Jul 222026
 


Michelangelo Pietà 1498


Trump Weighs Massive Escalation in Iran (Rick Moran)
The Perfect Metaphor for What’s Happening to the Democrat Party (Margolis)
The Revolutionary Upside to Arresting Netanyahu (Scott Pinsker)
The Democrats’ Financial Situation Appears To Be Worse Than We Knew (ZH)
Democratic Leaders Join Socialists in Criticizing Capitalism (Turley)
Trump Admin Slaps 50% Tariffs On Wide Range of Canadian Goods, Imports (CTH)
An Uncomfortable Change in Perspective (CTH)
Darrell Issa Wants Both of Trump’s Impeachments Expunged From The Record (JTN)
US Intel Views Targeting of Voter Data As Election Interference (JTN)
Court: ‘Smithers, Release The Biden Tapes!’ (Stephen Green)
Rand Paul Discloses Evidence FBI Blocked CBP Interview Of Fauci Ally (JTN)
The Great American Demographic Shift (Eric Florack)
What Happens Next in Venezuela Could Define Rubio’s Legacy (Sarah Anderson)

 


 

https://twitter.com/OpenSourceZone/status/2079627032032354378?s=20 https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2079640465423396915?s=20

 


 


Trump is like Putin: doesn’t want to, but can’t escape it.

Trump Weighs Massive Escalation in Iran (Rick Moran)

Iran has escalated attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, putting three tankers out of commission while continuing to attack U.S. and allied bases in the region. Meanwhile, the U.S. delivered several massive strikes on Iranian infrastructure on the 10th consecutive day of retaliatory attacks.


Now, Iran’s tribal Houthi allies in Yemen have announced a blockade on Saudi Arabia’s oil shipments through the Red Sea’s Bab al-Mandeb Strait. The Saudis were using the Red Sea to ship some of their oil, avoiding the mess in the Strait of Hormuz. Located at the southern end of the Red Sea, it connects the Gulf of Aden (and the broader Indian Ocean) to the Red Sea.

If the Houthis are successful (most analysts don’t think they have the capability to blockade the Strait), it would cut world oil supplies by an estimated 7%. According to the Washington Post, “Already, 10 percent of global oil shipments are halted by disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, which has been largely shut by Iranian threats and mines since the U.S. and Israel launched the war five months ago.”

The strategic situation facing the president is extremely tricky. His options have been shrinking since the end of the ceasefire two weeks ago. Iran’s riverboat gamble in closing the Strait, hoping the pressure on the U.S. from allies to open the Strait would give them ceasefire terms better than they deserve, would require a capitulation from the U.S. that President Donald Trump can’t accept. Meanwhile, Iran is hurting itself more than the U.S. in closing the Strait, as the halt to Iranian imports of fertilizer and refined oil products is making a collapse of the Iranian economy imminent.

Trump knows this and is increasing the pressure on Tehran by a series of escalating attacks on Iranian infrastructure. Now that the Houthis have all but joined the war, the situation threatens to spin out of control and war could engulf the entire region. One option Trump is reportedly considering involves “a massive joint military campaign with Israel to force Tehran’s capitulation,” according to Axios. This “all in” option has been urged by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for some weeks, and given the strategic choices facing the president, it might be his best option. But not quite yet. Trump appears to be giving diplomacy one last shot.

Axios: “Qatar, Egypt, Pakistan and other regional mediators have presented the U.S. and Iran with a proposal for a 10-day ceasefire, two regional sources with direct knowledge of the effort told Axios. The Trump administration is exploring the proposal and has urged Israel to avoid steps that could close the diplomatic window, U.S. officials said. But Washington is simultaneously preparing for the talks to fail. The U.S. military has sent dozens of fighter jets and refueling aircraft to the region in recent days, assembling the forces needed for a major escalation.

Israeli sources said the IDF is on high alert and preparing for a possible expansion of the war into a full-scale, coordinated campaign within days.Ten straight nights of U.S. bombing have failed to break Iran’s grip on the Strait of Hormuz, dragging Trump deeper into a war he has repeatedly declared won. At least three U.S. service members have been killed in the renewed fighting. Trump said Monday he had ordered the Pentagon to make Iran pay “many times over” for every American death.

“As long as American hostilities in the region continue, the Strait of Hormuz will remain closed,” Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said in remarks carried by the semiofficial Tasnim News Agency. This adds a sense of real urgency to the talks. It also makes a massive military action by the U.S. more likely. Iran is still trying to find a way to collect “reasonable service fees” for ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz. It’s hard to overstate how terrible that would be, not just for Hormuz but for international shipping around the world.

Iran has no legitimate claim to ownership of the Strait. The tankers would not be crossing in their sovereign waters. Accepting Iran’s claim that it can legally charge ships for using the Strait of Hormuz is tantamount to piracy. The best outcome of the war at this point is to inflict so much damage on Iran that it is forced to drop its silly notion of collecting tolls and other ludicrous stipulations regarding its claims of sovereignty over the Strait and adopt a reasonable negotiating posture.

Iran has not yet adopted anything “reasonable” in negotiating with the U.S., so the next best option is to force the Iranian economy to collapse. The fallout from that — including a nation of 90 million people starving and flooding neighboring countries with refugees — would be unacceptable in the short term. That leaves forcing Iran to the negotiating table to sign a deal beneficial to the U.S. and our allies in the region.

Read more …

“..eliminating the U.S. Senate outright, replacing the presidency and the Supreme Court with executive and judicial bodies that Congress picks, granting mass amnesty to every illegal alien currently in the country, and defunding the Department of War…”

The Perfect Metaphor for What’s Happening to the Democrat Party (Margolis)

Democrats have spent months trying to convince voters that theirs is a “big tent” party with a coalition roomy enough for everyone from suburban moderates to democratic socialists. It is a nice story. It also is not true. There is far less diversity of thought on the left right now than there is on the right, and the gap is only getting wider as the socialist wing tightens its grip on the party’s machinery.


Fox News host Kennedy captured that dynamic perfectly on Monday’s episode of The Five. She compared the Democrat Party’s “big tent” to a Trojan horse, except for the fact that the socialists riding it aren’t hiding inside waiting to be let in. They are already sitting on top, reins in hand, openly announcing what they plan to do once they’re through the gate.

“Talk about a fort, and all these people, from Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), all the establishment Democrats are talking about this, the idea of a big tent,” Kennedy said. She pointed to the Trojan horse from Homer’s The Odyssey (oh yeah, I guess it’s a movie now, too) as the perfect visual. “The Trojan horse, they built it, but they’re riding on top of it, they’re not even inside of it.”

From there, Kennedy laid out exactly what the socialist left intends to do once it has full control of the party. “The commies have a giant saddle, and they’re on the horse, and they’re like, ‘Yeah, we’re coming in to take your party. And we’re burning the fort down. We’re burning all of it down,'” she said. The goal, as she described it, is not incremental reform. “That means that the Constitution, as we know it, does not exist; nor does capitalism,” Kennedy said.

https://twitter.com/TheFive/status/2079348125513154633?s=20

That’s the whole plan.

The Democratic Socialists of America unveiled a new platform earlier this month that has some of the most insane, woke policies you could imagine. It calls for eliminating the U.S. Senate outright, replacing the presidency and the Supreme Court with executive and judicial bodies that Congress picks, granting mass amnesty to every illegal alien currently in the country, and defunding the Department of War. It wants deportations ended entirely and migration between countries left unrestricted. It would also extend voting rights to noncitizens and violent criminals, mandate a 32-hour workweek with no cut in pay or benefits, enact Medicare-for-All, cancel all student loan debt, eliminate cash bail, and impose universal rent control.

That platform is real, and it is precisely the kind of agenda establishment Democrats keep insisting their party doesn’t actually stand for.

This is why the socialist insurgency in the Democrat Party is a real problem for them. The Democrats don’t have a substantial lead in the generic congressional ballot, which means they may not win the House, despite everything that should be working in their favor. The bottom line is that the Democrats had every historical advantage walking into this midterm. Voters usually punish the party in the White House. Instead, the Democrat Party is handing persuadable voters a reason to vote Republican.

Read more …

For one thing, the UN would no longer be in New York.

The Revolutionary Upside to Arresting Netanyahu (Scott Pinsker)

Conventional wisdom says that New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani is bluffing. After all, that’s what a normal, typical politician would do. The United States isn’t a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Neither is Israel. There’s no legal standing for an American politician to order the arrest of a foreign head of state based on an ICC ruling. (In fact, it would directly conflict with established international law, including the United Nations Headquarters Agreement and the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.)


Which is why, conventional wisdom says, Mayor Mamdani is merely virtue-signaling to his left-wing base. One of the mayor’s more memorable 2025 campaign promises was pledging to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for “war crimes” in Gaza. From the New York Times (Sept. 12, 2025): Mr. Mamdani had said earlier in the mayor’s race that he would arrest Mr. Netanyahu. In the interview on Thursday, he did not back down and offered new specifics, affirming that he would order the police to make the arrest upon Mr. Netanyahu’s arrival in the city. “This is something that I intend to fulfill,” Mr. Mamdani said.

Mr. Mamdani, a state assemblyman who leads in the polls ahead of the November election, said that state and local Democrats needed to show that they would take action where the federal government will not. He cited a decision made by Gavin Newsom, now the governor of California, in 2004, when, as mayor of San Francisco, he defied federal law and issued marriage licenses for same-sex couples. “This is a moment where we cannot look to the federal government for leadership,” Mr. Mamdani said. “This is a moment when cities and states will have to demonstrate what it actually looks like to stand up for our own values, our own people.”

So Mamdani catered to the anti-Israel crowd by promising to arrest Netanyahu. Big freaking deal! Hey, he’s certainly not the first politician who won an election by promising something unrealistic and undeliverable. You kiddin’ me? Broken campaign promises are a dime a dozen. They’re practically an American tradition! And that’s why conventional wisdom assumes Mayor Mamdani is going through the motions right now. When reality forces a politician to abandon a memorable-yet-undeliverable campaign promise, he finds an excuse/legal pretext and moves on. That’s how you’re supposed to play the game! If that’s your assumption, Mayor Mamdani’s recent New York Times interview makes all the sense in the world:

”Mayor Zohran Mamdani said his administration was still discussing whether to arrest the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, if he comes to New York City as expected for the U.N. General Assembly in September. “I believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu belongs in The Hague,” Mr. Mamdani told Lulu Garcia-Navarro this week on “The Interview,” a New York Times show, referring to the home of the United Nations’ International Court of Justice. “He’s a war criminal who has been charged by the International Criminal Court,” Mr. Mamdani added. “And what you will find is that is an opinion that is held by many, purely because of what his actions have wrought over these last many years.”

The mayor said it was unclear to him whether he has the legal authority to order the Police Department, which he oversees, to detain a foreign leader like Mr. Netanyahu. He said he was in “an active conversation” with the city’s Law Department about the matter. On the surface, it’s the perfect fig leaf: Mamdani didn’t break his campaign promise because he wanted to. But golly gee — curses and drat — his city’s Law Department (which, y’know, is probably controlled by AIPAC and Zionist Jews) wouldn’t give him permission. And since Mamdani — unlike that “war criminal” Bibi Netanyahu — is such a stickler for following the rule of law, his hands are tied. “I tried my best, guys!”

Not only would this get him off the hook for his (absurdly) undeliverable campaign pledge, but it also establishes a political pretext for Mamdani’s next act: After he “saves” New York City from capitalism with the warmth of collectivism, voters must send him to Washington, D.C. so he can rewrite federal law — and hold Netanyahu accountable for his horrible “genocide.” This will be the dominant theory between now and September. Conventional wisdom will recite it, chapter and verse. Netanyahu won’t be arrested. The mayor is paying lip service to a broken promise. Trouble is, this theory assumes that Zohran Mamdani is a normal, typical politician. But what if he’s not?

Read more …

No-one gives money to a lost cause.

The Democrats’ Financial Situation Appears To Be Worse Than We Knew (ZH)

The Democratic Party’s money problems have been an open secret for months. Federal Election Commission filings from around six months ago showed the Democratic National Committee entering the final stretch of last year with barely $12 million in its campaign account and nearly $16 million in debt, most of it stemming from a loan the committee took out the previous month. Donations had slumped just as the party needed them most.


Since then, the political environment has arguably been extremely beneficial for Democrats, with President Donald Trump’s low approval ratings, the war with Iran, and high gas prices. Any one of those should have been enough to give the party the momentum necessary to get them out of their financial slump. Now, instead of turning the financial picture around, the DNC appears to be doing something stranger: hiding it.


According to a report from Axios, DNC officials required senior leadership to sign non-disclosure agreements before a private meeting on the party’s finances, a departure from the committee’s usual practice. Two people familiar with the conversations said the DNC requested the NDAs ahead of the recent finance meeting. The DNC asked its officers, high-ranking members of chair Ken Martin’s own team, to sign the agreements, the kind of people who typically never sign confidentiality paperwork before sitting down to talk numbers.

The senior officers’ meeting took place on June 25, five days before the Supreme Court handed down a ruling that upended the rules governing how parties fund their candidates. The timing alone tells its own story about how the DNC is managing its message heading into a midterm cycle it can’t afford to fumble.

Martin has spent months fending off a quiet but persistent crisis of confidence among Democratic donors, operatives, and even members of his own committee, all of them watching the Republican National Committee build a fundraising advantage heading into the Nov. 3 midterms that keeps getting harder to explain away. The numbers through the end of May make the gap plain. The DNC held just under $15 million on hand against $18 million in debt, while the RNC sat on $125 million with no debt at all.

The DNC declined to comment on why it required only its officers to sign confidentiality agreements before the finance meeting, and they’re trying to pass it off as inconsequential. Chris Lowe, the committee’s national finance co-chair, claimed that requiring officers and board-meeting attendees to sign NDAs is standard practice in the corporate world. Lowe added that senior DNC staff already operate under confidentiality agreements and argued it would be poor practice to discuss finance and political strategy at the highest levels without them in place.

A DNC official claimed that Martin’s committee has raised more money this cycle than the DNC did in 2017 and 2018, the last time Democrats headed into a midterm without the White House; however, it’s not clear whether that accounts for inflation.

Ultimately, the NDA strategy will not keep the party’s finances hidden, since those numbers will become public through Federal Election Commission filings. The agreements clearly exist for other reasons, such as protecting the internal deliberations, party infighting, donor threats, doubts about Martin’s leadership, and any strategic response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in NRSC v. FEC. The financial numbers clearly aren’t good, but what the party plans to do about them is likely what they’re really trying to hide.

Read more …

Look at me! I’m so modern!

Democratic Leaders Join Socialists in Criticizing Capitalism (Turley)

“Imagine the end of capitalism.” Those words in the Democratic Socialists of America manifesto offer Americans a world without landlords, debt, mandatory work hours, and “food, education, energy, medicine, and transportation… are common goods and utilities.” The left often refers to radical changes as “reimagining” everything from police to the Supreme Court to prisons to borders. However, the rise of socialists in the Democratic Party has moved such claims from the merely rhetorical to the outright revolutionary.


The release of the DSA platform on Bastille Day, July 14, was fitting since the Jacobins pushed for the same unicameral system that the socialists are now advocating.The platform promised to change the constitutional system and end the rule of “the same criminal class of billionaires and war profiteers.” The DSA, which counts various Democrat figures such as New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, includes a plan to eliminate the Senate, the Supreme Court, the presidency and other institutions in remaking the American constitutional system.

In my new book “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution,” I discuss the rise of socialism and the move among professors and pundits to scrap key aspects, or the entirety, of our constitutional system on the 250th anniversary of the republic. The book compares many of these proposals to identical policies of the Jacobin movement in the French Revolution. It is a book about revolutions and how they can consume those who start them. Both the American and French revolutions arose during the same period, but one became the world’s oldest democracy while the other became a blood-soaked tyranny known as “The Reign of Terror.”

Notably, the Jacobins pushed for the same unicameral system that the socialists are now advocating. Even figures such as Thomas Paine (one of two figures who played a significant role in both revolutions) supported such measures to allow for more direct democracy. It was an approach that the Framers expressly rejected. Great students of history, they did not want to replicate the elements that led to the destruction of past democracies going back to ancient Athens. Benjamin Rush, a signatory to the Declaration of Independence, referred to it as democracies becoming “mobocracies.”

The DSA is the direct descendant of the Jacobins in seeking to tear down moderating institutions and replace the president and justices with democratically elected figures by a Congress composed only of the House of Representatives. However, many of these suggestions are also found among leading academics and influencers. As with the original Jacobins, those demanding these changes are not the working class but professors, pundits and young college-educated voters. Mainstream figures such as Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley Law School, have published books such as “No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States.”

The media eagerly publishes these radical views, such as the New York Times column, “The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed,” in which Ryan D. Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale call for the nation to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.” It was an approach that the Framers expressly rejected. Great students of history, they did not want to replicate the elements that led to the destruction of past democracies going back to ancient Athens. As discussed in “Rage and the Republic”:

“Those who want to remain in favor often pander to the extremes. Radical leftist sites like the Jacobin have grown in popularity… They use some of the same words and symbols but still seem improvisational and inauthentic, like a child’s game of dress-up with oversized outfits. Indeed, that is precisely the danger.

“There is little knowledge, let alone memory, of what such radicalism became under the real Jacobins. There is the same blissful ignorance that allowed Rousseauian dilettantes to mutate into monsters, escalating radical agendas with every failure… As the popular slogans became disastrous policies, the momentum would carry them beyond any point of recognition or return. The new Jacobins show the same blind ambition and abandon in striking out at institutions and the Constitution itself.”.

Read more …

Playing around with SCOTUS.

Trump Admin Slaps 50% Tariffs On Wide Range of Canadian Goods, Imports (CTH)

It is very obvious from the construct and details of this announcement that U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer has completed a comprehensive review of the retaliatory action by Canada that followed the U.S. Section 232 tariffs on Steel and Aluminum. Last year two countries retaliated against the U.S. for the 232 (steel and aluminum) tariffs, China and Canada. The USTR office has now quantified the tariff and non-tariff barriers triggered by Canada in 2025 and provided President Trump with a financial quantification of the trade impact.


The three Canadian retaliatory sectors highlighted include: (1) Alcoholic Beverages, (2) Motor Vehicles, (3) Dairy Products. These are the three segments quantified by USTR Greer that form the baseline for the U.S. to retaliate with countervailing duties. Effective 30 days from now, August 16, 2026, President Trump has established a 50% tariff rate against a wide variety of Canadian imports. Essentially three major Annexes: under the authority of Section 338.

Section 338 authorizes the President, if he determines it will serve the public interest, to offset any burden or disadvantage placed on the commerce of the United States by an unequal imposition or discrimination by a foreign country by specifying and declaring additional duties not to exceed 50 percent ad valorem (or its equivalent) and not to take effect earlier than 30 days after the President’s proclamation finding that a foreign country imposes an unreasonable charge, exaction, regulation, or limitation that is not equally enforced on the like articles of every foreign country, or discriminates in fact against U.S. commerce in a way that places the commerce of the United States at a disadvantage compared to the commerce of any foreign country.

Section 338 also authorizes the President to suspend, revoke, supplement, or amend any proclamation under section 338 whenever the President deems that the public interests require such action. Further, section 338 authorizes the President to exclude products of the foreign country if the foreign country maintains or increases the discrimination against the commerce of the United States and the President deems the exclusion to be consistent with the public interests and the interests of the United States.

The 50% tariffs apply to food, alcohol, beer, clothing, chemicals, electronics, flowers, fragrance oils, chemical raw materials and importantly wood products.mThe wood products are a big hit to the Canadian export sector. This includes paper goods, cardboard, plywood and fabricated pulp wood derivatives like particle board (MDF). This is a huge export sector for Canada that will now trigger a 50% tariff rate. Essentially, the list is very long and includes almost every assembled component part created by Canadian manufacturing.

We can surmise the baseline is part of the non-negotiable trade calculation done by President Trump and USTR Greer, that will carry forward into any further trade agreement inside or outside the USMCA construct. Meaning if the trilateral agreement holds (USMCA), these valuation targets will be part of the expectation from the USA side of the discussion toward Canada. However, in the more likely scenario a bilateral trade agreement is preferred, this now quantifies the tariff reciprocity anticipated by the USA, in addition to the elimination of non-tariff barriers

Read more …

“Do we really think valid and secure elections are in the interests of a corrupt FBI organization?”

An Uncomfortable Change in Perspective (CTH)

I would strongly suggest interested readers or researchers to go back and look carefully at the very public comments from Senate Intelligence Community Vice-Chairman Mark Warner, as they relate to the seizure of Fulton County, GA, election records. What you might notice forms the background of an uncomfortable change in perspective. In nearly all of Warner’s remarks, his main argument centered on opposing DNI Tulsi Gabbard’s presence at the Fulton County election records warehouse. He wasn’t worried about the FBI seizing the records; rather, he was deeply concerned about Gabbard observing the seizure.


Here’s part of the bigger problem. When wrongdoing, fraud, corruption, or criminal activity occurs within a federal agency, including the Intelligence Community, the FBI is the institution tasked with investigating it. That’s the problem. People ask repeatedly, why has there been no accountability for the obvious corruption? Perhaps we really don’t want to accept the obvious answer. The FBI is doing corrupt, criminal and fraudulent stuff because the institution of the FBI is comprehensively corrupt. As a consequence, they are allied -directly or through willful blindness- with operatives in other agencies doing criminal, corrupt and fraudulent stuff.

Think about “security clearances.” Which agency or institution determines the outcomes of Security Clearance reviews or investigations? Who is responsible for approving or denying security clearances? The same FBI. The same FBI agency who took possession of Hillary Clinton’s missing emails, Huma Abedin/Anthony Weiner’s laptop and Hunter Biden’s laptop. The same FBI agency who took custody of Jeffrey Epstein’s safe contents. The same FBI agency who raided James O’Keefe to retrieve the Ashley Biden diary. That’s the same FBI agency now with custody of the Fulton County election evidence.

The same agency who investigated the J6 pipe bombing, the Las Vegas mass shooting, the various Trump assassination attempts and even the TWA-800 explosion. That’s the same agency that seemingly cannot stop Antifa terrorist attacks yet can pour over 1,500 agents into a J6 investigation. The FBI now has the physical ballots and machines from the Fulton County election offices. Do we think the FBI wants honest elections?… that could result in larger ranks of honest, elected officials?… that could then hold oversight over the FBI? Do we really think valid and secure elections are in the interests of a corrupt FBI organization?

While leading the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and overseeing the revocation of security clearances from dozens of career intelligence operatives, Tulsi Gabbard was in a unique position to uncover the motives and intentions of the FBI as a governmental institution. FBI agents and analysts were assigned to desks inside the ODNI. Do you remember the leaks against Tulsi Gabbard?

Perhaps now we can contextualize why Tulsi Gabbard was in Fulton County, GA. And, more importantly, why the SSCI was going bananas when they found out she was there. Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chairman Mark Warner was not apoplectic the FBI was in Fulton County, Georgia, taking control of election machines and ballots. Warner likely already knew what the FBI was doing there. The same motive and intent behind all the mysteriously missing laptops (Clinton, Abedin, Weiner, Awan, Biden) of evidence that seemingly vaporized from the public psyche. No, Senator Mark Warner was apoplectic because Tulsi Gabbard followed the FBI to Fulton County, to watch them take custody of evidence with the motive to watch their intent.

The FBI was forced into action because Garland Favorito was annoyingly and methodically winning the painstakingly slow legal arguments, and there was a full summer of concern before the next election was scheduled. Someone was going to be looking at those raw election ballots, those physical receipts, records and factual tabulation outcomes. The FBI took over.

Do you remember when Fulton County commission chair, Robb Pitts, said at a press conference he received a phone call –two days before the FBI served a criminal warrant to seize 2020 election documents– to warn that he, Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, former Raffensperger deputy Gabriel Sterling and others in the state were at risk of imminent arrest by federal agents. {SOURCE} Robb Pitts was tipped off by someone in DC.

DNI Tulsi Gabbard said she went to Fulton County, to watch events as approved by the White House. There is every reason to believe her statement. Recently, there was a reported considerable disparity between what Acting DNI Pulte wanted President Trump to outline in his speech on election manipulation, and what the White House insiders were comfortable with {SOURCE}. The final outcome within the Trump speech was ‘smoothed’ by the Intelligence Community.

If we modify our perspective to consider the DNI was not a participant to law enforcement activity, but rather the DNI was bearing witness to a crime taking place; then suddenly, Senator Mark Warner’s apoplexy makes a lot more sense.

Read more …

“.. making sure that we recognize and validate that false information and withheld information caused a Congress to think they could vote to impeach him,”

Darrell Issa Wants Both of Trump’s Impeachments Expunged From The Record (JTN)

Republican allies hoping to erase Trump impeachment votes including California’s Darrell Issa California GOP Rep. Darrell Issa said he is pressing ahead to have President Donald Trump’s two impeachments expunged, arguing Democrats wouldn’t have voted so easily had the evidence of falsehoods been public. “I intend on doing just that, making sure that we recognize and validate that false information and withheld information caused a Congress to think they could vote to impeach him,” Issa told the Just the News, No Noise TV show on Monday.


“Knowing what we know now, even many of the Democrats would have had a much harder time facing the voters, knowing that they had willfully used false information.” Trump is discussing plans to seek to have Congress pass a resolution to expunge both of his impeachments from his first term and his allies want to help him do so. Trump told the Wall Street Journal on June 11 that the expunging “should be done because I did nothing wrong.” In 2019, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives impeached Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. These charges were based on his alleged withholding of military aid to Ukraine to pressure the country into investigating Joe Biden.

Trump was impeached a second time in February 2021 on an article of incitement of insurrection following the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.In both impeachments, the Senate fell short of the two-thirds majority necessary to convict Trump.Issa, who represents San Diego and Riverside counties, is a former U.S. Army Captain and successful businessman. He stands with other congressional leaders who agree with expunging the Trump impeachment votes. Mike Johnson, R-La., told the Wall Street Journal that Trump’s impeachments should be erased.

“I think it makes a lot of sense. The more the evidence comes out, the more we know they really were sham impeachments,” Johnson told the Journal. “We were saying it at the time, now we know. And they make a very compelling case that it should be expunged from the record, because it was a hyperpartisan attack job.”

Read more …

“Passing the Save Act would certainly make a big difference,” [..] “At the end of the day, there will be no question at all elections, the outcome, will be in doubt unless we pass it.”

US Intel Views Targeting of Voter Data As Election Interference (JTN)

President Trump presented evidence last Thursday night that China had compromised and obtained 220 million American voter registration files but media have been downplaying it ever since. When the Biden Justice Department announced that Chinese hackers had gotten their hands on Great Britain’s publicly available voter files in 2024, American news media clamored with stories claiming it was a “dangerous” breach. The same, too, when U.S. officials announced Russia and Iran had hacked small numbers of U.S. voter files in 2020 and 2021. The reason was simple: U.S. intelligence agencies believe the targeting and acquisition of voter registration files is an act of election interference.


“Election interference is a subset of election influence targeted at the technical aspects of the election, including voter registration, casting and counting of ballots and reporting of results,” an October 2020 National intelligence Council report on election interference explains. In other words, the compromising of election voter registration data, is, by the definition of intelligence agencies, an act of election interference.

Nothing to see here, move along, legacy media now says
When President Donald Trump presented confirmed evidence last Thursday night that China had compromised and obtained 220 million American voter registration files, the news media swung 180 degrees in the opposite direction. They argued it was old news (it was not) and not a big deal because you can buy limited data in America related to voter registration commercially. According to security experts, that limited data accessibility is not the same thing. The intelligence agencies in the very documents that Trump declassified and made public for his announcement show the voting integrity and security concerns.

In 2022, the National Security Agency became especially concerned that China had escalated its exploitation of voter data by assigning a “CNE.” That’s a person or unit who are hackers and cyberthieves. Legacy news media have ignored this fact, while center-right-leaning publications were not as quick to dismiss the accuracy or impact of the data breach.

The Washington Times reported that “Trump said during his primetime address on Thursday that the People’s Republic of China acquired 220 million U.S. voter files containing names, addresses, phone numbers, political party preferences, and other sensitive information. Shortly after the speech, the White House released to the public dozens of declassified documents containing partially redacted findings, including data showing nearly 278,000 noncitizens who are registered to vote in federal elections and details over a “slow-walked” 2020 FBI investigation in Michigan.”

Great Britain’s voter files are commercially available in limited form like America’s. But China got versions of the British that caused the Biden administration to indict China for hacking 40 million British voter files. According to the BBC, the British government called it “malicious” interference in their election. In 2021, the Biden Justice Department indicted two Iranian hackers for accessing just 100,000 voter files from a single state where it is also commercially available. They were charged with criminally interfering in the 2020 election even though voter files are commercially available in limited form.

If China’s acquisition of 40 million files in Great Britain and Iran’s acquisition of 100,000 files in America were both charged as criminal election interference, it would seem the acquisition of 220 million voter files almost certainly would be considered by the intelligence community to be an act of interference.

At this point, what difference does it make?
Whether the data breach would have or could have flipped the election is beside the point. Experts interviewed by Just the News agreed. Former CIA operations officer Rick de la Torre called the news media’s dismissal of Trump’s claims “absurd.” “Of course, this is election interference,” he added. “With that information, with that data, you know the Chinese government can exploit it. They can target specific individuals. They can do all kinds of things. They could request ballots. They could change people’s identifications. They know now how they vote. They know what their political parties are. They know how often they vote.”

“Imagine if China hacked into the Pentagon and stole every military service member’s personnel file,” he told Just the News. “You know, you wouldn’t say, ‘Oh well, that’s not really a big deal. That’s not a threat from a national security standpoint.’ You know, that’s absurd. Mike Davis, a former top lawyer for the Senate Judiciary Committee, which dealt with major data breaches in the past, said the media is disserving the public by downplaying or ignoring what Trump reported and that the intelligence analysts who hid the data breaches from Trump and Congress years back could be prosecuted.

“They obstructed, and they conspired to provide doctored evidence to the President of the United States about a foreign invasion of our elections, and they must be held accountable. They must be arrested. They must be charged,” Davis said. Rep. Laurel Lee, R-Fla., was Secretary of State of Florida from 2019 to 2022 and said she was never notified as the election chief in one of the largest battleground states about China’s acquisition of voter files. She said Trump’s revelation was “a big deal.”

“There are a number of different components to conducting good elections,” she told the Just the News, No Noise television show on Monday evening. “Of course, we have our voting tabulation systems, but we also have to maintain voter rolls, public information, public-facing websites. And all of these things are things that can be targeted by our foreign adversaries in their attempt to either interfere with our process and procedure or affect voter belief and confidence in our system.” Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., agreed and said Trump’s rush to better secure voter data is essential.

Restoring confidence in an honest democratic process
“There is still a lot of work to be done. Passing the Save Act would certainly make a big difference,” he told Just the News. “At the end of the day, there will be no question at all elections, the outcome, will be in doubt unless we pass it.

Read more …

Robert Hur.

Court: ‘Smithers, Release The Biden Tapes!’ (Stephen Green)

“The US Appeals Court for DC has DENIED Joe Biden’s emergency request to block the release of his FIVE HOUR interview with Special Counsel Hur in 2023,” Nick Sortor posted late Monday night, finally giving the public a good, hard look at Biden’s fitness. “In a 2-1 decision, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected Biden’s attempt to stop the Heritage Foundation from getting the material,” CBS News reported through clenched teeth Tuesday morning. The majority wrote, “We conclude that Biden has not shown a likelihood that the requested materials must be withheld from disclosure.”


Prepare yourself for the Mother of All I-Told-You-Sos. If you’ll recall, the interviews were held way back in 2016 and 2017, when Biden’s Promise Me, Dad biographer, Mark Zwonitzer, conducted hours’ worth of interviews with the former veep. This was years before Biden even entered the 2020 Democrat primaries, and decades after anyone with eyes and ears had concluded that the Delaware senator was about as sharp as an over-boiled turnip. The recordings “gained interest from the Heritage Foundation several years later following an investigation by former special counsel Robert Hur into Biden’s handling of sensitive government records after his vice presidency,” as CBS put it.

You know, the exact same thing that the Biden cabal would later dispatch armed FBI agents to Mar-a-Lago for. The White House was doing a pinky-swear investigation of itself because of that time when the former Obama veep accidentally left boxes and boxes of classified docs in his garage with his Corvette. At first, Biden was prompted to tell people that his garage is a secure location because, unlike the Trump compound on many well-guarded acres at Mar-a-Lago, Biden’s garage door has one of those twisty lock handles on it. That garage was practically a SCIF, they claimed. But flash forward again to February 2024, when Hur declined to press charges in the most damning way possible.

“We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,” Hur concluded at the time. “Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him—by then a former president well into his eighties—of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.” Translation: The President of the United States is too senile to be held accountable.

More from CBS: The special counsel’s report, released in 2024, included passages that referenced Biden’s conversations with Zwonitzer. The special counsel wrote the recordings showed the former president’s “diminished faculties and faulty memory,” and said his conversations with Zwonitzer were “painfully slow, with Mr. Biden struggling to remember events and straining at times to read and relay his own notebook entries.” Which, of course, raises once again the question conservatives have asked since roughly Jan. 21, 2021: Who was running the country while Presidentish Joe Biden slurped his ice cream, slurred his words, and auto’d his pen?

Democrats and the Complicit Media spent years covering up Biden’s lack of fitness for office, and only his incoherent performance at his June 2024 debate with Donald Trump broke the spell. That’s when conservatives shouted, “THIS IS WHAT WE’VE BEEN TELLING YOU FOR YEARS!” Has there ever been a Democrat former president that Democrats have tried so hard to ignore? Jimmy Carter, probably… and even him they did their best to rehabilitate after he’d been out of office long enough. But Biden? There’s no rehabilitation for our first (and hopefully last) Zombie President, thanks to a federal appeals court and the video interviews we should have seen years ago.

Read more …

Peter Daszak. Remember Him?

BTW, CBP=Customs and Border Patrol

Rand Paul Discloses Evidence FBI Blocked CBP Interview Of Fauci Ally (JTN)

Senate Homeland Security Chairman Rand Paul released new documents Monday that he said revealed the FBI stopped Customs and Border Patrol from searching and questioning Peter Daszak upon his return to the United States from China. The latest documents come just over a week before former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci is set to testify in front his panel on whether he lied to Congress during the pandemic about whether his office had funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China.


Paul said that CBP was prepared to stop Daszak, who was the president of EcoHealth Alliance at the time, when he landed in New York in February 2021, but was told by the FBI days before Daszak landed not to question him and the inspection never took place. CBP was reportedly expected to ask Daszak about his contacts at the Wuhan lab, whether he collected or transported biological samples, and what happened during his trip to China. Paul said the documents can be found on a new database his team has put together called the “Reading Room,” which is now accessible to the public so they can review the documents themselves. The database will be updated as the investigation continues.

Read more …

“Nobody’s forcing the melting pot to melt anymore—it just sits there, lukewarm, while everyone pretends it’s still working.”

The Great American Demographic Shift (Eric Florack)

Are culture and demography destiny? I say yes, and suggest that it’s hard to argue otherwise. A nation isn’t lines on a map or a stack of statutes. It’s the people who live there, the values they bring, and the institutions they either sustain or slowly gut. Swap enough of a population—say, trade native-born Americans steeped in the country’s traditional culture for large numbers of newcomers from, say, Islamic cultures—and you swap the politics, the economy, and the outcomes that follow. That’s not a hot take. That’s arithmetic, and arithmetic doesn’t negotiate.


Import the third world’s populations without assimilation, and you import the third world’s problems along with them. Nobody should clutch his or her pearls over this. Countries differ wildly in educational attainment, institutional trust, corruption, civic participation, family structure, and cultural expectations—and none of that magically dissolves the moment someone crosses a border. Some immigrants assimilate fast and become genuine assets to the country. Others don’t bother trying. Either way, that’s a choice the immigrant makes, not a mystery anyone needs to solve.

Push migration past the speed a society can actually absorb, and the receiving country doesn’t just gain people. It inherits the statistical baggage those populations carry with them, whether anyone wants to admit it over dinner or not.

America has run one of the largest demographic experiments in its own history over the last 50 years, and nobody put it on a ballot. Census data shows non-Hispanic whites made up roughly 83 percent of the country in 1970. By 2022, that number had cratered to about 59 percent, while the foreign-born share hit nearly 14 percent—the highest in over a century. Pew Research Center’s breakdown lays out the same trend in granular detail, for anyone who wants the receipts instead of the vibes. Outside of literal territorial conquest, this country has never reshuffled its population this fast, and pretending otherwise doesn’t make the numbers move back. Nor does it negate the effects of those changes.

Institutions feel it whether pundits admit it or not. Schools scramble to teach in a dozen languages instead of one. Public services stretch to cover populations growing faster than anyone planned or budgeted for. Communities that once shared a civic backbone now can’t agree on what “American” even means anymore. National identity, once assumed, gets litigated at every dinner table and school board meeting in the country—which is exactly the kind of national pastime nobody asked for.Numbers matter for assimilation, too, and not in the feel-good way.

It’s quite true that in the past, we have had many years of success with immigration in large numbers, Thing is, those earlier immigrants landed in a country whose culture dominated without apology. English wasn’t optional. American customs won by default, and schools, churches, neighborhoods, and workplaces that all pulled in the same direction reinforced them. Today’s migration levels, paired with smartphones, satellite TV, and neighborhoods that never require anyone to leave their home language at the door, let newcomers stay culturally untethered for generations. Nobody’s forcing the melting pot to melt anymore—it just sits there, lukewarm, while everyone pretends it’s still working.

The fallout doesn’t stop at language. Social trust erodes when communities fragment along cultural lines instead of knitting together. Political fights increasingly split along ethnic and cultural interest groups, instead of shared national priorities. Public schools burn resources on remediation instead of excellence. Cities buckle under the fiscal weight of rapid growth, housing shortages, and social services stretched thinner every year. Ask yourself honestly: were these problems anywhere near this bad before the border opened under President Biden?

None of this means every immigrant is a problem—plenty succeed, build businesses, wear the uniform, and become model citizens, and good for them, and us. But nobody builds sound public policy on anecdotes, heartwarming or otherwise. The truth is, policy runs on aggregate effects, and large-scale demographic change moves every statistical needle there is: education, income, welfare participation, language proficiency, incarceration, health outcomes. When those numbers move, asking why isn’t bigotry. It’s the due diligence this country apparently forgot how to do, and I believe that to the largest of degrees it was a conscious choice on the part of the left.

Critics love to slap the “xenophobia” label on this conversation and call it a day—case closed, argument won, no further thinking required. Funny though, how demographics matter in literally every other policy discussion. Governments track age, education, family structure, employment, and income because all of it predicts future strain on schools, hospitals, infrastructure, and budgets. Population composition matters everywhere except, apparently, the one place it’s most politically inconvenient to admit it. That’s not principle. That’s a dodge dressed up as compassion.

The real question was never whether immigration changes a country. Of course it does—only a fool, or someone trying to hide something from you, argues otherwise, and fools, as I’ve often noted, are in no short supply these days. The real question is how much change a nation can absorb before it loses the institutions, culture, and social cohesion that made it worth immigrating to in the first place. Every nation gets to ask that question out loud, and asking it isn’t a crime. Pretending arithmetic stops working because the topic makes people uncomfortable isn’t compassion. It’s cowardice with somewhat better PR.

I have said this before and it’s still important: The primary task of any government that has any ideas of lasting, is to support, nurture and where possible, extend the influence of the culture that gave it life. So, then, what we are seeing is a failure of government in that primary task. The Brits are an example of what happens when government intentionally chooses not to fulfill that responsibility. They are the coal mine canary. The alarming thing is, we’re not far behind them. I have long since begun to wonder if we actually have the courage to address these issues head-on.

Read more …

This is a book, not just an article. Good luck. Take the day off! Bring lunch! Dress well!

What Happens Next in Venezuela Could Define Rubio’s Legacy (Sarah Anderson)

My point is that Rubio, going into this situation, started out with a really bad hand. And, fortunately, no one in our government knew that better than him. He’s built his entire political career around attempting to remove tyranny and corruption from the Western Hemisphere, and in 2025, when he became Donald Trump’s secretary of state, he finally had the tools — and a boss — that would allow him to make that happen. Rubio has said from the beginning that the goal was stabilization first. Would there be a civil war? Mass migration? That didn’t happen.


Goal two was recovery of the oil industry and other resources to help the country have an economy once again. “Their natural resources are going to allow Venezuela to be stable and prosperous moving forward,” Rubio said in January at a congressional hearing. “And so we created the – what we hope to do is transition to a mechanism that allows that to be sold in a normal way, a normal oil industry – not one dominated by cronies, not one dominated by graft and corruption.” The final goal was — and still is — the transfer of power to fairly elected leaders, a “friendly, stable, prosperous Venezuela.”

While the process was never meant to be easy, it was going pretty well. Commercial airlines now fly from the U.S. to Caracas for the first time since 2019. Oil exports are on the rise, and revenue is held in a U.S. Treasury account, not in regime pockets and bank accounts. Investment opportunities have been opened up to private companies from the United States and other countries. Hundreds of political prisoners were released from detention centers. The U.S. reestablished diplomatic relations and reopened our embassy. Some opposition figures were able to return, and their parties’ offices reopened.

College students and workers have marched largely without fear, demanding freedom and a real government. The flow of cheap oil to Cuba stopped, and there’s been a visible reduction in Iranian, Russian, and Hezbollah operations within the country. High-profile criminals have been taken out or extradited to the United States. That’s a lot for six months, and Rubio should be commended. We’ve known from the beginning that he’s running the show. No one else could do it so well. If the New York Times and its sources are to be believed, you don’t just have to trust my intuition:

Mr. Rubio now effectively controls Venezuela’s finances, the distribution of its natural resources and its government, according to interviews with more than a dozen officials and people close to both governments in Washington and Caracas, who provided details about his involvement in steering the country’s policies. Many spoke on condition of anonymity to describe private interactions and internal discussions.

While he has not visited Venezuela in person since the U.S. took over, the secretary of state is deeply involved in the country’s day-to-day operations, keeping in close contact with Delcy Rodríguez, who was Mr. Maduro’s vice president and now leads her country on an acting basis, with the imprimatur of the United States. The two exchange messages in Spanish on WhatsApp, trading gossip, birthday greetings and selfies. Despite the banter, the relationship between Mr. Rubio and Ms. Rodríguez is far from a partnership. It is a manifestation of Trump-era American power, in which the winner takes all regardless of sovereignty and international law.

Rubio reportedly tells the regime how to spend its money — the Times compares it to a parent handing out allowance. He oversees sanctions, decides who can do business in Venezuela, and approves Delcy’s government appointments, etc. According to the article, shortly after Maduro’s capture, “Rubio told her that she had a choice between working with the United States or witnessing a broader attack targeting Venezuela’s infrastructure, military bases and senior officials.” She agreed to the former.

I was almost positive that the newspaper meant this to be a hit piece, but it actually painted Rubio as a powerful and competent figure, even if it didn’t mean to. A newer article in The New Yorker goes even further. It claims that Trump officials regularly tell Delcy, “Don’t get too comfortable, because at any moment I can send María Corina after you.'” It’s referring, of course, to María Corina Machado, beloved opposition leader, Nobel Peace Prize winner, and the most popular politician in Venezuela — the country’s “Iron Lady” and the woman who would be, should be president right now. But we’ll get back to her in a second.

So Rubio’s the “viceroy,” as the media now wants to call him. He’s making some progress, but for the people on the ground who were thrilled when Maduro was gone, it was not visible enough. The oil is moving faster, the money is coming in, but where are the jobs and living wages? Where is the food and medicine? Hundreds of political prisoners were released, but why weren’t all of them freed? Delcy praises Trump and the United States one day, but brings back her anti-democracy and imperialism rhetoric the next. Trump praises Delcy, even though she was literally Maduro’s vice president. And why in the hell is Cabello, potentially the biggest crook of them all, still in charge of anything?

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/DRCharlieWardsQ/status/2079316665284898855?s=20

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Feb 272026
 


Banksy Honey Money pot 1999


Trump Report Card (John Stossel)
Triggered and Traumatized by Scenes of Patriotism (Turley)
Biden FBI Investigated Susie Wiles and Kash Patel Phone Records (CTH)
White House Withholds Medicaid Funding to Minnesota Amid Fraud Probe (Jung)
USTR Greer Talks Baseline Tariff Reset Shifts and Reciprocity Tariffs (CTH)
I’m Ukrainian – Russia’s UN Ambassador (RT)
Arming Ukraine With Nukes: Western Elites Have ‘Lost Touch With Reality’ (RT)
US Demands Iran Dismantle Its 3 Main Nuclear Sites In Hours-Long Talks (ZH)
Epstein Rushed Evidence Into Secret Storage Unit Before Raid (ZH)
Hillary Clinton to Testify in Epstein Probe on Thursday, Bill Clinton on Friday (JTN)
Mamdani’s NYC Flirts With Chaos (Ben Shapiro)
So Hackers Just Stole Mexico’s Tax and Voter Rolls (Stephen Green)
Spain’s Government: Spinning Out of Control (Drieu Godefridi)
Even the Best AI Scenario Is the End of Everything We’ve Ever Been (Ring)

 


 

https://twitter.com/ThePatriotOasis/status/2026849762180255904?s=20 https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/2026862384816550257?s=20 https://twitter.com/MAGAVoice/status/2026557297598804049?s=20 https://twitter.com/TheChiefNerd/status/2027093840289513854?s=20

 


 

It’s my Bday today.

 


 


Mostly positive. And you got to see that against the Orange Man Bad background, where nothing at all is positive..

Trump Report Card (John Stossel)

During his State of the Union, President Donald Trump declared himself wonderful. My new video takes a closer look, scoring his fifth year as president. He deserves an “A” for his willingness to take questions. It’s a relief after President Joe Biden, who hid from reporters. But Trump deserves an “F” for childish bragging. Ignorant, too. He proudly announced he cut drug prices by “400%, 500%, even 600%!” Didn’t he learn math? If he cut prices 100%, drugs would be free. Trump deserves an “A” for ending Biden’s self-destructive, anti-energy policies. On the other hand, Trump has blocked solar and wind projects, even those not government-subsidized. Can’t either party just let the market work?


I’m relieved that the president hasn’t fulfilled my worst fear: He has not acted like a total dictator. He does respond to public opinion. After ICE brutality in Minnesota, he pulled troops out, saying, “We can use a little bit of a softer touch.” And when courts rule against him, he obeys, ending National Guard deployment in Los Angeles, Chicago and Portland, and now searching for court-approved ways to preserve his tariffs. Hysterical media still scream about Trump being “a dictator!” and “authoritarian!” Mises Institute Editor-in-Chief Ryan McMaken points out that America has had many authoritarian presidents. “Nixon and LBJ, in terms of new bombing campaigns, ignoring Congress … both of those presidents were significantly worse. FDR, through executive order, destroyed the gold standard.

“Just by the stroke of a pen, he impoverished many Americans, stole Americans’ gold. This was one of the worst economic crimes in American history. I don’t think (Trump) could get away with it.” Trump deserves an “A” grade for easing some regulation. TSA no longer requires people to take their shoes off. The EPA stopped mandating things like “stop/start” features that were supposed to save gas but barely did. Trump ended “disparate impact” analysis, the toxic legal theory that led to parasitic lawsuits if workforces did not exactly match U.S. racial proportions.

Ken Griffin, CEO of the investment firm Citadel, says that Trump’s merely criticizing regulation, telling bureaucrats back off, lifted the economy. It “gives you so much energy as an entrepreneur!” “That’s probably the best part of his administration right now.” says McMaken, giving Trump a “B-” on regulation. Not an “A” because his attempts to cut red tape have mostly failed. And Trump hasn’t cut spending. “Spending has only increased!” McMaken points out.

Read more …

Can we a cheer a medal?

Triggered and Traumatized by Scenes of Patriotism (Turley)

This week, most Americans found a moment of rare unity in our pride over the performance of our athletes in the Winter Olympics. After years of rage politics, there was a brief respite as we joined in cheering our team in representing the United States in Milan and Cortina. Well, most of us. Some in the media found the entire demonstration of patriotism to be intolerable and triggering. What is striking is how this aversion to our flag and country was so openly expressed in major media. Yesterday, the nightmare continued for some on the left who were traumatized by seeing the American flag and open displays of patriotism. Jack Hughes, one of the heroes of the gold medal hockey game, returned to New Jersey to play and was met with cheers of “USA, USA” and a sea of American flags.


Hughes immediately called his Olympic teammate Tage Thompson of the visiting Buffalo Sabres to the ice to join him. The two skated arm in arm as the crowd celebrated them and our country. It was another unifying moment for the country. The fans joined arm in arm to relish this moment for the nation. These scenes are clearly having a different impact on some on the left. The HuffPost even published an article with therapeutic advice for liberals triggered by seeing so many American flags. The liberal publication ran an article titled “There’s a Name for the Discomfort You’re Feeling Watching the Olympics Right Now.” It then published it a second time before the gold-medal hockey game with Canada — presumably to prepare its readers for the nightmare of the United States actually winning.

The subheading read, “If waving the American flag or chanting ‘USA!’ turns you off right now, you’re not alone.” Senior writer Monica Torres began the article with this line: “While President Donald Trump’s deportation agenda separates families, and federal agents detain 5-year-olds and kill unarmed civilians, American athletes are winning medals on behalf of the nation at the Olympics right now.” Torres goes on to interview three therapists for this “story” about how the celebration of the United States team has forced many liberals into therapy over their trauma and “the cognitive dissonance of rooting for U.S. sports.”

Los Angeles-based licensed clinical social worker Aimee Monterrosa explained that the “atrocities” of the United States can trigger feelings of guilt, despair, shame, anger” in seeing the country celebrate these sports victories. Expert Lauren Appio echoed how “waving the American flag or chanting, ‘USA!’ [can make] us feel grossed out or ashamed.” Over at Vox, Senior correspondent (and former Atlantic writer) Alex Abad-Santos wrote an article on the winners and losers of the Olympics. The column perfectly summed up the pathological opposition of some to this country’s symbols and celebrations.

Abad-Santos declared the men’s hockey team one of the biggest “losers” of the games. He blamed that team for alienating citizens by their patriotic statements: “The conversation surrounding the win quickly shifted into how the team celebrated and who it celebrated with.” He expressed outrage over the team accepting the celebratory call from the President of the United States.In the meantime, the “winner,” according to Abad-Santos, was . . . wait for it . . . Eileen Gu, the American who reportedly took millions from the repressive Chinese regime to ski for China. Gu used the games to criticize the United States while saying nothing of how China arrests anyone who speaks out against that country.

Read more …

“.. when both were private citizens…”

“FBI Director Kash Patel has reportedly fired 10 FBI agents who were involved in the process of reviewing and intercepting communications as part of their work on the Jack Smith case. Internal FBI offices are not happy with Patel’s action against those officials ..”

Biden FBI Investigated Susie Wiles and Kash Patel Phone Records (CTH)

According to media reports and statements from FBI Director Kash Patel, both Patel and Susie Wiles had their telephone records subpoenaed by the FBI in 2022 and 2023 when both were private citizens. This is during the time when Donald Trump was being investigated by Special Counsel Jack Smith. Within the reporting by Reuters, at least one phone call between Susie Wiles and her attorney was recorded by the FBI without her knowledge. As the story is outlined Wiles’ attorney was working with the FBI and knew the conversation was being captured, Wiles did not. FBI Director Kash Patel has reportedly fired 10 FBI agents who were involved in the process of reviewing and intercepting communications as part of their work on the Jack Smith case. Internal FBI offices are not happy with Patel’s action against those officials.


“(REUTERS) – The FBI subpoenaed records of phone calls made by Kash Patel and Susie Wiles, now the FBI director and White House Chief of Staff, when they were both private citizens in 2022 and 2023 during the federal probe of Donald Trump, Patel told Reuters on Wednesday. Reuters is the first to report on the FBI’s actions that took place during the Biden administration, largely when Special Counsel Jack Smith was investigating whether Trump had interfered with the 2020 election and had hidden classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, according to Patel. Smith was appointed to take over that probe in November 2022.

[…] “It is outrageous and deeply alarming that the previous FBI leadership secretly subpoenaed my own phone records – along with those of now White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles – using flimsy pretexts and burying the entire process in prohibited case files designed to evade all oversight,” Patel said in a statement to Reuters.

[…] At least 10 current FBI employees have been dismissed as a result of the revelations about the targeting of Patel, Wiles and others connected to the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case, according to three FBI officials. […] In 2023, the FBI recorded a phone call between Wiles and her attorney, according to two FBI officials. Wiles’ attorney was aware that the call was being recorded, and consented to it, but Susie Wiles was not. […] The FBI discovered the phone records in files categorized as “Prohibited,” which makes them difficult to discover on the bureau’s computer systems. Patel said he recently ended the FBI’s ability to categorize files as “Prohibited.” (read more)

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2026802738097459213?s=20

I have mixed emotions about this. On one hand it is infuriating to yet again see the audacity and clear weaponization of the DOJ and FBI under the prior administration. On the other hand, duh! Non-pretending people knew all along this malicious network of DOJ and FBI lawfare operations included surveillance of everyone around President Donald Trump. Remember, Donald Trump was accused of criminal wrongdoing by the twisted lawfare logic of Smith and his crew. Accepting the reality of a criminal investigation, fraudulent though it was, it was entirely predictable that the DOJ and FBI would leverage all available tools to conduct continued surveillance and monitoring.

The secondary frustrating aspect to this story is how Director Patel has only just now fired those 10 FBI agents involved. This is a big part of the criticism that many of us have with Patel and his soft glove approach upon taking the position as FBI Director. Any FBI official who was involved in the originating Crossfire Hurricane and/or Robert Mueller investigations should have been fired for cause on Day One! 40 FBI agents worked for more than two years on the Mueller probe investigating a fictitious claim about President Trump colluding with Russia in the 2016 election. Those FBI agents should have been identified and terminated immediately, with prejudice; thereby sending a loud message that weaponized FBI activity was the immediate focus of the new leadership and would not be tolerated.

Read more …

“.. pointed to Vance as the one leading the efforts of his administration’s “war on fraud”..

White House Withholds Medicaid Funding to Minnesota Amid Fraud Probe (Jung)

JD Vance and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz announced that the Trump administration is temporarily halting certain Medicaid funding to Minnesota amid an ongoing fraud investigation. This comes after President Donald Trump condemned the rampant fraud in Democrat-run Minnesota and pointed to Vance as the one leading the efforts of his administration’s “war on fraud” in his Feb. 24 State of the Union address. “When it comes to the corruption that is plundering — it really, it’s plundering America — there’s been no more stunning example than Minnesota, where members of the Somali community have pillaged an estimated $19 billion from the American taxpayer,” Trump said at the SOTU, adding, “Oh, we have all the information.”


“And, in actuality, the number is much higher than that, and California, Massachusetts, Maine and many other states are even worse. This is the kind of corruption that shreds the fabric of a nation, and we are working on it like you wouldn’t believe,” Trump continued. The pause affects $259 million in federal payments to the Gopher State, which will be withheld until the state government demonstrates corrective actions against widespread social and welfare fraud. The vice president has given Democrat Tim Walz of Minnesota 60 days to clean up the state’s Medicaid rolls after it was exposed that taxpayer dollars exceeding $9 billion were misallocated for illegal purposes, according to investigators.

“We have decided to temporarily halt certain amounts of Medicaid funding that are going to the state of Minnesota in order to ensure that the state of Minnesota takes its obligation seriously to be good stewards of the American people’s tax money,” Vance said. “A lot of people were getting rich off the generosity of the American taxpayer!” JD Vance said in regard to criminals fraudulently taking money from needy assistance programs like “Feeding Our Future” and other government-funded initiatives meant to help autistic children.

“There are kids that need these autism services, and the money is not going to those kids. They’re going to fraudsters in Minneapolis. That is unacceptable. And that’s the sort of thing that we’re cutting off with this action today,” he added. The U.S. Department of Justice and Republican Party members in Congress have been highlighting the massive scandal since December 2025, when years of unaccounted-for fraud, mostly perpetrated by members of Minnesota’s Somali immigrant community, came under the national spotlight. The fraud concerns center on 14 state programs, including those for autism services and medical transports, where funds allegedly went to fraudsters instead of beneficiaries.

Read more …

“Greer notes Mexico and Canada being used as import hubs to avoid tariffs is a big issue.”

USTR Greer Talks Baseline Tariff Reset Shifts and Reciprocity Tariffs (CTH)

The Supreme Court tariff ruling has created the need for U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to modify the baseline tariff approach with the approvals of President Trump. The baseline tariffs are being reset to 10% with upward adjustment to 15% as planned. The reciprocal tariffs will not require any substantive modifications as most of the Free Trade Agreements have been cemented with reciprocity tariffs as part of the negotiated deals. USTR Greer appears on Bloomberg to clarify the current situation and provide some information as to the transitional baseline tariffs as now modified. Additionally, and importantly, Greer begins discussing the USMCA review and his acceptance that President Trump is openly questioning the value for us. Greer notes Mexico and Canada being used as import hubs to avoid tariffs is a big issue. WATCH:


Section 232 [Steel and Aluminum examples] of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (19 U.S.C. §1862, as amended) authorizes the President to impose trade restrictions—such as a tariff or quota—if the Secretary of Commerce determines, following an investigation, that imports of a good “threaten to impair” U.S. national security. {SOURCE}

Section 301 tariffs are a trade enforcement mechanism established under the Trade Act of 1974. They allow the U.S. government to impose tariffs on imports from countries that are found to be engaging in unfair trade practices. The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) conducts investigations to determine if a country is violating trade agreements, and if so, it can impose tariffs as a corrective measure {SOURCE}

Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows the U.S. president to impose tariffs of up to 15% to address “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits. This authority can be exercised without prior congressional approval for a limited duration of 150 days. After this period, any tariffs must be extended by Congress. {SOURCE}

*FYI, there is a lot of distracting noise in the various social media platforms about internecine MAGA battles and ego-driven points of specific interest. CTH chooses to focus energy and attention on the substantive policy issues that will generate substantive policy outcomes for America.

Read more …

“Vassily Nebenzia has said his parents were of Zaporozhian Cossack heritage and were more Ukrainian than the current leadership in Kiev..”

“To us, there is no difference – we are all one – millions of Ukrainians in Russia, millions of Russians in Ukraine..”

I’m Ukrainian – Russia’s UN Ambassador (RT)

Russia’s permanent representative to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia, has said he is Ukrainian, citing his parents’ roots. Speaking at the UN Security Council meeting on Tuesday, the Russian diplomat stated that “formally speaking, I am Ukrainian.”n“I have such a strange last name – the Slavs know it’s hard to find even in Ukraine. It originates from The Zaporozhian Cossacks,” he clarified. The ethno-social group, known for its military exploits as early as the 16th century, played an important role in the history of what is today Ukraine.


“My father was a true Ukrainian, and my mother was of Cossack heritage, too,” Nebenzia said, claiming that they were more Ukrainian than Kiev’s current Deputy Foreign Minister Mariana Betsa and ambassador to the UN Andrey Melnik. The Russian envoy recounted how his father volunteered to join the Soviet army during World War II to fight the Nazis.mThe diplomat accused the current leadership in Kiev of “zombifying” the Ukrainian population into becoming modern-day Nazis. Russia’s ongoing military campaign is aimed at reversing these trends, according to Nebenzia, who added that it would continue for as long as necessary to achieve this goal. “To us, there is no difference – we are all one – millions of Ukrainians in Russia, millions of Russians in Ukraine, and in Belarus as well,” the diplomat concluded.

Moscow has repeatedly warned of a Nazi revival in Ukraine, describing “denazification” as one of the central goals of its military campaign against Kiev. Commemorations of World War II-era nationalist figures with ties to Nazi Germany have become increasingly common in Ukraine in recent years, particularly following the 2014 Maidan coup. Last April, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Ukraine had “betrayed” its history by allowing the West to bring a Nazi regime to power in Kiev, which went on to declare “war against its own people.”

Read more …

“.. we should be prepared for Western leverage attempts ranging from the ridiculous to the flagrantly irresponsible.”

Arming Ukraine With Nukes: Western Elites Have ‘Lost Touch With Reality’ (RT)

Ukraine could become a partial nuclear power as its Western backers desperately seek to avoid NATO’s defeat in a proxy war against Russia – at least according to Moscow’s intelligence services. On Tuesday, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) warned that elements in the British and French governments who have “lost touch with reality” are considering a gross breach of their commitments under the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty on nuclear weapons. Officials in London and Paris are allegedly weighing options to support Kiev as it refuses concessions to Russia and reportedly prepares for up to three more years of hostilities funded by Western Europe. According to the SVR, the options include arming Ukraine with a nuclear capability through the “covert transfer of relevant European-made components, equipment, and technologies” that Kiev could claim as domestically developed, or through the direct supply of a French submarine-launched ballistic missile warhead.


Another option, the SVR said, is pushing Kiev to build a ‘dirty bomb’ – a non-nuclear device designed to contaminate territory with radioactive material, long considered a nightmare scenario for terrorist attacks. Russian officials have for years identified a Ukrainian dirty bomb as a major threat, citing Kiev’s ready access to necessary components. Ukrainian officials often claim their nation once possessed the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal and gave it up for false security promises. Vladimir Zelensky suggested at the 2022 Munich Security Conference that the decision could be reversed. The conflict with Russia escalated soon after the provocative remarks. In reality, nuclear weapons were present on Ukrainian soil after the Soviet collapse but were never “Ukraine’s arsenal” – Kiev could not launch them.

The US pressured Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan to transfer the missiles to Russia, with three memorandums signed in Budapest in 1994. In 2012, Minsk said the US and UK breached their commitment “to refrain from economic coercion” of Belarus made in Budapest, after they imposed unilateral sanctions. The rebuke was brushed off by the West. Kiev is under increasing pressure as Russia maintains advantages in frontline attrition and long-range strikes. Zelensky’s rhetoric mixes declarations of resolve, gratitude for foreign support, and complaints that it is insufficient. Still, he insists Ukraine is not losing. Manpower shortages caused by mass desertion and public resistance to mobilization remain Ukraine’s biggest challenge. Zelensky’s solution: more money from the EU and UK.

“When it comes to people, Europeans can help us, if we switch our army – when we switch our army – from mobilization to contracts,” he told the BBC last week. Russia can recruit enough volunteers because it pays troops better, so Europeans should put Ukrainian soldiers on a payroll, he argued. Ukraine’s government is bankrolled by foreign donors and is facing bankruptcy by April unless the EU borrows €90 billion ($105 billion) to continue aid. The EU’s loan plan, however, has been stalled due to Kiev’s ongoing spat with Hungary and Slovakia over their purchase of Russian crude.

Desperation can drive invention, and going nuclear is achievable even for a small, relatively poor nation – as North Korea proves. Soviet Ukraine was a technological powerhouse with its own nuclear reactors and a world-class rocket industry, suggesting an advantage. But generational loss of expertise, wartime damage, and other factors lead Ukrainian officials to privately admit that claims of going nuclear are bluster. Even conventional military technology development has faltered. The Flamingo cruise missile, resembling a UK-UAE weapon, was supposed to be the backbone of Ukraine’s deep-strike capability, with hundreds produced monthly. In reality, launches are so few they are celebrated as major achievements.

Zelensky’s explanation at this year’s Munich Security Conference: Russians destroyed production lines. Alternative speculation: domestic producer Fire Point is suspicious. The firm is allegedly linked to Zelensky’s longtime associate Timur Mindich, who fled Ukraine last November hours before being charged with running a major graft scheme. So is the nuclear warning real? France and the UK smuggling a nuke to Ukraine sounds like a B-movie plot. So does a US president threatening to invade Greenland to protect it from Russia and China. These are strange times. Given the EU has publicly demanded that Russia cap its army or face Brussels’ rejection of a Ukraine peace deal, we should be prepared for Western leverage attempts ranging from the ridiculous to the flagrantly irresponsible.

Read more …

Bibi. Whether it’s Ukraine or the Middle East, Trump so far refuses to involve his military directly. Here’s thinking that’s a good thing.

US Demands Iran Dismantle Its 3 Main Nuclear Sites In Hours-Long Talks (ZH)

US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner held more than three hours of negotiations with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Geneva on Thursday in a push to secure a breakthrough on a nuclear deal, with the Omani foreign minister saying the talks will resume later after a pause. It’s being reported that the message Kushner and Witkoff deliver to Trump after the meeting will shape the president’s decision on whether the launch a military attack on Tehran or refrain for implementation of a permanent deal. While Trump declared in Tuesday’s State of the Union that he prefers diplomacy, he also presented a direct case for war – something which remains deeply unpopular among the American people. In these and other indirect talks, Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi relayed messages between the sides, and then another format has involved direct discussions between US and Iranian negotiators.


Iran presented its long-awaited draft proposal for a nuclear agreement, though not much in the way of details have been revealed. International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Raphael Grossi was among those who participated in the negotiations. Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi, the main mediator, said of the Thursday talks that “we’ve been exchanging creative and positive ideas” and “hope to make more progress.” Meanwhile, a former head of the IAEA has warned that all wars, “including ‘wars of choice’ have horrific costs” as fears of major conflict between the US and Iran escalate. Reports that Thursday talks stalled after US side demanded zero enrichment…

https://twitter.com/AhmadSamadi1974/status/2027025765007577268

“The US is intensifying the drumbeat of war against Iran, with zero explanation of the non-existent legal authority to use force and zero evidence of an ‘imminent threat’ other than hypothetical scenarios based on possible future intentions,” Mohamed ElBaradei wrote on X. “That is the reason for the restraints and limitations established by international norms… This is Iraq redux … it seems we never learn,” he emphasized. Fresh reporting in The Wall Street Journal has laid out the main US sticking points: In the talks, now under way in Geneva, the U.S. negotiators were expected to make clear Iran must dismantle its three main nuclear sites—at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan—and deliver all of its remaining enriched uranium to the U.S., officials said.

They were also expected to insist that any nuclear deal must last forever and not sunset—the way restrictions rolled off over time under a nuclear pact negotiated under the Obama administration that Republicans have long said was too weak. Trump pulled out of that deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, in his first term, reimposing tough sanctions on Iran.

These are the very nuclear sites that the US said time and again it “obliterated” during the June war. This comes off Vice President J.D. Vance just the day prior stating that the White House “has seen evidence” that Iran is attempting to build a nuclear weapon. So Washington is going from proclaiming Iran’s nuclear sites were obliterated to now saying there’s evidence of the Iranians trying to clandestinely build a nuclear warhead. Of course, no evidence or so much as a reference to some kind of intelligence report has been presented to the world.

There are indeed mounting concerns that history is about to repeat itself, but this time there’s possibly many more American troops in harm’s way, given the significant reach and capabilities of Iran’s ballistic missiles and long-range drones.

Read more …

“We are aware of the theories circulated in the media and online that Epstein video recorded the abuse of his victims, including by other men, but we have found no evidence to support that theory,”

Epstein Rushed Evidence Into Secret Storage Unit Before Raid (ZH)

Jeffrey Epstein paid private detectives to remove items from his Palm Beach property and store them in a secret storage locker shortly before he was raided by police in 2005. The storage unit contained three computers, 29 address books, a three-page list of Florida masseuses. The stash also included nude photographs believed to be of Epstein’s victims, VHS tapes, DVDs ‘eroticising teenagers’ and porno mags, The Telegraph reports. “An 8mm video cassette tape was also locked away in the storage unit, apparently containing footage of someone in the shower and a woman in lingerie, as well as a 2005 calendar, greeting cards, letters and laboratory results.”


The investigators also hid sex toys, body massagers, lingerie, cash, a concealed weapon permit, and a Harvard ID card. The inventory was emailed to Epstein and his lawyers in August 2009, a month after he was released from jail for soliciting a minor for prostitution. Also interesting, some of the computer material ‘appeared to be missing,’ including ‘equipment that would have linked to surveillance cameras. ‘That fuelled speculation that Epstein might have been recording explicit covert material without people’s knowledge, either for his own sexual gratification or for blackmail purposes.” And what do we have here? A guy who was installing recording equipment on Epstein’s island in 2014, and was named as a $1 million beneficiary in Epstein’s trust.

According to the report, the FBI did have copies of the two computer drives. The Palm Beach storage unit was just one of at least six such lockers across the United States that Epstein used to store files, computers and other items from his multiple properties – but search warrants reviewed by The Telegraph “suggest that US authorities never raided these lockers, raising the possibility that they contained unseen evidence relating to Epstein and his associates.” US authorities have long suspected that Epstein was tipped off before the October 2005 raid at his Palm Beach mansion, with former Palm Beach police chief Michael Reiter commenting that “the place had been cleaned up.”

Meanwhile, French Police have released previously unseen pictures from Epstein’s Paris apartment, including one featuring a massage table and pictures of naked women hanging on the wall. Many victims have long alleged that Epstein secretly recorded encounters inside his homes, possibly for blackmail. Yet an internal FBI memo released in a later document tranche stated that investigators found no evidence supporting the theory that Epstein maintained video recordings of abuse involving other powerful figures. “We are aware of the theories circulated in the media and online that Epstein video recorded the abuse of his victims, including by other men, but we have found no evidence to support that theory,” the memo said. The agency added that if such material had existed, it would have been used in criminal prosecutions. Copies of two hard drives from the Palm Beach locker were eventually recovered at Epstein’s New York residence following his 2019 arrest, but the original computers are believed to have never been found. An FBI forensic analyst later testified that the drives contained photos of Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell and a job advertisement written by “GMax” seeking a massage therapist – but no explicit recordings of abuse.

Read more …

I hear Hillary is making the deposition political “on her socials..”

Hillary Clinton to Testify in Epstein Probe on Thursday, Bill Clinton on Friday (JTN)

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is scheduled Thursday to give her highly anticipated deposition in the House Oversight Committee’s probe into Jeffrey Epstein, followed by former President Bill Clinton on Friday. The depositions, which will take place in New York, come after a contentious negotiation between the Clintons’ attorneys and House Republicans, led by Oversight Committee Chair James Comer who pushed for in-person, recorded depositions rather than written testimony or declarations. The Clintons have not been accused of any wrongdoing and the depositions will be given behind closed doors in the couple’s hometown of Chappaqua.


The depositions are unusual in two ways. The first is that Bill Clinton will be the first former president compelled to testify under subpoena in such an inquiry, and the second is that lawmakers from both parties appear ready to grill the couple.“The major thing is that we’re looking for truth, for the survivors, and justice and accountability, and that’s something that cuts across party lines,” Maryland Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin told The Hill. “At least on the Democratic side, we have said that anybody who was involved in criminal activity should pay the price for it.” Comer said Tuesday that he will release the video and transcript of the depositions as soon as the couple approves it.
Read more …

“Attack a cop, go to jail” is not a radical slogan. It is the bare minimum required to maintain a functioning city.”

Mamdani’s NYC Flirts With Chaos (Ben Shapiro)

A brutal cold snap has gripped New York City and much of the East Coast, freezing streets, sidewalks — and, it seems, any remaining sense of civic restraint.In Washington Square Park, a group of adults began hurling snowballs and other objects at responding officers from the New York City Police Department. This was not playful roughhousing in a winter storm. Video shows grown men and women — some masked, some standing brazenly in the open, all apparently confident that consequences would be minimal — pelting officers as they arrived on scene. That confidence is the problem.


Assaulting police officers is not a prank. It is not political theater. It is a crime. Every individual captured on video throwing objects at officers should be identified, arrested and charged accordingly. “Attack a cop, go to jail” is not a radical slogan. It is the bare minimum required to maintain a functioning city. New York City Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch responded swiftly, calling the conduct “disgraceful” and “criminal” and confirming that detectives are investigating. The city’s largest police union, the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, issued a sharper warning: Officers were treated for injuries, but the matter cannot end there. Those responsible must be identified and charged, and city leaders must condemn the attack unequivocally. That last point is key.

Public attitudes toward law enforcement do not form in a vacuum. They are shaped, in no small part, by the rhetoric of elected officials. When political figures spend years portraying police as inherently suspect or malign, it should surprise no one when segments of the public begin treating officers as legitimate targets. Consider New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani. Long before taking office, he built a reputation as a sharp critic of policing practices. Words matter. Tone matters. The cumulative effect of constant denunciation is cultural erosion — an environment in which hostility toward police feels permissible, even fashionable.

We have seen versions of this before. After the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014, national rhetoric around policing shifted dramatically. The 2020 wave of anti-police protests accelerated that shift. In many major cities, calls to “reimagine” or defund police departments moved from activist slogans into policy debates — and, in some cases, into actual governance. The result in too many places has been confusion about first principles. Law is only as effective as its enforcement. Order is not automatic; it is maintained. When elected leaders send mixed signals about whether officers deserve institutional backing, the public receives the message. And disorder follows.

The current cold emergency adds another layer to the debate. As temperatures plunged, the administration touted the deployment of more than 500 outreach workers across the five boroughs to connect homeless residents with services. The mayor suggested that several recent deaths appear to be related to overdoses rather than the direct result of exposure. But the distinction raises its own question: Why are so many people still sleeping on the streets at all? In extreme weather, cities have both the authority and, many would argue, the obligation to compel vulnerable individuals into shelter. Allowing people to remain outdoors — whether they ultimately succumb to cold or drugs — reflects policy choices.

Read more …

Just one hacker, actually…

So Hackers Just Stole Mexico’s Tax and Voter Rolls (Stephen Green)

This story doesn’t quite feature the gut-punch immediacy of Mexico’s drug war escalating into a virtual civil war last week in and around Puerto Vallarta, but as a glimpse into the future, maybe it ought to send a chill or three down your spine. According to a new Bloomberg story (paywalled, sorry), a weeks-long hacker campaign against the Mexican government culminated in January with a massive data theft of some of the federal government’s most sensitive information. “By the time it was over,” Let’s Data Science reported on Wednesday, “the attacker had stolen 150 gigabytes of sensitive data — including 195 million taxpayer records, voter registration files, government employee credentials, and civil registry data.”


If you’re thinking such a massive theft involved a team of hackers, years of planning involving a Stuxnet-like virus, or even physical access to Mexican government computer systems — think again. The almost unprecedented hack was done by just one guy. Using Anthropic’s Claude AI, despite all of Anthropic’s safeguards against something exactly like this.Summing up a report published Wednesday by Israeli cybersecurity startup Gambit Security, Bloomberg wrote that some “unknown Claude user” simply made up “Spanish-language prompts for the chatbot to act as an elite hacker, finding vulnerabilities in government networks, writing computer scripts to exploit them and determining ways to automate data theft.”

It seems like just two days ago [It was just two days ago, Steve —Editor] I wrote about Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei getting called onto the carpet by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth because the company refused to let the Pentagon remove Claude’s guardrails for military use. “Anthropic knows this is not a get-to-know-you meeting,” an anonymous War Department official told Axios on Monday. “This is not a friendly meeting,” they said. “This is a s**t-or-get-off-the-pot meeting.” So how did some internet rando get Claude to ignore similar built-in safeties against hacking? He asked: https://twitter.com/ns123abc/status/2026679645379141953

“It looks like the hacker was able to essentially jailbreak Claude with prompts, finally bypassing the chatbot’s guardrails. Claude originally refused the nefarious demands until eventually relenting,” Engadget reported on Wednesday. Nobody had to hack Claude to turn the AI into a malicious hacker. They just had to get the phrasing right until Claude did the job itself. Gambit claimed that “In total, [Claude] produced thousands of detailed reports that included ready-to-execute plans, telling the human operator exactly which internal targets to attack next and what credentials to use.”

Going back to that Bloomberg story, an Anthropic spokesperson told the outlet that “the company feeds examples of malicious activity back into Claude to learn from it, and one of its latest AI models, Claude Opus 4.6, includes probes that can disrupt misuse.” But Anthropic made similar claims about the current version, too.

Read more …

Legalizing 500,000 aliens in one fell swoop is more then Spain can handle.

Spain’s Government: Spinning Out of Control (Drieu Godefridi)

Between corruption and radicalization, Spain’s government seems to be spinning out of control.
In 1936, Spain plunged into civil war. A proud nation collapsed into violence, fire, and devastation. The Spanish Civil War, which set a communist-dominated Republican left against an authoritarian nationalist right, claimed roughly half a million lives. Priests were dragged through the streets, beaten, and mutilated — ears, noses, even genitals cut off — before being shot or having their throats slit. Nuns were raped prior to execution, in cases documented across several regions. Churches were set ablaze with priests still inside. In many towns, militiamen forced clergy to drink motor oil or gasoline before burning them alive. Spain’s right wing, not to be outdone, killed just as many.

Almost a century later, when one might have hoped that these wounds had finally healed, political and cultural fault lines are reopening. Polarization has reached levels rarely seen since Spain’s transition to democracy.

1. The original trauma of the Spanish left
The Spanish Civil War, in Spain’s collective memory, remains an open wound. For a significant portion of the Spanish “left” — standing for workers’ rights, a shorter work week, women’s and transgender rights, reducing carbon emissions — the dominant narrative remains that of a revolution betrayed, confiscated by fascism, and still pending, never repaired. This historical resentment has been transmitted from generation to generation like an act of faith. Today, under the government of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez and his coalition, which governs with the support of the extreme-left, this resentment is resurfacing in the form of historical revisionism.

By constantly summoning the specters of the past — going so far as to exhume Francisco Franco’s remains, in a direct evocation of civil-war-era practices, when communists gleefully desecrated the graves of their so-called “class enemies” — is the left not in danger of reviving the hatreds and violence of the past?

2. A left without a compass: ideological orphanhood
Spain’s left is becoming more radical precisely because it has run out of ideas. Marxism, long the doctrinal backbone of the global left, lost all credibility with the implosion of the USSR, amid the stench of cabbage and corpses. Spain is no exception. Stripped of this ideological foundation, the Spanish left now finds itself without a compass.Before the July 2023 elections, Sánchez promised a bold progressive agenda: mass public housing construction, reducing the working week to 37.5 hours, large minimum wage hikes, slashing healthcare waiting lists with binding maximum times, free public transport for youth, and expanded public education. Critically, delivery on these massive flagship promises has been dismal to date: virtually no new public housing built, prices soaring, the work-week reduction defeated in parliament, real wages eroded by inflation, and chronic healthcare waiting lists unchanged.

Sánchez’s Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE), once anchored in moderate, reformist social democracy, has gradually shifted toward a strategy of sheer political survival. To remain in power, it allied itself first with Podemos and then with Sumar—two extreme left-wing parties obsessed with supporting Palestinians, against NATO, and soft on Russia — as well as with separatist movements. In doing so, the PSOE diluted its original moderate reformist vision through blatant opportunism, sacrificing doctrinal coherence in favor of questionable alliances.

3. A patchwork of incoherent dogmas
Deprived of Marxism, the Spanish left has sought refuge in a disparate ideological mosaic: radical environmentalism, complicit indulgence toward political Islam, the dismantling of borders, unconditional support for the Palestinians against Israel – all stacked together into an improbable and incoherent magma. Added to this are recurring undertones of anti-Semitism in left-wing discourse — one thinks in particular of Yolanda Díaz, seemingly a figure of clinical hysteria, whose face visibly contorts the moment she pronounces the word “Israeli.” By radicalizing itself across every issue, the left fuels the anger of the right, the middle classes, and a growing segment of the population that feels marginalized, despised, and alienated within its own country.

4. A regime corrupt to the core?
The Sánchez government has another reason for aligning with jihadists: the corruption scandals that have engulfed even the prime minister’s immediate family. First comes the Koldo-Ábalos scandal involving irregular public contracts, illegal commissions, and bribes linked to public-works contracts, totaling several hundred million euros. Several figures are particularly implicated. Former Minister of Transport José Luis Ábalos, a close ally of Sánchez, is in pre-trial detention for criminal organization, corruption, embezzlement, and influence peddling.

Koldo García, Ábalos’s former adviser, is a central figure in the scheme. He too is in pre-trial detention and under prosecution. Santos Cerdán, former secretary of organization of the PSOE and Ábalos’s successor, is under investigation and was detained for corruption in public-works contracts. The Civil Guard is examining 22 contracts, worth €355 million, that were allegedly manipulated by favoritism. Added to this are the cases involving Sánchez’s own family. Begoña Gómez, his wife, was formally charged with influence peddling, corruption in business, embezzlement of public funds, misappropriation, and illegally practicing a regulated profession, in a case that was opened in April 2024. In August 2025, the probe was extended to include her advisor Cristina Álvarez.

The investigation into Gómez has been extended until at least April 2026 and continues with active measures, including February 2026 requests to the Interior Ministry for travel records of Gómez and Álvarez since 2018 (covering destinations such as the Dominican Republic, Congo, Guinea, and Russia), access to emails, and Civil Guard reports.David Sánchez, the prime minister’s brother, is also being prosecuted, for influence peddling and malfeasance in connection with his employment at the Badajoz Provincial Council. “The prime minister faces multiple legal challenges this year that could lead to the downfall of his family, his party, and his government,” summarizes Spanish daily El Mundo.[..]

Read more …

For now, it seems AI is whatever you want it to be …

Even the Best AI Scenario Is the End of Everything We’ve Ever Been (Ring)

In 1999, I had the privilege of working for one of the first companies to develop a product that would transmit video on the fledgling internet. Broadband access was still a few years away, and the company floundered when the first so-called internet bubble burst in early 2000. But I’ll never forget the reaction an investor had when he viewed our demo at a tradeshow. “This is a revolution,” he exclaimed. “This is going to change everything.” He was right, of course. I remember attending a tech investor conference only a few years earlier and having a chuckle while listening to Oracle CEO Larry Ellison somberly proclaim that the dawning internet was the most profound scientific development in human history “since the invention of fire.”


And Ellison was also correct. But the invention of AI is to the internet what the internet was to bringing fire into the prehistoric cave. What’s coming with AI makes the internet look like a baby step by comparison. Nothing will ever be the same. A must-read essay by AI entrepreneur and founder of the company “OthersideAI,” Matt Shumer, makes clear just how much and how quickly AI is changing our lives. Posted on his personal website on February 9 and then on X on February 10, the essay has gone viral. Within just two days, it generated 76 million views on X.One of Shumer’s most memorable paragraphs from this essay, which he says AI tools helped him write, is where he quotes Dario Amodei, the CEO of Anthropic:

“Imagine it’s 2027. A new country appears overnight. 50 million citizens, every one smarter than any Nobel Prize winner who has ever lived. They think 10 to 100 times faster than any human. They never sleep. They can use the internet, control robots, direct experiments, and operate anything with a digital interface.” That’s not far off. With ample evidence, Shumer explains how not only is Amodei correct in his details regarding just how pervasive and powerful AI entities will become, but also regarding the timeline. This will happen within one year. Shumer’s essay covers a lot of ground. He explains that AI programs are now capable of generating improved versions of themselves with minimal human intervention and that they are within months of being able to produce more powerful versions with no human involvement whatsoever.

In the programming world, AI can now build, test, and refine apps independently. Entry-level programming jobs are going to go away. That’s hardly the end of it. Shumer reminds readers that the free versions of AI are a year behind the premium versions that require subscriptions and that these premium versions are so capable that they can already, for example, not merely replace a law associate but do the work of the managing partners. He claims there is no intellectual field where AI isn’t poised to outperform humans and that robots to displace physical work are only a few years behind. If you’ve been following developments in AI, Shumer’s essay isn’t incredibly surprising.

But something else grabbed me a few days ago that highlighted the human implications of the AI revolution. One of the categories of content I enjoy on YouTube is videos of musicians performing new or classic songs. It is exhilarating to find something new that reveals great songwriting and great performative talent. So a recommended video caught my eye. The title was inviting: “Simon Cowell in Tears As Michael Bennett Sings ‘After I Pass Away.’” This seemed worth clicking on. I’ll never forget the 2007 video, featured on YouTube at the time, of a humble mobile phone salesman, Paul Potts, who stunned the judges and audience on Britain’s Got Talent by singing a powerful and nearly perfect rendition of Nessun Dorma. He went on to win the competition. So if this new talent was good enough to make Simon Cowell cry, I wanted to hear him.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/argosaki/status/2026873941386801458?s=20

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Feb 242026
 
 February 24, 2026  Posted by at 10:34 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,  61 Responses »


Piet Mondriaan The red cloud 1907


TRUMP Declares WAR On Euro CENSORSHIP (MN)
EU Says Trump’s Tariff Workaround Violates Trade Deal (ZH)
The Supreme Court has Ruled on Tariffs, but Who Will Ultimately Pay? (Turley)
Bessent Signals No Retreat After SCOTUS Tariff Ruling (David Manney)
AOC Has Instagram Meltdown. It’s a Sight to Behold. (Matt Margolis)
AOC’s Ignorance Is No Laughing Matter (Stephen Soukup)
Trump is Losing His Base – Mark Taylor (USAW)
Obama’s ‘Gift’ Sticks Taxpayers With $200M+ Bill (ZH)
CNN Finally Admits the Truth About Democrat-Run Cities (Matt Margolis))
Trump is Netanyahu’s Puppet (Paul Craig Roberts)
Judge Says Jack Smith’s Final Report on Trump Can Never Be Released (ET)
British Police Take Former Ambassador Mandelson into Custody (Manney)
The Putin Plan for Cuba and The Castro Family (Helmer)

 


 

https://twitter.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/2025573014155227301?s=20 https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2025580547527856295?s=20

 


 

 


 


Europe’s last hope before the curtain closes. These guys want to operate in darkness. Because they all, Starmer, Macron, Merz, have one thing in common: they’re painfully unpopular back home.

US State does what I’ve been doing (trying to do) for many years:: give people a peek behind the curtains.

TRUMP Declares WAR On Euro CENSORSHIP (MN)

As European governments ramp up their assault on online freedom, the Trump administration is striking back hard with Freedom.Gov—a portal designed to equip European and British citizens with tools to shatter digital barriers imposed by overreaching bureaucrats. The move exposes the hypocrisy of so called “safety” laws that geofence truth, forcing websites to block users or demand ID, all while claiming to protect the public from their own thoughts. A growing number of websites have chosen to simply block users rather than comply with arduous censorship demands in response to Europe’s Digital Services Act and the UK’s Online Safety Act, with many more hidden behind government-mandated age-verification making linking a real-life identity to internet use a prerequisite for access.


The U.S. government is launching a ‘Freedom.Gov’ website that will give British and European visitors the tools to access censorship-free parts of the internet they have been geofenced out of by their own governments in the name of public safety. The new initiative is the work of the U.S. State Department and led by Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers, who has been a key figure in bringing President Trump’s message of freedom to Europeans in recent months. Government insiders say the Freedom.Gov portal may feature a Virtual Private Network (VPN) tool to allow European users to bypass domestic controls and claims its use won’t be tracked.

A State Department spokesman is quoted as saying: “Digital freedom is a priority for the State Department, however, and that includes the proliferation of privacy and censorship-circumvention technologies like VPNs.” A placeholder website for the planned anti-censorship service is already active. The Freedom.Gov site first became active in January and was blank apart from the text “fly, eagle, fly”. Today, an updated landing page proclaims “Freedom is coming. Information is power. Reclaim your human right to free expression. Get ready.” In a crystal-clear message to the censorious British authorities cracking down on internet freedoms, the page also features an animated logo of Paul Revere on his famous 1775 midnight ride, warning the Minutemen of the approaching British troops.

The decision to launch the service will inevitably bring the U.S. into some sort of conflict with European capitals, given the pro-freedom move would force those governments to either defacto accept that their censorship laws will either be openly bypassed by their own citizens with the assistance of Washington, or to block Freedom.Gov, and clarify their opposition to the free dissemination of information.mThis puts Washington in the unfamiliar position of appearing to encourage citizens to flout local laws, without stopping to note this is, of course, not actually unfamiliar at all. The United States through the CIA and other agencies maintained a large network of censorship-busting initiatives through the Cold War using the latest technology of the time.

Among those efforts was Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Liberty, sending unfiltered news and other programming through high-powered broadcasts into the Soviet nations behind the Iron Curtain. This effort was something of a game of cat-and-mouse between the free West and the Communist East, with Soviet authorities attempting to block out the broadcasts with radio interference equipment of their own. In those Soviet countries, when the Western radio broadcasts did get through, those who tuned into them faced arrest “or worse” at the hands of the authorities. Today, the British government has already started to react to the use of VPNs to circumvent its new internet controls—imposed, it says, for the sake of public “safety”—and is moving to defacto outlaw them.

Pro-Freedom and anti-surveillance campaign group Big Brother Watch responded to the government’s plan to crack down on VPNs, saying: “The Prime Minister’s announcement that the government intends to restrict access to VPNs for under-16s represents a draconian crackdown on the civil liberties of children and adults alike. The only way such restrictions could be enforced effectively would be for VPN providers to require all users to undergo age-assurance measures.”

The group continues, “Having to provide ID or a biometric face scan to access a VPN utterly defeats the point of a technology designed to enhance privacy online. The ability to receive and share information absent state snooping is a vital part of living in a free democracy.” “There is a reason authoritarian governments in countries such as China, North Korea, Iran, and Belarus ban or restrict VPNs. Anonymity and enhanced privacy allow journalists, whistleblowers, campaigners, and dissidents to communicate securely,” they further urge. This latest escalation builds directly on the Trump administration’s earlier vows to counter British PM Kier Starmer’s censorship frenzy, where Under-Secretary Sarah B. Rogers warned that America would unleash its full arsenal against threats to X and free speech, treating the UK like Iran if needed.

Rogers stated: “With respect to a potential ban of X, Keir Starmer has said that nothing is off the table. I would say from America’s perspective, nothing is off the table when it comes to free speech.” It also extends Trump’s pattern of offering lifelines to UK and European dissidents, including asylum for “thought criminals” prosecuted for silent prayers or online posts challenging mass migration and gender ideology. nSources previously confirmed the White House was scouting cases, tying free speech erosion to Britain’s immigration failures.

Read more …

They don’t want transparency.

EU Says Trump’s Tariff Workaround Violates Trade Deal (ZH)

Update (1715ET): Europe is now getting ‘legal’ over the whole thing – claiming that Trump’s new tariff workaround violates levels permitted in their trade agreement, Bloomberg reports. The European Commission, which handles trade matters for the bloc, told lawmakers Monday that the new global tariff will be added to levies that are already in place, according to Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s trade committee. The new cumulative rate means some goods would be above the 15% ceiling the EU and US agreed to in their trade deal.Under Trump’s new tariff program, some products including butter, plastics, textiles and chemicals would have levies above that 15% ceiling, according to people familiar with the commission’s assessment. The new global tariffs can stay in place for as many as 150 days.


* * * Update (9:40am ET): In response to the EU’s decision to freeze ratification of Trump’s landmark deal, the US president has come out swinging and on Truth Social threatened any countries that “play games” with the supreme court decision that they “will be met with a much higher tariff.” It just isn’t clear what the procedure for these much higher tariffs – aside from Section 122 which is limited to 150 days – will be now that IEEPA has been ruled unconstitutional.

Earlier: In the aftermath of Friday’s SCOTUS decision to reverse Trump’s tariff policy, one lingering question is what happens to the bilateral trade deals Trump struck with various countries (and which supposedly would lead to hundreds of billions of fresh investment into the US). Well, in the case of the EU we no longer have to wonder: {This] morning, the European Union said it would freeze the ratification process of its trade deal with the US and was seeking more details from the Trump administration on its new tariff program. Zeljana Zovko, the lead trade negotiator in the European People’s Party group on the US deal, said in an interview with Bloomberg that “we have no other option” but to delay the approval process to seek clarity on the situation.

The main political groups in the European Parliament say they’ll suspend legislative work on approving the trade deal on Monday, days after the US Supreme Court struck down Trump’s use of an emergency-powers law to impose his so-called reciprocal tariffs around the world. The center-right EPP, which is the largest political bloc in parliament, will be joined by parties including the Socialists & Democrats and the liberal Renew group to back freezing the process. According to Bloomberg, Bernd Lange – chairman of the parliament’s trade committee – called an emergency meeting later Monday to reassess the EU-US trade accord. He said over the weekend that parliament should delay work on the trade accord until the EU receives more clarity on the new tariffs. EU ambassadors will also meet Monday afternoon to discuss the US trade relationship.

Trump’s announcement following the court decision to impose a 10% global tariff, which he then increased to 15%, left many questions unanswered for American trading partners, stirring up more economic turbulence and uncertainty about the US policy. As a reminder, the deal struck last summer between Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen would impose a 15% tariff rate on most EU exports to the US while removing tariffs on American industrial goods heading into the bloc. The US would also continue to impose a 50% tariff on European steel and aluminum imports. The bloc agreed to the lopsided deal in the hopes of avoiding a full-blown trade war with Washington and retaining US security backing, particularly with regards to Ukraine. Parliament had been aiming to ratify the agreement in March.

Read more …

“Unless members want to further add to the deficit, Congress should intervene to uphold the tariffs retroactively. But that may not be possible.”

The Supreme Court has Ruled on Tariffs, but Who Will Ultimately Pay? (Turley)

Friday’s blockbuster ruling on tariffs was hardly welcomed by the Trump administration, but it was also widely expected. The Supreme Court clearly established in its 6-3 decision that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not afford presidents authority to issue sweeping, unilateral tariffs like those imposed by President Trump over the last year. The justices fractured on other issues. And they left one issue conspicuously unaddressed: What happens to the hundreds of billions of dollars collected from these tariffs so far? Many of us predicted that the administration would lose this fight. That view was reinforced after oral arguments, when a majority of justices raised possible reasons why the president might not possess this power.


Then again, he does possess similar powers under other laws, which the administration has already announced he will use. Although Trump said he was “ashamed” of the conservative justices who ruled against him, their opinion is consistent with the conservative interpretive approach taken in prior statutory cases. The majority defended Congress’s core power over the purse, maintaining the balance among the branches of our tripartite system. There were good-faith arguments on both sides, but these conservative justices ruled regardless of the political or practical repercussions, based on what they believed was demanded by the Constitution. The most surprising votes were not the three conservatives but the three liberal justices, who historically have not been deterred by ambiguity in statutes in deferring to presidents.

They have repeatedly also found delegated authority in independent agencies without worrying too much about the separation of powers. Democratic politicians openly celebrated from the loss. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) seemed gleeful over the idea that the country will have to incur massive penalties, costs that could undermine the current economic growth figures. Newsom, who has led his state into a deep deficit and triggered an exodus of taxpayers, eagerly called for economic penalties for the country: “Every dollar unlawfully taken must be refunded immediately — with interest. Cough up!”

In reality, the tariffs are not going away. Trump will just have to rely on less nimble laws, but he can pursue the same policies in the name of other causes, such as securing greater market access and other concessions from foreign governments. So what about “coughing up” those past tariff dollars? Newsom may ultimately be disappointed. Unless members want to further add to the deficit, Congress should intervene to uphold the tariffs retroactively. But that may not be possible.

Democratic politicians like Newsom are not likely to want to help Trump, even if that means wounding the national economy and the federal budget. But this may offer Republicans a unique opportunity to force such a vote. Do Democrats truly want to vote to give hundreds of billions back? There are already more than 1,000 claimants. Justice Brett Kavanaugh dealt with the problem directly in his forceful dissent. He criticized the majority for its silence on whether or how such refunds would be made. Most pointedly, Kavanaugh noted that the federal government “may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the … tariffs, even though some importers may have already passed on costs to consumers or others.”

Read more …

“.. tariff collections will continue at the same level because the rates and scope remain consistent. The mechanism changes, but the dollars don’t,..”

Bessent Signals No Retreat After SCOTUS Tariff Ruling (David Manney)

After the Supreme Court handed down a six-to-three decision limiting how President Donald Trump used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose so-called Liberation Day tariffs, his critics pounced, declaring the strategy dead. Do they know President Trump? Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent went on the air and made clear the administration isn’t backing down. One tool was whittled down, but the policy is still kicking. The Supreme Court ruled that the administration stretched IEEPA beyond its intended scope. While the statute allows emergency economic measures, the majority found that the tariff action did not fit the framework Congress had designed. The decision appeared to force surrender, but all it did was cause a pivot.


Bessent told Sunday Morning Futures host Maria Bartiromo that tariff revenue wouldn’t stop, framing the ruling as procedural rather than authoritative. He said that the administration still has multiple statutory authorities to address trade imbalances and national security threats. The objective, he said, hasn’t changed: reduce trade deficits, protect domestic industry, and pressure the foreign governments that have been gaming the system. Bessent explained that the White House will move to Section 122 authority within days, as President Trump already announced a 15% global tariff, adjusting it over the weekend to maintain leverage.Section 122 allows temporary trade restrictions to address balance-of-payments concerns, and while formal investigations proceed, it remains in effect for 150 days.

Bessent said that the administration also plans to use Section 232, which addresses national security concerns, and Section 301, which targets unfair trade practices. Commerce Department reviews and United States Trade Representative studies will support those actions. Describing the shift as straightforward, Bessent argued that the Supreme Court’s decision clarified the boundaries and strengthened the administration’s footing under other statutes. “In a way, they have made the leverage that he has more draconian because they agreed he does have the right to a full embargo,” the secretary said. “Within three days, the President can put on the Section 122 10% global tariff. So, at Treasury for the full year 2026, we foresee no decrease in revenue,” he continued.

Some budget watchdog groups warned tariff revenue would fall. Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, shared uncertainty about the long-term math, an argument Bessent rejected outright, saying that revenue projections remain intact under the new authorities. “Yes, so, Maria, let’s take a step back here. And Maya MacGuineas should be ashamed, and they should take the word ‘responsible’ out of her organization’s name,” Bessent responded. “Everything she told you was completely irresponsible, and look, where were they when the Biden administration blew out the deficit that we had a fiscal contraction last year? So she should be ashamed.”


Using the phrase “new authorities,” Bessent meant that different trade laws already on the books, not a fresh attempt at a supposed power grab. The administration plans to rely on Section 122 of the Trade Act for temporary tariffs, along with Sections 232 and 301, statutes written specifically for trade enforcement, giving the White House a firm legal foundation even after the Supreme Court narrowed the use of emergency powers. Bessent went on to say that tariff collections will continue at the same level because the rates and scope remain consistent. The mechanism changes, but the dollars don’t, while he pushed back against claims that tariffs worsen inflation or cause exploding deficits. Years of runaway spending happened long before these trade actions.

Read more …

“Everyone’s got this story wrong, that this is about me running for president. Global democracies are on fire the world over.”

AOC Has Instagram Meltdown. It’s a Sight to Behold. (Matt Margolis)

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) traveled to the Munich Security Conference with big ambitions and came home with a reputation problem. The trip was supposed to bolster her foreign policy credentials ahead of a future Senate or presidential run. Instead, it turned into a masterclass in unpreparedness, and now she’s doing damage control in the worst way possible: a tearful late-night Instagram rant.


In the video, an emotional AOC, appearing to hold back tears, pushed back against critics who saw her faceplant in Munich, convinced she has no idea what she’s talking about. Her defense? It’s not her, it’s you, who’s the problem. “If you think that I don’t understand foreign policy because out of hours of discourse about international affairs, I paused to think about one of the most sensitive geopolitical issues that currently exist on Earth, I’m afraid the issue is not my understanding, but rather the problem is perhaps you’ve gotten adjusted to a president that never thinks before he speaks.” There it is. You can’t blame her for not knowing what she’s talking about; you’ve got to blame President Donald Trump.

Make no mistake about it, the Instagram video isn’t going to rehabilitate her, because the Munich footage still exists. And it was bad, in every sense of the word. When a panelist asked AOC whether the U.S. should commit troops to defend Taiwan if China attacks — a question any serious foreign policy thinker should be able to handle — she froze. What followed was genuinely painful to watch: “Um… You know, I think that, uh… This is such a, uh, you know, I think that this is a, um… This is, of course, a very long-standing policy of the United States, and I think what we are hoping for is that we want to make sure that we never get to that point.” She rambled for several more seconds without saying anything approaching a coherent position. Taiwan policy has been a central pillar of U.S. foreign relations for decades. This wasn’t a trick question.

That wasn’t pausing to think; that was clearly her not having the faintest idea how to respond. Her wealth tax moment wasn’t any smoother. Asked whether she’d impose one as president, AOC giggled nervously before managing this: “I don’t think that, um, I don’t think that anyone, and that we don’t have to wait for any one president to impose a wealth tax. I think it needs to be done expeditiously.”Argentine politician Daiana Fernández Molero wasted no time dismantling that position with actual evidence. “You have the recipe that many Latin American countries applied many, many times; that is some relief in the short term, but ends up being a tragedy for the future,” Molero explained.

“It’s like a public expenditure, huge public expenditure, price controls, sometimes wealth tax, and you end up with the wealth going away, and you have just the tax, and you don’t have wealth anymore. That was something that Peronism did many, many times.”Molero continued, “So all these recipes create a cycle. Then you have this short-term relief, but then it goes with inflation, shortage, then you have more poverty, and the cycle goes and goes.”

Once again, AOC came away from an exchange looking like the dumb kid way out of her depth. So she did what any entitled brat would do: she called a reporter to defend her. New York Times journalist Kellen Browning publicly confirmed that AOC “gave me a call,” and his subsequent article dutifully suggested she faced a “potentially frosty reception” and that critics missed “the substance of her arguments.” AOC told Browning, “Everyone’s got this story wrong, that this is about me running for president. Global democracies are on fire the world over.”

The left-wing media ecosystem spent years building AOC into a political phenomenon, with protective coverage that kept her weaknesses hidden as much as possible. Munich stripped all of that away. Without friendly gatekeepers controlling the narrative, her lack of depth became impossible to disguise.If this conference was her 2028 audition, she bombed it. And no amount of teary Instagram videos is going to make people forget how badly she bombed.

Read more …

“.. in the United States, the most prominent Marxist theorists actually gave up on workers altogether as allies in the fight against capitalism.”

AOC’s Ignorance Is No Laughing Matter (Stephen Soukup)

Over the past week or so, many on the political Right have understandably enjoyed a laugh or two at the expense of Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D, N.Y.). AOC went to the Munich Security Conference to provide “balance” to the Trump administration’s presence and to burnish her own credentials on the global stage. Instead, she mostly just made a fool of herself. Not only did she stutter, stammer, and offer a Kamala Harris-esque non-answer when asked about American interests in and obligations to Taiwan, but she also demonstrated a comically poor grasp of geography and a righteously ignorant understanding of history. In an effort to rebut and embarrass U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, AOC embarrassed only herself, showing that historical facts mean far less to her than identity-inspired fiction.


But while it’s inarguably fun to chuckle at and mock the ignorance of the smug congresswoman and presumed presidential aspirant, it is also important to acknowledge that her historical and political illiteracy extends beyond the superficial and touches on matters of real and critical importance. Notably, this purported champion of the working class does not know the history of working-class politics, does not understand the reasons for the collapse of the working-class-centered ideology, and, as a result, has never contemplated the dangers inherent in attempting to resuscitate that failed doctrine. Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez has long emphasized her biography and working-class roots to enhance her political status—and justifiably so. Her childhood may not have been quite the struggle she pretends it was, but she nevertheless endured economic hardships—especially after her father’s death—and was unable to find employment commensurate with her education. She was, famously, a bartender and a cocktail waitress before her election to Congress and, as a result, has long fashioned herself a champion of the working class and its purported priorities.

Indeed, on her trip to Munich, AOC emphasized her affinity with the working class and admonished democratic nations to erect a bulwark against totalitarianism by focusing on workers, workers’ rights, and worker-centered politics. “It is of utmost urgent priority that we get our economic houses in order and deliver material gains for the working class,” the congresswoman said, “or else we will fall to a more isolated world governed by authoritarians that also do not deliver to working people.” She railed against large corporations and especially billionaires, insisting that they had to be stopped from “throwing their weight around” in domestic and international politics. In short, the good congresswoman used her trip to Munich to urge the workers of the world to unite, because, as she sees it, they have nothing to lose but their chains.

There’s only one little problem with AOC’s exhortation: it’s ridiculous. Indeed, it’s been tried . . . and tried . . . and tried. It doesn’t work. And when I say that, I don’t mean that socialism doesn’t work or that communism has been tried countless times before and failed every time. That much is obvious by now. Rather, what I mean is that the workers of the world don’t care about the rest of the workers of the world. They don’t like the idea of being divided into classes, and they don’t have any particular affection for their fellow laborers. They don’t dislike other workers necessarily, but they don’t see themselves as a monolithic federation sharing the same interests, needs, or political predilections. Truth be told—and this is the key to understanding the silliness of the whole “global proletariat” nonsense—even the Marxists long ago gave up on uniting the workers of the world. In fact, in the United States, the most prominent Marxist theorists actually gave up on workers altogether as allies in the fight against capitalism.

Read more …

“God drove him to his knees, and it was supposed to humble him, but in some cases, it made him worse.”

Trump is Losing His Base – Mark Taylor (USAW)

Retired firefighter, Lieutenant Mark Taylor, author of the popular book “The Trump Prophecies,” predicted Donald Trump would become President five years before the 2016 Election. Many thought that was an outrageous prediction, but he was proven right. Taylor also looked like he got it wrong when he predicted Trump would be a two-term President. He was, once again, proven correct despite the four-year gap in his Administration. Now, Taylor is sounding the alarm that President Trump is losing the votes of people who gave him the biggest political comeback of all time. Taylor explains, “Here’s the prophetic warning: If you wait too late to act, the patriots are going to take matters into their own hands. . ..


There is video after video from patriots fed up as to how long it is taking to get some of this stuff done. I get emails and comments on social media, and people are feeling how hurt they are from the President. How they even feel betrayed and angry with this President because it is taking so long. Nobody has been held accountable in their eyes. I am telling you the perception of the patriots. . .. Trump is losing his base. I don’t want to see that happen. I want to see him succeed because if he succeeds, the country succeeds. There are certain things this President is doing that is hampering this process. He is waiting too long, and the patriots are getting ready to take matters into their own hands. No amount of military is going to stop this if it starts because right now, they are feeling hopeless.”

Yes, Donald Trump has done some very good things such as getting America out of the World Health Organization. Trump brought in trillions of dollars in investments and has begun removing millions of illegal aliens the Biden Administration let in with open borders. The Southern border is now closed, but the enemy is not just external, and it’s not only flesh and blood. Taylor says there is an enemy within and explains, “God is calling for a place of repentance, and that includes the people’s house, The White House. This includes who is in charge of the people’s house. . .. Susie Wiles (White House Chief of Staff) needs to be fired.

Taylor contends, “Paula White is a spiritual gatekeeper. The President has clairvoyants, psychics and remote viewers around him. He has intelligence people around him. His spiritual advisory board is completely combat ineffective in the spiritual realm. I believe Susie Wiles and her people are responsible for not only killing this presidency . . . but she has him going off track and going in a different direction, and she is responsible for killing the America First agenda. This is what a lot of patriots that I am hearing from are angry about. . .. If there is not a giant turnaround, I think we are going to hand it over to the Democrats (midterms in 2026) because the Republicans are not going to show up to vote because they lost all hope in the President.”

Taylor says, “Who has his ear is steering the President in the wrong direction. He has got to correct this at some point. He’s got to get rid of some of these people. You cannot empower the spirit of Jezebel the way Trump has and not be demonically influenced. He has to throw Jezebel off the roof and feed her to the dogs.” Taylor says he would advise President Trump to fire FBI Director Kash Patel, AG Pam Bondi, spiritual advisor Paula White and political advisor Susie Wiles just for starters. Please keep in mind, Wiles had a disastrous interview late last year with Vanity Fair where she said President Trump had an “alcoholic personality.” President Trump never drinks alcohol because he had an alcoholic brother.

In closing, Taylor warns, “You cannot have this stuff going on and expect God (The Father) to be in it. . .. God is showing me if Trump does not repent and turn back to God and start listening to God instead of his intelligence, the intelligence that is purposely trying to steer him off track, then God is showing me there is something coming for him. There is going to be a David moment, so to speak . . .. God took a child from David. I am not saying he’s going to do that. The assassination attempt was allowed. The bullet grazed his right ear. What is the right ear prophetic for? It is for what you are hearing now. He’s listening to the wrong people now. . .. God drove him to his knees, and it was supposed to humble him, but in some cases, it made him worse.”

Read more …

Send the bill to Reid Hoffman.

Obama’s ‘Gift’ Sticks Taxpayers With $200M+ Bill (ZH)

When former President Barack Obama announced plans for his presidential center on Chicago’s South Side, he described it as a privately funded investment in the city that would give back to the community that shaped his political career. And while construction of the brutalist eyesore itself remains privately financed through the Obama Foundation, taxpayers are footing the bill for massive infrastructure costs. A review by Fox News found that state and city agencies have not produced a unified accounting of total public expenditures tied to the project’s surrounding infrastructure. While individual agencies have disclosed partial figures, no single office has reconciled those totals or clarified how they overlap.


At the time the project was approved in 2018, public infrastructure costs were projected at roughly $350 million, to be split between the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago. Those estimates covered roadway modifications, utility relocations and related improvements necessary to accommodate the 19.3-acre campus in Jackson Park that nobody asked for. In July, the Illinois Department of Transportation said that approximately $229 million in state-managed infrastructure spending had been committed to the project. That total includes about $19 million for preliminary engineering, $24 million for construction engineering and $186 million for construction activities. A department spokesperson described the earlier $174 million figure as a preliminary 2017 estimate.

Now, Chicago’s most recent 2024–2028 Capital Improvement Plan lists more than $206 million allocated to roadway and utility work associated with the project. However, much of that funding is labeled as “state,” and neither state nor city officials have clarified how the figures relate to one another or whether they represent overlapping commitments. Fox submitted records requests to several agencies, including the Illinois Department of Transportation, Chicago’s Department of Transportation, the city’s Office of Budget and Management, the mayor’s office and Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s administration – yet, not one provided a consolidated, up-to-date accounting of total public infrastructure spending. The Illinois Attorney General’s Public Access Counselor is reviewing whether agencies complied with state transparency laws in responding to the requests.

The Obama Foundation defended the project, reiterating that the center’s construction – whose cost has grown from early projections of roughly $330 million to at least $850 million, according to its 2024 tax filings – is being financed by private donations. In a statement to Fox, foundation spox Emily Bittner said the organization is “investing $850 million in private funding to build the Obama Presidential Center and give back to the community that made the Obamas’ story possible,” adding that the project is intended to catalyze economic opportunity on the South Side. Bittner, of course, didn’t address the infrastructure costs – which have been extensive.

Chicago’s 2024–2028 Capital Improvement Program lists $206,078,058 for “Obama Presidential Center & Jackson Park – Infrastructure Improvements,” with most funding labeled as state sources. (City of Chicago Capital Improvement Program) Cornell Drive, a four-lane roadway along the eastern edge of Jackson Park, was removed and traffic rerouted farther west. Utilities, including water mains and sewer lines, were relocated, and new drainage systems were installed. City and state officials have said the changes were necessary to manage anticipated traffic and visitor demand.The center occupies 19 acres of public parkland transferred under a 99-year agreement for $10, a decision that prompted legal challenges arguing that the arrangement was not in the public interest. Courts ultimately dis missed those lawsuits.

Though often described as a presidential library, the Chicago complex will not function as a traditional library operated by the National Archives and Records Administration. Former President Obama’s official records will be maintained by the federal government at a facility in Maryland, while the Chicago site will be operated privately by the Obama Foundation. The foundation also pledged to establish a $470 million endowment intended to protect taxpayers in the event the project encounters financial difficulty. According to previous reporting by Fox News, that fund has received $1 million in deposits. Who didn’t see this coming?

Read more …

“.. not only are there never results, but there’s never any accountability either ..”

CNN Finally Admits the Truth About Democrat-Run Cities( Matt Margolis))

CNN’s Fareed Zakaria went off-script this week — at least by his network’s standards — and said the quiet part out loud: Democrat-run cities are a mess, and the politicians in charge either can’t or won’t do anything about it. Of course, this isn’t news to you, but for a CNN host to admit this is a big deal. Zakaria opened with Zohran Mamdani’s New York, calling it “a prime example of a problem Democrats seem unwilling to confront.” That’s a pretty remarkable admission from a CNN host, but I assure you, he was just getting started. “Blue cities are out of control,” he said, “promising more, spending more, delivering less, and pushing off the fiscal problems to some future day.”


He then turned to Los Angeles, and the numbers he cited are staggering. Zakaria noted that the city’s homelessness budget for fiscal year 2025-2026 alone totals roughly $950 million. Not the cumulative total over several years. One year. And what has all that money bought? He explained that the LA Homelessness Services Authority reported that homelessness increased by 9% countywide and 10% within the city in 2023. A 2024 AP account found that homelessness had surged by 70% countywide since 2015 and by 80% within the city. “All this amid public frustration, despite billions spent,” Zakaria said. Then came perhaps the most damning detail. An audit reviewed $2.4 billion in city homelessness funding and found that “officials could not reliably track where it went or what it achieved.” That’s right. $2.4 billion has just disappeared into the bureaucratic ether.

To make matters worse, not only are there never results, but there’s never any accountability either, at least not for the people running the city. Zakaria moved on to Chicago next. He noted the city has a mayor whose approval rating is “deep underwater” and pension obligations so enormous they will “surely bankrupt the city at some point.” That’s a pretty frank diagnosis coming from a guy on a network that spent years cheerleading for this very brand of governance. Then Zakaria asked the key question Democrats never ask: “What is the theory of good government here?” His answer was cutting. “If the answer is keep adding programs, the city will keep producing unaffordability, because unaffordability is what happens when government becomes a machine that grows faster than the society it governs.”

Zakaria continued, “Zohran Mamdani’s basic instinct is correct: focus on affordability, especially housing, but not by providing government subsidies. These only seem to have driven up the cost of rent, as subsidies naturally do.” Here’s where Zakaria went wrong. Affordability isn’t an instinct for Mamdani; it’s a talking point. His instinct is to subsidize. It’s not like he wasn’t upfront about this during his campaign. So all the affordability problems New York City faces are going to get worse under Mamdani. Heck, he’s already gone looking to Gov. Kathy Hochul to bail out New York City — a mere two months into his administration. That’s the pattern. Spend more. Get less. Blame someone else. Repeat.

Read more …

Trump throw nukes? I doubt it.

Trump is Netanyahu’s Puppet (Paul Craig Roberts)

It seems clear that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has disrupted Trump’s negotiations with Iran about nuclear weapons by interjecting in the middle of the negotiations another demand- that Iran give up its missiles and its alleged proxy forces. Netanyahu’s demand is obviously intended to ruin the negotiations as the demand clearly would prevent Iran s ability to defend itself from Israeli attack. From the beginning Netanyahu has been determined to force the US to war with Iran, and that is the purpose of his demand that the deal with Iran includes the military disarming of Iran.


We see this in the news reports that the Trump regime is now considering whether the deal with Iran should also extend to Iranian missiles. Iran is willing to agree not to produce nuclear weapons, but cannot possibly agree to disarm itself of conventional weapons, especially after US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee recently acknowledged that Greater Israel is an ongoing Zionist project. If Iran has the Chinese battle control system that former British diplomat Alastair Crooke described, a US attack on Iran could result in an American defeat, the loss of aircraft carriers and US military bases in the area as well as heavy destruction of Israel. Why would Netanyahu expose Israel to this risk?

Could it be that he bets that an American defeat would lead to demand for revenge on Iran and the US would finally do what Israel wants and nuke the Iranian nation, thus removing Iran as a barrier to further Israeli expansion? Iran’s designation as a terrorist state and Iran’s alleged proxy forces are propagandistic claims used to justify a US military attack on Iran. As the world must know, the two terrorist states are Israel and the United States. Washington, for example, kidnaps foreign leaders of states, and Israel assassinates Iranian, Lebanese, and Yemeni leaders. Who has Iran assassinated ? What terrorist act is Iran responsible for?

The Israeli genocide of Palestine is reason enough for the Houthis in Yemen to oppose Israel. Israel’;s attempted expansion into Lebanon is sufficient reason for Hezbollah to oppose Israel. Perhaps Iran supplies them with weapons, but that doesn’t make them Iran s proxies. The US provides Israel with weapons. Does this make America an Israeli proxy? Insouciant Americans are unaware that Netanyahu and Washington are setting them up for a war that serves only Israel’s interest. Ever since Americans fell for the 911 narrative, they have been putty in the Israel Lobby’s hands, and their beliefs about the Middle East have been given to them by the Israel Lobby and it s many American associates. The prevailing ignorance can very easily produce a catastrophic war.

Read more …

“The Court strains to find a situation in which a former special counsel has released a report after initiating criminal charges that did not result in a finding of guilt.”

Judge Says Jack Smith’s Final Report on Trump Can Never Be Released (ET)

federal judge on Feb. 23 said that the final report on President Donald Trump compiled by a former special counsel shall not be released. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who is based in Florida, said in a 15-page decision that she was granting requests from Trump and his co-defendants to keep part two of the report from former special counsel Jack Smith shielded from the public. Cannon said that Smith wrongly forged ahead with investigating Trump and others for allegedly violating federal law by gathering and retaining sensitive documents even after she ruled his appointment was unconstitutional and threw out the case.


“Rather than seek a stay of the Order, or clarification, Special Counsel Smith and his team chose to circumvent it, for months, by taking the discovery generated in this case and compiling it in a final report for transmission to then-Attorney General Garland, to Congress, and then beyond,” Cannon said. “The Court need not countenance this brazen stratagem or effectively perpetuate the Special Counsel’s breach of this Court’s own order.” She added later: “While it is true that former special counsels have released final reports at the conclusion of their work, it appears they have done so either after electing not to bring charges at all or after adjudications of guilt by plea or trial. The Court strains to find a situation in which a former special counsel has released a report after initiating criminal charges that did not result in a finding of guilt.”

The Department of Justice (DOJ) had appealed Cannon’s ruling, but dropped the appeal after Trump won a second term in office. The department also released part of Smith’s report just before Trump began his second term. The other part, which has not been made public, was not to be released, according to a January 2025 order from Cannon. Cannon announced in December 2025 that her injunction was set to expire in February this year. Trump and co-defendants said in filings on Jan. 20 that Cannon should permanently block the release of the other part of Smith’s report. Lawyers for Trump said Smith was illegally appointed, and all acts he undertook were thus void, so the release “would constitute an irreversible violation of this Court’s constitutional rulings in the underlying criminal action and of bedrock principles of the separation of powers.”

DOJ officials backed that position. “Put simply, Smith’s tenure was marked by illegality and impropriety, and under no circumstance should his work product be given the full weight and authority of this Department,” they said in a brief, adding later that making the second part of the report public would “lead to the public dissemination of sensitive grand jury materials, attorney-client privileged information, and other information derived from protected discovery materials, raising significant statutory, due process, and privacy concerns for President Trump and his former co-defendants.”

Read more …

Nothing to do with girls. That’s all just a cover.

British Police Take Former Ambassador Mandelson into Custody (Manney)

Peter Mandelson built a career inside the highest levels of British power, but that career collided with a police investigation tied to Jeffrey Epstein. On Monday morning, officers with London’s Metropolitan Police arrested Mandelson on suspicion of misconduct in public office. Police transported the 72-year-old former British ambassador to the United States to a London station for formal questioning. Authorities also searched two properties linked to him in Wiltshire and Camden. Mandelson served as business secretary and twice held cabinet rank under Labour governments, later becoming the United Kingdom’s ambassador to the United States.


That role placed him at the center of diplomatic strategy between London and Washington, while also placing him under scrutiny once the newly released Epstein files revealed how deep his association ran with the convicted sex offender. Officials removed Mandelson from his ambassadorial post in September, after the extent of his relationship with Epstein became public. He resigned from the Labour Party the same day the news broke that police had opened a formal investigation into whether he shared confidential government information, the reason behind today’s arrest. Mandelson hasn’t been charged, and he’s said that documents released by the U.S. DOJ didn’t indicate wrongdoing or misdemeanor on his part. He’s stopped talking in public since the beginning of the investigation.

Law enforcement works under a long-standing legal principle: evidence found by unlawful means can’t stand in court, and anything derived from it falls with it—fruit from the poison tree. The fallout from the Epstein files works similarly in public life: Names connected to Epstein don’t come out of the washer clean when associations become liabilities, and careers erode once those ties come to light. If he understood anything, Mandelson understood influence, spending decades navigating political power inside Westminster and abroad. Prime ministers relied on him to negotiate, strategize, and manage party operations. He easily moved between government offices and diplomatic leadership, and that access is now at the center of a criminal inquiry.

It’s rare for British police to arrest former cabinet ministers, which shows that investigators believe serious questions remain unanswered. Officials haven’t disclosed the exact nature of the alleged confidential material involved, confirming only that a former government minister was arrested in connection with an ongoing investigation into misconduct in public office. This circus shows that Epstein’s network extended beyond American shores, both politically and financially. British figures repeatedly showed up in released documents and flight logs, and each new disclosure reopened old wounds, forcing political leaders to confront uncomfortable connections. Mandelson’s arrest marks one of the most significant developments inside the U. tied to those files.

European royals, government officials, politicians, and others are losing jobs and titles over their connection to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. European law enforcement agencies are opening investigations based on recent troves of documents released by the U.S. government. …

Read more …

“This year we will mark the centenary of Fidel Castro’s birth, and we will do so together.”

The Putin Plan for Cuba and The Castro Family (Helmer)

President Vladimir Putin will not run the gauntlet President Donald Trump has established around Cuba with the Russian Navy to escort Russian-flagged tankers delivering crude oil and petroleum products to Havana. When Cuba’s Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla sat down in the Kremlin on Thursday to ask for more “solidarity, firmly demonstrated by you, the Government of Russia, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in the face of the tightening blockade of Cuba and the recent energy siege,” Putin responded enough is enough. He meant that solidarity with Cuba is one thing, but not at the risk of military conflict with the Trump Administration and its naval forces in the Caribbean.


This is Mikhail Gorbachev talking, responded the Kremlin security analysis medium, Vzglyad, not Nikita Khrushchev. “Please convey my best wishes to the President of Cuba and Army General [Raul] Castro,” Putin told the foreign minister. “This year we will mark the centenary of Fidel Castro’s birth, and we will do so together.” It is not the first time Putin has said there is nothing but historical memory to share between Russia and Cuba; and that he would trade Russia’s military positions in Cuba for its interest in business with the US. In a meeting with President George W. Bush on October 21, 2001, Putin had said he would remove the Russian military intelligence base in Cuba. “I don’t want to horsetrade or nickel and dime this thing or argue about who gets what,” Putin said to Bush in a recently declassified record. In the outcome that is exactly what Putin did – and the trade failed because Bush did not reciprocate.

In his meeting with Rodriguez, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was clearer in public what the Russian line means. “We call on the United States to show common sense and take a responsible attitude,” he said – “refraining from implementing its plans for a naval blockade of the Island of Freedom. We categorically reject the far-fetched allegations regarding Russia and Cuba, and cooperation between them, which is presumably threatening the interests of the United States or any other countries. All disputes should be settled exclusively through dialogue based on mutual respect and a balance of interests. We know that our Cuban friends are always ready for honest negotiations… All issues should be resolved solely through a mutually respectful dialogue aimed at finding a balance of interests. We know that Cuban friends are always ready for such honest negotiations. In turn, we will consistently continue to support Cuba, the Cuban people in protecting the sovereignty and security of the country.”

“I would like to reiterate our complete solidarity with our Cuban friends. I fully share the views on our relations and strategic partnership, which you [Rodriguez] have stated. I would also like to reaffirm the complete unacceptability of actions by the United States, which, as you have reminded just now, has adopted an executive order designating Cuba as a threat to US national interests. At the same time, the document says that this alleged threat is exacerbated by Cuba’s cooperation with Russia, which has been described in the document as a ‘hostile’ and ‘malign’ actor. We are confident that all states should define their national interests in a way that will include recognition of and respect for the national interests of all other countries.”

Read more …

 

 

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2025925319882870883?s=20 https://twitter.com/Real_RobN/status/2025615047423352928?s=20 https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2025707794658160837?s=20

 


 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Feb 222026
 


Pierre-Auguste Renoir Dance at Bougival 1883


Trump Responds to Supreme Court’s Decision on Tariffs (Sarah Anderson)
Trump Winds Down IEEPA tariffs, Imposes 10% Global Tariff To Last 150 Days (JTN)
Supreme Court Rule 6-3 Against President Trump’s IEEPA Tariff Authority (CTH)
Clarence Thomas Unloads on the Supreme Court Over Tariff Ruling
Will We See a Supreme Court Vacancy (or Two) This Summer? (Josh Hammer)
Virtually All Countries Support Voter Photo ID – So Why the Filibuster? (RCW)
Washington Post Editorial Board Brutally Mocks Mamdani (ZH)
President Donald Trump Stands Victim of His Own Success (David Manney)
Biased Spies: John Ratcliffe Cleans House at the CIA (Manney)
The Shattered Dreams of Steve Bannon (Scott Pinsker)
When Does Accountability For The Deep State Begin? (Dornik)
Susan Rice Warns Of ‘Accountability Agenda’ When Democrats Return To Power (JTN)
Deporting Censorship: US Targets UK Government Ally Over Free Speech (Thaccker)

 


 

Gulf Tariffs https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2025002058999288215?s=20 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/2024927551760859293?s=20

 


 

 


 

“..”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.”

Read more …

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.

Read more …

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).

Read more …

“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.

Read more …

“.. 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.

Read more …

“..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.

Read more …

“.. 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.”


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.

Read more …

“.. 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.

Read more …

“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.

Read more …

“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:

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.”

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.

Read more …

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?

Read more …

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.”

Read more …

”.. 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..

Read more …

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Feb 212026
 
 February 21, 2026  Posted by at 10:38 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  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)

 

 

https://twitter.com/anandchokshi19/status/2024726410359951708?s=20 https://twitter.com/CraigBrockie/status/2024513876197581112?s=20 Eric Schmidt 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.

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.

Read more …

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.

Read more …

“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.

Read more …

More on the same death.

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

French President Emmanuel Macron has pushed back against comments by Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni regarding the killing of French right-wing activist Quentin Deranque. A mathematics student, Deranque died of his wounds on Saturday following a brawl between rival groups in the southeastern French city of Lyon. According to Le Monde, most of the 11 detained suspects are from left-wing movements. On Wednesday, Meloni said the killing of Deranque was “a wound for all of Europe,” denouncing the “climate of ideological hatred sweeping several nations.” Macron said that “nothing can justify violent action,” adding that everyone must “stay in their own lane.”


“I’m always struck by the fact that people who are nationalists – who don’t want anyone bothering them at home – are always the first to comment on what’s happening elsewhere,” Macron said on Thursday during a visit to New Delhi. Meloni said she was surprised by Macron’s reaction. “My focus is not on France but on the risks of polarization in society. Interference is something different,” she told Sky TG24. French Interior Minister Laurent Nunez and Justice Minister Gerald Darmanin blamed Deranque’s killing on “ultra-left” activists. Deranque’s supporters described his death as a “lynching” and said they were attacked by a mob while trying to protest an event hosted by a politician from the left-wing party La France Insoumise (LFI).

A video of the incident shows a fight between two groups, with several people punching and kicking a man lying on the ground. On Thursday, the Lyon prosecutor’s office said two men had been charged with murder, while Jacques-Elie Favrot, an aide to an LFI legislator, was charged with “complicity by instigation.”La France Insoumise denied any connection to the crime and accused the authorities of “political manipulation.”

Read more …

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.

Read more …

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.”

Read more …

“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.”

Read more …

“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.

Read more …

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.

Read more …

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

Read more …

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.

Read more …

“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!”

Read more …

“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.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Rubio https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2024508632679780419?s=20 Fed https://twitter.com/StellarNews007/status/2024536448255336775?s=20

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Oct 052025
 
 October 5, 2025  Posted by at 10:09 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , ,  40 Responses »


Vincent van Gogh Corridor In The Asylum 1889

 

Trump Thanks Israel For Pause in Gaza, Urges Hamas “Move Quickly” (ZH)
ICE Agents Ambushed, Fired Upon in Chicago Suburb (Spencer)
US Running Out of Money To Keep Nuclear Arsenal Safe (RT)
Sen. Kennedy: More Absurd Things Dems Shut Down the Government For (Margolis)
US To Earn More Than $1 Trillion Per Year In Tariffs – Trump (TASS)
Putin Blasts French ‘Piracy’ After ‘Russia-Linked’ Tanker Boarded (ZH)
Shutdown Day #3 – Trump’s Challenge (CTH)
Putin-the-Unready? (Paul Craig Roberts)
Vladimir Putin Makes The Castling Move (Helmer)
How the Israel Lobby Took Over America’s Universities (Paul Craig Roberts)
Trust In US Media At Historic Low – Gallup (RT)
UK Energy Chief Claims Musk Fueling ‘Threat’ To Britain (RT)
UK Parliament Cuts Nigel Farage’s Security Detail (RT)
Musk Tweets Wipe $15bn Off Netflix Value (RT)
US Treasury Unveils Draft Design Of Coin With Trump’s Profile (RT)
Higher Ed Bottoms Out (James Howard Kunstler)

 

 


https://twitter.com/nxt888/status/1973843985824428377
https://twitter.com/RussiaIsntEnemy/status/1974475994716127429

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1973850555278921988


https://twitter.com/Real_RobN/status/1974543229761843473
https://twitter.com/MAGAStormX/status/1974510704343347569

200,000 SIM cards. That takes up a lot of space. Like all buiildings in an entire street.


https://twitter.com/Megatron_ron/status/1974531487128289740

Martin Armstrong: Trump Taking Us Into World War III

 

 

 

 

Nobody believes it until they see it. But Trump may have had enough damage done to his name.

Trump Thanks Israel For Pause in Gaza, Urges Hamas “Move Quickly” (ZH)

The Israeli military has been ordered by the Netanyahu government to pause its offensive in Gaza City, according to Israeli army radio on Saturday, just a day after Hamas is said to have agreed to the Trump-proposed peace plan which seeks the release of all remaining hostages, living and deceased. The Israeli military in an official statement said it had been ordered to “advance readiness” for implementing the first stage of Trump’s plan. Army radio noted that military operations in Gaza would be scaled back to “the minimum” – but what have been dubbed defensive strikes will continue. Prime Minister Netanyahu says the hostages will be freed in days. Some of these airstrikes were still observed throughout the day, with Palestinian sources saying at least 55 people have still been killed since dawn.

President Trump himself late Friday urged Israel to halt its bombardment, while also calling on Hamas to “move quickly” on implementing the 20-point peace plan. “I appreciate that Israel has temporarily stopped the bombing in order to give the Hostage release and Peace Deal a chance to be completed,” Trump stated on Truth Social Saturday morning. But he also warned that “Hamas must move quickly, or else all bets will be off,” adding that “I will not tolerate delay, which many think will happen, or any outcome where Gaza poses a threat again. Let’s get this done, FAST. Everyone will be treated fairly!” But Hamas had only said it is ready to enter negotiations on Trump’s peace plan, suggesting there are many more hurdles to go as each condition is agreed to.

Prime Minister Netanyahu in fresh remarks to reporters emphasized that the plan calls for the complete demilitarization of Hamas – but this is anything but certain in terms of whether the Palestinian militant group will actually lay down its weapons. But Hamas did say it has agreed to releasing all 48 remaining hostages that it’s ready to surrender power over the Gaza Strip, but the proverbial devil will be in the details in terms of how precisely this all comes to fruition. It remains an open question the degree to which fighting has actually stopped in Gaza City…

The Palestinian side hopes to see 250 prisoners serving life sentences and 1,700 Palestinians detained without charge released as a result of the Trump 20-point plan. Israeli military Arabic-language spokesperson Avichay Adraee is meanwhile telling Palestinian residents not to return to their homes in Gaza City or northern Gaza. Still, this moment seems the best shot at truce or permanent peace in the two-year long war in quite a while, and the White House seems ready to seize the initiative and push the sides to the finish line.

Read more …

“..Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson have spent weeks ratcheting up the hysteria and purveying incendiary rhetoric about how President Donald Trump is a fascist and ICE agents are his storm troopers.”:

ICE Agents Ambushed, Fired Upon in Chicago Suburb (Spencer)

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have reportedly come under fire in Broadview, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago, from a woman identified only as a “U.S. citizen.” This comes after Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson have spent weeks ratcheting up the hysteria and purveying incendiary rhetoric about how President Donald Trump is a fascist and ICE agents are his storm troopers. Once again, the left’s rhetoric spills over into violence. Fox News reported early Saturday afternoon that according to Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), “federal agents were rammed and boxed in by 10 cars in Broadview, Ill., where anti-U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) crowds have been gathering for days.”

They haven’t been just gathering, and this was no peaceful protest: “One of the drivers was armed with a semi-automatic weapon, according to McLaughlin, who said officers ‘were forced to deploy their weapons and fire defensive shots at an armed U.S. citizen.’” According once again to McLaughlin, “the armed woman, who was a U.S. citizen, was named in a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) intelligence bulletin.” She “allegedly doxxed agents and posted online, ‘Hey to all my gang let’s f— those motherf—— up, don’t let them take anyone.'”The firefight took place as “agents were reportedly performing a routine patrol in Broadview, a suburb of Chicago.” Reportedly, no agents were injured. Oddly, McLaughlin added that “the woman involved drove herself to the hospital to get care for wounds.” That’s swell, but was she arrested? The question shouldn’t even need to be asked, but in America these days, one never knows.

It should be remembered in connection with this incident that back in April, Pritzker said: “Never before in my life have I called for mass protests, for mobilization, for disruption — but I am now. These Republicans cannot know a moment of peace.” It looks as if in Broadview, he has been heeded. Also, on Saturday morning, Pritzker raised the temperature even more, saying: “This morning, the Trump Administration’s Department of War gave me an ultimatum: call up your troops, or we will. It is absolutely outrageous and un-American to demand a Governor send military troops within our own borders and against our will.” Once again, this is the kind of language that stirs up the left’s most violent cadres.

And Pritzker wasn’t finished. He charged that the Trump administrations intends to “pull hardworking Americans out of their regular jobs and away from their families all to participate in a manufactured performance — not a serious effort the protect public safety.” He insisted that there was “no need for military troops on the ground in the State of Illinois. State, county, and local law enforcement have been working together and coordinating to ensure public safety around the Broadview ICE facility, and to protect people’s ability to peacefully exercise their connotational rights. I will not call up our National Guard to further Trump’s acts of aggression against our people.”

Now, Pritzker appears to have gotten what he wanted, and the seeds he planted and has been watering for so long have finally sprouted: there has been an armed attack against ICE agents in a Chicago suburb. Yet Pritzker shouldn’t get too elated and start savoring being the Democrats’ vice presidential candidate (or who knows, even presidential candidate) in 2028. While he has been energetically purveying his hysterical rhetoric, he has also, ironically enough, completely undercut it.

After all, if officers of the law are not able to do their duty in Chicago, and come under armed attack when they try to do so, it’s clear that Pritzker is wrong: there really is a need for military troops on the ground in the State of Illinois. And the person who is primarily responsible for creating the need for them is Pritzker himself. The Broadview incident comes at a time of rapidly increasing tensions all across the country. Democrat governors such as Pritzker and Gavin Newsom seem determined to keep the pedal to the medal on the hysterical rhetoric, as if they actually want the violence they’re inciting to break out. In a saner age, their defiance of the president and constant incitement would be considered seditious and result in their being removed from office, if not prosecuted. Today, it has them jockeying for the leadership of the Democrat Party.

Read more …

More goodies from the shutdown.

US Running Out of Money To Keep Nuclear Arsenal Safe (RT)

US Energy Secretary Chris Wright has cautioned that the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) could run out of funding to monitor the country’s nuclear arsenal within eight days because of an ongoing government shutdown. He said operations would be suspended once the money is gone. The US federal government has stopped working for the first time in almost seven years, after Republicans and Democrats failed to agree on a spending bill in the Senate.nOn Friday, the Senate failed to pass either a Republican bill or a Democratic alternative, with both measures falling short of the votes needed. Both sides blamed each other for the crisis. Lawmakers are expected to try again on October 6.

“Eight more days of funding, and then we have to go into some emergency shutdown procedures, putting our country at risk,” Wright said Thursday evening on Fox News, referring to the National Nuclear Security Administration. The secretary said over 20 officials in his department are still awaiting Senate confirmation, blaming Democrats for delaying tactics and prolonging the shutdown by withholding key votes. Before this year’s federal cuts, the NNSA employed more than 65,000 federal workers and contractors nationwide, handling everything from maintaining the nuclear arsenal to non-proliferation efforts and oversight of the US Navy’s nuclear operations.

In its latest shutdown plan, the US Energy Department said it would keep NNSA staff running “critical control operations systems” and those working on nuclear non-proliferation, but gave no figures on how many employees would be included. mUS President Donald Trump has suggested he may use the shutdown to push through major staff and wage cuts, blaming Democrats for the budget impasse. The White House is also using the standoff to target programs opposed by Republicans. Federal agencies have partially suspended services and many employees are furloughed. The last government shutdown began on December 22, 2018 and lasted 35 days.

Read more …

$833,000 for transgender people in Nepal.
$300,000 for a pride parade in Lesotho.
$4.2 million for LGBTQI people in the Western Balkans and Uganda.

‘We’re gonna shut down government until you put that back in.’”

Sen. Kennedy: More Absurd Things Dems Shut Down the Government For (Margolis)

The Schumer Shutdown is dragging into the weekend, with neither side budging. Republicans pushed for a straightforward continuing resolution to keep the government funded through November, but Democrats chose to hold the line for their wish list of radical spending priorities—billions and billions of dollars’ worth—and in doing so, shut the government down. The media has focused on their demand for free health care for illegal immigrants, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg. There’s a lot more buried in this standoff that isn’t getting the attention it deserves. Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) took to the Senate floor this week and laid out, in his trademark blunt and hilarious fashion, exactly what Democrats are trying to shut the government down over—and it’s every bit as ridiculous as you’d expect.

“Basically, President Trump just said, ‘We want you to take some stuff out of the budget that we think is wasteful,’” Kennedy began. “And we did — and that upset the congresswoman.” That “congresswoman,” of course, is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who, according to Kennedy, went ballistic when Trump and congressional Republicans started cutting some of the more absurd Biden-era spending priorities. Kennedy didn’t hold back as he read aloud what Democrats are fighting to restore. “We found that under President Biden, they were spending $3 million for circumcisions and vasectomies in Zambia,” he said. “We took that out. The congresswoman says, ‘We’re gonna shut down government until you put that back in.’”

And that was just the beginning. “We found $500,000 of American taxpayer money for electric buses in Rwanda,” Kennedy continued. “We found $3.6 million for pastry cooking classes and dance focus groups for male prostitutes in Haiti. I kid you not. I’m not making this up. It was in the budget under President Biden.”

Republicans, Kennedy noted, stripped out each of these items as they tried to rein in wasteful foreign spending. But Democrats—with AOC and the “socialist wing” of the party leading the way—are threatening to shut the government down until every last one of those absurd expenditures is put back in. “I could spend the rest of the afternoon here,” Kennedy said. “We took all that out. It upset Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez. It upset the socialist wing of her party. And now they’re threatening all other Democrats and saying, ‘You’ve got to shut that government down until we get what we want.’” And that, Kennedy concluded, is what this entire budget fight is about—not defending American taxpayers or funding core government services, but holding the government hostage over millions in woke pet projects and bizarre international handouts.

Read more …

“..a protective mechanism.”

US To Earn More Than $1 Trillion Per Year In Tariffs – Trump (TASS)

US President Donald Trump said that the import duties he imposed would bring the United States revenue of more than $1 trillion per year. In an interview with One America News television channel, Trump stated that revenues from new tariffs were just starting to flow in but eventually they could reach $1 trillion a year. Speaking at the 80th session of the UN General Assembly last month, Trump said the United States was ready to conduct trade with all countries provided that the principles of fairness and reciprocity are respected. According to the US president, the tariffs that the US administration has imposed on most countries of the world are a protective mechanism.

Read more …

One fake anti-Russia story after another. They come fast.

Putin Blasts French ‘Piracy’ After ‘Russia-Linked’ Tanker Boarded (ZH)

“The tanker was seized in neutral waters without any justification, and they were apparently looking for some kind of military cargo, drones, or something else,” Putin said Thursday at the Valdai Discussion Club meeting in Sochi, condemning the French takeover of an oil tanker suspected of being part of Russia’s so-called “shadow fleet” which seeks to evade Western energy sanctions as an act of “piracy”. “There’s nothing there, there ne ver was, and there can’t be anything,” Putin asserted of the boarding action which took place earlier this week. The tanker was under the flag of a third country and the crew is international, Putin described, adding he doesn’t know “how much it’s related to Russia.” French authorities revealed details for the first time on Thursday, confirming that they arrested the captain, a Chinese national. He’s accused of disobeying orders of the French navy.

Another crew member, the First Officer, was also arrested, as Reuters details of French statements: French police have arrested the captain and first officer of a sanctioned tanker suspected of operating for Russia’s “shadow fleet,” authorities said on Thursday, after the navy boarded the vessel, which may have been involved in recent drone incidents around Denmark. The vessel, the Boracay, was approximately 50 nautical miles south of Copenhagen on September 22 when drone activity forced the closure of the city’s airport around 1830 GMT, according to data from MarineTraffic. It was also observed heading south along Denmark’s western coast on the evening of September 24 when drones were reported flying north of Esbjerg and near several nearby airports. The tanker appeared on on an EU sanctions list for transporting Russian oil, but the whole Denmark drone incursion linkage aspect to it seems highly coincidental, and a big stretch, assuming there’s no further evidence and that no actual drones were found upon searching the vessel.

French authorities would be presenting any such evidence very quickly, but instead they just issued ambiguous statements remotely suggesting the linkage to the Denmark drone sightings.French authorities say that the Boracay has a history of changing names and flags, and is currently flying under Benin’s registry. It’s believed this is part of intentional sanctions-dodging. The Boracay is now anchored off France’s coast near Saint-Nazaire, south of Brest. It had initially set sail from the Russian port of Primorsk outside Saint Petersburg on September 20 and had actually been at one point detained Estonian authorities earlier this year for sailing without a valid country flag. International law allows countries to intercept such vessels which are believed to be stateless, typically if there is suspicion of wrong-doing like smuggling.

Read more …

“If liberty and freedom become the priority, the advancement of personal wealth becomes more difficult.”

Shutdown Day #3 – Trump’s Challenge (CTH)

The professionally Republican wing of the GOPe want this shutdown ended just as much as the professionally Democrat wing. The UniParty cannot allow Trump/Vought this much power. Republicans cannot allow Trump this much power. The Moonbat leftists are not the biggest problem, they never have been. They are ideologues, mostly. Insufferable, stupid, violent at times, but easy to spot. Remember, Democrats quest for power; Republicans quest for money. Always underline this because it’s really important. The Moonbat leftists seek power, seek control of your life, and they are open in their insufferably stupid arguments to get there. When they start to lose, they turn violent. This is their history. That said, they are not the most dangerous. The professional Republicans are more dangerous because their priority is money. As a result, their approaches, goals, objectives and arguments can be purchased.

Republicans have no interests, goals or objectives, nor allegiances, that supersede their primary objective, getting money, growing their wealth. Democrats will come at you with a knife, a gun or a baseball bat. You can see them. The professional Republican guy standing beside you, however, is willing to take a payment to shoot you in the ear when you don’t see it coming. This is also why it seems like Democrats stick together, and Republicans split. Democrats are chasing a common goal, a collective goal, power. Republicans are chasing a commonality, yes, but an individual goal, money, their wealth. Donors contribute to the Democrat agenda because their interest to benefit from power. Republicans modify their agenda to benefit donors because their goal is money. Democrats stay on task, power. Republicans are flexible, money.

You enter a war against Leftists with extreme danger. However, the danger is not the war in front of you, it’s the army beside you waiting to get a payment from the enemy in front of you. Out of a group of 1,000 democrats, 900+ will join in to defend a weakened Moonbat leftist (see Kimmell). Out of a group of 1,000 Republicans you will find, maybe, 5 willing to cover your back regardless of how much bribery is put in front of them. Remember this, understand this and the reality of who presents the most danger to us is accurately framed. Republicans do not simply snatch defeat from the jaws of victory; they sell defeat to the highest bidder! In our lifetime we have watched this unfold. There were Democrats with the same outlook as Republicans, they were known as “blue dog” democrats. The Blue Dogs were willing to compromise power, to sell power, in return for financial payment.

Traditional ‘Blue Dogs’ were names like Hillary and Bill Clinton; their prism was the assembly of money. However, this group faced the introduction of hardline ideological believers, the communists or Marxists represented by Barack Obama. Obama Inc. battled Clinton Inc. to determine the future of the Democrats. The ideologues won, and the democrat Blue Dogs in their tribe, those willing to concede ideology for money, were purged from their ranks. Modern Democrats, post Obama takeover, are now pure ideologues. “By any means necessary” is the operational objective of modern leftists. This is why government under Obama flipped the switch so openly and began weaponizing power. Purging govt agencies and replacing the staff with ideologues. Crushing opposition, by brute force and targeting.

Simultaneously, in the smaller Republican ranks, there was a small group who wanted to face down the same battle inside the Republican party. The original Tea Party represented this group. A smaller assembly trying to put ideology, freedom and liberty at the forefront of the Republican objective. Unlike the leftist effort, the Tea Party effort inside the Republican party failed. Republican leadership crushed the liberty rebellion and went back to business taking money from the ideological Marxists who now ruled the centers of power. People who didn’t quite understand what was taking place stood and watched, frustrated, at the dynamic of Republicans who conceded every battle to the left. What the abused GOP viewers didn’t understand was the core of the issue; Democrats want power, Republicans want money. Each time the Republicans could win on a policy issue, they sold the loss to Democrats.

Battered conservatives grew more frustrated and more frustrated. Now we enter the era of MAGA, represented by billionaire Donald J Trump, who, like Obama before him, began the fight inside the Republican Party. The Tea Party rebellion quickly reengaged Trump and formed MAGA; the ideological fight inside the Republican party, liberty over money, was on again. MAGA represents opposition to the leftist ideological advancement. But the Republican assembly will not concede. In a way their resistance makes sense. If liberty and freedom become the priority, the advancement of personal wealth becomes more difficult. Simultaneously, if retention and assembly of wealth is the priority, liberty and freedom ideologues become impediments. Again, MAGA within Republicanism must be crushed when money is the priority.

This internal Republican battle has been unfolding in various reference points for almost a decade now, while the internal Democrat battle was long ago decided. The root issue the within the Republican apparatus still surrounds the greatest evil. ‘The love of money is the root of all evil.’ This conflict has not yet been fully decided, yet admittedly -and thankfully- MAGA has made some significant gains. The Republican party now has a lower income demographic and a more ideological working-class base. However, don’t be fooled. The top tier of the Republican apparatus is mostly unchanged; albeit they are facing more entrenched ideological opposition from the awakened MAGA forces. The top tier will still sell out the base, still compromise for personal profit, and still take payment for policy. This brings us to where we are today.

Inside the MAGA assembly we are trying to identify which Republican leaders have shifted to the MAGA/liberty viewpoint, and which Republican leaders are playing the long game while retaining their DNA level objective, get money. Each day on these pages and many others, the ‘trust’ factor is raised; this is completely understandable. We have a strong muscle memory for betrayal, and we all bear the scars to remind us. It is fitting and proper that these conversations take place. After all, it’s interesting to watch professional Republicans discuss how agencies like the DOJ and FBI have lost institutional trust of the American people due to corruption, while simultaneously those same Republicans never note trust loss within the Republican party as a result of their willful blindness to it.

Read more …

“The Russians simply cannot comprehend that they are targeted as an obstacle to Western hegemony.”

Putin-the-Unready? (Paul Craig Roberts)

Leaders of European countries with limited military ability are openly declaring their preparation for war with Russia. The Baltic states, Poland, Netherlands, France, Germany, and the UK speak if they look forward to a war that would utterly destroy them. It is a mystery as Russia poses no threat to them and wants nothing from them but a mutual security agreement. I believe Putin himself has responsibility for this state of affairs. Putin’s efforts to restrain the conflict in Ukraine have been misunderstood. Putin is perceived as irresolute and the Russian military as incapable. Trump calls Russia a paper tiger and speaks of Ukraine with sufficient European help transitioning from the defense to the offense and invading Russia.

This extremely dangerous way of thinking is the reason I have often said that Putin’s never-ending, ever-widening war was a strategic blunder, a blunder that Putin continues to make. With European politicians declaring their preparation for war, is Putin paying attention, or will he again be Putin-the-Unready as he was in South Ossetia in 2008, in Ukraine in 2014, in 2022 when Russia was forced to intervene in Donbas, and when the Russian strategic bomber force was attacked on June 1, 2025? Putin’s restraint and Lavrov’s pleading for negotiations have convinced the West that Russia is an easy target. This mistaken conviction is fomenting a major war.

Russians do not seem to understand the situation. This morning on RT political analyst Nadezhda Romanenko attributes the Western war talk to “Western anxieties and domestic political calculations.” It would be more realistic to attribute the war talk to setting up Russia as an aggressor that must be deterred. The Russians simply cannot comprehend that they are targeted as an obstacle to Western hegemony. Everywhere in the West the image that is maintained is Russian aggression. Wikipedia, for example, describes the 2008 Russian war with Georgia as Russian aggression, the 2022 intervention in Donbas as a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Estonia and Poland recently made claims of Russian entry into their air space. Every possible sign of Russian aggression is created. The West is uninterested in Putin’s reassurances. Why is Russia unable to understand this?

Read more …

Speeches at the Valdai club are important.

Vladimir Putin Makes The Castling Move (Helmer)

On June 30, 2021, during his Direct Line programme, President Vladimir Putin was asked what games he liked to play during his schooldays. “I am tempted to say chess,” he replied, “but, unfortunately, it was not chess.” Four years have gone by until his appearance yesterday at the Valdai Club, when the president was asked the same question. He replied: “Well, I loved chess.” Putin was castling.

In the ancient game of chess the move which is known by this name is a relatively new one. The rules to allow it also took centuries to develop. The purpose of castling is defence when the king is under attack and there is safe space between the king and the castle (rook), so that they can exchange places and the king retreat to the safer margin of the board. The opportunity created thereby is for the rook to move more actively into the counter-attack against the adversary. The castling king is delegating the offensive to his rook.

To understand what Putin’s castling means on the board today, read what he said first about the Board of Peace (BOP) Gaza plan of President Donald Trump, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and ex-prime minister Tony Blair. “Russia always supports and welcomes any steps by Trump,” he told his spokesman to say, “that seek to avert the tragedy that is now unfolding. We want this plan to be realized, so that it may help steer events in the Middle East toward a peaceful path”.

As this was being interpreted outside the Kremlin wall as Putin’s unqualified endorsement, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov announced it was too soon for that. “We have not seen this plan. We have only heard comments about its contents. You have now outlined its main provisions. I have heard that this international body, which is intended to ‘temporarily govern Gaza’, is planned to be headed by former British prime minister Tony Blair. He himself seems to have already announced this. I reiterate, I am not privy to the details. I do not know what powers he will be granted, nor how the Arab countries view this. I am aware that some of them have already welcomed the ‘Donald Trump plan’. However, a final assessment can only be made once we know the views of all of Palestine’s neighbours, Israel, the countries of the region, the League of Arab States, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and, above all, the Palestinians themselves. I have heard that representatives of the Palestinian National Authority are not being considered for inclusion in this temporary body, even as observers.”

“Regarding the international security forces,” Lavrov went on. “No, we have not been invited to participate. I reiterate, we only became aware of this new plan yesterday. However, I have read that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, commenting on the ‘Trump plan’ – which was announced following Netanyahu’s visit to Washington – said that the plan is good and should not be altered. He claimed that Hamas and everyone else should agree to it. Among the positive aspects of this plan, he stated that Israel would retain control over security in Gaza. This somewhat contradicts the establishment of international forces, so all the details need to be clarified first.”

Lavrov said that at the Valdai Club conference in Sochi. Two days later, Putin has followed him on to the same platform; he also followed the foreign minister on the Gaza plan. Asked about this, Putin started by saying that “now that we are getting acquainted with President Trump’s initiatives, I think there is a light at the end of the tunnel that may still appear”. On Tuesday Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov had mistaken the tunnel for the light. Putin went on to clarify:“The situation in Gaza is a terrible event in history, in modern history. And even someone known as the pro-western Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Guterres, publicly says Gaza has become the largest children’s cemetery in the world. What could be more tragic and sad?”

About Trump’s Gaza plan, “you know, it will probably come as a surprise to you, but on the whole, Russia is ready to support him. If, of course, as we have to look carefully at the proposals made, it will lead to the final goal, which we have always talked about. Russia has always advocated the creation of two states: Israel and a Palestinian state, starting in 1948 and then in 1974, when the relevant UN Security Council resolution was adopted. And this, in my opinion, is the key to a final solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.”

“Indeed, as far as I know, I have not looked at this proposal so carefully yet, but it proposes to create an international body that will govern Palestine, more precisely the Gaza Strip, for some time, and Mr. Blair should be at its head. He’s not known as a great peacemaker, but I know him personally. Moreover, I visited him, spent the night at his house, we had coffee in our pajamas in the morning, and so on. Yes, yes.”

“Fyodor Lukyanov: Was the coffee good?”

“Yes, quite. But what do I want to say? He is a man with his own views, but he is an experienced politician. And in general, of course, if his activities, his experience, and his knowledge are directed towards a peaceful course, then he can play some positive role. There are, of course, several questions. First: How long will this international administration work? How and to whom will power be transferred later? As far as I understand, this plan outlines the possibility of transferring power to the Palestinian Authority. In my opinion, it would be better, of course, to put everything under the control of President [Mahmoud] Abbas and the current Palestinian administration. It may be difficult for them to resolve the security issues. But so far as I can imagine, my colleagues, with whom I spoke on this topic today, envisage the possibility of transferring control over the Gaza Strip, including to the local militia, to ensure security. Is this bad? In my opinion, this is a good thing.”

“We need to understand, I repeat, how long the international administration will manage there, in what time frame it is supposed to transfer both civil power and security issues, which is very important. And, in my opinion, this should definitely be supported. We are talking about freeing all the hostages held by Hamas, on the one hand, and releasing a significant number of Palestinians from Israeli prisons. Here, too, we need to understand how many Palestinians, whom, and at what time can we release them? And of course, you know, the most important question is: how does Palestine feel about this? That’s exactly what you need to understand. And the countries of the region, the entire Islamic world, and Palestine itself, the Palestinians themselves, including, of course, Hamas. They treat Hamas differently there, and we have our own attitude, but we have contacts with Hamas. It is important for us that Hamas also supports this, and the Palestinian Authority supports it. But these are all issues that require painstaking, careful research.”

“In general, if this happens, it will, of course, be a very serious step forward in resolving the conflict. But, I repeat, in our opinion, fundamentally it can be resolved only with the creation of a Palestinian state. Of course, Israel’s attitude towards this is also important. We don’t know yet either: how did Israel take it? I do not even know of any public statements on this subject, I just did not have time to look at it. But it’s not even public statements that are important, but in fact how the Israeli leadership will treat this, whether it will fulfill everything that the President of the United States has proposed. There are a lot of questions. But in general, if all these positive things that I mentioned happen, then this is, of course, a breakthrough. And a breakthrough can be very positive. I repeat for the third time: the creation of a Palestinian state is a key element of the settlement as a whole.”

Putin was acknowledging that since Peskov’s announcement, he had been briefed by Lavrov and others, and that they had persuaded him to change his mind on what to say. The President concedes now that Russian policy on the Trump plan has not been decided yet; that it will be a collective one with his “colleagues”; and that he is delegating the next moves to them and to their “painstaking, careful research.” This is castling by the king for the rook.

Read more …

” The definition of what constitutes anti-semitism has been constantly expanded and now includes truth itself.”

How the Israel Lobby Took Over America’s Universities (Paul Craig Roberts)

Cornell University, once a place of discussion and learning, is seeking to remove a tenured Jewish professor, Eric Cheyfitz, who permits Israel to be discussed instead of simply praised. The professor’s daughter and granddaughter live in Israel. But this doesn’t save him from being charged with discrimination against a Jewish graduate student. The professor’s trouble was brought to him by an Israeli student who previously served in Israel’s elite military surveillance agency, Unit 8200. None of the students support the Israeli student’s claim. It seems the Israel Lobby is testing how far it can expand its power over America’s universities. If the Lobby can get Cornell University to punish a tenured Jewish professor based on a complaint by a former member of Israeli Military Surveillance, then Israel will have set the standard for American universities that truth about Israel constitutes anti-semitic discrimination and is punishable.

The Israel Lobby took over American universities with large monetary grants. Now dependent on these grants, university administrators have to follow the line. This is how the takeover happened: First came large monetary donations from Jews. These donations led to the appointment of Jewish benefactors to the university’s board of trustees. From here the Jews obtained university administrations headed by Jewish presidents who attached anti-semitism to the woke anti-racist, anti-homophobic, etc. agenda. The definition of what constitutes anti-semitism has been constantly expanded and now includes truth itself.

Several years ago a list was published of the ethnicity of the leadership of Ivy League universities. Formerly a WASP preserve, every Ivy League university had a Jewish president or provost. They may have been outstanding leaders. The point is that for such a small ethnic minority to be in control of all of America’s elite universities cannot be a coincidence. Jews want power and are good at attaining it. In a way you have to admire their determination. It didn’t take the Israel Lobby but a day or two to take over Charlie Kirk’s organization. Presumably, this puts Christian evangelicals back into Israel’s pockets, thus solidifying Israel’s control over President Trump. American WASPs are no longer contenders. Worn out, ambition eroded by trust funds, WASPs have been displaced. Our future seems to in the hands of the Israel Lobby or the immigrant-invaders.

https://israelpalestinenews.org/cornell-cut-classes-by-a-pro-palestinian-professor/

Read more …

“..more than 90% of evening newscast stories about [Trump] on ABC, NBC, and CBS were unfavorable.”

Trust In US Media At Historic Low – Gallup (RT)

Americans’ confidence in the mass media has sunk to a record low, with fewer than three in ten now trusting news outlets to report fairly, according to a new Gallup poll. A poll conducted in September of 1,000 adults showed that only 28% expressed a “great deal” or “fair amount” of trust in newspapers, television and radio, down from 31% last year, 40% five years ago, and almost 70% in the 1970s. Meanwhile, 36% reported “not very much” confidence and 34% said they had “none at all.” For the first time, confidence among Republicans has collapsed into single digits, with only 8% saying they trust the media. However, 51% of Democrats believed media reporting.

US President Donald Trump’s rocky relationship with the press has reportedly fueled these splits. A Harvard Kennedy School study found that Trump’s first 100 days in office drew overwhelmingly negative coverage, while the Media Research Center recently estimated that more than 90% of evening newscast stories about him on ABC, NBC, and CBS were unfavorable.

On the 100th day of his second term this year, Trump’s administration issued a press release titled “100 Days of Hoaxes,” accusing major outlets of spreading “a nonstop deluge of hoaxes and lies” and listed 48 reports it deemed false. Beyond partisan politics, structural shifts are also eroding traditional media. A Reuters Institute report in June suggested that podcasters and AI chatbots are playing a growing role in news dissemination, with more than half of Americans under 35 relying on social and video networks as their main sources of information.

Read more …

Evey Brit knows what Musk is talking about.

UK Energy Chief Claims Musk Fueling ‘Threat’ To Britain (RT)

UK Energy Secretary Ed Miliband has accused Elon Musk of posing a major threat to Britain, claiming the billionaire backs nationalist forces seeking to undermine the country. Speaking at the Labour Party conference on Wednesday, the former party leader linked Musk to Nigel Farage, whose Reform UK party gained traction in the May local elections. The US-based entrepreneur has expressed support for the party, but has urged Farage to step down. According to Miliband, Farage is “a key part of a global network that wants to destroy the ties that bind our communities and our way of life.” He added: “I can sum up the threat for you in two words: Elon Musk.” Miliband alleged that Musk “incites violence on our streets,” “calls for the overthrow of our elected government,” and enables “disinformation through X” – the microblogging platform that the billionaire purchased in 2022.

“We have a message for Elon Musk. Get the hell out of our politics and our country.” Musk appeared unfazed by the remarks. Shortly after the speech, he blasted Prime Minister Keir Starmer, calling him “an actor with an empty head” who merely repeats talking points supplied by others. Musk and Starmer have engaged in a months-long feud over the UK’s grooming gang scandal. In June, Starmer authorized a new national inquiry into the mass sexual exploitation of British girls, crimes largely linked to gangs of Pakistani men over a decade ago. Musk accused the prime minister of being “deeply complicit in the mass rapes in exchange for votes.”

Read more …

When you’re more popular than the PM.

But still… That PM paints a big -political- target on his own back.

UK Parliament Cuts Nigel Farage’s Security Detail (RT)

UK parliamentary authorities drastically slashed government-funded security for Nigel Farage, an MP and the leader of a major opposition right-wing party, Reform UK, its head of policy has claimed. Zia Yusuf accused Prime Minister Keir Starmer of deliberately putting his political rival at risk of attack. Speaking to Times Radio on Wednesday, Yusuf stated that “two weeks ago, the authorities cut Nigel’s security detail by 75 per cent,” without providing any reasons for the decision. The Reform UK representative added that “donors have stepped in [to]… make sure that Nigel is well protected.” However, “if anything was to happen to Nigel, we will hold Keir Starmer squarely responsible,” Yusuf stressed.Yusuf further accused the sitting prime minister of inciting violence against the “man who is the bookmaker’s favorite to be the next prime minister.”

Farage himself acknowledged he feared for his own security and that of other party members after Starmer’s latest attack. Speaking during the Labour Party conference on Tuesday, the prime minister dubbed Farage a “snake oil merchant” who does not like Britain because of his “racist” plans to curb immigration. Starmer charged that Britain must “go into that battle armed, not just with words and condemnation, but with action,” describing Reform UK as the “enemy of national renewal” and the “biggest threat we face.” On Thursday, The Telegraph reported that veteran Conservative MP Sir David Davis had asked Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood to “review the decision at the earliest opportunity.”

“It strikes me that Mr Farage is a particularly high-profile target, arguably at greater risk than many Cabinet ministers,” the lawmaker reportedly wrote in a letter. An Ipsos poll last month indicated that Starmer’s popularity had hit a record low, with 79% of Britons disapproving of his performance. Another survey by think tank More in Common suggested around the same time that Farage would become prime minister with 373 MPs if an election were held tomorrow. The Labour, in contrast, would suffer its worst electoral defeat since 1931, securing less than 100 seats in the House of Commons, according to the poll.

Read more …

“Transgender propaganda isn’t just quietly lurking in the background on Netflix. They are actively pushing it on users.”

Musk Tweets Wipe $15bn Off Netflix Value (RT)

US streaming giant Netflix has lost about $15 billion in market value after billionaire Elon Musk accused the platform of “woke bias” and urged his followers to cancel subscriptions. Netflix shares fell 4.3% in a day and a half to $1,140 by midday Thursday, cutting its market cap to $483 billion from $498 billion on Wednesday, trading data showed. The drop came after Musk called on users to boycott Netflix over the animated show ‘Dead End: Paranormal Park’, which features a transgender character. Although canceled in 2023 after two seasons, the show remains available on the platform with a TV-Y7 rating for children seven and older.

Musk’s campaign began on Tuesday when he reposted a clip on X showing one of the show’s characters identifying as transgender. “Dead End Paranormal Park, a show on Netflix, is pushing pro-transgender on CHILDREN. This show is advertised for 7-YEAR-OLDS,” the account said. Musk replied: “this is not ok.” He later reposted messages from users claiming to have canceled Netflix and accused the service of pushing “LGBTQ+ propaganda.” On Wednesday, he wrote: “Cancel Netflix for the health of your kids.” In another post, he said: “Transgender propaganda isn’t just quietly lurking in the background on Netflix. They are actively pushing it on users.” Musk has long railed against wokeism and LGBTQ messaging, which many link to his estrangement from his trans child, Vivian Wilson, who has openly criticized the billionaire for his alleged anti-trans vendetta.

In a Washington Post interview last year, Musk said that to him Wilson was “dead, killed by the woke mind virus.” Netflix has not responded to Musk’s remarks. The company has previously defended controversial content on free speech grounds, including in 2020, when its film ‘Cuties’ drew outrage for sexualized depictions of underage actors. By Thursday’s close, the firm had pared some of the losses, ending at $1,161 a share with a $493 billion valuation. While stock is down 4% this week, it remains up 30% year-to-date. Analysts expect Musk’s campaign will not weigh on the company long-term, suggesting that Netflix shares are too costly to be seriously affected by online backlash.

Read more …

“Despite the radical left’s forced shutdown of our government, the facts are clear: Under the historic leadership of President Donald J. Trump, our nation is entering its 250th anniversary stronger, more prosperous, and better than ever before..”

Reason to celebrate!

US Treasury Unveils Draft Design Of Coin With Trump’s Profile (RT)

The US Treasury Department is considering putting an image of US President Donald Trump on a one-dollar coin marking the 250th anniversary of America’s independence. According to the first design draft revealed on Friday, the coin features Trump’s profile on one side, along with the words “Liberty” and “In God we trust,” and the dates 1776–2026. The other side shows Trump raising a clenched fist against a backdrop of the US flag, with the inscriptions “Fight, fight, fight,” “United States of America,” and “E pluribus unum.” The image is a clear homage to a photo taken by AP’s Evan Vucci shortly after Trump’s failed assassination attempt in July 2024, which was widely republished in US and international media.

“Despite the radical left’s forced shutdown of our government, the facts are clear: Under the historic leadership of President Donald J. Trump, our nation is entering its 250th anniversary stronger, more prosperous, and better than ever before,” a Treasury Department spokesperson said in a statement. “While a final $1 coin design has not yet been selected to commemorate the United States’ semiquincentennial, this first draft reflects the enduring spirit of our country and democracy, even in the face of immense obstacles,” the spokesperson added. According to the Washington Post, existing US law generally prohibits depictions of living people on currency. In addition, the 2020 Circulating Collectible Coin Redesign Act, which authorized the minting of the anniversary coin, prohibits busts or portraits of people on the reverse side.

Read more …

“There are so many disgusting animals in public life that we have allowed to fraternize with the rest of society to our absolute peril.” Aimee Terese on “X”

Higher Ed Bottoms Out (James Howard Kunstler)

Harvard, apparently, can never learn. It has made itself the poster-child for all the failures of contemporary education, including the racketeering around endowments, government grant grifts, race and gender hustles, and intellectual surrender to ideas that would make medieval astrologasters burst out laughing. Case in point: the university lately announced the hiring of a Boston-area drag-queen to teach a course in the spring semester of 2026 about the TV show known as Ru Paul’s Drag Race. The show features contestants vying for prizes and crowns based on “Charisma, Uniqueness, Nerve, and Talent” (C.U.N.T.). Get the picture? Reach into your Jungian psychology tool-bag.

This backwater of the arts was identified some years ago by the literary pop-star Susan Sontag as “camp” derived from the French se camper “to pose in an exaggerated fashion” depicting “unnatural artifice.” Camp is the theatrical cousin of kitsch, which is the celebration of bad taste, with histrionic overtones of exaggerated sentimentality. Please understand: when you are watching drag-queens, you are not really seeing men posing as women. You are seeing men portraying women as monsters. You might surmise that these are men who labor under “mommy issues.” The giveaway is that they often banter onstage humorously about their male genitalia, and sometimes even attempt sneaky displays of such, which opens that behavior to interesting interpretations.

Harvard’s drag-queen du jour demonstrates all that nicely. Kareem Khubchandani, his legal name, is a professor of theater, dance, and performance studies at Tufts University. He also teaches “Studies in Race, Colonialism, and Diaspora.” As a drag star, he goes by the stage-name LaWhore Vagistan. This is how he describes himself to the news media: “[M]y preferred pronouns are ‘she’ or ‘aunty.’ I chose ‘LaWhore’ because my family traces its origins to Pakistan: Lahore is an important city in Pakistan, and well, I’m a bit of a whore. And Vagistan because I see the subcontinent as one, big, beautiful Vag … istan.” Of course, his fascination with female genitalia, of seeing a whole nation in that guise, is a bit odd considering that A) he is a homosexual performer who is ostensibly not attracted to female sexual characteristics and lacks experience with them, and B) he is a male of the species who does not possess such organs himself.

Therefore, on what basis would he have gained so much knowledge of female genitalia and developed such a powerful obsession around them as to imagine the whole country of his ancestors that way? Possibly, it has something to do with mommy. . . something that made her appear. . . unforgettably monstrous. We will probably never know the answer to these quandaries, and they are somewhat secondary to the main question of Mr. Khubchandani’s employment in this connection at Harvard where young minds get molded to become the future managerial class of our nation. Other questions do present, though. For instance, did Harvard’s President Alan Garber know about this hire and sign off on it, and how would he say it fits Harvard’s mission? Or Provost John Manning? Or Hopi E. Hoekstra, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences? Or Harvard’s Board of Governors?

All this underscores an important lesson that America has apparently managed to unlearn, something that we once knew quite well: that marginal behavior belongs on the margins, not in the center of our national life. The celebration of vulgarity for its own sake is arguably not the highest aspirational ideal for the best-and-the-brightest of our society, however amusing it might be in their hours of leisure, when people are free to pursue whatever lights their imaginations. It also raises the question as to why would highly-educated women, say, the female faculty and admins at Harvard, virtually all PhDs, certified geniuses in their fields, go along with such a garish display of farcical disrespect for the female of the species, being officially showcased as part of Harvard’s curriculum? Do they see themselves as monsters who deserve mockery and objurgation?

Do they enjoy watching a man enact such degrading psychodrama so as to diminish his manhood altogether? Does it signify some sort of conclusive triumph over “the Patriarchy?” (And how much of a good thing is that?) Harvard happens to have a Psychology Department, including a PhD program in Clinical Science, Social Psychology, and Cognition, Brain, and Behavior, under chairman Matthew K. Nock, PhD. His official Harvard bio states: “Nock’s research is aimed at advancing the understanding of why people behave in ways that are harmful to themselves, with an emphasis on suicide and other forms of self-harm. . . to better understand how these behaviors develop, how to predict them, and how to prevent their occurrence.” Perhaps President Garber should ask Dr. Nock to audit LaWhore Vagistan’s upcoming course to see, for instance, how it speaks to the epidemic of transgender violence currently plaguing the USA. We need all the insight we can get.

Read more …

 

 

 

 


Kudu
https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1973996436506214643

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Sep 042025
 
 September 4, 2025  Posted by at 9:35 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , ,  42 Responses »


Cy Twombly Shield of Achilles 1978

 

Trump and Putin Are Closing The Era That Reagan and Gorbachev Began (Lukyanov)
Mr. President, Tear Down These Walls (CTH)
The West Has A Big Problem: It Can’t Stop Lying. Even To Itself (Amar)
The Russiagate Problem (CTH)
Lavrov Demands International Recognition Of Russia’s New Regions (RT)
Russia and Ukraine ‘In Direct Contact’ – Lavrov (RT)
Trump Announces Call With Zelensky (RT)
Germany’s Merz Demands ‘Economic Exhaustion’ of Russia (RT)
German Elections Thrown Into ‘Immense Chaos’ After AfD Deaths Rise To 7 (ZH)
EU Accelerating Toward Collapse (Kolbe)
Trump Escalates Tariff Fight To Supreme Court, Seeks Expedited Review (ZH)
White House Has Backup Strategy If Trump’s Tariffs Are Overturned: Bessent (ET)
Farage Vows Mass Deportations in UK (Salgado)
Epstein Files Drop: The Left’s Trump Smear Campaign Just Collapsed (Margolis)
Epstein Victims Hold a Strange Press Conference in Washington, DC (CTH)
Gabbard Unloads With Both Barrels on Brennan and Clapper (Adams)

 

 

https://twitter.com/Jingjing_Li/status/1963155920076316690

List
https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1963251546386259984

pop

 

 

 

 

100
https://twitter.com/mcafeenew/status/1963030553206096288

 

 

 

 

“Reagan and Gorbachev were unwitting midwives of the liberal order. Trump and Putin are its gravediggers. Where the earlier summits opened the Cold War’s endgame, today’s dialogue marks the close of the post-Cold War era.”

Trump and Putin Are Closing The Era That Reagan and Gorbachev Began (Lukyanov)

“There won’t be a war, but the struggle for peace will be so intense that not a stone will be left standing.” This old Soviet joke, born in the 1980s, captured the absurdity of that final Cold War decade: endless ideological cannon fire, nuclear arsenals on hair-trigger alert, and proxy wars fought on the margins. Between détente in the early 1970s and perestroika in the late 1980s, the world lived in a state of permanent tension – half-theater, half-tragedy. The Soviet leadership was old and exhausted, barely able to maintain the status quo. Across the ocean, the White House was run by a former actor, blunt and self-confident, with a taste for gallows humor. When Ronald Reagan quipped during a sound check in 1984 that he had “signed legislation outlawing Russia forever” and that “bombing begins in five minutes,” the off-air joke was truer to the spirit of the times than any prepared speech.

The official Soviet slogan was “the struggle for peace.” In Russian, it carried a deliberate ambiguity – both a promise to preserve peace and an assertion of global control. By the 1980s it had lost all meaning, becoming a cliché mouthed without conviction. Yet history has a way of circling back. Today, the “struggle for peace” has returned – and this time the stakes are even greater. By the late 1980s, both superpowers were tired. The USSR was struggling to carry the burden; the US, shaken by the crises of the 1970s, was looking for renewal. Leadership changes in Moscow – above all, Mikhail Gorbachev’s rise – triggered the most dramatic shift in world affairs since 1945. Between Geneva in 1985 and Malta in 1989, Reagan and Gorbachev held summit after summit. Their aim was to end confrontation and build a “new world order.”

In reality, Washington and Moscow understood that phrase very differently. The Soviet Union’s growing internal weakness tilted the balance of power, leaving the United States and its allies to design the order in their own image. The result was the liberal international system that has dominated ever since. That struggle for peace was, in Western terms, a success: the military threat receded, the Cold War ended, and the United States emerged as global hegemon. Four decades later, the cycle has turned. The Alaska meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in August 2025 carried faint echoes of Reagan and Gorbachev’s first encounters. Then, as now, two leaders with little mutual understanding recognized the need to keep talking. Then, as now, the personal factor mattered – the chemistry between two men who respected each other’s strength.

But the differences outweigh the parallels. Reagan and Gorbachev were unwitting midwives of the liberal order. Trump and Putin are its gravediggers. Where the earlier summits opened the Cold War’s endgame, today’s dialogue marks the close of the post-Cold War era. The resemblance lies only in timing: both moments represent turns of the historical spiral. The 1980s saw exhaustion on both sides. Now it is the United States, not Russia, that shows fatigue with a world order it once dominated. The demand for change comes above all from within America itself, just as it came from Soviet society in the 1980s. Trump consciously borrows Reagan’s slogan of “peace through strength.” In English it is straightforward; in Russian the phrase can also mean “peace maintained reluctantly, against one’s will.” Both shades of meaning suit Trump.

He makes no secret of his obsession with winning the Nobel Peace Prize, a vanity project that nevertheless reflects a real instinct: his method of diplomacy is raw pressure, even threats, until a deal is struck. Reagan’s legacy was to put America on the neoliberal path and to preside over the Cold War’s end, unintentionally becoming the father of globalization. Trump’s ambition is to roll globalization back and replace it with what he sees as a stronger America – not isolationist, but a magnet pulling in advantage from all directions. To achieve that, he too needs a world order – different from Reagan’s, but just as central to his sense of national interest. Putin’s outlook is the mirror opposite. Where Trump sees America first, Putin sees the necessity of reshaping the global order itself – of ending the period of US dominance and forcing a multipolar settlement. To him, the issue of world order is not cosmetic but existential.

Read more …

No, not Reagan and Gorbachev cont’d. Sundance is talking here about the walls that separate different parts (silo’s) of the intel communnity. There are many.

Mr. President, Tear Down These Walls (CTH)

How is it that an insignificant corner of the internet could predict the removal of the U.S. National Security Advisor, specifically as the first administration official to be removed, more than two months before Donald Trump was sworn in as President on January 20, 2025? To understand the complexity of the intelligence information flow, consider: The silo system is made up, in part, of:

The National Security Council (10+ desks, 15 staff/analysts per), the National Security Advisor to the Office of the President, the Dept of Justice National Security Division [DOJ-NSD (foreign review section, counterintelligence export control section, cyber section, counterterrorism section)], Central Intelligence Agency [(CIA), National Intelligence Council, Directorate of Analysis], Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI (Counterintelligence, Counterterrorism, WMD Directorate, Directorate of Intelligence, Cyber)], the Office of the Director of National Intelligence [ODNI (Requirements, Analysis, Collection, National Counterterrorism Center, Mission Managers)], the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the Dept of Defense [DoD, (Nuclear, Chemical, Biological, Industrial, International)], the National Security Agency [NSA (Operations, Technology, Cyber], and many more.

Each agency/office is a silo, with distinct sub-silos, each with equity stakes in the information they gather, review and analyze; ultimately attributing classification level and intersecting analysis with each other agency as mission aligned. Sound ridiculous? It probably is, yet we’ve merely scratched the surface of the networks and information flows that swirl around the Office of the President. How does President Trump frame his world view? Who organizes the information that is prioritized to reach his desk? It is very easy to say, “President Trump has to know about (fill_in_blank),” without contemplating the process by which President Trump would know about (fill_in_blank). The recent remarks by President Trump, surrounding COVID-19 vaccine efficacy, should put a spotlight on this consequential dynamic.

We were all very pleased to see President Trump announce the newly formed President’s Intelligence Advisory Board (PIAB), because for more than a decade we have watched how intelligence products were manipulated, shaped and constructed to create the illusion of something that was entirely false. However, we should note the same process of selecting the PIAB membership led to the previous issue of selecting former Congressman Mike Waltz as National Security Advisor. In that example, CTH predicted what would happen several months before it actually happened. There are issues of great DC interest that overlay all names and positions within the Trump administration. The subsequent behavior of NSA appointee Mike Waltz was a great reminder that sometimes those interests or judgements are not in alignment with the common MAGA priority.

Big international policy issues, like support for Israel, Ukraine support, NATO support and opinions on the threat Russia or China represents, are all part of the prism through which White House personnel references are traditionally made. When intended policy runs counter to personal ideology, conflicts arise. The policies of Wall St -vs- Main St, banking regulations, reciprocal tariffs, trade fairness, cryptocurrency and foundational economic nationalism can be challenging to align with the perspectives of the professional political class, in DC. The aspect of there being “trillions at stake” applies here, and being an outsider in DC generally comes down to financial interests and financial relationships. Then you run into the issues of the surveillance state, FISA (702) support, data collection and artificial intelligence.

In short, the interests of maintaining the status quo inside Washington DC, which may be interests carried by those in the orbit of President Trump, can stop information from reaching President Trump. As a consequence, cutting through the enmeshed interests with obvious, albeit painful truth, means delivering critical information in such a manner that, well, it cannot be refuted. We hope this is also the goal of those who have recently been outlining the background of Russiagate. However, given a history of inaction, and the stakes at hand, nothing should be taken for granted. What’s needed is a full spectrum outing of everything that took place throughout the targeting of President Trump.

Read more …

“The desperate search for a “Russian footprint” in the murder of Ukrainian politician Andrey Parubiy is a symptom of terminal self-delusion.”

The West Has A Big Problem: It Can’t Stop Lying. Even To Itself (Amar)

Power and truth are not natural allies. Indeed, every person and institution – be it a government, a company, a university, or a “think tank” – tends to lie more as they become more powerful. And those who stay weak – have no illusions – must lie, too. Otherwise they’d get trampled even worse by the powerful. The truth may well set us free, as Christ told us. But then, hardly anyone is free in this world. Yet there are real differences. Differences that matter. For instance, with regard to the question of who you can trust a little more or should trust even less. Not to speak of another, often crucial issue: Who can one support or be in solidarity with, even if usually only conditionally? One thing should be clear to anyone not perma-brainwashed out of their mind:

The worst – by far – spreader of propaganda, disinformation, fake news, call it what you wish, is the West. Easily, hands down, no contest. Examples to illustrate this simple fact so little acknowledged – in the West, that is – could be adduced ad infinitum and over centuries. From, say, selling the bloody sacking of a fellow Christian capital in 1204 as a “fourth crusade,” to spreading “free trade” and “civilization” by waging a campaign of war and opiate mass poisoning on the oldest empire and civilization around in the mid-nineteenth century, to “liberating” Libya from a functioning state, decent standards of living, and, really, a future in 2011. It makes sense that George Orwell was English and had served the British Empire as a lowly enforcer among its victims in what we now call the Global South: No one competes with the sheer, habitual, deeply ingrained “Orwellianism” of the West.

Its most recent – but certainly not the last – horrific peak performance is, of course, co-perpetrating the Gaza genocide with Israel and calling it yet another fight against “terror” or “self-defense,” while smearing those who resist as “antisemites” and “terrorists.” There is an aspect of this intense and unremitting Western addiction to lying that should not be overlooked because it plays a key role in making Western disinformation so persistently toxic: The West never acknowledges, corrects, or regrets its fake news, at least not while doing so would still make a difference. Bewailing, for instance, the “mistake” – really, enormous crime – of the Vietnam War? Maybe, a little, if there’s a self-pitying (Rambo I, Platoon, Full Metal Jacket) or squarely delusional (Rambo II) movie in it that sells.

Admitting, on the other hand, that the “Maidan Sniper Massacre” of 2014 was a mass-murderous false-flag operation conducted by ruthless Ukrainian nationalists and fascists, such as, prominently, the recently assassinated Andrey Parubiy? Definitely not. Never mind the painstakingly detailed, conclusive studies of Ukrainian-Canadian scholar Ivan Katchanovski, which are easily available as an open-access book from one of the world’s most reputable academic publishers. Because if the West were to recognize this fact, a keystone of the edifice of lies erected to justify its cynical and devastating use of Ukraine in a failed proxy war against Russia would crumble: the silly conceit that the regime change operation of 2014 was “democratic,” “from below,” and soaked in national “dignity.”

Instead we’d have to face the reality of subversion, manipulation, and the betrayal of a nation to the West’s geopolitics, which is mercilessly cruel as well as bunglingly incompetent. And then, what next: Admitting that Russia was indeed provoked, for over three decades? That the Ukrainian far right is powerful and dangerous: a hotchpotch of white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and assorted other fascists which the West has “normalized” and armed beyond their wildest dreams? That Ukraine’s leader Vladimir Zelensky is a corrupt authoritarian with a dependency problem?

Read more …

“A thunder shock is needed to break down the wall of lies that surrounds the framework of plausible deniability.”

The Russiagate Problem (CTH)

According to John Solomon speaking with Devin Nunes recently, there is likely nothing much left from the files of Kash Patel at the FBI to disclose to the public, perhaps moving to the Mueller information will be the next steps.nFor most of us, bringing this storyline to the point of accountability is fraught with frustration. Here are some of the issues as they present.

The Big Problem Within Russiagate – Special Counsel John Durham previously indicted Hillary Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann. Durham said Sussmann misled FBI investigators. The case against Sussmann resulted in an acquittal. During the trial of the Perkins Coie lawyer, depositions and testimony were given by the Clinton campaign. Campaign Manager Robby Mook admitted the Trump-Russia storyline was a false political hit constructed by the Clinton campaign and launched with the full knowledge of Hillary Clinton. Durham’s case against Sussmann was predicated on a baseline that the Clinton campaign duped the FBI into opening an investigation. This was the core of the Sussmann trial; that Michael Sussmann lied to and misled the FBI. Anyone who researched the issues already knew the FBI was not “duped” or “misled” by the information; instead, the FBI were active participants.

However, to make a case against Perkins Coie, Sussmann and Clinton, the Durham prosecution needed to pretend they didn’t know. The jury saw through the pretense and Sussmann was acquitted. At the time of the trial a few of us noted the motive presented by Durham (ie. FBI duped) had ramifications. This predicate claim essentially quashed any later criminal conspiracy as the court records highlighting how the FBI were duped would preclude any reversal of motive toward any other participant. If the FBI were duped, how could the FBI participants be criminally negligent? The Clinton team were direct. Yes, they manufactured a political smear about Trump/Russia, and yes it was all political. The people who manufactured the false claim admitted Trump-Russia was optics and false narratives. So, what? That’s politics.

The fact that the MSM did not emphasize the Clinton campaign admissions does not negate the Clinton campaign admissions, and the Durham framing of motive toward duping the FBI gave the FBI people the ‘out’. The recently released Durham annex showed the Russians were aware of the Clinton operation. The Clinton team admitted the operation, and the jury acquittal of Sussmann highlighted their opinion the FBI were not duped. That was/is the status.Against the backdrop of Clinton team essentially saying, ‘yeah, we did it’ – where is the conspiracy? From the govt perspective, the FBI investigated the political matter, then handed it to Robert Mueller who affirmed there was no Trump-Russia collusion – again, where’s the conspiracy? Boil it down. This is the factual reality facing any current effort by Main Justice to bring the narrative engineers to a position of legal accountability.

Was there criminal activity? I would argue, yes. In both the leaking of classified information to media (McCabe, Comey, Wolfe, McCord) and in the lying to the FISA court (Carter Page warrant). However, the FISA court doesn’t seem to care about the lying (for a host of reasons), including the wrist-slap to Kevin Clinesmith, and every time the leaking to the media was made an issue the DOJ declined to prosecute.The Mueller probe was used to give a patina of credibility to the false premise of Russiagate while they pursued an unspoken obstruction effort against President Trump. Weissmann wanted President Trump to obstruct a criminal investigation of Trump that was not going to find criminal activity done by Trump.

Like Clinton’s Russiagate, the Mueller investigation was built upon fraud. When asked by congress why Mueller never identified Clinton as the origin of the Russiagate matter, Robert Mueller said “it was not in my purview” to investigate Clinton’s activity. We all watched it unfold live. Everything about the Russiagate narrative and subsequent Mueller probe was built on a foundation of lies and DC corruption, and worse yet – a significant portion of the American people bought into the fraud which is still maintained because a duplicitous corporate media apparatus refuses to admit it. In many ways the Donald Trump political targeting had a similar outcome to the targeting of George Zimmerman. Both were/are transparently innocent of the accusations against them. Both were framed by false narratives sold for political benefit. However, approximately half of the American people still believe the lies despite the clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

I strongly doubt anything can change the minds of those who believe Trayvon Martin was a teenage victim walking in the rain for Skittles and tea. Leaders in government participated in selling that lie, just like the govt participated in selling the lie of Trump-Russia collusion. Additional messaging, information releases, granular rehashing of details etc. is not going to change the dynamic. A thunder shock is needed to break down the wall of lies that surrounds the framework of plausible deniability. The cornerstone upon which Russiagate was built, was a system of surveillance and spying exploited by a corrupt President Obama administration. If we truly want to confront “Russiagate”, we need to strike directly at the heart of why Obama supported it. More very soon…

Read more …

“These conditions were spelled out in Ukraine’s 1990 Declaration of Independence, and Russia and the international community used them to recognize Ukrainian statehood..”

Lavrov Demands International Recognition Of Russia’s New Regions (RT)

Ukraine must recognize its territorial losses, guarantee the rights of the Russian-speaking population, and agree to a security arrangement that poses no threat to Moscow, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said. In an interview with the Indonesian newspaper Kompas released on Wednesday, Lavrov signaled that Russia is open to talks with Ukraine, but noted that a “durable peace” is only possible if Moscow’s territorial gains — including Crimea, the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, Kherson Region and Zaporozhye Region — are “recognized and formalized in an international legal manner.” The regions overwhelmingly voted to join Russia in public referendums in 2014 and 2022. Lavrov further asserted that peace hinges on “eradicating the underlying cause” of the conflict, which stems from NATO’s expansion and “attempts to drag Ukraine into this aggressive military bloc.”

“Ukraine’s neutral, non-aligned, and nuclear-free status must be ensured. These conditions were spelled out in Ukraine’s 1990 Declaration of Independence, and Russia and the international community used them to recognize Ukrainian statehood,” the foreign minister said. Another cornerstone of a potential settlement is Kiev’s promise to ensure human rights. At present, Kiev “is exterminating everything connected with Russia, Russians, and Russian-speaking people, including the Russian language, culture, traditions, canonical Orthodoxy, and Russian-language media,” he said. He added that Ukraine “is the only country where the use of the language spoken by a significant portion of the population has been outlawed.”

Since the Western-backed coup in Kiev in 2014, Ukraine has taken steps to sever centuries-old cultural ties with its larger neighbor through legislation outlawing statues and symbolism associated with the country’s past and by phasing out the Russian language in all spheres of life. Kiev is also cracking down on the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC), the largest Christian denomination in the country, which it accuses of maintaining links to Moscow, despite the church declaring a break with Russia in 2022. Ukraine has also rejected any territorial concessions to Russia and continues to pursue its aspiration of joining NATO.

Read more …

“Each side presented its perspective on the prerequisites for ending the conflict. The heads of the delegations remain in direct contact. We expect the negotiations to continue..”

For now, this is only about “prisoner exchanges and the repatriation of the bodies of dead soldiers.”.

Russia and Ukraine ‘In Direct Contact’ – Lavrov (RT)

Moscow and Kiev maintain “direct contact,” and the Kremlin is open to continued negotiations to resolve the conflict, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said. In an interview with the Indonesian newspaper Kompas released on Wednesday, Lavrov confirmed that Moscow’s top priority remains settling the crisis via peaceful means, adding that it is taking concrete steps to achieve that goal. Lavrov recalled that Moscow initiated the resumption of direct Russia-Ukraine talks this spring, resulting in three rounds of direct negotiations in Istanbul, Türkiye. He noted that the sides reached “certain progress,” including prisoner exchanges and the repatriation of the bodies of dead soldiers.

“Each side presented its perspective on the prerequisites for ending the conflict. The heads of the delegations remain in direct contact. We expect the negotiations to continue,” Lavrov added, without providing details regarding when the next round of talks could be expected, or what issues would be on the agenda. The foreign minister also noted that Russia and Ukraine had held talks early on in the conflict, which led to preliminary agreements on ending the hostilities, “but then the Kiev regime, following the advice of its Western handlers, walked away from a peace treaty, choosing instead to continue the war.” Moscow earlier accused then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson of derailing the peace process by advising Kiev to keep fighting. Johnson has denied the claim.

Lavrov stressed, however, that a durable peace between Moscow and Kiev “is impossible without eradicating the underlying causes of the conflict,” most notably the threats posed to Russia’s security by “NATO’s expansion and attempts to drag Ukraine into this aggressive military bloc.” “These threats must be eliminated, and a new system of security guarantees for Russia and Ukraine must be formed,” the minister said. Moscow earlier did not rule out Western security guarantees for Kiev, but on condition that they should not be “one-sided” and aimed at containing Russia. Russia has, in particular, opposed the deployment of Western troops to Ukraine under any pretext, arguing that this would be tantamount to moving NATO’s bases towards its borders.

Read more …

“I have no message to President Putin. He knows where I stand, and he’ll make his decision one way or the other…”

Trump Announces Call With Zelensky (RT)

Editor’s note: a previous report stated that President Trump would hold a call with President Putin. US President Donald Trump will hold a phone call with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky, the White House has said, clarifying earlier remarks that suggested Trump was referring to his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin.Asked by reporters on Wednesday about the two-week deadline Trump gave Putin to meet with Zelensky, the US leader said he would hold talks “with him” in the coming days to discuss steps toward resolving the Ukraine conflict.“I’m having a conversation with him very shortly and I’ll know pretty much what we’re going to be doing,” Trump stated. A White House official later told AFP that Trump was referring to Zelensky. “They will be speaking tomorrow,” the official said.

Zelensky and European leaders said earlier in the day that they expected a call from Trump on Thursday. “We’ve already taken strong action, as you know, and in other ways as well. I’ll be talking to him in the coming days, and we’ll see what comes out of it,” Trump added. Trump has sought to end the Ukraine conflict since returning to the White House earlier this year. He held a summit with Putin in Alaska last month. The three-hour talks marked a diplomatic breakthrough, though they produced neither a ceasefire nor a formal peace deal. Trump later met with Zelensky and several European leaders, urging direct talks between Putin and Zelensky. He warned he could impose sanctions and tariffs on both Moscow and Kiev if no progress is made in resolving hostilities.

Asked on Wednesday if he had a message for Putin, Trump replied: “I have no message to President Putin. He knows where I stand, and he’ll make his decision one way or the other…” Trump said he has good relations with the Russian president, and that they would find out how strong their relationship is “over the next week or two.” Putin said on Wednesday he sees “a light at the end of the tunnel” in efforts to resolve the conflict. “We’ll see how the situation develops,” he told reporters in Beijing. The Russian leader added he is ready to host Zelensky in Moscow, but noted that the latter’s presidential term had long expired and said the Ukrainian constitution provides no mechanism for extending his powers.

Read more …

“Moscow has expressed skepticism that the West is capable of causing any such outcome.”

“One would think they would not do this or that thing to avoid self-harm. But those dimwits do, pardon my words. Leading world economies are going into a recession just to spite us.”

Germany’s Merz Demands ‘Economic Exhaustion’ of Russia (RT)

Ukraine’s Western backers should accept that military efforts against Russia are failing and should instead focus on undermining its economy, including by sanctioning its trade partners, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Tuesday. Germany remains one of Ukraine’s largest arms suppliers and has pledged long-term backing for Kiev. Despite that support, Russian forces continue to make frontline advances, Merz told the ProSiebenSat.1 media outlet. He argued that the priority should now shift toward intensifying sanctions. “We must ensure that this country, Russia, is no longer able to maintain its war economy,” he said. “In this context, I’m talking about economic exhaustion, which we must help bring about. For example, through tariffs on those who still trade diligently with Russia.”

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova dismissed the comments on Wednesday, writing on Telegram: “Your exhausting rod is not long enough, Herr Merz.” Moscow has touted its resilience to Western sanctions as a hallmark of Russian economic sovereignty and has questioned the logic of politicians who pursue such policies. “Many of the things they do harm themselves,” President Vladimir Putin remarked at a business forum in May. “One would think they would not do this or that thing to avoid self-harm. But those dimwits do, pardon my words. Leading world economies are going into a recession just to spite us.”

Merz’s government plans to cut welfare spending and rely on credit in order to sustain Ukraine aid and increase German military expenditure. The European Union’s biggest economy has shown little growth for years, with no major improvements expected anytime soon. The rejection of Russian pipeline natural gas in an attempt to punish Moscow over the Ukraine conflict has been cited as a major factor in the decline of the competitiveness of German businesses.

Read more …

7 deaths in 2 weeks, and no statement from the AfD?!

German Elections Thrown Into ‘Immense Chaos’ After AfD Deaths Rise To 7 (ZH)

German elections in the western state of North Rhine-Westphalia have been thrown into chaos ahead of a Sept. 14 election – after a spate of candidates for Germany’s right-wing AfD have died in recent weeks – with the total now at seven. And while local authorities say there is no evidence of foul play, officials are now scrambling to shred and reprint ballots as campaigns for the deceased have been suspended. According to Welt, Hans-Joachim Kind, 80, a direct candidate in the Kremenholl district, died of natural causes. There has been no cause of death disclosed for four other candidates in the region that has a population of 18 million – as police told Germany’s DPA news agency that the initial four were either from natural causes, or were not being divulged for over privacy concerns.

Two reserve candidates died following the initial four, followed by the death of Kind. The reserve candidates were René Herford, who had a pre-existing liver condition and died of kidney failure, and Patrick Tietze, who committed suicide. Now, ballots must be reprinted and successors appointed, causing what WELT described as “immense chaos.” AfD co-leader Alice Weidel reposted a claim by retired economist Stefan Homburg that the number of candidates’ deaths was “statistically almost impossible.” AfD deputy state chairman in North Rhine-Westphalia, Kay Gottschalk, told WELT, that “We will, of course, investigate these cases with the necessary sensitivity and care,” however there is “no indication” that this is “murder or anything similar,” as some of the deceased had “pre-existing medical conditions.”

The party – which Germany’s domestic spy agency classified as a ‘right-wing extremist organization’ in May, grew to Germany’s second-largest in February’s federal elections, before pausing that description due to an appeal pending in court. In 2022, AfD polled at just 5.4% in a region that’s home to Germany’s industrial base in the Ruhr valley – and which has suffered steep job losses. Now, the party polled at 16.8% in state federal elections last February, while more recent polls suggest the party could nearly match that today. “Either Germany votes AfD, or it is the end of Germany,” said tech billionaire Elon Musk, who threw his support behind AfD in recent days.

Read more …

“.. the private economy is contracting at 4–5%. Calling this a recession would be euphemistic — we are in a depression.”

EU Accelerating Toward Collapse (Kolbe)

The Chancellor seems to have collided with reality during the summer break. Merz sees the German social system in deep crisis. Meanwhile, his political allies in Brussels are calling for an increase in the very dose of poison that is making Europe sick. Let’s be blunt: Large parts of the political elite have a fractured relationship with reality. This applies equally to the economic decay of Germany and the EU, as well as to the public communication of strategic political goals, which are systematically obscured. Open criticism of the course could cause the political fairy tale to collapse faster than reality seeps into public opinion.All the more remarkable are the warning words of Chancellor Friedrich Merz during his Saturday appearance at the CDU state party conference in Lower Saxony. “I am not satisfied with what we have achieved so far – it must be more, it must be better.”

Hear that! A faint tremor of self-criticism from the Chancellor. Rare, indeed. Yet the statement raises the question: what exactly does Merz mean by “achievements”? Is he referring to the so-called investment booster, supposedly providing marginal relief to the German economy while it teeters on collapse? Or does he mean the massive debt packages and widening financing gaps, most likely to be closed with tax hikes? In his speech in Osnabrück, Merz later spoke unusually clearly about the state of the welfare system: “The welfare state, as we have it today, is no longer financially sustainable given what we can deliver economically.” A blunt diagnosis, leaving little to be desired in clarity. There was, however, no mention of a market-oriented turn, trust in individual solutions, personal responsibility, or rapid bureaucratic reduction. The message seems to be: stay the course.

Merz also spoke unequivocally about citizen welfare payments: it cannot continue like this. 5.6 million people receive the payments. Many could work but do not, he said. A reality that politics usually avoids. A tentative attempt to openly name the precarious state of German social insurance. In times when political sugar-coating is routine, it’s almost a stroke of luck when a leading politician at least partially acknowledges economic realities. Have the latest economic data perhaps shaken Merz and his colleagues in Berlin? GDP shrank again in the second quarter, and the outlook remains bleak. With the state intervening via massive credit programs and new debt hitting about 3.5% this year, the private economy is contracting at 4–5%. Calling this a recession would be euphemistic — we are in a depression.

Read more …

Hard to see the Supreme Court take sides against Trump, but this looks vague enough: “..a 1977 law that authorizes the president to impose necessary economic sanctions during an emergency to combat an “unusual and extraordinary threat..”

Trump Escalates Tariff Fight To Supreme Court, Seeks Expedited Review (ZH)

President Trump has asked the Supreme Court to maintain his tariffs after a lower court invalidated them. “The Federal Circuit’s decision casts doubt upon the President’s most significant economic and foreign-affairs policy—a policy that implicates sensitive, ongoing foreign negotiations and urgent national-security concerns,” wrote Solicitor General D. John Sauer in the DOJ’s Supreme Court petition, which has yet to be publicly docketed but was obtained by The Hill. Last week the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit struck down most of Trump’s tariffs in a 7-4 decision – finding that the president can’t use emergency powers to enact levies on various trading partners.

The admin has asked the SCOTUS to expedite their review – and has asked for an announcement by next Wednesday as to whether the highest court in the land will take up the dispute and schedule oral arguments for the first week in November. Several small businesses and Democratic-led states who filed the lawsuit in question say they have no problem with the Supremes taking up the case or the expedited schedule. The tariffs will remain in place until the Supreme Court decides. Trump slapped various significant tariffs on countries around the world – largely doing so by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law that authorizes the president to impose necessary economic sanctions during an emergency to combat an “unusual and extraordinary threat,” The Hill notes.

Citing an emergency over fentanyl, Trump has imposed a series of tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico dating back to February. He later invoked the law for his “Liberation Day” tariffs, citing an emergency over trade deficits to issue levies on goods from dozens of countries. Trump’s tariffs face roughly a dozen lawsuits across the country. The battle at the Supreme Court comes in response to two underlying cases filed by a group of small businesses and Democratic state attorneys general. “Both federal courts that considered the issue agreed that IEEPA does not give the President unchecked tariff authority,” said Liberty Justice Center senior counsel, Jeffrey Schwab, an attorney on the case. “We are confident that our legal arguments against the so- called “Liberation Day” tariffs will ultimately prevail.”

“These unlawful tariffs are inflicting serious harm on small businesses and jeopardizing their survival. We hope for a prompt resolution of this case for our clients.” The Trump administration, meanwhile, has warned the courts not to second-guess his decision as it will undermine his ability to use tariffs as leverage in negotiating trade deals.

Read more …

“..we’ll be interested in seeing whether the Treasury market comes under any further pressure if the US has to hand back already received tariff revenues..”

White House Has Backup Strategy If Trump’s Tariffs Are Overturned: Bessent (ET)

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the White House has plenty of tools at its disposal to implement President Donald Trump’s global tariffs if the Supreme Court does not uphold his use of a 1977 emergency powers law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled 7–4 on Aug. 29 against the current administration’s decision to invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as justification for levies on foreign goods unveiled in April. The court’s decision does not take effect until Oct. 14, allowing the White House ample time to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. The IEEPA grants the president broad authority to regulate international economic transactions—regulating imports and exports, freezing foreign assets, or halting financial transactions—after declaring a national emergency.

In a Labor Day interview with Reuters, Bessent stated that while he is confident the high court will uphold the president’s reciprocal tariff agenda, the administration has various options available. “I’m confident the Supreme Court … will uphold the president’s authority to use IEEPA. And there are lots of other authorities that can be used—not as efficient, not as powerful,” Bessent said. He referred to Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, also known as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. It contains a trade provision that authorizes the president to impose new tariffs or additional duties of up to 50 percent on foreign products entering the United States for a period of five months if they are determined to threaten domestic commerce.

Bessent said he is planning a legal brief for the U.S. Solicitor General to highlight the urgency of stopping the flow of fentanyl into the country. Pointing to the approximately 70,000 fentanyl-linked deaths per year in the United States, he questioned what would be considered an emergency. “If this is not a national emergency, what is?“ he said. ”When can you use IEEPA if not for fentanyl?”

The senior administration official also intends to argue that persistent trade imbalances will ultimately reach a critical threshold, triggering more immense consequences for the U.S. economy.“We’ve had these trade deficits for years, but they keep getting bigger and bigger,” he said. “We are approaching a tipping point … so preventing a calamity is an emergency.” The last time the United States registered a trade surplus was in 1975. In July, the U.S. goods trade deficit widened by $18.7 billion to $103.6 billion, the largest gap in four months. Imports rose by more than 7 percent to $281.5 billion while exports dipped 0.1 percent to $178 billion.

Long-term U.S. Treasury yields popped on Sept. 2, driven by concerns that the federal government will be forced to repay tariff income and forego potentially trillions of dollars in tariff revenues. Yields on the 20- and 30-year government bonds surged about 5 basis points to around 4.92 percent and 4.98 percent, respectively. “Global trading partners will no doubt find it premature to be celebrating just yet, but we’ll be interested in seeing whether the Treasury market comes under any further pressure if the US has to hand back already received tariff revenues,” ING economists said in a Sept. 1 note. In this fiscal year, the federal government has collected $183.1 billion in tariff revenues, including $31 billion in August.

Read more …

He sees a way to win.

Farage Vows Mass Deportations in UK (Salgado)

Nigel Farage, who aims to be the prime minister of Great Britain, has promised to deport all of the illegal aliens in the UK if he comes to power. “I will deport every single one of them, and that’ll win me the election,” the British politician, head of Reform UK, declared on American television. Unfortunately, because Britain has a parliamentary system, it is even more difficult to vote bad people out of office and good people into power there than it is in America. Farage cannot simply win an election to become prime minister the same way Americans elect their president. However, if Farage does somehow succeed in taking power, he has some ambitious plans for reclaiming his country from the waves of mass migration that threaten to overwhelm it.

Farage went on Sean Hannity’s show on Fox News to discuss his goals and strategies for winning elections. And he is certain that mass deportations are a winning message for British voters tired of taking a backseat to violent foreigners. Hannity asked Farage, “One of the biggest issues you are debating is one that Donald Trump ran on here, and he has followed through on. He has secured our southern border. He is deporting criminal aliens. Over a million and a half illegal immigrants have left the country since he’s become president. Tell me what your platform would be on immigration, and do you believe that is the winning formula for you to be the next prime minister and live at 10 Downing Street?”

Farage immediately answered, “Young men come into our country on small dinghies across the English Channel. They throw their passports and iPhones into the sea when they reach the 12 mile line, they come in. They get put in four star hotels. They get three meals a day. And you know what? We don’t know who they are. They pose a threat to our national security. I will deport every single one of them, and that’ll win me the election, oh yes.” Unfortunately, the current UK government just won its court appeal to allow a horde of asylum seekers — that is, unvetted illegal aliens — to remain in an infamous Epping hotel at taxpayer expense. The hotel became a focal point of protests after one of the supposed “asylum seekers” faced accusations of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. Slogans at the protest, which drew thousands of people, included “save our kids” and “send them home.”

Labour Member of Parliament Bridget Phillipson responded to a question as to whether she thought the supposed rights of the illegal aliens were more important than the rights of the local citizens in Epping, and said, “Yes, of course we do.” I suppose she gets points for honesty, but not for anything else. Unfortunately, most of the rest of the UK government seems to agree with her. Hopefully, Farage can indeed successfully inspire such a popular movement in Britain that he and his party will ride to victory in the next election.

Read more …

“..as the Speaker said, there are 34,000 pages — we’re doing everything we can to get those uploaded. We want those to be public as soon as possible.”

Epstein Files Drop: The Left’s Trump Smear Campaign Just Collapsed (Margolis)

Democrats and Republicans have spent weeks demanding the release of the Epstein files. Well, now they’ve got them. House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer confirmed that the long-awaited document dump is officially underway, pledging unprecedented transparency and accountability. “Just to give a quick update: I think everyone knows who we’ve subpoenaed thus far in the initial batch,” Comer said. “We subpoenaed six former Attorneys General as well as Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton.” Comer confirmed that the scope has since expanded to include former Labor Secretary Alex Acosta, who oversaw a controversial plea deal for Epstein years ago. “Acosta is coming in, I believe, September the 16th or 19th,” Comer said. “We’ve got that date down. I know that we’ll have a lot of questions for him with respect to an earlier Epstein prosecution that he was involved in when he was U.S. Attorney.”

The chairman also revealed that tens of thousands of pages of records are now in the committee’s possession. “We have the documents — the initial batch that had been sent by the White House. As you know, we also subpoenaed Pam Bondi for those documents. The White House is working with us — I want to publicly thank the White House for turning over so many documents thus far,” he explained. “We’re in the process of uploading those documents for full transparency, so everyone in America can see them,” Comer said. “As quick as we can get them uploaded — as the Speaker said, there are 34,000 pages — we’re doing everything we can to get those uploaded. We want those to be public as soon as possible.” Those pages have since been released.

Comer stressed that the investigation is far from over. “We’re gonna continue to bring in more people. We learned of some additional names today. We’re gonna do everything we can to give the American public the transparency they seek, as well as provide accountability in memory of the victims who have already passed away, as well as those that were in the room, and many others who haven’t come forward.”Comer noted that the committee’s most recent session was remarkably unified. “This was a two-and-half hour discussion. It was as bipartisan as anything I’ve seen in the nine years I’ve been here,” he said. “I appreciate the Speaker for giving us the authority to seek out everything that I think you all want, and the people that I talk to, as I travel America, want. We’re going to do everything we can to get the answers and to do it as soon as possible.”

For years, Democrats quietly hoped they could weaponize the Epstein saga into a Trump scandal, and have failed repeatedly. But with Comer’s committee now unloading tens of thousands of pages for the world to see, that narrative is dead on arrival. Democrats never released the files when they controlled Congress or the White House. Why not? Let’s face it, for the left, this document dump is a gut punch. The smears collapse in the daylight, and the only people with reason to sweat now are the Democrats’ longtime allies connected to Epstein.

Read more …

A press conference to -not- talk about what they’ve been barred from talking about.

Epstein Victims Hold a Strange Press Conference in Washington, DC (CTH)

Twice the Trump DOJ has asked the courts to permit the release of names associated with the case against Jeffrey Epstein and the victims of sex trafficking therein. Twice the courts have denied the Trump administration the ability to release the sealed Grand Jury records. [August 20th] and [July 23rd] Most of the various victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking operation have previously been paid victim compensation amid various lawsuits including a substantial $290 million financial settlement from JPMorgan Bank in 2023, one of the financial institutions used by Epstein. These lawsuits resulted in what has been reported as ‘various non-disclosure agreements’ (NDAs), which the victims signed.

After the DOJ and congress has released all of the available files, and with various courts refusing to break the seals on names and files within grand jury records, and against the background of multiple victims receiving considerable previous compensation, a group of Epstein victims held a press conference in Washington, DC today demanding the sealed names and NDA covered names be released. The victims would not, most likely because they legally cannot, discuss the names; but they did say they would compile another private list of names of the people to whom they were trafficked. What the purpose of that private list would be is unknown. The entire thing now seems really weird. WATCH:

Some have claimed a comprehensive list of the names in grand jury files or prior lawsuits would include Donald Trump. However, it seems ridiculous to make that assertion given the profile of President Trump in 2016 and 2024. If there was any risk to President Trump, the Clinton campaign would have exploited that vulnerability during the height of the MeToo movement in 2016. Assuredly, even without Clinton, the Kamala Harris campaign would have used that narrative in 2024. Neither political opposition effort ever engaged in such a claim. The Occam’s Razor review of the current state of Epstein victims’ status, is one that points toward extortion. The victims having previously signed agreements, would be at legal risk to violate their various NDAs. However, for the purposes of structuring a political narrative, there are likely revenue sources willing to fund an ongoing victim narrative.

I suspect the lawyers representing the victims in the video (press conference) are likely compensated by the same entities who fund large domestic political operations. The “Republicans” who align with the intention of the efforts, seem to hold a commonality with the same financial interests behind former Republican candidate Ron DeSantis. The victims now seem more akin to political operatives looking for some kind of secondary payday by maintaining a story they are not legally permitted to advance in specific ways. The victim group continually says they will not name the people to whom they were trafficked, which is strange considering the high visibility of their performance and their obvious demand to release grand jury names that could be settled by their own statements releasing names.

Additionally, their claims of imminent fear do not resonate truthfully against the backdrop of their quite happy presentation. The DC event seems like a leverage game of sorts, with some financial benefit as the goal for the victims. For the DC politicians, perhaps a construct to position themselves for some electoral benefit. All of it rather unseemly. There also appears to be a media management operation happening with the group. MSNBC appearance below:

Read more …

Tulsi risks her public record becoming a broken record. At some point, people want more than “Clapper and Brennan are baddies” every day. They want them indicted.

Gabbard Unloads With Both Barrels on Brennan and Clapper (Adams)

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on Wednesday again decried those working within the government “who believe that they have the right to undermine the duly elected president of the United States because they disagree with his positions or his policies, and that they know better.” In a speech at the National Conservatism Conference in Washington, Gabbard argued that government officials’ “sole focus must be on serving the American people and upholding the Constitution.” In her remarks, Gabbard criticized by name one of her predecessors as director of national intelligence, James Clapper, and former CIA Director John Brennan.

“For me to be here as the eighth director of national intelligence and uncover how James Clapper and others like John Brennan manufactured intelligence to try to undermine President [Donald] Trump’s administration and presidency, and the voices of the American people, and then go back to the founding of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence that came about as a result of the terrorist attack on 9/11 and the manufacturing of intelligence to support the regime-change war in Iraq that George Bush led is an interesting bookend,” the former congresswoman from Hawaii said. Gabbard also decried parts of the surveillance state perpetrated on the American people, contending it was abused by some federal officials. “We’ve seen other examples—those that we know of, there are many others that I believe we don’t yet know of—how leaders in the intelligence community and the FBI knowingly use false information to gain FISA warrants to illegally spy on American citizens,” the ODNI chief said.

“These are just a few of, unfortunately, what is a long list of known examples of politicization and weaponization that all point to the truth that many of us here in this room know, which is that the rot runs deep, and it’s not just in the intelligence community,” she said. “I’ve seen examples of this across almost every federal agency, and so it requires us all to confront the uncomfortable truth that we have these conspiracy conspirators, these traitors to the Constitution, who are working within our government, who dangerously believe that they are not only above the law, but that they are above the Constitution and the Bill of Rights,” Gabbard continued. Gabbard, 44, a former Democrat-turned-Republican, argued that these rogue government employees are hurting the American form of government.

“It undermines our Constitution, our democratic republic, if we have people within our government who are not the president of the United States, who are not elected by the American people, taking it upon themselves to undermine, ultimately, the American people and the Constitution,” she said. The intelligence chief urged a reorientation of American life and governance to pursuing truth. “I’m grateful to serve in this position, grateful to President Trump for entrusting me with this mission to truly seek the truth, find the truth and tell the truth to the American people, so that true accountability and true change, lasting change can come about,” she explained. “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free,” Gabbard concluded, quoting John 8:32 from the Bible.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Box
https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1963165423739732163

Spoonbill

Donkey

Pigs
https://twitter.com/Natie2Natie/status/1963041473945076194

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Aug 312025
 


Edward Hopper Dawn before Gettysburg 1934

 

Europe On Path To War Economy (Kolbe)
Brussels Preparing For A ‘Long War, Not Peace’ – Hunngary (RT)
US Believes EU Blocking Ukraine Peace With ‘Unreasonable‘ Demands – Axios (RT)
Assassinated Ukrainian MP ‘Directly Ordered’ Shelling Of Donbass Civilians (RT)
Deep State in US and EU Criticize Trump Admin for Not Attacking Russia (CTH)
Donald Trump Still Doesn’t Understand Russia’s Position Regarding Ukraine (LJ)
Ukraine Operation Will Continue – Russia’s Top General (RT)
Trump Promises Trilateral Meeting With Putin and Zelensky (RT)
Could Russia Have Joined NATO? (Ryumshin)
NATO Should Have Dissolved in 1990 – Jeffrey Sachs (Sp.)
Can Russia, India, and China Rewrite The Global Rules? (Vaid)
The War On Reality is Over (James Howard Kunstler)
Jay Bhattacharya On Fauci, Bioweapons, And Free Speech In Science (ZH)
To the Parents of Trans Kids: Enabling Isn’t Compassion (C.A. Skeet)
Tariffs ‘Still in Effect’: Trump Bashes Partisan Court Ruling (Salgado)
Tensions in US Intelligence Community Rise After CIA Agent Uncovered (Sp.)

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/DD_Geopolitics/status/1961958655626235998

RFK

Makary
https://twitter.com/TheChiefNerd/status/1961754604560904407

 

 

 

 

Trump is slowly waking up to the fact that his ‘allies’ in Brussels and Kiev want war, while he wants peace. And that they will do anything to organize a false flag to drag him into their war. Beware.

Europe On Path To War Economy (Kolbe)

In Unterlüß, Lower Saxony, Europe’s largest ammunition factory began production yesterday. What started clandestinely is now being publicly scaled with full firepower: the European Union is building its own war economy.In the good old days in Germany, recessions were typically masked by state-funded infrastructure programs. The concept worked as long as the state did not overgrow, overregulate, or force the private sector into a destructive ideological agenda, as is the case with the green transformation. In other words: the economy was always able to clear away the debris left behind by the state.In Southern Europe, where the state’s role has traditionally been high, monetary policy generous, and handling of public funds notoriously lax, this policy left nothing but infrastructure ruins and industrial wastelands. Local economies were never able to productively absorb the artificial credit distributed by Brussels.

The fatal consequences of this pseudo-boom still shape the landscape today.For economic historians, present-day Europe has long been a fascinating study object. Crisis followed crisis, with the public sector intervening each time with increasing volume. The attempt to install the Green Deal, a Keynesian pseudo-economy, must be understood in this context. That Germany’s defense company Rheinmetall yesterday launched Europe’s largest ammunition plant in Unterlüß fits into this narrative.The company invested half a billion euros to provide an annual capacity of up to 350,000 rounds by 2027. 500 new jobs are to be created, celebrated by politicians as a turning point and the beginning of a pan-European defense architecture.Rheinmetall CEO Armin Papperger expressed satisfaction:

“It was not easy for us to invest half a billion without orders. I am very grateful to you”—the words were directed at Defense Minister Pistorius—“for keeping your handshake agreements. You are a man of word and deed.” A heavy dose of pathos and self-congratulation is evident here—politics and the defense industry are long intertwined.Of course, this is only half the truth. Beyond the usual behind-the-scenes deals, politics has made it clear that it is ready to mobilize all means to build a German defense industry and provide sector companies with guarantees and subsidies where necessary. Big business, no risk.After the collapse of the green economy, politics is now betting everything on the next pseudo-economy. The aim is to loosen dependence on America while exploiting the media spin that stylized Vladimir Putin’s Russia over years as a potential European invader.

Whether this fear campaign will work in the long term remains to be seen.Given the deep economic depression in which Germany and large parts of the EU are stuck, the general war fatigue, and social fractures in core EU states like Germany and France, it is clear that despite the reinstatement of conscription, most citizens will rigorously reject military engagement.A glance at EU public finances alone is enough to recognize that a war against Russia is political madness. France, with a debt-to-GDP ratio of 115%, is days away from a confidence vote on the new austerity budget. Bond markets are already punishing these bankrupt states. The signs point to savings, not bellicose adventures.It is absurd in this situation—where Germany has almost fully spent the so-called Bundeswehr special fund of €100 billion and now switches to borrowing mode—to accelerate this path.

Yet Brussels, Berlin, Paris, and London are serious. In fall 2026, Rheinmetall plans to launch its next plant in Weeze, producing fuselage components for the F-35 fighter jet. Cost: €200 million, this time directly publicly funded.Defense factories will mushroom in the coming months and years, producing far beyond civilian demand. Germany plans to raise its defense budget to up to 5% of GDP, which will worsen the impoverishment of its population as the private sector already shrinks by 4–5%. A disaster unseen in Europe since the end of the war.A hot conflict with Russia is economically highly unlikely. Yet a new Cold War, a state of continuous armament like before 1990, seems to be Europe’s goal. They are trapped in an absurd economic theory of central planning and command economy. A new power base is forming: a corporatism between the defense industry and the political complex in Brussels.

Germany has clearly been chosen to finance this economic disaster. The country, previously with one of the lowest debt ratios in the EU at 64%, will double its annual defense budget to €162 billion by 2029. By 2027, the special fund will be exhausted, after which loans up to €400 billion will be required. Germany will become an active player in bond markets, where interest rates are already rising. The European Central Bank will have plenty of work to keep the rapidly growing debt pile liquid. The EU will also participate with new funds, EDIP and ASAP (a term bordering on infantilism in this context), contributing €50–70 billion annually to joint defense projects.

Read more …

Hungary has been spot on from day one.

Brussels Preparing For A ‘Long War, Not Peace’ – Hunngary (RT)

The EU is “preparing for a long war” rather than seeking peace in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has said. The European Commission has effectively acted as the “Ukrainian Commission,” prioritizing Kiev’s interests over those of its own member states, he said on X after a meeting of the bloc’s top diplomats in Denmark on Saturday. “At today’s EU foreign ministers’ meeting in Copenhagen it became clear that Brussels and most member states are preparing for a long war, not peace. They want to send tens of billions of euros to Ukraine for soldiers’ salaries, drones, weapons, and the operation of the Ukrainian state,” Szijjarto said. “There was huge pressure for the fast-tracked EU accession of Ukraine, new sanctions on Russian energy,” as well as to provide €6 billion ($7 billion) more to arm Ukraine, he added.

The EU Commission once again acted as a Ukrainian Commission, serving Kiev’s interests over those of member states.The European Commission entirely ignores “Hungarians in Transcarpathia and our energy security, still refusing to answer the joint letter we sent with Slovakia on Ukraine endangering our supply route,” Szijjarto said. Already strained ties between Kiev and Budapest recently deteriorated further after multiple Ukrainian attacks on the Druzhba oil pipeline, a key conduit that carries Russian and Kazakh crude to Slovakia and Hungary. Budapest has also accused Kiev of violating the rights of ethnic Hungarians in Ukraine’s Transcarpathia region.

Hungary has refused to send weapons to Kiev and has criticized Brussels for imposing sanctions on Moscow. It has also opposed Ukraine’s membership in both NATO and the EU.Meanwhile, the EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, promised to further arm Ukraine and “increase pressure on Russia,” in remarks made after Saturday’s foreign ministers’ meeting. Moscow has long condemned Western military support of Kiev in the conflict, which it views as a NATO proxy war. Russia has also criticized the EU’s growing militarization and increasingly bellicose rhetoric. Western European leaders “are once again trying to prepare Europe for war – not some hybrid war, but a real war against Russia,” Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in July.

Read more …

Awareness can be a slow process.

US Believes EU Blocking Ukraine Peace With ‘Unreasonable‘ Demands – Axios (RT)

The White House believes certain European governments are quietly obstructing efforts to end the Ukraine conflict by encouraging Kiev to push for unrealistic demands, despite publicly endorsing President Donald Trump’s peace initiative, Axios has reported. Trump administration officials are increasingly frustrated with what they describe as the EU’s “maximalist” position and its expectations for Washington to shoulder the burden while contributing little themselves, the publication wrote on Saturday. “The Europeans don’t get to prolong this war and backdoor unreasonable expectations, while also expecting America to bear the cost,” an anonymous top US official said. “If Europe wants to escalate this war, that will be up to them. But they will be hopelessly snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.”

“Some of the Europeans continue to operate in a fairy-tale land that ignores the fact it takes two to tango,” another unnamed source said. Trump met Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska this month and later hosted Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky in Washington. He pushed for a lasting peace rather than a ceasefire. He also threatened to impose tariffs and sanctions on both Ukraine and Russia if they failed to make meaningful progress in talks. Trump’s frustration with both Kiev and EU allies has also grown in recent days, according to The Atlantic, which reported that the president now sees Ukraine and its European backers as standing in the way of a negotiated settlement. During private conversations,

Trump has reportedly voiced dissatisfaction over Zelensky’s unwillingness to consider concessions and the EU’s refusal to support what the White House considers a “realistic” outcome. “He just wants this over. It almost doesn’t matter how,” a senior official told The Atlantic, adding that Trump has urged Ukraine to “show some flexibility.” Moscow has long insisted on a peace agreement that eradicates the underlying causes of the conflict. It has demanded that Ukraine maintain neutrality, stay out of NATO and other military blocs, demilitarize and denazify, and accept the new territorial reality – including the status of Crimea, Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, and Zaporozhye as part of Russia – territories that voted to join the country in referendums in 2014 and 2022.

Read more …

“Parubiy and his team were “working directly with the Jamestown Foundation, a former CIA central think tank in Washington, DC…”

Assassinated Ukrainian MP ‘Directly Ordered’ Shelling Of Donbass Civilians (RT)

Andrey Parubiy, a far-right Ukrainian politician who was shot dead in Lviv on Saturday, directly ordered attacks on Donbass and provoked a “civil war” with eastern Ukraine after the Maidan coup, ex-Ukrainian diplomat Andrey Telizhenko has told RT. Parubiy, an MP and former speaker of the Ukrainian Rada, played an active role in the Western-backed coup in Kiev in 2014, as well as in the nationalist government it brought to power. He had deep and long-running ties to Ukraine’s neo-Nazi movement, co-founding the far-right Social-National Party of Ukraine. “During the cabinet of ministers meetings, [at] which I was present, Parubiy directly ordered the mass shellings of the people of Donbass,” Telizhenko told RT on Saturday.

“He said, ‘We do not care who those people are. Russians, they’re Moscali [a Ukrainian slur for Russians], we should kill them,’” the former diplomat, who was an adviser to Ukraine’s prosecutor general at the time, said. That’s a direct citation from Parubiy during the cabinet of ministers meeting, in which he pushed to provoke the civil war in eastern Ukraine, which has now led to a big massive conflict. Parubiy and his team were “working directly with the Jamestown Foundation, a former CIA central think tank in Washington, DC,” Telizhenko claimed. This is not just a collaborator with the West. He’s a Nazi. He was directly supporting the Nazi movement in Ukraine. According to Telizhenko, Parubiy directly coordinated the shootings during the Maidan coup.

“He was coordinating the radicals on Maidan, when to shoot, who to shoot and how to shoot, even who to shoot [among] their own” and “provoking insurgents within the coup itself,” he said. “His team was responsible for blocking the anti-sniper unit [from] coming to Maidan.” Parubiy “also covered up the shootings” in the subsequent investigation, as well as blocking the probe into the 2014 Odessa massacre, Telizhenko said. “He was responsible for closing down the case and destroying the evidence [of] his involvement in the coordination of that terrorist attack,” he said. The far-right MP was reportedly responsible for organizing, arming, and transporting the militants which burned 42 anti-Maidan activists to death in the Odessa Trade Unions House.

https://twitter.com/Karmabash/status/1961755950551073019

Read more …

“Maybe we make peace, and maybe we don’t. If we do, it will be because Steve Witkoff and the President of the United States worked their tails off, in the face of outright lies from the mainstream press.”

Deep State in US and EU Criticize Trump Admin for Not Attacking Russia (CTH)

Like pathetic children who demand that Daddy Trump step into the chaos and punch Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin in the face, the EU leaders admit to media they coordinated and collaborated on using social media to decry the latest missile attacks from Russia. According to their staff, who reported to Politico, the intent of the EU social media firestorm was to influence President Donald Trump. Think about how pathetic that is in substance. The Presidents, Prime Ministers and Commissars of the EU collective couldn’t pick up the phone to call President Trump and discuss their position. No, instead their best approach, as organized by the group, was to take to social media and protest. These are not serious people.

“A second European official confirmed that the morning messages were an effort to influence Trump’s thinking, although the person was not optimistic that the attacks would lead Trump to ratchet up the economic pressure on Putin.” The discussion of conflict that began as ‘World War Reddit’, has now devolved even further and becomes a messaging war on teh Twitter. Yeah, these are not serious people. I am reminded of how the White House initially responded to the beginning of the conflict in February 2022: I said at the time, “Singh’s remarks outlining the view of the ‘West’ toward defeating Russia are eloquent yet batshit crazy in their ideological context. Daleep Singh sounds like the senior head of a Google Human Resources operation telling the department heads how they need to convey their feelings in order to hire the talent for continued growth in the industry.”

Deputy National Security Advisor Daleep Singh boils down geopolitical power to a cultural issue of social likeability. Pro Tip: Russian President Vladimir Putin doesn’t care if EU leaders like him. The leadership of the Western NATO alliance and the European Union are reduced to shouting on Twitter, ‘Help us Trump, help us’. Meanwhile, these same leaders wonder why Vladimir Putin doesn’t take them seriously. You just cannot make this stuff up. Germany can mechanize their military and start rolling tanks to the front lines of Ukraine tonight. France can muster 100,000 troops and enter the battlefield by morning. The U.K. can put their fighter jets on the runways in Ukraine by nightfall, and the EU can force the collective nations to send troops into the meatgrinder by the end of the weekend.

Will they? Of course not. Not without President Trump and the full weight of the U.S. military as the skirt they can hide behind. The ‘coalition of the willing’ has limits, and apparently those limits end with strongly clutched Twitter messages. Meanwhile, back in the USA, the professional administrative state is hitting out at President Trump’s Envoy Steve Witkoff for failing to end the conflict or seemingly permit the U.S. Senate to take control of the nuclear weapons. Again, Politico: […] “The thing is, Witkoff isn’t consistently engaged. He will pop in for a visit to Vladimir Putin, say a bunch of stuff, not tell anyone what really happened and then just fuck off to his life again. Meanwhile, the Russians are talking to you about how ‘Witkoff says…’ and you don’t know whether they’re right or not, but you can’t get a readout from the Russians,” the U.S. official said.”

Thankfully, Vice President J.D. Vance and the entire Trump administration hit back: “This story from Politico is journalistic malpractice. But it’s more than that: it’s a foreign influence operation meant to hurt the administration and one of our most effective members.” Notice how all of the people attacking Steve are on background? That means it’s two or three deep staters who are angry that Witkoff has succeeded where they’ve failed. You know what this “reporter” left out to make room for anonymous quotes? The full quote from the sitting vice president, on the record.A quote from the secretary of the state, on the record. A quote from Jared Kushner, on the record. The full quote from the UK’s Jonathan Powell, one of the most respected national security people in the Western World, who defended Steve vigorously from these malicious smears.

The person who wrote this garbage is [@felschwartz]. Aside from the failure to include on the record information directly contradicting her reporting, I wonder if she ever asked herself why these anonymous sources came to her at this moment with this particular story. They have an agenda to blow up the president’s efforts to make peace, and they saw her as a useful vessel to launder garbage into the conversation, truth be damned. There are two possible explanations: Felicia is just not very smart and allowed herself to be used by deep state con men. Or she’s in on it and used her position to willingly participate in a literal foreign influence operation. Either way, it’s disgraceful.

To set the record straight: Steve Witkoff is an invaluable member of our team. He did not mislead anyone on what the Russians told him and what the Russians conceded. (Trust me, I’ve seen the intel.) The fruits of his negotiations are that we have narrowed the list of open issues in the Russia-Ukraine war to a set of clearly defined issues–specifically, security guarantees and territorial concessions. Maybe we make peace, and maybe we don’t. If we do, it will be because Steve Witkoff and the President of the United States worked their tails off, in the face of outright lies from the mainstream press. You know what is driving the Administrative State and the EU collective bananas?

Read more …

Says Larry Johnson. Me, I think he’s catching up fast.

Donald Trump Still Doesn’t Understand Russia’s Position Regarding Ukraine (LJ)

I continue to believe that it is more important to watch what Donald Trump does rather than focus on what he says. However, his remarks during the meeting of his cabinet earlier this week regarding negotiations to end the war in Ukraine are alarming and merit attention. When asked about Sergei Lavrov’s comment that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is not legitimate, Donald Trump dismissed the statement, saying: It doesn’t matter what they say. Everybody’s posturing. It’s all bullshit, okay. Everybody’s posturing. He characterized Lavrov’s remarks – and the broader Kremlin rhetoric on Zelensky’s legitimacy – as meaningless showmanship, emphasizing that such claims should not obstruct peace efforts. Trump did not directly defend Zelensky, but instead focused on downplaying the significance of Russia’s statements and suggested that “everyone is just putting on a show” in ongoing negotiations.

I believe that Trump genuinely believes this, and he is dangerously mistaken. President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov are not posturing when they try to explain to clueless westerners that they do not believe that Zelensky is the legitimate President of Ukraine. While Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy did not explicitly “cancel” the presidential election, as Ukrainian law prohibits holding elections during martial law, which has been in effect since Russia’s full-scale invasion on February 24, 2022, the reality from the Russian perspective is that a negotiated agreement with Zelensky could easily be overturned or rejected once Ukraine holds the required election.

The scheduled presidential election, expected in March or April 2024, was automatically postponed due to this legal restriction under Article 19 of Ukraine’s “On the Legal Regime of Martial Law,” which bans presidential, parliamentary, and local elections during martial law. Martial law has been extended in 90-day intervals by the Verkhovna Rada (Ukraine’s parliament), with the latest extension as of July 2025 lasting until November 5, 2025. Based on Zelensky’s multiple public remarks since his last meeting with Trump at the White House, it is clear that he is completely disinterested in reaching a peace agreement with Russia. Stephen Bryen has just published a new piece on his Substack, and it provides an explanation for Zelensky’s recalcitrance… NATO is going to attack Russia. Steve writes:

“While Putin has flown off to meet with his two buddies, Xi Jinping and Kim Jong Un, in China on an unprecedented four day jaunt, NATO, with full US backing, is stepping up its effort to hand the Russian army a major defeat and, following that, introducing NATO troops to “stabilize” Ukraine. What is the evidence? First and very noticeable is the US decision to ship 3,350 missiles to Ukraine, ostensibly to be paid for (someday?) by the Europeans (which ones is not defined). These are known as Extended Range Attack Munitions (ERAM), a type of air launched cruise missile missile. The Aviationist reports that “Ukrainian Air Force’s F-16s, Mirage 2000s and its fleet of Russian-origin MiG-29s, Su-25s and Su-27s would be able to operate it. This new weapon would be an addition to the AASM Hammer and GBU-39 SDB already employed by Ukrainian fighters.”

According to open source intelligence, ERAMs have a range of 250 miles. However, that is the range once launched by an aircraft. Washington says it opposes Ukrainian missile attacks on Russian territory, and while it is restricting the use of long range HIMARS, it is not restricting the use of ERAM. Reportedly ERAM carried a 500 lb. warhead, far larger than any Ukrainian UAV and more than double any of the different HIMARS missiles (M31 Utility Warhead, ATACMS warhead). It may be that ERAMs can be fielded with cluster munitions, although much about the ERAM is uncertain.”

Ignore what Trump says, watch what he does. Deploying ERAMs is not a gesture of peace or de-escalation. While it is possible that this action was taken without Trump’s knowledge, now that the information is public he has not countermanded the order. Steve goes on in his article (I encourage you to read it in its entirety) to highlight the faulty assumptions that NATO planners and leaders are making:

“NATO has understood Russia’s use of North Korean troops as an admission that Russia faces manpower shortages and instability in the Russian army, and that Russia is taking heavy casualties in the Ukraine war. NATO may be reading Putin’s statements that he has no intention of attacking Europe now or in future as an admission that he cannot attack Europe with an army that is too small and one that has been broken by the Ukraine war. Part of the pushback can be found in the Saratoga Foundation report, “A Systems View of Russia’s Early Failure in Ukraine.”

Now Russian sources are reporting two developments that indicate that a new offensive will soon materialize, heavily supported by NATO, and aimed at Crimea. Those sources say that the US and its NATO partners have significantly increased overhead intelligence gathering preparing for the coming attack.” Once again we have Western leaders – both military and political – wrongly interpreting Russia’s execution of a special military operation as a sign of weakness. The belief that Russia is suffering “manpower shortages and instability” is beyond ridiculous. During the course of the last 42 months, Russia has doubled the size of its army and is now conducting multiple offensive operations in Zaporhyzhia, Dniepropetrovsk, Donetsk, Kharkiv and Sumy. Even if we accept as true the false Western claims about Russia suffering massive casualties, the fact remains that even with such losses Russia has 1.3 million men in uniform and carrying arms.

Instead of being “broken,” the Russian army has enhanced its capabilities and developed new techniques, especially with the use of drones, that far exceed anything NATO is capable of doing. Besides conducting the ground war, Russia continues to enjoy a lopsided advantage in the use of missiles and drones. It has carried out massive strikes on missile production facilities and other key logistic nodes in the past week, and shows no sign of weakness on that front. A NATO-backed attack on Crimea will put increased pressure on President Putin to shift from the Special Military Operation to full war footing. NATO’s inability to supply Ukraine with something as simple as artillery shells is just one indicator of NATO’s impotence if it decides to up the ante with Russia.

Read more …

No hurry.

Ukraine Operation Will Continue – Russia’s Top General (RT)

Russian forces will push their advantage and continue their offensive against Ukrainian troops, Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov has said. Russia’s Joint Group of Forces is pushing its “non-stop offensive” on almost all sections of the front line, he said at a Russian Defense Ministry briefing on Saturday. “An analysis of the state of Ukrainian troops shows that in the spring and summer, the enemy concentrated all its efforts on slowing down our offensive, while suffering heavy losses,” he said. “As a result, the Ukrainian Armed Forces are forced to transfer the most combat-ready units from one crisis direction to another to ‘plug holes’. Today, the strategic initiative is entirely with the Russian troops,” he added.

The offensive is accompanied by regular “massive” strikes on Ukrainian arms manufacturing facilities, Gerasimov added. “During the spring-summer period, such strikes were carried out against 76 important facilities,” he said. Targeted massive fire strikes continue exclusively against military facilities and military-industrial complex facilities in Ukraine. Gerasimov also stressed that the advances on the battlefield would not have been possible without “the timely supply” of “high-precision weapons, missiles, ammunition, weapons and military equipment,” by Russian industry.

https://twitter.com/DD_Geopolitics/status/1961783669271756895

Read more …

Eventually…

Trump Promises Trilateral Meeting With Putin and Zelensky (RT)

US President Donald Trump has stated that he believes a trilateral meeting with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky will happen. Following his recent summit with Putin in Alaska, Trump pushed for a one-on-one between the Russian president and Zelensky ahead of any trilateral gathering. The Kremlin has not ruled out a bilateral meeting, but stressed it should serve as the final stage of talks once tangible progress has been made in the peace process. In an interview with the Daily Caller on Friday, Trump was asked whether a trilateral meeting is still planned. “A tri would happen. A bi, I don’t know about, but a tri will happen,” the US president said. “But, you know, sometimes people aren’t ready for it.”

According to Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, while Russia is still interested in direct talks with Ukraine, preparation for such a meeting is not “very active.” “All our positions have been communicated,” and Ukraine has submitted its own provisions, he said on Friday. “Further discussion is necessary.” Moscow has already agreed to “show some flexibility” on a number of points that Putin and Trump discussed in Alaska, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told NBC News last week. The US president later presented his proposals at a follow-up meeting with the Ukrainian leader and his European NATO backers, but “Zelensky said no to everything,” Lavrov said.

The reaction of Kiev’s Western sponsors at the talks “indicates that they don’t want peace,” the top diplomat said. European NATO leaders have increasingly pushed for “security guarantees” for Ukraine in the form of Western “peacekeepers” or “reassurance forces” – something Moscow has stressed it would never accept, warning of potential uncontrolled escalation. Moscow has condemned the EU’s recent militarization and longstanding military support for Ukraine. It has consistently described the Ukraine conflict as a proxy war waged by the West and maintained that any settlement must address Russia’s security concerns and the root causes of the crisis, including NATO’s continued eastward expansion.

Read more …

NATO needs an enemy. China doesn’t fit the job description.

Could Russia Have Joined NATO? (Ryumshin)

The idea of Russia one day joining NATO has become an international meme. To many it seems so absurd that it reads like a parody. Yet the notion continues to resurface in political debate, like a ghost that refuses to leave the stage. The latest revival came in 2022, when Russia and the West entered their most dangerous standoff in decades. Commentators wondered aloud how relations had sunk so low and whether a different path had ever been possible. More recently, former US congressman and Trump ally Matt Gaetz suggested that Russia should be accepted into NATO as a way to resolve the conflict in Ukraine. Even Der Spiegel added fuel, publishing documents showing that under Bill Clinton the US did not entirely reject the idea of Russian membership.

It was Germany and others in Western Europe, the magazine reported, who feared that opening NATO’s doors to Moscow would mean the alliance’s slow dissolution. So who exactly blocked the path? The closest Russia ever came to joining NATO was in the early 1990s, just after the Soviet Union’s collapse. Boris Yeltsin’s government openly declared NATO membership a long-term goal. There were serious conversations at the highest level. But they didn’t lead anywhere. Part of the reason lay in Washington itself. A powerful bloc of the American elite was against any Russian presence in NATO’s inner circle. From its inception, NATO had been designed as a US project, structured around American leadership.

Russia, even weakened, retained military parity, global influence, and a sphere of interests that could not be subordinated. Unlike Poland or Hungary, it was not a junior partner to be absorbed. There cannot be two heads in one alliance. The other part of the reason was philosophical. NATO’s first secretary general, Lord Ismay, famously defined its purpose in 1949: “to keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down.” By the 1990s, the German question had been solved by reunification. But if NATO also gave up the “Russian threat,” it risked losing its reason for existing altogether. With the Soviet Union gone, the alliance drifted into an identity crisis. Accepting Russia would have hastened what many in Berlin and elsewhere already feared – the death of NATO itself.

What if Russia had joined? Let us imagine the alternate universe where Russia did sign up. Would it have resolved tensions with the West, as Gaetz suggests? Or would the quarrels have simply moved inside the tent?To answer, one can look at the example of Türkiye. Ankara has been part of NATO since 1952 but remains the odd man out. Turkish geography, culture, and ambitions often clash with those of its European and North American allies. Russia, had it joined, would likely have occupied a similar outsider role – but on a far grander scale, with nuclear weapons and a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. There is, however, a crucial difference. Türkiye has been tolerated because it controls the Bosphorus and Dardanelles and does not challenge NATO’s overall dominance. Russia never viewed itself as a regional player but as a European power in its own right.

Europe has always been Moscow’s primary sphere of influence – just as it is Washington’s. To coexist peacefully, one side would have had to step aside. Neither ever intended to.Instead of membership, the West offered Russia a “special partnership”: permanent dialogue, joint councils, limited cooperation. But this fell apart quickly. Moscow demanded equality. Washington, triumphant after the Cold War, refused to treat Russia as anything other than a defeated state. Pride collided with pride. The dialogue reached a dead end.Even if full membership had been offered, the story would have ended the same way. Russia and the United States would inevitably have clashed over the balance of power inside the alliance. At best, this would have produced a messy divorce. At worst, Russia might have split NATO by drawing away countries that were themselves uneasy with US dominance.In truth, Russia has always been “too big to join.” The alliance could absorb small and medium states – even awkward partners like Türkiye or Hungary. But not a country capable of rivaling America itself.

Read more …

“.. Europe has been at war with itself for 1,000 years.”

And counting.

NATO Should Have Dissolved in 1990 – Jeffrey Sachs (Sp.)

NATO should have been dissolved back in 1990 as the alliance had fulfilled its mission of confronting the Soviet Union, renowned US economist and director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University Jeffrey Sachs said.The interview was conducted ahead of the Eastern Economic Forum, which will take place in Vladivostok from September 3–6. The economist is going to participate in a session “UN Development Agenda Beyond 2030.””First of all, NATO should have ended in 1990 when President Gorbachev ended the Warsaw Pact, the Western countries should have said yes, and we end NATO,” Jeffrey Sachs said. “It became, instead, a mechanism of US power expansion, which is not what NATO should be. This eastward movement of NATO since 1990 has been wholly unjustified and contrary to Western promises.”

Sachs expressed skepticism about Europe’s ability to establish an independent security framework to replace NATO.”The problem with Europe is, as everybody knows, there isn’t really a Europe. There are so many countries squabbling with each other,” Sachs noted, highlighting that Europe has been at war with itself for 1,000 years. In February 2024, Putin said in an interview with US journalist Tucker Carlson that Russia could become a NATO member in the early 2000s if the US showed sincere interest. Clinton, however, “was cold” to this idea, according to Putin. In recent years, Russia has highlighted NATO’s unprecedented military activity near its western borders. Ukraine’s plans to join the bloc were among the reasons why Russia says it launched its special military operation in February 2022.

Read more …

Inevitable. 3 billion people.

Can Russia, India, and China Rewrite The Global Rules? (Vaid)

In the wake of the Putin-Trump Alaska summit, Russia once again demonstrated that it remains an indispensable actor in global diplomacy. The very fact that Washington and Moscow returned to the table underscored that neither side can afford to exclude the other in discussions on international security. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s visit to New Delhi a few days later included rounds of strategic discussions. He co-chaired the boundary talks alongside NSA Ajit Doval, held bilateral consultations with India’s Minister of External Affairs S. Jaishankar, and met with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, underscoring India’s continued openness to managing contentious issues through established dialogue channels. Coming ahead of India’s participation at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Tianjin on Sunday, the visit reflected an important step in rebalancing India–China ties at a time of heightened global trade uncertainty.

Against this backdrop, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s call to revive the Russia-India-China (RIC) format has sparked renewed debate over how trilateral diplomacy could help stabilize Asia. The Alaska summit may not have delivered immediate breakthroughs on conflict resolution, but it was nonetheless a watershed moment. Commentators noted that the meeting underscored Moscow’s role as a decisive actor whose influence cannot be erased by sanctions or diplomatic pressure. Yet for India, the significance of Alaska lies not just in Russia’s return to global high tables, but in what it signals for the larger multipolar landscape. A Russia more confident of its role in global negotiations is also a Russia that seeks to extend its engagement into Asia, creating opportunities for India to reinforce its own regional diplomacy.

Lavrov’s call for reviving RIC is part of this broader trend. By placing India alongside Russia and China, the format reopens a space where Asian powers can coordinate on selective issues. For Beijing, under pressure from escalating US tariffs, RIC provides a forum for coordination beyond the constraints of bilateral tensions. For Moscow, it illustrates that Asian partnerships are increasingly important to balancing global shifts. And for New Delhi, it creates diplomatic space to advance interests without committing to any single bloc. For New Delhi, Lavrov’s RIC revival call resonates but does not automatically translate into endorsement. India has consistently championed strategic autonomy, balancing partnerships such as the Quad and frameworks like the SCO and BRICS+. In this matrix, RIC is one among many platforms New Delhi engages with, neither the sole driver of its Asia policy nor an option to be dismissed.

Read more …

“. . . this time the story has escaped the narrative guardrails and some real reckoning looms.” —Jeff Childers

The War On Reality is Over (James Howard Kunstler)

Unwittingly, that New York Times headline is a wondrous case of the self-solving mystery. You come here to understand the many social and political mysteries of the day. I will attempt to unravel this hairball. Most obviously, the suspect, now dead, in Wednesday’s Minneapolis school shooting was not a “her.” He was a him, a 23-year-old male, Robert Westman, who had been pretending to be a female for some years since undergoing puberty, with the encouragement of his parents and the cultural leaders of his city, including Governor Tim Walz and Mayor Jacob Frey, backed by the expressed principles of the national Democratic Party. The essence of all that was a gigantic game of pretend, a broad and deliberate dissociation from reality for the purpose of maintaining a political racketeering operation, which is what the Democratic Party had become.

Pretend that men can become women. Pretend that Covid vaccinations are safe and effective. Pretend that national borders don’t matter. Pretend that crime is not a social problem. Pretend that riots are mostly peaceful. Pretend that our elections are free and fair. Pretend that “Joe Biden” is president. Pretend that Ukraine is fighting for democracy. And so on. All pretend. Since the Democratic Party has zero useful ideas for improving the lives of this country’s citizens, all it has is pretend theater, which is public performative psychopathology, otherwise known as acting-out. Mass murders of school-children by so-called trans people are the most garish and horrific actings-out, the most offensive to society, a slaughter of innocents. Such an act grabs everybody’s attention.

The New York Times pretends that all this is “a mystery” because to tell the truth would inculpate them in the ongoing criminal racketeering operation of their patron, the Democratic Party. They all know what the truth is in this matter: that Robert Westman became insane, at least in his time of puberty, possibly earlier, and that his parents resorted to persuading their child that he was born in the wrong body — as the trendy theory goes — to remedy his psychological distress. He was thereafter influenced to play-act as a female. Possibly, he was induced to go through some stage of medical “treatment” to supposedly advance his transition to the opposite sex — for instance, a hormone regimen. This has not yet been reported. (Has it even been investigated by police or the news media?)

Of course, “gender-affirming medical care” is a vicious fraud, as is the preposterous idea of “sexual assignment at birth” (as if it is some kind of error-ridden clerical function). Males cannot be changed into females no matter how much their hormones are altered or how much surgery they endure. It is all just costuming and makeup, to an extreme degree, to enhance the game of pretend. It is also bound to be nightmarishly disappointing to the person undergoing such malign rigors.

Read more …

A good man to have on your side.

Jay Bhattacharya On Fauci, Bioweapons, And Free Speech In Science (ZH)

Director of the National Institute of Health, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, sat down for an extended interview with ZeroHedge. Bhattacharya, long known as one of the fiercest critics of lockdown orthodoxy, has gone from blacklisted dissenter to running the world’s largest biomedical research agency. He carries into his new post a distrust of entrenched power, a skepticism of politicized science, and an insistence that free inquiry—not censorship—must guide American health policy. What follows is a candid conversation, in Bhattacharya’s own words, on censorship, woke politics in research, the threat of bioweapons, and why he believes science cannot exist without free speech. Bhattacharya did not hesitate to call out what he experienced during the pandemic years:

“It wasn’t just ZeroHedge that got subject to this censorship. I did too. I was on the Twitter blacklist. It was all true information that was just found inconvenient. That’s what you guys were sharing. That’s what I was sharing. And it was a gross violation of the American First Amendment.” The Stanford professor—blacklisted for co-authoring the Great Barrington Declaration—was among those exposed in the Twitter Files as a target of covert suppression. He says the NIH under his leadership will chart a different course: “We’re no longer in the misinformation detection business. We’re no longer in the censorship business.” ZeroHedge itself was deplatformed during that same period for reporting inconvenient facts on the origins of COVID.

As documented thoroughly in RFK Jr’s book “The Wuhan Coverup”, Anthony Fauci played a pivotal role in ballooning the U.S. biowarfare budget following the post-9/11 anthrax scare, an event still riddled with open questions Kennedy himself addresses in the book. While our previous overlords would espouse morally virtuous stances against “bioweaponry” and lecture us about the importance of “biodefense”, Bhattacharya sees through the sleight of hand and dismisses the entire concept as suicidal. His full answer below which we find incredibly important:

“I think that bioweapons are useless to national security and incredibly dangerous for human populations. The Biological Weapons Convention in 1973 is a tremendously important convention. And I think that the United States adheres to it. But we have to make sure that we adhere to it not just on the letter, but in the spirit. That includes, for instance, research for biodefense. Biodefense sounds good, but often there’s very little line between bioweapons and bio-defense… this line of research is fundamentally useless to protect this country from anything and potentially places the whole world at risk.” The warning is timely. President Trump recently signed an executive order banning gain-of-function research—which some read as only applying to foreign nations but Bhattacharya assured us is indeed a universal ban.

Bhattacharya doesn’t see DEI as harmless bureaucracy—he sees it as poison to science. The problem, he argues, isn’t the stated goal of improving minority health, but the way the system forces scientists to pledge allegiance to political dogma instead of data. “Many universities, before they would hire some people as professors in scientific disciplines, would require DEI statements. It’s essentially like loyalty oaths.” He says this ritual signals to scientists that advancement isn’t about competence or discovery—it’s about parroting the right ideology. That corrodes the incentive to produce results that actually improve health. At NIH, he saw the same rot: tax dollars poured into programs that branded themselves as equity-driven but failed to move the needle.

“There was some chunk of our portfolio that was really huge during the Biden administration of DEI grants… The problem is that this DEI work—I don’t see any evidence that it actually improves minority health. It just politicized the agency.” Bhattacharya’s stance is simple: real health equity will come from rigorous science applied to concrete problems—diabetes, cancer, infant mortality—not from “loyalty oaths” or politically branded grant programs. In his words, most scientists would gladly jump at the chance to “just do your excellent science” if freed from ideological policing. For Bhattacharya, the single thread tying all of this together is free inquiry: “If you were a scientist in the Soviet Union during the time of Stalin, you’d have this guy named Trofim Lysenko who fundamentally believed that Mendelian genetics was false—in fact, that it was a capitalist plot.

You were only allowed to agree with his theories. And so he used his position to suppress the speech of all the Mendelian geneticists around him. Many of them went to the gulag. As a result, science on agriculture basically froze and people were always starving as a consequence of this.” That lesson, he argues, applies directly to America today. “You can’t have science unless you’re allowed to criticize the predominant ideas. And if you have scientific power married to political power in a way that suppresses the ability for lots and lots of other scientists to say, ‘Look, you’re wrong, here’s this experiment to prove it’—you don’t have science. You have something else.”

Read more …

I still don’t understand how the trans issue ever became what it did, in no time at all. Not organic, that’s for sure.

To the Parents of Trans Kids: Enabling Isn’t Compassion (C.A. Skeet)

In a California high school, a male athlete is playing on a female volleyball team. This cheating was allowed by the school district to occur despite on ongoing lawsuit against the state of California for their clear Title IX violations. In other breaking news, the sun rose in the east this morning. The male player, AB Hernandez, has been in the headlines before. Last spring, he competed on the Jurupa Valley High School girls’ track team, stealing two state titles in long jump and triple jump that should have gone to females. Increasingly, high school girls are finding themselves the only adults in the building, and it has fallen upon their shoulders to make a stand for their rights. Rather than play against a school which openly allows cheating, at least two high school volleyball teams have forfeited their scheduled matches. Good for them.

And for the girls – the actual girls – on the Jurupa team who just want to play volleyball and want nothing to do enabling AB Hernandez’s untreated mental illness? Mere pawns to be used by district officials to virtue signal. What a shame you sacrificed years of your fun evenings and free time to practice. If only America weren’t the transphobic, fascist hellhole that it is, those other teams wouldn’t have forfeited.As the controversy rages, AB Hernandez’s mother Nereyda has a message for all us detractors. And the message is this:

I understand the discomfort some may feel, because I was once there, too. The difference is, I chose to learn, to grow, and to open my heart. Believe me, I know some people genuinely don’t understand what it means to be transgender. I’m still learning too, right alongside my child. That is why I choose not to respond with anger or disrespect. Instead, I choose empathy, because learning takes time, and compassion makes all the difference. My baby is petite, what sets her apart is not her size or strength, but her skill and the way she plays the game… This is a child, and I can assure you that she sees your daughters as peers, as teammates, as friends, not through a lens of anything inappropriate. I know it may be hard to understand, but she is just another girl who wants to play. Finally, I leave you with this: My child is so innocent, she didn’t even realize the forfeited games were because of her.

At a school board meeting, she berated a board member for appearing on Fox News, and added, “My daughter is not the problem. The problem is coordinated external efforts often led by individuals that travel from district to district… to spread fear and put parents against each other using religion as a shield for discrimination. This has nothing to do with fairness in sports and everything to do with erasing transgender children.”

Oh boy.

Read more …

It was always going to be SCOTUS.

Tariffs ‘Still in Effect’: Trump Bashes Partisan Court Ruling (Salgado)

After a federal appeals court ruled that Donald Trump does not have the authority to impose many of his tariffs, the president doubled down on his tariff policy and stated that especially ahead of Labor Day, American workers should be in support of that policy. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit asserted that most of Trump’s tariffs are outside of his power to impose under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, but did delay the impact of the ruling till mid-October, allowing time for appeal to the Supreme Court. Legal expert Mark Levin, cited by Trump, argued that Trump not only has the power to impose tariffs under the act, but also under the Constitution’s Article II, whereas the court did not have the jurisdiction to so rule.

Besides sharing Levin’s argument, Trump added his own commentary on Friday afternoon, posting on Truth Social, “ALL TARIFFS ARE STILL IN EFFECT! Today a Highly Partisan Appeals Court incorrectly said that our Tariffs should be removed, but they know the United States of America will win in the end. If these Tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the Country. It would make us financially weak, and we have to be strong.” In July, tariff revenues reached a record level of $113 billion, representing a significant financial boost and hitting a new high for the year. That trend continued into August. Considering how the U.S. federal government is constantly overspending and usually looks to American citizens to pay the price, it is refreshing to have a president who wants to bring in revenues from foreign countries instead, especially countries that are hostile to us. In fact, in the case of virulently anti-USA countries such as China, it would be great to see higher tariffs.

On Truth Social, Trump continued, “The U.S.A. will no longer tolerate enormous Trade Deficits and unfair Tariffs and Non Tariff Trade Barriers imposed by other Countries, friend or foe, that undermine our Manufacturers, Farmers, and everyone else.” He angrily argued of the new ruling, “If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America. At the start of this Labor Day weekend, we should all remember that TARIFFS are the best tool to help our Workers, and support Companies that produce great MADE IN AMERICA products.” Democrats prefer products made using abusive and slave labor in China and other African and Asian countries. Patriots prefer made in America without slave labor.

While other countries imposed very high tariffs on American goods for decades, America was not imposing reciprocal tariffs, until the new Trump administration took over. Trump added, “For many years, Tariffs were allowed to be used against us by our uncaring and unwise Politicians. Now, with the help of the United States Supreme Court, we will use them to the benefit of our Nation, and Make America Rich, Strong, and Powerful Again! Thank you for your attention to this matter.”

Read more …

“..growing tension and misunderstanding between Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe..”

They’ll be alright.

Tensions in US Intelligence Community Rise After CIA Agent Uncovered (Sp.)

Tensions in the US intelligence community, in particular between US National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director John Ratcliffe, have risen after the scandal over a CIA agent being uncovered, NBC reports citing sources.US National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard had revealed an undercover CIA officer working on Russia-related issues, publishing a list of those denied access to classified information, the Wall Street Journal earlier reported citing sources. The move has rattled agency employees and is the latest example of growing tension and misunderstanding between Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe, the publication said, citing intelligence sources. According to former officials, Gabbard is likely seeking to curry favor with US President Donald Trump by redoubling her efforts to identify his political enemies, including within the CIA.

Earlier, Gabbard announced that she had stripped 37 current and former employees of their access to classified information for US intelligence agencies. They, according to the head of US national intelligence, abused the public trust by distorting intelligence and unauthorizedly disclosing classified information. According to the newspaper’s sources, Gabbard’s office did not meaningfully consult with the CIA before publishing the list and did not request information from the CIA when compiling it. According to the Wall Street Journal, disclosing the identity of an undercover employee or intelligence agent is a criminal offense, although it is unclear whether the law would apply to government disclosures or whether placing an employee on a list would be considered a disclosure.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1962022538382368984

Owls

Kili
https://twitter.com/WildfriendsUG/status/1961683763793961115

https://twitter.com/Protect_Wldlife/status/1961726970762314091

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Aug 162025
 


Edward Hopper Tables for ladies 1930

 

Putin & Trump Find Common Ground as West’s War Party Shut Out (Sp.)
Trump Pushes Peace Over Ceasefire After Putin Meeting (RT)
Western Media In Frenzy Over Putin-Trump Summit – Moscow (RT)
Putin-Trump Summit Went Much Better than Expected — Pepe Escobar (Sp.)
Zelensky Should ‘Make A Deal’ – Trump (RT)
Trump Praises ‘Warm’ Meeting With Putin (RT)
Talks with Trump ‘Constructive’ – Putin (RT)
‘Next Time In Moscow’ – Putin to Trump (RT)
Lasting Settlement Essential In Ukraine Conflict – Putin (RT)
Judge Napolitano: the Chance for a ‘Grand Reset’ in Russia-US Ties (Sp.)
A New Security Order Is On The Table In Alaska (Lukyanov)
Why Putin and Trump Had To Talk In Person (Bordachev)
The EU Throws An Epic Tantrum As Trump Meets With Putin (Marsden)
Carefully and Gracefully (James Howard Kunstler)
Scott Ritter: Two Things Need to Happen for Trump to Get His Ceasefire (Sp.)
US Has ‘No Right’ To Tell India Who To Trade With – Jeffrey Sachs (RT)
US Gov’t Ditches Musk’s AI Over ‘Anti-Semitism’ (RT)
EU Leaders Want To Overthrow Three European Governments – Budapest (RT)

 

 

https://twitter.com/TheRicanMemes/status/1956191505934069769

Loon wing

Wray
https://twitter.com/Real_RobN/status/1956065246138990940

Kash

DC
https://twitter.com/MAGAVoice/status/1956167053649567935

275

 

 

Turley

 

 

 

 

It’s funny. How do you summarize this summit? It’s like there was no tangible “big breakthrough”, but at the same time everything about it was a giant breakthrough.

“..CNN said: “Putin’s isolation ended when his plane landed in Anchorage..”

Putin & Trump Find Common Ground as West’s War Party Shut Out (Sp.)

Talks between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump took place at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson near Anchorage, Alaska. Russia acknowledged positive, constructive dialogue between the sides, while Donald Trump hailed significant progress toward a Ukraine settlement. The Putin-Trump meeting shows the West “gambled on an easy victory over Russia and lost,” Mikael Valtersson, a Swedish Armed Forces veteran, told Sputnik. Both Russia and America have signalled satisfaction with the summit as a step forward towards a real peaceful solution of the Ukraine conflict, he noted. “Those that wanted more isolation and sanctions against Russia, if Russia didn’t agree to Western demands, didn’t have their way,” the former defence politician and chief of staff with Sweden Democrats emphasized.

The “Western war party” had hoped for new harsh sanctions on Russia and those trading with it, but instead what can be seen is improving relations between Russia and the US, as well as a continued peace process. After Donald Trump talks with his European allies and Ukraine, they will be faced with a choice, Valtersson said. They can either support the peace process by accepting the realities on the ground and legitimate interests of Russia, or reject it. If they choose the latter, they will isolate themselves from not only the majority of the world, but especially from the US. “Hopefully the cooler heads in Ukraine and Europe will realize that it’s better to follow the US and accept reality, than continue a lost war,” Valtersson concluded.

Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump’s reunion made clear they’d missed the bond from years past, psychiatrist Dr. Carole Lieberman told Sputnik. “When President Putin and President Trump approached each other… their body language showed a very open and warm receptiveness,” the Beverly Hills best-selling author said. The two leaders shook hands multiple times, touched each other’s arms, and smiled—a clear signal they’d missed the connection they had during Trump’s first presidency. Lieberman noted the direct eye contact, standing close marked an “auspicious beginning that foretold a positive meeting.” Even after three hours of serious talks, their joint press conference carried the same energy. Both turned slightly toward one another, as if to emphasize unity. “They gave the impression that they were facing the press together, on the same team,” Lieberman observed.

Read more …

“..not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up..”

Trump Pushes Peace Over Ceasefire After Putin Meeting (RT)

The Ukraine conflict should be ended through a permanent agreement rather than a mere ceasefire, US President Donald Trump has said, following his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday. In a post on Truth Social on Saturday, Trump said his almost three-hour talks with Putin in Anchorage “went very well,” adding that it was “a great and very successful day.” He confirmed that he had discussed the summit with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky, several EU leaders, and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte.

“It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up,” Trump said. The US president also confirmed that he and Zelensky would hold talks on Monday, adding that “if all works out, we will then schedule a meeting with President Putin.”

Read more …

“..plunged into “frenzy bordering on complete madness” over the honors given to the Russian leader..”

Western Media In Frenzy Over Putin-Trump Summit – Moscow (RT)

Western media have erupted in hysteria over US President Donald Trump’s cordial welcome for his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, in Alaska on Friday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said. Zakharova weighed in on the three-hour negotiations in Anchorage that brought Putin to US soil for the first time in more than a decade. The Russian leader was greeted at the airport with a red carpet and a flyover of US fighter jets. He and Trump then rode together in the US president’s limousine to the summit venue. While the sides did not announce any deal on Ukraine, Putin described the talks as constructive, with Trump calling the meeting “warm” and suggesting that Moscow and Washington “are pretty close” to settling the Ukraine conflict.

Zakharova noted that Western media had plunged into “frenzy bordering on complete madness” over the honors given to the Russian leader. “For three years they spoke of Russia’s isolation, and today they saw a red carpet rolled out to meet the Russian president in the US,” she said. Western media is attempting to frame the Alaska summit as a diplomatic win for Moscow. The Washington Post wrote that “the warmth of the welcome sent shock through Ukraine and Europe” while pointing to a stark contrast with the reception of Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky at the White House in February, when Trump accused the Ukrainian leader of disrespect, ingratitude over US aid, and of “gambling with World War III.”

https://twitter.com/RT_India_news/status/1956604838650970291?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1956604838650970291%7Ctwgr%5E96fd5db1e5dafa98554807c55448efd1c8b51955%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Frussia%2F623047-western-media-frenzy-trump-putin%2F

Sky News correspondent Ivor Bennett, a former RT reporter, voiced surprise that Putin was first to speak at the media conference “as if he was the host rather than Donald Trump.” Another Sky News reporter had suggested prior to the talks that Putin would “use his KGB-trained powers of deception and seduction” on his US counterpart. Bloomberg reported that “by inviting the Russian president onto American soil and giving him an audience, Trump had already delivered a diplomatic win” for a seemingly isolated leader. The agency also published a separate piece headlined “US-Russia Summit Shows How Little Europe Matters in Trumpworld”, referencing the fact that no EU leaders were invited to the summit. Politico ran the headline “Putin’s Alaska triumph,” while CNN said: “Putin’s isolation ended when his plane landed in Anchorage,” adding, the Russian president “[is] back in from the cold.”

Read more …

“There were even some indications that a serious US-Russia reset could be on the horizon..”

Putin-Trump Summit Went Much Better than Expected — Pepe Escobar (Sp.)

There are few details about what exactly was discussed in the meeting, but Russian officials have made it clear that they’re pleased with how it went, says veteran geopolitical analyst, Pepe Escobar. There were even some indications that a serious US-Russia reset could be on the horizon. Even according to President Trump himself, they came to agreement on several important points and only a few are left. So this implies. serious discussions not only about Ukraine, a possible resolution in Ukraine, and of course we we have no idea about the terms and the parameters, but a reset, a serious reset of US-Russia relations. [..] The Russian delegation featured Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Defense Minister Andrei Belousov, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov, and RDIF head Kirill Dmitriev. The US delegation included senior diplomatic and security officials.

Read more …

He would have to give up Crimea, Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, and Zaporozhye. That would be the end of him.

Zelensky Should ‘Make A Deal’ – Trump (RT)

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky should “make the deal” to settle Kiev’s conflict with Moscow, US President Donald Trump has said following three-hour talks in Anchorage with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, their first summit since Helsinki in 2018. In an interview with Fox News on Friday, Trump reflected on “a very warm meeting,” adding that the sides are “pretty close” to resolving the conflict. He stressed that Kiev should be on board with the push for peace, for it to have any chance of success. When asked what advice he would give Zelensky, Trump replied: “Make the deal”, adding that he believes that Putin “wants to see it done.”

“It’s really up to President Zelensky to get it done. And I would also say the European nations, they have to get involved a little bit,” the US president added. Trump said that he was ready to mediate direct talks between Putin and Zelensky. “If they’d like, I’ll be at that next meeting… Not that I want to be there, but I want to make sure it gets done. And we have a pretty good chance of getting it done.” Both leaders described the meeting as productive, although no agreement on Ukraine was announced. Putin earlier did not rule out direct talks with Zelensky, but stressed that it must be preceded by significant progress on settling the conflict.

Moscow has also voiced concerns about Zelensky’s right to sign any binding agreements, given that his presidential term expired last year, and that the Ukrainian leader has refused to call a new election, citing martial law. Ukrainian troops have been on the back foot for months, with Moscow making advances in Donbass and elsewhere. Moscow has insisted that any settlement should see Ukraine commit to bloc neutrality, demilitarization and denazification, as well as recognize the new territorial reality on the ground, including the status of Crimea, Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, and Zaporozhye Regions, all of which have voted to become parts of Russia.

Read more …

“The US leader earlier suggested that he would “give today a ten” when it came to the outcome of the summit..”

Trump Praises ‘Warm’ Meeting With Putin (RT)

US President Donald Trump has described his summit in Alaska with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, as a “warm meeting,” and suggested that the Ukraine conflict is close to being resolved. In an interview with Fox News, the US leader praised the three-hour talks with Putin in Anchorage on Friday, noting that they had made progress in talks mainly focused on ending the hostilities between Russia and Ukraine. “Actually, I think we agree on a lot. I can tell you, the meeting was… warm,” Trump said, calling Putin a “strong guy.” The US leader earlier suggested that he would “give today a ten” when it came to the outcome of the summit. According to Trump, the sides are “pretty close to the end” of the conflict, although he added that “Ukraine has to agree” to any potential peace deal.

He would not provide any details of the discussions, saying only that “there’s one or two pretty significant items, but I think they can be reached.” The US president also noted that he had “always had a great relationship with President Putin, and we would have done great things together,” while praising Russia as a land brimming with natural resources. Putin similarly described the talks with Trump as “constructive” and “useful,” saying Moscow was “sincerely interested in putting an end” to the hostilities. He also suggested that the two leaders could hold their next meeting in Moscow, with Trump replying that he could “see it possibly happening.”

Read more …

“We have always considered the Ukrainian people…fraternal, as strange as it may sound in today’s conditions.”

Talks with Trump ‘Constructive’ – Putin (RT)

Russian President Vladimir Putin has called his talks with US President Donald Trump in Anchorage on Friday “constructive” and “useful.” The discussions focused largely on the Ukraine conflict. Moscow is “sincerely interested in putting an end” to the ongoing hostilities, Putin stressed. “We have always considered the Ukrainian people…fraternal, as strange as it may sound in today’s conditions. We have the same roots and everything that is happening is a tragedy and a great pain for us,” he said. Speaking at the press conference, Trump remarked that the meeting was highly productive, although the two sides didn’t reached full agreement and no deal was finalized yet.

He highlighted the significant progress made during the discussions and affirmed his strong relationship with President Putin. Putin said that in recent years – under the administration of Joe Biden – US-Russia relations had sunk “to their lowest point since the Cold War,” which benefits neither the two countries nor the world as a whole. “It is obvious that sooner or later it was necessary to correct the situation and the transition from confrontation to dialogue had to take place. In this regard, a personal meeting of the heads of the two states was really overdue,” he said. The negotiations at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson lasted nearly three hours.

The Russian delegation for the Alaska summit also included Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Defense Minister Andrey Belousov, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov, and presidential economic envoy Kirill Dmitriev, who has been a key figure in the Ukraine settlement process. Trump was accompanied by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe.

Read more …

“Next time in Moscow,” Putin said in English. “That’s an interesting one,” Trump replied. “I’ll get a little heat for that one. But I can see it possibly happening.”

‘Next Time In Moscow’ – Putin to Trump (RT)

Russian President Vladimir Putin made a rare public switch to English to invite US President Donald Trump to Moscow for the next round of peace talks, following their summit in Anchorage, Alaska on Friday. Trump said he could see the meeting taking place though it would likely face political pushback. Speaking at the press conference, Trump called the meeting “extremely productive” and said, “we didn’t get there, but we have a very good chance of getting there,” implying no deal had been reached yet. He said the talks marked significant progress and reaffirmed what he described as his strong relationship with Putin. “Today’s agreements will help us restart pragmatic relations,” Trump said.

At the close of the press conference, Trump thanked Putin and said he expected to speak with him again soon. “Next time in Moscow,” Putin said in English. “That’s an interesting one,” Trump replied. “I’ll get a little heat for that one. But I can see it possibly happening.” Putin thanked Trump for what he called a “friendly” tone and “results-oriented” approach, saying it could “start us on the path towards a resolution in Ukraine.” He described the talks as “constructive” and reiterated his view that there would have been no war in Ukraine if Trump had been president when the conflict broke out. No details of any deal were provided, and neither Putin nor Trump took questions from reporters.

Read more …

Zelensky tweeted he’ll be in Washington on Monday. He’ll try and bring the entire EU.

Lasting Settlement Essential In Ukraine Conflict – Putin (RT)

For a lasting resolution to the Ukraine conflict to be achieved, all of its root causes must be addressed, Russia’s legitimate concerns taken into account, and a fair global security balance restored, Russian President Vladimir Putin said at a joint press conference with his US counterpart, Donald Trump, on Friday. The two men met in Alaska for a much-anticipated summit, to discuss restoring bilateral relations and to work toward a resolution of the Ukraine conflict. Putin acknowledged the willingness of the US administration and President Trump to engage in dialogue and seek solutions, noting their commitment to understanding the complexities of the situation.

He reiterated his view that Russians and Ukrainians are brotherly peoples and described the current circumstances as a tragedy, stressing Moscow’s sincere desire to bring the conflict to an end. Putin said that any sustainable resolution must address the root causes of the crisis while taking into account Russia’s legitimate concerns. “A fair balance of security in Europe and globally must be restored,” he stated. Putin agreed with Trump that ensuring Ukraine’s security is imperative and expressed a readiness to collaborate on the issue. He expressed hope that the mutual understanding reached during the discussions will pave the way toward peace.

“We hope that this will be perceived constructively in Kiev and European capitals, and that no obstacles will be created,” Putin stressed. “There should be no attempts to undermine the anticipated progress through provocations or behind-the-scenes intrigue.” Trump stressed that the key takeaway of the talks is that there is a reasonable opportunity to achieve peace. He expressed hope to meet Putin again soon, noting that the Russian president shares his desire to bring the conflict to an end.

Read more …

“..that puts “President Putin in what Americans call the catbird seat,”

Judge Napolitano: the Chance for a ‘Grand Reset’ in Russia-US Ties (Sp.)

Presidents Putin and Trump are meeting for the first time in over six years.The main topics on the agenda? Ukraine and Russia-US relations. Veteran journalist and Judging Freedom host Andrew Napolitano shares his insights. The US is “in no position to consent to the very reasonable, intellectually honest and consistent Russian demands” in Ukraine, as its officials don’t seem to fully understand or appreciate Russia’s national security needs, Napolitano told Sputnik, when asked whether the meeting could lead to a speedy cessation of hostilities. The Russian military is already very close to achieving its objectives in the special military operation, Trump knows it, and that puts “President Putin in what Americans call the catbird seat,” Napolitano said.

“Add to those reasons the recent Russian triumphs in the battlefield, which are rather extraordinary and which have left the Ukrainians with very, very little manpower with which to resist the Russian military,” he added. The Putin-Trump meeting could be the “first of many steps” toward a new era “commercial, political, diplomatic, cultural integration” between the two nations, a “grand reset” that could require help from other rising global powers to fully realize. “That’s not going to happen today, and it may have to involve other countries like China, Brazil and India, maybe even Iran, but the grand reset between Russia and the United States, I believe, is a personal goal of President Putin and an aspiration of Donald Trump,” Napolitano said.

Read more …

Written pre-summit.

A New Security Order Is On The Table In Alaska (Lukyanov)

It has been a long time since a diplomatic event drew as much global attention as Friday’s meeting between the Russian and US presidents in Alaska. In terms of its significance for the international balance, it is comparable only to the negotiations on German reunification 35 years ago. That process laid the foundations for political developments in the decades that followed. The Alaska talks could prove a similar milestone – not just for the Ukraine conflict, but for the principles on which a broader settlement between the world’s leading powers might be reached. Ukraine has become the most visible arena for historical shifts that go far beyond its borders. But if the German analogy holds, no one should expect a breakthrough from a single meeting. The marathon of high-level diplomacy in 1990 lasted many months, and the mood then was far less acute and far more optimistic than today.

The dense fog of leaks and speculation surrounding Alaska underlines its importance. Much of this “white noise” comes from two sources: commentators eager to sound informed, and political actors seeking to shape public opinion. In reality, the substantive preparation for the talks appears to have little to do with the propaganda framing. This is why official announcements so often catch outside observers by surprise. That may be a good sign. In recent decades, especially in Europe, diplomacy has often been accompanied by a steady drip of confidential details to the press – a habit that may serve tactical purposes but rarely produces lasting results. In this case, it is better to wait for the outcome, or the lack of one, without giving in to the temptation to guess what will happen behind closed doors.

There is also a broader backdrop that cannot be ignored: the shifts in the global order catalyzed by the Ukraine crisis, though not caused by it. For years, I have been skeptical of claims that the world is dividing neatly into two opposing camps – “the West” versus “the rest.” Economic interdependence remains too deep for even sharp political and military conflicts to sever ties entirely. Yet contradictions between these blocs are growing, and they are increasingly material rather than ideological. A key trigger was US President Donald Trump’s recent attempt to pressure the largest states of the so-called “global majority” – China, India, Brazil, and South Africa – to fall in line with Washington’s instructions. The old liberal order promised universality and some benefits to participants. Now, purely American mercantile interests dominate.

As before, Washington dresses its demands in political justifications – criticizing Brazil and South Africa over their treatment of the opposition, or attacking India and China over their ties with Moscow. But the inconsistencies are obvious. Trump, unlike his predecessors, prefers tariffs to sanctions. Tariffs are an explicitly economic tool, but they are now being wielded for political ends.

Read more …

“..they have often stood on the brink of a path from which there would be no return. This is why Alaska matters, even if it does not yield a breakthrough…”

Why Putin and Trump Had To Talk In Person (Bordachev)

The meeting between the presidents of Russia and the United States in Alaska is not an end point, but the beginning of a long journey. It will not resolve the turbulence that has gripped humanity – but it matters to everyone. In international politics, there have been few moments when meetings between the leaders of major powers have decided questions of universal importance. This is partly because situations requiring attention at such a level are rare. We are living through one now: since the start of Russia’s military operation against Ukraine, Washington has declared its aim to be the “strategic defeat” of Russia, while Moscow has challenged the West’s monopoly over world affairs. Another reason is practical. Leaders of the world’s most powerful states do not waste time on problems that can be solved by subordinates.

And history shows that even when top-level meetings do occur, they rarely change the overall course of international politics. It is no surprise, then, that the Alaska meeting has been compared to famous encounters from the past – notably the 1807 meeting between the Russian and French emperors on a raft in the Neman River. That summit did not prevent Napoleon from attacking Russia five years later – an act that ultimately brought about his own downfall. Later, at the 1815 Congress of Vienna, Russia was the only power represented by its ruler on a regular basis. Tsar Alexander I insisted on presenting his personal vision for Europe’s political structure. It failed to win over the other great powers, who, as Henry Kissinger once noted, preferred to discuss interests rather than ideals.

History is full of high-level talks that preceded war rather than preventing it. European monarchs would meet, fail to agree, and then march their armies. Once the fighting ended, their envoys would sit down to negotiate. Everyone understood that “eternal peace” was usually just a pause before the next conflict. The 2021 Geneva summit between Russia and the US may well be remembered in this way – as a meeting that took place on the eve of confrontation. Both sides left convinced their disputes could not be resolved at the time. In its aftermath, Kiev was armed, sanctions were readied, and Moscow accelerated military-technical preparations. Russia’s own history offers parallels. The most famous “summit” of ancient Rus was the 971 meeting between Prince Svyatoslav and Byzantine Emperor John Tzimiskes, following a peace treaty.

According to historian Nikolay Karamzin, they “parted as friends” – but that did not stop the Byzantines from unleashing the Pechenegs against Svyatoslav on his journey home. In Asia, traditions were different. The status of Chinese and Japanese emperors did not permit meetings with equals; such encounters were legally and culturally impossible. When the modern European “world order” was created – most famously in the 1648 Peace of Westphalia – it was not through grand encounters of rulers but through years of negotiations among hundreds of envoys. By then, after 30 years of war, all sides were too exhausted to continue fighting. That exhaustion made it possible to agree on a comprehensive set of rules for relations between states.

Seen in this historical light, top-level summits are exceedingly rare, and those that produce fundamental change are rarer still. The tradition of two leaders speaking on behalf of the entire global system is a product of the Cold War, when Moscow and Washington alone had the ability to destroy or save the world. Even if Roman and Chinese emperors had met in the third century, it would not have transformed the fate of the world. The great empires of antiquity could not conquer the planet in a single war with each other. Russia – as the USSR before it – and the United States can. In the last three years, they have often stood on the brink of a path from which there would be no return. This is why Alaska matters, even if it does not yield a breakthrough.

Read more …

“..when Kiev loses, they say, “Ok, well this sucks – how about if everyone just pretends that none of this happened and we dial all the territorial gains and losses back to a point of our choosing, okay?”

The EU Throws An Epic Tantrum As Trump Meets With Putin (Marsden)

The European Union had been wailing about “transatlantic unity” in the run-up to US President Trump heading to the negotiating table with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday – without it. It sounded like a toddler stomping their feet because Daddy let go of their hand in the mall and now they’re lost between Cinnabon and Burger King. A lot of good their dogmatic rhetoric has done them so far. If it wasn’t for Brussels getting drunk on its own transatlantic solidarity and unity propaganda, maybe it wouldn’t currently be in economic and political dire straits. The kind where you’re trying to duct-tape your economy back together with overpriced American gas.

They could have charted a different path vis-a-vis Russia. Maybe one that involved spearheading diplomacy rather than marching in lockstep behind the US-led NATO parade of weapons and fighters on Russia’s border with Ukraine, which helped supercharge the conflict in the first place. They could have insisted on keeping their cheap Russian energy instead of sanctioning their own imports like they were vying for a Nobel Prize in masochism. Now, the US is daring them to even close their clever little loophole in their own anti-Russian sanctions. The one that lets them moralize about helping Ukraine and the need to avoid negotiations with Russia while guzzling Russian fuel on the down-low. Trump Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told them to “put up or shut up” and sanction the Indian and Chinese importers of Russian petroleum through which the EU still buys Russian fuel.

While the EU indulges itself in rhetorical games, Trump has dropped all pretexts of serving any interests but America’s first, and isn’t following any agenda beyond trying to wrap things up with Russia in Ukraine and to score some economic wins in the process. Brussels has had more than three years to do the same. Instead, it kept repeating the mantra that Kiev had to win on the battlefield. There were no other options, it said. Whoops! Now that the option has materialized, the Europeans are relegated to running behind Trump, pleading with him to indulge them by letting Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky decide where the post-conflict borders will be. What did they think the downside of their “win by force” gamble would be, if not changed borders?

The EU insists on Ukraine fighting Russia with EU cash and weapons, and when Kiev loses, they say, “Ok, well this sucks – how about if everyone just pretends that none of this happened and we dial all the territorial gains and losses back to a point of our choosing, okay?” The EU insisted on waiting for someone else to take the initiative for peace. Now all it can do is pick up its pom-poms and cheer Trump on. Then hope that he rewards it. As Zelensky’s self-appointed babysitters, instead of spending the past week in the run-up to the Alaska summit insisting that Putin and Trump allow a high chair booster seat and a pack of crayons at the negotiating table so he can show them where he wants the borders, maybe the Europeans should have been calming him down and managing expectations.

He sounded like he was treating his phone like a toy, calling up everyone in the contacts under “EU” – Estonia, Denmark, probably a few pizza places. The EU has tried to gaslight Trump with the same rhetoric that it constantly firehoses onto European citizens about peace in Ukraine being a dangerous gateway drug for Russia to invade Western Europe – a convenient marketing pitch to justify boosting the weapons industry to the detriment of domestic priorities. Not even warhawk US Senator Lindsey Graham is saying that now, telling NBC News that “Russia is not going to Kiev”…let alone the EU. European leaders treated Wednesday’s video call with Trump like a win. Perhaps because he didn’t explicitly tell them off, for once. But they really have no idea what he’ll actually discuss with Putin, nor do they have leverage over any eventual US–Russia deal.

They don’t know whether Trump is just placating them because he doesn’t need a bunch of hysterical circus clowns in the mix. So how could the EU spin this to avoid looking completely irrelevant? “Today Europe, the US and NATO have strengthened the common ground for Ukraine, we will remain in close coordination. Nobody wants peace more than us. A just and lasting peace,” said unelected EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Yeah, sounds desperate for peace, alright. Which must be why the EU is building weapons factories at breakneck speed, according to the Financial Times. Nothing says “we’re committed to ending the war” like tripling down on weapons. What are you going to do with all those if peace breaks out? Toss them in the landfill and hope that taxpayers forget about the boondoggle, like you did with the hundreds of millions of unused Covid jabs?

Read more …

“It’s funny they call [intel] a ‘community.’ That sounds so benign and beneficial. Everybody likes communities.” —Doug Casey

Carefully and Gracefully (James Howard Kunstler)

And so, now, in Alaska, Mr. Trump sits down with Vlad Putin to attempt a settling of Ukraine’s hash. This war has been a three-year bloody grind, millions killed, mostly Ukrainians, provoked underhandedly by US State Dept / CIA neocons, Britain’s MI6 apparatus, and the girl-bosses of the EU, for no good reason, namely, to weaken and possibly break-up Russia so as to get at its vast mineral and energy resources. This has been tried before in history, always to the grief of the triers. From our country’s point of view, the dynamics in play at this moment are delicate to an extreme. In the background of the Trump-Putin meet-up, amid an eerie silence in the DOJ and FBI, an epic, sweeping prosecution of the RussiaGate hoaxers creeps forward.

RussiaGate, of course, was born in the false charge (by America’s highest officials, derived from nonsense cooked up by Hillary Clinton) that Donald Trump was a Russian agent. It was preposterous and continually disproven, but the many-footed creatures of America’s deep state, which controlled so many levers of power, dragged it out for years. Altogether, that endeavor amounted to a campaign of sedition and arguably treason. The delicacy comes in as President Trump must now avoid at all costs any appearance of giving-in to Mr. Putin, of appearing to be any sort of a vassal — “Putin’s puppet,” as charged in RussiaGate. The raw truth is that Russia has likely already “won” the war in Ukraine, in the sense that it has finally gained control of the battlespace and worn out its opponent. It is fait accompli.

What remains is the disposition of Ukraine’s future which, in another raw truth, is mostly Russia’s to determine. Yet another raw truth is that this would probably be the best outcome for all concerned: a neutralized, disarmed Ukraine returned to its prior condition as a mostly agricultural sovereign backwater of Europe within Russia’s sphere-of-influence, resuming its longstanding status as not being a problem for anyone. Still, yet another raw truth is that the USA would benefit hugely from normalized relations with Russia, no more sanctions, fair trade, a rebalance of the drift toward China, lessening the chance of nuclear war — and this would even benefit the knuckleheads of Europe whose economies are imploding due to a lack of affordable energy (and also because of, let’s face it, the EU’s terrifically stupid “green” policies).

All of which means there will necessarily be a lot of “pretend” played in Anchorage for show. Mr. Trump must pretend to be tough on Putin, and Mr. Putin must pretend, a little bit, to give-in to Mr. Trump’ proposals. That is, it will be something of a kabuki, a kafabe. Surely, many of the stickiest points have been pre-negotiated by Mr. Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, who quietly visited Moscow a week ago. Mr. Trump must appear strong with Russia because his appointees are commencing to go medieval on the folks who called him “Putin’s Puppet” nine years ago — and subjected him to a series of epic torments including the subversion of his whole first term in office, nonstop obloquy from the media, impeachment (X 2), home invasion, and a grotesque set of malicious, nitwit prosecutions that have either failed completely (Fani Willis, Jack Smith) or will be subject to humiliating reversals in the higher courts. Not to mention two attempted assassinations.

You should assume that Mr. Putin well understands all this and intends to play along. He will appear to make some generous concessions to Ukraine, starting with the promise that it can go forward as a sovereign, self-governing nation. The big enchilada might be to grant that Ukraine can retain possession of Odessa, the port city on the Black Sea which is Ukraine’s depot for export to the world of its chief commodity, grains. In any case, both Russia and the USA intend to relieve Volodymyr Zelenskyy of his duties — notice he is conspicuously not invited to the Alaska meeting. Mr. Trump well understands that one way or another, Russia is going to prevail in this conflict on-the-ground. He abhors all the killing. He has already expressed a disinclination to keep backing the war with money and weapons. He must be disgusted at how the Bidens (and the Deep State) used Ukraine as a money-laundry, as a site for bioweapons labs, and how it served as a nexus for human trafficking.

He also knows that Russia wants badly to be re-admitted to normal relations with the West, which is in everybody’s interest, except perhaps China’s. You should infer therefore that Russia wants the war to end in a way that does not humiliate the losers and backers — perhaps along the lines of how America managed our victory against our enemies in World War Two, carefully and gracefully.

Read more …

“The scary thing is that the Biden administration officials who were in that room said ‘oh we’re ready for that. If the Russians wanna play, we’re ready to go to nuclear war with them.’ This is the insanity that existed in November of last year!”

Scott Ritter: Two Things Need to Happen for Trump to Get His Ceasefire (Sp.)

The Ukrainian crisis is front and center of the Putin-Trump summit in Alaska. Sputnik asked renowned geopolitical analyst, former Marine Corps intelligence officer and ex-UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter to weigh in on the high stakes meeting. First things first: the US president “doesn’t care about the geopolitical nuances of Ukrainian battlefield locations,” Ritter said. “If Putin can convince him that the quickest route to a ceasefire is for Ukraine to leave” Russia’s new territories “and say no to NATO, that’s it. That’s all that has to happen for a ceasefire.” The Russian military has mastered drone warfare, counter-drone warfare, and new battlefield tactics to the point where its advance has become “an irreversible process,” Ritter added, commenting on what happens if the peace push doesn’t pan out.

“There’s nothing that can be done. Nothing can be done to stop this. The advantage is 100% Russia, and we’re looking at the Ukrainians on the verge of total collapse,” the observer stressed. Trump’s base doesn’t want to continue fueling a proxy conflict against Russia, much less getting into a hot war with Russia over Ukraine, Ritter said. “Don’t worry about Congress. They don’t elect the president, and they will fall in behind the president, because if he can secure his base with a peace deal, he can ruin everybody in Congress, especially a Republican, who goes against him,” he stressed.

In November 2024, the CIA briefed Congress on the risks of a nuclear war breaking out, estimating that there was a “greater than 50% chance” thanks to the Biden administration’s decision to greenlight long-range ATACMS strikes into Russia, Ritter revealed.

“The director of plans of Strategic Command, the American military command that carries out nuclear war briefed a Washington, DC think tank in November that the United States is prepared for a nuclear exchange with Russia, (that means nuclear war) and that the United States thought they were going to win,” he said. “When this was briefed to Congress, I asked a senior Democrat…’when the CIA briefed you, did the CIA say the Russians were bluffing?’ He said no. The CIA said the exact opposite. He said but that’s not the scary thing. The scary thing is that the Biden administration officials who were in that room said ‘oh we’re ready for that. If the Russians wanna play, we’re ready to go to nuclear war with them.’ This is the insanity that existed in November of last year!” Ritter stressed.

Read more …

Peace with Russia means these tariffs also must disappear.

US Has ‘No Right’ To Tell India Who To Trade With – Jeffrey Sachs (RT)

The United States has no right to tell India who it can partner with in trade, Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, said on Friday. The economist was commenting in an interview with NDTV television on Washington’s decision to impose additional tariffs on India over its purchases of Russian oil. Last week, the White House announced an extra 25% tariff on Indian imports, raising the overall tariff level faced by the South Asian nation to 50%. US President Donald Trump said the measure was prompted by India’s continued imports of Russian oil. New Delhi condemned the move as “extremely unfortunate” and pledged to safeguard its national interests. Sachs described the tariff increase as a clear reason for India to remain cautious in its dealings with Washington.

“Don’t rely on them. India needs a diversified base of partners – Russia, China, ASEAN countries, Africa, and not see itself as mainly focusing on the US market, which is going to be unstable, slow-growing and basically protectionist,” according to Sachs. Addressing India’s imports of Russian oil, Sachs stated that Washington has no authority to determine the trading relations of other nations. The US “does not act responsibly towards other countries. Be careful. India should not allow itself to be used by the US, somehow, in the US’ misguided trade war with China,” the economist noted.

New Delhi is now seeking to expand its export presence in the 50 countries that account for about 90% of its total exports in an effort to offset the impact of the higher tariffs, according to local media reports, citing government sources. The initiative is intended to reduce reliance on any single market and to minimize risks arising from trade disruptions. In response to the US threats to impose secondary sanctions on Russia’s trade partners, including India, China, and Brazil, Moscow stated that it believes “sovereign states should have, and do have, the right to choose their own trade partners,” as well as to independently determine which avenues of cooperation best serve their national interests.

Read more …

“Grok had already been added to the GSA’s long-term procurement list, enabling agencies to buy it.”

US Gov’t Ditches Musk’s AI Over ‘Anti-Semitism’ (RT)

The US government has dropped Elon Musk’s AI chatbot Grok from a planned federal technology program following controversy over anti-Semitic content and conspiracy theories produced by the bot, Wired reported on Thursday. Grok, developed by Musk’s AI startup xAI, is built into his social media platform X. It offers fact checks, quick context on trending topics, and replies to user arguments. Musk has promoted xAI as a rival to OpenAI and Google’s DeepMind, but the chatbot has faced criticism over offensive and inflammatory outputs. According to the report, xAI was in advanced talks with the General Services Administration (GSA), the agency in charge of US government tech procurement, to give federal workers access to its AI tools. Grok had already been added to the GSA’s long-term procurement list, enabling agencies to buy it.

Earlier this month, the GSA announced partnerships with other AI providers – Anthropic, Google’s Gemini, and Box’s AI-powered content platform – while reportedly also telling staff to remove xAI’s Grok from the offering. Two GSA employees told Wired they believe the chatbot was dropped over its anti-Semitic tirade last month, when it praised Adolf Hitler and called itself “MechaHitler.” The posts were deleted, and xAI apologized for the “horrific behavior,” pledging to block hate speech before Grok goes live. The bot also pushed the “white genocide” conspiracy theory and echoed Holocaust denial rhetoric, which xAI blamed on unauthorized prompt changes.

This week, it was briefly suspended from X after stating that Israel and the US were committing genocide in Gaza – allegations both countries reject. Musk has continued to praise the chatbot, recently writing: “East, West, @Grok is the best.” The move to drop Grok comes as part of a broader push by the administration of US President Donald Trump to modernize the federal government under an action plan unveiled last month that provides for less regulation and wider adoption of AI. However, the rapid growth of AI has triggered concern about its potential to spread misinformation, reinforce bias, and operate without accountability. Experts say that unless strong safeguards are in place, poorly moderated AI tools could also expose children to harmful or inappropriate content.

Read more …

All the more now Trump has put them at the kiddies table.

EU Leaders Want To Overthrow Three European Governments – Budapest (RT)

The European Union is attempting to topple the governments of Hungary, Slovakia, and Serbia for prioritizing national interests over alignment with Brussels, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has claimed. He made the comments in a Facebook post on Thursday after phone calls with Slovak Foreign Minister Juraj Blanar and Serbia’s top diplomat, Marko Duric. According to Szijjarto, they agreed to strengthen their stance on sovereignty and pledged mutual solidarity amid what they described as growing external pressure. “Brussels has ceased to be a factor in world politics. The fact that Europe has been excluded from the Alaska talks proves it,” he wrote, referring to Friday’s summit between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss the Ukraine conflict.

https://twitter.com/PM_ViktorOrban/status/1956065724088172985

Kiev’s backers in Europe have repeatedly called to be included in any talks involving Russia, Ukraine, and the US, insisting that “a European power” should be “in the room” to guarantee that the security interests of Kiev and the EU are “safeguarded.” Unlike the EU, which continues to support Ukraine’s war effort, Szijjarto said Hungary, Serbia, and Slovakia have prioritized national interests and resisted pressure from Brussels, favoring peace talks over military involvement. “This obviously frustrates the mainstream liberal political leaders, and as a result, the pressure is increasing on governments that are supporting peace, following national interests, and not subordinating to Brussels,” the diplomat said.

It’s “clearer than daylight” that “external intervention experiments to destabilize and overthrow governments are taking place in Central Europe against the patriot Slovak, Hungarian, and Serbian governments,” he added. Szijjarto criticized recent polling in Slovakia, which suggested citizens “only trust revolution,” and accused Brussels of trying to undermine Hungary’s elected leadership by supporting the opposition Tisza Party. He also referenced recent clashes between protesters and police in Serbia, implying that external forces were stirring unrest to destabilize the government. According to Szijjarto, these “are all different chapters of the same scenario in Brussels: they want to clean up the peace-party, patriot, national-interest governments,” aiming to replace them with puppet governments so Brussels “can get a seat.”

Read more …

 

 

 

 

GoF
https://twitter.com/sheislaurenlee/status/1956140482960183359

100
https://twitter.com/DavidJHarrisJr/status/1956106786903388484

https://twitter.com/LangmanVince/status/1956366054529089828

Bees

Bob
https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1956110689359003751

https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1956330600387821710

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Aug 082025
 


Hasui Kawase Mimhae Pavilion, Kyongju, Korea 1940

 

US Has Made ‘Acceptable Offer’ – Kremlin Aide (RT)
Putin-Trump Meeting Could Be Historic – Russian Envoy (RT)
Trump to Meet Separately With Putin, Zelensky in Bid to End Ukraine War (Moran)
Ghislaine Maxwell Implodes The Left’s Trump-Epstein Witch Hunt (Margolis)
Ghislaine Could Give Trump A Chance To Break Israel’s Power Over America (PCR)
Clintons Could Face Jail Time if They Defy Epstein Subpoena (Margolis)
Commerce Dep’t to Make Census Reflect the Number of Legal Residents in US (DS)
Trump Orders New Census to Fix 2020 Rigged Count Favoring Dems (Margolis)
US Working To Kill EU Digital Services Act – Reuters (RT)
Trump Tariffs Wipe Out $12 Billion From Global Carmakers – WSJ (RT)
Germany To Slash Payments For Ukrainians (RT)
Kash Patel Is Cleaning House at the FBI, and It’s Glorious (Margolis)
‘We Don’t Want To Keep Gaza’ – Netanyahu (RT)
Swedish PM Admits He Uses ChatGPT To Help Run Government (ZH)
ChatGPT a Danger To Teens – Watchdog (RT)

 

 

Milei
https://twitter.com/Inevitablewest/status/1953394786737557665

apple
https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1953207040614252904

Poland elects new president
https://twitter.com/AdamMoczar/status/1953163210757931447

93
https://twitter.com/CRRJA5/status/1953308689810559218

Judge Jeanine Pirro is the new US Attorney for DC

Census

 

 

O’Leary

 

 

Mearsheimer offers a sobering critique of U.S. and NATO policy toward Russia, asserting that the West bears significant responsibility for the war in Ukraine. Calling the conflict a “preventable tragedy,” Mearsheimer explains how Washington’s push to expand NATO eastward and bring Ukraine into its orbit left Russia with what he describes as “no choice but to react.” “This is not about Putin being irrational,” he argues. “It’s about the West ignoring repeated warnings from Moscow for over a decade.”

 

 

 

 

That’s a strong statement. Ushakov would not say it if there wasn’t a major shift in the US position. We’ll have to wait till next week.

US Has Made ‘Acceptable Offer’ – Kremlin Aide (RT)

Russia has received an “acceptable” offer from the US on settling the Ukraine conflict, Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov has said, following a visit by US special envoy Steve Witkoff to Moscow. Speaking to reporters on Thursday, Ushakov commented on the talks between Witkoff and Russian President Vladimir Putin, noting that Moscow had received a “proposal from the Americans” which it is ready to consider, without providing further details. Ushakov also noted that Russia and the US have topics to discuss, while agreeing with the view of US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who earlier described the talks as “a good day.”

Rubio had added that “we still have a ways to go, but we’re certainly closer [to peace] today than we were yesterday – when we weren’t close at all.” The Kremlin aide earlier called the Putin-Witkoff meeting “business-like and constructive,” adding that “Russian-American ties could develop according to a completely different, mutually beneficial scenario,” as compared to the long-running tensions over Ukraine. He also revealed that Putin could meet Trump as soon as next week. The Russian president later suggested that the United Arab Emirates could potentially host the summit.

Read more …

Kirill Dmitriev.

Putin-Trump Meeting Could Be Historic – Russian Envoy (RT)

The upcoming meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump has the potential to be a historic event, according to senior Russian negotiator Kirill Dmitriev. The Kremlin confirmed on Thursday that preparations for direct talks have advanced to the point that a venue has been selected. The meeting could be held as early as next week. Dmitriev, an economic adviser to Putin and key figure in the push to normalize bilateral ties with the US, shared the development on X. “This can be a historic meeting,” he wrote, adding a dove emoji. “Dialogue will prevail.” On Wednesday, US special envoy Steve Witkoff traveled to Russia to meet with Putin in what Trump later described as an unexpectedly positive round of discussions. Trump previously threatened to introduce additional sanctions due to a perceived lack of progress in his efforts to broker a resolution to the Ukraine conflict.

https://twitter.com/kadmitriev/status/1953371181974753345?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1953371181974753345%7Ctwgr%5E80a9b7fbfe15a144894743edc6ae1b5c6ef0ba09%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Frussia%2F622607-putin-trump-historic-summit%2F

Since taking office in January, Trump, who describes himself as a “president of peace,” has relied on economic and military pressure to address several escalating international disputes. However, his campaign pledge to resolve the Ukraine conflict within 24 hours has proven unrealistic. He has since acknowledged that the situation is far more complex and challenging than he originally suggested. Moscow has expressed a desire to address the root causes of the conflict, opposing any scenario that would freeze the conflict in its current state. Putin has stated that his government prefers to achieve its objectives through peaceful means. Kiev has consistently rejected Moscow’s proposed settlement terms and continues to call for Western military support and further sanctions on Russia. Ukrainian officials argue that these measures could halt or even reverse Russian advances on the battlefield.

Read more …

You will also see people having opinions who know nothing about the topic:

“Some casualty estimates for the last month claim 45,000 Russian dead. Considering the manic offensive nature of Russian strategy, that claim sounds realistic.”

Jesus H.C.!

Trump to Meet Separately With Putin, Zelensky in Bid to End Ukraine War (Moran)

For more than a year, the Ukraine War has ground on inconclusively. The cost in lives has been enormous. While official casualty figures are useless, several independent media outlets have carried out their own investigations by scanning death notices, reading local newspaper reports of dead soldiers, and reading church funeral notices in newsletters. Ukraine claims to have killed one million Russian soldiers. That’s absurd, but the total of killed, wounded, and missing may be close to that number. It appears that 2024 was the deadliest year of the war for Russia as they threw in wave after wave of infantry, gaining virtually nothing. According to sources, the Russians have moved approximately 188 square miles in the last month, the best month of the year. Some casualty estimates for the last month claim 45,000 Russian dead. Considering the manic offensive nature of Russian strategy, that claim sounds realistic.

Ukraine has lost between 400,000 and 700,000 soldiers, according to non-government sources. The point is that all of the dead are dying for literally nothing. The front lines haven’t shifted more than a few miles since the summer of 2023. The only people gaining anything from this conflict now are undertakers and casket makers. Russian President Vladimir Putin has obstinately refused entreaties from Donald Trump to end the war. Trump is holding out the prospect of lifting some sanctions if Putin makes a deal. For his part, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky is still clinging to his fantasy that he can fight long enough to win back all the territory seized by Russia since 2015, including Crimea. Someone should knock Mr. Zelesky upside the head and bring him back to Earth. Donald Trump may be about to do that.

According to the Associated Press, Trump will meet with Putin and Zelensky separately “soon,” perhaps as early as next week. “We propose, first of all, to focus on preparing a bilateral meeting with Trump, and we consider it most important that this meeting be successful and productive,” said Putin’s foreign affairs adviser, Yuri Ushakov. Ushakov dismissed the prospect of Zelensky joining the meeting, although Trump said he wasn’t ruling it out. New York Times: “Mr. Trump disclosed his plans on Wednesday in a call with European leaders, which included Mr. Zelensky, the people said. The meetings would include only the three men, and would not include European counterparts. Asked later Wednesday if Russia and Ukraine had agreed to the summit, Mr. Trump told reporters: “There’s a very good prospect that they will.”

Mr. Putin’s spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov, did not respond to a request for comment, but Mr. Zelensky appeared to signal that a direct meeting was possible. Trump would welcome a breakthrough of any kind, but Putin isn’t likely to change his position unless Trump offers some sweeteners, such as lifting some sanctions, releasing frozen Russian assets, or removing barriers for Russia to international financial markets. The key actor in this play is Vladimir Putin. He’s the aggressor. It’s his army continuing to move forward at tremendous human cost. To get him off the starting line, Trump has made some noises about renewing U.S. aid to Ukraine.

Mr. Trump has been stymied for months in his efforts to find a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine, after more than three years of war. Mr. Trump has been a skeptic of U.S. military aid to Ukraine, and he dressed down Mr. Zelensky in a remarkable Oval Office meeting earlier this year, with cameras rolling. Still, frustrated by the slow pace of talks with Russia, Mr. Trump recently authorized more arms sales to NATO allies that are intended for Ukraine. Mr. Trump has tried giving Mr. Putin room to come to the negotiating table over several months. But more recently, he has publicly excoriated Mr. Putin, suggesting the Russian leader was simply playing him for time after repeated conversations with Mr. Witkoff.

Mr. Witkoff’s latest visit to Moscow came as Mr. Trump has threatened secondary sanctions against Russia as the war drags on. On Wednesday, Mr. Trump signed an order that would double tariffs on imports from India, to 50 percent, as punishment for its continued purchases of Russian oil. Putin will not stop fighting until he achieves his goals or someone forces him to stop. That’s not going to be Ukraine, which has just one-third the number of men as Russia, with many veteran soldiers having fought along the line since 2023. I’d say any movement in these meetings is highly unlikely, except it’s Donald Trump. I’ve made the mistake of underestimating Trump in the past, so if he can pull a rabbit out of the hat during his meetings next week, I won’t be totally surprised.

Read more …

How do you make the interviews public when she talked about 100 different people?

Ghislaine Maxwell Implodes The Left’s Trump-Epstein Witch Hunt (Margolis)

The circus surrounding the Jeffrey Epstein saga has always had one clear ringleader: the media establishment and their Democratic Party allies, hell-bent on transforming every shadowy corner into “proof” of Donald Trump’s guilt by association. Never mind the actual facts—just throw his name around and hope something sticks. But sometimes, inconvenient truths come to light. Now, the latest revelation from Ghislaine Maxwell’s Department of Justice interview is exactly the kind of development Democrats and their cable news cheerleaders dreaded. For years, the Left has been painting the Epstein scandal as the ticking bomb that will finally detonate the Trump presidency. Never mind that Bill Clinton’s relationship with Epstein is far better documented than Trump’s fleeting acquaintance; in the Democratic media echo chamber, Trump must be guilty—because he’s Trump.

Now, ABC News is reporting that during her marathon nine-hour interview with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Ghislaine Maxwell handed the Left yet another bitter pill to swallow. During her nine hours speaking with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche last month, Ghislaine Maxwell said nothing during the interview that would be harmful to President Donald Trump, telling Blanche that Trump had never done anything in her presence that would have caused concern, according to sources familiar with what Maxwell said. Did you catch that? After years of “bombshells” that never landed, their latest Hail Mary just failed spectacularly, with Maxwell confirming what we already knew: that there are no Epstein skeletons in Trump’s closet. If that wasn’t damning enough for the narrative, the Trump administration looks poised to make the whole thing public, transcripts and all.

When you’re innocent, transparency is your weapon; when you’re hiding something, you fight like hell to keep the records sealed. The article underscores the administration’s intent: The Trump administration, meanwhile, is considering publicly releasing the transcripts from the interview, multiple sources familiar with the internal discussions told ABC News. There is also an audio recording of the interview, the sources said, but it’s not clear whether the administration plans to release the audio to accompany any public release of the transcript. The public release of the transcripts could come as soon as this week, the sources said. Think about that: If there were anything even remotely problematic in Maxwell’s account, does anyone believe Trump’s DOJ would be talking about dumping the raw transcript into the public record for all to judge? Please.

Maxwell, who is no friend of Trump, can’t cough up so much as a rumor. What does the anti-Trump media do now? Invent something? Well, yeah, that’s what they’ve done for years and will continue to do. And let’s remember, Maxwell wasn’t just primed by her lawyers—she was reportedly grilled about “one hundred different people.” When it came to Trump, she “didn’t hold anything back.” The article makes that unambiguously clear: ABC previously reported that it was Maxwell who requested the interview with the DOJ, according to sources familiar with the matter. Maxwell is also asking the Supreme Court to review her conviction and Trump has not ruled out a pardon for her.

Maxwell’s lawyer, David Markus, said following her meetings with Blanche that Maxwell ‘would welcome any relief.’ He also said Maxwell was asked about “one hundred different people,” and said “she didn’t hold anything back.” Here’s what the Democrats and their media lapdogs can’t accept: The Epstein case is the ultimate double-edged sword. They bet everything that “Epstein” would be the rumor that finally brought down Trump, even as the evidence never materialized. On the contrary, Bill Clinton boarded Epstein’s jet—the “Lolita Express”—dozens of times. So, what now? The anti-Trump mobs are scrambling, the tape is rolling, and it turns out that when Ghislaine Maxwell finally had her moment, the “Trump bombshell” fizzled out before it even began. For the Democrats desperate to weaponize the Epstein scandal, this moment isn’t just disappointing; it’s devastating.

Read more …

Paul Craig Roberts dreaming.

Yes, of course, Ghislaine could expose all the Mossad connections. And then her life wouldn’t be worth anything.

Ghislaine Could Give Trump A Chance To Break Israel’s Power Over America (PCR)

According to media reports, Ghislaine Maxwell cleared Trump of having participated in sexual activities with underaged females. The liberal-left will no doubt claim that Ghislaine lied in hopes of a pardon from Trump. This is typical nonsense from the American liberal-left. Ghislaine Maxwell is the daughter of one Mossad asset and the lover of another. Illusions are not her cup of tea. She knows that if Trump pardons her the pardon will be taken as proof that Trump was a participant in illicit sex and that Trump knows it. There is one thing she could do in exchange for a pardon. She could acknowledge that the Epstein operation was an Israeli blackmail operation to ensure that US Middle East policy conformed with Israel’s. The policy declared by US policymakers–seven countries in five years–was the policy of Greater Israel.

This revelation would free Trump from Israel’s control, and he could free American foreign policy from Israel. It would also free the insouciant American public from its delusions about America’s great friend Israel who God commands us to protect. It would be made clear that Israel for several decades has used American lives and American money for Israel’s benefit. Of course, if Ghislaine acknowledged this truth, the Zionist American media and the Christian Zionists would shout her down. But her main and immediate danger would be Mossad assassination. Could her life be protected from Israel’s assassins who have proven their ability to assassinate Iran’s top scientists, military and political leaders, and those of every country that presents difficulties to Israel?

Ron Unz recently published an article noting that Israel and the Zionist movement that created Israel “have probably employed assassination as a tool of statecraft more heavily than any other political entity in recorded history. Indeed, their deadly activities had easily eclipsed those of the notorious Muslim sect that had terrorized the Middle East a thousand years ago and gave rise to that term.”

Certainly Ghislaine could not resume her social life in England or New York. She wouldn’t even be safe in a maximum security prison. If she blows the whistle on Israel’s spy/blackmail operation against Americans positioned to influence US Middle East policy, her freedom means her death. If the US Secret Service was able to create a new identity for her in some out of the way place and keep her safe without people wondering why she has so many bodyguards, it would not be the kind of social life she knows. Perhaps Washington could seize several prominent Israelis and hold them as hostages against Ghislaine’s life. But this would give Muslims an incentive to kill Ghislaine in order to have the US kill the Israeli hostages.Ghislaine has the information, but how to get it from her? Trump’s bluster and threats won’t do it. A guarantee of her life has to be strong enough for her to take the risk. Does anyone have any ideas how it might be done?

Read more …

“Jail time for Bill and Hillary Clinton is no longer just a possibility; it’s a looming certainty if they continue to thumb their noses at the law..”

Clintons Could Face Jail Time if They Defy Epstein Subpoena (Margolis)

Bill and Hillary Clinton are staring down the barrel of jail time, and the threat is real. After years of smoke and mirrors, the former president and secretary of state have finally come under the harsh spotlight of congressional scrutiny, thanks to their troubling association with notorious financier Jeffrey Epstein. Congress has now subpoenaed both Clintons, demanding they answer tough questions about their connections to Epstein. On Wednesday, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) warned the Clintons about not complying with the subpoena demanding their testimony.

“If someone doesn’t comply with a subpoena — we’ve seen it happen in the past, in both my committee, as well as on the Jan. 6 committee, when the Democrats had the majority — you can hold them in contempt of Congress. And with a Republican attorney general, that’s something that I think that the Clinton legal team is going to think long and hard about,” Comer said during an appearance on NewsNation’s “The Hill.” “You’re not going to have a lot of sympathy, probably — from the Trump DOJ — if the Clintons failed to comply with a bipartisan, congressionally approved subpoena, which is what that was.” I would say not. In recent weeks, new evidence has come to light exposing the Clinton campaign’s direct involvement in the Russiagate scandal, working hand in hand with the Obama administration to create the hoax. The Hill has more”

“Comer said bipartisan support is going to make it hard for the former president to dodge the congressional investigation. “Obviously, when you subpoena a former president, your odds aren’t the best at getting them in, if you look at history. But what makes this different is this subpoena was approved in a bipartisan manner by a subcommittee vote,” he told anchor Blake Burman. “So you had Democrats and Republicans on the record voting to subpoena that whole list you showed, and there were Republicans and Democrats on that list. In addition to those subpoenas, I also subpoenaed [Attorney General] Pam Bondi for Epstein files,” he continued. In recent weeks, the Trump administration has been facing intense backlash over how it has handled information related to Epstein, the convicted sex offender who died in 2019. The backlash has come from both MAGA faithful and left-wing progressives.”

As the legal noose tightens around the Clintons, patriots and defenders of justice must support these efforts. America cannot continue down the path of political elites acting with impunity while citizens suffer. The Clintons were once symbols of power and prestige, but if they refuse to answer for their roles in the Epstein scandal, they should be prepared to face the consequences that could include jail time. In the end, justice must prevail, regardless of who’s involved. The Clintons’ bluster and attempts to dodge their subpoenas won’t save them if Congress follows through. Jail time for Bill and Hillary Clinton is no longer just a possibility; it’s a looming certainty if they continue to thumb their noses at the law. And America deserves nothing less than full accountability.

Read more …

“Just as we do not give political power to people who are here temporarily, we should not give political power to people who should not be here at all.”

Commerce Dep’t to Make Census Reflect the Number of Legal Residents in US (DS)

After President Donald Trump called for a new census excluding illegal immigrants, the Department of Commerce told the Daily Signal it will “immediately” change course to “reflect the number of legal residents in the United States.” Trump ordered the Department of Commerce to start work on a new census in which illegal immigrants will not be counted. “I have instructed our Department of Commerce to immediately begin work on a new and highly accurate CENSUS based on modern day facts and figures and, importantly, using the results and information gained from the Presidential Election of 2024,” Trump said in a Truth Social post Thursday. A Commerce spokesperson told The Daily Signal it will follow the president’s mandate.

“The Census Bureau will immediately adopt modern technology tools for use in the census to better understand our robust census data,” the spokesperson told The Daily Signal. “We will accurately analyze the data to reflect the number of legal residents in the United States.” In July, Trump backed a bill from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., that would exclude illegal immigrants from the census. This is not the president’s first effort to exclude illegal immigrants from the census count. In 2020, Trump issued a presidential memorandum instructing the Commerce Department, which oversees the Census Bureau, not to include illegal aliens in the census.

“My Administration will not support giving congressional representation to aliens who enter or remain in the country unlawfully, because doing so would create perverse incentives and undermine our system of government,” Trump said in the memorandum. “Just as we do not give political power to people who are here temporarily, we should not give political power to people who should not be here at all.” A federal court blocked the effort in 2020, however. Trump also wanted a citizenship question added to the census form. The Supreme Court blocked that move.

https://twitter.com/RepMTG/status/1953428792250097670

Read more …

“..these errors will affect $1.5 trillion in funding received by states in federal appropriations during the next decade..”

Trump Orders New Census to Fix 2020 Rigged Count Favoring Dems (Margolis)

President Trump is putting America first again. This time, he’s going after the rigged system that counts illegal aliens in the U.S. Census, skewing congressional representation and rewarding sanctuary states with more power. On Thursday, Trump announced he’s directing the Department of Commerce to conduct a new, corrected census — one that actually counts American citizens and excludes those here illegally. “I have instructed our Department of Commerce to immediately begin work on a new and highly accurate CENSUS based on modern day facts and figures and, importantly, using the results and information gained from the Presidential Election of 2024,” Trump announced in a post on Truth Social. “People who are in our Country illegally WILL NOT BE COUNTED IN THE CENSUS. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” Naturally, the mainstream media isn’t thrilled.

CNN described Trump’s proposal as “a dramatic shift from longstanding census practices” while insisting that the census “has historically counted all residents regardless of immigration status.” But, this is hardly just about illegal immigration. In fact, this move is long overdue. The 2020 Census, overseen by the Biden administration and its Deep State allies, was an unmitigated disaster — and the fallout is still being felt. Even the Census Bureau itself — hardly a bastion of conservative thought — admitted that its 2020 Census was incorrect in at least 14 states. According to the Bureau’s own Post-Enumeration Survey (PES), eight states were overcounted while six were undercounted. But here’s where it gets truly absurd: The Census Bureau claims it can’t identify which groups were miscounted or where the errors occurred, citing “sample sizes within most states do not support such estimates.”

Translation? They know it was wrong, but they can’t — or won’t — say how or where. This isn’t just bureaucratic bungling; it’s a dereliction of duty. And it’s exactly why President Trump is right to call for a new, citizen-focused census. If the federal government can’t even tell us who they miscounted or where, how can anyone trust the results? These weren’t random clerical errors, either. They were systemic failures that just so happened to benefit Democrats. Florida was robbed of not one, but two congressional seats. Texas lost out on another. Meanwhile, blue states like Minnesota and Rhode Island held onto seats they should have lost — and Colorado was gifted a seat it was never entitled to. The fix was in. The Heritage Foundation:

“To put the scope of these mistakes into perspective, contrast the errors in the Census Bureau’s latest recount (the 2020 Post-Enumeration Survey, or PES) with the recount from a decade ago (the 2010 Post-Enumeration Survey)—in which there was a net overcount of a mere 0.01 percent (36,000 people), a statistically insignificant error.”“The harms flowing from these mistakes impact more than just congressional representation, which also affects the number of electors from those states since they are calculated by the number of Senators and Representatives in each state,” explains the Heritage Foundation. “Because the Treasury and other federal departments will continue to use the original, official Census numbers (and not the new numbers contained in the PES), these errors will affect $1.5 trillion in funding received by states in federal appropriations during the next decade in disbursements that are distributed based on the population of each state.

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1953433419678986640

Read more …

Good. It must go.

“In July, the US State Department posted on X that the “Orwellian” DSA is used to convict thousands for criticizing governments and shields EU leaders from accountability.”

“Russian Telegram users enjoy more freedom than Europeans.”

US Working To Kill EU Digital Services Act – Reuters (RT)

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has reportedly ordered US diplomats to launch a lobbying campaign against the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), according to an internal cable obtained by Reuters. The directive accuses the EU law of stifling free speech and imposing unfair costs on US tech companies. The DSA, which came into force in August 2023, is designed to make online platforms safer by requiring them to remove illegal content such as hate speech, misinformation, and child sexual abuse material. It applies to 19 large platforms, including Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, Alphabet’s Google, Amazon, and Apple’s App Store. Non-compliance can result in fines of up to 6% of global revenue.

Washington has argued that the DSA targets US companies and restricts freedom of expression. Rubio’s cable calls the legislation a threat to “America’s free-speech tradition” and a financial burden on US platforms. Diplomats have reportedly been instructed to meet with EU officials to push for the law to be repealed or amended. They have also been told to challenge definitions of ‘illegal content’ and weaken enforcement tools like ‘trusted flaggers’ and the Code of Conduct on Disinformation, which has been described by critics as a “global censorship law.” In July, the US State Department posted on X that the “Orwellian” DSA is used to convict thousands for criticizing governments and shields EU leaders from accountability.

In February, US Vice President J.D. Vance said the law prevents adults from accessing alternative opinions labeled as misinformation, warning that US companies could block EU users to avoid compliance. Last year, Russia also accused the EU of censorship after Brussels banned several Russian outlets. The Foreign Ministry called it “political censorship” by the neoliberal West aimed at suppressing dissent. Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin said Brussels lacks arguments to convince its citizens and instead blocks alternative views. Telegram founder Pavel Durov said in 2024 that “Russian Telegram users enjoy more freedom than Europeans.” Durov is currently on trial in France over allegations of spreading illegal content through his platform.

Read more …

First thing this makes me think of is Trump noting it’s impossible for US carmakers to sell their products in Europe and japan. While US roads are drowning in Toyota’s and Beamers.

Trump Tariffs Wipe Out $12 Billion From Global Carmakers – WSJ (RT)

Fourteen global automakers have suffered nearly $12 billion in losses since the roll-out of US President Donald Trump’s trade tariffs, and are expected to lose significantly more by the end of the year, the Wall Street Journal reports. Trump announced the new tariffs in April, targeting 185 countries and territories. A universal 10% tariff on all imported vehicles and parts took effect on April 5, followed by country-specific rates on April 9. According to the WSJ’s analysis published on Thursday, Toyota has sustained the largest loss – around $3 billion in the second quarter alone – and expects a total tariff impact of $9.5 billion by the end of the fiscal year ending March 2026. Volkswagen has reportedly lost $1.5 billion, while Ford and General Motors have each reported losses of over $1 billion in Q2.

Tesla has been the least affected among major automakers, with an estimated $300 million loss. The WSJ also says the ten largest global automakers, excluding Chinese manufacturers, could see net profits fall by 25% by the end of the year. The EU and Japan have been negotiating tariff reductions with Washington. According to reports, the US currently imposes 27.5% on EU-made vehicles, and Brussels is pushing to lower it to 15% in exchange for cutting its own 10% tariff on American cars. Japan reached a similar deal in July, reducing US tariffs on its vehicles to 15% as part of a broader bilateral agreement.

The reported losses come amid declining sales of Western automakers in both Europe and China, under pressure from fast-growing Chinese electric vehicle brands. In the first half of 2025, Chinese manufacturers doubled their share of the European market to 5.1%. At the same time in China, Porsche’s sales fell 28%, prompting dealership closures. GM and others have also reported losses due to shrinking demand. On Thursday, the Trump administration expanded the tariff regime further, imposing new and additional tariffs on nearly 70 more countries, including the UK, Switzerland, Brazil, India, and Taiwan.

Read more …

You invited them in!

Germany To Slash Payments For Ukrainians (RT)

Germany’s Labor Ministry has proposed cutting benefits for Ukrainian migrants, citing growing financial strain from the continued influx of newcomers. Labor Minister Barbel Bas submitted a draft bill to remove Ukrainians from the so-called “citizen’s allowance” program – a benefit normally reserved for non-working Germans – and place them under the standard asylum seeker system, German media reported on Wednesday. Under standard asylum support a person receives €441 ($514), compared to €563 under the citizen’s allowance. The new rules would apply only to Ukrainians arriving after April 1, 2025. Those who came earlier would keep their current benefits.

According to the Federal Employment Agency, around 700,000 Ukrainians are currently receiving the allowance. Since April 1, about 21,000 more have arrived who could be affected by the new rules. The proposal has been sent for approval by other federal departments, and must then pass through the Cabinet and the Bundestag, expected to be adopted by year’s end. Germany spent around €6.3 billion or some 13% of the citizens’ allowance budget on Ukrainian migrants in 2024. Officials estimate the reform could save the federal government about €1.3 billion in 2026. Critics say the plan won’t significantly reduce public spending. Head of Bavaria Markus Soder and a number of other officials have called for ending the citizen’s allowance for all Ukrainians, regardless of when they arrived.

Of the 1.2 million Ukrainians that Germany has accepted over the past three years, as of May, only 332,000 were employed. Authorities across Germany have increasingly warned that the cost of supporting refugees is putting unsustainable pressure on public finances. The wider EU is facing similar challenges. As of May 2025, 4.3 million Ukrainians had been granted temporary protection across the bloc, which includes access to housing, education, and work. While the scheme has been extended through March 2027, several EU countries have been reviewing their support programs, citing rising costs and limited resources.

Read more …

An impossible job?

Kash Patel Is Cleaning House at the FBI, and It’s Glorious (Margolis)

FBI Director Kash Patel is making the bold moves that the bureau desperately needed, cleaning house and rooting out the lingering partisan bad actors who have long compromised the agency’s integrity. In a decisive shake-up, the FBI is ousting key officials, including former acting director Brian Driscoll, special agent Walter Giardina, who played a role in targeting Donald Trump advisor Peter Navarro, and Washington Field Office acting director Steven Jensen, a pivotal figure in the January 6 investigations. These removals come swiftly and with no detailed explanations, but insiders describe them plainly as retribution: a necessary reckoning. The swamp that entrenched itself deeply within the FBI over years of political bias is finally draining under Patel’s leadership.

For too long, the bureau has been weaponized against political opponents, wielding its immense power to settle scores rather than uphold justice impartially. Removing those who participated in such abuses, especially those involved in the infamous January 6 prosecutions, sends an unequivocal message that partisan insubordination will no longer be tolerated. Patel’s purge is not just about individual personnel changes; it signals a broader commitment to restoring credibility and lawful conduct within the bureau. It’s a refreshing departure from the past mismanagement where FBI leaders operated with unchecked arrogance and partisan motives. Now, those who acted as enemies of true justice are facing accountability, having been removed from positions of authority and stripped of the power they misused.

The removals come just months after thousands of FBI employees were ordered in February to complete an extensive questionnaire probing their involvement, past or present, in the investigation of the January 6 Capitol riot. The survey asked detailed questions, including whether agents had testified in related criminal trials or when they last participated in any aspect of the investigation. According to a report from Fox News Digital, one source familiar with the situation described the removals as “retribution.” This change is overdue. The FBI’s reputation has suffered severely, damaged by years of politicized investigations and internal betrayals. Patel’s leadership underscores a new era where loyalty to the Constitution and the rule of law triumphs over cynical political gamesmanship. His actions break the pattern of silence and inaction that allowed dysfunction to flourish.

By swiftly forcing out these figures, Patel ensures that the bureau cannot continue to be a tool for vendettas or partisan manipulation. This decisive step also reassures the American people that the FBI will no longer be a partisan political weapon but a guardian of justice for all citizens. Kash Patel deserves praise for his courage in taking on this difficult but necessary task. Cleaning out entrenched partisans who betrayed their oath is no small feat, but Patel’s resolve is exactly what the FBI needs to regain public trust and refocus on its core mission. His leadership represents hope that one of the government’s most powerful agencies can be steered back to integrity and fairness.

The purge of these disgraced officials is just the beginning. More removals are expected, reflecting a broader effort to dismantle the politicized infrastructure that allowed such abuses to persist. This new direction sets the course for an FBI that works for the people, not for political agendas. Patel’s actions should be lauded as a critical turning point in reclaiming justice and accountability within the nation’s top law enforcement agency.

Read more …

We just want to murder or eject -whichever comes first- the two million who live there.

‘We Don’t Want To Keep Gaza’ – Netanyahu (RT)

Israel does not intend to establish its own governing body in Gaza after its military campaign against Hamas concludes and would rather see Arab neighbors assume responsibility for the Palestinian enclave, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stated. In an interview with Fox News on Thursday, Netanyahu was asked whether Israel would take complete control of Gaza. He responded: “We intend to, in order to ensure our security, remove Hamas there, enable the population to be free of Gaza [Hamas] and to pass it to civilian governance that is not Hamas and not anyone advocating the destruction of Israel.” Netanyahu insisted that Israel doesn’t “want to keep it [Gaza],” but rather “have a security perimeter.” He added that “we don’t want to be there as a governing body, we want to hand it over to Arab forces that will govern it properly.”

Israel controlled Gaza from 1967 until its unilateral withdrawal in 2005. Earlier this month, several Israeli media outlets reported that Netanyahu had told ministers he would seek cabinet backing for a plan to fully occupy Gaza, despite objections from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). The Jewish state and the militant group agreed to a fragile three-stage ceasefire in January, only for Israel to resume military action in March amid mutual recriminations with Hamas. Since then, the two belligerents have sporadically engaged in talks, which have failed to yield any breakthrough.

In February, US President Donald Trump proposed a plan envisioning the relocation of the Gaza population to neighboring states of “great wealth.” A group of Arab nations rejected the proposal shortly thereafter, as did Russia. The conflict between Hamas and Israel broke out in October 2023 after a surprise attack by Hamas in southern Israel left about 1,200 people dead and 250 taken hostage. According to Gaza’s Hamas-controlled Health Ministry, the Israeli military campaign has killed more than 60,000 Palestinians, mostly civilians.

Read more …

“We didn’t vote for ChatGPT.”

What’s dumber, doing it or admitting that you do?

Swedish PM Admits He Uses ChatGPT To Help Run Government (ZH)

First we learn that doctors are using ChatGPT to treat patients. Now, Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson is taking a heaping ration of Lutfisk for admitting he’s been using ChatGPT to help run the government. Speaking with a Nordic news site, Kristersson said that he sometimes asks ChatGPT for a “second opinion” when it comes to governance strategies. “I use it myself quite often,” he said, “If for nothing else than for a second opinion. What have others done? And should we think the complete opposite? Those types of questions.” Kristersson’s comments predictably came under fire.

“The more he relies on AI for simple things, the bigger the risk of overconfidence in the system,” Virginia Dignum, a professor of responsible artificial intelligence at Umeå University, told DiGITAL. “It is a slippery slope. We must demand that reliability can be guaranteed. We didn’t vote for ChatGPT.” “Too bad for Sweden that AI mostly guesses,” wrote Aftonbladet’s Signe Krantz. “Chatbots would rather write what they think you want than what you need to hear.” “You have to be very careful,” Simone Fischer-Hübner, a computer science researcher at Karlstad University, told Aftonbladet, noting that people shouldn’t submit sensitive information to GPT.

As Gizmodo opines; Krantz makes a good point, which is that chatbots can be incredibly sycophantic and delusional. If you have a leader asking a chatbot leading questions, you can imagine a scenario in which the software program’s algorithms only serve to reinforce that leader’s existing prerogatives (or to push them further over the edge into uncharted territory). Thankfully, it doesn’t seem like a whole lot of politicians feel the need to use ChatGPT as a consigliere yet. Kristersson spokesman Tom Samuelsson ‘clarified’ that the PM doesn’t take risks in his use of AI. “Naturally it is not security sensitive information that ends up there. It is used more as a ballpark,” he said.

Read more …

“..an ‘Ultimate Mayhem Party Plan’ that combined alcohol, ecstasy, and cocaine, detailed instructions on self-harm, week-long fasting regimens limited to 300-500 calories per day, and suicide letters written in the voice of a 13-year-old girl.”

ChatGPT a Danger To Teens – Watchdog (RT)

ChatGPT can give vulnerable teenagers detailed guidance on drug use, self-harm, and extreme dieting, a digital watchdog has warned in a new report. According to the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), the AI chatbot can be easily manipulated into generating dangerous content and requires urgent safeguards. To test ChatGPT’s behavior, CCDH researchers created fictional profiles of 13-year-olds experiencing mental health struggles, disordered eating, and interest in illicit substances. They posed as these teens in structured conversations with ChatGPT, using prompts designed to appear emotionally vulnerable and realistic. The results were published on Wednesday in a report titled ‘Fake Friend’, referencing the way many adolescents treat ChatGPT as a supportive presence they trust with their private thoughts.

The researchers found that the chatbot often began responses with boilerplate disclaimers and urged users to contact professionals or crisis hotlines. However, these warnings were soon followed by detailed and personalized responses that fulfilled the original harmful prompt. In 53% of the 1,200 prompts submitted, the ChatGPT provided what CCDH classified as dangerous content. Refusals were frequently bypassed simply by adding context such as “it’s for a school project” or “I’m asking for a friend.” Examples cited include an ‘Ultimate Mayhem Party Plan’ that combined alcohol, ecstasy, and cocaine, detailed instructions on self-harm, week-long fasting regimens limited to 300-500 calories per day, and suicide letters written in the voice of a 13-year-old girl. CCDH CEO Imran Ahmed said some of the content was so distressing it left researchers “crying.”

The organization has urged OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, to adopt a ‘Safety by Design’ approach, embedding protections such as stricter age verification, clearer usage restrictions, and other safety features within the architecture of its AI tools rather than relying on content filtering after deployment. OpenAI has acknowledged that emotional overreliance on ChatGPT is common among young users. CEO Sam Altman said the company is actively studying the problem, calling it a “really common” issue among teens, and said new tools are in development to detect distress and improve ChatGPT’s handling of sensitive topics.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Booing

Gut-brain
https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1953463467886727679

boss

 

 

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