running for the next job seven months into the current one.” “If we do a good job in 2025 and 2026, then we can talk about the politics in 2027,” Vance said. “I’m going to try to do my best job, and I think if I do that, the politics will figure itself out.”

“If we hadn’t won this election we would have all been vaxxed to death and censored so no one could hear our dying screams” — Mike Benz on “X”

• Days of Thunder (James Howard Kunstler)

That reckoning you’ve heard about lo these many years? It’s here now. We’re in it. You just can’t see all the moving parts, and if you did, you might not understand how or where they are moving, and what they are fixing to do next. Aside from certain US senators playing their pre-scripted mad scenes for the cameras, a disquieting quiet blankets the swamp like a miasma. It feels like a long, still moment before some shaking of the earth. Everyone senses it and the guilty must feel it most keenly.

That’s why they are laying low and keeping their traps shut. Every criminal defense lawyer inside the beltway is burning the midnight oil (and racking up the billable hours, ka-ching). Meanwhile, where are their clients? No longer peddling alibis on MSNBC (MSNOW), at least. I doubt that John Brennan is even in the country. My guess would be he’s cooling his heels in Abu Dhabi, where the extradition protocols with the USA remain comfortably squishy to his advantage. (He reportedly became a Muslim while running the CIA station in Riyadh between 1996-99, just in time for 9-11. . . hmmmm. . . .)

Hillary Clinton has been keeping her pie-hole closed for weeks now while rattling around that big house in Chappaqua, NY, like a BB in a packing crate. Is anyone counting the wine-boxes coming and going from the place? It must be maddening to be HRC — but that new extra edge of prosecution terror would just be larding the lily, considering what Vlad Putin learned about her mental state way back in 2016: deeply unstable. . .diabetic. . . on tranqs. . . often plastered. . . bursts of rage. . . . Comey and Clapper? No more cute pranks on the beach for Big Jim, 86 on the menacing messages in seashells and putting out Taylor Swift fan-boy Tik-toks. Was that some attempt to not be taken seriously? Like you’re some kind of overgrown, harmless child?

James Clapper, of course, would be voted most likely to flip on his compadres, if such a canvass were taken on Coup island. He was the first to publicly announce his lawyering-up in the Russia collusion affair. He never expected it would come to this, this ordeal of interrogation. . . his “good soldier” self plopped ignominiously in the witness chair. . . the odor of his own fear. . . the proffer (just tell us what really happened). . . the US attorneys appearing to leer at him, his house mortgaged to pay the attorney’s fees. . . what’s a poor boy to do. . . ?

Adam Schiff has gone radio silent. A miracle! Alas, the autopen pardon granted for his J-6 Committee doings apparently does not apply to matters such as mortgage fraud and wire fraud. He realizes with chills and sighs of despair that this ain’t no foolin’ around. People go to jail for these things. . . gulp! His attorney absolutely forbids any televised appeals to his fan-base, as if the glamorati of Rodeo Drive could do anything to stop what’s coming. Too bad Ed Buck and his magic checkbook are no longer around.

Even the seeming untouchables, Blinken, Jake Sullivan, Lisa Monaco, Norm Eisen, Mary McCord, Anrew Weissmann, Marc Elias must be listening hard for shoes to drop. They thought they had it made in the shade after 2020. They had the USA on a string, they thought. Home free. The trouble with the smarty-pants way of life is sometimes you out-smart yourself and your pants fall down. But all they can do in this late hour is induce a bunch of federal judges — recently imported from countries where justice means casting goat neckbones across the dusty floor of a mud hut — to gum up every executive action coming out of the White House with a poorly-argued TRO. They might as well be on a U-haul box truck throwing furniture off the back at a fleet of pursuing cop cars.

Mr. Trump is having sport with them now. Their crimes spanning the decade past are being bundled into one big coup case against the country, a color revolution on their own citizens and against “the democracy” that they never stop pretending to tout. If I am perceiving all this correctly, the days and weeks ahead will be as consequential a train of events as ever rolled down the tracks into Union Station, DC.

“.. even though a jury ruled that she lied about her rape allegations..”

“.. has reportedly accused at least six prior men of raping her..”

• Appeals Court Upholds E. Jean Carroll’s $83.3 Million Judgment Against Trump (ZH)

A federal appeals court has upheld a civil jury’s finding that President Donald Trump must pay $83.3 million to E. Jean Carroll for his repeated social media attacks against the longtime advice columnist after she accused him of sexual assault – even though a jury ruled that she lied about her rape allegations. Carroll, whose advice column ran in the women’s magazine Elle from 1993 to 2019, has reportedly accused at least six prior men of raping her, including former CBS President Les Moonves. Her bizarre social-media history also included posts making light of sexual trauma and even asking her followers if they found Trump sexually attractive. Trump was prevented from submitting that evidence in his trial.

In case you didn’t know, E Jean Carroll has accused many men of raping or sexually assaulting her…

Including a babysitter’s boyfriend, a dentist, a camp counselor, an unnamed college date, an unnamed boss and CBS chief executive Les Moonves – Per The National Pulse

This is why…

— Ryan Fournier (@RyanAFournier) January 27, 2024

Despite her dubious track record, on Monday the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Trump’s appeal of the defamation award, finding that the “jury’s damages awards are fair and reasonable.” Trump had argued that he should not have to pay the sum as a result of a Supreme Court decision expanding presidential immunity. His lawyers had asked for a new trial. A civil jury in Manhattan issued the $88.3 million award last year following a trial that centered on Trump’s repeated social media attacks against Carroll over her claims that he sexually assaulted her in a Manhattan department store in 1996. That award followed a separate trial, in which Trump was found liable for sexually abusing Carroll and ordered to pay $5 million.

That award was upheld by an appeals court last December. In a memoir, and again at a 2023 trial, Carroll described how a chance encounter with Trump at Bergdorf Goodman’s Fifth Avenue in 1996 started with the two flirting as they shopped, then ended with a violent struggle inside a dressing room. Carroll said Trump slammed her against a dressing room wall, pulled down her tights and forced himself on her. A jury found Trump liable for sexual assault, but concluded he hadn’t committed rape, as defined under New York law. Trump repeatedly denied that the encounter took place and accused Carroll of making it up to help sell her book. He also said that Carroll was “not my type.”

Lawfare at its finest.

“Solicitor General D. John Sauer said in the new application that this is the third time in this case that Ali “has issued an unlawful injunction that precipitates an unnecessary emergency and needless interbranch conflict.”

• Trump Admin Asks Supreme Court to Allow Withholding of Foreign Aid Funds (ET)

The Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Sept. 8 to permit it to withhold billions of dollars in foreign aid previously authorized by Congress. The Department of Justice (DOJ) asked the justices to pause a ruling by U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, who ordered the federal government to spend about $4 billion in previously appropriated funds. The money is earmarked for foreign aid and United Nations peacekeeping projects. The emergency application was filed in two cases, Trump v. Global Health Council, and U.S. Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalitions. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said in the new application that this is the third time in this case that Ali “has issued an unlawful injunction that precipitates an unnecessary emergency and needless interbranch conflict.”

In February, Ali gave the federal government 36 hours to pay roughly $2 billion in invoices for past foreign-aid work, which Sauer called “an impossible task,” and one that the judge lacked authority to order. The Supreme Court ended the dispute by granting an administrative stay, a court order that gives the justices more time to consider a matter. After the deadline was lifted, the government paid “virtually all of the contested amounts,” Sauer said. Next, Ali issued a “novel injunction requiring the government to obligate tens of billions of dollars in foreign-aid appropriations on the theory that failing to do so constituted an unlawful impoundment in violation of the Constitution and the Impoundment Control Act of 1974,” Sauer said. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit lifted that injunction and that court allowed its ruling to come into effect on Aug. 28, Sauer said.

Now that its original theory has been “decisively rejected,” the district court precipitated a new emergency “by issuing a version of the same injunction near midnight on September 3,” Sauer stated. Again, the district court is forcing the government to obligate about $10.5 billion in foreign-aid funding that was due to expire on Sept. 30, according to Sauer. But now the government has been left “with even less time for further review or compliance, with even more deficient legal theories,” Sauer said. Sauer said the government already intended to obligate $6.5 billion of that funding by Sept. 30, but Ali’s order regarding the remaining $4 billion “raises a grave and urgent threat to the separation of powers,” a constitutional doctrine that divides the government into three branches to prevent any single branch from accumulating too much power.

After the D.C. Circuit canceled Ali’s injunction, the president proposed rescinding that $4 billion in funding under the Impoundment Control Act. Under fast-track procedures, Congress has 45 days to consider the rescission request and during that period the president cannot be required to spend the money, Sauer said. Ali’s new injunction would compel the Executive Branch to begin “obligating those funds at breakneck speed to meet the September 30 deadline, even as Congress is considering the rescission proposal” and before Congress’s 45 days to do so elapse, Sauer said. A panel of the D.C. Circuit denied by a vote of 2–1 a stay of the judge’s order late on Sept. 5, Sauer added.

Also on Sept. 8, Global Health Council and other litigants that want the $4 billion to be released filed a brief opposing the government’s application for an administrative stay of Ali’s order. “The government’s theory that the agencies need not comply with enacted legislation mandating that they spend funds, because the President has unilaterally proposed legislation to rescind those statutory mandates, would fundamentally upend our constitutional structure,” the brief reads. It is unclear when the Supreme Court will act on the government’s application.

“The order, crafted to appease immigration activists, accused officers of running “roving patrols” and floated the idea that their actions violated the Fourth Amendment. But on Monday, the Supreme Court wasn’t buying it.”

• Another Tremendous Supreme Court Victory for Trump! (Margolis)

The Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a major victory on Monday, greenlighting his push for tougher immigration enforcement in Los Angeles. In a 6-3 ruling, the Court lifted a lower-court injunction that had barred federal agents from conducting raids without what the judge had called “reasonable suspicion.” With that order gone, Trump’s record-setting deportation efforts are back on track. The liberal justices predictably fumed in their dissent, warning of supposed risks to “constitutional freedoms,” blah, blah blah. But the conservative majority was having none of that garbage. For now, immigration agents can resume their sweeping operations while the case winds through the courts—a clear sign that Trump’s agenda won’t be derailed by activist judges.

Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in Monday’s decision that the lower court’s restraining order went too far in restricting how Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents could carry out stops or questioning of suspected unlawful migrants. “To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion,” he wrote. “However, it can be a ‘relevant factor’ when considered along with other salient factors.” The Supreme Court’s three liberal justices issued a strong dissent penned by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote that “countless people in the Los Angeles area have been grabbed, thrown to the ground, and handcuffed simply because of their looks, their accents, and the fact they make a living by doing manual labour.” “Today, the Court needlessly subjects countless more to these exact same indignities,” she wrote.

The decision undoes a ruling by US District Judge Maame E Frimpong in Los Angeles, who had said that there is a “mountain of evidence” showing the raids were violating the US Constitution. Back in July, Judge Frimpong tried to hamstring immigration enforcement by ordering Trump’s raids halted. His ruling claimed the administration couldn’t rely on “apparent race or ethnicity” or “speaking Spanish” as grounds for questioning someone. He even barred agents from acting based on whether individuals were found at bus stops, farms, or car washes—places long known as hubs for illegal labor. The order, crafted to appease immigration activists, accused officers of running “roving patrols” and floated the idea that their actions violated the Fourth Amendment. But on Monday, the Supreme Court wasn’t buying it.

The justices ruled 6-3, that Trump’s policies stand a strong chance of being upheld as constitutional, clearing the way for raids to continue. Trump’s crackdown began in June with large-scale raids in Los Angeles at places like Home Depot and other worksites. Predictably, activists launched protests that quickly spiraled into unrest. Trump responded by deploying nearly 2,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines after California’s Democrat leadership refused to act. This ruling is more than just a win for Trump—it’s a crushing humiliation for Gavin Newsom. The California governor spent weeks smugly touting the lower court injunction as proof that Trump had been reined in by the courts. He mocked the president, framing the lower-court order as a permanent roadblock to ICE enforcement, like this post on X that didn’t age well at all:

Justice prevailed today.

The court’s decision puts a temporary stop to federal immigration officials violating people’s rights and racial profiling.

California stands with the law and the Constitution — and I call on the Trump Administration to do the same. https://t.co/z63Paoi1Kq

— Governor Gavin Newsom (@CAgovernor) July 12, 2025

Now, with the Supreme Court’s decisive smackdown, Newsom is left looking foolish and powerless. His big talking point has evaporated overnight, replaced by the hard reality that Trump’s immigration agenda is moving forward stronger than ever.

“Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) is communism.”

• Is the Western World Degenerating Into Communism? (Paul Craig Roberts)

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) is communism. During the past year I have read on various websites articles that the West has become the Communist State that it once opposed. Various legitimate examples are offered: the use of law as a weapon as in Stalin’s show trials of the Bolsheviks who made the Russian Revolution; suppression of free speech and protest as all over the Western world; fake election results as in the 2020 US presidential election and in Europe by banning opposition candidates from running for office; focus on “foreign enemies” instead of the domestic institutionalization of tyranny; designation of Trump’s supporters as domestic enemies and insurrectionists. As of yet, no one has put all of these concerns into one formula. Allow me to try.

For 60 years liberals have transitioned the United States from merit to race and gender based entitlements. The United States, whose foundational basis is English common law and the accountability of government achieved by the English Glorious Revolution of 1680, has been beset by progressives and liberals for many decades for being a society based on merit and equality under law. Equality under law requires just that and thus prohibits DEI-based preferences. A merit-based society allows and encourages those best able and qualified to take the leading positions. But this excludes those less capable and, thereby, violates “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” which the liberal-left has raised as the new standard. The “solution” is to put the less capable in charge.

This requires demonizing merit as “racist” which has resulted in merit no longer being the requirement for admissions to Ivy League universities and formerly merit-based high schools. Instead, admission is based on racial privilege. Progressives and liberals since the regime of Franklin D. Roosevelt have succeeded in elevating DEI above merit, today dismissed as “white racism.” The entire purpose of the Democrat Party is to destroy a merit-based society. Trump is hated by the liberal-left for trying to restore a merit-based society. For the liberal-left merit is discriminatory and thereby racist. To escape racism, DEI must supplant merit as the basis of American society. DEI is the Democrat Party’s weapon to overthrow a merit-based society. Communism precludes incomes, influence, and status based on merit in theory but not in practice.

In practice, Communist Party membership was the ladder to upward mobility. But for ideologues it is theory that counts. Under communism equality regardless of merit is the standard. Capitalistic, bourgeois society is based on merit with income, influence, and status based on success. Therefore a merit-based society precludes equal results. A merit-based society is “unfair” in the modern parlance. A fair society is one in which merit receives no reward and is handicapped by preferences for those who are without merit. Kurt Vonnegut describes the liberal-left ideal in his short story, “Harrison Bergeron.” Vonnegut thought it would be 2081 before the American liberal-left would be able to establish the Cabinet Department of Handicapper General. But the transition began in 1965 when the EEOC stood the 1964 Civil Rights Act on its head and imposed racial preferences for blacks known as “affirmative action.”

These preferences were explicitly prohibited by the 1964 Civil Right Act. But the American liberal-left elevated its ideological agenda above the law. Such a society will, of course, be mediocre and a laggard in intellectual and cultural advancement. But as such advancements are merit-based, they don’t count. DEI is achieved when individual achievement becomes a criminal offense against society. In Vonnegut’s story, Harrison Bergeron is shot by the Handicapper General. I once read a science fiction story in which at a certain age children were tested for intelligence. If their intelligence was above the norm, they were terminated. Already today September 8th, 2025, we have laws or regulations that penalize merit-based admission, hiring, and promotion decisions and criminalize disagreement with some official narratives, such as the Holocaust.

Various Democrat cities have passed laws that give legal immunities to non-whites. Yet the West continues to claim free speech–obviously a false claim–and to redefine equality under law as equality of result. As free speech guaranteed by the American Constitution is now impermissible, how does truth survive? As truth is impermissible, how can good decisions be made? As recent decades have made completely clear, good decisions cannot be made in the Western world. Enemies are created instead of peace. Law breakers are protected while their victims are punished. Borders are undefended at the expense of the ethnic citizens of the country. As the immigrant invasions continue, the more entitlement takes over from merit and the less Western governments represent their ethnic base. Thus we have arrived at The Camp of the Saints.

“The solution they’ve crafted draws inspiration from an unlikely source—a 2023 proposal by Democrat Amy Klobuchar that would allow up to 10 nominees from the same committee to be confirmed together.”

• Chuck Schumer Tested FAFO and the GOP Will Make Him Pay the Price (Margolis)

Chuck Schumer is about to learn the hard way what happens when you block and stall for too long. After seven months of throwing a tantrum and holding up more than 100 of President Trump’s nominees, the Senate Minority Leader’s obstruction has finally pushed Republicans to the breaking point. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has had enough, and he’s preparing to unleash the nuclear option to break Schumer’s blockade, ram through confirmations, and get Trump’s team in place before the September 19 recess. In Washington, this is FAFO politics at its finest—Schumer tested his luck, and now he’s about to pay the price.

As PJ Media previously reported back in August, Thune has warned that Republicans would change the rules if Democrats refused to cooperate on speeding up confirmations. Schumer chose to ignore those warnings, apparently believing he could continue his obstruction indefinitely without consequences. That calculation is about to prove spectacularly wrong. After negotiations with Democrats predictably went nowhere, Thune assembled a working group in August featuring Republican Senators Katie Britt, James Lankford, Ron Johnson, Eric Schmitt, and Ted Budd. Their mission was simple: find a way around the Democratic roadblock. The solution they’ve crafted draws inspiration from an unlikely source—a 2023 proposal by Democrat Amy Klobuchar that would allow up to 10 nominees from the same committee to be confirmed together.

The Republican version promises to be far more comprehensive, removing artificial caps on how many nominees the Senate can confirm simultaneously. While judges and Cabinet nominees would remain exempt from this streamlined process, the change represents a fundamental shift in how the Senate handles executive branch confirmations. Schumer’s obstruction strategy has been as petty as it is unprecedented. He openly told The Wall Street Journal that he would instruct his entire caucus to vote against every single Trump nominee, effectively grinding the confirmation process to a halt. In August, he actually bragged about his caucus’s commitment to delaying Trump’s confirmations as long as humanly possible.

The numbers show just how far Democrats have taken their obstruction campaign. Trump is now the first president since Herbert Hoover—almost 100 years ago—to have zero civilian nominees confirmed by voice vote or unanimous consent in the early months of his term. That’s not politics as usual; that’s pure spite. Of course, Chuck Schumer is out there defending this nonsense, claiming Trump’s picks are somehow “flawed” or “unqualified.” That’s rich coming from the party that shoved through Xavier Becerra, Pete Buttigieg, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—not to mention a slew of judicial nominees who couldn’t answer basic questions about the law. Republicans have seen this game before, and it looks like they’re finally ready to call Schumer’s bluff. For context, during Trump’s first term, 65 percent of his civilian nominees were approved by voice vote or unanimous consent. Biden managed 57 percent.

Today, only Secretary of State Marco Rubio has slipped past the Democrats’ blockade. That tells you everything you need to know about how shamelessly the left is weaponizing the confirmation process. Republicans aren’t thrilled about using the nuclear option, fully aware that this rule change will eventually benefit Democrats when they next control both the Senate and White House. But make no mistake: this is the inevitable result of the Democrats’ years-long weaponization of the confirmation process, dating back to George W. Bush’s presidency. If the nuclear option is invoked, it’s on them. Chuck Schumer built this trap with nothing but raw partisan spite, and now he’s about to feel the consequences. The nuclear option is coming, and it’s entirely his doing.

“The Speaker is reiterating what the victims’ attorney said, which is that Donald Trump — who kicked Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago — was the only one, more than a decade ago, willing to help prosecutors expose Epstein for being a disgusting child predator..”

• Did Johnson Really Say Trump Was an Informant Against Epstein? (Margolis)

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) dropped a bombshell last week, only to take a cautious step back just days later. When CNN’s Manu Raju pressed him on President Donald Trump’s use of the word “hoax” regarding the controversy over the Epstein files, Johnson said that the president had once acted as an FBI informant against Jeffrey Epstein — a fresh detail in the saga. “What Trump is referring to is the hoax that the Democrats are using to try to attack him,” Johnson explained. “He has never said or suggested or implied; I’ve talked to him about this many times, many times. He is horrified. It’s been misrepresented. He’s not saying that what Epstein did is a hoax. It’s a terrible, unspeakable evil. He believes that himself.”

Johnson also recalled Trump’s decision years ago to ban Epstein from Mar-a-Lago, and that’s when he made the claim. “When he first heard the rumor, he kicked him out of Mar-a-Lago. He was an FBI informant to try to take this stuff down,” Johnson said, effectively revealing for the first time that Trump had cooperated with federal authorities in efforts to stop Epstein. On Sunday, Johnson’s office tried to clarify the remarks with a carefully worded statement. “The Speaker is reiterating what the victims’ attorney said, which is that Donald Trump — who kicked Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago — was the only one, more than a decade ago, willing to help prosecutors expose Epstein for being a disgusting child predator,” Johnson’s office said, according to a report from the Washington Post.

We already knew that Trump was one of the few people willing to stand against Epstein’s depravity, but the revelation that Trump was an informant was a game-changing new detail. It’s not lost on me that the statement the Washington Post printed doesn’t actually retract the claim, but it doesn’t double down on it either. For years, Democrats have tried to turn the Epstein saga into a Trump scandal because they know many of their own allies have deep ties to Epstein. When they controlled the White House and Congress, they did squat about releasing Epstein files or pursuing real transparency. The Epstein scandal suddenly became the Left’s favored weapon only after Biden’s administration ignored it for so long. Now, they want to drag it out as a smear against Trump in the hopes of creating a distraction to derail his second term. Classic political maneuvering.

Johnson’s “informant” comment touched a nerve because it challenged the left’s carefully constructed lie. Did Trump formally inform on Epstein, or did he simply cooperate with authorities? The difference might matter to the media vultures and political spin doctors, but the real takeaway is Trump’s stance against Epstein, which includes kicking him out of Mar-a-Lago for inappropriate behavior and assisting authorities in exposing Epstein. Whether or not he was an actual FBI informant is unclear, but the Democrats still look foolish trying to make Epstein a Trump scandal.

Just yesterday, another German report claimed it was Ukrainians. The particular novelty this time (every report needs one) is that it claims Zaluzhny was in charge.

Why do they do this? To cast doubt on Seymour Hersh’s report. They never say he’s wrong, or even mention him, it’s just an endless stream of “different” stories.

• Elite UK Divers Likely Behind Nord Stream Sabotage – Patrushev (RT)

The sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines could not have been carried out without Western commandos, a top aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin has claimed, singling out Britain as the likely culprit. German prosecutors have attributed the explosions in international waters in September 2022, which disabled the twin pipelines supplying Russian gas to Germany via the Baltic Sea, to a group of Ukrainian nationals. In an article published Sunday in Kommersant, the former head of Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB), Nikolay Patrushev, argued that Ukrainians lack the expertise to carry out this complex operation independently.

The sabotage was likely “planned, overseen, and executed with the involvement of highly trained NATO special forces,” Patrushev wrote, adding that the perpetrators were experienced in deep-sea operations and familiar with working in the Baltic.“Few armies or intelligence services have divers capable of executing such an operation correctly and, above all, covertly. One unit with the necessary skills is the British Special Boat Service,” he said. Founded during World War II, the SBS is the Royal Navy’s elite squad specializing in amphibious warfare. Russia has criticized the German investigation for a lack of transparency and for not including the Russian authorities. In 2024, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service claimed it had “credible information” that the US and UK were directly involved in the sabotage, a claim denied by both London and Washington.

Never deleting this app. pic.twitter.com/HBEvEDWQ9h

— Mila Joy (@MilaLovesJoe) September 7, 2025

16% of the World’s Population Carries 100% of the Diversity Burden. Why?

Why is mass immigration and forced diversity pushed only on Western nations — but never demanded of Japan, China, or Saudi Arabia?

Why are we told to erase our traditions while others protect theirs… pic.twitter.com/XD5gJA8lp0

— Lisa Robinson (@LifelibertyLisa) September 8, 2025

WOW: RFK Jr. reveals the CDC found that a vaccine's autism risk was HIGHER than smoking is for lung cancer. The CDC hid the findings. pic.twitter.com/eF0AydUQdd

— Died Suddenly (@DiedSuddenly_) September 8, 2025

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1964729425863282789

fauci

Dr. Anthony Fauci’s pardon was approved at 10:30 p.m. by Biden’s White House Chief of Staff, Jeff Zients, using the president’s autopen.
pic.twitter.com/tcQ9sjaJvk

— Johnny Midnight ⚡️ (@its_The_Dr) September 7, 2025

https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1964927875116925373
https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1965081470231511305

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

Debt Rattle July 9 2025

Jul 092025

July 9, 2025 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 9:44 am Finance Tagged with: blackout risk, Brennan, Comey, DOGE, Farm Security Plan, headline, missiles, omniwar, Planned Parenthood, Supreme Court, Trump, Von der Leyen 66 Responses »

Pablo Picasso Coffee maker 1943

• Trump Wanted A Perfect War, A Headline Showstopper (Alastair Crooke)

• Trump Admits Ukraine Conflict Difficult To Tackle (RT)

• Trump Promises Zelensky Ten Missiles – Axios (RT)

• Trump Confirms Arms For Ukraine U-Turn Days After Pentagon Halts Delivery (ZH)

• Trump Isn’t Doing Anything Unprecedented (Victor Davis Hanson)

• Omniwar – Weaponization of Everything – Catherine Austin Fitts (USAW)

• Brennan, Comey Under Criminal Investigation for Trump–Russia Hoax (Margolis)

• Obama Judge Blocks Defunding of c in OBBB (Margolis)

• Supreme Court Reverses Judge’s Move Blocking Trump’s DOGE Executive Order (DS)

• Supreme Court Tells Judge to Fall in Line (von Spakovsky)

• Von der Leyen Hides Truth About Vaccine Purchases – Russian Envoy (Sp.)

• Von der Leyen Blames Russia For No-Confidence Motion (RT)

• Trump Admin Unveils National Farm Security Plan On Foreign Ownership (JTN)

• US Energy Generation Retirements Increase Blackout Risk by 100x in 2030 (ET)

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

pic.twitter.com/gOhS4DCoUn

— 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
https://twitter.com/GenFlynn/status/1942533757543616569

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
https://twitter.com/CL4WS_OUT/status/1942698399444169032

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

Debt Rattle June 24 2025

Jun 242025

June 24, 2025 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 8:08 am Finance Tagged with: ceasefire, Deepfake Informational Barbarism, Green Agenda, Supreme Court, Trump, unipolar control, Wikileaks 63 Responses »

Rembrandt van Rijn The artist’s son Titus 1657

• If Israel Holds Fire, So Will Iran: Fighting ‘Until The Very Last Minute’ (ZH)

• Rope-a-Dope Warfighting Strategy (Helmer)

• The Key Nuclear Allegation That Started The War (Alastair Crooke)

• Hollywood Seeded Iran War Narrative For Years – Wikileaks (RT)

• The West’s Four Main Lies About Iran and Israel (Jay)

• No Justification For Attack On Iran – Putin (RT)

• Boom (James Howard Kunstler)

• War On Iran Is Fight For US Unipolar Control Of World (Michael Hudson)

• ‘No Military Solutions’ to Israel–Iran Crisis – Egypt (RT)

• Moscow Warns of Deepfake ‘Informational Barbarism’ (RT)

• Why the Public Needs Answers on Biden’s Alleged Incapacity (Turley)

• Zelensky Has A Nazi Problem. He Can’t Lie His Way Out Of It (Amar)

• Green Agenda Is Killing Europe’s Ancestry (Constantin Von Hoffmeister)

• Supreme Court Hands Trump Huge Win On Deporting ‘Worst’ Illegals (ZH)

Brilliant analysis.
Israel is kinda fucked. Last year I said it wouldn't exist in 10 years. Now I think it won't be here in 5 years. pic.twitter.com/5DG2t9J1g1

— Kerry Burgess (@KerryBurgess) June 22, 2025

Money

.@DougAMacgregor and I are friends and while we don’t always agree on everything, this interview regarding THE TRUTH must be listened to by every American who cares about America’s Future. The American people CAN handle THE TRUTH and ARE willing to sacrifice IF they are told THE… https://t.co/jksFlWPQP8

— General Mike Flynn (@GenFlynn) June 23, 2025

MTG

Gaetz Explains It All to You pic.twitter.com/YJApgoC0Eq

— Grace Chong, MBI (@gc22gc) June 22, 2025

And therein lies the problem….. The next move is not Trump's to make, it's the Iranians' choice.

If Iran attacks U.S. military bases, Trump is pulled into a regional conflict beyond what most have contemplated, and that would be a fundamental break in his prior promises.… https://t.co/7QjQxZI9u3

— TheLastRefuge (@TheLastRefuge2) June 23, 2025

Who is hurt the most by closing the Strait of Hormuz? pic.twitter.com/rURORR36Jr

— Ryan Dawson (@RyLiberty) June 23, 2025

Alex

President Trump has publicly endorsed REGIME CHANGE in Iran, breaking his promised to the American people and pushing the planet to the edge of a NUCLEAR WORLD WAR!!! pic.twitter.com/equnZi7tNc

— Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) June 23, 2025

Poso
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1937165649899602062

The first hours of the Trump-induced ceasefire have been confusing. But expect Trump to put his foot down, until he can’t. And then if he can blame Iran.

• If Israel Holds Fire, So Will Iran: Fighting ‘Until The Very Last Minute’ (ZH)

Update(2200ET): The ceasefire is going to be shaky and likely difficult to maintain given that right up until the very moment it is to go into effect Tehran was on the receiving end of very intense Israeli warplane attacks. And Iran’s Foreign Minister too said Iran hit back overnight: “The military operations of our powerful Armed Forces to punish Israel for its aggression continued until the very last minute, at 4am. Together with all Iranians, I thank our brave Armed Forces who remain ready to defend our dear country until their last drop of blood, and who responded to any attack by the enemy until the very last minute,” said FM Araghchi on X. IRANIAN TELEVISION: ISRAEL ASSASSINATED NUCLEAR SCIENTIST MOHAMMAD REZA SIDDIQI IN ITS RECENT ATTACKS But shortly before that above latest statement, there was this by the top Iranian diplomat:

It’s anything but certain whether it will hold, but likely the White House is putting pressure on Tel Aviv to at least play nice for now, so Trump can take his ‘victory lap’ and declare mission accomplished. And yet, the status of Iran’s uranium enrichment stockpile is unknown. The status of the ceasefire itself may not become clear until the daylight hours…

Update: Fox is reporting, “President Trump spoke with Qatar’s Emir and informed him the U.S. got Israel to agree to a ceasefire with Iran. The President asked Qatar to help persuade Iran to do the same, following that Vice President Vance coordinated with Qatar’s Prime Minister on the details. This effort proved successful and, following discussions with the Qatari PM, the Iranians agreed. The deal was coordinated at the highest level by the President and Vice President and the Qatari Emir and Prime minister directly.” “Despite having been attacked just hours earlier, the Qataris set aside their grievances and prioritized regional security to get the deal done,” this source added. Reuters is reporting that Iran has agreed to the ceasefire, which at the very least will provide a respite to the tit-for-tat missiles. More from Reuters:

• Qatar Brokered Iran’s Ceasefire Deal After U.S. Request
• Qatari PM secured Tehran’s approval following Trump’s outreach to Emir after Iran’s strike on U.S. base.
• Doha played key role in halting Israel-Iran conflict
* * *

Update: Shortly after 6pm, futures jumped and oil slumped even more in one of its biggest intraday reversals on record, after Trump announced on his Truth Social account that Iran and Israel had “fully agreed” to a “Complete and Total ceasefire” which will takes place at approximately midnight ET, “when Israel and Iran have wound down and completed their in progress, final missions”, and will last for 12 hours, at which time Trump says that “War will be considered, ENDED!”

The president adds that “on the assumption that everything works as it should, which it will, I would like to congratulate both Countries, Israel and Iran, on having the Stamina, Courage, and Intelligence to end, what should be called, “THE 12 DAY WAR.” This is a War that could have gone on for years, and destroyed the entire Middle East, but it didn’t, and never will! God bless Israel, God bless Iran, God bless the Middle East, God bless the United States of America, and GOD BLESS THE WORLD!”

“We may forget the words of our enemies, but never the silence of our friends..”

• Rope-a-Dope Warfighting Strategy (Helmer)

When Muhammad Ali famously demonstrated the rope-a-dope strategy in the Zaire title bout against George Forman in October 1974, he allowed Foreman to start attacking him against the ropes in Round 3. By Round 7 Foreman had exhausted his punching strength. In Round 8, Foreman dropped his guard, and Ali counterattacked with a combination of punches which knocked Foreman out. Watch carefully how it was done in seven punches, eight seconds. According to General Daniel Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the US has knocked out Iran’s nuclear enrichment and nuclear weapon preparation plants with “extremely severe destruction”; “completely and totally”, according to President Donald Trump.

The punches were delivered by “tactical surprise”, Caine has announced, with a “deception effort known only to an extremely small number of planners and key leaders here in Washington.” He said the “strike packages” comprised more than 125 aircraft and one submarine. They fired 16 GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bombs, more than 24 Tomahawk missiles, and a total of 75 precision-guided weapons at three land targets – Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. According to Caine’s report, no Iranian shot was fired against the US attackers as they flew on to these targets nor “on the way out.” Instead, “decoys” and “preemptive suppressing fires” were launched. “Iran’s fighters did not fly,” Caine claims, “and it appears that Iran’s surface-to-air missile systems did not see us. Throughout the mission we retained the element of surprise.”

The entire operation took 25 minutes. That’s the equivalent in the boxing ring of seven rounds. Iran reports the US had telegraphed its punches with advance notice that the bombing raid would be restricted to the three land targets. Knocking out the Iranian leadership, including military and civilian leaders, plus Ayatollah Ali Kamenei, has been denied by Vice President JD Vance, then reasserted by Trump. “No other military in the world,” said Caine, “could have done this.”

Iran has not acknowledged that rope-a-dope is its warfighting strategy. As Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi prepares for his meetings on Monday with Russian officials, including President Vladimir Putin, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) has issued a warning to Russia and China that they are failing to do enough to meet longstanding assistance promises and treaty obligations. “We may forget the words of our enemies, but never the silence of our friends,” the IRGC media platform Sepahi News has announced just after midnight on Monday morning (June 23). “After going through this sensitive situation, there will undoubtedly be a serious review of relations with some countries.” The text was accompanied by a picture of Putin and China’s President Xi Jinping together at a ceremony shaking hands.

The former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, spokesman for the Security Council, has issued a personal declaration supporting Iran’s war against both the US and Israel, and implying not only that Israel is losing the war, but also there is Kremlin backing for the Iranian nuclear weapons programme. “The critical infrastructure of the nuclear cycle appears not to have been damaged or even slightly affected. The enrichment of nuclear materials, and now we can say it, the future production of nuclear weapons, will continue. A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their nuclear ammunition. Israel is under attack — thundering explosions, people in panic. The United States is drawn into a new conflict with the prospect of a ground operation. The Iranian political regime has been preserved, and with a high degree of probability it has become stronger.”

“With such successes,” added Medvedev for the General Staff and intelligence services, “[we don’t see] Trump [winning] the Nobel Peace Prize, despite the utter venality of this nomination. Good start — congratulations, Mr. President!” This is Russian for rope-a-dope.

“..was coaxed from a Palantir counter-intelligence algorithm..”

• The Key Nuclear Allegation That Started The War (Alastair Crooke)

The sudden claim of Iran being very close to a bomb (that seemingly jumped out of ‘nowhere’ to leave Americans puzzling how could it happen that – in the blink of eye, we are going to war – was subsequently refuted by IAEA Chief Grossi to CNN on 17 June (but only after the abrupt attack on Iran already had taken place): “We did not have any evidence of a systematic effort [by Iran] to move to a nuclear weapon”, Grossi confirmed on CNN. This statement drew the following riposte from Iran by its Foreign Ministry Spokesman, Esmaeil Baqaei on 19 June: “This is too late, Mr. Grossi – you obscured this truth in your absolutely biased report that was instrumentalized by E3/U.S. to craft a resolution with baseless allegation of [Iranian] ‘non-compliance’; the same resolution was then utilized, as a final pretext, by a genocidal warmongering regime to wage a war of aggression on Iran and to launch an unlawful attack on our peaceful nuclear facilities. Do you know how many innocent Iranians have been killed/maimed as a result of this criminal war? You turned IAEA into a tool of convenience for non-NPT members to deprive NPT members of their basic right under Article 4. Any clear conscience?!”.

To which Dr Ali Larijani, Advisor to the Supreme Leader, added: “When the war ends, we will hold the director of the IAEA, Rafael Grossi, accountable”. What they are saying: The Russian Foreign Ministry’s Statement, in relation to the escalation of the Iranian-Israeli conflict – “It was precisely these “sympathisers” [EU3] who exerted pressure on the leadership of the [IAEA] Agency to prepare a controversial “comprehensive assessment” of Iran’s nuclear programme, the flaws of which were subsequently exploited to push through a biased anti-Iran resolution at the IAEA Board of Governors on 12 June [2025]. This resolution effectively provided a green light to actions by West Jerusalem, leading to tragedy” [i.e. to the sneak attack on the immediate day after, 13 June].

Behind the scenes: The underpinnings to the 12 June 2025 IAEA Resolution – giving pretext for Israel to strike Iran (and crafted to sway President Trump to dismiss his own Director of National Intelligence’s warnings that there was no evidence of Iran moving towards weaponisation) – reportedly were drawn not from Mossad or other western intelligence services, but from IAEA software. As DD Geo-politics outlines, since 2015, the IAEA has relied on Palantir’s Mosaic platform, a $50-million AI system that sifts through millions of data points – satellite imagery, social media, personnel logs – to predict nuclear threats:

“Iran’s stockpile [of enriched uranium] had been growing steadily for months—yet the narrative of an imminent breakthrough surged only after the IAEA’s censure on June 6, 2025. That resolution, adopted 19–3, provided Israel the diplomatic cover it needed. Palantir’s Mosaic platform played a critical role in this pivot. Its data shaped the May 31 report, flagging anomalies at Fordow and Lavisan-Shian, and recycling prior allegations from Turquzabad—despite years-old Iranian denials and sabotage … Mosaic was conceived originally to identify insurgent activity in Iraq and Afghanistan”.

Its algorithm looks to identify and infer ‘hostile intent’ from indirect indicators – metadata, behavioral patterns, signal traffic – not from confirmed evidence. In other words, it postulates what suspects may be thinking, or planning. On 12 June, Iran leaked documents, which it claimed showed IAEA chief Rafael Grossi sharing Mosaic outputs with Israel. By 2018, Mosaic had processed more than 400 million discrete data objects and had helped impute suspicion to over 60 Iranian sites such as to justify unannounced IAEA inspections of those sites, under the JCPOA. These outputs, though dependent largely on the algorithmic equations, were incorporated into formal IAEA safeguard reports and were widely accepted by UN member states and non-proliferation regimes as credible, evidence-based assessments. Mosaic however is not a passive system. It is trained to infer from its algorithm hostile intent, but when repurposed for nuclear oversight, its equations risk translating simple correlation into malicious intent.

“Assange recalled that the opening scene depicts Iranian scientists in Tehran assembling a bomb, with one character stating that the device could be operational within six months. “How is it that such a lie got into a script about Wikileaks?” Assange asked..”

• Hollywood Seeded Iran War Narrative For Years – Wikileaks (RT)

Screenwriters in Hollywood who “say they are Jewish” have been planting pro-war narratives about Iran in mainstream entertainment for more than a decade, Wikileaks has claimed. Israel launched airstrikes on Iran earlier this month, claiming Tehran was close to creating a nuclear weapon. Over the weekend, the US also directly joined the conflict by bombing Iranian nuclear facilities.In a post on X on Sunday, Wikileaks stated that Hollywood writers “who say they are Jewish” have been “planting the mental seeds for war with Iran for years,” citing productions such as Top Gun: Maverick, Homeland, 24, and The Fifth Estate. The group shared a clip of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange’s speech at Oxford Union from 2013. In the video, he discussed The Fifth Estate – a biographical drama about Wikileaks – which opens with a side plot about a fictional Iranian nuclear bomb project.

Assange recalled that the opening scene depicts Iranian scientists in Tehran assembling a bomb, with one character stating that the device could be operational within six months. “How is it that such a lie got into a script about Wikileaks?” Assange asked, noting that at the time, 16 US intelligence agencies had already found that Tehran did not have a nuclear weapons program. “It is an attack against Iran,” Assange said, claiming that the scene “fans the flames to start a war with Iran” and served the interests of the “people in the system that want the war.” Prior to Israel’s latest strikes, both the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and US intelligence agencies stated there was no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Nevertheless, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has continued to insist that Tehran was on the brink of creating a bomb – a claim he has repeated for decades.

Hollywood script writers who say they are 'Jewish' have been planting the mental seeds for war with Iran for years, including in Top Gun Maverick, Homeland, 24, and in the DreamWorks film on Julian Assange 'The Fifth Estate'. Excerpt from Oxford Union speech, 30 January 2013.… pic.twitter.com/mVfsTQKW5e

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) June 22, 2025

At the UN General Assembly in 2012, he infamously used a cartoon bomb illustration to warn that Iran was “months away” from a nuclear weapon, and made comparable statements throughout the 1990s and 2000s. Israel’s attack has drawn international condemnation, including from Russia, which has said the strikes were illegal. Russian President Vladimir Putin has called the operation “an unprovoked aggression.”US involvement in Israel’s campaign has also drawn criticism, with Moscow comparing it to the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq War, which was started over false claims of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.US President Donald Trump’s decision to strike Iran has also met pushback from inside the White House. According to Reuters, Vice President J.D. Vance – an Iraq War veteran – opposed joining the Israeli offensive and warned during internal discussions that Israel was dragging the US into another war.

“Most of what we see on Sky News and BBC is packaged by the IDF’s media department whose main job is to distort the realities on the ground.”

• The West’s Four Main Lies About Iran and Israel (Jay)

The Iran talks in Geneva with EU foreign ministers started and yet few, if any, Middle East pundits could have predicted the outcome of Trump’s bunker buster bombs on nuclear sites in Iran. Until he did this, one could argue, that was is scope still for a deal with the Iranians which would either completely stop their enriched uranium program or, at the very least, have it run by weapons inspectors of the UN and perhaps even a western company reporting directly to the Americans. That at least must have been the thinking. And yet this is the biggest miscalculation as it is impossible now for the Iranians to ever think about a deal. Was the deal genuine in the first place, many will ask.

This may seem far-fetched but so far it’s important to remember that most of what we read in western media is absolute garbage cultivated by Israel’s fake news operation which more or less provides all the data and so-called victories each day to Sky News, leaving the man in the street misinformed at best. Trump’s two-week deadline was of course stupid and was never going to be respected and was just a ruse to trick the Iranians. Yet here are the four main lies which western media pump out on a daily basis to support Israel and the Americans.Israel has made huge progress with its military campaign at controlling Iran. This is really not true at all. If they had and we are to believe Trump’s claims of having total air dominancy why pause at this point for peace talks?

Most of what we see on Sky News and BBC is packaged by the IDF’s media department whose main job is to distort the realities on the ground. While the F35 jets Israel used made great progress in their campaign they have lost at least three with the pilots held by Iran. Little is reported of this by western media. In addition, there is no credible reporting whatsoever on Iran’s victories inside Israel as many outlets simply miss it out entirely when giving their big screen presentations. It is inconceivable that Iran has not hit some military installations which would explain why all of Israel’s aircraft are out of the country. While it is true that the first strike by Israel had a huge impact, especially by killing top commanders, Iran soon recovered and got on with the job at hand.

It would take a massive operation of perhaps up to 2 million soldiers on the ground to even contemplate taking over the country. Iran is not Iraq. While Israeli jets continue to destroy a number of installations, some of whom were decoys mocked up by the Iranians, the destruction by Iran in Israel can’t go on at its present rate, which explains why Israel agreed to the talks as they hope it might lead to Iran pulling back. Iran doesn’t need to win the war. It just needs to bleed Israel of its resources.

Iran has a nuclear bomb or is in the process of making one. This is perhaps the biggest lie of all and has even been debunked by America’s own director of national intelligence, which of course Trump refuses to accept. We’re now repeating history of U.S. wars started by total bullshit – Iraq, Afghanistan going right back to the Vietnam war where a missile strike against a U.S. warship was faked to justify going in. The U.S. even claimed that Gadaffi had WMDs all proved to be wrong. Trump will go ahead with bombing if he doesn’t get a deal. In the event, this is what happened, or so it would seem by western media accounts. But we should not rush to conclusions as there is a distinct possibility that Trump has bluffed the Israelis, the Iranians and even the American people.

Did he really go ahead with the bunker buster strikes as it is presented to us by media? Did he get informed by his own intel people that the Iranians were about to shift the centrifuges out of those sites? Or had already done so. In this scenario, the hasty bombing scores a number of points for him as he comes out a winner in the short term on all sides even though he was forced to do it to save face. The pressure is now on him and Netanyahu who could both end up with egg on their faces in the coming days as Iran chokes the Persian Gulf shipping and looks for soft targets in the region. Trump does not like to take big decisions which he knows he can’t change at the drop of a hat so the bombing of the nuclear sites should be interpreted not as an easy decision but more of a last resort.

His own Pentagon goons must have told him “it’s damn easy to start a war with Iran, but getting out of one will be tough”. Also, the strategy of bombing the underground nuclear facilities may well come with some blowback which he has miscalculated. What does Israel and the U.S. do after they have done this? Will Iran wheel out the bigger, heavier rockets which they have been saving until now and obliterate Israel? Will they strike U.S. allies in the region and even U.S. forces? Pushed to this extreme it is likely they will do all this and block the Straits of Hormuz. Does Trump want a full on war with Iran? Netanyahu would certainly welcome it with the U.S. involved at the highest level, but Trump does not.

“..the visit was needed for “closer, more precise, and more serious consultations” with Russia..”

• No Justification For Attack On Iran – Putin (RT)

Israeli and US hostilities against Iran are groundless and unjustifiable, Russian President Vladimir Putin has told Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in an expression of support. Araghchi, who landed in Moscow on Monday, said earlier that the visit was needed for “closer, more precise, and more serious consultations” with Russia in the wake of the US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities this past weekend. During the meeting at the Kremlin, Putin described the attacks on Iran as “an unprovoked aggression,” for which “there can be no justification.” The actions of Israel and the US are “illegitimate” and violate international norms, he added.

The Russian leader noted that he was glad to see Araghchi in Moscow, saying that his visit would allow Russia and Iran “to discuss these pressing issues and jointly think about a way out of the current situation.” Araghchi agreed with Putin’s assessment, saying that “Russia today stands on the right side of history and international law.” By striking targets in Israel, Iran is defending its sovereignty in a legitimate way, the diplomat stressed. Israel and the US explained their attacks on Iran by claiming that Tehran was on the brink of obtaining a nuclear weapon. The Iranian authorities have repeatedly insisted that that they are not working on a bomb, while defending their right to pursue a peaceful nuclear program.

Jim likes Trump’s original story.

“In eight days, the United States and Israel eliminated Iran’s nuclear capabilities with minimal civilian casualties. One of the greatest military achievements ever.” — Bill Ackman

• Boom (James Howard Kunstler)

Of course, you must expect a whole lot of deranged thinking after the USA’s Saturday night “Massive Ordnance Penetrator” (MOP) attack on Iran’s three nuke sites — because derangement drives the spirit of our time in Western Civ. France, Germany, the UK, Sweden still can’t wrap their brains around the jihad they have fecklessly invited inside their countries — and they prosecute anyone who suggests as much. Over here, the Oregon state legislature brought in drag-queens to entertain members in the chamber . . .California taxpayers subsidize the riots in LA . . . a federal judge orders Kilmar Abrego Garcia released from custody . . . AOC endorses a Muslim lunatic for mayor in New York. . . . So it goes. For all that, often the simplest explanation is the correct one. Of the MOP attack on Iran, Secretary of State Rubio said, “They had all the pieces in place to have a nuclear weapon. . . now, not so much.”

Mr. Rubio’s Sunday chat with Maria Bartiromo is well worth a listen for clarity. He also succinctly stated, “They [Iran] are the sole source of instability in the entire Middle East, and the world has been paying a price for this for forty-something years.” Yet, the American hive-mind is aflame with histrionic hypotheticals over Iran, driven by the same prevailing anxiety that infects the illegal alien issue, lawfare, sexual insanity, our role in the Ukraine fiasco. The leitmotif lately is the popular idea that Israel controls the US like a puppeteer and that the Jews are out to rule the world. Yes, the shrill charge of “Zionism” boils down to that. (Just look at the comment section of this blog.) There is, necessarily, uncertainty about the result of our MOP strikes. We will not be sending troops in to inspect Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan.

Iran had time, while jerking-around American diplomats, to move its stockpile of 60-percent enriched uranium (if that’s what it was). But they no longer have the facilities to do anything with it, or the top scientists to run the program, and if they attempt to restart all of that, the US will have the option to take them out again. So, you can stop the handwringing over that. Another popular rumor in circulation is that the MOAB mission was a charade, just a show that Mr. Trump put on to satisfy his ego. That assumes everybody in the chain-of-command was duped, a low-percentage supposition. How is it unclear that the president is not messing around? The main message is “No nukes for Iran.”

There was, apparently, some part of that simple proposition the mullahs did not understand. Perhaps the Iranian people understand that the mullahs are not fit to govern their country. It looks like we’ll find out soon enough. Meanwhile propaganda-central keeps trying to steer the hive-mind back onto RussiaRussiaRussia, and onto Mr. Putin especially. CBS’s 60 Minutes re-worked an old segment last night on Putin opposition leader Alexei Navalny, who died in prison last year at 47 under curious circumstances. I doubt we know the whole story, and CBS surely did not try to present it. But the main purpose was to call Mr. Putin names — thief, murderer, tyrant — and the reason for that was also clear and simple: to derail Mr. Trump’s efforts to normalize relations with Russia.

That effort is a cornerstone of Mr. Trump’s campaign to re-arrange trade relations in such a way that our country can become productive again, employing its citizens in a purposeful way. It happens to imply an end to the Ukraine war, which the Obama State Department and the CIA set the groundwork for in 2014. Ending this war is not in the interest of a certain Beltway blob that thrives on creaming-off the weapons industry. Their schemes require Russia to remain an enemy of the US, a wholly engineered idiocy that media outfits like CBS promote. Viewed through a wider lens, the MOP mission was also intended as a message to China. It is a simple and straightforward message: Expect that Mr. Trump means what he says when he says it. He is not messing around.

China has been messing around with us to a stunning degree, especially during the past four years of the phantom president “Joe Biden.” China has infiltrated every critical corner of American life: our government, our universities, our medical research, our computer tech sector, our finances, Hollywood, our news media, our critical infrastructure, you name it. China has been waging war on us in every way except troops and kinetics. Mr. Trump seeks to end all these operations, without coming to blows. That is, he is trying to find a path to what used to be quaintly called peaceful coexistence. If there’s a reason that the political Left in America can’t get behind that simple idea, it might be because the CCP is too deeply mixed up in Democratic Party politics. Their intentions intersect: to bring chaos to America.

“..the war in Iran likewise has as an aim blocking trade with China and Russia and countering moves away from the U.S.-centered neoliberal order..”

• War On Iran Is Fight For US Unipolar Control Of World (Michael Hudson)

Opponents of the war with Iran say that the war is not in American interests, seeing that Iran does not pose any visible threat to the United States. This appeal to reason misses the neoconservative logic that has guided U.S. foreign policy for more than a half century, and which is now threatening to engulf the Middle East in the most violent war since Korea. That logic is so aggressive, so repugnant to most people, so much in violation of the basic principles of international law, the United Nations, and the U.S. Constitution, that there is an understandable shyness in the authors of this strategy to spell out what is at stake. What is at stake is the U.S. attempt to control the Middle East and its oil as a buttress of U.S. economic power, and to prevent other countries from moving to create their own autonomy from the U.S.-centered neoliberal order administered by the IMF, World Bank, and other institutions to reinforce U.S. unipolar power.

The 1970s saw much discussion about creating a New International Economic Order (NIEO). U.S. strategists saw this as a threat, and since my book Super Imperialism ironically was used as something like a textbook by the government, I was invited to comment on how I thought countries would break away from U.S. control. I was working at the Hudson Institute with Herman Kahn, and in 1974 or 1975, he brought me to sit in on a military strategy discussion of plans being made already at that time to possibly overthrow Iran and break it up into ethnic parts. Herman found the weakest spot to be Baluchistan, on Iran’s border with Pakistan. The Kurds, Tajiks, and Turkic Azeris were others whose ethnicities were to be played off against each other, giving U.S. diplomacy a key potential client dictatorship to reshape both Iranian and Pakistani political orientation if need be.

Three decades later, in 2003, General Wesley Clark pointed to Iran as being the capstone of seven countries that the United States needed to control in order to dominate the Middle East, starting with Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan, culminating in Iran. Most of today’s discussion of the geopolitical dynamics of how the international economy is changing is understandably (and rightly) focusing on the attempt by BRICS and other countries to escape from U.S. control by de-dollarizing their trade and investment. But the most active dynamic presently reshaping the international economy has been the attempts of Donald Trump’s whirlwind presidency since January to lock other countries into a U.S.-centered economy, by agreeing not to focus their trade and investment on China and other states seeking autonomy from U.S. control. (Trade with Russia is already heavily sanctioned.)

As will be described below, the war in Iran likewise has as an aim blocking trade with China and Russia and countering moves away from the U.S.-centered neoliberal order. Trump, hoping in his own self-defeating way to rebuild U.S. industry, expected that countries would respond to his threat to create tariff chaos by reaching an agreement with America not to trade with China, and indeed to accept U.S. trade and financial sanctions against it, Russia, Iran, and other countries deemed to be a threat to the unipolar U.S. global order. Maintaining that order is the U.S. objective in its current fight with Iran, as well as its fights with Russia and China – and Cuba, Venezuela, and other countries seeking to restructure their economic policies to recover their independence.

“..El-Sisi urged the parties to prevent the cycle of violence from expanding..”

• ‘No Military Solutions’ to Israel–Iran Crisis – Egypt (RT)

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi has called for a diplomatic resolution of the Israel-Iran conflict. Speaking during a phone call on Saturday with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, El-Sisi urged the parties to prevent the cycle of violence from expanding. “There are no military solutions to this crisis,” the Egyptian leader stressed. According to a presidential spokesman, El-Sisi reaffirmed Cairo’s categorical rejection of Israel’s continuing military escalation, describing it as “a threat to the security and stability of the Middle East at a critical time when the region is experiencing multiple crises.” In an earlier statement on Saturday, the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed “deep concern” over the situation in Iran and condemned the rapid military escalation. It also reaffirmed Egypt’s opposition to any violations of the UN Charter and international law, calling for full respect of state sovereignty.

The latest conflict began on June 13, when Israeli fighter jets carried out a wave of strikes on Iranian strategic sites, including the uranium enrichment facility in Natanz. Israeli spies also targeted senior military officials and nuclear scientists in and around Tehran. Iran retaliated by launching dozens of ballistic missiles into Israeli territory. The conflict has continued to escalate since then, with both sides exchanging waves of missiles strikes, forcing populations underground and into hiding. On Sunday, US President Donald Trump announced that American forces had conducted a large-scale bombing campaign on three Iranian nuclear sites—Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan—claiming the facilities had been “completely and totally obliterated.”

The developments have sparked condemnation from several African governments. In a statement on Sunday, the South African Presidency pointed out Pretoria’s “sincerest hope that President Donald Trump would use his influence and that of the US government to prevail on the parties to pursue a dialogue path in resolving their issues of dispute.” The African state called on the US, Israel, and Iran to allow the UN to lead efforts toward a peaceful resolution. Earlier in June, Algeria’s Foreign Minister Ahmed Attaf held a phone call with his Iranian counterpart, Abbas Araghchi, during which he reiterated Algeria’s unwavering condemnation of the Israeli strikes. Attaf characterized the attacks as an act of aggression and called on the UN Security Council to intervene and uphold international legal frameworks.

Deepfake Informational Barbarism. That’s quite the term.

• Moscow Warns of Deepfake ‘Informational Barbarism’ (RT)

The increasing availability of deepfake technology is pushing the world into “informational barbarism,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has warned, urging news agencies to increase investment in fact-checking and video verification. Zakharova identified deepfakes as global concern during a workshop at the 19th General Assembly of the Organization of Asia-Pacific News Agencies (OANA), which Russia hosted last week. Malicious actors are using every opportunity to deploy “poison pills of lies” against their targets, and are turning to generative content to achieve their aims, the diplomat said.

”Just a couple of years ago deepfake was a novelty that could only confuse people, but now the quality and quantity of deepfake videos raises the question whether humanity is equipped to deal with such attacks,” Zakharova said. “I don’t have a definitive answer.” The Russian Foreign Ministry works to disprove falsified content involving its staff, including Minister Sergey Lavrov and Zakharova herself. But as mount of fake content increases, so does the time required to counter them, she said. The problem is multifaceted, as seen in the growing use of deepfakes by scammers, and demands a “systemic and comprehensive” international response.

”It is self-evident that news agencies and leading media outlets need entire sections dedicated to fact-checking that are trained to detect technological tricks, which are used to present non-credible information as credible,” she said. News agencies are naturally at the forefront of the fight against falsified imagery, since they handle the largest flow of raw information in the media ecosystem, Zakharova pointed out. The Foreign Ministry launched a dedicated campaign against “fake news” in 2017 and has since released more than 5,000 regular rebuttals and 350 in-depth exposés of what it considers informational attacks against Russia’s national interests, the official said.

“..it is very difficult to remove a president without the support of the vice president and most of the Cabinet, meaning, little can be done without a virtual mutiny within the White House..”

• Why the Public Needs Answers on Biden’s Alleged Incapacity (Turley)

“Jackie, are you here? Where’s Jackie?” When then-President Joe Biden asked in September 2022 if House Rep. Jackie Walorski, an Indiana Republican who had died weeks earlier in a car accident, was in a meeting, observers were shocked. Biden had not only issued a statement of condolence; he had attended the congresswoman’s memorial service to lower the flags at the White House in her honor. As Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple noted last week, that moment should have been a wake-up call. In Washington parlance, it left no room for “plausible deniability” about whether Biden was still fit to hold the office of president. And it wasn’t just Democratic politicians who were willfully blind to Biden’s obvious deterioration; it was the media, too.

That’s why the country should fully support President Donald Trump’s June 4 order for his administration to investigate Biden’s competence and answer some of these questions, including the possible abuse of an autopen to sign legislation, pardons and other documents while he was president, instead of looking for political motivations. Similarly, the Republican-led House Oversight Committee is also investigating. The New York Times called it part of Trump’s “campaign of retribution against his perceived enemies” and “the latest effort by President Trump to stoke conspiracy theories about his predecessor.”

There is a weird dissonance when journalists blame Biden’s White House for a coverup, but then criticize efforts to investigate that coverup. While criminal charges are unlikely to stem from the investigation, if the White House autopen, for instance, was used without Biden’s consent, that would amount to forgery, obstruction of justice, fraud or other serious crimes. The complicity of politicians, staff and even the press in deception is nothing new in Washington. A century ago, after President Woodrow Wilson experienced a severe stroke in September 1919, his wife, Edith, and his staff covered up the severity of his condition, which made him incapable of fulfilling his duties till the end of his term and affected the race for a Democratic successor. To end such abuses, we must demand accountability and greater transparency on matters of presidential health and competence.

The 25th Amendment of the Constitution was intended to address succession issues, including the incapacity of a president, but it is very difficult to remove a president without the support of the vice president and most of the Cabinet, meaning, little can be done without a virtual mutiny within the White House. That is particularly true when staff have an interest in maintaining the illusion to keep the president and themselves in power. With Biden, according to the reporting in the book “Original Sin” by journalists Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson, the staff regularly cut off the access of Cabinet secretaries on down to Biden, limited public events and scripted short remarks for the president to read from teleprompters. Allegations that Biden’s staff misused the autopen are exceptionally difficult to prove, and Biden has issued a statement that he had full knowledge of everything that was signed.

Absent a confession of incapacity, we need someone Congress would need someone like John Dean, the White House counsel during the Nixon administration who was willing to break from the ranks and implicate his former associates. So far, there do not appear to be any Deans on the Biden staff, who are likely eager to avoid being implicated in potential improper use of the autopen or other actions that may have circumvented the president or covered up his decline. But that doesn’t mean that the Trump administration and Congress shouldn’t be trying to get to the bottom of what happened. The worst thing for the American people would be a collective shrug and a resumption of business as usual.

“..at least some Western experts and even mainstream media were well aware that Ukraine had a rapidly growing, increasingly powerful, and extremely subversive (domestically and internationally) far-right movement.“

• Zelensky Has A Nazi Problem. He Can’t Lie His Way Out Of It (Amar)

Anniversaries can be opportunities. For better or worse. In the case of the recent anniversary of Nazi Germany’s massive attack on the Soviet Union of 22 June 1941 – code-named Operation Barbarossa by the Germans – Ukraine’s beyond best-by-date president Vladimir Zelensky went for the worst. Using his own Telegram channel, Zelensky shared his bizarre view of why that anniversary mattered. In short, because it can serve in the information war against Russia. “Eighty years ago,” the Kiev regime leader wrote, “the world overcame Nazism and swore ‘Never again.’ But today Russia is repeating the crimes of the Nazis […] Now Ukrainians are fighting against rashism [a pejorative term fusing the words “Russia” and “fascism”] with the same courage with which our ancestors defeated Nazism…”

Where to begin? Why not with the obvious: IF Russia were following Nazi examples, then much of Ukraine would now look like, for instance, Gaza. And while every death is a tragedy, the numbers of Ukrainian civilians killed in the Ukraine War would be of an entirely different order of magnitude. This is not a matter of opinion. It’s a fact that can be quantified and proven: As of the end of May, the UN counted about 13,279 Ukrainian civilians killed, since the beginning of the large-scale fighting in February 2022. It is true that the UN also warns that these are conservative, minimum figures. Yet consider some figures for Gaza under Israeli genocidal assault since October 2023. As of early June, the enclave’s health ministry – generally acknowledged as reliable and also conservative with its numbers, notwithstanding Israeli and Western propaganda – has counted over 55,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza alone (Israel’s victims in the West bank and elsewhere should, of course, not be forgotten.)

The Gaza Health Ministry does not distinguish between resistance fighters and civilians, but there is a virtual expert consensus that the share of the latter is unusually high, as you would expect during a genocide. A peer-reviewed study in the prestigious and unbiased medical journal The Lancet, for instance, has estimated that 59.1% of deaths between October 2023 and June 2024 were women, children, and the elderly. Other equally reputable organizations have even estimated around 90% of civilian casualties in Gaza. Keep in mind that the above is deliberately restricted to minimum estimates. As The Lancet has also shown, the real death toll in Gaza is likely to be far higher. Let’s also not even dwell here on “details,” such as that Gaza now has the highest concentration of child amputees in the world.

For even the bare figures cited suffice to gain a sense of proportion and perspective: Gaza, before the Israeli mass murder attack had a total population of between 2.2 and 2.4 million. Ukraine’s total population on the eve of the large-scale escalation of February 2022 was just over 41 million, according to Ukrainian official sources. And now compare the numbers of civilian casualties and the total populations. It is obvious: If Vladimir Zelensky is looking for a state that uses methods – if that is the word – of Nazi warfare, then that would be Israel, not Russia. But he cannot say that because Israel is aligned with the US and the West, just like his own regime. Figures can help expose blatant lies, especially when they are as stunningly unambiguous as in this case.

But the quantitative isn’t everything, obviously. What about what social scientists and historians – such as me – call the qualitative dimension? In other words, what about what makes people tick? In that regard, the West’s proxy war against Russia and via Ukraine has seen one of the most successful operations of political whitewashing in recent memory. Before Kiev, first under Zelensky’s predecessor Petro Poroshenko and then under Zelensky himself, turned Ukraine into a Western tool and battering ram against Russia, at least some Western experts and even mainstream media were well aware that Ukraine had a rapidly growing, increasingly powerful, and extremely subversive (domestically and internationally) far-right movement.

As of 2014, even the BBC was still admitting that Ukrainian media and politicians were deliberately “underplaying” the potency and significance of their far-right. But then, as if on command, Western mainstream media united to belittle this malevolent force, pretending that it was either hardly there (and any impressions to the contrary were, of course, “Russian disinformation”), really harmless (a handful of misunderstood “patriots” with a few tattoos that look Nazi but are really just Tolkien), or on the mend, undergoing a steady and, of course, totally honest conversion to mainstream politics.

What happened in reality was that instead of adjusting to the Western “value” mainstream or Center – wherever that supposedly might be – the Ukrainian far right succeeded in making that mainstream adjust to its will. Probably because real-existing Western “values” have a genuine affinity to fascism anyhow. Now with the West’s war going badly, as even Western media have to recognize, even French paper of record Le Monde – as russophobic and rarara-proxy war as its worst peers in the US – has noticed that far-right, indeed strictly Neo-Nazi tendencies – polite expression – are alive and kicking in key units of Ukraine’s armed forces. Dear colleagues from France: Congratulations! And you should see the politics.

“Words like “net zero,” “decarbonization,” and “climate justice” sound pure and benevolent, yet behind them stands an apparatus of control.”

• Green Agenda Is Killing Europe’s Ancestry (Constantin Von Hoffmeister)

Western Europe’s new green regime reorders the continent through policies of territorial cleansing and restriction, replacing the lifeways of rooted peoples with a managed wilderness shaped by remote technocrats and mandated compliance. What arrives with the language of environmental deliverance advances as a mechanism of control, engineered to dissolve ancestral bonds.In the soft light of the northern dawn, when the fog rests over fields once furrowed by hands and prayers, a quiet force spreads, cloaked in green, speaking in the language of “sustainability,” offered with the glow of planetary care. Across Europe, policymakers, consultants, and unelected “visionaries” enforce a grand design of regulation and restraint.

The new dogma wears the trappings of salvation. It promises healing, stability, and ecological redemption. Yet beneath the surface lies a different pattern: one of compression, centralization, and engineered transformation. This green wave comes through offices aglow with LED light and carbon dashboards, distant from the oak groves and shepherd chants that once shaped Europe through destiny and devotion. Traditional Europe lived through the pulse of the land, its customs drawn from meadows, its laws mirrored in trees, its faith carried by the wind over tilled soil and cathedral towers. The terms arrive prepackaged: “rewilding,” “net zero,” “decarbonization,” and “climate justice.” These sound pure, ringing with the cadence of science and morality. Their syllables shimmer with precision, yet behind their clarity stands an apparatus of control, drawn from abstract algorithms rather than ancestral experience.

They conceal a deeper impulse: to dissolve density, to steer the population from the scattered villages of memory into the smart cities of control. The forest returns, yet the shepherd departs. The wolves are celebrated, while the farmer disappears from policy. Across the hills of France, the valleys of Italy, and the plains of Germany, the primordial cadence falls silent. Where once rose smoke from chimneys, now rise sensors tracking deer. Where once stood barns, now appear habitats for reintroduced apex predators. Rural life, the fundament of Europe’s civilizational ascent, receives accolades in speeches, even as its arteries are quietly severed.

The continent reshapes itself according to new models, conceived in simulation and consecrated in policy. Entire regions are earmarked for rewilding, which means exclusion, which means transformation through absence. The human imprint recedes, and in its place rises a curated silence: measured, observed, and sanctified by distance. The bond between man and land, established over centuries of cultivation, ritual, and kinship, gives way to managed wilderness. Yet this wilderness unfolds without its own rhythm, shaped and maintained through remote observation and coded intention. It remains indexed and administered. Every creature bears a tracking chip. Every tree falls under statistical oversight. Drones scan the canopies. Bureaucrats speak of ecosystems the way accountants speak of balance sheets. The sacred space, once alive with sacrifice and harvest, turns into a green exhibit in the managerial museum of Europe.

The minority opinion is a tad disturbing.

• Supreme Court Hands Trump Huge Win On Deporting ‘Worst’ Illegals (ZH)

The US Supreme Court just lifted a lower court’s order that required the Trump administration to give people 10 days’ notice and a chance to object before deporting them to a third country. “The United States is facing a crisis of illegal immigration, in no small part because many aliens most deserving of removal are often the hardest to remove,” Solicitor General John Saur wrote in an emergency application to the court in May. “When illegal aliens commit crimes in this country, they are typically ordered removed. But when those crimes are especially heinous, their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. As a result, criminal aliens are often allowed to stay in the United States for years on end, victimizing law-abiding Americans in the meantime.”

The brief unsigned order came in the case known as Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. with (surprise, surprise) Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan dissenting from the decision, who said they “cannot join so gross an abuse” of the high court’s authority. “Apparently, the Court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in farflung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a District Court exceeded its remedial powers when it ordered the Government to provide notice and process to which the plaintiffs are constitutionally and statutorily entitled,” Sotomayor wrote. “That use of discretion is as incomprehensible as it is inexcusable.”

The government has tried to speed up the deportation process “by removing aliens to third countries that have agreed to accept them.” “Convincing third countries to accept some of the most undesirable aliens requires sensitive diplomacy, which involves negotiation and the balancing of other foreign-policy interests,” it stated. Now, the administration can proceed with fast-track deportations of “some of the worst of the worst illegal aliens” to countries it has made deals with, such as South Sudan. Of course, not everyone is happy. “The ramifications of the Supreme Court’s order will be horrifying,” said Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance. “It strips away critical due process protections…”

Pardon the Iranian interruption. We now return you to your regularly scheduled episode of "Egg Prices and Tariffs"… pic.twitter.com/J2epFIH4j0

— TheLastRefuge (@TheLastRefuge2) June 23, 2025

Soon-Shiong

Big Pharma spends billions on cancer drugs that may weaken our body’s natural defenses, but Dr. Soon-Shiong reveals a $10 test could hold the key to longevity—keeping your natural killer cells above 1,000 to fight cancer, infections, and more!

Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong unveils a… pic.twitter.com/IBEqts7zoq

— Camus (@newstart_2024) June 22, 2025

Train
https://twitter.com/jacksonhinklle/status/1937041363079503987

Elon

Elon Musk says Tesla’s fleet will be part Uber, part Airbnb

Tesla owners can easily add their vehicles to the autonomous fleet through the app when not using them.

They’ll earn money—often more than their monthly payment, while Tesla takes a small cut pic.twitter.com/j0tD7V3Onl

— Dima Zeniuk (@DimaZeniuk) June 22, 2025

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

Debt Rattle June 20 2025

Jun 202025

June 20, 2025 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 9:14 am Finance Tagged with: bunker buster, exceptionalism, Iran, Israel, NATO, nuclear weapon, Supreme Court, Tulsi Gabbard 95 Responses »

Eugène Delacroix Liberty Leading the People 1830

• White House Says Trump To Decide On Attacking Iran ‘Within Next 2 Weeks’ (ZH)

• Trump Has Reportedly Approved Iran Attack Plans, Withholds Final Order (ZH)

• Tulsi, Hegseth et al Sidelined From Iran-Israel Discussions (RT)

• Larry Johnson Reveals What’s Really at Stake as Trump Mulls Iran Attack (Sp.)

• US Intel Has No Evidence Iran Building Nuclear Weapon – Top Democrat (RT)

• No Proof Iran Is Working On A Nuclear Bomb – UN Watchdog (RT)

• Israeli Nuclear Sites To Face ‘Crushing Blows’ – Iranian Source (RT)

• The End of Israeli Exceptionalism (Bordachev)

• A Dangerous Moment – The Targeting of Tulsi Gabbard (CTH)

• Putin Aligns With Israel and Finds A New Way To Deny Reality (Paul Craig Roberts)

• Is Trump’s Constituency Netanyahu or MAGA-America? (Paul Craig Roberts)

• Supreme Court Delivers a Crushing Blow to Trans Agenda (Margolis)

• Germany’s 5% of GDP Defense Spending Goal Will Ruin Economy (Sp.)

• Spanish PM Rejects NATO Call to Raise Defense Spending to 5% of GDP (Sp.)

• Putin Reveals Pitfalls Of Potential Meeting With Zelensky (RT)

June 20

The Simpsons predicted that on June 20th everything will come to an end. pic.twitter.com/lztQuqojba

— War Analyst (@War_Analysts) June 18, 2025

As expected, AI is the opposite of a productivity booster. Instead it is making everyone dumber and lazier. https://t.co/n0her8HL7B pic.twitter.com/C9PgSERVza

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 19, 2025

Candace

Candace is spot on. pic.twitter.com/egUGy8WNdm

— Texas Patriot (@Texasbrn) June 18, 2025

The same people say Iran can’t have a nuke because they are religious fundamentalists are the same people who hold the heretical belief that we must support Israel’s non-stop campaign of murder, blackmail, land theft bombing & starvation of the innocent because ‘God will bless… pic.twitter.com/79UUiPsAX1

— Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) June 18, 2025

export

If Iran’s Oil Is Cut Off, China Will Pay the Pricehttps://t.co/Gn3izH6J3m https://t.co/x7yWI4HqCV

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 18, 2025

Gaetz

If the world is interested in secret nuclear programs in the Middle East, there is a country that doesn’t allow ANY IAEA inspectors:

It’s Israel. https://t.co/rpACsIHo1G

— Matt Gaetz (@mattgaetz) June 19, 2025

We get the impression that Trump is having, let’s say, some second thoughts. On Tuesday, he said “The next week is going to be very big, maybe less than a week.” On Thursday, it was “Amid speculation regarding negotiations with Iran, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next 2 weeks.”

Why the second thoughts? Is it because of new facts, is it the -broad- resistance against direct US involvement among his supporters and voters, or is it because he realizes it’s doubtful that US bunker busters could hit the desired underground Iran targets?

• White House Says Trump To Decide On Attacking Iran ‘Within Next 2 Weeks’ (ZH)

Summary: The White House held a high stakes presser Thursday afternoon, as President Donald Trump also again convened his top national security officials in the situation room to hear intelligence officials and make key decisions on the Israel-Iran war, just prior. Of course, the biggest question that remains is: will the US directly enter the war against Iran?

White House quoting Trump: Amid speculation regarding negotiations with Iran, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next 2 weeks.
• Leavitt: Trump thinks ‘substantial chance’ of Iran negotiations
• Leavitt: Witkoff has been in touch with Iran
• Leavitt: Trump always interested in diplomatic solutions
• Leavitt: it’s the US belief that Iran has never been closer to a nuclear weapon
• Leavitt: Iran can and should make a deal or face consequences
• Leavitt: Trump remains in contact with Netanyahu
• Leavitt: Iran is in a weakened position and we have sent a deal
• Leavitt: Iran has all that it needs to achieve a nuclear weapon, it just needs a ‘decision’
Oil slides on the “two weeks” announcement, as the can gets kicked down the road:

Israel-Iran Conflict Continues, Trump Weighs Options

The most pressing issues at stake:
• Last ditch diplomacy working? Reuters reports in a breaking development that Iran held direct talks with US over de-escalation and potentially restarting nuclear negotiations.
• The Guardian reports that Trump only wants to strike Iran only if the US can destroy the Fordow enrichment facility.
• Destruction of Fordow would at least require the 30k pound bunker buster bomb, but still may not be effective in ending Iran’s enrichment capacity.
• Netanyahu says that while regime change in Tehran is not the current goal, the option is on the table.
• Tactical nuke on the table?

• Will the Iranians close the Strait of Hormuz, choking off global oil shipping?
• Reports of US bases in the region taking protective and defensive measures
• Israeli intelligence official says ‘imminent collapse’ of Iranian government is “far from the truth” – NBC reports
• Iran is warning that a “third party intervention” would spark an immediate military response
• Netanyahu has said the US has been “helping a lot” – without defining specifics

“The next week is going to be very big, maybe less than a week.”

• Trump Has Reportedly Approved Iran Attack Plans, Withholds Final Order (ZH)

As President Trump convenes a White House situation room meeting this Tuesday early evening, and following Ayatollah Khamenei’s earlier televised speech vowing ‘we will not surrender’ – The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Trump has made the decision: “President Trump told senior aides late Tuesday that he approved of attack plans for Iran, but was holding off to see if Tehran would abandon its nuclear program, people familiar with the deliberations said. Iran’s well-defended Fordow enrichment facility is a possible U.S. target. Israel has yet to attack the facility, which is buried under a mountain and is generally considered by military experts to be out of reach of all but the most powerful bombs. Asked earlier if he had decided whether to strike at Iran’s nuclear facilities, Trump said, “I may do it, I may not do it.” And he repeated his insistence of Iran’s unconditional surrender: “The next week is going to be very big, maybe less than a week.”

Is this yet another last ditch effort to strong arm Tehran to the negotiating table, where Trump’s hope is that it will declare zero enrichment? Has the US Commander-in-Chief painted himself into a corner, and now it’s all zero sum? The Iranians remain under heavy Israeli bombing, and with leadership likely in deep bunkers, are unlikely to negotiate the end of their own ‘regime’. Trump may have finally pulled the trigger here. Where’s Congress? Meanwhile, elements of the Right and elements of the Left are uniting around this simple and very reasonable observation…

Netanyahu is not the President of the United States.

He should not be determining U.S. foreign and military policy.

If the people of Israel support his decision to start a war with Iran, that is their business and their war.

The United States must not be a part of it.

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) June 18, 2025

* * *
Update(1302ET): Things are quickly going from bad to worse for Iran, amid ongoing Israeli airstrikes, and given Iran’s air defenses in its western portion of the country appear completely destroyed and disabled. Iran is now in a ‘near-total national internet blackout’ – according to monitoring from a UK-based watchdog: Vital civic infrastructure in Tehran, including some sewage system and water networks, have also been hit.

* * *
President Donald Trump on Wednesday fielded reporters’ questions on the Iran crisis, but refused to answer whether the US military will directly enter the war, amid Israeli requests that the Pentagon assist in striking Iran’s nuclear facilities. “There’s a big difference between now and a week ago,” Trump told reporters outside the White House, and added curiously: “Nobody knows what I’m going to do.” He indicated that the Iranians had reached out but he feels “it’s very late to be talking.” But he also threw out the possibility: “We may meet. It’s, I don’t know, there’s a big difference between now and a week ago,” he said on the White House lawn. “I can tell you this, that Iran’s got a lot of trouble and they want to negotiate. And I say, ‘Why didn’t you negotiate with me before all this death and destruction?'” And more: “For 40 years they’ve been saying death to America, death to Israel, death to anybody else that they didn’t like,” he said. “They were bullies. They were schoolyard bullies. And now they’re not bullies anymore. But we’ll see what happens. “I wouldn’t say that we won anything yet. I would say that we sure as hell made a lot of progress.”

“Trump is now said to be relying on a smaller, more experienced ‘Tier One’ advisory group..”

• Tulsi, Hegseth et al Sidelined From Iran-Israel Discussions (RT)

US President Donald Trump has excluded Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard from high-level discussions on the ongoing Iran-Israel conflict, NBC News and the Washington Post have reported, citing senior administration officials. Gabbard’s sidelining, according to NBC, reportedly stems from her public and internal pushback against the official US and Israeli narrative that Tehran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. Hegseth has also been edged out of operational discussions, with the Washington Post reporting that two four-star generals overseeing the deployment of additional US military assets in the Middle East have taken the lead.

Trump is now said to be relying on a smaller, more experienced ‘Tier One’ advisory group – comprising Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and Joint Chiefs Vice Chair General Dan Caine – which is now reportedly shaping US policy on Iran, rather than the traditional civilian defense and intelligence leadership. Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell has denied the reports, insisting that Hegseth is “speaking with the President multiple times a day each day and has been with the President in the Situation Room this week.” Gabbard also told reporters that she and the president are “on the same page.”

Israel launched a large-scale bombing campaign against Iran last week, claiming Tehran was close to producing a nuclear weapon. Trump will decide whether to join the Israeli campaign “within the next two weeks,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Thursday. However, US intelligence still assesses that Iran, while it has stockpiled enriched uranium, has not taken concrete steps toward developing nuclear weapons, according to Senator Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. This view has remained unchanged since March, when Gabbard told Congress that the US intelligence community “does not believe Iran is building a nuclear weapon.” Trump contradicted this assessment on Tuesday, stating that Iran is “weeks away” from obtaining nuclear weapons and dismissing Gabbard’s remarks by saying, “I don’t care what she said.”

A former Democratic congresswoman and Iraq War veteran, Gabbard has long been critical of the US intelligence community, which she now oversees, and she was known for supporting NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. Her release of a video warning about the horrors of nuclear war following a visit to Hiroshima reportedly annoyed Trump’s advisers. Her absence from a key June 8 meeting at Camp David on Iran policy has fueled speculation about her diminished influence, with multiple sources telling NBC that she has not taken part in recent strategic discussions.

“..it’s an “extremely dangerous, extremely volatile situation,” and one that clearly has “nothing to do with nuclear weapons..”

• Larry Johnson Reveals What’s Really at Stake as Trump Mulls Iran Attack (Sp.)

With Tehran refusing to fold in the face of US ultimatums and threats, Donald Trump is considering joining Israel’s campaign of aggression. Sputnik asked veteran ex-CIA and State Department insider Larry Johnson to make sense of the administration’s calculations, including what could be holding Trump back. President Trump is vacillating on whether or not to move forward with the attack because he knows it would tank his ratings, including among Republicans, Johnson, a former CIA officer and State official, explained. “There are public opinion polls showing that 53% of Republicans are against any attack on Iran. Overall, 61% of Americans are against any attack on Iran. There have been several individuals who were prominent supporters of Donald Trump in the election that have come out condemning him,” he noted.

“I think the political realities are starting to catch up to Trump, which is why he’s now backing away from that,” Johnson said, pointing out that conservative voices sounding the alarm bell include Trump’s most prominent pre-election supporters, from political commentators Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens to comedian Dave Smith. On top of that are the logistical uncertainties, like whether a US bunker buster bombing of the Fordow nuclear site would even work, and whether the B-2 bombers based in Diego Garcia used for such an operation would be safe if Russia were to supply Iran with systems capable of detecting and downing the stealth bomber. Overall, it’s an “extremely dangerous, extremely volatile situation,” and one that clearly has “nothing to do with nuclear weapons,” Johnson stressed. Instead, it’s about “regime change” – an attempt “to install a government that’s going to be a lackey of the West and that will not cooperate or be friendly with Russia.”

“..you’ve got the president basically dismissing all of the intelligence.”

• US Intel Has No Evidence Iran Building Nuclear Weapon – Top Democrat (RT)

US intelligence still assesses that Iran, despite stockpiling enriched uranium, has not taken steps to develop nuclear weapons – a view which has remained unchanged since March, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee’s top Democrat. US President Donald Trump claimed on Tuesday, however, that he believes Tehran was “very close” to obtaining nuclear weapons at the time of Israel’s recent military strikes. His statement contradicts earlier remarks by his own director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, who told lawmakers that Iran “is not building” one. The Iranian authorities insist that their nuclear program is purely peaceful and that they have every right to pursue it. In an interview with MSNBC on Wednesday, the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Democratic Senator Mark Warner, said senators were briefed this week – following the Israeli strikes – that US spy agencies still find no evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.

He criticized Trump’s remarks as “foreign policy by tweet,” calling them irresponsible and perplexing, given that they contradict the intelligence briefings lawmakers have received. Warner noted that in March, Gabbard stated that Iran had “taken no steps toward building a bomb.” “And we got reconfirmed… Monday of this week, that the intelligence hasn’t changed,” he added. At the time, she said the US intelligence community “continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” When Trump was reminded of this by journalists on Tuesday, he replied: “I do not care what she said.”

Responding to Trump’s remark, Warner said, “you’ve got the president basically dismissing all of the intelligence.” He added that even as vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he is unclear on the current US strategy, asking: “If I don’t have the foggiest idea, what do the American people know?” Trump said he has not yet decided whether to support Israel’s military action against Iran, but echoed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s claim that Iran was “weeks away” from developing a nuclear weapon.

Since launching its campaign against Iran last week, Israel has targeted uranium enrichment infrastructure, bombing centrifuge facilities – including a site at Natanz, south of Tehran – and laboratories used to convert uranium gas into metal, according to Israeli officials and the IAEA. Trump has called for Iran’s “unconditional surrender,” claiming that the US now controls its airspace. He also said killing Khamenei would be “easy.” Media reports suggest he may soon join Israel’s military campaign. Tehran has vowed not to yield to pressure and warned it will retaliate if attacked.

“..A day before Israel’s initial attack on Iran, the IAEA passed a resolution declaring that Tehran was not complying with its obligations concerning nuclear non-proliferation..”

• No Proof Iran Is Working On A Nuclear Bomb – UN Watchdog (RT)

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has found no evidence that Iran is making a “systematic effort” to produce a nuclear weapon, according to the agency’s chief, Rafael Grossi. Israel began bombing Iran on Friday, asserting that the country was on the brink of developing a nuclear bomb. The sides have been exchanging retaliatory strikes ever since. US President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that he believes Tehran was “very close” to obtaining the nuclear weapon, contradicting early statements from his director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, who stated that Iran “is not building” one. Iranian authorities insist that their nuclear program is purely peaceful and that they have every right to pursue it. I

n an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour on Tuesday, Grossi said that, currently, “there is this competition about who is wrong or right about the time that would be needed” for Iran to produce a nuclear bomb. “Certainly, it was not for tomorrow, maybe not a matter of years,” he noted. The Iranians may have enough enriched uranium, but in order to turn it into a nuclear weapon, technology and extensive testing is also required, the IAEA chief explained. Despite inspecting Iran’s nuclear sites for more than two decades, the UN watchdog “did not have… any proof of a systematic effort to move into a nuclear weapon” on the part of Iran, he said. “What we are telling you is what we have been able to prove. The material is there. There have been, in the past, some activities related to the development of nuclear weapons, but we did not have, at this point, these elements,” Grossi stressed.

A day before Israel’s initial attack on Iran, the IAEA passed a resolution declaring that Tehran was not complying with its obligations concerning nuclear non-proliferation. Among other things, the agency noted that Iran had “repeatedly” been unable to prove that its nuclear material was not being diverted for further enrichment for military use. Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said last weekend that Tehran will limit its cooperation with IAEA due to the agency’s reluctance to condemn Israel’s attacks on the country’s nuclear sites. The UN watchdog’s conduct “makes no sense,” he stated.

“The Zionist regime’s claim that Iran attacked one of the hospitals in the occupied territories is completely false..”

• Israeli Nuclear Sites To Face ‘Crushing Blows’ – Iranian Source (RT)

Iran intends to continue its military response against Israel and could target its nuclear infrastructure, a senior Iranian security official has told RT. In an exclusive statement to the head of RT’s Tehran bureau, the official, who chose to remain anonymous, said that Iranian armed forces will maintain missile and drone operations throughout the day, specifically targeting “the occupied territories and Israeli garrisons.” nThe official said Iran’s response follows “the Quranic advice on retaliation,” and warned that Iranian forces would respond “to any extent and wherever the regime attacks Iranian soil.” He noted, however, that based on “Iran’s moral principles,” there would be no attacks on hospitals. “The Zionist regime’s claim that Iran attacked one of the hospitals in the occupied territories is completely false,” the official stressed, referring to reports of the Soroka hospital being struck in the city of Be’er Sheva in southern Israel.

He also stated that Tehran’s response will be escalated in light of the Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. “Since the [Israeli] regime has attacked our nuclear facilities, our armed forces will subject their nuclear facilities to crushing blows,” the official said. Since launching its assault last week, Israel has hit several Iranian nuclear facilities, including sites in Natanz, Isfahan, Fordow and near Tehran. Between nine and 14 nuclear researchers have been reported killed in the attacks. Without naming the US directly, the Iranian official also warned that “if another country directly enters into war with us, it will provide much more accessible targets for the Iranian armed forces to destroy.”

US President Donald Trump has hailed Israel’s attacks on Iran as “excellent” and has urged Tehran to surrender unconditionally. He has also warned that the US could become directly involved in the conflict if any American targets are hit by Iran. Last Friday, Israeli forces began carrying out strikes on Iran, claiming Tehran is nearing the completion of a nuclear bomb. Iran dismissed the accusations and retaliated with waves of drone and missile strikes on the Jewish state. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, has since also refuted Israel’s claims, stating that the watchdog has found no evidence that Iran has been making a “systematic effort” to produce a nuclear weapon.

“Some in West Jerusalem may dream of “reformatting” the Middle East – reshaping the region through force and fear. If successful, it could buy Israel a few decades of security and breathing room. But such outcomes are far from guaranteed.”

• The End of Israeli Exceptionalism (Bordachev)

Israel has now been at war with its neighbours for nearly two years. The latest round began with the Hamas-led terrorist attack on 7 October 2023. In response, West Jerusalem launched an aggressive military campaign that has since expanded to touch nearly every country in the region. The escalation has placed the Jewish state at the centre of Middle Eastern geopolitics once again – this time, dragging in Iran, a state that had long avoided direct confrontation through strategic caution. Now, even Tehran finds itself under fire, with US backing making the stakes far higher. Iran is left facing a grim choice between the bad and the very bad. But this isn’t about Iran. It’s about Israel, a country that has for decades functioned as the West’s forward operating base in the Middle East.

Since the mid-20th century, Israel has enjoyed a privileged position – a bridgehead of Western power in a volatile region, while also deeply enmeshed in its politics and rivalries. Its success has rested on two pillars: the unshakable support of the United States, and its own internal capacity for innovation, military strength, and a unique social model. That second pillar, however, has weakened. The clearest sign is in demographics: Israel is facing rising negative migration. In 2024, some 82,700 people are expected to leave the country – a 50% increase from the year before. It is not the unskilled or disengaged who are leaving, but the young and educated. The people who are needed to sustain a modern state are choosing to go.

Of course, Israel’s troubles are not unique. Like many developed nations, it is struggling under the weight of a decaying neoliberal economic system. The pandemic made things worse, exposing the fragility of the model and encouraging a shift toward a “mobilisation” mode of governance – rule through emergency and constant readiness for conflict. In the West more broadly, war and geopolitical confrontation have become a way to delay or disguise necessary systemic reform. In this regard, Israel has become a laboratory for the West’s emerging logic: permanent war as a method of governance. In the autumn of 2023, the Israeli establishment embraced this fully. Conflict became not just a tactic, but a way of life. Its leaders no longer see peace as the goal, but war as the mechanism for national unity and political survival.

In this, Israel mirrors the broader Western embrace of conflict with Russia and China – proxy wars chosen when actual reform is off the table. At the global level, nuclear deterrence limits how far such wars can go. But in the Middle East, where Israel wages war directly, those constraints don’t apply. This allows war to serve as a pressure valve – politically useful, even as it becomes self-destructive. But even war has limits. It cannot indefinitely mask economic decay or social unrest. And while conflict tends to cement elite power – even among incompetent leadership – it also drains national strength. Israel is now consuming more and more of its own resources to sustain this permanent state of war. Its social cohesion is fraying. Its once-vaunted model of technological and civic progress is no longer functioning as it did.

Some in West Jerusalem may dream of “reformatting” the Middle East – reshaping the region through force and fear. If successful, it could buy Israel a few decades of security and breathing room. But such outcomes are far from guaranteed. Crushing a neighbour doesn’t eliminate the threat; it merely brings distant enemies closer. Most importantly, Israel’s deepest problems aren’t external – they are internal, rooted in its political and social structures. War can define a state, yes. But such states – Sparta, North Korea – tend to be “peculiar,” to put it mildly. And even for them, war cannot substitute for real diplomacy, policy, or growth. So has Israel, always at war, truly developed? Or has it simply been sustained – politically, militarily, and financially – as a subdivision of American foreign policy? If it continues down this path of permanent conflict and right-wing nationalism, it risks losing even that status. It may cease to be the West’s bridge in the Middle East – and become something else entirely: a militarised garrison state, isolated, brittle, and increasingly alone.

“..what I am confident about is that if Tulsi Gabbard is removed, she will not be replaced, and that’s as good as a win for the bad actors trying to target and survive Trump.”

• A Dangerous Moment – The Targeting of Tulsi Gabbard (CTH)

For the sake of urgency I’m going to talk in direct and bold terms about the targeting of Tulsi Gabbard. The IC system is attempting to remove her as a disruptive influence by using Iran as a wedge to get her out, but the issue they have with her has nothing to do with Iran. CTH approaches this after being very concerned about Tulsi Gabbard’s ability. Not because of intent, but rather because we doubted she understood the scope of the IC opposition aligned against the office of the Director of National Intelligence. She started out with these weaknesses, but she learned quickly – grasped the opposition– and has become a transformative force within the Intelligence Community. Director Gabbard’s recent efforts within the Intelligence Community Inspector General office is another feather in her cap of competence. Gabbard is now a threat.

If President Trump allows or supports the removal of DNI Gabbard, he is opening up the backplate of his armor, and making himself vulnerable. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Chairman Tom Cotton, the disassembled National Intelligence Council and a host of Intelligence Community embeds would like to see Gabbard removed. DC wants to see her removed because the traditional role of the DNI has been a willful tool of the Intelligence Community; Gabbard is not that. As DNI Mrs Tulsi Gabbard has chased down intelligence community leakers, released the JFK files, released Joe Biden’s domestic terrorism surveillance plan, intercepted an NIC plot to impeach President Trump (confirmed by Rubio), taken control of the Presidential Daily Briefing, and begun to confront the corruption within the IC Inspector General organization. These are actions, not words, and those actions speak boldly. Suffice to say, her effectiveness has placed a target on her back.

In the past few weeks, ever since she began intercepting the ICIG issues and using her own personnel to monitor the IC network, she has been targeted with several direct smear campaigns. It is obvious the targeting is coming from inside the intelligence apparatus, and perhaps even the orbit around/under CIA Director John Ratcliffe. She did make a strange video about nuclear weapons contrast against the horrific outcomes in Japan, but that seemed to be more of a personal video entry expressing a deep concern about nuclear weapons from her own perspectives. I said it was weird when I saw it, but I put that into the context of ‘surfboard Tulsi‘, the DNI peacenik. No biggie. However, with the Israel -v- Iran conflict encompassing the White House, there is a transparent objective to weaponize Tulsi Gabbard’s activity as a contrast against President Trump supporting military conflict in Iran.

This contrast is being stimulated by the same elements who want to see her removed for the reasons noted above. The latest narrative du jour in the files includes: “WASHINGTON DC – […] Trump has increasingly mused about nixing Gabbard’s office completely, an idea he floated when he gave her the job. In the White House there have been discussions about folding its mandate into the CIA or another agency, according to one of the people familiar with his response to the video and two others familiar with the matter — though it’s unclear what that would mean for Gabbard. The Director of National Intelligence serves as the president’s principal intelligence adviser and oversees the sprawling U.S. spy community.

First, “nixing Gabbard’s office completely” is exactly what the bad elements of the Intelligence Community would love to see. Second, “folding its mandate into the CIA” is like a dream come true for the darkest elements of the IC and Senate enablers. And Third, “serves as the president’s principal intelligence adviser” is false. That’s the job of the National Security Advisor, Marco Rubio. If there is one hope amid this looming and increasing drumbeat to remove her, it is that Marco Rubio likely can see exactly what the motives and intentions are from his former colleagues. The elements targeting DNI Gabbard all come from SSCI Chairman Marco Rubio’s old tribe. SoS/NSA Rubio might save her, as too may Vice President JD Vance. Both of them are at the perfect distance to see the assembled drumbeat against Gabbard for what it is. At least that is my hope.

I am not confident they will succeed removing her. However, what I am confident about is that if Tulsi Gabbard is removed, she will not be replaced, and that’s as good as a win for the bad actors trying to target and survive Trump. President Trump has no more juice or influence in the Senate. That time is over. Trump has exhausted all of the political capital he held in the upper chamber. Every Republican Senator will now smile, nod and do whatever the heck they want regardless of how it impacts President Trump. This is especially true for the SSCI who would control confirmation of a DNI replacement. They don’t have to pretend any longer, Trump’s juice is gone. If President Trump allows the Brutus crew in his orbit to isolate, ridicule and marginalize Tulsi Gabbard, he will be putting a significant part of his administration at risk. This is the Six Ways from Sunday crowd.

“..Putin does not understand that the problem is Greater Israel. Iran is the last Muslim country with the capability of resisting the Israelization of the Middle East.”

• Putin Aligns With Israel and Finds A New Way To Deny Reality (Paul Craig Roberts)

John Helmer reports that Putin said he supports the “unconditional security of Israel” and that the Russian-Iranian treaty “did not envisage military cooperation.” Is this Putin’s green light for a US/Israeli strike on Iran? Why does Putin support the security of Israel but not of Iran? Israel is the aggressor, not Iran. Iran is a buffer for Russia. Israel is a threat. Putin offered his ideas to Netanyahu and Trump on how to resolve the “problem.” Putin said, “In my opinion, in general, such a solution can be found.” Putin does not understand that the problem is Greater Israel. Iran is the last Muslim country with the capability of resisting the Israelization of the Middle East. Israel has had a target on Iran for many years, and the American whore media has succeeded in demonizing Iran in the hearts and minds of the American people.

Putin’s foolish statements putting distance between Russia and Iran removes the only real constraint on a US/Israeli war with Iran. Such a war could soon begin. Gilbert Doctorow and the Washington Post report that Israel’s supply of missiles for its air defense are being rapidly depleted by sustained Iranian attacks. Israel faces the possible humiliation of having to sue for peace in about a week to ten days or use its nuclear weapons. This prospect is a huge incentive for Netanyahu to get Trump into the war and for Trump to oblige him.

“Why do you regard the risk of a nuclear war as less of a threat than a mutual security agreement with Russia?”

• Is Trump’s Constituency Netanyahu or MAGA-America? (Paul Craig Roberts)

President Trump is supposed to be America’s President, different from Biden who was the immigrant-invaders’ president, the president for DEI, the president for Zelensky in his conflict with Russia, the president for misunderstood criminals and sexual perverts. So why is Trump behaving as if he is President for Netanyahu? Iran has done nothing to America. It has not attacked us, sanctioned us, frozen our bank reserves, forbidden trade with us, assassinated any of our leaders. These are things that Washington has done to Iran. Why? Because Netanyahu told us to. Having failed to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities used to produce fuel for nuclear power and for medical purposes, Netanyahu has turned the task over to Trump, “Israel’s best friend.” Why does Trump want to be best friend with a government that for 21 months bombed and staffed Palestinian civilians, green-lighted Israeli soldiers to shoot babies and children in the head, and is now relying on starvation and disease to finish off the Palestinian population, forcefully preventing food, water, and medicine from entering Gaza?

Would you want to be friends with Netanyahu? Can you respect a president who not only wants to be friends with a genocidal maniac like Netanyahu, but is ready to take America to war for Netanyahu? I cannot. It seems that Trump is going to do good for Netanyahu by harming America and forfeiting American lives in yet another war for Israel. Hey Trump, what happens to the domestic agenda if taking on Iran is a bigger job than Netanyahu told you? Are you going to end up expanding Israel’s borders instead of protecting America’s borders? What happened to your plan to use Gaza as the anchor for your development of an American Middle East colony in place of Greater Israel? You declared Gaza an American possession and the first stage in the development plan. Has Netanyahu straightened you out about Greater Israel?

What happened to peace in Ukraine in 24 hours? You never sat down with Putin, understood the Russian concerns about NATO on Russia’s borders, and understood that the obvious solution was a mutual security agreement. That is all it takes to solve the problem before another fool green lights another attack on Russian strategic forces. Why do you regard the risk of a nuclear war as less of a threat than a mutual security agreement with Russia? What’s wrong with a mutual security agreement? Is the answer that the US military/security complex won’t allow you to take away the enemy that justifies their budget and power? America’s last industry seems to be weapons. Can we survive without it?

Hey Trump, considering all your problems at home with the judiciary blocking your deportation efforts and your ability to exercise executive branch powers to control the federal government’s policies and spending, with state and local Democrat officials working against your effort to control the border, with NGOs and foundations financing anti-deportation riots, why are you diverting your limited time and energy to foreign wars? After Netanyahu gets you into a war with Iran, are you going to start one with China? When the dumbshits in Europe get into a war with Russia, are you rushing Americans to the rescue?

Trump, you were supposed to be an American President, not President of the World. Our own country is drowning in problems. Why are you getting involved in other countries’ problems? Your dumbshit predecessors–Dubya/Cheney, Obama, Biden–have already destroyed five countries for Israel. If you make it six with Iran, Netanyahu will hand you number 7–Saudi Arabia–and then numbers 8–Pakistan, a larger problem as Pakistan has nukes. Will number 8 be Turkey? Are you going to be the president who created Greater Israel for the genocidal Netanyahu? Do you think that this is something to be proud of?

That is not why you were elected. You had better pay attention to your base. When the American Establishment concludes that you have been given enough rope, the RINOs will join the Democrats in impeaching you, and your disappointed public base will not come to your rescue. You will be impeached and convicted and so will be your supporters. Privileges for DEI will reappear along with open borders as white heterosexuals become accustomed to their second class status in a country that the Democrats have created in their image–a Sodom and Gomorrah Tower of Babel. The Camp of the Saints will advance, and you, Donald Trump, will have opened the last door to the replacement of the white ethnicities.

“Wednesday’s ruling is a crucial step toward restoring sanity to American healthcare and protecting our most vulnerable citizens from ideologically driven medical abuse.”

• Supreme Court Delivers a Crushing Blow to Trans Agenda (Margolis)

In a resounding victory for parental rights and child protection, the Supreme Court delivered a 6-3 decision Wednesday that upholds Tennessee’s ban on so-called “gender-affirming care” for minors. This landmark ruling represents a triumph of common sense over radical gender ideology that has been targeting America’s children for far too long. nAs you could have guessed, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, while the conservative majority on the court correctly recognized what Tennessee and 24 other states have already figured out: Children deserve protection from irreversible medical experiments masquerading as healthcare. The ACLU and its allies tried to dress up this radical agenda in constitutional language, claiming that banning these dangerous treatments for gender dysphoria while allowing the same medications for legitimate medical conditions somehow violated “equal protection.”

What a joke. There’s nothing “equal” about subjecting confused children to experimental treatments that could sterilize them and cause lifelong health problems. And thankfully, a majority of the court disagreed with the ACLU. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said that such policy decisions are best left to voters and their elected officials, not the courts. In her dissent, Sotomayor accused the court of retreating “from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most,” and “abandon[ing] transgender children and their families to political whims.” The medical establishment’s endorsement of these treatments is hardly the slam-dunk argument the left thinks it is. The same organizations pushing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones have been captured by woke ideology and are more interested in political correctness than protecting children.

Meanwhile, as we’ve previously reported here at PJ Media, European countries that have been dealing with this gender madness longer than we have are now pulling back because they’re finally acknowledging what many of us have been saying all along: the risks far outweigh any supposed benefits. Various studies have supported this conclusion. This Supreme Court decision is a massive win for the 25 states that have had the courage to stand up to the transgender lobby and put children’s welfare first. It’s a vindication of basic common sense in an age when saying that boys are boys and girls are girls can get you labeled a bigot.

Of course, the fight isn’t over. The radical left won’t give up its crusade to confuse and mutilate America’s children just because the Supreme Court dealt them a major blow. There are still battles to fight in schools, sports, and countless other institutions that this gender ideology has infected. The Court has yet to address the broader questions of parental rights and the scope of state authority to protect children from harmful medical interventions. But Wednesday’s ruling is a crucial step toward restoring sanity to American healthcare and protecting our most vulnerable citizens from ideologically driven medical abuse.

Imagine bankrupting yourself over a fantasy threat.

• Germany’s 5% of GDP Defense Spending Goal Will Ruin Economy (Sp.)

Germany would “ruin” its economy by agreeing to a blitzing raise in its defense spending, particularly the NATO-proposed target of 3.5% to 5% of GDP, Ralf Dickel, an independent German energy expert specializing in international energy trade, told Sputnik on Thursday.In early May, media reported that NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte had proposed that NATO states increase their defense spending to 3.5% of GDP and allocate another 1.5% of GDP to additional defense needs to meet US President Donald Trump’s demand for a 5% target. The minimum requirements are expected to be agreed upon at the NATO summit in The Hague from June 24-25. “First of all, again, this 3.5 percent, 5 percent is completely ridiculous. We will ruin our economy for nothing,” Dickel said on the sidelines of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF). The expert expressed his concern over the prevailing mindset in the West where the emphasis on military readiness is seen as a solution to global tensions.

“What worries me is that in the West, we have a lot of people who say, ‘okay, this must spend much more on defense,’ on being war-ready, actually. Not on defense, but war-ready. That is very stupid on several accounts,” Dickel said. He argued that true defense should not be measured solely by the percentage of GDP allocated to military spending but should be informed by a careful analysis of potential threats. “I mean, first of all, it’s fair to be able to defend yourself, but that is something you would not usually link to a scale of your GDP, but you would rather analyze what is a scale of potential military actions against your country, and then you should be sure to meet them. But in parallel to that, we should also make an offer to negotiate. And to negotiate eventually some new architecture, some new security architecture,” he stated. The expert concluded by stressing that sustainable security for any state could not solely be achieved through military means but must also involve dialogue and cooperation.

Will NATO survive this?

• Spanish PM Rejects NATO Call to Raise Defense Spending to 5% of GDP (Sp.)

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez told NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte that Madrid would not support the proposal to increase the alliance’s defense spending to 5% of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2032, according to a letter published by El Pais newspaper on Thursday. “For Spain, committing to a 5% target would not only be unreasonable, but also counterproductive; it would move Spain away from optimal spending and would hinder the EU’s efforts to strengthen its security and defense ecosystem,” the letter read.

Sources at the Spanish government told the newspaper that while they do not rule out Europe reaching 5% defense spending, they believe it is too early to set that target. Earlier in June, Rutte called on NATO member states to increase their defense spending from the current 2% to 3.5% of their respective GDPs, and spend another 1.5% on infrastructure development, military industry and other security-related investments. US President Donald Trump previously demanded that NATO allies spend 5% of GDP on defense.

”If the Ukrainian state entrusts someone to negotiate on its behalf, suit yourself, let it be Zelensky,” Putin said. “The question is, who will sign the document?”

• Putin Reveals Pitfalls Of Potential Meeting With Zelensky (RT)

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said he could meet with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky to conduct peace talks between the two countries, but expressed doubt regarding Zelensky’s authority to sign a treaty. Zelensky has repeatedly called for a meeting with Putin, claiming that he alone can resolve key bilateral issues, including territorial disputes.nSpeaking late Wednesday with international media at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, the Russian president reiterated Moscow’s concerns about Zelensky’s legitimacy. ”If the Ukrainian state entrusts someone to negotiate on its behalf, suit yourself, let it be Zelensky,” Putin said. “The question is, who will sign the document?”

Zelensky’s presidential term expired last year, and no successor has been elected due to martial law. Zelensky insists that he has the right to remain in office, even though the Ukrainian Constitution calls for the transfer of presidential powers to the speaker of the parliament. ”Propagandistically, one can say anything about the legitimacy of the current authorities, but we care about legal aspects and not propaganda when dealing with serious issues,” Putin said.

He added that since Ukrainian officials are appointed by the president, Zelensky’s questionable legitimacy calls into question the authority of those serving under him. We don’t care who conducts negotiations, even if it is the head of the regime. I am even willing to meet with him for some final phase, where we won’t be spending endless amounts of time divvying things but would just put a stop to it all. ”But the signature must come from legitimate authorities,” Putin stressed. “Otherwise, whoever comes after him will toss it to the dumpster. That’s not a way to conduct serious business.”

Cancer
https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1935346765256863947

Heart

First-ever heart transplant performed in the US, fully by robots without opening the chest or cutting bones

pic.twitter.com/69fLVYvGAN

— Science girl (@gunsnrosesgirl3) June 19, 2025

Alright, you’ve watched Tucker Carlson’s takedown of Tel Aviv Ted @SenTedCruz now you can watch a portion with receipts!!

Meow! pic.twitter.com/z5Jwy2Nw3a

— GenXGirl (@GenXGirl1994) June 19, 2025

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

Debt Rattle April 22 2025

Apr 222025

April 22, 2025 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 9:56 am Finance Tagged with: Canada, China, deportations, gray trade, Hegseth, Pentagon, Supreme Court, Trump, Victory Day, wind energy, Xi 46 Responses »

Edward Hopper The Lee Shore 1941

• Trump Wants Direct Talks With Xi – Politico (RT)

• China Is In Economic Dire Straits And They’re No Longer Able To Hide It (ZH)

• China’s Gray Trade Strategy Blunts Impact of US Tariffs (Gorrie)

• The Shanghai Spirit – China Will Take No Bullying (Pepe Escobar)

• Trump Wants Piece Of Russia Claimed By Kiev – WSJ (RT)

• Trump Slams Supreme Court Over Blocking Deportations (JTN)

• Do You Prefer White Liberal States To Hispanic States? (Paul Craig Roberts)

• Trump Wants A Deal. Putin Wants Victory. Ukraine Will Get What It Deserves (RT)

• Putin Reacts To EU Threats On Victory Day (RT)

• Is a Coup Against Pete Hegseth Brewing at the Pentagon? (Margolis)

• Hegseth Slams Media Over Latest Smear Campaign: ‘Full of Hoaxsters’ (Margolis)

• US Senator Ron Johnson Says New 9/11 Investigation Could Happen (RT)

• Canada’s Conservatives See A Reversal of Fortune (JTN)

• Trump Administration Halts New York Offshore Wind Project (Wade)

• The UK Is Doubling Down On Wind Energy (ZH)

Rickards
https://twitter.com/JimFergusonUK/status/1914201957213814828

112
https://twitter.com/defense_civil25/status/1914296461870702669

O’Leary

O’LEARY: “These tariffs are not going to be forever … Let this administration get this thing done and let's move on. Because the last 20 administrations never dealt with it. This one is … You may have Trump Derangement Syndrome. I don't care. Because that's not what matters.”… pic.twitter.com/5LBth5YfgU

— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) April 21, 2025

Thiel

Peter Thiel: In the 2000s, people thought Elon was really crazy.

“When Elon was building both Tesla and SpaceX in the 2000s, people thought he was just really, really crazy, even a lot of those of us who'd worked with him at PayPal.

There was this PayPal book that David Sacks… pic.twitter.com/YdfggrzkEh

— ELON CLIPS (@ElonClipsX) April 21, 2025

Tucker

Tucker Carlson tells Alex Jones that a false flag attack disguised as a fight against “racism” will be used to permanently shut down free speech on social media.

He says people will be manipulated into giving up their rights under the pretense of safety.

He says certain… pic.twitter.com/Cp0vMVnyEO

— Shadow of Ezra (@ShadowofEzra) April 21, 2025

Trump shuts down all potential communication lines between him and Xi. Except for those he wants. Direct line. Call me.

• Trump Wants Direct Talks With Xi – Politico (RT)

US President Donald Trump has stifled almost every channel of diplomatic outreach with China, aiming to deal directly with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping, as the trade war between the two superpowers escalates, Politico has reported citing anonymous sources. The increasing tit-for-tat duties between the US and China is part of a broader US tariff campaign against more than 90 countries, said to be aimed at addressing unfair trade imbalances. While Trump has paused the hikes for most countries for 90 days, Beijing was excluded and faces a 145% tariff. China has retaliated with 125% tariffs on US goods and restricted certain key exports. The US president is adamant about direct negotiations with Xi, and has stifled other diplomatic avenues, Politico wrote on Saturday, citing anonymous former US State Department officials and an industry official.

Trump has not authorized White House delegates to engage with Beijing, the outlet cited its sources as saying. In addition, the Senate has not confirmed a US ambassador to China, Trump has not nominated an official to lead a diplomatic effort, and Washington has thus far not reached out to the Chinese embassy, Politico reported. “The backchannels don’t work because President Trump doesn’t want them to,” Ryan Hass, former director for China, Taiwan, and Mongolia at the National Security Council during the Obama administration, told the outlet. “Trump wants to deal directly with President Xi in the same way he has with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin,” he said. Washington is waiting for Beijing to reach out and call first, CNN wrote earlier this month, citing anonymous officials.

“China wants to make a deal. They just don’t know how quite to go about it,” Trump has said. “They’re proud people.” Additionally, Washington intends to use negotiations over potential tariff exemptions to pressure US trading partners to curb their ties with China and ramp up pressure on Beijing, the Wall Street Journal reported last week, citing unnamed sources. In a statement on Monday, the Chinese Commerce Ministry stressed that it would retaliate against any country that takes such a deal “at the expense of China’s interests.”

Memories of all the roads to nowhere and the giant empty apartment buidings a few years ago.

• China Is In Economic Dire Straits And They’re No Longer Able To Hide It (ZH)

Official economic data from any government is always treated with suspicion by anyone with common sense. The US, for example, witnessed some of the most egregious statistical tinkering imaginable under the Biden Administration, not to mention outright lies and propaganda from the establishment media on the health of the economy. To this day no one has been fired (or tarred and feathered) for hiding the reality of the stagflation crisis. Any government or corporate economist that called the threat “transitory” should be stripped of their financial prestige and banished to a cash register at Arby’s. And let’s not forget Biden’s misrepresentation of the labor market, portraying millions of new jobs for illegal migrants and visa holders as if they were jobs benefiting American citizens. In the US and across the western world, lying about the economy is generally seen by politicians as a temporary solution to secure reelection.

However, in China, lying about the economy is treated as a national security imperative. If there’s anything in the world that gives communists a feeling of existential dread, it’s the fear that their ideological enemies will discover proof that communism doesn’t work. The Trump Administration’s tariffs on China are not the initiator of the nation’s troubles, they are more a bookend to a process of decline that has been ongoing for years. Overall tariffs on Chinese goods currently sit at 124%, but some goods will be taxed as high as 245%. Trump has given a 1 month exemption on electronic parts and devices, perhaps to offer manufacturers like Apple, Nvidia and Microsoft time to arrange sourcing from alternative vendors. The problem for Chinese manufacturers is not just the tariffs but the uncertainty of timing and sudden changes to policy. They say no one is willing to make a big move on production or shipments until the trade landscape becomes more predictable. This means most Chinese factories are frozen in stasis.

Trump’s tariff actions are widely criticized by the media as erratic or poorly planned, but what they don’t understand is that uncertainty is the real leverage, not the tariffs. What seems like a spur of the moment decision or a sudden capitulation on Trump’s part can be highly effective at throwing foreign governments and corporations off balance. Globalism requires a perpetual status quo, change of any kind is like holy water to a vampire. Chinese shipments are on standby and orders are frozen. Nothing is moving. At bottom, China will not be able to survive tariffs on the current scale for long (a single year of 124% tariffs would crush China’s economy beyond repair). The US is 15% of China’s export market, which may not sound substantial but their next largest trading partner (outside of Hong Kong) is Vietnam at 4% of exports.

In terms of domestic buying, China is 11% of the global consumer market which is not too shabby, but compared to the US with its 30%-35% global consumer market share there is no chance that the Chinese will be able to fill the void domestically and stay afloat. But the situation is far worse than most people know… China has been suffering from a deflationary crisis since 2023. An uptick in exports during the pandemic was offset by the CCP’s draconian lockdowns. This was, essentially, fiscal suicide on the part of the government and China has been struggling ever since. Their property market has imploded, partially due to overbuilding through government subsidized infrastructure programs that flooded the market with poorly constructed homes and buildings that were then left to rot. Corporate defaults have run rampant and left investors with nothing.

There was some optimism that the government’s measures to end the crisis had been working to reinvigorate the market, but on Mar 31st, government-linked developer Vanke reported a record 49.5 billion yuan (S$9.1 billion) annual loss for 2024. It’s the company’s first full-year loss since its initial public offering in 1991, reigniting concerns about the sector and showing just how deep the problem runs. When these projects do finally see some progress it is often due to dangerously poor construction standards and subpar workmanship; what many now refer to as “Tofu Dreg” buildings. The deflationary spiral has been eating away at employment and has also resulted in numerous factories refusing to pay their workers on time (or at all). Unpaid wages are leading to frequent protests and a disturbing trend of factory fires. The government is limited in how it can respond to the problem. Stimulus is an option, but China’s overall non-financial debt is well over 300% of GDP already.

China’s attempts to hide the decay from the outside world are becoming less and less effective. With Chinese citizens able to access the internet beyond the “Great Firewall”, more and more videos are being leaked by people within the country who are tired of the misinformation. Again, the CCP views negative economic data as a national security threat and any citizen caught leaking this info could be subject to harsh punishment. Chinese citizens have taken substantial risks to get the truth out there. It cannot be stressed enough that the global economy is largely a farce, but China is closest to the edge of the cliff in terms of consequences and crisis. The interdependency of globalism has left many nations without the ability to weather a trade dispute and China’s survival is almost entirely based on steady exports to the west and the US in particular. Don’t let high paid TikTok and YouTube influencers fool you with videos of Chinese skyscrapers caked with LED lights or lavish parties with dancing robots. This is not the true China. Underneath the facade is a nation on the brink of disaster.

China tries to export to US via Vietnam because of tariffs. Easy to shut down.

• China’s Gray Trade Strategy Blunts Impact of US Tariffs (Gorrie)

Is a new boom in deceptive trading practices taking shape in many parts of the world? As the U.S.–China trade war intensifies, it certainly looks that way. With U.S. tariffs reaching 145 percent on Chinese imports—at least at the time of this writing—Beijing’s new strategy seems to include the use of so-called gray trade to bypass American trade barriers. Gray trade involves rerouting goods through low-tariff countries, such as Vietnam, Mexico, or Malaysia, to conceal their Chinese origin and thereby reduce U.S. import duties. This sneaky tactic has surged as a response to President Donald Trump’s aggressive tariff policies, making China’s goods less competitive in the U.S. market due to their added cost.

Gray Trade Loophole Strategy The simple idea behind gray trade is to exploit loopholes in U.S. Rules of Origin, the trading guidance for determining a product’s country of origin for tariff purposes. Chinese goods, for example, will remain unassembled or may be about 90 percent manufactured before being shipped to an intermediary country. There, they undergo final production, assembly, processing, repackaging, or relabeling to qualify as originating from that country, rather than from China. For example, Chinese electronic parts may be sent to Vietnam, assembled into a product, and then labeled, “Made in Vietnam.” This enables China to benefit from the 10 percent tariff on Vietnamese imports under Trump’s 2025 reciprocal tariff regime, instead of the 145 percent tariffs on Chinese goods. It’s a perfectly sensible response by Beijing, and there’s no doubt that Chinese firms are rerouting goods through Vietnam, Mexico, and Turkey to exploit lower tariffs on goods sourced from those countries. A related tactic occurring in Mexico involves dividing goods into packages that are below the $800 tariff-free threshold for non-Chinese origins, a tactic called the “Tijuana two-step.”

China Has to Resort to Gray Trade But gray trade isn’t new or even unfamiliar to the second Trump administration. During Trump’s first term, Chinese solar manufacturers bypassed 30 percent tariffs by partnering with their neighbors in Southeast Asia. In 2025, tracing the movement and provenance of vast numbers of products is complex at best and nearly impossible at worst, making it a challenge to disrupt gray trade. It’s no mystery why Beijing is engaging in gray trade. With its exports to the United States accounting for 10 percent of its trade and supporting between 10 million and 20 million jobs, some experts say the world’s largest manufacturer faces an estimated 80 percent decline in its exports over the next two years, if the gray trade were to cease.

As domestic economic conditions decline due to the anticipated extensive trade tensions, China’s 2025 GDP projections have fallen from 5 percent to as low as 4 percent, potentially resulting in a 20 percent drop in GDP growth in just one year. With joblessness among its young people (ages 16 to 24) already approaching 17 percent, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) faces a growing resentment among its people. The Party would like to avoid an uprising by its younger generation. The gray trade has provided a much-needed cushion against the blow of the Trump administration’s high tariffs. For instance, according to official data, China’s exports surged by 12.4 percent in March, with exports to ASEAN increasing by 11.6 percent and exports to Vietnam climbing by nearly 19 percent.

Impact on Low-Tariff Countries But it’s not just China that gains from gray trade. Its low-tariff country partners also gain economically from gray trade but face risks, too. Gray trading partners, such as Vietnam, Malaysia, and Mexico, profit from trade and processing fees, with some estimates on the social media platform X reaching as high as 10 percent. It’s worth noting that between 2017 and 2022, Vietnam replaced almost half of China’s lost market share in U.S. imports. However, gray trading partner countries risk the consequences of U.S. pushback, resulting in a delicate balancing act for these countries caught between gray trade with China and managing important trading relationships with the United States.

Economic and Geopolitical Implications Economically, gray trade preserves China’s U.S. market access for the moment, but it raises costs as intermediaries take their cut, with logistics costs also increasing. For U.S. consumers, it may delay steep price hikes, but won’t eliminate them. Geopolitically, Beijing’s retaliatory 125 percent tariffs on U.S. goods, plus adding barriers to U.S. beef and LNG imports, raise tensions even higher. CCP leader Xi Jinping’s recent visits to Vietnam, Malaysia, and Cambodia could have secured their gray trade hubs going forward.

But the impact of gray trade is perhaps deeper and wider than many may expect. On the one hand, it’s a reasonable response on China’s part to U.S. tariffs. But on the other hand, there are greater risks. The United States could expand tariffs or use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to close loopholes. That, too, may be a rational response by the United States, or it could make things worse. “The global trade system for the past ninety years is collapsing, leaving it difficult for people to forecast the economic impact and tell where the bottom for a market is,” Vincent Chan, a China strategist at Aletheia Capital Ltd., told Bloomberg. As new phases of U.S. trade policy and responses unfold, the biggest risk may be uncontrolled escalation in both tariff retaliation and other forms of retaliation. In short, the impact of the gray trade may be deeper and wider than many expect, and it could even lead to a global trade war, with its own far-reaching implications.

Pepe is in China and in love.

• The Shanghai Spirit – China Will Take No Bullying (Pepe Escobar)

There could not be a more strategic place to spend these past Trump Tariff Tizzy (TTT) heady days than in Shanghai – China’s trade, commercial and cultural capital. From the top of the Jin Mao tower in the world class Lujiazui financial district in Pudong, an elegantly discreet art deco companion to the World Financial Center super-skyscraper – the trademark symbol of China’s economic power – it’s as if the spokes of a wheel radiated to the Bund and beyond tracking a ceaseless drive to counteract the absurd idiocy of the “Emperor of Tariffs”, relentless mocked across myriad Chinese social media platforms. I have had the privilege to transit from the Bund Financial Center, which hosts among others the Fosun Foundation – a bamboo-inspired architectural masterpiece – to the China Academy at the immaculate campus of Fudan University, where I shared a seminar with star professor Zhang Weiwei and a round table with top PhD students from several disciplines. Professor Zhang Weiwei is the foremost conceptualizer of China as a civilization-state.

The key theme of our seminar was the Russia-China strategic partnership, but inevitably the focus switched back and forth to the rationale behind the Emperor of Tariffs. The questions from the students were as sharp as they come. That was compounded with an in-depth interview for China Academy hosted by their CEO, the formidable Pan Xiaoli. A visit to the HQ of Guancha – the top independent new/analysis site in China, whose several channels in several different platforms reach an astonishing 200 million people – could not have been more timely. Guo Jiezhen, a research fellow from the China Institute, who was part of our round table at Fudan University, came up with one of the more astute analyses of what he describes as Trump’s “deranged money-making technique”.

While meeting with Guancha’s new editor-in-chief He Shenquan and discussing with hyper-competent international relations specialist Kelly Liu and Yang Hanyi – the China Institute’s communication officer – we watched together an exceptional podcast featuring PLA Colonel Wang Lihua, Gao Zhikai – Deputy Director of the Center for China and Globalization (CCG) – and the always essential Li Bo, President of the Shanghai Chunqiu Development Strategy Institute. And that’s when Mao Zedong’s legendary 1960s formulation of the US as a “paper tiger” – quoted in everything from Latin American guerrilla slogans to Godard movies – resurfaced with full force. Wang Lihua picked up on what President Xi had told Putin at their landmark meeting at the Kremlin two years ago: we are right in the middle of changes not seen in 100 years. Wang: “This change cannot be changed all at once, and the trade war between China and the United States will not be resolved once and for all. This kind of friction and struggle, in the words of Chairman Mao, is ‘making trouble, failing, making trouble again, failing again, until destruction.’”

Wang wrapped up with what may encapsulate the general feeling in China, identified in every nook and cranny across Shanghai: “It is difficult for the United States to repair itself from within. Now the United States has to confront China and the whole world, and its strength is obviously not enough, so failure is inevitable. We are not afraid of a protracted war, because time is on our side.” China “not afraid of war”, however it may manifest itself, from hybrid to hot, is the consensus feeling in Shanghai, borrowing from the Maoist concept of “united front”, and espoused from academics and business leaders to residents of “model quarters” of the Maoist era still impeccably preserved – and with an eye for innovation (example: row after row of a.c. outlets to feed the array of electric bikes parked in the internal patios).

Hard bargain.

• Trump Wants Piece Of Russia Claimed By Kiev – WSJ (RT)

The US intends to assert control over the Russian territory surrounding Europe’s largest nuclear power plant as part of a mediated agreement between Kiev and Moscow, according to the Wall Street Journal. The proposal is part of a reported package of options that the US expects Ukraine to respond to by the end of this week. Last Thursday, senior members of US President Donald Trump’s administration met with Ukrainian and European officials in Paris. One of their ideas aimed at facilitating a peace agreement between Kiev and Moscow involves designating the land around the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant (NPP) as neutral territory under US control, the newspaper reported Sunday, citing anonymous sources. The former Ukrainian region hosting the facility voted to join Russia in 2022, though Kiev has dismissed the referendum as a sham.

In March, Trump claimed that Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky had proposed that the US take ownership of his country’s nuclear power plants. Zelensky, however, refuted this assertion, stating that he and Trump only discussed potential US investments in the Zaporozhye NPP. Additionally, Washington has suggested recognizing Russian sovereignty over Crimea, not opposing Russian control over four other former Ukrainian regions, including Zaporozhye, and rejecting Ukraine’s bid for NATO membership, according to the WSJ. However, the list of proposals does not include any cap on the strength of the Ukrainian army or ban on troop deployments by European NATO members in Ukraine, the newspaper noted. If the US, its European allies, and Ukraine achieve a “convergence” this week, the package will be presented to Moscow, the WSJ reported.

Moscow has firmly rejected any proposed NATO presence in Ukraine and has asserted that the Istanbul agreement — a truce proposal negotiated in 2022 that includes limitations on the Ukrainian military — should serve as the foundation for a future peace accord. This plan was rejected by Kiev following intervention from then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Russia has accused the EU and the UK of attempting to undermine Trump’s mediation efforts in order to prolong the conflict in Ukraine. The US president has cautioned that his administration would “just take a pass” if the diplomatic effort becomes too challenging.

“We cannot give everyone a trial, because to do so would take, without exaggeration, 200 years..”

“What a ridiculous situation we are in..”

• Trump Slams Supreme Court Over Blocking Deportations (JTN)

President Donald Trump on Monday slammed the United States’ court system, including the Supreme Court, over their response to his efforts to deport illegal migrants, stating it is “not possible” to try every person who is in the U.S. illegally. The Supreme Court over the weekend temporarily blocked Trump’s latest round of deportations under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. Trump’s deportations have come under scrutiny after he removed hundreds of illegal migrants he accused of being gang members without due process. The president defended his actions in a post on Truth Social, claiming it would take “200 years” to try every illegal migrant, and slammed the Supreme Court for allegedly not wanting him to “send violent criminals and terrorists back to Venezuela.”

“I’m doing what I was elected to do, remove criminals from our Country, but the Courts don’t seem to want me to do that,” Trump wrote in the post. “My team is fantastic, doing an incredible job, however, they are being stymied at every turn by even the U.S. Supreme Court, which I have such great respect for, but which seemingly doesn’t want me to send violent criminals and terrorists back to Venezuela, or any other Country.” The president praised Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s dissent, stating the justice was right for wanting to “dissolve the pause on deportations.” “If we don’t get these criminals out of our country, we are not going to have a country any longer,” Trump insisted. “We cannot give everyone a trial, because to do so would take, without exaggeration, 200 years. We would need hundreds of thousands of trials for the hundreds of thousands of Illegals we are sending out of the country. Such a thing is not possible to do.

“What a ridiculous situation we are in,” he concluded.

“Millions of immigrant-invaders can enter America illegally, but they cannot be deported until they have had their day in court..”

“The deportation hearings, which will be shopped to Democrat district and appeal courts, will take years and will not be resolved until Trump’s term is over.”

• Do You Prefer White Liberal States To Hispanic States? (Paul Craig Roberts)

Like Trump’s on-off-on tariffs, the US Supreme Court’s rulings are off-on-maybe-we will see. Last week the Court overruled Boasberg and said that Trump had the authority to deport illegal aliens. But by the time last Saturday arrived, the Court had changed its mind and “paused” the deportation of illegal entrants. The Court now has decided that those who had entered the US illegally, thus committing a crime, had the right to challenge their deportation in US courts.Here is the Supreme Court’s ruling: “The government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this court.” Note the Court’s use of the word “putative.” The Court is saying that it is uncertain that the illegals are illegals. Once you have walked in, you are an American, right? That seems to be the Democrats’ position. What will the Court’s position be?

Amazing, isn’t it. Millions of immigrant-invaders can enter America illegally, but they cannot be deported until they have had their day in court. To be clear, what the US Supreme Court has ruled is that there will be no further deportations. The 16 or 30 million, or whatever the figure, illegal entrants are here to stay. The deportation hearings, which will be shopped to Democrat district and appeal courts, will take years and will not be resolved until Trump’s term is over. For decades American conservatives have thought that the most important reason to have a Republican president is Supreme Court Appointments, but now we see it matters not to have a Republican majority on the Supreme Court. The Court, whether Republican or Democrat, has no comprehension of American survival. The courts are preoccupied with grabbing power from the executive.

Just as the US took Texas, Colorado, California and the SouthWest from Mexico, the hispanics are taking it back with the aid of the Democrat Party and the US Supreme Court. And, of course, with the acquiesce of Republicans who are incapable of fighting. The question is: how much do we really care? Would you prefer to have white liberal Colorado, California, Arizona or Hispanic Colorado, California, and Arizona. I would prefer the Hispanics. They are more decent people than white liberals, and, unlike white liberals, they do not hate America. Perhaps the ignorant insouciance of the American courts will have the unintended result of replacing anti-American blue states with Hispanic states. It would be a huge improvement in the quality of America.

Sergei Poletaev.

• Trump Wants A Deal. Putin Wants Victory. Ukraine Will Get What It Deserves (RT)

The Easter ceasefire has come and gone, with Russia and Ukraine trading accusations over thousands of violations as fighting resumes across the front lines – yet another reminder of how difficult it is to bring this war to an end. Amid the renewed hostilities, Donald Trump’s long-promised peace plan is colliding with geopolitical realities. Despite backchannel talks with the Kremlin and growing pressure from both allies and opponents, Trump has yet to produce a deal that doesn’t resemble capitulation – or undermine his own political standing. With a new offensive looming and patience wearing thin, the real question now is whether peace is still on the table – and if so, on whose terms.

The Relentless Push for Peace The fundamental difference between President Donald Trump and his predecessor, Joe Biden, is that Trump is genuinely trying to negotiate a meaningful peace with Russia. He has no interest in prolonging what he sees as a losing war inherited from Biden, and he’s determined to end it. But he also knows he can’t accept just any deal – he needs a version of peace that won’t look like a defeat. After all, his critics are ready to frame any compromise as his own personal Afghanistan.That’s the framework Trump is working within. What motivates Russian President Vladimir Putin isn’t really a top concern for him. So, he sends a trusted confidant – Steve Witkoff – to explore the possibility of striking a deal with the Kremlin. In his meeting with Putin, Witkoff likely hears the same hardline message the Russian leader shares in public – and, reportedly, in private calls with Trump: lasting peace can only be achieved on Moscow’s terms.

At a minimum, that means reviving the Istanbul agreements with additional territorial concessions. At most, it involves Russia’s sweeping 2021 demands to redraw Eastern Europe’s security architecture and, in effect, reverse the legacy of the Cold War. It also seems Putin thinks he can secure at least his minimum objectives through brute force. Whether he’s bluffing or not, he’s clearly using the threat of escalation to pressure Trump. The message is implicit: Worried that Ukraine’s collapse will be blamed on you? There’s one way to prevent that – make a deal with me. In return, Trump could preserve face, gain economic wins like Nord Stream 2, and claim peace during his term. Meanwhile, Putin gets what he really wants: a thaw in US-Russia relations, an end to sanctions, and, crucially, legitimization of Russia’s actions in Ukraine. And if future conflicts arise, he’ll be in a stronger position. Not to mention, it would strike a blow against the globalists – an enemy both men seem to share.

That’s the pitch Putin’s been making, and by all indications, it’s what he and Witkoff discussed in their five-hour meeting. Witkoff, for his part, appears to be on board – he said as much during a Fox News appearance on April 15. But the final call rests with Trump, not Witkoff. And Trump faces a difficult challenge: even if he wants to make a deal, how can he ensure it sticks? It’s not just Ukraine and Europe trying to sabotage the talks – that was to be expected – but opposition is also coming from inside Trump’s own camp. Take Keith Kellogg, for example. He might tell Trump that Ukraine will never accept any such agreement. He could argue that Europe is fully aligned with Kiev and that if Trump really wants peace, he’ll need to get Putin to accept a European military presence in Ukraine. You want peace? Here’s the map – go make it happen.

Then there’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who may quietly but firmly advance the globalist view: any peace must be on Western terms, not Russian ones. He might even bring a fresh round of sanctions and another military aid package for Ukraine to the table. It’s a situation reminiscent of 2016. Back then, Trump had seemingly cordial relations with Putin but ended up expanding anti-Russia measures due to domestic constraints. Today, his political position at home is stronger – but so are the stakes.

EU knows no shame.

• Putin Reacts To EU Threats On Victory Day (RT)

Russian President Vladimir Putin has commended the courage of European leaders who choose to come to Moscow for events commemorating the 80th anniversary of victory in World War II, despite pressure on them from EU officials.Last week, the bloc’s top diplomat and former Estonian prime minister, Kaja Kallas, warned the leaders of EU member and candidate states against flying to Russia to take part, recommending instead that they visit Kiev to show solidarity with Ukraine. Other EU officials have reportedly threatened to derail membership bids for candidate countries whose leaders defy Brussels on the matter. Journalists asked Putin to comment on the reports after the All-Russian Municipal Service Award ceremony in Moscow on Monday.

“Those who are going to come to Russia have much more courage than those who are hiding behind someone’s back and trying to threaten others,” he replied.“In this case, [threatening] those who are going to celebrate the historical merits of people who gave their lives in the fight against Nazism,” Putin said. According to Kallas, participation in this year’s events in Moscow “will be not taken lightly.” Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico, the only EU member state leader who has promised to attend, blasted the statement as outright “disrespectful.” “Is Ms. Kallas’s warning a form of blackmail or a signal that I will be punished?” he wrote on X last week. “The year is 2025, not 1939,” he added.

The president of EU candidate Serbia, Aleksandar Vucic, similarly indicated that he would not change his plans in the face of pressure from Brussels. “I have not changed my decision… Eight months ago, I announced my visit to Moscow, publicly,” he said last week, according to Serbian media.Moscow has extended multiple invitations to this year’s landmark celebrations, including to the heads of China, India, and Brazil, as well as a number of other international leaders. Victory Day is one of the most important national holidays in Russia. The event is celebrated annually on May 9 to mark the 1945 triumph of the USSR over Nazi Germany and its allies, and to honor the estimated 26.6 million deaths the Soviet Union suffered in World War II. Around 18 million were civilian deaths.

Recently Hegseth, JD Vance, Tulsi Gabbard and Susie Wiles voted against bombing Iran. Three Pentagon staff departed. This is the result. Usual suspects: NPR, NYT, Politico et al.

• Is a Coup Against Pete Hegseth Brewing at the Pentagon? (Margolis)

Something tells me that the liberal media is trying to force Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth from the Pentagon. According to a report from Politico, the Pentagon has become a “chaotic” mess because of Hegseth’s alleged influence, and it’s becoming a problem for the administration. “It’s been a month of total chaos at the Pentagon. From leaks of sensitive operational plans to mass firings, the dysfunction is now a major distraction for the president — who deserves better from his senior leadership,” the article claims. “President Donald Trump has a strong record of holding his top officials to account. Given that, it’s hard to see Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth remaining in his role for much longer.” It’s a claim so ludicrous that you almost have to appreciate the creative writing involved. What’s the evidence? A few anonymous complaints and a spin cycle that would make a laundromat envious.

John Ullyot, the writer of the article, claims that he’s a Hegseth supporter, yet the Pentagon recently asked him to resign. So I’m sure he doesn’t have an axe to grind. But let’s take a look at what he’s claiming anyway. According to Ullyot, the Pentagon “is in disarray under Hegseth’s leadership.” Curiously, to prove his point, he cites the “Signalgate” kerfuffle as evidence of the chaos, not the successful mission against the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Despite his repeated claims of supporting Hegseth, his narrative sounds like it was lifted straight from the Democrat playbook. I suspect he leans on his supposed backing of Hegseth not out of conviction, but as a shield to lend credibility to what amounts to a repackaged left-wing hit job on the Pentagon.

“Yet even strong backers of the secretary like me must admit: The last month has been a full-blown meltdown at the Pentagon — and it’s becoming a real problem for the administration,” Ullyot writes. Let’s not pretend that this isn’t orchestrated. The timing is telling. Hegseth has been critical of the Biden administration’s dismal defense policies, exposing its failure to prioritize American security interests. And now, as if by magic, Politico drops a hit piece linking him to alleged dysfunction at the Pentagon by a “friend.” Give me a break. He sounds like the next Omarosa. We saw this play out during Trump’s first term, and it looks like it’s happening all over again — figures who claim to support the president suddenly breaking ranks “for the greater good.” But scratch the surface, and it’s clear that they’re serving as mouthpieces for the deep state, trying to create the very dysfunction and chaos they claim already exists.

It’s a classic tactic: create the chaos, then point to it as proof they were right all along. Ullyot claims that “There are very likely more shoes to drop in short order, with even bigger bombshell stories coming this week, key Pentagon reporters have been telling sources privately.” Ahhh, sources. If anything, this article proves one thing: the left and their media enablers are running scared. So let’s call the situation what it is. Politico isn’t reporting the news; it’s trying to shape it. Hegseth stands for values that terrify the liberal elite: strength, accountability, and an America-first mindset. And that’s why the left is working so hard to undermine him, even if it means stretching the truth to the breaking point to create chaos.

Hegseth survived phase 1. That emboldened him, also because it shows Trump’s trust and loyalty.

• Hegseth Slams Media Over Latest Smear Campaign: ‘Full of Hoaxsters’ (Margolis)

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth didn’t hold back when asked about the latest media-driven controversy involving internal Signal messages and supposed leaks from the Pentagon. Speaking during the White House Easter Egg Roll, Hegseth delivered a scathing rebuke of the press, accusing it of orchestrating a smear campaign using anonymous sources and recycled narratives. “What a big surprise,” Hegseth said, when asked about the so-called “Signal chat controversy.” “A few leakers get fired and suddenly a bunch of hit pieces come out from the same media that peddled the Russia hoax. They got Pulitzers for a bunch of lies — Pulitzers for a bunch of lies, and on hoaxes, time and time again.” Hegseth wasn’t finished. As reporters tried to pepper him with more questions, he tore into what he sees as the media’s standard operating procedure: relying on unverifiable leaks and turning them into politically motivated attacks.

“This is what the media does,” he said. “They take anonymous sources from disgruntled former employees and then they try to slash and burn people and ruin their reputations.” “But it’s not gonna work with me,” he added defiantly. “Because we’re changing the Defense Department. We’re putting the Pentagon back in the hands of war fighters, and anonymous smears from disgruntled former employees on old news doesn’t matter.” Former Pentagon official John Ullyot, who was recently asked to resign, just penned a thinly veiled hit piece in Politico claiming that the Pentagon has descended into “chaos” and predicting that Hegseth’s ouster is imminent. The article leans heavily on anonymous sources and paints a conveniently damning picture that plays right into the hands of the deep state.

It’s a familiar playbook: pose as a concerned insider while amplifying the very narrative the left wants to push. The timing is no accident. These attacks are surfacing just as Hegseth is aggressively working to clean house, purge entrenched bureaucrats, and return the Pentagon to the control of actual warfighters. This isn’t genuine concern; it’s a coordinated attempt to take down an outsider who refuses to play by their rules. As the secretary stood alongside his father and his children, he reminded reporters what motivates him. “This is what we’re doing it for. These kids right here. This is why we’re fighting the fake news media. This is why we’re fighting slash-and-burn Democrats. This is why we’re fighting hoaxsters.” When one reporter tried to interject with another question, Hegseth cut through the noise.

“This group right here,” he said, pointing toward the assembled press, “full of hoaxsters that peddle anonymous sources from leakers with axes to grind. And then you put it all together as if it’s some news story.” Despite the media’s coordinated efforts to generate controversy, Hegseth made it clear he isn’t backing down.“I’m really proud of what we’re doing for the president — fighting hard across the board,” he said before heading off to enjoy the Easter event with his family. “I’ve spoken to the president, and we are gonna continue fighting on the same page all the way.” In typical fashion, the media tried to create a scandal. But in Pete Hegseth, they’ve found someone unafraid to punch back.

https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1914484235597176850

24 years ago.

• US Senator Ron Johnson Says New 9/11 Investigation Could Happen (RT)

Republican Senator Ron Johnson has suggested that new congressional hearings into the September 11 attacks may be forthcoming, citing unanswered questions surrounding the official narrative and the handling of evidence. On September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four passenger airliners, crashing two into the World Trade Center towers in Manhattan. A third plane struck the Pentagon, while the fourth crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed due to fires ignited by debris from one of the nearby towers. During an interview with conservative commentator Benny Johnson published Monday, Senator Johnson questioned several aspects of the 9/11 investigation, including the collapse of Building 7.

“I don’t know that you can find structural engineers – other than the ones that have the corrupt investigation inside NIST – that would say that that thing didn’t come down in any other way than a controlled demolition,” he said. Johnson, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, also criticized the removal and destruction of physical evidence from the site, calling it “totally contrary to any other firefighting investigation procedures.” “Where’s all the documentation from the NIST investigation? There are a host of questions that I want and I will be asking, quite honestly, now that my eyes have been opened,” he added. When asked whether the public might see hearings on the issue, Johnson replied, “I think so.”

He further suggested that President Donald Trump, “being a New Yorker himself,” might have an interest in reopening the case: “What actually happened in 9/11? What do we know? What is being covered up? My guess is there’s an awful lot being covered up in terms of what the American government knows about 9/11.” Johnson also said he recently spoke with former Congressman Curt Weldon and plans to “work with him to expose what he’s willing to expose.” Earlier this month, Weldon urged Trump to appoint “people of impeccable integrity” to lead a commission to “study the facts” surrounding 9/11.

In an interview with journalist Tucker Carlson, Weldon dismissed the label of conspiracy theorist, suggesting that the CIA and the government have long engaged in disinformation. “You know, what gets me is reporters who call people conspiracy theorists. Well, that’s all the agency does! They’re the ones who create the conspiracies,” he said. “They have whole courses for their agents on how to make people look like they’re conspiracy theorists.” The 9/11 Commission Report, released in 2004, remains the most comprehensive federal review of the attacks. However, critics have pointed to omissions and the continued classification of key government documents. Johnson also referenced a bipartisan effort with Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) in 2023 to obtain unredacted FBI files. “We wanted to get those answers, those documents for the families. Again, we didn’t get squat from the FBI,” he said.

January: Conservatives polled 92.5%. April, 3 months later, they poll 38%. ¿Perqué? A very fertile breeding ground for TDS.

• Canada’s Conservatives See A Reversal of Fortune (JTN)

Before Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stepped down in favor of Mark Carney, Canada’s Conservative Party was expected to streamroll the national elections and overturn more than a decade of far-left liberal leadership. But under Pierre Poilievre, the Conservatives have seen their electoral prospects fall off a cliff as he has struggled to meet the moment and galvanize his supporters on a promise of tangible change. Betting markets currently hand Carney a 76.6% chance of winning the election, to Poilievre’s 23.3%. The figure represents a stunning reversal from mid-January, when Poilievre was assigned a 92.5% chance of winning. The Canadian Broadcast Corporation’s current polling shows Carney’s Liberal Party with 43.2% support, while Poilievre and the Conservatives trail with 38.0%.

Canada is a multi-party parliamentary democracy that often sees other blocs gain seats in its legislature, though no other party is expected to seriously compete for the premiership. Under CBC estimates, the Liberals have an 83% shot at an outright majority and a 13% shot at winning a plurality, while the Conservatives reportedly have a 2% chance of taking the most seats. “I have never seen a transformation of our voter landscape in Canada of that nature,” pollster Frank Graves told Politico. Adding to Poilievre’s own shortcomings is the ongoing tariff row between Canada and the United States, which has allowed the Liberals to own the nationalist angle while Carney’s status as a fresh face has let him shed much of Trudeau’s baggage. The Conservatives were the favorites to win as recently as mid-March. So why the massive flip? In short, Poilievre, Trump and immigration.

Since returning to the White House, President Donald Trump criticized the trade relationship between Ottawa and Washington, suggesting that the Canadians enjoyed unfair advantages due to dubious practices to undercut American markets. “The dominant issue is, how do we negotiate future trade relationships with the United States and all those sorts of issues around tariffs,” Politico’s Graves said. “And [Carney] has a very large advantage on that.” While Trudeau was still in office, he traveled to Mar-a-Lago on a high-profile visit to address prospective tariffs. Trump later mocked Trudeau as the “governor of Canada,” leaning into his tounge-in-cheek rhetoric of making the country the 51st American state. Trudeau himself was widely lampooned in the Canadian media for seemingly surrendering his dignity to the American president.

After Trudeau resigned, however, Trump went further and announced reciprocal tariffs, which have seen Carney garner support for opposing them and triggered a nationalist Canadian response on the left to Trump himself. Trump’s nominal ideological link to the Conservatives as a fellow politician on the right, moreover, appears to have hurt the party’s image, despite Poilievre’s own criticisms of Trump and the tariffs. “It produced this really dramatic rise in national attachment, which is the main factor that propelled the Liberals to their elevated position,” Graves said of Trump’s goading.

Like many Western countries, Canada is struggling with an identity crisis amid mass immigration, notably from South Asian countries such as India and Bangladesh. Trudeau was comparable to President Joe Biden in allowing large numbers of migrants into the country. The sheer volume of migrants contributed substantially to an ongoing housing shortage in Canada and, like in America, overwhelmed public services. Immigration ranked among the leading contributors to Trudeau’s decline in popularity.

Though the issue may have stoked considerable frustration in the electorate, the Conservatives struggled to harness voter discontent about immigration and were hesitant to lean into deportations in the way that Trump did while campaigning for the White House. Poilievre has called for “moderate, reasonable levels of immigration” though he has made no commitment to specific immigration levels. In recent weeks, however, he has softened somewhat on the issue and issued statements more welcoming to immigrants, though that has come with some backlash. “Bring your culture, bring your traditions, bring your family, but do not bring foreign conflicts onto our streets,” Poilievre said this month. The clip went viral, attracting millions of views and thousands of comments, nearly all of which condemned the soft stance on immigration.

Though the Canadian Conservative Party occupies the right side of the Canadian aisle, as one would expect, they are far from the ideological siblings of the MAGA-dominated Republicans in the United States. Rather, under its current leadership, the Conservatives more closely resemble the GOP of Mitt Romney and so-called “RINOS.” Graves gave Poilievre credit for running a “disciplined campaign” but asserted he had not been able to pivot on his messaging in response to Trump, especially in light of a subset of his supporters liking the American president.

“They’ve tried a lot of things,” he said. “They’ve tried labeling Carney as another Trudeau. That’s not penetrating. They’ve tried going after him on an ethics issue. But in our testing on this stuff, they haven’t figured out a message that’s really resonating.” Poilievre used the approach of likening Carney to Trudeau as recently as Sunday, saying then that the only adjustments he made to the former prime minister’s platform were to “increase inflationary spending even higher.” “Canada can’t afford a 4th Liberal term of the same Liberals pushing higher taxes, higher spending, and higher inflation,” he posted. The election is set for next Monday. Canadian law prohibits publication on Election Day of previously unreleased polls as well as the release of “exit polls” before all polling stations are closed.

“This halt is to remain in effect until further review is completed to address these serious deficiencies.”

• Trump Administration Halts New York Offshore Wind Project (Wade)

The Donald Trump administration has halted a massive New York offshore wind project as it conducts a financial and regulatory review of plans to erect towering turbines along the nation’s coastlines. The Interior Department issued an order earlier this week calling for the immediate halt of construction on the Empire Wind Project “until further review,” citing new information suggesting that the Joe Biden administration “rushed through its approval without sufficient analysis.” “Approval for the project was rushed through by the prior administration without sufficient analysis or consultation among the relevant agencies as relates to the potential effects from the project,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum wrote in a letter to the Bureau of Ocean Management, which oversees federal offshore lease permits. “This halt is to remain in effect until further review is completed to address these serious deficiencies.”

The project’s developer, Norway-based Equinor, said Thursday that it was complying with the Trump administration’s order to halt the project but is considering a potential legal challenge. “Upon receipt of the order, immediate steps were taken by Empire and its contractors to initiate suspension of relevant marine activities, ensuring the safety of workers and the environment,” the company said in a statement. “Empire is engaging with relevant authorities to clarify this matter and is considering its legal remedies, including appealing the order.” Gov. Kathy Hochul blasted the decision, saying Empire Wind 1 already employs hundreds of New Yorkers, including 1,000 “good-paying union jobs” as part of a growing sector that she claimed has “already spurred significant economic development and private investment.”

“This fully federally permitted project has already put shovels in the ground before the President’s executive orders—it’s exactly the type of bipartisan energy solution we should be working on,” she said in a statement. “As Governor, I will not allow this federal overreach to stand. I will fight this every step of the way to protect union jobs, affordable energy and New York’s economic future.” New York’s Empire Wind is one of several offshore wind projects under development off the Atlantic coastline that could be impacted by the Bureau of Ocean Management’s review of federal leases. President Donald Trump had campaigned on a promise to end the offshore wind industry, arguing it is too expensive and hurts birds and marine animals. He previously issued an order suspending new leasing for wind projects in federal waters. Massachusetts is working with Rhode Island on three projects totaling 2,678 megawatts of offshore wind, which, when completed, will be capable of providing enough electricity to power more than 1.4 million homes.

In August, the U.S. Department of Energy awarded $389 million to Massachusetts and several New England states for improvements to the power grid aimed at significantly increasing the region’s capacity for offshore wind. The Power Up New England plan—a collaboration between Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont and several utilities—calls for expanding and upgrading the shared interconnection points for undersea cables that bring power from offshore wind turbines to the regional grid. But the push to develop wind comes amid increasing turbulence in the nation’s nascent green industry. Even before the Trump administration’s scrutiny of the projects, developers were scaling back—or in some cases backing out of projects—citing supply chain disruptions, higher construction costs and a lack of tax credits from the states and federal government. Some states, like New Jersey, have struggled to go it alone on offshore wind and have ended up scrapping some projects.

Must be a different science.

• The UK Is Doubling Down On Wind Energy (ZH)

The U.K. is already a world leader in wind energy, having rapidly expanded both its onshore and offshore wind capacity over the last decade. Now, under the new Labour government, the U.K. hopes to expand its wind power sector even further through the massive expansion of the Rampion offshore wind farm. This is expected to help the government progress towards achieving its net-zero carbon ambitions. In 2023, 46.4 percent of the UK’s electricity was generated using renewable energy sources, of which wind energy contributed 61 percent. Around 39.7 percent of the U.K.’s wind energy is generated onshore and the remaining 60.3 offshore. The U.K. constructed its first commercial onshore wind farm in 1991, generating 1 GW of wind capacity. In 2024, the U.K.’s wind energy capacity increased to 30GW, double that of 2017. The U.K. has 11,906 turbines, with 9,141 onshore and 2,765 offshore, consisting of 10 floating and 2,755 fixed turbines.

Approximately 32,000 people are employed in the U.K.’s offshore wind industry, a figure that is expected to increase to over 120,000 by 2030. The government also hopes to achieve 60 GW of wind capacity by the end of the decade, which could add as much as $58.5 billion to the economy. By the beginning of 2025, the U.K. had grown its offshore wind energy capacity to become the largest in Europe and second only to China, at 14 GW. In early April, the government approved plans to develop Rampion 2, an offshore wind farm with enough energy to power around 1 million U.K. homes. The expansion of the Rampion offshore wind farm, off England’s south coast, would include the addition of 90 turbines to add 1.2 GW of capacity. The project is expected to create 4,000 jobs during the construction phase, which is scheduled to commence in 2026. The government decision on the expansion was expected to be delivered in February but it has been delayed while more information is collected from the project’s developer.

The wind farm is being developed by RWE as the majority shareholder (50.1 percent), a Macquarie-led consortium (25 percent), and Enbridge (24.9 percent). The electricity produced at Rampion will be transported to land via subsea cables. An underground cable will then deliver the power inland to a new substation at Oakendene near Cowfold before connecting it to the national grid at Bolney in Sussex. The wind farm is expected to be operational by the late 2020s. Danielle Lane, the director of offshore wind development U.K. and Ireland at RWE, stated, “We are delighted to receive the development consent order for the proposed Rampion 2 offshore wind farm. This is a key milestone in the development of the project, as Rampion 2 can play an important role in helping secure the U.K.’s energy supplies from our abundant wind resource and play a key role in supporting the U.K. government’s clean power ambitions.”

Since coming into power last July, the Labour government has gone full throttle on the deployment of green energy, with plans to double the U.K.’s onshore wind, triple its solar power, and quadruple its offshore wind power capacity by 2030. It has also announced plans to reduce the contribution of natural gas to the country’s electricity generation to just 5 percent by the end of the decade. Thanks to the development of a more friendly investment environment, in an event in October some of the world’s largest green energy companies pledged to invest almost $31.39 billion across the U.K., demonstrating that greater public investment in the sector is attracting higher levels of private financing.

U.K. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband said, “The U.K. has a boundless supply of wind that cannot be turned on and off at the whims of dictators and petrostates. It’s time to get off the fossil fuel rollercoaster, roll out clean power, protect our energy security and bring down bills for good.” He added, “This project puts us within reach of our clean power offshore wind target,” Miliband said. “Through our plan for change, we’re getting on with delivering the clean energy and jobs Britain needs.” Last year was a record year for wind energy production, with onshore and offshore projects producing 83 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity across Great Britain, an increase from almost 79 TWh in 2023. In around 10 days in December alone, over 50 percent of Britain’s electricity production came from wind.

However, there are also less windy periods, where energy production is lower. This suggests the need for greater investment in battery storage technology to make the renewable energy source more reliable and help reduce the U.K.’s reliance on fossil fuels during low-production times.The U.K. is already a major onshore and offshore producer of wind energy, having developed several projects over the last three decades. The approval of the new Rampion 2 project is expected to put the country on track to achieve its end-of-decade climate goals, by decarbonising its transmission network. This is one of many clean energy projects the Labour government has announced over the last eight months, with the ambitious green transition agenda expected to attract high levels of private funding in the sector.

Bhattacharya
https://twitter.com/plantparadise7/status/1914251645430489245

Makary

New Commissioner of the FDA Marty Makary gives shocking statistics

– Massive rise in chronic diseases
– 1 in 6 women now affected with autoimmune diseases
– 50% of kids are sick
– Pre diabetes affects about 20% of teens
– 70% of kids are not qualifying for the military

“We've… pic.twitter.com/agPkQUxfca

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) April 21, 2025

RFK
https://twitter.com/AVPac_US/status/1914432756815421626

pic.twitter.com/HAp9R7tLTo

— Died Suddenly (@DiedSuddenly_) April 20, 2025

Another fallen soldier. pic.twitter.com/bV6IVIAReS

— Dr. Dennis Walker (@drdenwalker) April 20, 2025

Sagan

Who can reply to Carl Sagan's this question? pic.twitter.com/NbXmXhB8Rv

— Prof. Carl Sagan (@ProfCarlSagan) April 20, 2025

Hello everyone, please spare a few minutes and let's reminisce about our place in the cosmos.

– Pale Blue Dot by Carl Sagan pic.twitter.com/id1nDLrHs7

— Saganism (@Saganismm) April 20, 2025

Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge.pic.twitter.com/hcgD539nHP

— Prof. Carl Sagan (@ProfCarlSagan) April 21, 2025

Who says that animals have no feelings? pic.twitter.com/3ooF7BsC5O

— Nature is Amazing ☘️ (@AMAZlNGNATURE) April 21, 2025

Goats

Mountain Goats knows something humans don't know pic.twitter.com/EPdLxtj9hI

— Nature is Amazing ☘️ (@AMAZlNGNATURE) April 20, 2025

Cat

Dads

1. pic.twitter.com/CVoxirBg5G

— Wolf of X (@tradingMaxiSL) April 20, 2025

The greatest news interview of all time. Nothing can prepare you for what happens 20 seconds into this clip. pic.twitter.com/SqjZqYf3XB

— Barry Malone (@malonebarry) April 21, 2025

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

Debt Rattle April 12 2025

Apr 122025

April 12, 2025 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 9:29 am Finance Tagged with: DMZ, existential, Georgescu, Greenland, Kellogg, NATO, Romania, Supreme Court, tariffs, Trump, Witkoff 47 Responses »

Pablo Picasso Guernica 1937 (I turned it 90°, so you can see)

• Kremlin Reveals Content Of Putin’s Talks With Trump Envoy Witkoff (RT)

• Trump’s Kiev Envoy Clarifies Proposal To ‘Divide Ukraine Like Postwar Berlin’ (RT)

• Kellogg Blasts Times for Misrepresenting His Words on Ukraine (Sp.)

• Zelensky Mustn’t Govern Russians He Despises – Lavrov (RT)

• UK Has Deep Involvement In Ukraine Conflict – The Times (RT)

• NATO Needs Romania To Launch WWIII – Georgescu to Tucker Carlson (RT)

• The Tariff Issue Again (Paul Craig Roberts)

• China Dismisses US Tariff ‘Numbers Game’ (RT)

• 10 Tariff Questions Never Asked (Victor Davis Hanson)

• Trump’s Tariffs Only the Start. Congress Must Now Cut Taxes, Regulations (DS)

• Dem-Appointed Federal Judges Are the Big Losers at Supreme Court This Week (DC)

• The Wicked Flee (James Howard Kunstler)

• Court Issues Curious Order in the Garcia Case (Turley)

• Trump Plans Charm Offensive To Win Over Greenland – NYT (RT)

• Zelensky Offered US Rare-Earths Deal Under Biden – Blinken (RT)

• The End of La Grande Illusion Democratique (Karganovic)

• Tulsi Gabbard Drops TWO Huge Bombshells (MN)

• Trump Admin Reaches Agreements With 5 Law Firms (ET)

https://twitter.com/kylenabecker/status/1910329166995607765

SAVE

Now it is up to the US Senate https://t.co/L9z2mT94dY

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 11, 2025

Chamath

NEW – Chamath Says Trump Didn’t Just Shake Up the System—He Broke the Elites’ Entire Economic Playbook

They’re not just upset—they’re terrified.

Chamath Palihapitiya, once one of the Democratic Party’s top donors, is now exposing the global elites’ unified strategy—and why it’s… pic.twitter.com/0EvjoWx9VT

— Overton (@overton_news) April 11, 2025

O’Leary

At yesterday’s Senate hearing, I shared a story that every American entrepreneur already knows too well.

You build something great. You invest your own money, blood, sweat, and tears. You prove it in the U.S. market. Then, BOOM — one day you wake up and see your product, your… pic.twitter.com/yUreRyqVmF

— Kevin O'Leary aka Mr. Wonderful (@kevinolearytv) April 10, 2025

In a trade war, SIZE MATTERS — and the U.S. economy has the upper hand.

People keep asking me, “What if China sells off U.S. Treasuries?” My response? Go ahead. Because here’s the reality: when hundreds of thousands of jobs are at risk in China, the pressure doesn’t land on the… pic.twitter.com/2fjwjEtYZ6

— Kevin O'Leary aka Mr. Wonderful (@kevinolearytv) April 11, 2025

RFK

RFK Jr.: "At your direction. We are gonna know by September. We've launched a massive, testing and research effort that's gonna involve hundreds of scientists from around the world. By September, we will know what has caused the autism epidemic, and we'll be we'll be able to… pic.twitter.com/ZRow1IhLeL

— Camus (@newstart_2024) April 10, 2025

"It's in 63% of our drinking water."

RFK Jr: Despite being banned in Europe, the second most used pesticide in America is atrazine, which—in a famous experiment—sterilised 60 out of 70 male frogs, and turned 10% into female frogs.

"We don't know what impact it's having on our… pic.twitter.com/86P3ZteN0E

— Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) April 11, 2025

Trump has two envoys in/for Ukraine right now. One is General Keith Kellogg, whose task is to talk to Zelensky and Kiev. The other is Steve Witkoff, who has a much broader portfolio. One moment he’s discussing the Middle East with various parties, the next he holds a four hour meeting with Putin in St. Petersburg. Witkoff told Trump this week, before his meeting with Putin, that “recognizing Russian ownership of Lugansk, Donetsk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson was the swiftest path to halting the war”. To which Kellogg responded that Zelensky would never accept that.

Kellogg ponders a plan that involves peacekeeping forces and -zones with UK, France and Ukraine troops. Which Russia will not accept. It’s very easy this way for Zelensky to halt any peace proposals. It leaves two questions: 1/ who’s winning? and 2/ how much patience does Trump have? NATO will never concede that Russia won and now gets to call the shots. But Russia did win. UK, France and Ukraine cling on to hopes that Trump will support their side and start a world war. Trump wants peace.

• Kremlin Reveals Content Of Putin’s Talks With Trump Envoy Witkoff (RT)

The discussions between Russian President Vladimir Putin and White House special envoy Steve Witkoff on Friday involved “aspects of the settlement of the Ukraine conflict,” the Kremlin has announced, declining to provide further details. Witkoff visited Russia on Friday and met with Putin in St. Petersburg. The meeting lasted over four hours and the content of the talks has been largely kept under wraps by Moscow and Washington. However, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt addressed the issue during a press briefing earlier in the day when asked by a reporter about the purpose of Witkoff’s visit to Russia. According to Leavitt, the visit was aimed at facilitating direct US communications with the Kremlin as part of a broader effort to negotiate a ceasefire and eventual peace agreement in the Ukraine conflict.

The Trump administration faced growing internal divisions this week after Witkoff allegedly proposed a ceasefire plan that would recognize Russian control over four eastern regions claimed by both Moscow and Kiev, Reuters reported on Friday citing anonymous sources. During a White House meeting with President Donald Trump last week, Witkoff argued that recognizing Russian ownership of Lugansk, Donetsk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson was the swiftest path to halting the war, the outlet’s sources said. General Keith Kellogg, Trump’s Ukraine envoy, reportedly pushed back, stressing Ukraine would not accept full territorial concessions. The meeting reportedly concluded without a decision from Trump, who has repeatedly said he wants to broker a ceasefire by May. Witkoff subsequently traveled to Russia on Friday for talks with Putin.

The episode has deepened rifts within the Trump administration, as officials debate how to resolve the Ukraine conflict, Reuters wrote. Witkoff’s approach, previously outlined in a March interview with Tucker Carlson, has reportedly alarmed both Republican lawmakers and US allies. “They’re Russian-speaking,” Witkoff told Carlson of the eastern territories. “There have been referendums where the overwhelming majority of the people have indicated that they want to be under Russian rule.” Several Republicans reportedly contacted National Security Adviser Mike Waltz and Secretary of State Marco Rubio to raise concerns about Witkoff’s stance, criticizing him for echoing Russian rhetoric.

A recent dinner with Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev, who until recently was under US sanctions, further stirred controversy. Originally planned at Witkoff’s home, it was moved to the White House after security concerns were raised. Despite criticism, Witkoff retains strong backing from Trump and some administration officials. Waltz praised his efforts, citing his business background and recent diplomatic activity, including securing the release of US citizen Marc Fogel from Russia.

“Medvedev, said that the potential emergence of any NATO “peacekeepers” in Ukraine would mean a war between the bloc and Russia.”

• Trump’s Kiev Envoy Clarifies Proposal To ‘Divide Ukraine Like Postwar Berlin’ (RT)

US President Donald Trump’s special envoy to Ukraine, General Keith Kellogg, has rejected the notion that he proposed partitioning Ukraine like post-WWII Germany, accusing The Times of misrepresenting his remarks about a Cold War-style post-ceasefire security arrangement. Kellogg told The Times in an interview published on Friday that British and French – but not American – troops could lead a Western military force positioned west of the Dnepr River, while Ukrainian forces would hold territory further east. He also suggested establishing a demilitarized zone (DMZ) roughly 18 miles (30 kilometers) wide along the current lines of control to prevent direct clashes with Russian forces.

“You could almost make it look like what happened with Berlin after World War Two, when you had a Russian zone, a French zone, and a British zone, a US zone,” said Kellogg, a retired US Army lieutenant general, appointed by Trump to deal directly with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky. Kellogg acknowledged that Moscow “might not accept” the proposed zones of control, and claimed that a DMZ would create conditions for a “sustainable” ceasefire and would “not be provocative at all” to Moscow. The British newspaper ran its story with the headline “Trump envoy: We can divide Ukraine like postwar Berlin,” prompting Kellogg to accuse the publication of taking his words out of context.

“The Times article misrepresents what I said,” Kellogg wrote on X on Friday evening. “I was speaking of a post-ceasefire resiliency force in support of Ukraine’s sovereignty. In discussions of partitioning, I was referencing areas or zones of responsibility for an allied force (without US troops). I was NOT referring to a partitioning of Ukraine.” The Times report, however, noted that Kellogg’s idea implies that any final settlement would involve Kiev relinquishing claims to territories already controlled by Russia – a point that echoes proposals recently floated by Trump’s Russia envoy, Steve Witkoff.

Witkoff, who met Russian President Vladimir Putin in St. Petersburg on Friday, had previously argued that recognizing Russian ownership of Lugansk, Donetsk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson was the swiftest path to halting the conflict. The suggestion, reportedly voiced during a White House meeting last week, has triggered internal debate within the Trump administration, with Kellogg allegedly pushing back against full territorial concessions. Kiev’s backers remain split on a proposed “reassurance force” that could potentially be deployed to Ukraine after hostilities between Kiev and Moscow end. Following the latest meeting of the “coalition of the willing” – composed of some 30 predominantly EU and NATO member states – in Brussels on Thursday, only six Western nations expressed readiness to send troops, according to AFP.

Moscow has repeatedly warned the West against deploying troops to Ukraine under any pretext, specifically objecting to forces from any NATO countries ending up in the country. Last month, former Russian president and deputy chair of Russia’s Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev, said that the potential emergence of any NATO “peacekeepers” in Ukraine would mean a war between the bloc and Russia.

“The Russian Foreign Ministry previously said the plans of some EU countries to send “peacekeepers” to Ukraine are a provocative step aimed at maintaining unhealthy illusions in Kiev..”

• Kellogg Blasts Times for Misrepresenting His Words on Ukraine (Sp.)

US President Donald Trump’s special envoy Keith Kellogg accused the Times newspaper of misrepresenting his words about control zones in Ukraine, clarifying that he did not mean “partitioning” the country itself.
The Times wrote in an article that Kellogg suggested partitioning Ukraine into control zones after the end of the conflict like Berlin after World War II, but without US ground forces. Kellogg, the report said, proposed dividing Ukraine into several control zones, where the military of several countries would be located: British and French troops could be deployed to western Ukraine as a “reassurance force.” Between them and the Russian forces there could be “Ukrainian forces and a demilitarized zone.”

“The Times article misrepresents what I said. I was speaking of a post-cease fire resiliency force in support of Ukraine’s sovereignty. In discussions of partitioning, I was referencing areas or zones of responsibility for an allied force (without US troops). I was NOT referring to a partitioning of Ukraine,” Kellogg wrote on X, attaching a link to the article. Earlier in April, Alexey Polishchuk, Director of the Second CIS Department at the Russian Foreign Ministry, told Sputnik that London and Paris’ discussions on sending deterrent forces to Ukraine were preparations for foreign intervention. According to Polishchuk, Kiev is known to be rejecting the peace process and is even sabotaging the moratorium on strikes against energy facilities. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, in turn, previously stated that any foreign military presence in Ukraine would be viewed as a threat to Russia and carries the risk of a direct military clash.

Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) previously reported that the West would deploy a so-called “peacekeeping contingent” of about 100,000 people in Ukraine to restore its combat capability. The SVR said this would be a de facto occupation of Ukraine. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the deployment of peacekeepers is only possible with the consent of the parties to a particular conflict. According to him, it is premature to talk about peacekeepers in Ukraine. Earlier, he also left without comment statements that Russia would allegedly not be against the deployment of peacekeepers in Ukraine.

On March 6, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov emphasized that Russia does not see any possibility for a compromise on the issue of deploying foreign peacekeepers in Ukraine. As the Russian minister specified at the time, if a foreign contingent is deployed in Ukraine, Western countries will not want to discuss the terms of peaceful settlement. The Russian Foreign Ministry previously said the plans of some EU countries to send “peacekeepers” to Ukraine are a provocative step aimed at maintaining unhealthy illusions in Kiev.

“..Moscow has firmly rejected the idea of NATO troops being stationed in Ukraine.”

• Zelensky Mustn’t Govern Russians He Despises – Lavrov (RT)

Vladimir Zelensky’s openly declared hatred for Russians means he must not and will not govern people living in former parts of Ukraine that Kiev seeks to retake, Moscow’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has stated. In a late March interview with the French daily Le Figaro, Zelensky expressed his disdain for “Russians who killed so many Ukrainian citizens,” asserting that this “hatred” fuels his leadership. Lavrov referenced the comments during a press conference at the Foreign Ministry on Friday, underscoring why Moscow has deemed Kiev’s territorial claims unacceptable. “Who would even hypothetically consider handing over those people to such an individual? Nobody. No way,” he emphasized. Since the Western-backed coup in Kiev in 2014, five Ukrainian regions plus the city of Sevastopol have voted to break away and join Russia. The Ukrainian government has dismissed these referendums as a “sham.”

Lavrov also reminded journalists of Zelensky’s previous derogatory remarks, including statements made prior to the conflict’s escalation in 2022. In 2021, Zelensky urged Donbass residents who identified as Russian to relocate to Russia. That same year, he referred to politicians targeted by his government with personal sanctions as another “species.” The minister accused the Ukrainian government of “legislatively eradicating everything related to Russia and the Russian world: the Russian language, Russian-speaking media, the Orthodox Christianity represented by the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and much more.”

Such discriminatory policies, he argued, justify labeling the Zelensky administration “neo-Nazi” and contribute to ongoing hostilities. Lavrov asserted that US President Donald Trump recognizes Russia’s red lines and considers “the return to the 1991 borders, as Zelensky keeps demanding” impossible. The Trump administration seeks to mediate a peace deal between Moscow and Kiev, while the UK and France are leading discussions on a proposed “reassurance force” to be deployed in Ukraine if a truce is achieved. Moscow has firmly rejected the idea of NATO troops being stationed in Ukraine.

“Sometimes their visits were so sensitive they went in civilian clothing.”

• UK Has Deep Involvement In Ukraine Conflict – The Times (RT)

Britain’s military leadership played a far more extensive and covert role in the Ukraine conflict than previously known, not only designing battle plans and supplying intelligence, but also authorizing secret troop deployments inside Ukraine to deliver weapons training and technical support, according to a report by The Times. While London’s political and military backing for Kiev has been public since the 2014 Western-backed coup, the extent of its involvement after the escalation in February 2022 “remained largely hidden… until now,” the British newspaper wrote on Friday. The Times claimed that British troops were sent into Ukraine in small numbers on several occasions throughout 2022 and 2023, operating discreetly to avoid provoking Russia. In particular, UK forces were deployed to fit Ukrainian aircraft with Storm Shadow long-range cruise missiles and train pilots and ground crews in their use.

“UK troops were secretly sent to fit Ukraine’s aircraft with the missiles and teach troops how to use them,” the publication wrote, noting that it “would not be the first time British troops had been deployed on the ground.” The UK had been delivering thousands of NLAW anti-tank missiles to Kiev and sending instructors to train Ukrainian soldiers in their use since 2015. While British troops were pulled back from Ukraine shortly before the escalation in February 2022, the deteriorating battlefield situation and the urgent need for technical expertise saw small teams of UK personnel redeployed quietly alongside fresh supplies of missiles, the newspaper reported.

London also reportedly played a key role in helping Ukraine prepare its much-touted 2023 “counteroffensive” against Russia – and in mediating between Kiev and Washington when the operation failed to meet US expectations. The newspaper claimed that “behind the scenes” the Ukrainians referred to Britain’s military chiefs as the “brains” of what they called an “anti-Putin” coalition. Former UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace was even ereportedly nicknamed “the man who saved Kiev” by Ukrainian military officials. “The Americans went to Ukraine only on rare occasions because of concerns that they would be seen to be too involved in the war, unlike Britain’s military chiefs who were given the freedom to go whenever necessary,” The Times wrote. “Sometimes their visits were so sensitive they went in civilian clothing.”

Moscow perceives the Ukraine conflict as a Western-led proxy war against Russia, in which Ukrainians serve as “cannon fodder.” It considers foreigners fighting for Kiev as “mercenaries” acting on behalf of Western governments. Senior Russian officials have suggested that more complex weapon systems provided to Kiev are highly likely operated by NATO staff. The presence of current and former NATO troops has also been tacitly admitted, but never openly confirmed, by Western officials. For example, last year, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz revealed the involvement of British and French forces in preparing Ukrainian missile launches, as he explained why Berlin would not supply similar weapons to Kiev. Earlier this month, a New York Times investigation found that the administration of former US President Joe Biden provided Ukraine with support that went far beyond arms shipments – extending to daily battlefield coordination, intelligence sharing, and joint strategy planning, which were described as indispensable to Kiev’s fight against Russia.

“..the “largest military base of NATO is in Romania,” coupled with the 380-mile (612 km) long border that his country shares with Ukraine..”

• NATO Needs Romania To Launch WWIII – Georgescu to Tucker Carlson (RT)

Calin Georgescu, a former Romanian presidential candidate whose bid was controversially invalidated earlier this year, has claimed that NATO wants to “launch World War III from Romania.” In an interview with US journalist Tucker Carlson, he said his staunch pro-peace stance was among the main reasons why he was barred from running for president. The right-wing politician, known as an outspoken critic of NATO, the EU, and Western support for Ukraine, scored a surprise win in the first round of November’s presidential election, receiving 23% of the vote. However, the country’s Constitutional Court swiftly moved in to annul the result over alleged “irregularities” in his campaign. Later, Georgescu was stripped of his right to run for office.

Appearing on Carlson’s podcast on Thursday, the former Romanian presidential candidate alleged that NATO wants to “launch… World War III from Romania.” The politician cited the fact that the “largest military base of NATO is in Romania,” coupled with the 380-mile (612 km) long border that his country shares with Ukraine. “In this situation of course Romania is the asset for [the] European Union, for [French President Emmanuel] Macron in order to launch the war,” Georgescu insisted. “They want to turn NATO [into] an offensive force” and are “pushing for war,” he alleged, adding that “my position was exactly against them.”According to Georgescu, “all my campaign was just concentrate[d] on peace[.] When I said… the word ‘peace’, they immediately alerted… because they need war.” The right-wing politician went on to say that the “majority of Romanian people… have this position against any intervention and any participation [in] war.”

Călin Georgescu is the most popular political figure in Romania and one of the bravest and wisest politicians in the world. This fall he ran for president on a platform against “war, technocracy and debt” and would have won, until the Biden administration pushed to cancel the… pic.twitter.com/iRWkrrZEsq

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) April 10, 2025

“I was denied [the right to run for president] by the globalist mafia,” the former candidate alleged, further claiming that the people behind the invalidation of his candidacy were the same people who attempted to derail Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in the US, using similar smear tactics. Appearing on ‘The Shawn Ryan Show’ in January, Georgescu similarly suggested that NATO military infrastructure in Romania could be used to launch a major offensive against Russia. Bucharest, a NATO member since 2004, has been expanding the MK Air Base to make it the largest NATO installation in Europe. Moscow has described the base as “anti-Russian” and warned that it would be among the first targets for retaliatory strikes in a military conflict.

“Trump paused the tariffs, because the tool worked. Seventy-five countries have agreed to negotiate a solution to Trump’s concerns.”

• The Tariff Issue Again (Paul Craig Roberts)

The whore media is doing its best to misrepresent the tariff issue and to cause hysteria that causes stock market volatility and fears of world recession. One of the anti-Trump propaganda ministries that poses as financial media went so far as to claim that Trump has caused a “regime shift whereby US Treasuries are no longer the global fixed-income safe haven.” Once upon a time the New York Times, the Financial Times, the Economist, the BBC, the US TV networks were semi-reliable. Today they are nothing but propaganda ministries. Trump has “paused” the threatened tariffs. Why? Because as I have reported in columns and interviews they are a negotiating tool with which to reach agreements. Trump paused the tariffs, because the tool worked. Seventy-five countries have agreed to negotiate a solution to Trump’s concerns.

How did the excrement that pretends to be a media report Trump’s success? “The most significant retreat by Trump in his term so far.” “Faced with a world recession, sharp selloff of equities and bonds and plunge in oil prices, Trump abandoned his crackpot tariffs.” The Western media, especially the one in the US, has never served the West well. The US media covered up the assassinations of President John Kennedy and his brother Robert Kennedy. The media first encouraged, then misrepresented, the Vietnam War. The media used the CIA-orchestrated “Watergate” to hound President Nixon out of office. The media tried, but failed, to destroy President Reagan as a somnolent Grade-B movie actor who slept through cabinet meetings.

The media covered up 9/11. The media supported obvious lies, such as “Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction,” “Assad’s use of chemical weapons against his own people,” accused Gaddafi of ” being an authoritarian administration that systematically violated human rights and financed global terrorism in the region and abroad” (Wikipedia, the worst liar on earth). The media makes excuses, or does not cover, Israel’s extermination of Palestine and the Palestinian people. The media lies through their teeth about “the Russian invasion of Ukraine,” about alleged evils of Iran and China. When people in the Western world are confronted by nothing but lies and propaganda serving as news, what understanding can they have?

Consider the Iranian issue. Iran has not threatened the US in any way, yet labors under Washington’s sanctions and war plans to attack Iran. For many years the Israel Lobby has been trying to get Americans to attack Iran for Israel. Trump, who appears to be an Israeli puppet instead of a strong American president, is threatening Iran with devastating attack. But does he mean it, or is it, like the tariff threat, just another negotiating instrument? If I were Trump, I would not want any wars, because wars are all-consuming, and the domestic agenda would be put on the back burner. I think that Trump wants to avoid all wars so that he can deal with America’s real enemy: the American Establishment. It will be interesting to see who is strongest, Trump or the war establishment.

We won’t go back to what was before. Something new must be found.

• China Dismisses US Tariff ‘Numbers Game’ (RT)

China likened the United States’ tariff policy to a ‘numbers game’ with no practical meaning after the administration of US President Donald Trump imposed multiple rounds of duties on Chinese imports over the past few weeks. In a statement on Friday, the Chinese government accused Washington of using tariffs as a weapon for bullying and coercion, while hitting back with its own reciprocal trade duties. ”Even if the US continues to impose even higher tariffs, it would no longer have any economic significance and would go down as a joke in the history of world economics,” a spokesman for the Ministry of Commerce said, as cited by Reuters. The US has imposed four major tariff hikes on China in just over two months, with the latest escalation on Wednesday bringing the duties from an initial average of 20% to a cumulative rate of 145%.

China has retaliated, announcing its latest reciprocal hike to 125% on all American imports on Friday. The Ministry of Commerce said Beijing would not retaliate any further, indicating that it may turn to other ways of responding and vowing to “fight to the end.” Trump argues that the increased duties are needed to address trade imbalances and stop China from “ripping off the USA.” Earlier this week, he opined that the “proud” Chinese would have to “make a deal at some point.” China has also filed a lawsuit with the World Trade Organization challenging the latest US tariff hike, asserting that Washington’s actions have significantly disrupted the global economy. The trade dispute between the world’s two largest economies has caused extreme volatility in global stock markets, sent oil prices to four-year lows, and caused concerns regarding global supply chains.

Who gets the long end of the stick?

• 10 Tariff Questions Never Asked (Victor Davis Hanson)

1. President Donald Trump’s so-called trade war. Many call the American effort to obtain either tariff parity or a reduction in the roughly $1 trillion trade deficit and 50 years of consecutive trade deficits a “trade war.” But then what do they call the policies of the past half-century by Europe, Asia, China, and others to ensure asymmetrical tariffs, pseudo-health and security trade restrictions, and large surpluses? A trade peace? Trade fairness?

2. Do nations prefer surpluses or deficits? Why do most nations prefer trade surpluses and protective tariffs? Are Europe, Asia, China, and others stupid? Are they suicidal in continuing their trade surpluses and protective or asymmetrical tariffs. Is the United States uniquely brilliant in maintaining a half-century of cumulative trade deficits? Do Americans alone discover the advantages of a $1 trillion annual trade deficit and small or nonexistent tariffs? Why don’t America’s trading partners prefer deficits like ours—given we supposedly believe they are either advantageous or perhaps irrelevant?

3. Would our trade partners prefer to trade places with us? Would our trade partners prefer to have America’s supposed benefits of a $1 trillion trade deficit? Would the United States then “suffer” like they do by running up $200 billion annual surpluses?

4. What if wages went up at the rate of the stock market? What would now be the reaction of the stock market if over the last decade wages had increased at the rate of stocks—and the stocks at the rate of wages?

5. Is Wall Street’s panic based on what might happen—or what is happening? Is Wall Street’s meltdown a fear of what might happen in the future? Or is it reacting to March’s latest jobs report that there were 93,000 more jobs created than predicted? Was the Wall Street panic predicated on reports of much lower oil prices? Did the furor arise over the March inflation report that the annualized inflation rate dipped to 2.6% per year?

6. Is the frenzy caused by the Trump economic agenda? Is Wall Street’s worry that Trump’s impending tax cuts, more deregulation, greater budget cuts, and continued efforts to eliminate budget deficits and reduce national debt will stall economic growth?

7. What about North American neighbors? If the U.S. was running a $63 billion-plus trade surplus with Canada, refusing to meet its NATO requirements to spend 2% of gross domestic product on defense, and instead spent only 1.37%, would Canada become concerned? If Mexico were running a $171 billion trade deficit with the U.S., if Americans in Mexico were sending over $60 billion per year out of Mexico to the U.S., and if American drug dealers were making $20 billion by selling fentanyl and opioids to Mexico, would Mexico be angry?

8. Is the Trump agenda bad economic news? Is the current panic over tariffs amplified by Trump’s other policies? Is the sudden end of 10,000 illegal entries a day bothering Wall Street? Are the media furious that the Red Sea is suddenly navigable again, the Houthis in Yemen curtailing their attacks? Is the outrage due to the targeting of approximately $200 billion in budget cuts or plans to shave off $500 billion from the annual budget? Does the conundrum arise because Trump is sanctioning Iran, unapologetically supporting Israel, and seeking an end to the Ukraine War?

9. Was the Biden record preferable? Should Trump try to match former President Joe Biden’s $7 trillion addition to the national debt? Should he return to allowing 12 million illegal aliens into the country? Was the 2021 Afghanistan pullout a good model? Is Wall Street worried that Trump may copy the Biden New Green Deal, his electric vehicle mandates, and more green regulations?

10. Why the negotiations and why now? Why are 70 countries now wishing to negotiate tariffs with America either down to zero or reciprocally to the same rate as ours? Is that a good thing? If so, why did our trade partners not wish to lower their trade barriers far earlier? Did they suddenly and spontaneously decide they were acting unfairly and, on their own prompt, now want to make amends? What’s next? If there soon is a rush of nations to cut a deal with the U.S. and not to be left out of the American market, will there follow another hysterical Wall Street spasm—but not to sell, but instead to buy stocks at bargain prices?

“Now is not the time to settle for the lowest common denominator, which is always a temptation in politics..”

• Trump’s Tariffs Only the Start. Congress Must Now Cut Taxes, Regulations (DS)

President Donald Trump announced historic tariffs on April 2—“Liberation Day”—to ensure that America is no longer “looted, pillaged, raped, and plundered” by other nations. On Wednesday, the president announced a 90-day pause on the tariffs and lowered the tariff rate on most nations to 10%. He also raised tariffs on China to 125%. His bold leadership, which quickly brought 75 countries to the negotiating table, he said, should be applauded. Clearly, his strategy is working: America is gaining leverage, and China is becoming more and more isolated. While conservatives have been divided and disorganized about how to respond to the president’s policy, with almost all Republicans in Washington still watching from the sidelines, we’re calling on Americans to unify around a “yes, and” agenda.

That means saying yes to strategic, reciprocal tariffs that target China and other trade abusers—based on their barriers, not simply the balance of trade—as we work toward true free and fair trade. And it means insisting that tariffs are most effective when paired with a broad array of conservative policies that alleviate economic pain on the American people. While Trump works to liberate us from foreign abuses, congressional Republicans must fight to liberate Americans from the burdens of federal regulations, mandates, and taxes. First, we must not settle for extending the status quo on tax relief. Thanks to the majorities Trump delivered in November, Republicans must pursue deeper tax reform through reconciliation. Every penny raised from tariffs should be offset with pro-growth tax cuts.

Making the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act permanent is a good start, but we also must remove every remaining tax penalty on expanding hiring and business operations in America by adopting full and immediate expensing for all investments. Pairing this with a simplified flat tax for all is even better. Congress should collapse the personal income and corporate tax rates to 15%. Second, Congress should work alongside the Trump administration, using the reconciliation process, to transform the current 10% universal tariff into a true border-adjusted tariff. That means applying a universal 10% tariff on all imports, while granting a matching 10% credit to all American exports. That isn’t just smart policy—it’s a long-overdue correction to a global tax system that has punished American industry for decades. We’ve let foreign goods pour into our markets tax-free, while our manufacturers are taxed at home and slapped again abroad. That’s not free trade—it’s economic surrender.

And no country has abused this broken system more brazenly than China, which has cheated on trade, exploited our openness, and gutted the U.S. industry while Washington looked the other way. If we want to rebuild our economy, secure our supply chains, and end our dependence on adversarial regimes, then a border adjustment tariff must be part of the conservative economic playbook. As a bonus, these revenues can be used to offset lost revenue from the lower tax rates we are calling for. Third, Republicans must finally get serious about cutting spending—not with half measures or messaging bills, but with real, structural reform. Through reconciliation, Congress should significantly cut mandatory spending riddled with waste, fraud, and abuse.

Now is not the time to settle for the lowest common denominator, which is always a temptation in politics. If we are to undo the fiscal and inflationary damage done by the previous administration and decades of fiscal irresponsibility, we must go big and take advantage of this historic electoral mandate. Then, through the appropriations process, we must slash the bloated discretionary budget that fuels the unchecked growth of the federal bureaucracy. In the meantime, the Department of Government Efficiency must be fully unleashed to do its job—scrutinizing every dollar, rooting out inefficiency, and holding agencies accountable. This is how we restore fiscal integrity and prove to the American people that their government works for them, not the other way around.

“..the high court has for procedural reasons issued back-to-back rulings undoing restrictions district judges imposed on the Trump administration..”

• Dem-Appointed Federal Judges Are the Big Losers at Supreme Court This Week (DC)

The Supreme Court has struck down orders issued by Democrat-appointed district court judges five times in the past week. Without addressing the merits of the issues—which include consequential questions about immigration, funding, and the president’s authority to remove agency officials—the high court has for procedural reasons issued back-to-back rulings undoing restrictions district judges imposed on the Trump administration. “I think that the recent spate of Supreme Court decisions blocking lower court rulings against the Trump administration indicates that a majority of the justices are growing tired of district court judges issuing broad rulings, often in the form of nationwide injunctions, when they lack jurisdiction and are equally concerned about these judges ordering agencies to disburse millions, if not billions, of taxpayer dollars that will be impossible to recoup if the government ultimately prevails,” John Malcolm, director of the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Chief Justice John Roberts put a temporary hold Wednesday on orders forcing the reinstatement of two fired agency leaders, clearing the way for President Donald Trump to remove Cathy Harris from the Merit Systems Protection Board and Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board. While asking the Supreme Court to quickly block the lower court orders, the administration also asked the Supreme Court to grant certiorari to consider the matter on its merits. Roberts ordered fired officials to offer a response to the administration by April 15. Another Supreme Court ruling from Tuesday reversed a lower court decision requiring the administration to reinstate over 16,000 fired federal employees, finding some of the organizations that sued did not have standing.

The Supreme Court blocked two lower court orders dealing with immigration issues on Monday. Roberts temporarily halted an order that would have required the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an alleged MS-13 member living in Maryland with his American wife, to the United States after he was deported in error. In a 5-4 decision, the majority also permitted the administration to enforce the Alien Enemies Act of 1789, a wartime authority that allows the president to remove citizens of a hostile nation, to deport alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang to El Salvador. The majority blocked the order issued by D.C. District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg because the case was brought in the wrong venue, but stressed that detainees are still entitled to judicial review.

The three liberal justices, along with Justice Amy Coney Barrett, dissented from the ruling, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor calling the majority’s decision an “extraordinary threat to the rule of law” and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson saying it should raise concern for “lovers of liberty.” Following the ruling, a Trump-appointed federal judge in Texas temporarily blocked the administration on Wednesday from removing individuals held in the El Valle Detention Center under the Alien Enemies Act. A Clinton-appointed judge in the Southern District of New York likewise halted deportations in his district under the act. The Supreme Court blocked an order in another 5-4 decision Friday that directed the Trump administration to pay out millions of dollars in teacher training grants, which it halted as part of its effort to cut programs related to diversity, equity and inclusion.

“The Supreme Court has indicated in very strong terms that, rather than seeking out liberal district court judges in the bluest of blue states, people who think they are being unlawfully detained should file habeas petitions where they are being held, former government officials who believe they were wrongfully terminated should go to the Merit Systems Protection Board, and government contractors who believe they are owed money should go the Federal Court of Claims,” Malcolm told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “As to the ultimate merits of these claims, I believe the administration will prevail in most of these cases, but, of course, that remains to be seen.” White House assistant press secretary Taylor Rogers said in a statement to the Daily Caller News Foundation that seeking relief on the emergency docket “was necessary for the President to quickly deliver his agenda for the American people without unlawful interruption.” “President Trump secured five wins in six days in the Supreme Court, because it is finally taking steps to reign in rogue judges who seek to undermine President Trump’s authority,” Rogers said.

“..newly-appointed US Attorney for the New Jersey federal district, Alina Habba, opened a criminal investigation against Gov. Murphy for “obstruction and concealment.” That means, possibly, jail. Badda-bing! This ain’t no foolin’ around.”

• The Wicked Flee (James Howard Kunstler)

The decade-long treasonous hectoring of Mr. Trump keeps on coming, you understand, for the simple reason that there have been absolutely zero consequences for any of the vicious rogues behind it. Not so much as a rap on the knuckles for seeking to overthrow a president, steal elections, hide high crimes, rob the treasury, and recklessly frame the innocent. And suddenly this week, as startling as a mythic goddess of justice riding a spring zephyr, comes a brisk demonstration of exactly what-to-do. Days ago, Governor Phil Murphy of New Jersey ordered his state police to not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement officers (ICE) — a nice bit of grandstanding for a guy seeking to occupy the Democratic Party’s leadership vacuum. So, Thursday night, newly-appointed US Attorney for the New Jersey federal district, Alina Habba, opened a criminal investigation against Gov. Murphy for “obstruction and concealment.” That means, possibly, jail. Badda-bing! This ain’t no foolin’ around.

The reason the Democrat pols and their activist agents pule and mewl about “retribution” is because they know they are guilty of so many manifest crimes against the country and against decency, that a fair system would have jailed or hanged them by now. They evaded their reckonings only because their own filthy mitts gripped the levers of justice until very recently. Since January 20, that has obviously changed. But two questions have dogged the necessary restoration of fairness and good faith in the backbone of government we call the law. 1) Since the culpable are such well-known figures — the Clintons, Obama, Biden, Comey, Brennan, Mayorkas, Garland, Wray, Fauci, Collins, Pelosi, Eisen, Weissmann, McCord, Schiff, and dozens more — how do you seek justice without appearing to “go after” individuals in the old Soviet mode of “show me the person and I’ll find you the crime”? And 2) where do you begin with such a cosmic-scale panorama of treasonous malfeasance spanning many years and many theaters-of-action?

I’d say US Attorney Alina Habba’s move this week is an excellent place to start. For one thing, Governor Murphy’s defiant act is a fresh crime, only days old, and a clear-cut one: you can’t order state officials to flout federal law, especially where public safety is concerned. Ms. Habba smacked him instantly, like an insolent biting insect. Now, follow through. Prosecute. Mere apologies not accepted. No “mulligan” on that shot. If she brings a case, then other mayors and governors of the many self-proclaimed “sanctuary” jurisdictions around the country, trolling for virtue brownie points in their Woke waters, will rethink their lawless posturing. Couple of other good starts just this week. Mr. Trump issued executive orders yesterday that will afford a fresh look into some older but critical crimes against the nation. One directs US Attorney General Bondi to investigate the actions of a key player in wide-ranging 2020 election mischief. From the White House memo itself:

Christopher Krebs, the former head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), is a significant bad-faith actor who weaponized and abused his government authority. Krebs’ misconduct involved the censorship of disfavored speech implicating the 2020 election and COVID-19 pandemic. CISA, under Krebs’ leadership, suppressed conservative viewpoints under the guise of combatting supposed disinformation, and recruited and coerced major social media platforms to further its partisan mission. CISA covertly worked to blind the American public to the controversy surrounding Hunter Biden’s laptop. Krebs, through CISA, promoted the censorship of election information, including known risks associated with certain voting practices. Similarly, Krebs, through CISA, falsely and baselessly denied that the 2020 election was rigged and stolen, including by inappropriately and categorically dismissing widespread election malfeasance and serious vulnerabilities with voting machines. Krebs skewed the bona fide debate about COVID-19 by attempting to discredit widely shared views that ran contrary to CISA’s favored perspective.

Next, the White House directed an investigation of Homeland Security officer Miles Taylor who proclaimed, during the first Trump term in an anonymous New York Times op-ed, that he was party to “a resistance within the Federal Government that ‘vowed’ to undermine and render ineffective a sitting president. . . . [T]his conduct could properly be characterized as treasonous and as possibly violating the Espionage Act,” the EO said. Sounds serious, a little bit.

Next, in another EO, the White House severely disciplined the swamp law firm Susman Godfrey for its racist DEI activism in the federal agencies it did work for, saying, “Lawyers and law firms that engage in activities detrimental to critical American interests should not have access to our nation’s secrets, nor should their conduct be subsidized by Federal taxpayer funds or contracts.” Hence, Sussman Godfrey lost its security clearances, its federal work contracts were cancelled, and its lawyers are barred from entering federal buildings, including courthouses. FAFO.

Next, Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard announced at Thursday’s cabinet meeting that her office has obtained evidence of massive vulnerabilities in voting machines that allow hackers to flip votes. This has long been written off as “baseless conspiracy theory” for years by degenerate news outlets like The New York Times. The key word in Ms. Gabbard’s statement, is “evidence.” You realize, of course, that there is no reason to use vote-counting machines in our election except for the purpose of hacking and cheating. Most other putatively “democratic” nations use paper ballots and manage to tabulate and report election results within twenty-four hours.

Of course, this motley batch of sudden cases — Gov. Murphy of NJ, Chris Krebs, Miles Taylor, Susman Godfrey — are relative outliers to the notorious operations such as RussiaGate, the Schiff-Vindman-Ciaramella-Eisen plot behind Impeachment No. 1, The Covid-19 intrigue, The BLM rampage, the Hunter Biden Laptop ruse (and Biden family’s bribery and treason), J-6 riot and the DNC Pipe-bomb caper, and four years of a wide-open border. That long train of crimes, seditions, and treasons came close to wrecking the country. We know exactly who was behind and involved in all of that. What remains is the heavy-lifting to build cases that can be brought to grand juries in good faith. Perhaps a comprehensive omnibus RICO case can incorporate all of these in what appears to amount to a single, complex orchestrated, long-running attempted coup. Don’t bet that this isn’t coming. And, by-the-way, the infamous “Crossfire-Hurricane” binder was just released last night. As of this writing, there is almost no analysis available yet. Stand by.

Legalese: “..the district court could order the government “to facilitate” but not necessarily “to effectuate” the return.

• Court Issues Curious Order in the Garcia Case (Turley)

The media lit up yesterday with the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, an accused MS-13 member mistakingly sent to El Salvador. I have previously said that the Administration should have brought back Garcia immediately and pushed for deportation under existing laws. Yet, in the order, the Court ordered the government to “facilitate” the return without stating what that means. Last evening, the Court issued the short three-paragraph per curiam opinion in Noem v. Garcia. After the ruling, many on the left claimed “Supreme Court in a unanimous decision: He has a legal right to be here, and you have to bring him back.” It is a bit more ambiguous than that. The Court actually warned that the district court could order the government to facilitate but not necessarily “to effectuate” the return.

The application is granted in part and denied in part, subject to the direction of this order. Due to the administrative stay issued by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, the deadline imposed by the District Court has now passed. To that extent, the Government’s emergency application is effectively granted in part and the deadline in the challenged order is no longer effective. The rest of the District Court’s order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps. The order heretofore entered by THE CHIEF JUSTICE is vacated.

So what does that mean? The Court disagrees with many, including the Fourth Circuit, that President Trump had no inherent executive powers to countermand the district court’s order. He clearly does have countervailing powers that have to be weighed more heavily in the matter. The district court is expressly ordered to show “due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.” What is left is a legal pushmi-pullyu that seems to be going in both directions at once. What if the Trump Administration says that inquiries were made, but the matter has proven intractable or unresolvable? Crickets. No one would seriously believe that, but what right does the district court have to manage the relations or communications with a foreign country? The problem with this shadow docket decision is that there is more shadow than sunlight in its meaning.

Money’s a charm.

• Trump Plans Charm Offensive To Win Over Greenland – NYT (RT)

US President Donald Trump’s administration is planning a public relations campaign and financial incentives to persuade Greenlanders to join the United States, the New York Times has reported. Trump has repeatedly stated that Washington needed to take control of the autonomous Danish territory in order to enhance America’s “national security,” claiming recently he will “100% get” the Arctic island. The president has even alluded to using military force if necessary. The new approach focuses on persuasion over coercion, featuring advertising and social media campaigns to influence public opinion among Greenland’s approximately 57,000 residents, the NYT reported on Thursday, citing unnamed US officials. The plan includes mobilizing several cabinet departments to implement Trump’s long-standing goal of acquiring the Mexico-sized territory.

The Trump administration is also studying financial incentives for Greenlanders, including replacing the $600 million in subsidies that Denmark gives the island with annual payments of about $10,000 per person, the sources said. Some Trump officials reportedly claim the costs could be offset by revenue from Greenland’s natural resources, including rare earths, copper, gold, uranium and oil. In order to bolster the campaign, the White House is highlighting Greenlanders’ shared ancestry with Alaska and Arctic Canada as well as other historical ties, including the US military’s presence on the island during World War II, the report said. Greenland was under Danish rule from the early 19th century until the 1950s, but during World War II it was briefly occupied by US forces after Nazi Germany seized Denmark. The island now hosts a US military base and an early warning system for ballistic missiles.

In recent decades, the island has gained greater autonomy, receiving home rule in 1979 and the right to declare independence after a 2009 referendum. Trump first floated the idea of acquiring Greenland in 2019 and has revived the proposal since returning to office. His administration describes the island as a strategic asset, citing its location and untapped natural resources. Trump’s plans and a recent visit by a high-profile US delegation, including US Vice President J.D. Vance and White House National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, have drawn vocal criticism from Greenlandic and Danish officials, who have rejected any suggestion of a sale. Danish Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen has condemned Trump’s recent remarks as escalatory and disrespectful, saying the rhetoric had become increasingly aggressive and amounted to a “hidden threat” against Denmark and its semi-autonomous territory.

Greenland’s newly elected Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen has urged the islanders to unite and make clear that “we do not belong to anyone else” and will never come under Washington’s control.

Part of a “victory package”. Alongside “immediate NATO membership, the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Kiev, and the deployment of long-range Western missiles on Ukrainian territory..”

• Zelensky Offered US Rare-Earths Deal Under Biden – Blinken (RT)

Former US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has said he sees nothing inherently wrong with his country benefiting from Ukrainian rare-earth minerals, but claimed that the current administration under Donald Trump is taking the wrong approach to achieve this. In an interview with CNBC on Thursday, Blinken confirmed that an offer from Kiev on minerals had been on the table during his time as secretary of state under President Joe Biden. The current US administration is working to finalize a deal with Ukraine, which President Trump claims will enable American taxpayers to recoup funds spent over the years supporting Kiev’s war effort against Russia. The agreement does not offer security guarantees to Ukraine. According to Blinken, the Biden administration took a different approach to the rare-earths deal offered by Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky.

“Part of the victory package that [Zelensky] put on the table in the last six months of our administration included us working with them on rare earths, on critical minerals,” he told journalist Andrew Ross Sorkin. Blinken said the Biden administration had aimed to promote investments in Ukraine for the mutual benefit of both nations. However, he criticized the Trump administration’s proposal as “basically a protection racket without the protection.” The document submitted by Washington in March reportedly grants American businesses broad access to the Ukrainian economy but without security assurances. The White House contends that vested US interests would serve as a de facto form of protection.

Zelensky has sought Western security guarantees as a precondition for signing a peace treaty with Moscow. Among his proposed options were immediate NATO membership, the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Kiev, and the deployment of long-range Western missiles on Ukrainian territory, aimed at Russia. Negotiations for a minerals deal began during the early weeks of the second Trump presidency, with at least two draft proposals being abandoned. The two countries appeared close to finalizing an agreement during Zelensky’s visit to Washington in late February. However, the planned signing was canceled after Zelensky publicly questioned Trump’s approach to Russia, leading to the Ukrainian delegation being asked to leave the White House.

Le Pen was trapped. „Such a procedure,“ Kolakusic explains further, „is unprecedented anywhere else in the world or in any other parliament, but it is a perfect weapon for settling accounts with dissidents.”

• The End of La Grande Illusion Democratique (Karganovic)

Only the incurably naïve were shocked by the brazen and deliberate rigging of the French Presidential elections. Granted, the outrageous infringement of collective West’s verbally proclaimed democratic electoral canons in Romania, which took place shortly before, could have been taken by alert observers as a reliable signal of what might imminently occur in other precincts of the “European garden.” Blinded by cultural racism however some of them might have mistaken electoral rigging in Romania, a recently acquired patch of that garden, as a sui generis case, entirely attributable to Balkan primitivism. But they would have overlooked conveniently the now well established fact that instructions to corrupt Romanian bureaucrats to eliminate inconvenient candidate Georgescu did not emanate from Bucharest alone. We now know that they were issued imperatively from the idyllic Garden’s ideological centre, which is in Brussels.

Without diminishing, in the electoral disqualification and penal punishment of Marine Le Pen, the influence of the local French branch of the globalist cabal (it would be unpardonably incorrect to call that scum “elite”) there also the nefarious role of the nerve centre in Brussels must be stressed. The arbitrary mechanism which allows the cabal to target virtually anybody it perceives as unsuitable or as a threat was laid bare by Croatian European Parliament deputy Mislav Kolakusic. The core charge pressed against Le Pen, let us recall, was of a basely pecuniary nature, namely that as an EU deputy she partially used her office employees in Strassbourg to do political work on behalf of her French political party, the Front National, improperly remunerating them with European Union funds. The outspoken EU parliamentarian Kolakusic knows of what he speaks because he was himself charged with this ghastly infraction, an accusation from which he managed to successfully defend himself only thanks to having kept meticulous records.

It appears that acting with Gallic abandon Marine Le Pen or her office manager were not nearly as fastidious record keepers and they are now paying the political and penal price for the oversight. What Kolakusic reveals about the inner workings of the system, based on his own experience and observation, is most unsettling and strongly suggests a deliberately built-in trap ready to be sprung on anyone who gets out of line. His remarks are in Croatian, but their gist is as follows. The way the European Parliament interprets its own rules, its officials are authorised to determine as they deem fit whether parliamentary deputies or their staff on any given day had worked a full eight hours as required on tasks exlusively related to matters pertaining to European Parliament affairs, or not. If not, there are unpleasant consequences that can be made to follow.

That portion of salaries alleged to have been paid out from European funds for performing tasks deemed unrelated to European Parliament work is refundable on demand, as subjectively assessed by investigators who are empowered to act with arbitrary discretion. But that is the least of it. More ominously, the arbitrariness extends to the determination of how the matter shall be treated. It could be considered a harmless lapse curable with a reprimand and a refund. But if the powers that be take a particularly dim view of the alleged malefactor, it could also be treated as an act of moral turpitude, having been committed with the element of mens rea, which creates grounds for the imputation of criminal liability. It is by opting for the latter interpretation, of course, that with the helpful assistance of the French judiciary (that some naive folks had thought to be so incorruptible) that they got Marine Le Pen.

„Such a procedure,“ Kolakusic explains further, „is unprecedented anywhere else in the world or in any other parliament, but it is a perfect weapon for settling accounts with dissidents, be they of the so-called extreme right or extreme left, or independent parliamentarians, which is to say the only members of the European Parliament who think using their own brains and who formulate their own original positions on major issues.“

It all goes back decades.

• Tulsi Gabbard Drops TWO Huge Bombshells (MN)

National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard made a startling revelation during an open cabinet meeting Wednesday, announcing that she has evidence that electronic voting machines have been tampered with to manipulate the results of past US elections. “I’ve got a long list of things that we’re investigating. We have the best going after this, election integrity being one of them,” Gabbard stated. “We have evidence of how these electronic voting systems have been vulnerable to hackers for a very long time,” she continued.

BREAKING: Tulsi Gabbard just announced at the Cabinet meeting that her office has obtained evidence of massive vulnerabilities on voting machines that allow hackers to flip votes. WHOAH!!!

"We have evidence of how these electronic voting systems have been vulnerable to hackers… pic.twitter.com/3KGuyyO60n

— George (@BehizyTweets) April 10, 2025

Gabbard emphasised that the evidence shows that machines are “vulnerable to exploitation to manipulate the results of the votes being cast.” She told President Trump that the finding “further drives forward your mandate to bring about paper ballots across the country so that voters can have faith in the integrity of our elections.” It seems the ‘conspiracy theorists’ were right again.

For years, Democrats blatantly told us that voting machines were rigging elections. We didn't listen until they pulled off the fraud of 2020.

Now, the whole intelligence apparatus led by Tulsi Gabbard is investigating the machines. SO GOOD!
pic.twitter.com/lCOq03AkrQ

— George (@BehizyTweets) April 10, 2025

Gabbard also announced that she is about to make public a huge amount of information relating to the assassinations of RFK, and MLK Jr.

BREAKING – Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announces a major incoming file dump on the assassinations of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy and MLK Jr. pic.twitter.com/2POmPelOfP

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) April 10, 2025

Gabbard followed up on the comments in a Fox News interview, also noting she has teams of people scouring FBI and CIA warehouses looking for hidden documents on the JFK assassination.

This frees up White House lawyers’ time. For free.

• Trump Admin Reaches Agreements With 5 Law Firms (ET)

The Trump administration announced on April 11 that it has reached agreements with five law firms to represent causes they both support, such as helping veterans. These law firms are the latest to offer pro bono services to the White House. The administration has gone after law firms it says have taken stances at odds with Trump’s policies, such as practices relating to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). None of the law firms were targeted by the administration but reached these agreements with the White House, which has issued executive orders going after a handful of others. A group of four law firms agreed to each provide at least $125 million, or $500 million altogether, in pro bono services: Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Allen Overy Shearman Sterling US LLP, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, and Latham & Watkins LLP. The firms agreed to be counsel to help veterans, law enforcement, and first responders; combat anti-Semitism; and ensure “fairness in the justice system.”

They “will take on a wide range of pro bono matters that represent the full political spectrum, including conservative ideals,” President Donald Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. The law firms agreed to end the use of DEI in hiring personnel and “affirm that it is their policy to give fair and equal consideration to job candidates, irrespective of their political beliefs, including candidates who have served in the Trump administration, and any other Republican or Democrat administration,” according to Trump. They will also advise other law firms regarding employment practices. The four firms said they will not refuse to represent those who have not been clients of prominent nationwide law firms due to holding political beliefs that contrast those of their firm’s lawyers. The White House celebrated the agreement.

“President Trump and his administration have entered into an agreement with these long established firms, which have affirmed their strong commitment to ending the Weaponization of the Justice System and the Legal Profession. The President continues to fulfill his promise to the American people that the age of partisan lawfare in America is over,” the White House said, according to Trump’s post. In a joint statement, which Trump shared on Truth Social, the law firms said they “look forward to a continued constructive and productive relationship with President Trump and his team.” A fifth law firm, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, LLP, agreed to provide at least $100 million in pro bono counseling, also in helping veterans; combating anti-Semitism; assisting law enforcement, military personnel, and first responders; and “ensuring fairness in our justice system.” The law firm agreed to hire personnel based on merit and not on DEI.

Like with the four other firms, this includes not discriminating based on political beliefs. They will also assist other law firms on hiring practices and not refuse representation to those whose political beliefs do not align with the firm’s attorneys. Cadwalader said it worked with Trump and his team to reach the agreement. “The substance of our agreement is consistent with the principles that have guided Cadwalader for over 230 years: We always put our client’s interests first; we believe that Justice should be available to everyone; and we are committed to attracting, retaining and nurturing the very best talent from all backgrounds,” it said in a statement, according to Trump’s post. Other law firms that have come to agreements with the White House include Skadden, Milbank, and Willkie Farr and Gallagher, which each will provide at least $100 million in pro bono representation. Paul Weiss agreed to provide $40 million in free counseling in areas such as combating anti-Semitism and assisting veterans.

With these arrangements so far, the law firms have agreed to provide at least $940 million in pro bono representation to some of the causes supported by the president. Meanwhile, Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie, and WilmerHale have taken legal action against the administration, seeking to reverse the executive orders against them. Trump signed an executive order on April 9 to effectively blacklist Susman Godfrey from engaging with the U.S. government. The law firm represented Dominion Voting Systems in its defamation lawsuit against former Trump lawyer and New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. The president said on April 10 that the law firms may help the administration with negotiating trade deals with countries.

Hatim
https://twitter.com/DiogenisSinopis/status/1910564969717903565

Isaacson

Walter Isaacson: Elon has done what China, the U.S. or Boeing couldn't—and he didn't stop there.

“Here's a guy who brought us into the era of electric vehicles, the only person who can shoot off rockets and get things to orbit and have the boosters land. China hasn't done it;… pic.twitter.com/0lBJxUdos4

— ELON CLIPS (@ElonClipsX) April 11, 2025

https://twitter.com/LionelMedia/status/1910063189628219694

Elon Musk: Tesla's approach to self-driving is difficult but ultimately very powerful.

“There already are autonomous vehicles in some regions. Waymo has autonomous vehicles with no one in them. But they're limited to a few cities in the U.S.

The Tesla solution, which is a much… pic.twitter.com/HMBtikVGkq

— ELON CLIPS (@ElonClipsX) April 10, 2025

Train
https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1910577245174849819

Candace

Candace Owens says “people think that the greatest mass murderer was Adоlf Hitlег”

She says the Bolshеvik’s murdеrеd 10s of millions of Christians under the lead of a Russian Jеw, Genrikh Yagoda.

How come I’m just learning this now? pic.twitter.com/5pwkw1J25G

— ADAM (@AdameMedia) April 11, 2025

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

Debt Rattle April 11 2025

Apr 112025

April 11, 2025 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 10:17 am Finance Tagged with: AfD, autism, budget, China, EU, Iran, Kallas, RFK jr, Supreme Court, tariffs, tech giants, Trump 62 Responses »

Salvador Dali The hand 1930

• Trump Is the Bull in China’s Shop (Green)

• Trump’s Reality-Driven U-Turn (Ben Shapiro)

• House Passes Trump-Backed Budget Plan (Caldwell)

• Trump Says He Just ‘Likes’ Musk (RT)

• EU Would ‘Cut Its Own Throat’ By Pivoting To China – Bessent (RT)

• EU Puts US Counter-Tariffs On Hold (RT)

• EU Issues Threat To US Tech Giants (RT)

• No Solution But The Dissolution Of The Terrorist Kiev Regime (SCF)

• Trump Envoy In Russia For High-Level Talks – Media (RT)

• ‘Some EU States’ Opposed To Using Frozen Russian Assets – Kallas (RT)

• Adam Schiff Wants Trump Probed For Market Manipulation (RT)

• Trump Severs a Key Pillar of the Left’s Climate Alarmist Strategy (O’Neil)

• Russia–Iran–China: All for One, and One for All? (Pepe Escobar)

• Iran’s Regime Unlikely To Back Down As Trump Plays With Fire (Jay)

• RFK Jr. Promises To Reveal Cause Of ‘Autism Epidemic’ by September (RT)

• AfD Tops The German Polls For First Time In History (RMX)

• The Supreme Court Must Clarify Presidential Power (Jeffrey Tucker)

Protect

The Art of the Deal pic.twitter.com/yRlShzx9ZT

— A Man Of Memes (@RickyDoggin) April 9, 2025

Miller China

NEW – Stephen Miller EXPOSES China—Says Their Economy is a House of Cards Built on Cheating

Stephen Miller just put Beijing on notice.

In the middle of a high-stakes tariff war, he’s exposing what few dare to say out loud: China’s economy is far weaker than it looks—and it’s… pic.twitter.com/FUHlBjq3iF

— Overton (@overton_news) April 9, 2025

Japan
https://twitter.com/Nihonpolitics/status/1910096159835594786

Elon Pelosi
https://twitter.com/LynneBP_294/status/1909921183992049991

Peterson

Jordan Peterson: Elon Musk is very detail-oriented—he knows how things work in his companies from the atoms upward.

“It wouldn't surprise me in the least if half the money that the American government spent or the Canadian government is utter waste or even positively… pic.twitter.com/7QmmeI2sDZ

— ELON CLIPS (@ElonClipsX) April 9, 2025

Claims

Your tax dollars were going to pay fraudulent unemployment claims for fake people born in the future!

This is so crazy that I had to read it several times before it sank in. https://t.co/U5qqcyUgzo

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 10, 2025

WTO

.@POTUS on decades of bad trade policies: "This started with the World Trade Organization which was owned and paid for by China… They said they were a developing nation… I blame the people sitting at this desk… They allowed this to happen." pic.twitter.com/Uqz5E3vV5K

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) April 9, 2025

Bessent

Donald Trump will put a 104% Tariff on China effective TONIGHT

Trump cannot be beaten by China. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent explained to Tucker Carlson, why it is IMPOSSIBLE for China to compete with the United States

Tucker Carlson “So how is China as a nation going to. I… pic.twitter.com/wdSDTK5Pe9

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) April 8, 2025

Dems
https://twitter.com/WesternLensman/status/1910115200562569510?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1910115200562569510%7Ctwgr%5E42f1445addc2139f8e015b1c7933578c6043e779%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fheres-what-democrats-stand-their-own-words

China just annnounced rates of 125%, said it would not go higher than that. Are they ready to talk?!

• Trump Is the Bull in China’s Shop (Green)

President Donald Trump has been called a bull in a china shop one million and six times — but what if it’s China’s shop he’s aiming to break? He just might, too. Recent history shows that, just like with any other government program, tariffs can produce mixed results at best. But I’m not here today to discuss the merits of tariffs broadly but rather their effect on our most worrisome strategic competitor, Communist China. (For the record, I’m generally a fan of free trade — at least with friendly nations — but I’m no ideologue. ) I have to get a bit technical here, so bear with me. Wellington-Altus Chief Market Strategist James Thorne argued on X last night about the bind Trump put China in. China, he wrote, is “weighed down by surplus production, overcapacity, and inelastic supply. A rapidly aging population and rising labor costs have left its growth model wobbling.”

Economically, China has yet to recover the dynamic growth it enjoyed before Communist Party boss Xi Jinping’s extended COVID lockdowns. Thorne went on to ask, “What happens when millions from the countryside lose their jobs as factories slow and exports falter? Social unrest could erupt like a powder keg, while Beijing’s half-hearted reforms offer little relief.” Selling their horde of T-bills helps Beijing weaken the RMB while simultaneously thwarting Trump and SecTreas Scott Bessent’s goal of bringing down interest rates. That much is working. We’re just a few days into this and, after early drops, the yield on the 10-year is inching back up again. The thing to remember about war — even a trade war — is that the other guy gets to shoot back. Beijing’s goal is to keep its exports competitive even with an eye-popping 104% tariff while putting the hurt on us here at home until Trump blinks.

But Thorne compared Trump to Dirty Harry, who “stares down China’s precarious economy and growls, ‘Go ahead, make my day.’ Devalue the RMB and sell [US Treasuries].” But devaluing the RMB too far risks capital flight, as the Chinese do whatever they can to trade in their increasingly low-value RMB and park their savings overseas in safer currencies. Beijing has been trying (and failing) for years to stimulate economic growth, and capital flight would make a bad situation worse. Looking at the bigger picture, Martin Capital founder Rod Martin noted on Tuesday that “Countries from Argentina to Vietnam are falling all over themselves to cut ‘zero-zero’ tariff deals with Trump,” giving companies like Apple a not-so-gentle prod to accelerate moving their production out of China.

So China’s dependence on the U.S. export market isn’t its only choke point, and Trump is squeezing it hard. That isn’t to say we don’t have choke points, too. Carol Roth, financial analyst and author of “You Will Own Nothing: Your War With a New Financial World Order and How to Fight Back,” warned on X today that “Small businesses have been beaten up for 5 years — Covid, supply chain, labor disruption, inflation,” and that “they cannot take another govt induced shock.” “Wall Street can manage through, Main Street will be crushed again,” Roth concluded. There’s at least some anecdotal evidence to back that up. There are plenty of reports out there, and this one is just the most recent I found:

Fox News tells a story a small business owner who used to pay $26,000 in tariffs on goods imported from China, but now faces a $346,000 tariff due to Trump’s new 104% tariff on Chinese imports.

"We think that China is gonna have to pay for it. A special needs toy importer– when… pic.twitter.com/bcDBrlUggM

— Ron Smith (@Ronxyz00) April 9, 2025

Those tariffs kicked in today, but many importers have their sales prices contractually locked in for the short term. Where is the money supposed to come from for a small business existing on slender margins? That’s a tough question and one we don’t yet have the answer to. There are risks and pain involved in weaning ourselves off our dependence on China for vital finished goods, and I’m trying, once again, to be honest about them. The point to remember is that detox hurts, but it beats the hell out of continued addiction. And sometimes it takes somebody with a bull in a china shop attitude to help us kick.

“Trump lives in the world of reality; he is a pragmatist, not an idealist…”

• Trump’s Reality-Driven U-Turn (Ben Shapiro)

President Donald Trump did what he had to do. Last week, Trump dropped an economic neutron bomb by declaring tariffs on virtually every country on the planet—tariffs based not on reciprocal tariff rates, but on trade deficits. After an initial stock dump of approximately 10% and then days of the markets bouncing up and down like a hyperactive corgi, Trump finally announced that he would be undoing his threatened tariff regime with regard to our allies.

In a statement posted to TruthSocial, he said, “Based on the lack of respect that China has shown to the World’s Markets, I am hereby raising the Tariff charged to China by the United States of America to 125%, effective immediately. At some point, hopefully in the near future, China will realize that the days of ripping off the U.S.A., and other Countries, is no longer sustainable or acceptable. Conversely, and based on the fact that more than 75 Countries have called Representatives of the United States, including the Departments of Commerce, Treasury, and the USTR, to negotiate a solution to the subjects being discussed relative to Trade, Trade Barriers, Tariffs, Currency Manipulation, and Non Monetary Tariffs, and that these Countries have not, at my strong suggestion, retaliated in any way, shape, or form against the United States, I have authorized a 90 day PAUSE, and a substantially lowered Reciprocal Tariff during this period, of 10%, also effective immediately. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

This was reality setting in and Trump respecting it. As I wrote last week, “Now, Trump is unlikely to carry his policies to their full fruition if markets respond as expected. He is too canny a politician for that.” Trump lives in the world of reality; he is a pragmatist, not an idealist. And that means that when the stock market tanks, when the effects of his tariff regime are about to wipe out small businesses across America, when the economic pain is imminent, Trump will change course. And he did. Some Trump acolytes make the case that this was all a planned rollout. If so, the evidence is sorely lacking; from poorly calibrated posterboards to the bizarrely ignorant comments of presidential adviser Peter Navarro, all this would have to have been a peculiar plan.

If the plan was to tariff China and negotiate better trade terms with our allies, the easiest thing to do would have been to tariff China and negotiate better trade terms with our allies. Occam’s razor suggests that Trump unleashed a policy he preferred and then reversed course thanks to blowback. Trump himself acknowledged that he changed policy because people were getting “yippy” and “queasy.” But in effect, it makes no difference whether this was planned chaos or merely reactionary course-changing—the utilitarian nature of the result is the same. I’ve said before that Trump lives in the world of reality—that he responds to headlines, to incentives and to situations. That’s just as true today as it has always been. And for that, Trump deserves credit.

Tour de force by Mike Johnson. Needed.

• House Passes Trump-Backed Budget Plan (Caldwell)

House Republicans pushed through a Trump-backed budget framework on a 216-214 vote Thursday, providing a boost to the president’s legislative agenda. Democrats voted against it unanimously, while Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Victoria Spartz, R-Ind., were the only Republicans in opposition.The resolution’s passage came amid some protests from hard-line fiscal conservatives within the GOP, who argued that the plan does not provide sufficient cuts to the deficit. The budget resolution is a major first step that Congress must pass in order to get to budget reconciliation—the process of setting targets for spending in various areas.

A few points to remember about the budget resolution:

The budget resolution is not law.

The Senate amendment makes no changes to our reconciliation instructions.

Any final reconciliation bill must include historic spending reductions, while also safeguarding essential… pic.twitter.com/BORxPdclhC

— Speaker Mike Johnson (@SpeakerJohnson) April 8, 2025

Republicans have been eager to finish the process by Memorial Day, as the budget process will allow them to extend President Donald Trump’s first-term 2017 tax cuts, as well as provide funding for border security and other major campaign promises. Both houses of Congress must eventually agree on one identical bill in order to move forward. President Donald Trump on April 2 backed the Senate’s budget framework, which was passed in the Senate an all-night voting session which concluded early Saturday morning. He then urged the House to pass the exact same plan, and to “close [their] eyes and get there,” despite their reservations about the Senate’s plan.

The only problem? Many in the House criticized the Senate’s plan for not including as many enforceable cuts as the House’s previous framework did. Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., who chairs the conservative House Freedom Caucus, said he would probably “vote against it,” as he thought its framework would lead to excess spending and, as a result, higher taxes. His remarks were echoed by several other Freedom Caucus members. House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, also criticized the plan as “unserious and disappointing.” It creates “a mere $4 billion in enforceable cuts, less than one day’s worth of borrowing by the federal government,” Arrington wrote in his response to the plan.

House leadership attempted to assuage these fears, arguing that since the budget plan is not binding, House Republicans should wait until later to argue for more cuts. Skeptics of the plan held out until the very end, forcing Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., to delay a Wednesday evening vote on the matter until Thursday morning, when it ultimately passed. Now, Congress can focus on negotiating the final budget reconciliation bill, a process in which debate between GOP factions will continue.

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1910320145299386695?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1910320145299386695%7Ctwgr%5E7132c1f6bd4f305f1e72f13841cb6c12b483ba72%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fjohnson-says-house-gop-have-votes-pass-budget-resolution

“We’d like to keep as many as we can. In fact, hopefully they’ll stay around for the long haul.”

He’ll need to find a way to keep Musk involved.

• Trump Says He Just ‘Likes’ Musk (RT)

US President Donald Trump has heaped praise on Elon Musk, the head of his government waste-cutting task force, saying he wants the billionaire and his “fantastic” Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team to stay in Washington for the “long haul.” Speaking at a Cabinet meeting on Thursday, Trump said he didn’t need anything from the billionaire entrepreneur – except that he happens to like him – while crediting Musk with uncovering billions in potential savings across the federal government. “Elon’s done a fantastic job. Look, he’s sitting here and I don’t care. I don’t need Elon for anything other than I happen to like him,” Trump said. “But I’m telling you, this guy did a fantastic job.”

The president said that he even bought a Tesla car he doesn’t need – not for himself, but to let his office staff drive around as a show of support for Musk. “They said, oh, did you get a bargain? No. I said, give me the top price,” Trump quipped. Musk, in turn, credited the “fantastic leadership” of Trump and the Cabinet, announcing that DOGE anticipates saving $150 billion in fiscal year 2026 by reducing fraud and waste in federal spending. “Some of it is just absurd – like people getting unemployment insurance who haven’t been born yet,” Musk said.

Musk’s high-profile advisory role in Trump’s administration has attracted many critics, accusing him of alleged conflicts of interest and political bias in his companies’ operations and federal contracts. A group of Democratic lawmakers sent a letter to the White House calling for Musk’s removal, arguing that his “erratic behavior” and past controversies undermine public trust. The White House has so far stood by Musk, with Trump making clear on Thursday that he has no intention of parting ways with his government’s waste hunter. The US president said he hopes Musk’s team will stay on beyond this initiative, praising their tech-savvy approach. “Your people are fantastic… They’re great. Smart, sharp… finding things that nobody would have thought of,” the president said. “We’d like to keep as many as we can. In fact, hopefully they’ll stay around for the long haul.”

China wants to produce for the whole world except itself. Now it needs to start consuming. But that won’t happen in times of uncertainty. The Chinese will sit on their money.

• EU Would ‘Cut Its Own Throat’ By Pivoting To China – Bessent (RT)

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has claimed that the EU would be “cutting its own throat” if it seeks a closer alliance with China while loosening ties with Washington. Bessent commented on Wednesday after Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez had called for a reassessment of the EU’s trade relationship with Beijing earlier in the day. Sanchez told reporters during a diplomatic trip to Asia that the EU could benefit from closer cooperation with China amid uncertainty surrounding US trade policies and President Donald Trump’s recent moves to hike tariffs for nearly all trade partners. “Nobody wins with a trade war. Every country loses,” Sanchez warned. Bessent defended Trump’s tariff moves and urged partners not to side with Beijing, claiming that its trade policies are ruinous to the global economy.

“The economic minister in Spain made some comments this morning, ‘Oh, well, maybe we should align ourselves more with China,’ – that would be cutting your own throat,” Bessent stated at a press briefing. “These Chinese exports that the US tariff wall is gonna keep out… the Chinese business model… it never stops. They just keep producing and producing and dumping and dumping.” Trump on Wednesday announced a 90-day pause on reciprocal tariffs for 75 countries, which he had earlier hit with duties ranging from 10% to 50% over what he called unfair trade imbalances, and lowered duties to a flat 10% rate on everyone except Beijing. Instead, he slapped China with a further hike to 125%, accusing Beijing of escalation after it raised tariffs on US goods to 84%.

“In terms of escalation, unfortunately, the biggest offender in the global trading system is China, and they’re the only country who’s escalated,” Bessent claimed. The Treasury chief said many countries are now seeking negotiations with Washington following the tariff changes, noting upcoming talks with Japan and Vietnam. He also said he hopes to finalize new trade deals with US allies to create a united front against what he called China’s unbalanced trade structure. China has vehemently opposed the tariffs and vowed to fight them. On Wednesday, the Chinese Finance Ministry called the latest US hikes a “mistake on top of a mistake” that “infringes on China’s legitimate rights and interests and seriously damages the rules-based multilateral trading system.”

Negotiate zero.

• EU Puts US Counter-Tariffs On Hold (RT)

The EU has suspended the imposition of counter-tariffs on American imports, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has announced. The move follows US President Donald Trump’s decision to pause increased tariffs for three months while negotiations take place. In a post on X on Thursday, von der Leyen said the EU “took note of the announcement by President Trump” and wants to “give negotiations a chance.” “While finalizing the adoption of the EU countermeasures that saw strong support from our Member States, we will put them on hold for 90 days,” she stated. According to von der Leyen, the bloc will not hesitate to go ahead with counter-tariffs if the negotiations with the US fail. In a post on his Truth Social platform on Wednesday, Trump announced a “90 day PAUSE, and a substantially lowered Reciprocal Tariff during this period, of 10%.”

He claimed that “more than 75 Countries have called Representatives of the United States, including the Departments of Commerce, Treasury, and the USTR [Office of the United States Trade Representative] to negotiate a solution to the subjects being discussed relative to Trade, Trade Barriers, Tariffs, Currency Manipulation, and Non Monetary Tariffs.” According to the US president, these nations have refrained from retaliating against the tariffs his administration previously placed on them. That same day, EU member states approved retaliatory measures to the 25% tariffs imposed last month by the US on the bloc’s steel and aluminum, effective April 15. The counter-tariffs do not address the more recent 20% US tariffs on all EU exports that took effect on Wednesday and have since been paused.

While Brussels did not specify the list of targeted goods or tariff levels, media outlets have reported that tariffs ranging from 10% to 25% would cover a wide array of US goods, including poultry, grains, clothing, and metals. Last week, Trump announced sweeping tariffs targeting numerous countries across the world, citing the need to restore global trade fairness and accusing other nations of “ripping off” the US. The move sent shockwaves across global stock markets, though they have rebounded since Trump announced the pause on Wednesday.

If the politicians do’t do our will, we’ll go after private industry.

• EU Issues Threat To US Tech Giants (RT)

The European Union is prepared to impose bloc-wide tariffs on major US tech companies, such as Meta and Google, if negotiations with Washington fail to resolve the escalating trade dispute, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has warned. Following President Donald Trump’s decision to pause further tariff hikes for 90 days, EU exports to the US will still face a “baseline” 10% import duty instead of planned 20% under his new trade regime. Nevertheless, the European Commission announced it would temporarily suspend its countermeasures pending further negotiations. Speaking to the Financial Times on Thursday, von der Leyen said Brussels was ready to deploy its most powerful trade measures, potentially targeting American digital service providers and the advertising revenues of Silicon Valley giants.

“We are developing retaliatory measures,” von der Leyen said, adding that these could include the first use of the EU’s anti-coercion mechanism to hit services rather than goods. “There’s a wide range of countermeasures… in case the negotiations are not satisfactory.” “An example is you could put a levy on the advertising revenues of digital services,” she added, outlining a measure that would apply across the bloc’s entire single market – on top of digital sales taxes set individually by member states. While the EU remains committed to seeking a “completely balanced” agreement during Trump’s 90-day tariff freeze, von der Leyen made clear that Brussels would not hesitate to act if talks fail. The Commission is also considering tariffs on US scrap metal exports, as well as protective measures to prevent Chinese goods – targeted by prohibitive 145% US tariffs – from flooding European markets.

Von der Leyen described Trump’s tariff war as a “turning point” for global trade, saying there would be no return to the “status quo” between the EU and the US. She claimed that Brussels had attempted to negotiate with Washington in recent months but was told to wait until Trump’s April 2 announcement, which imposed a 20% “reciprocal” tariff on the EU. While both sides have agreed that reform of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is needed, von der Leyen warned that the economic chaos unleashed by Trump’s tariffs was already inflicting heavy costs on global markets. “There are no winners in this, only losers,” she said. “Today we see the cost of chaos… the costs of the uncertainty that we are experiencing today will be heavy.”

Von der Leyen confirmed that the EU would pause its planned retaliation against US steel and aluminum tariffs during the negotiations but stressed that Brussels would not negotiate over its “untouchable” rules on digital content, market power, and other “sovereign decisions.” The bloc also will not negotiate over value-added tax (VAT), which US officials – including Trump – somehow deem “discriminatory” against American exporters, even though both imported and locally produced goods are taxed equally.

“The neo-Nazi regime understands only the language of force – and it is through force that the Ukrainian problem will be solved.”

• No Solution But The Dissolution Of The Terrorist Kiev Regime (SCF)

Since the 2014 coup and under the command of the illegitimate Maidan junta regime, Ukraine has increasingly exhibited signs of a terrorist state. Under the guise of defending “European values,” the Kiev regime has consistently violated international law, adopted prohibited methods of warfare, and openly supported neo-Nazi formations. As well known, in recent years, Ukraine has committed war crimes and terrorism against civilians, especially in Donbass and the Belgorod and Kursk regions, where the Ukrainian army and nationalist groups carry out barbaric attacks against cities, destroying vital infrastructure such as homes, schools, and hospitals. Thousands of civilians, including children, have lost their lives in artillery bombardments, justified by the Kiev regime as part of a “fight against separatists/invaders.” However, the evidence reveals that this has always been a deliberate terrorist campaign against the civilian population, not a legitimate military confrontation.

Furthermore, the Ukrainian regime resorts to the use of prohibited weapons such as cluster munitions and landmines, particularly in residential areas, which is strictly prohibited by international conventions. These attacks aim to intimidate the civilian population and suppress their resistance. Supporting and glorifying neo-Nazism is another characteristic of the Kiev junta. Groups such as the Azov Regiment, the Right Sector, the National Corps, and Kraken, all openly neo-Nazi, are integrated into Ukraine’s security forces. These groups are responsible for numerous war crimes, including torture, executions, and the murder of civilians and prisoners of war, and instead of being punished, they are celebrated by the Kiev regime.

Faced with a growing lack of soldiers willing to fight against their Russian brothers, Ukraine has recruited international mercenaries, including extremists from the Middle East and European far-right groups. These mercenaries, including militants from the “Chechen” separatist battalion Sheikh Mansur, are involved in terrorist activities such as sabotage, kidnappings, and extrajudicial executions. In addition to crimes within its own territory, Ukraine also carries out terrorist attacks outside its borders. Examples include attacks on Russian soil, such as the explosion on the Crimean Bridge and the murders of Russian civilians like Daria Dugina and Vladlen Tatarsky. Similarly, sabotage against energy infrastructure continues to occur even after ceasefire agreements mediated by Trump. These actions reflect Kiev’s terrorist war strategy, with its intelligence services and affiliated groups acting as classic terrorists, putting innocent civilians at risk.

The physical elimination of opponents is also encouraged by the regime, with the murder of pro-Kremlin activists, journalists, and even former political allies. The Ukrainian GUR (Main Intelligence Directorate), in a shocking move, has openly begun recruiting terrorists to carry out attacks on Russian territory. This recruitment is a clear demonstration of the intensification of the regime’s terrorist practices. Despite the evident war crimes and terrorism committed by Kiev, Western countries continue to arm and finance it, turning a blind eye to the atrocities being committed. This double standard in Western politics is evident: while similar actions by Russia are immediately labeled as “aggressions,” attacks on civilians perpetrated by Ukraine are described as a “fight for democracy.”

Given these facts, the international community (mainly the European Union, following the US recent example) must question the true meaning of “Western democracy” and reconsider its unrestricted support for a terrorist regime like Kiev’s. The world must recognize the Ukrainian regime as criminal and cease its support for its terrorist actions. However, as Western goodwill cannot be relied upon, Russia must continue to act decisively to neutralize the enemy. The historical experience of post-2014 Ukraine shows that Kiev is a terrorist state, with which it is simply impossible to negotiate. The neo-Nazi regime understands only the language of force – and it is through force that the Ukrainian problem will be solved. The only viable solution to the conflict is the dissolution of the existing Ukrainian state through a combination of regime replacement and territorial reconfiguration.

“..to meet with President Vladimir Putin..” Good.

• Trump Envoy In Russia For High-Level Talks – Media (RT)

US President Donald Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, has traveled to Russia to meet with President Vladimir Putin, Axios has reported. If confirmed, the meeting would be the third since Trump initiated the normalization of relations with Moscow following his inauguration in January. Last week, Witkoff was among several senior White House officials to host Kirill Dmitriev, Putin’s aide for international economic cooperation, who traveled to Washington to continue the high-level discussions. According to services monitoring air traffic, a plane associated with Witkoff has traveled from Florida to St. Petersburg overnight.

Witkoff was previously credited for negotiating a prisoner exchange with Russia, which involved a personal meeting with Putin in February. The swap involved the return of Russian crypto entrepreneur Aleksandr Vinnik and Marc Fogel, a former employee of the US embassy in Russia and teacher at an Anglo-American school in Moscow, to their respective nations. Witkoff was also part of the US delegation that took part in senior-level talks with Russian officials in Saudi Arabia in March. The discussions, held in Riyadh, centered on the Ukraine conflict. Witkoff joined other top officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, as the delegations explored potential pathways toward a ceasefire and broader peace negotiations.

“..heavyweights such as France, Germany, Belgium, Italy and Austria warning of potential legal repercussions..”

• ‘Some EU States’ Opposed To Using Frozen Russian Assets – Kallas (RT)

Several EU member states are “strongly opposed” to handing Russian assets frozen by the bloc over to increase military support for Ukraine, foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, has admitted. The objections to the proposed move, which Kallas supports, are based on legal concerns and financial risks. Western countries froze around $300 billion in Russian sovereign and state-linked assets following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, with the bulk under EU jurisdiction. Brussels has since been exploring ways to use them to benefit Kiev, including by giving Ukraine the interest earned on the assets. Moscow has strongly condemned these efforts, calling them “theft.”

In an interview with Estonian state broadcaster ERR on Thursday, Kallas said that the bloc’s members are still in talks on the issue. “We’re getting ready, as there are certain risks involved and we need to find ways to mitigate those risks. Plus, some states are strongly opposed to it,” she said. When asked which countries are opposed, Kallas declined. “I can’t start naming names… it is not very difficult to figure out,” she said. The diplomat noted that countries holding large portions of the frozen assets face greater risks. “For example, take Belgium… they hold most of the assets. As a result, they feel their risk exposure is the highest.”

The proposal to use Russian assets to help Ukraine has faced significant opposition within the EU, with heavyweights such as France, Germany, Belgium, Italy and Austria warning of potential legal repercussions of an outright confiscation. Meanwhile, Hungary and Slovakia have warned that such a move could escalate the conflict and undermine regional stability. Responding to Kallas’ comments, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stressed that “Russia will never renounce its rights to its own assets and will not stop defending them”. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova remarked that Kallas’s interview presents “a unique opportunity to analyze a crime not after its commission, but at the moment of its planning.”

They found a new angle..

• Adam Schiff Wants Trump Probed For Market Manipulation (RT)

US Democratic Senator Adam Schiff has called on Congress to investigate President Donald Trump for possible insider trading and market manipulation following his abrupt trade policy U-turn. Global stocks soared after the president paused the imposition of tariffs on a multitude of countries this week. On Wednesday, Trump announced a 90-day pause on reciprocal tariffs against US trade partners, lowering duties to a flat 10% rate. The only exception was China, which he hit with an increase to 125% following Beijing’s tariff hike on US goods to 84%. Immediately after the announcement, US stock markets posted near-record gains after a week-long slump. Mere hours before the announcement, Trump posted on his Truth Social platform: “BE COOL! Everything is going to work out well,” followed by, “THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY!!! DJT,” referencing his media company’s stock ticker.

The timing of his posts, the pause and the resulting market rally sparked speculation about market manipulation online, which became even more heated after White House aide Margo Martin posted a video of Trump praising financier Charles Schwab for making billions during the rally. “Trump removed many of the tariffs he had imposed in this on-again, off-again… kind of policy. This has just wreaked havoc on the markets,” Schiff said in his video address posted on X. “But there is another profound danger as well, and that is insider trading within the White House.” “The question is, who knew what the president was going to do? And did people around the president trade stock knowing the incredible gyration the market was about to go through?” he added.

Schiff went on to accuse Trump of corruption, citing his family’s crypto trading and the “conflicted self-dealing” of ally, billionaire Elon Musk. “We in Congress need to do more than demand answers. We need to do the oversight necessary to get those answers… We’re going to get to the bottom of this,” he pledged. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt earlier claimed that the tariff reversal was part of Trump’s broader negotiation strategy, calling it his “art of the deal.” The White House has so far made no comment on Schiff’s call for a congressional probe.

Other Democrats also voiced concerns. “The President of the United States is literally engaging in the world’s biggest market manipulation scheme,” the House Democratic Financial Services Committee wrote on X, in response to Trump’s “Time to buy” post. Rep. Steven Horsford of Nevada openly questioned whether the pause amounted to market manipulation during a House hearing with Trump’s trade representative, Jamieson Greer on Wednesday. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called for all lawmakers to disclose recent stock purchases. “I’ve been hearing some interesting chatter on the floor,” she wrote on X. “Disclosure deadline is May 15th. We’re about to learn a few things. It’s time to ban insider trading in Congress.”

“The Trump administration is cutting funding for the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which produces a National Climate Assessment..”

• Trump Severs a Key Pillar of the Left’s Climate Alarmist Strategy (O’Neil)

The White House has begun to cut funding for a federal program that drives climate alarmism and bolsters the narrative that burning fossil fuels will doom the environment. The Trump administration is cutting funding for the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which produces a National Climate Assessment. Agencies across the government use the assessment to justify directing taxpayer dollars to fighting the specter of climate change. President George H.W. Bush signed the Global Change Research Act of 1990, which directs the administration to release the assessment every four years. The law does not require the assessment to come to biased conclusions in favor of climate alarmism, however. The government report gives a veneer of respectability to the claims that scientists all agree that burning fossil fuels will lead to catastrophic climate change.

This justifies massive boondoggles like the so-called Inflation Reduction Act. As I wrote in my book, “The Woketopus: The Dark Money Cabal Manipulating the Federal Government,” President Joe Biden picked John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s former campaign manager and the founder of the Center for American Progress, to determine where billions of dollars went. Podesta, who also founded a powerful Washington lobbying firm with his brother Tony, enjoys close ties with the Left’s dark money network. Podesta helped prop up a climate alarmist industry that uses billions of taxpayer dollars to promote less reliable forms of energy, like wind and solar power, in the name of saving the planet. NASA canceled a contract with the consulting firm ICF International, which coordinates the program and the 13 federal agencies that write the assessment, Politico reported. Killing that contract has “forever severed” climate change work across federal agencies, one official reportedly said.

“NASA is working with [the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy] on how to best support the congressionally-mandated program while also increasing efficiencies across the 14 agencies and advisory committee supporting this effort,” a NASA spokesperson said. A source familiar with the decision told The Daily Wire that ICF International’s leftist bias contaminated the assessments. “ICF has produced assessments riddled with worst-case scenarios, obfuscating the assumptions underlying dire predictions about what the planet will be like in 100 years,” the source said. “The quality of the information is low, and the administration is committed to basing decisions on realistic assumptions that comport with legal standards.”

Climate alarmists repeatedly claim that 97% of climate scientists agree that human burning of fossil fuels will spell global doom, yet the data does not back up this claim. The 2013 study that reached that conclusion not only excluded relevant studies but also mischaracterized scientific research to fit the alarmist narrative. Climate alarmist predictions have repeatedly failed to come true. Al Gore predicted that the snows would disappear from Mount Kilimanjaro due to climate change. Others predicted that the Maldives islands in the Indian Ocean would sink beneath the waves due to climate change. Rooting out the alarmist bias from the National Climate Assessment may enable scientists to admit what most Americans intuitively grasp: the global climate changes for many reasons, and carbon emissions are only one factor among many. If the climate alarmist narrative falls, the entire green boondoggle falls apart. Expect climate groups to scream to high heaven about this move.

Complex relations. But close to each other.

• Russia–Iran–China: All for One, and One for All? (Pepe Escobar)

Russia and Iran are at the forefront of the multi-layered Eurasia integration process – the most crucial geopolitical development of the young 21st century. Both are top members of BRICS+ and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Both are seriously implicated as Global Majority leaders to build a multi-nodal, multipolar world. And both have signed, in late January in Moscow, a detailed, comprehensive strategic partnership. The second administration of US President Donald Trump, starting with the “maximum pressure” antics employed by the bombastic Circus Ringmaster himself, seems to ignore these imperatives. It was up to the Russian Foreign Ministry to re-introduce rationality in what was fast becoming an out of control shouting match: essentially Moscow, alongside its partner Tehran, simply will not accept outside threats of bombing Iran’s nuclear and energy infrastructure, while insisting on the search for viable negotiated solutions for the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program.

And then, just like lightning, the Washington narrative changed. US Special Envoy for Middle East Affairs, Steven Witkoff – not exactly a Metternich, and previously a “maximum pressure” hardliner – started talking about the need for “confidence-building” and even “resolving disagreements,” implying Washington began “seriously considering,” according to the proverbial “officials,” indirect nuclear talks. These implications turned to reality on Monday afternoon when Trump allegedly blindsided the visiting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with the announcement of a “very big meeting” with Iranian officials in the next few days. Tehran later confirmed the news, with Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi saying he would engage in indirect nuclear negotiations with Witkoff in Oman on Saturday. It’s as if Trump had at least listened to the arguments exposed by the Islamic Republic’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. But then again, he can change his mind in a Trump New York minute.

Essential background to decipher the “Will Russia help Iran” conundrum can be found in these all-too-diplomatic exchanges at the Valdai Club in Moscow. The key points were made by Alexander Maryasov, Russia’s ambassador to Iran from 2001 to 2005. Maryasov argues that the Russia–Iran treaty is not only a symbolic milestone, but “serves as a roadmap for advancing our cooperation across virtually all domains.” It is more of “a bilateral relations document” – not a defense treaty. The treaty was extensively discussed – then approved – as a counter-point to “the intensified military-political and economic pressure exerted by western nations on both Russia and Iran.” The main rationale was how to fight against the sanctions tsunami.

Yet even if it does not constitute a military alliance, the treaty details mutually agreed moves if there is an attack or threats to either nation’s national security – as in Trump’s careless bombing threats against Iran. The treaty also defines the vast scope of military-technical and defense cooperation, including, crucially, regular intel talk. Maryasov identified the key security points as the Caspian, the South Caucasus, Central Asia, and last but not least, West Asia, including the breadth and reach of the Axis of Resistance. The official Moscow position on the Axis of Resistance is an extremely delicate affair. For instance, let’s look at Yemen. Moscow does not officially recognize the Yemeni resistance government embodied by Ansarallah and with its HQ in the capital Sanaa; rather, it recognizes, just like Washington, a puppet government in Aden, which is in fact housed in a five-star hotel in Riyadh, sponsored by Saudi Arabia.

Last summer two different Yemeni delegations were visiting Moscow. As I witnessed it, the Sanaa delegation faced tremendous bureaucratic problems to clinch official meetings. There is, of course, sympathy for Ansarallah across Moscow intel and military circles. But as confirmed in Sanaa with a member of the High Political Council, these contacts occur via “privileged channels,” and not institutionally. The same applies to Lebanon’s Hezbollah, which was a key Russian ally in routing ISIS and other Islamist extremist groups during the Syrian war. When it comes to Syria, the only thing that really matters for official Moscow, after the Al-Qaeda-linked extremists took power in Damascus last December, is to preserve the Russian bases in Tartous and Hmeimim.

“ n reality, what we see in front of the cameras is a theatre. In reality Trump is unhappy about Netanyahu’s plans and his bigger ruse to draw the U.S. into a war with Iran. The real story here is that Trump does want a better deal from Iran..”

• Iran’s Regime Unlikely To Back Down As Trump Plays With Fire (Jay)

June 2019 was a critical moment in Donald Trump’s first term as president where, he was told that Iran had shot down a U.S. drone in international waters in the Persian Gulf. It is reported that he instructed the Pentagon to carry out a number of strikes against Iranian military installations but then was told by a general that if he did that, this would invoke a world war and that many U.S. soldiers would die as a consequence. He backed down, after weighing up the consequences and probably considered that the Iranian downing of the U.S. drone was probably within Iran’s airspace after all. For those who know Trump, this was quite a salient moment. Many would argue that Biden would not have backed down and that a war with Iran – and Iran alone in those days – would have been a huge defeat for the U.S. in that it would not win, thus only suffering from defeats on the battlefield would make it a loser.

Was it not Kissinger who said that “The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose.” The quote, of course, is perhaps poorly aligned with the reality of a war between the U.S. and Iran, as the latter can hardly be described as a guerrilla organization, but the point is that America cannot win against Iran simply because of the ratio of body bags and collateral losses of material. Iran can lose 1,000 soldiers verses America’s one, in terms of the negative impact on Trump’s decision to go ahead with the war in the first place. For the U.S. to fight Iran, even with partners, it would need to have only one plan, which would be the entire inhalation of the country and its regime. Given that the U.S. cannot even defeat the Houthis, it’s hard to see how even the most hard-core sycophant in the Pentagon that Trump has, indulging themselves to this level of fantasy.

Has Donald Trump reinvented his own political doctrine in his second term? Given that we are always led to believe that he doesn’t like the distraction of foreign wars, it’s hard to take him seriously with the threats he has made to Iran in recent days. In 2019 Iran’s ballistic missile defence system was considered too sophisticated and impenetrable for a U.S. attack. Six years later it is even greater than it was and Tehran now has both China and Russia as security partners. Add to that, Iran is believed to have purchased Russia’s S-400 air defence system, in exchange for it supplying Russia with ballistic missiles, which presents the possibility of an air strike by either America’s B-52 bombers or even fighter jets as a mission impossible – as they won’t be able to enter Iranian airspace as was the case in October 2024 when Israeli fighter jets attempted a massive attack but failed on a grand scale.

But then while Trump mulls over the idea of what a massive embarrassment such a failed operation would be, both politically at home but also in the region, military experts will no doubt point out that Iran has hypersonic missiles, which are not only impossible to shoot down, due the their speed (which we saw last year when they penetrated Israel’s airspace and struck at a number of military bases), but will be a game changer for the U.S. The ease of how one of those missiles could sink a U.S. aircraft carrier in the region should not be underestimated. So what is the real story here? Is Trump’s threat that if Iran doesn’t comply with the latest demands over a nuclear deal, a real one? The Iranians themselves don’t seem to be taking the threat seriously but they are taking the negotiations at face value as an opportunity while they now have 60% enriched nuclear grade uranium. And they are right not to.

It’s unlikely Trump is serious about an attack on Iran, as, according to a number of credible sources and despite appearances, he wants Netanyahu to back down from his ambitions of a war with Iran which would involve U.S. troops. In reality, what we see in front of the cameras is a theatre. In reality Trump is unhappy about Netanyahu’s plans and his bigger ruse to draw the U.S. into a war with Iran. The real story here is that Trump does want a better deal from Iran which gives him a longer ‘break out’ period for Iran to develop a nuclear bomb and some sort of curtailment on Iran’s ballistic missile program – his demands back in 2018 when he pulled the U.S. out of the JCPOA deal – but also wants to use the negotiations as a tool to both control Netanyahu and the Jewish lobby in DC.

First big test. If he passes, the world’s his oyster.

• RFK Jr. Promises To Reveal Cause Of ‘Autism Epidemic’ by September (RT)

US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has announced a large-scale federal initiative aimed at identifying the factors behind what he called the “autism epidemic,” with findings expected by September 2025. Speaking during a televised Cabinet meeting with President Donald Trump on Thursday, Kennedy – who has previously been accused by critics of promoting conspiracy theories about vaccines – said the new research effort would involve “hundreds of scientists from around the world.” “By September, we will know what has caused the autism epidemic. And we’ll be able to eliminate those exposures,” Kennedy promised. He stressed the urgency of the project, citing a sharp increase in childhood autism diagnoses over recent decades, rising from “one in 10,000 when I was a kid.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) currently estimate that 1 in 36 children in the US are diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder – a rise often attributed to improved awareness and expanded diagnostic criteria. “That is a horrible statistic, isn’t it? There’s got to be something artificial out there that’s doing this,” Trump told Kennedy. “If you can come up with that answer – where you stop taking something, you stop eating something, or maybe it’s a shot – but something’s causing it,” Trump added. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) already invests over $300 million annually in autism research, primarily focusing on genetic factors and prenatal environmental influences. Kennedy did not elaborate on the scope of the new “massive testing and research effort” or what specific exposures might be targeted.

Kennedy, the founder of the anti-vaccine group Children’s Health Defense, has gained prominence in the US for questioning the safety and effectiveness of childhood vaccinations and promoting the claim that vaccines are linked to autism – a theory widely rejected by the scientific community. He was also a vocal critic of the World Health Organization’s Covid-19 response measures, including lockdowns and the rapid rollout of experimental vaccines. Despite his controversial reputation, Kennedy denies being opposed to vaccination, noting that his own children are immunized. During his confirmation hearings, he stated that he advocates for stricter safety testing and more rigorous studies of vaccines. After Kennedy endorsed Trump’s campaign last year, the president vowed to give him broad authority over healthcare policy, saying he would let Kennedy “go wild.”

RFK

RFK Jr. has been head of HHS for 30 days. He launched a chemical contaminants transparency tool to reveal what’s in food and other products. He began reforming the FDA’s GRAS rule to require safety trials for chemicals. He initiated efforts to improve baby formula by addressing… pic.twitter.com/UPmMtqoKW8

— Camus (@newstart_2024) April 10, 2025

Unstoppable, unless they try a Le Pen. They’ve been calling the AfD fascist for a long time, but the people stopped listening,

• AfD Tops The German Polls For First Time In History (RMX)

The Alternative for Germany (AfD) has become the most popular party nationwide for the first time in its history, edging past the CDU/CSU in the latest Ipsos poll. The survey, conducted April 4–5, 2025, shows the AfD at 25 percent, just ahead of the CDU/CSU at 24 percent. The polling marks a dramatic turnaround since February’s federal election, when the Christian Democrats attained 29 percent and the AfD came second, four points behind. Meanwhile, the SPD holds 15 percent, and both the Greens and the Left Party are at 11 percent each.

https://twitter.com/RMXnews/status/1909885937758175428?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1909885937758175428%7Ctwgr%5E880847c0b612ae1426055e38356a23fe805989cb%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Frmx.news%2Farticle%2Fafd-tops-the-polls-for-first-time-in-its-history-as-merzs-public-support-for-chancellor-plummets%2F

These numbers come amid growing dissatisfaction with CDU leader Friedrich Merz. According to a separate Forsa poll for RTL and ntv, only 32 percent of Germans believe Merz is suited for the office of chancellor, while 60 percent say he is not. This marks a steep decline from early March, when 40 percent still had confidence in him. Merz’s numbers are even worse in East Germany, where just 19 percent see him as a good future chancellor, compared to 34 percent in the West. Only among Union voters does Merz enjoy solid support, with 69 percent considering him a strong candidate. Among supporters of other parties, skepticism is widespread: 69 percent of SPD voters, 71 percent of Green voters, and 84 percent of AfD voters say Merz is unfit for the role. Among Left Party voters, that number climbs to 85 percent.

“The majority of voters doubt that the black-red agreement is moving in the right direction,” said Hermann Binkert, head of the INSA polling institute, referring to ongoing negotiations over a possible Grand Coalition between the CDU and SPD. Voter frustration is also being stoked by the controversial €500 billion investment fund, approved with backing from the CDU, SPD, and Greens. Viewed as a signal of increased spending and mounting debt, the fund has intensified criticism of the political establishment.

FDP senior figure Wolfgang Kubicki recently issued a warning to Germany’s legacy parties, saying the country is on the verge of a political revolution. “An AfD chancellor is closer than we think,” Kubicki said. “The vast majority of German citizens have recently voted somehow right-wing. Now, however, they threaten to get left-wing politics. That can’t go on for much longer.” Following February’s election result, AfD co-leader Alice Weidel accused Merz of betraying his voters by cozying up to left-wing parties.

https://twitter.com/RMXnews/status/1893951595374575629?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1893951595374575629%7Ctwgr%5E880847c0b612ae1426055e38356a23fe805989cb%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Frmx.news%2Farticle%2Fafd-tops-the-polls-for-first-time-in-its-history-as-merzs-public-support-for-chancellor-plummets%2F

“If the CDU commits electoral fraud against its own voters by forming a coalition with the left, the next election will come sooner than you think,” she warned. “Then, we will overtake the CDU as the strongest force!” Coalition talks between the SPD and the CDU continued long into the night on Tuesday, with an announcement on the next federal government expected in the coming days.

Very much.

• The Supreme Court Must Clarify Presidential Power (Jeffrey Tucker)

Signs are appearing all over my neighborhood. They say “Rejecting Kings Since 1776.” It does not take much political sophistication to grasp the upshot of this messaging. It is a focus-group-tested slogan to use against President Donald Trump. We have no history of kings or monarchs. The Founders were very clear about that. Our leaders would be elected by the people. There is widespread agreement on that point. But oddly a general bias against monarchs is not actually a helpful lens through which to understand the main controversies of our time. The kind of power that Trump is deploying right now—here we leave aside the issue of trade and tariffs—is mainly about the ability of the president to be in charge of his own executive branch. You might think that we have settled law and precedent that could decisively offer the answer. Incredibly, we do not.

The rise of the administrative state with more than 400 agencies and millions of employees with the power to make regulation and law is not something that has been clearly adjudicated by the highest court. Why not? Mostly because presidents have not really set out to offer a comprehensive challenge to the power of the agencies. Trump is arguably the first to make a forceful claim to be in charge of the agencies. He and his staff knew for sure that this claim would be subject to litigation and likely rejected by lower courts. But they also believed that forcing the Supreme Court to intervene was worth the risk. So far, the highest court has generally sided with the Trump administration against lower court attempts to restrict the power of the elected president over executive agencies. But the decisions have largely turned on procedural grounds, and these have been issued by a divided court with narrow wins.

What we await is a serious and large decision on the general topic of presidential authority. Is this about kingmaking? Not at all. It is about the ability of the head of state to determine policy within his own branch of government. Nor is it about stepping on the privileges and powers of the legislative and judicial branches. It is about recognizing the authority of each branch to manage its own shop. Consider the alternatives to having the elected president determine policy within his administration. It means allowing the agencies to act without any sort of accountability to anyone, not voters, not courts, not the president. That has been largely the case for many decades. Nothing in the Constitution would seem to permit that. And yet that is exactly where we are. Everyone is awaiting this decision. So long as it does not come down, there will be uncertainty within the White House about exactly what is possible, what policies will stick, and what policies will be overturned by the courts.

It comes down to this. The Trump administration bears full responsibility for whatever emanates from the executive branch during his term. In 2020, I blamed Trump for what the CDC, NIH, and FDA did. I took this position somewhat naively, thinking that Trump was surely in charge. I’ve since learned that this is not the case. There has been a long presumption within all these agencies that they can ignore the president. It’s the same with military policy. The president bears responsibility for wars and interventions and their effects. Trump blamed Biden for the disaster in Afghanistan and this is as it should be. It’s been the same with all presidents in American history. The success or failure of any single presidential term falls squarely on the shoulders of one man.

McCullough on the vaccine

‘I have never seen something so injurious to human body.”

• It invades brain.
• It invades heart.
• It causes brain/heart damage.
• It invades bone marrow.
• It stimulates antibodies to cells/ platelets.
• It causes blood clotting/damage to blood vessels… pic.twitter.com/wbnUHYCVYU

— Dr David Cartland BMedSci MBChB MRCGP (2014) (@CartlandDavid) April 10, 2025

Tucker X

Tucker Carlson tells Alex Jones they have to end free speech in America. They will not stop until X is banned

Tucker says they will eventually orchestrate “a violent event that will be used as a pretext to shut down free speech, they need to end speech in the United States.… pic.twitter.com/kGpw6SX4wn

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) April 10, 2025

Tucker Alex

Breaking! Tucker Carlson And Alex Jones To Expose New Information On What Really Happened On 9/11 Tonight In Exclusive In Depth Interview.

Stay Tuned To @TuckerCarlson For Tonights Interview pic.twitter.com/lPF3CIcRfo

— Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) April 9, 2025