Menu Icon

Debt Rattle April 5 2025

Apr 052025
 
 April 5, 2025  Posted by at 9:57 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  41 Responses »


Salvador Dali Paranoiac Woman-Horse (Invisible Sleeping Woman, Lion, Horse) 1930

 

• Trump: This Is A Great Time To Get Rich (RT)
• Why Are People So Angry About Trump’s Tariffs? (Victor Davis Hanson)
• Trump’s Tariffs Will Turn EU Economy Into ‘Decaying Corpse’ – Medvedev (RT)
• You Wouldn’t Want to Be Him on That Dreadful Day (Kunstler)
• John Roberts Needs to Do His Job Already (Skeet)
• Trump Nemesis Judge Muses: Who to Hold in Contempt in Deportation Case? (Adams)
• Supreme Court Shuts Down Activist Judge (ZH)
• Canada Will Lead The World – PM (RT)
• Trump HHS Slashes Hundreds of Millions in Woke LGBTQ Grants (DS)
• The DOGE Emperor (Spencer)
• Trump’s Inner Circle Opposes New Putin Call – NBC News (RT)
• Zelensky Contradicts Trump On NATO Membership (RT)
• ‘Free Le Pen’ – Trump to France (RT)
• Yes, Trump Could Serve a Third Term. Law Professor Explains How (Allen)
• Larry Fink Believes He Will Win Over Control Of The Panama Canal (Gasparino)
• Trump Extends TikTok Deadline 75 Days, As He Tries To Close Deal (JTN)
• EU Could Fine Elon Musk’s X $1B Over Illicit Content, Disinformation (CT)

 

 

 

 

My job

Yield

Gracias
https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1908220062496133399

Crash

Ratna

O’Leary

Dmitriev

Fall in Line
https://twitter.com/Jules31415/status/1907857369586901222

 

 

 

 

Amazing to see how many people claim to know Trump’s tariffs will lead to utter disaster. Nobody knows, it’s never been tried before. Give it time. He’s had decades to actively think about, and he’s convinced it will be fine. Why else would he do it?

Why does the press never report that the end of income tax is also part of the plan?

• Trump: This Is A Great Time To Get Rich (RT)

US President Donald Trump has defended his controversial decision to impose sweeping tariffs on the majority of America’s trading partners. The move announced earlier this week has shocked global markets and sparked a backlash from world leaders. “To the many investors coming into the United States and investing massive amounts of money, my policies will never change. This is a great time to get rich, richer than ever before!!!” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. The president remained defiant, even as the US stock market suffered its worst crash since the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, with the Dow plunging 2,231 points on Friday, according to CNN. US Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said that it was “now becoming clear that the tariff increases will be significantly larger than expected.”

“While tariffs are highly likely to generate at least a temporary rise in inflation, it is also possible that the effects could be more persistent,” Powell added. White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt denied that the restrictions would hurt US businesses. “There’s not going to be any pain for American-owned companies and American workers, because their jobs are going to come back home, and again, as for prices, President Trump is working on tax cuts to put more money back into the pockets of Americans,” she told NewsNation on Thursday. On April 2, Trump announced a 10% baseline tariff on all imports and additional “reciprocal” duties on dozens of countries he said had an unfair trade imbalance with the US. The president argued that many nations were “ripping off” American citizens through “harmful policies like currency manipulation and exorbitant value-added taxes.”

China has reacted by imposing a 34% tariff on American goods, matching Trump’s levy on Chinese products. The EU has condemned the US tariffs and vowed to adopt “further countermeasures” in response. Canada said it would counter Trump’s “series of unwarranted and unjustified tariffs” with a 25% levy on cars imported from the US. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the head of the World Trade Organization, said that an all-out trade war would be “destructive for the global economy.” She warned that the tariffs lead to a contraction of around 1% of global merchandise trade.

Read more …

“..don’t you find it very ironic that Wall Street is blaming the Trump tariffs for heading us into a recession, if not depression, when the only great depression we’ve ever had was not caused by tariffs but by Wall Street?

• Why Are People So Angry About Trump’s Tariffs? (Victor Davis Hanson)

Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. April 3, President Donald Trump announced it as “Liberation Day.” And by that he meant we were going to be liberated from asymmetrical tariffs of the last 50 years. And it was going to inaugurate a new what he called “golden age” of trade parity, greater investment in the United States, but mostly, greater job opportunities and higher-paying jobs for Americans. And yet, the world seemed to erupt in anger. It was very strange. Even people on the libertarian right and, of course, the left were very angry. The Wall Street Journal pilloried Donald Trump. But here’s my question. China has prohibitive tariffs, so does Vietnam, so does Mexico, so does Europe. So do a lot of countries. So does India. But if tariffs are so destructive of their economies, why is China booming?

How did India become an economic powerhouse when it has these exorbitant tariffs on American imports? How did Vietnam, of all places, become such a different country even though it has these prohibitive tariffs? Why isn’t Germany, before its energy problems, why wasn’t it a wreck? It’s got tariffs on almost everything that we send them. How is the EU even functioning with these tariffs? I thought tariffs destroyed an economy, but they seem to like them. And they’re angry that they’re no longer asymmetrical. Apparently, people who are tariffing us think tariffs improve their economy. Maybe they’re right. I don’t know. The second thing is, why would you get angry at the person who is reacting to the asymmetrical tariff and not the people who inaugurated the tariff?

Why is Canada mad at us when it’s running a $63 billion surplus and it has tariffs on some American products at 250%. Doesn’t it seem like the people who started this asymmetrical—if I could use the word—trade war should be the culpable people, not the people who are reluctantly reacting to it? Sort of like Ukraine and Russia. Russia invaded Ukraine. Do we blame Ukraine for defending itself and trying to reciprocate? No, we don’t. We don’t blame America because it finally woke up and said, “Whatever they tariff us we’re gonna tariff them.” Which brings up another question: Are our tariffs really tariffs? That is, were they preemptive? Were they leveled against countries that had no tariffs against us? Were they punitive? No. They’re almost leveled on autopilot. Whatever a particular country tariffs us, we reciprocate and just mirror image them.

And they go off anytime that country says, “It was a mistake. We’re sorry. You’re an ally. You’re a neutral. We’re not going to tariff this American product.” And we say, “Fine.” Then the autopilot ceases and the automatic tariff ends. In other words, it’s their choice, not ours. We’re just reacting to what they did, not what we did. Couple of other questions that I’ve had. We haven’t run a trade surplus since 1975—50 years. So, it wasn’t suddenly we woke up and said, “It’s unfair. We want commercial justice.” No. We’ve been watching this happen. For 50 years it’s been going on. And no president, no administration, no Congress in the past has done anything about it. Done anything about what? Leveling tariffs on our products that we don’t level on theirs.

It was all predicated in the postwar period. We were so affluent, so powerful—Europe, China, Russia were in shambles—that we had to take up the burdens of reviving the economy by taking great trade deficits. Fifty years later, we have been deindustrialized. And the countries who did this to us, by these unfair and asymmetrical tariffs, did not fall apart. They did not self-destruct. They apparently thought it was in their self-interest. And if anybody calibrates the recent gross domestic product growth of India or Taiwan or South Korea or Japan, they seem to have some logic to it.

There’s a final irony. The people who are warning us most vehemently about this tariff quote the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930. But remember something, that came after the onset of the Depression—after. The stock market crashed in 1929. That law was not passed until 1930. It was not really amplified until ’31. And here’s the other thing that they were, conveniently, not reminded of: We were running a surplus. That was a preemptive punitive tariff, on our part, against other countries. We had a trade surplus. And it was not 10% or 20%. Some of the tariffs were 40% and 50%. And again, it happened after the collapse of the stock market. In conclusion, don’t you find it very ironic that Wall Street is blaming the Trump tariffs for heading us into a recession, if not depression, when the only great depression we’ve ever had was not caused by tariffs but by Wall Street?

Read more …

Seems a likelier prediction than mayhem in the US.

• Trump’s Tariffs Will Turn EU Economy Into ‘Decaying Corpse’ – Medvedev (RT)

The US imposition of “reciprocal” tariffs on EU exports has doomed the bloc’s economy, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has said. This week, US President Donald Trump announced sweeping tariffs in an attempt to improve America’s balance of trade, accusing the country’s economic partners of exploiting access to its consumer market through protectionist policies and currency manipulation. Medvedev, now deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council, remarked on Thursday that while the move seriously disrupts global commerce, Russia will be largely unaffected, as its trade with the US is virtually nonexistent.

“No need for knee-jerk reactions,” he posted on social media. “We should take a seat on the shore and wait for the enemy’s corpse to float by. In this case, the decaying corpse of the EU economy.” The expression, which advises patient inaction, has been attributed by Western authors, including Umberto Eco, to various Eastern sources and may be a misinterpretation of a remark by Chinese philosopher Confucius, which does not mention dead bodies. Outgoing German Economy Minister Robert Habeck has compared the potential impact to the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. Then too, “something new was happening, and we were not prepared in Europe to cope with the challenge,” he said during a press conference on Thursday. Many other European politicians and media outlets have described the economic fallout from the tariffs as disastrous for member states. Washington, however, has warned that any retaliatory steps would be met with further measures.

Medvedev has previously called out Brussels for being incompetent and irrationally hostile toward Russia. In an effort to punish Moscow over the Ukraine conflict, Brussels has sought to cut off energy imports from the country entirely. The economic bloc has also imposed sweeping sanctions, significantly reducing direct trade. Critics of the policy, including Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and his Slovak counterpart, Robert Fico, argue that it has led to a dramatic decline in the competitiveness of EU products, inflicting substantial economic damage.

Read more …

If Trump must fight Roberts, he will.

• You Wouldn’t Want to Be Him on That Dreadful Day (Kunstler)

Do you see the pattern? Populist party leaders all over Western Civ getting undone by the law courts —Calin Georgescu in Romania, election cancelled; Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, de-railed by President Lula’s stooge judges (with CIA help); Prime Minister Robert Fico of Slovakia shot-up with five bullets in May last year (survived miraculously); the Alternative-for-Deutschland Party de-platformed by the Scholz-Merz ruling junta; then, this week, Marine Le Pen, leading candidate (by far) for President of France, defenestrated on Mickey Mouse charges in the Paris court. And, of course, since 2015, Mr. Trump, hounded relentlessly, but not yet overthrown, due to sheer pluck and testosterone (the official hated hormone of the Left).

International lawfare is about the last remaining tool in the “Globalist” kit-bag for “color revolution,” which means regime change by underhanded means, election interference being the favorite device. The poster child, of course, was the US CIA / DOD State Department regime change operation in Ukraine, 2014, that ousted Russian-leaning elected President Viktor Yanukovych, eventually leading to the installation of coke-head Volodymyr Zelensky, and ultimately to the Ukraine War that has killed over a million people. These days, astroturf (i.e., fake) street revolution (e.g., Maidan in Kiev 2014) is out; lawfare is in.

By Globalist, let’s just say the broad alliance of the EU, the European Central Bank & friends, the WEF-and-cronies in the global corporatocracy, the US Democratic Party, billionaires such as George Soros and Reid Hoffman, and sundry residual mass-formation world-savors of the crypto-communist-green-bullshit persuasion. The situation in our own country has grown particularly acute with the DC and other regional federal court judges lately arrogating the Article II executive powers of the president. You can see what the furthest strategic end-point is: the Democratic Party wants to induce President Trump to invoke a national emergency against this legal insurrection in order to force him to play the role of “fascist dictator.” Mr. Trump has been very careful to stay as much within-the-guardrails of the law as possible throughout this long campaign to destroy him and his MAGA movement to purge corruption from the government.

The hinge on the conflict now is the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS), which is led by Chief Justice John Roberts. A whole lot of troubling info about CJ Roberts has blown up in recent days, much of it not exactly new, but buried and ignored by the likes of The New York Times, and its kindred blob mouthpieces. You’ve read in this blog recently how CJ Roberts’s chief factotum at SCOTUS, Sheldon Snook, is married to Mary McCord, involved officially in every lawfare prank against Mr. Trump since RussiaGate, when she was U.S. Assistant Attorney-General for National Security — and who then went on as counsel for Jerrold Nadler’s House Committee Trump Impeachment No. 1, and the J-6 House Committee, both actions of stupendous bad faith.

Turns out that CJ Roberts has been “besties” with Lawfare field marshal Norm Eisen, and for quite a long time, as far back as 2005. Eisen was special counsel on Impeachment No. 1, and chief strategist behind the janky cases staged last year against Mr. Trump by New York AG Letitia James, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, and Fulton County (GA) DA Fani Willis. You can bet that Eisen was at least an unofficial strategic advisor in the Special Counsel Jack Smith prosecutions, too, along with Mary McCord and Andrew Weissmann of Mueller Commission infamy — Eisen, McCord, and Weissmann, the three Nosferatus of Lawfare. Eisen is coordinating most of the current lawsuit action against Mr. Trump in the federal courts.

Several alt-news outlets are reporting that CJ Roberts made two trips to visit Norm Eisen in Prague between 2011 and 2014 when Eisen was Barack Obama’s ambassador to the Czech Republic. The longest visit, a week, entailed a global conference on “American and European rule-of-law issues.” Hmmmm. . . what could that possibly mean? Revolver News, Mike Benz on “X”, and a character styled as “The Researcher” on “X” have all reported on the Roberts-Eisen close friendship. Also turns out that CJ Roberts is a club member at an elite, invite-only club for legal poohbahs called the Edward Bennett Williams Inn of Court, which is indirectly associated with an international Inns of Court network centered in London. (“Rule-of-law,” anyone?) Other members of the EBW Inn of Court in DC. include Judges James (“Jeb”) Boasberg, Beryl Howell, Amit Mehta, all of the DC District — all involved in current lawfare suits — and SCOTUS Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Do you suppose they have discussed any of these matters at their meet-ups, especially after the pass-around of legal beverages? Perhaps even strategized about them?

Doesn’t that make you a little queasy about CJ Roberts’s role presiding over cases coming any day before SCOTUS that have been designed and propelled by his good pal, Norm Eisen? Should CJ Roberts consider recusing himself from any of these pending cases on the SCOTUS docket? Oh, yes, one other interesting sidelight: John Roberts has been found listed on the Jeffrey Epstein flight logs of the “Lolita Express” bound for Little St. James Island in the US Virgin Islands, Epstein’s supposed party shack for the celebrity elite. The allegation that the “John Roberts” listed in the flight log is the same as the Chief Justice is officially unsubstantiated. But here it is FWIW. Of course, no flight log would be required for a jaunt to Epstein’s New York City townhouse, in case CJ Roberts ever ventured up there from our nation’s capital, an easy car trip.

It is established fact that Epstein was busy recording the various doings in the many bedrooms of these establishments, arguably not merely for his private entertainment. Is CJ Roberts perhaps under blackmail for any such activity recorded? Lord only knows, just now. But it’s possible that FBI Director Kash Patel and his Deputy Director Dan Bongino know the answer to this abiding mystery, since weeks ago they assigned a thousand agents in the New York City FBI office to sort out the thousands of pages and other articles of evidence that the office had been suppressing for years until US AG Pam Bondi fired the top agent there, James Dennehy, for withholding it so long. It’s been awfully quiet over at the FBI and DOJ home office in DC since then. Of course, if any referrals are being considered, or any grand jury bound cases being prepared, you wouldn’t want that to leak out, would you?

Read more …

Roberts can try to wait out the clock 677 times, but the Trump team are not fools.

• John Roberts Needs to Do His Job Already (Skeet)

We are in the midst of a judicial coup. In the past three months, there have been at least 79 nationwide injunctions issued by lower courts against the legal orders issued by President Trump. That’s more than half the total number of nationwide injunctions ever issued. Furthermore, these injunctions can ignore and overrule rulings on the same issue made by other district judges. If 50 district judges rule that a presidential order is constitutional, and the 51st district judge rules that it isn’t, that single district judge can overrule and violate the separation of powers not only of the president and Congress, but also of the rest of the judiciary. Just in the past couple of weeks, a federal judge blocked President Trump from firing federal probationary workers. Bosses and managers in every company in America, including unionized companies, have the right to fire probationary workers at any time for any reason.

But Judge James K. Bredar unilaterally declared that President Trump cannot. In the same vein, District Judge Anthony Trenga blocked President Trump from firing 19 CIA and DNI employees. District Judges Benjamin Settle and Ana Reyes, handling different cases on opposite sides of the country, both blocked Trump’s transgender military ban. Boston Municipal Court Judge Mark Summerville declared an ICE agent in contempt for taking an illegal into custody during the latter’s criminal trial (for charges of falsifying information on a government document, a charge the judge dismissed). Judge Summerville then ordered the local district attorney’s office to investigate the ICE agent. District Judge Paula Xinis ordered the American government to somehow force the return of an MS-13 gang leader from a prison in El Salvador. The judge said he must be returned before this upcoming Monday before midnight. (Or?)

District Judge Edward Chen blocked President Trump from revoking deportation protections from Venezuelan illegals, decrying Trump’s order as racist and blathering on about the “social and economic contributions” of the 350,000 illegals flooding the labor market and straining social services, as if their economic impact (even if it were positive) should have any bearing whatsoever of the constitutionality of Trump’s order. As Bonchie over at RedState pointed out, this case is particularly egregious in that Judge Chen disregarded the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had previously ruled that the Temporary Protection Status (which Judge Chen ordered reinstated) is not subject to judicial review. This is the appeals court under whose jurisdiction Judge Chen operates. So, he basically just told his supervisors that they’re wrong, he’s right, and they can go pound sand.

And of course there is District Judge Boasberg, who infamously ordered planes carrying foreign terrorists to turn around midair and return them to American soil, where they’d be freed to rape, murder, and vote Democrat. Any common-sense reading of the Alien Enemies Act clearly demonstrates that President Trump is well within his rights in deporting foreign terrorists and gang members. But Boasberg singlehandedly and arbitrarily claimed authority to negate the law. Boasberg’s blatant disregard of the law and his usurpation of executive authority led to calls from conservative circles, Congress, and the president himself for Boasberg’s impeachment. But shortly after these calls for impeachment, Chief Justice John Roberts issued an unprecedented statement denouncing such an approach. Roberts’ statement read, “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

Justice Roberts is not so dumb as to confuse “disagreement concerning a judicial decision” with a blatant usurpation of authority and the willful violation of the separation of powers as enumerated in the U. S. Constitution. Roberts’ intention is to protect and expand the unchecked power of the judiciary at the expense of the other co-equal branches of government. The abuse of legislative and executive power regularly leads to censure, party expulsion, and impeachment. The abuse of judicial power suffers from no such checks, limitations, or consequences. And when such constitutionally documented remedies are pondered by members of the supposedly coequal branches, Justice Roberts harangues them for their audacity.

Justice Roberts is also not so dumb as to not realize exactly what the Left is doing. It’s obvious to everyone that they’re trying to jam Trump up in the red tape of a judicial bureaucratic nightmare to slow down or stop his agenda. It doesn’t matter if every single case reaches the Supreme Court and every single case results in the Supreme Court siding with Trump. Such a process can take months or years to adjudicate each case. That’s the point. The process is the punishment, and the Left is using it as an unconstitutional veto. They’re hoping to string Trump along until the midterms, where they hope to regain control of Congress and launch a few dozen or so impeachment proceedings against him (about which Roberts will make zero statements about the abuse of impeachment powers).

His defense of the integrity of the court system, or against the abuse of impeachment, is quite selective. Did he speak out during the first two sham impeachments against President Trump? Did he speak out when President Biden brazenly ignored and defied the Supreme Court ruling on student debt? On a side note, John, any progress on that internal investigation as to which justice’s aide leaked the Dobbs decision to the press? To the extent that Justice Robert concedes that there is a blatant judicial coup being attempted in real time at district level (for which there have been no consequences and, hence, no incentives to refrain from such abuse, which has clearly accelerated in recent weeks), the legal and constitutional solution must be wide ranging and comprehensive.

[..] Suppose a rogue judge ordered the New York Times and the Washington Post to cease operations based on that judge’s twisted understanding of the First Amendment. Would Justice Roberts tell everyone to calm down and go through the appeals process? Would these newspapers be expected to abide by the ruling for the months and years it would take to reach the Supreme Court?

If police across the country started entering whatever homes they wanted to conduct warrantless searches, and a rogue judge passed a nationwide injunction giving them legal cover to do so, would Justice Roberts expect this abuse to continue while the appeals courts heard the cases? Would American citizens be expected to submit to warrantless searches at the whim of the authorities until SCOTUS finally got around to reviewing them?

Justice Roberts, you have judges ordering how the executive is to administer the military. You have justices acting as de facto air traffic controllers, demanding the executive branch order aircraft maneuvers over other nations’ airspace without any regard or knowledge of the safety and logistics thereof. You have judges handcuffing executive action based not on the constitutionality of said action, but on how that particular judge thinks its economic impact would be. You have judges ordering district attorneys’ offices to launch investigations. You have judges ordering our government to tell other governments what to do.

Read more …

“Judge Boasberg’s politically motivated ruling overstepped his authority, compromised the impartiality of the judiciary, and created a constitutional crisis,”

• Trump Nemesis Judge Muses: Who to Hold in Contempt in Deportation Case? (Adams)

“How should I determine who the contemner or contemners are?” federal District Court Judge James Boasberg asked Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Immigration Litigation Drew Ensign. A contemner is someone said to be in contempt of court. In an at-times contentious hearing on Thursday, the chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia told the Justice Department lawyer that he thought the Trump administration had disobeyed his verbal court order to turn around three planes heading to El Salvador carrying more than 238 illegal migrants accused by the Trump administration of being members of the Tren de Aragua and MS-13 gangs. “It seems to me there’s a fair likelihood that that is not correct; in fact, that the government acted in bad faith throughout that day,” Boasberg, an appointee of President Barack Obama, said in court.

The Trump administration, for its part, maintained that it had followed the judge’s written order on 7:27 p.m. on March 15 that halted what the administration viewed as the enforcement of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. However, Boasberg also gave an oral order earlier in the day that is the subject of the dispute between the judge and the Trump administration. The Trump administration contends that the judge’s verbal command to turn the planes around “did not amount to a binding injunction.” The 1798 Alien Enemies Act was passed during the administration of John Adams, the second president. The law stipulated that when the United States is at war or facing “any invasion or predatory incursion,” the president can remove males who are 14 years of age or older from the United States “as alien enemies.”

Boasberg asked who had made the decision to not turn the planes back or not disembark the illegal immigrants, for which the government lawyer did not have an answer. “You, standing here, have no idea who made the decision to not to bring the planes back or have the passengers not be disembarked upon arrival? As we proceed with potential contempt proceedings, that may become relevant,” the judge said. Members of Congress have taken issue with Boasberg’s actions, and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, has vowed to hold hearings on some of the judicial rulings against the Trump administration. Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, and five other House Republicans have introduced articles of impeachment in the House against Boasberg.

“Chief Judge Boasberg usurped the executive’s constitutional authority, going so far as to order midair flights to turn around and return violent foreign gangsters back to American soil. Judge Boasberg’s politically motivated ruling overstepped his authority, compromised the impartiality of the judiciary, and created a constitutional crisis,” Gill said in a press statement. To remove a federal judge from office would require some Democrats’ support in the Senate, which House Republicans are unlikely to get. Boasberg is expected to rule on whether to hold Trump administration officials in contempt of court next week. The federal D.C. appeals court denied the Trump administration’s request to lift Boasberg’s order, and the administration has subsequently appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

Read more …

Not complete.

• Supreme Court Shuts Down Activist Judge (ZH)

The Supreme Court on Friday overruled an activist judge in Boston, allowing the Trump administration to slash $250 million for more than 100 teacher training grants for DEI and other woke programs. In a 5-4 decision nine days after the request, the Supremes sided with the Trump administration’s emergency request to stay the court order by judge Myong J. Joun of the federal District of Massachusetts – who had ordered the Trump administration to “immediately restore” the “pre-existing status quo prior to the termination.” According to the ruling – which is likely to narrow the ability of district courts to halt agency actions involving grant function, Joun lacked authority to order the Trump admin to restore the funding.

https://twitterr.com/bykatiebuehler/status/1908255070291996992?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1908255070291996992%7Ctwgr%5Ee5efef6d959ddcbb739d9a2382749cea9bba9ea0%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fsupreme-court-shuts-down-activist-judge-lets-trump-cut-250-million-dei-training-teachers

In his ruling, Myong sided with California and eight other blue states that argued that the cuts were likely driven by efforts by the Trump administration to gut DEI programs (duh). The cuts were announced on Feb. 17, following findings by DOGE that taxpayer funds were being used to “train teachers and education agencies on divisive ideologies” that were “inappropriate and unnecessary,” including “critical race theory,; diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); social justice activism; ‘anti-racism’; and instruction on white privilege and white supremacy.” And of course, dissenting in the Supreme Court decision were Justices Jackson, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Chief Justice Roberts.

Read more …

“Carney said the move was bound to “rupture the global economy,” which has already become “fundamentally different today than it was yesterday.”

That is the idea, yes.

• Canada Will Lead The World – PM (RT)

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has condemned US President Donald Trump’s new slate of tariffs, declaring that Ottawa stands ready to become the global economic leader in place of Washington. He delivered the remarks on Thursday as he unveiled retaliatory measures for Trump’s claimed “reciprocal” tariffs, which include an additional 25% automobile industry tariff on Canada. Ottawa has responded by tariffing all cars and vehicle content imported from the US that is not compliant with USMCA, a cornerstone free trade pact between the US, Canada, and Mexico. The sweeping new wave of tariffs ranging from 10% to 49%, affecting most countries in the world, was rolled out by Trump on Wednesday on what he called “liberation day” in an effort to rectify America’s import-export imbalance. Carney said the move was bound to “rupture the global economy,” which has already become “fundamentally different today than it was yesterday.”

“The system of global trade anchored on the US [is one] that Canada has relied on since the end of the Second World War. A system that, while not perfect, has helped to deliver prosperity for our country for decades is over. Our old relationship of steadily deepening integration with the US is over,” the prime minister announced. Carney described the development as a “tragedy” that has become “the new reality,” but claimed that Ottawa was ready to take “global economic leadership” instead of Washington. “Canada must be looking elsewhere to expand our trade, to build our economy, and to protect our sovereignty. Canada is ready to take a leadership role in building a coalition of like-minded countries who share our values,” he said. “And if the United States no longer wants to lead, Canada will.”

Canada has become one of the prime targets for Trump’s attacks on the global trade status quo, with the US president alleging that Washington has been “subsidizing” Ottawa in the amount of about $200 billion a year. The best way to resolve their economic disagreements would be for Canada would be becoming the “cherished” 51st state of the US, he has suggested on multiple occasions. While Canadian leaders have firmly rejected the annexation idea, opinion polls have indicated it is also extremely unpopular among the public as well. A recent YouGov poll suggested that up to 77% of Canadians firmly oppose it, with only around 15% in favor of a merger with the US.

Read more …

We escaped this at the last minute.

• Trump HHS Slashes Hundreds of Millions in Woke LGBTQ Grants (DS)

The Trump administration’s Health and Human Services Department has canceled hundreds of millions of dollars in grants dedicated to researching illegal sexual behavior in children, pregnancy prevention for “transgender boys,” and so-called sleep inequality affecting black sexual-minority men. In March, HHS canceled at least $530 million of funding for LGBTQ+ health research programs, according to a grant tracker from Noam Ross of rOpenSci and Scott Delaney of Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health. HHS previously provided more than $990 million of grant funding to LGBTQ+ health research programs, according to the tracker. The National Institutes of Health’s newly sworn-in director, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, said that under his tutelage, the agency would shift its priorities toward “research aimed at preventing, treating, and curing chronic conditions like cancer, diabetes, heart disease, obesity and many others that cause so much suffering and deaths among all Americans, LGBTQ individuals included.”

The shift “away from politicized DEI and gender ideology studies” is in “accordance with the president’s executive orders,” HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon told The Daily Signal. The priority shift included cutting funding for studies focused on radical gender ideology, critical race theory, and other topics that polls show to be wildly unpopular with Americans, according to The Daily Signal’s review of terminated grants. For instance, the Trump administration cut off $10,000 of promised funding to a conference Feb. 25-27 at the University of Oklahoma called “Be Curious Not Judgmental: The 4th National Symposium on Sexual Behavior of Youth.” “Professionals and parents continue to use myths and misunderstandings as the base of decisions on problematic and illegal sexual behavior of children and adolescents,” the symposium’s website reads. “Adults worry about addressing sexual topics, and yet youth continue to be inundated with graphic sexual images and messages.”

“We need to better equip professionals and parents to understand and support healthy sexual development and to identify problematic sexual behavior early and intervene with all children and caregivers impacted,” the description continues. One breakout session at the conference focused on “The Help-Wanted Prevention Intervention for Minor Attracted Individuals,” a euphemism for pedophiles. On March 21, Trump’s NIH terminated a $2.9 million grant to the University of Minnesota for research on “adolescent health at the intersections of sexual, gender, racial/ethnic, immigrant identities and native language.” The study aimed to determine “what positive and negative experiences are particularly relevant to the overlapping, simultaneous production of inequalities by [sexual and gender minority] identity, race/ethnicity, immigration experiences, and native language?”

The pre-Trump NIH promised the Research Triangle Institute $100,507 to study “social influences on sexual health among Latinx adolescents and emerging adults who identify as LGBTQ+ in an agricultural community.” NIH ended a $1.5 million grant to Urban Health Partnerships for “leveraging a community-driven approach to address the impact of social determinants of health on structural inequities among Miami-Dade County’s intergenerational LGBTQ+ Community.” Hunter College lost its $211,100 grant to study “development and feasibility of a psychosocial intervention for sexual and gender minority autistic adults.” On March 18, NIH cut off Virginia Commonwealth University’s $205,308 grant focused on “using youth-engaged methods to develop and evaluate a measure for disordered eating behaviors in transgender and gender-diverse youth.”

“Transgender, nonbinary, and gender-diverse (TNG) youth face stigma due to the marginalization of their gender identities,” the study says. “TNG youth also have increased vulnerability to body dissatisfaction due to pubertal changes and development of secondary sexual characteristics that might be misaligned with their gender identity, which may be exacerbated by a youth’s inability to access gender-affirming medical care (i.e., puberty blockers, gender-affirming hormones).” Yale University lost government funding for a program, “Training in Behavioral Design Interventions to Address Stigma Among Men Who have Sex with Men.” “This study will explore relationships of different discrimination experiences and sexual health among young Black men who have sex with men (YBMSM),” the project narrative says. “This study aims to better the sexual health of YBMSM throughout their lives by informing future interventions that help decrease new cases of HIV and other poor sexual health outcomes.”

The NIH terminated its $2,368,492 contract with Brown University to study “improving mental health among the LGBTQ+ community impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.”NIH had committed more than $1.3 million to Princeton University to study “Views of Gender in Adolescence.” “Gender diverse children often experience disparities in mental health and well-being,” the project narrative says. “Further questions concern the stability of their gender, as that has implications for medical transitions. The proposed work would examine the role of gender beliefs and self-categorization in predicting mental health and well-being, as well as provide better estimates of rates of stability and change across time in the identities of both cisgender and gender-diverse youth.” Trump’s HHS terminated a $1.3 million grant to the Center for Innovative Public Health Research to study “Adapting an LGB+ inclusive teen-pregnancy prevention program for transgender boys.”

Read more …

Publius Helvius Pertinax.

“There is no doubt, however, that those who have fattened at the public trough in the U.S. for so many decades are not giving up easily..”

• The DOGE Emperor (Spencer)

See if any of this sounds familiar: a great nation, indeed, the world’s only superpower, is beset by turmoil, as a corrupt political class grows more interested in enriching itself than in performing any actual public service. Finally, a new leader emerges who has a long and distinguished record in other fields, but is not a career politician. Citizens who are deeply concerned about the direction of the country put their faith in this unlikely reformer and manage to secure the top spot for him, but the corrupt elements are supremely powerful and deeply entrenched. They refuse to accept the new leader and fight back fiercely against his efforts to restore competence and honesty to the government. I am, of course, speaking about Publius Helvius Pertinax, who was the emperor of Rome from Jan. 1, 193, to March 28, 193. In his all too brief reign at the helm of the magnificent empire, Pertinax tried to turn around the mighty ship of state and draw it out of the morass of corruption into which he had fallen.

One of his contemporaries, the historian and Roman Senator Cassius Dio, said that Pertinax was “an excellent and upright man” and a fine emperor as well, who during his three-month tenure demonstrated “not only humaneness and integrity in the imperial administrations, but also the most economical management and the most careful consideration for the public welfare.” Writing over thirteen centuries later, Niccolò Machiavelli wrote in his notorious manual of power politics, “The Prince,” that Pertinax was one of three Roman emperors of his time who were “men of modest life, lovers of justice, enemies to cruelty, humane, and benignant.” This did not, however, play well in the empire of his day. The soldiers of the Roman Empire, “being accustomed to live licentiously under Commodus,” who was Pertinax’s free-spending predecessor, “could not endure the honest life to which Pertinax wished to reduce them.”

This was understandable. The thing about corruption is that it, well, corrupts. Once soldiers get accustomed to getting lavish amounts of money under the table for various favors, it is difficult to compel them to be content with their relatively meager official salary alone. And it wasn’t just the soldiers. The Roman Emperors site notes that “Pertinax’s reign was characterized by his attempts to reverse the excesses and corruption of Commodus’ rule. He immediately set about reforming the administration, cutting down on the extravagance that had characterized the previous regime.” Shades of DOGE. Pertinax also “sought to restore discipline within the Praetorian Guard and the broader military, which had become increasingly unruly under Commodus. Pertinax also attempted to implement financial reforms, aiming to replenish the depleted imperial treasury through austerity measures and the sale of Commodus’ extravagant possessions.”

While anyone who was aware of the empire’s former glory welcomed these reforms, the beneficiaries of the corruption were less happy: “Pertinax’s reforms were met with resistance from multiple quarters. The Praetorian Guard, in particular, had grown accustomed to the bribes and favors they had received during Commodus’ reign. Pertinax’s attempts to impose discipline and reduce their influence were deeply unpopular. The Guard, which had played a key role in the assassination of Commodus, was now wary of any emperor who might threaten their privileged position.” Making matters even worse was the fact that “Pertinax’s efforts to restore financial discipline alienated many in the Roman elite. His attempts to collect overdue taxes and recover state property from wealthy individuals who had benefitted under Commodus made him enemies among the Senate and the aristocracy. These powerful groups saw Pertinax as a threat to their wealth and influence and began plotting against him.”

Yeah, you’re right, this could be a terrific movie. Cast Trump as Pertinax, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi as his enemies among the Senate and aristocracy, Old Joe Biden (or maybe Barack Obama) as Commodus, and Mark Milley as the angry head of the Praetorian Guard. The worst part, however, is that Pertinax did not succeed; the Praetorian Guard assassinated him on March 28, 193, and the empire descended into chaos. The imperial throne was sold off to the highest bidder, Didius Julianus, who was himself murdered on June 2, 193. Of course, the effort to reform the American government may not have the same sad ending. There is no doubt, however, that those who have fattened at the public trough in the U.S. for so many decades are not giving up easily, and will continue trying to throw every possible roadblock in Trump’s path as he attempts to restore honest government. May he succeed where Pertinax failed.

Read more …

He’ll make the call.

• Trump’s Inner Circle Opposes New Putin Call – NBC News (RT)

US President Donald Trump’s advisers are urging him to not call his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, before Moscow commits to a full ceasefire in the Ukraine conflict, NBC News reported on Thursday citing two anonymous officials. The US leader previously told the media outlet that he intends to talk with Putin again, potentially as soon as this week, following their previous conversation on March 18. Trump, who is trying to mediate a truce between Moscow and Kiev after more than three years of hostilities, stated on Tuesday that Putin and Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky are “ready to make a deal” thanks to his efforts.

Putin has said he supports a full suspension of the fighting, but is concerned with the specifics of how it would be arranged. He has suggested that a pause would become possible if the US ensures comprehensive monitoring along the frontline and if Kiev suspends mobilization of reinforcements. During his previous call with Trump, the Russian president agreed to a moratorium on attacks against energy infrastructure, which Zelensky also publicly endorsed. However since then the Russian Defense Ministry has regularly reported Ukrainian strikes breaching the partial ceasefire, including against internationally-owned infrastructure on Russian soil. Moscow has said that it remains committed to its end of the bargain. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed on Friday that no contacts between Putin and Trump are scheduled for the “next several days” and downplayed the NBC report, warning about “speculation and outright lies” in the press.

This week, Russian negotiator Kirill Dmitriev, who advises President Putin on international economic cooperation, visited the US to meet White House officials. Following the talks, he said more progress has been made towards resolving the Ukraine conflict, but that third parties are seeking to derail the normalization of US-Russian relations initiated by Trump in February, when he phoned Putin for the first time since assuming office.Politico has reported an expectation in the UK and Germany of a third Putin-Trump call within days, following Dmitriev’s visit.

Read more …

Putin will demand a final solution.

• Zelensky Contradicts Trump On NATO Membership (RT)

Ukraine could still become a member of NATO despite opposition to the idea from the administration of US President Donald Trump, Vladimir Zelensky has insisted. Trump lashed out at the Ukrainian leader earlier this week, saying “he wants to be a member of NATO. Well, he was never going to be a member of NATO. He understands that.” However, during a meeting with the heads of territorial communities of Chernigov Region, Zelensky made it clear that he has not yet given up on his long-standing ambitions of joining the US-led bloc. “You know who does not support Ukraine’s membership in NATO so far, but in any case, no one is removing this issue from the table for the future,” Zelensky said, as cited by the Ukrinform news agency.

“At least, we are talking about the fact that even if now someone does not want to support [Kiev joining the bloc], we will see what happens in the future,” Zelensky added. According to the Ukrainian leader, until Kiev becomes a member of the bloc it should be provided with “NATO-like security guarantees” by its Western backers. Ukraine will be able to achieve “a just peace” with Russia, but in order to do so “it has to be strong when getting to the negotiating table,” he insisted. Russia cited Kiev’s ambitions to join NATO, which Moscow views as a hostile bloc, as among the main reasons for launching its military operation in February 2022.

Ukraine’s neutrality remains one of the key demands by Moscow for achieving a diplomatic settlement of the conflict, along with the demilitarization and denazification of the country and recognition by Kiev of the People’s Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk as well as Kherson and Zaporozhye regions as Russian territory. Last month, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said “yes” when asked by Bloomberg if Trump had already taken the question of Kiev joining NATO off the table in efforts undertaken by the US and Russia to achieve peace in the Ukraine conflict. Rutte also suggested that once the fighting stops, the West could “step by step… restore normal relations with Russia.” However, he added that “we are absolutely not there yet, we have to maintain the pressure” on Moscow.

Read more …

“It is the same ‘playbook’ that was used against me by a group of Lunatics and Losers, like Norm Eisen, Andrew Weissmann, and Lisa Monaco,”

• ‘Free Le Pen’ – Trump to France (RT)

US President Donald Trump has accused the French political establishment of employing lawfare against right-wing figure Marine Le Pen, urging Paris to “free” her. On Monday, a Paris court sentenced Le Pen to four years in prison and imposed a five-year ban on her eligibility for public office, effectively preventing her from running in the 2027 presidential election. In a post on Truth Social late Thursday, Trump declared Le Pen a victim of a “witch hunt.” He asserted that the prosecution of Le Pen was orchestrated by “European Leftists using Lawfare to silence Free Speech, and censor their Political Opponent.”

“It is the same ‘playbook’ that was used against me by a group of Lunatics and Losers, like Norm Eisen, Andrew Weissmann, and Lisa Monaco,” he remarked, referring to attorneys who were involved in litigation against him since his first term as president. Trump claims those proceedings were politically-driven. Although Trump admitted he did not personally know Le Pen or the specifics of her case, which he assumed stemmed from a “bookkeeping” error, he expressed admiration for her resilience. He concluded, “It is all so bad for France, and the Great French People, no matter what side they are on. FREE MARINE LE PEN!” Le Pen and several other senior members of her National Rally (RN) party were found guilty of misappropriating EU funds intended to support European Parliament members for domestic party activities.

The offenses occurred between 2004 and 2016, when she was the leader of RN. Several foreign political leaders criticized the ruling as a blow to democracy in France. Trump previously described it as “a very big deal.” Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni contended that the sentence “takes away representation from millions of citizens,” while her Hungarian counterpart, Viktor Orban, expressed his solidarity with Le Pen by posting “Je suis Marine!” Le Pen characterized the ruling as “political,” asserting that it reflected a “lower court judge” depriving French voters of the opportunity to back their preferred presidential candidate.

Read more …

Can’t get elected three times, but you can serve.

• Yes, Trump Could Serve a Third Term. Law Professor Explains How (Allen)

President Donald Trump could not run for a third term, but he could be president a third time, according to Cornell law professor Bill Jacobson. The 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is clear that no one can be elected to the office of the president “more than twice.” “But there’s nothing in the Constitution that prohibits someone from serving a third term,” said Jacobson, founder and publisher of Legal Insurrection. If another candidate won the presidential election, and Trump was his or her vice presidential running mate, that candidate could step aside after winning the race and allow Trump to take over, according to Jacobson, who was quick to add he doesn’t endorse such an action. While a deal made with a running mate for Trump to serve a third term “does not violate the Constitution,” Jacobson says, it “might violate the spirit of the Constitution.”

The intent of the 22nd Amendment is “that we not have a permanent president,” Jacobson said, adding that because of that, serving a third term “might be subject to challenge,” adding: “It might be subject to what was the original meaning of these terms. But on its face, there’s no barrier. “The conversation of Trump serving a third term recently landed in headlines when a number of reporters started asking the president if he wanted a third term. “I’m not looking at that, but I’ll tell you, I have had more people asking me to have a third term,” Trump said while speaking with reporters on Air Force One at the end of March. This isn’t the first time the idea of a former two-term president serving another term has been floated.

In October 2023, Howard J. Klein of Lakewood Ranch, Florida, wrote in a letter to the editor of The Wall Street Journal that former President Barack Obama could run as the vice presidential candidate with then-President Joe Biden. “Mr. Obama would constitutionally succeed to the presidency—without election—if Mr. Biden were to vacate the office,” Klein wrote. The 22nd Amendment was added to the Constitution in 1951 in the wake of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s election to four terms in 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944. Congress approved the 22nd Amendment on March 21, 1947, then submitted it to the state legislatures for required ratification. The ratification process was completed on Feb. 27, 1951, when the required 36 of the then-48 states (before Hawaii and Alaska joined the union) had ratified the amendment.

Read more …

Buy TikTok, Larry.

• Larry Fink Believes He Will Win Over Control Of The Panama Canal (Gasparino)

Larry Fink is playing the long game. With a little time, a possible nudge from President Trump and some on-the-ground lobbying of his contacts in mainland China, BlackRock’s billionaire boss believes he will win approval from the Mainland’s apparatchiks to take control of the Panama Canal, On The Money has learned.Specifically, Fink is looking to close a $23 billion deal with Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison to buy 43 ports worldwide — including the two ports that are strategically located on the Atlantic and Pacific sides of the Panama Canal.Until recently, most people didn’t know much about CK Hutchison, which is headed by the mercurial, 96-year-old billionaire Li Ka-shing, Hong Kong’s richest tycoon.

That was until The Donald began talking up the strategic importance of the Panama Canal, one of the busiest waterways for global trade because it easily connects both oceans through a 51-mile deepwater runway. Hutchison holds long-term leases there and at dozens of others including on the Suez Canal. Its stock traded cheaply, and when Trump began to mouth off about the need to exert US eminence at the Panama Canal (the US, after all, built it and controlled the zone until the 1970s), Blackrock saw a way to make some money and get into Trump’s good graces. The other side of the deal wasn’t so happy. And I’m not talking about Hutchison, but its overlords in the Chinese Communist Party who began to “investigate” the tie-up for God knows what other than to prevent the US from gaining a foothold at this vital waterway. The CCP is now threatening to throttle the entire deal.

The people at BlackRock are at least posturing in private conversations that they’re not too worried. They tell On The Money to ignore reports that the deal was set to be officially signed by Wednesday. The real due date is the 145-day “due diligence” period that began when the buyout was announced on March 4. The grace period was designed to ensure a complicated buyout involving dozens of ports in many different countries comported with various laws, including getting buy-in from the Chinese President Xi Jinping. Yes, the people at BlackRock said they saw the potential for trouble from China Inc., and they built that into the closing schedule. They believe that over this time, they can get the deal approved by the CCP overlords and put American flags back up in the canal zone.

“We are proceeding as if this deal will happen,” a BlackRock executive told On the Money as this column went to press. Of course, things could change given the volatile nature of the relations between China and the US and the frenemy dynamic between Trump and Xi. Trump is said to admire the Chinese strongman (and the feeling seems to be mutual), but wary of his obvious global ambitions. Part of Trump, I am told, will never forgive the Chinese for unleashing COVID on the planet, which on top of all the misery it caused, doomed his re-election chances in 2020. But the BlackRock deal is something Trump covets. He mentioned it in the State of the Union address, no less as proof of an American global renaissance.

And people at BlackRock believe the deal will get folded into negotiations with the Chinese over Trump’s plan to save the China-owned short-video app TikTok from being banned from US app stores as early as this weekend, and our overall trade negotiations with the Mainland. Barring some last-minute deal implosion (or a realistic new competing bid, which at this stage is unlikely), the White House is scrambling to unveil a plan for a newish US-investor-controlled TikTok any minute now, a structure, as On The Money reported, that the Trumpers believe will comport with a US law that demands the end of Chinese control.

But the Chinese will have some buy-in, as I also reported. That includes possibly a minority stake in the new company and it won’t have to part with its algorithm, the important part of TikTok that gins up user engagement and some say, has allowed the Chinese to spy on US users. To get around the ban legislation, tech giant Oracle will be part of the planned new ownership group, but more importantly, monitor the algo in its cloud. To get Xi’s buy-in, the Chinese remain a part of the app’s infrastructure, which can operate in the US and retain its value estimated in the tens of billions of dollars.

Read more …

Panama and TikTok.

• Trump Extends TikTok Deadline 75 Days, As He Tries To Close Deal (JTN)

President Donald Trump announced Friday that he would sign an executive order to keep the social media app TikTok running for 75 days. Trump insisted his administration had made great progress on a deal to keep the social media app running in the U.S., but that it needed more time to finalize it. “The Deal requires more work to ensure all necessary approvals are signed, which is why I am signing an Executive Order to keep TikTok up and running for an additional 75 days,” Trump wrote on TRUTH Social. “We hope to continue working in Good Faith with China, who I understand are not very happy about our Reciprocal Tariffs (Necessary for Fair and Balanced Trade between China and the U.S.A.!).”

April 6 was the deadline for the China-based ByteDance to either sell the app or face a ban on U.S. operations. The founder of OnlyFans and Amazon made offers to buy the app earlier this week. “We do not want TikTok to ‘go dark.’ We look forward to working with TikTok and China to close the Deal. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” Trump’s post concluded.

Read more …

They risk the wrath of Trump. He’ll protect Elon.

• EU Could Fine Elon Musk’s X $1B Over Illicit Content, Disinformation (CT)

European Union regulators are reportedly mulling a $1 billion fine against Elon Musk’s X, taking into account revenue from his other ventures, including Tesla and SpaceX, according to The New York Times. EU regulators allege that X has violated the Digital Services Act and will use a section of the act to calculate a fine based on revenue that includes other companies Musk controls, according to an April 3 report by the newspaper, which cited four people with knowledge of the plan. Under the Digital Services Act, which came into law in October 2022 to police social media companies and “prevent illegal and harmful activities online,” companies can be fined up to 6% of global revenue for violations.

A spokesman for the European Commission, the bloc’s executive branch, declined to comment on this case to The New York Times but did say it would “continue to enforce our laws fairly and without discrimination toward all companies operating in the EU.” In a statement, X’s Global Government Affairs team said that if the reports about the EU’s plans are accurate, it “represents an unprecedented act of political censorship and an attack on free speech.” “X has gone above and beyond to comply with the EU’s Digital Services Act, and we will use every option at our disposal to defend our business, keep our users safe, and protect freedom of speech in Europe,” X’s global government affairs team said.

Along with the fine, the EU regulators could reportedly demand product changes at X, with the full scope of any penalties to be announced in the coming months. Still, a settlement could be reached if the social media platform agrees to changes that satisfy regulators, according to the Times. One of the officials who spoke to the Times also said that X is facing a second investigation alleging the platform’s approach to policing user-generated content has made it a hub of illegal hate speech and disinformation, which could result in more penalties.

The EU investigation began in 2023. A preliminary ruling in July 2024 found X had violated the Digital Services Act by refusing to provide data to outside researchers, provide adequate transparency about advertisers, or verify the authenticity of users who have a verified account. X responded to the ruling with hundreds of points of dispute, and Musk said at the time he was offered a deal, alleging that EU regulators told him if he secretly suppressed certain content, X would escape fines.

Thierry Breton, the former EU commissioner for internal market, said in a July 12 X post in 2024 that there was no secret deal and that X’s team had asked for the “Commission to explain the process for settlement and to clarify our concerns,” and its response was in line with “established regulatory procedures.” Musk replied he was looking “forward to a very public battle in court so that the people of Europe can know the truth.”

Read more …

 

 

 

 

mRNA
https://twitter.com/NicHulscher/status/1908173339677397118

 

 

BlackRock

 

 

Adams
https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1907868704622198948

 

 

Payne

 

 

Effects

 

 

Golden Fish
https://twitter.com/AMAZlNGNATURE/status/1907951899489227188

 

 

The King

 

 

Arthur C. Clarke

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle March 31 2025

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


Keith Haring Untitled 1984

 

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

 

 

 

 

Elon Ukr

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

Big election in Wisconsin tomorrow

DOGE SS

Leavitt

Tesla

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more …

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

• Trump Teases New Putin Call – NBC (RT)

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

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

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

Read more …

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more …

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

In case of peace, no such money flows.

• Kremlin Blasts EU For ‘Not Wanting Peace’ As It Refuses To Ease Sanctions (ZH)

Moscow has blasted the European Union’s declaration that it will not lift sanctions on Russia in the context of the US-backed Black Sea ceasefire deal. The Russian side has made clear that for the deal to be implemented the West must remove sanctions from the state-owned Rosselkhozbank as a precondition. “An integral part of the Black Sea deal is the lifting of sanctions on a Russian bank,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters in reference to the primary financial entity overseeing Russian agricultural products. “If European countries don’t want to go down this path, it means they don’t want to go down the path of peace in unison with the efforts shown in Moscow and Washington,” he added. Rosselkhozbank has remained cut off from the SWIFT financial messaging network due to EU sanctions, and Russia is seeking immediate reconnect if peace is to be secured in the Black Sea.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen explained at the end this week, “The sanctions are very significant; they are painful; they have an impact on the Russian economy, and they represent a powerful lever.” So clearly Europe is not ready to let go of this ‘power lever’. Von der Leyen made clear that the sanctions “will remain in effect until a just and lasting peace is established in Ukraine.” But she did also say that “when the war is over, the sanctions might be removed.” Other European leaders have echoed this viewpoint, for example with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz calling sanctions relief a “grave mistake” which “makes no sense” without a ceasefire first. The Zelensky government too stands against the easting of anti-Russia sanctions.

The Kremlin has further described that Europe is actively blocking Trump’s good-faith efforts to establish peace, and that this is ultimately behind the EU’s refusal to lift sanctions. Russian sources have meanwhile pointed out that Russia is still thriving despite the West’s record number of sanctions on the country. Trump admin is increasingly openly clashing with the EU on the Black Sea deal…

https://twitter.com/FiorellaIsabelM/status/1905033950084370863?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1905033950084370863%7Ctwgr%5E551bca574affbef7d0775d8124338bc30c8af20c%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fgeopolitical%2Fkremlin-blasts-eu-not-wanting-peace-it-refuses-ease-sanctions

“Earlier this week, President Vladimir Putin asserted that the Russian economy has become the fourth largest in the world in purchasing power parity terms after those of China, the US and India, despite a record 28,595 sanctions being placed on it by Washington, Brussels and their allies,” wrote RT. “According to the Russian government’s data, the country’s economy grew 4.1% in 2024, surpassing the official forecast of 3.9%,” the same report said.

Read more …

Another way of saying the same thing; peace is a bigger threat than war.

• Baltic States Fear Ukraine Ceasefire – FT (RT)

The Baltic nations believe a ceasefire in the Ukraine conflict would increase the security threat they face, the Financial Times has reported, citing the defense ministers of the countries. In recent weeks, a 30-day pause on strikes against energy infrastructure by Moscow and Kiev has been agreed upon, while there have been moves toward reviving the Black Sea grain deal as part of efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the conflict. The FT said in an article on Sunday that “a full ceasefire is still seen as far off,” but officials in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, who have been among the most vocal backers of Ukraine in the EU and NATO since the escalation between Moscow and Kiev in February 2022, are already concerned that it might be achieved at some point.

“We all understand that when the war in Ukraine will be stopped, Russia will redistribute its forces very quickly. That means also the threat level will increase significantly very quickly,” Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur told the outlet. Pevkur claimed that Moscow could redeploy 300,000 troops from the contact line with Ukraine to Russia’s western borders once a ceasefire takes effect. Meanwhile, the Estonian defense minister rejected a plan by the UK and France to send a so-called “reassurance force” made up of Western European soldiers to Ukraine after the fighting stops. “We cannot jeopardize the security of the eastern flank of NATO. We cannot fall into the trap that our forces are somehow fixed in Ukraine. Then we will have risks at our border,” he explained.

The article also cited Lithuanian Defense Minister Dovile Sakaliene, who said earlier this week that “Russia will use this time following a ceasefire to speed up its military capabilities. They already have a huge, battlefield-trained army, which is going to get even bigger.” “Let us not have any illusions. Let us not lie to ourselves that Russia is going to be done after Ukraine,” she said. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly dismissed claims that Moscow has any aggressive plans towards NATO as “nonsense” that is meant to scare the European population and justify increases in military spending. US President Donald Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, who met with Putin at the Kremlin earlier this month, told American journalist Tucker Carlson last week that Russia is “100% not” interested in invading NATO countries. Suggesting that Moscow harbors such plans is “preposterous,” according to Witkoff.

Read more …

How to say Azov without saying Azov. Problem is, Zelensky will not be accepted as winner.

• Zelensky Has Plan To Take Out Election Rivals – Economist (RT)

Vladimir Zelensky and his team have begun laying the groundwork for a summer presidential election in Ukraine in order to “catch rivals off guard” and be reelected before the fragmented opposition has a chance to regroup, The Economist reported, citing senior government sources. Zelensky’s five-year presidential term expired in May 2024, but he refused to call new elections, citing martial law. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly questioned Zelensky’s legitimacy, arguing that his status prevents him from signing legally binding documents, including a peace deal with Moscow. US President Donald Trump once referred to Zelensky as a “dictator without elections.” According to the Economist article published on Sunday, Zelensky “called a meeting last week to task his team with organising a vote after a full ceasefire, which the Americans believe they could impose by late April.”

A senior government source claimed that Zelensky intends to move quickly to reduce electoral competition by giving potential rivals little time to prepare and virtually “run unopposed.” The source justified the move by saying, “a long campaign would tear the country apart.” Zelensky claimed in an interview last month that the “population is against elections,” arguing that holding a vote would undermine the country’s defense posture. “If we suspend martial law, we will lose the army,” he said. The Ukrainian parliament is set to vote on whether to extend martial law for another 90 days before it expires on May 8. Most sources cited by The Economist expect Zelensky to push for a summer election, with early July cited as the earliest possible date under Ukraine’s 60-day minimum campaign law.

Former Ukrainian President Pyotr Poroshenko, described by the outlet as “a sworn foe” of Zelensky, predicted that elections could take place “any time from August to October.” Poroshenko claimed the campaign had already de facto begun in February, when Zelensky placed him under sanctions in an attempt to write off his candidacy and dissuade former commander-in-chief Valery Zaluzhny from challenging him.Zelensky’s sanctions also targeted exiled Ukrainian opposition leader Viktor Medvedchuk. Medvedchuk led the Opposition Platform – For Life party, formerly the second-largest faction in the Ukrainian parliament, until his arrest in April 2022. The party was later banned, and Medvedchuk was transferred to Russia in a prisoner exchange in September 2022.

Putin has claimed that Zelensky has “absolutely no chance” of winning a fair election due to his low approval ratings, “unless something is grossly rigged.” An internal poll last month suggested that Zelensky would be defeated by Zaluzhny 30% to 65%, as many Ukrainians are “clearly frustrated with their war leader.” Critics also say that a fair election would require dismantling censorship and ending government control over media coverage. In 2022, Kiev introduced what it called the United News TV telemarathon – a 24/7 joint information program produced by the country’s major media outlets – while cracking down on alternative narratives viewed as pro-Russia propaganda.

Read more …

Medvedev: “The nit is illegitimate. There’s nothing to respect him for. He failed, his people are dying, and his country is disappearing.”

• Diplomat Explains Putin’s Proposal For Temporary Ukraine Administration (RT)

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s proposal to establish a temporary international administration in Ukraine under UN supervision is based on historical precedents, according to Kirill Logvinov, who heads the Foreign Ministry’s Department of International Organizations. He told TASS on Sunday that the UN already has experience with this process. Moscow has repeatedly stated that it is not possible to sign a peace agreement with Kiev because the current Ukrainian leadership lacks legitimacy. Vladimir Zelensky’s presidential term expired in May 2024, though he has remained in office without holding elections, citing martial law.

Putin suggested earlier this week that creating “external management or temporary administration” under the UN could facilitate elections in Ukraine and provide a legitimate foundation for negotiations. A peace deal signed with a newly elected leader, he said, “would be recognized around the world” and could not be overturned later. There is no formal mechanism for creating such administrations in the UN,” Logvinov acknowledged. However, he noted that the UN has established transitional authorities in several post-conflict areas, including Cambodia, East Timor, and Eastern Slavonia, setting a precedent for this type of arrangement. “In all cases, the first step was reaching an agreement between the parties to the conflict – directly or through intermediaries – on the appropriate transfer of powers to the UN,” he explained.

Once an agreement is reached, the parties or their mediators would then submit a formal appeal to the UN. The Security Council would instruct the secretary-general to prepare a framework for the temporary administration, including a timeline and budget. Logvinov stressed that the final decision rests with the UN Security Council following a report by the secretary-general outlining the form and functions of the proposed administration. Officials in Kiev have rejected the idea. Andrey Kovalenko, the head of Ukraine’s Center for Countering Disinformation, claimed on Telegram that the plan is an attempt by Moscow to delay peace talks.

Washington has not formally commented on the proposal. However, Reuters quoted an unnamed White House national security spokesperson who said Ukraine’s governance should be determined by its constitution and people. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres dismissed the proposal on Friday, insisting that “Ukraine has a legitimate government, and so obviously that must be respected.” Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, currently the deputy chair of the Russian Security Council, criticized Guterres’ remarks, calling them a “double lie.” Referring to Zelensky in a post on X, he said: “The nit is illegitimate. There’s nothing to respect him for. He failed, his people are dying, and his country is disappearing.”

Read more …

“It is catastrophic for [Congress] to not act and to let individual judges nullify laws nationwide in a preliminary postur..,”

• Inside President Trump’s Ambitious Policy Strategy (Devlin)

President Donald Trump’s pace since returning to the White House has surprised the president’s friends, perhaps even more than his enemies. On the 66th day of his administration, Trump signed the 100th executive order of his second term, breaking FDR’s record of 99 executive orders in the first 100 days. While Trump plows ahead, the leftist lawfare complex that once sought to imprison the president is attempting to handcuff his second term by filing more than 130 lawsuits against the administration. As a deputy assistant to the president and Trump senior policy strategist, May Mailman is one of those administration staffers tasked with executing President Trump’s game plan. She sat down for a special episode of “The Signal Sitdown” filmed at the White House. “I think actually the president’s speed has always been this fast,” Mailman said of the offensive posture of the administration. It has always been, ‘I need this, I need this, let’s go, let’s go, let’s go.’”

Mailman said this strategy emerged during the transition to ensure that on Day One, President Trump was keeping his promises. “Everything that he said he was going to do on Day One, we’re going to do on Day One. So there was just that capturing of promises and making sure that that was executed.” The added advantage to the strategy? The president’s opponents are caught off guard: “They can’t keep up if you just keep executing,” Mailman said. The second Trump administration’s personnel, she suggested, are reflecting the dynamism coming from the Oval Office. “I think what you’re seeing with personnel this time is people who are oriented toward action. And so a lot of people are oriented towards process, they’re oriented toward contemplation, they’re oriented toward a lot of other things. But these people? They want to get things done.”

In this administration, “a staffer recognizes that we are here to execute the president’s agenda,” Mailman said. “That is your job, and you should do it smart, and you should do it right, and you should ask questions, and you should do it in a way that’s not idiotic, but your job is to execute.” But, as a four-year veteran of the first Trump White House, Mailman didn’t anticipate coming back to the White House in 2025. “I wasn’t going to do it, but then I worked on the transition and there was so much momentum,” Mailman told The Daily Signal. “So how could you not? And so here we are.”Nevertheless, the administration’s opponents would like nothing more than to kill the president’s momentum. That much has been made clear by the more than 130 lawsuits, an overwhelming majority of them filed by leftist groups, against the administration. Some activist judges are granting these leftist groups injunctions blocking Trump policies.

“The lawfare has been alarming,” Mailman said. “The number, I think, is probably to be expected [because] everybody loves to fundraise off of this,” Mailman explained. “The problem is what happens next… If the Supreme Court continues to allow nationwide injunctions, which is before any trial, before any evidence, before any final legal determination… I think it will forever harm the standing of the judiciary in the minds of the American public.” Part of solving the problem of rogue judges lies with Congress. It’s not only the executive branch being challenged by the judiciary, either. Mailman argued, “the Legislature [is] seeing their laws just get totally shredded by the judiciary,” as well.

Now, Republicans on Capitol Hill are currently weighing impeachment, investigations, and legislation, among other potential solutions. “It is catastrophic for [Congress] to not act and to let individual judges nullify laws nationwide in a preliminary posture,” Mailman said. “And they need to carve back this power if they care at all about their own power.” “The Legislature kind of needs to think about that as an institution,” she told The Daily Signal. “Do we care about the people? Because … when judges take over, who loses? The people.”

Read more …

“$100 million in pro bono legal services..”

• Trump Inks $100 Million Deal With Skadden Law Firm (ET)

A prominent Wall Street law firm has struck a deal with the White House to provide $100 million in pro bono legal services. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP will dedicate the services to causes supported by both the firm and the Trump administration, including assisting veterans and other public servants, ensuring fairness in the U.S. justice system, and combating anti-Semitism. The firm also committed to funding at least five law graduates under a fellowship dedicated to supporting the causes each year and employing merit-based hiring practices, vowing not to deny representation to members of politically disenfranchised groups. This deal comes as President Donald Trump has, in recent weeks, issued executive orders targeting multiple major legal firms, directing government agencies to revoke their security clearances and terminate contracts.

While Trump has not issued one against Skadden, the deal seems to be a way to prevent that from happening. “This was essentially a settlement,” President Donald Trump said in announcing the deal at a White House event. “We appreciate Skadden’s coming to the table. As you know, other law firms have likewise settled the case. And … what’s gone on is a shame.” A White House statement explained that Skadden had approached Trump about its “strong commitment to ending the weaponization of the justice system and the legal profession.” Jeremy London, the firm’s executive partner, said the two parties worked “constructively” to reach an agreement. “The firm looks forward to continuing our productive relationship with President Trump and his administration. We firmly believe that this outcome is in the best interests of our clients, our people, and our firm,” London said.

News of the agreement came just hours after two other law firms, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block, sued the president for ordering the retraction of their security clearances and the termination of their government contracts.
In WilmerHale’s case, Trump cited the firm’s employment of former special counsel Robert Mueller and his aides as one of the top reasons for the move. Mueller “wielded the power of the Federal Government to lead one of the most partisan investigations in American history,” Trump wrote in the executive order, referring to Mueller’s investigation of claims Trump colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election. Those claims proved to be unfounded.

Jenner, on the other hand, hired Andrew Weissmann, Mueller’s top prosecutor. In separate legal actions filed in the District of Columbia, the two firms accused the administration of punishing its political opposition and asked the court to find Trump’s orders unconstitutional. Paul Weiss, another Wall Street law firm, brokered a deal with the White House last week to provide $40 million in free legal services for mutually supported causes. In return, the administration revoked an order similar to those targeting Jenner and WilmerHale.

Read more …

The art of the deal incoming. Patience.

• ‘100%’ US Gets Greenland – Trump (RT)

US President Donald Trump has said he is sure that Washington will take over Greenland and that he has already had “absolutely” real conversations about annexing the Danish autonomous territory. “We’ll get Greenland. Yeah, 100%,” Trump told the US broadcaster NBC in a phone interview on Saturday. There is a “good possibility that we could do it without military force,” he stated, adding that he would not “take anything off the table.” According to the American president, the annexation of Greenland is an issue of “international peace” and “international security and strength.” When asked what message the move would send to the rest of the world, Trump stated: “I don’t really think about that. I don’t really care.”

A video shared by Trump earlier this week claimed that the island was threatened by “Russian aggression” and “Chinese expansion.” The clip stated that the partnership between Greenland and the US “is not just history. It is destiny.” Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday that “Russia has never threatened anyone in the Arctic.” The interview came just a day after US Vice President J.D. Vance visited the resource-rich Arctic territory. During his stay, he accused Denmark of doing a poor job for the people of Greenland. “I think that you’d be a lot better coming under the United States’ security umbrella than you have been under Denmark’s,” he said while visiting a US base on the island.

Trump initially proposed buying the Danish autonomous territory during his first term in 2019 and has reignited the discussion after returning to office. He has since repeatedly promised to make the island a part of the US, arguing that it is needed for security purposes. The American president’s statements have drawn an angry reaction from Copenhagen. Danish Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen stated this week that such actions were not appropriate for a close ally and were only “escalating tensions.” He also accused Trump of going “too far.” Danish MP and Defense Committee Chairman Rasmus Jarlov warned in mid-March that the US’ aspirations to annex the island could lead to a war between NATO nations. Greenland’s prime minister, Mute B. Egede, also denounced what he called “aggressive pressure” by the US.

Read more …

“..Trump was asked about why he wants to continue to be president, which Welker described is “the toughest job in the country.” “Well, I like working,” replied Trump, who would be 82..”

• Trump Says He Is ‘Not Joking’ About Running for 3rd Presidential Term (ET)

President Donald Trump on Sunday said that he is “not joking” about recent talk of him potentially seeking a third term in office, although such a move would likely face significant legal hurdles. “A lot of people want me to do it,” Trump told NBC News on Sunday morning. “But, I mean, I basically tell them we have a long way to go, you know, it’s very early in the administration.” When asked about whether he is serious or joking about the third term comments, Trump said, “I’m not joking.” “It is far too early to think about it,” he said, adding elsewhere in the interview that he is “focused on the current” term in office.

Since taking office, Trump has, on multiple occasions, suggested that he wants to run for a third term, which could pose a legal challenge, because the 22nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states “no person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.” That amendment was ratified in 1951 after President Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected four consecutive times. Roosevelt was the only president in U.S. history to be elected to either a third or fourth term.

Days after Trump took office in January, Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) proposed an amendment to the Constitution that could allow presidents to be elected for three terms. However, amending the Constitution would require two-thirds of Congress members to vote for its approval, which would then have to be ratified by three-fourths of state Legislatures. Explaining why he would want to seek a third term, Trump said that, “You have to start by saying, I have the highest poll numbers of any Republican for the last 100 years.” “We’re in the high 70s in many polls, in the real polls, and you see that. And, and you know, we’re very popular,” Trump said. When asked about how he could be elected to a third term, Trump told NBC News there might be ways to do so.

NBC’s Kristen Welker then provided him with a hypothetical situation: “Well, let me throw out one where President Vance would run for office and then would, basically … if he won, at the top of the ticket, would then pass the baton to you.” In response, Trump said, “Well, that’s one. But there are others, too. There are others.” “Can you tell me another?” Welker asked Trump. “No,” he said. The 12th Amendment, which was ratified in 1804, says that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” Also in the interview, Trump was asked about why he wants to continue to be president, which Welker described is “the toughest job in the country.” “Well, I like working,” replied Trump, who would be 82 at the end of his current term.

Read more …

DOGE addresses real problems.

“The Social Security Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund will run out of reserves by 2033 – when today’s youngest retirees turn 70 – leading to an immediate 24 percent benefit cut under the law..”

• Interest Costs On US Debt To Exceed Economic Growth By 2045 (JTN)

The U.S. is on track to hit a dangerous milestone by 2045, according to an analysis of the new Congressional Budget Office’s long term budget outlook. The average interest rate on debt will exceed the economic growth rate by 2045, sparking the beginning of a debt spiral. “Interest costs will reach a record 3.2 percent of GDP this year – exceeding the cost of defense and Medicare – and further grow to 5.4 percent of GDP by 2055,” according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget’s review of the latest CBO data that was released on Thursday. “The average interest rate on debt will exceed the economic growth rate by 2045, sparking the beginning of a debt spiral,” the CRFB added. The watchdog group said that “high and rising debt and deficits would have many negative consequences for the budget and the economy including slower income growth, higher interest rates and interest payments on the national debt, increased geopolitical risks, undue burden on future generations, reduced fiscal space to respond to emergencies, and an increased risk of a fiscal crisis.”

The U.S. national debt is on pace to set new concerning records between now and 2055. “Federal debt held by the public will rise from 100 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 to 156 percent of GDP by 2055 – 50 percentage points above the prior record,” according to the CRFB analysis. “Annual deficits will grow from 6.2 percent of GDP in 2025 – already twice as high as they were as recently as 2016 – to 7.3 percent of GDP by 2055. This is the highest they’ve ever been outside of a crisis.” The CBO is warning that Social Security is just 8 years from insolvency. “The Social Security Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund will run out of reserves by 2033 – when today’s youngest retirees turn 70 – leading to an immediate 24 percent benefit cut under the law,” read the CRFB analysis of CBO data. “If combined with the disability insurance trust fund, the combined trust fund would be insolvent by 2034.”

The CRFB said policymakers will need to make tough decisions this year with respect to the debt and deficit. “CBO’s latest long-term budget outlook reminds us that the federal budget is on an unsustainable long-term path, and policymakers will be faced with decisions this year that will have major implications for the trajectory of our debt over the next 30 years,” read the analysis. The group said extending the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act without ways to fully cover the cost would drive debt to higher than 200% of GDP. The CRFB has encouraged lawmakers to find enough offsets to fully cover the cost of tax reform. “Even without this additional borrowing, the annual budget deficit will reach 7.3 percent of GDP in FY 2055 – higher than at any point outside of World War II, the Great Recession, and the COVID-19 pandemic,” they said.

Scott Hodge, former president of the Tax Foundation, shared his reaction to the CBO’s latest report with Just the News. “CBO’s latest long-term budget forecast should be a wakeup call to the White House and Congress that they must do more to get spending under control or the federal debt will rise to unsustainable levels,” said Hodge, a tax and fiscal policy fellow at Arnold Ventures in Washington, D.C. Arnold Ventures describes itself as a philanthropy “dedicated to improving the lives of all Americans through evidence-based policy solutions that maximize opportunity and minimize injustice.” Hodge noted that the CBO assumes that the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which expires at the end of this year, would “potentially raise more than $4 trillion in new taxes over a decade” if it is extended, but this new tax revenue still falls short of closing the deficit gap since spending is rising faster than taxes.

“We should also note that CBO is forecasting sluggish economic growth for the next decade, which puts a premium on the need to renew the 2017 tax cuts to boost economic growth. Lawmakers will have to find responsible ways to offset the cost of these tax cuts so as to not add to the mounting debt. It will take leadership to meet this twin challenge,” he said.

Read more …

“..they buried the report while allegedly making claims directly refuted by their own experts.”

• Biden Admin Accused of Burying Conflicting Climate Change Report (Turley)

There is a major story developing on Capitol Hill after House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman James Comer, R-Ky, revealed that a long-withheld report from the Biden Administration directly contradicted the claims of climate change used to limit increased U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. The suggestion is that this was an knowing effort to cap carbon admissions rather than carbon emissions. The impact that new U.S. LNG exports have on the environment and the economy was reviewed by U.S. Energy Department scientists and completed by September 2023. It appears that neither President Biden nor Secretary Jennifer Granholm liked the science or the conclusions. Rather than “follow the science,” they buried the report while allegedly making claims directly refuted by their own experts.

The report was finished while Biden was still running for reelection and would have likely enraged environmentalists. The draft study, “Energy, Economic, and Environmental Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports,” found that, under all modeled scenarios, an increase in U.S. LNG exports and natural gas production would not change global or U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. It further found that it would not increase energy prices for consumers. Biden and Granholm reportedly buried the report and then announced a pause on all new U.S. LNG export terminals in January 2024, citing the danger to environmental and economic impacts. Comer’s office told Fox News Digital that DOE repeatedly declined to provide this study to the House Oversight Committee or comply with other requests for information.

What is most concerning is that our LNG exports help reduce the dependence on Russia and would have decreased the revenues to that country to support its war in Ukraine. However, critics charge that Biden ignored the national security and economic benefits. Supporters note that we still exported a massive amount of LNG. When the U.S. ramped up exports to Europe, progressive Democrats like Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., went ballistic. This appears to have worked in shelving the study while slowing demands for further increases. The Biden Administration later released data in December 2024 suggesting that a rise in exports could cause consumer prices to rise by as much as 30%. There are obviously two sides to this debate. The problem is that it seems that only one side was allowed to be publicly presented by the delay in the release of the study.

Read more …

“Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., dared to say he didn’t want his daughters to play sports against biological boys—like 80% of his country—only to turn around and vote against his girls three months later.”

• The Party That Woke Broke (Suzanne Bowdey)

Democrats have been wallowing in the despair of last November’s elections for months, unable—or maybe unwilling—to crawl out of the pit of public opinion they find themselves in. “It’s hard to win if you don’t know why you lost,” Axios’ Alex Thompson observed. But it’s even harder, some would say, if you know and do nothing about it. To most people, the solution to the party’s problems is simple. After a year of losing ground with virtually every demographic—men, black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, young people, Independents, suburban moms—the polling all points to Democrats being completely out of step with everyday voters. So why not just abandon the extremism Americans rejected? For the party of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, the answer is much more complicated.

The crisis facing Democrats isn’t about their identity; they have one. The crisis is that they can’t moderate their ideology—or embrace it—without severe consequences. As National Review’s Rich Lowry put it, “The reason Joe Biden won in 2020 is he didn’t seem like a progressive, and one reason that his party lost in 2024 is that he governed like one.” For Democrats, ideological extremism is their kryptonite and their lifeblood. It’s what excites the base and repels the populace. In other words, it’s a recipe for long-term political disaster. And yet, in several instances, the Democrats who’ve tried to soften their positions or build a temporary bridge to sanity have been beaten back into conformity. After the election, Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., dared to say he didn’t want his daughters to play sports against biological boys—like 80% of his country—only to turn around and vote against his girls three months later. “I was just speaking authentically as a dad about one of many issues where I think we’re just out of touch with the majority of voters,” he explained to the angry mob in November. “ … I stand by my position.”

Or at least he stood by it until the time came to act on it, Americans learned. But lately, even the barest hints of compromise are punished. Look at the hysteria over Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who needs increased security simply for voting with Republicans to stop a government shutdown—something his own party argued would be a disaster for hard-working families a month earlier. For sticking to that position, there’ve been furious calls for his ouster and a leadership mutiny in party ranks. Then, there’s California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, who tested the waters earlier this month with his whiplash comments on Title IX. Sitting down with Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk on his podcast, the governor was asked about the issue of trans-identifying athletes in girls’ sports. To most people’s surprise, the progressive replied, “I think it’s an issue of fairness. I completely agree with you on that.” He emphasized his point by adding, “It’s deeply unfair.”

Newsom, who, by his own admission, has been a “leader” in the “LGBTQ” movement, encouraged his party to admit that a lopsided playing field is cause for concern. He said, “We’ve got to own that. We’ve got to acknowledge it.” His sudden openness to a broader discussion was met with horror on the Left and deep skepticism on the Right—a perfect illustration of the conundrum facing Democrats. As California Family Council President Jonathan Keller pointed out on a recent episode of the “Outstanding” podcast, “He’s trying to set it up in such a way that … he’s going to look like he’s a moderate.” But frankly, Keller said, “I’m not positive that’s actually going to be an effective strategy from him. I think what it may be effective in doing is getting him destroyed in the primaries,” he said, referring to the root problem for Democrats, which is that what wins primaries is the same thing that loses general elections.

In Newsom’s case, even an insincere shift to the middle is next-to-impossible to pull off, thanks to years of activist baggage. As Kirk wrote after the interview, “I’m under no illusions about why I was invited: Gavin Newsom wants to run for president in three years, and he thinks that talking [to] conservative figures like me increase his recognition, help him present as a centrist, and cast him as a champion of the Left in a time when the [L]eft has no real leaders. … We shouldn’t fall for this … ” he warned. “[A]nd fortunately, swerving to the center won’t be that simple for Gavin. … He knows his current record can’t win him the White House, and so he’s trying to rewrite what that record is.” Polling proved the governor’s flirtation with rationality didn’t help his case. Of 1,000 California voters, only 24% said the podcast helped them see Newsom as more moderate, while 17% insisted it made them less likely to see him as a moderate. A majority, 59%, said it made no difference. Americans are not so easily fooled. A few soundbites does not a record make.

“Like the national Democrat[ic] Party and the legacy media,” John Nolte stressed, “Newsom has painted himself into a corner where the only way to survive is through the fealty to the 20% of hard leftists that make up the Left’s base of activist and financial support. … With all their lies and lunacy in support of things like open borders and this transsexual nonsense, Newsom, Democrats, and the corporate media have alienated all the normal people, probably forever. So that 20% is all they’ve got.” The foot soldiers of the Democratic Party grasp the paradox. They’ve tried, unsuccessfully, for the last nine years to turn the heads of leadership to mainstream positions on things like gender, immigration, education, and energy. “I don’t want to be the freak show party like they have branded us,” one DNC member from Florida complained after the election when it was obvious the Left’s social radicalism had cost them every lever of power in Washington.

“When you’re a mom with three kids,” she pointed out, “and you live in middle America, and you’re just not really into politics, and you see these ads that scare the bejesus out of you, you’re like, ‘I know Trump’s weird or whatever, but I would rather his weirdness that doesn’t affect my kids.’” Others echoed her alarm. “The progressive wing of the party has to recognize—we all have to recognize—the country’s not progressive, and not to the far left or the far right. They’re in the middle,” said Joseph Paolino, a DNC committeeman for Rhode Island. It felt like, at least from those comments, that the party was finally going to pivot. “This is basically a rebuild job from the bottom up,” former DNC Chair Donna Brazile emphasized. But what happened when push came to shove?

Against the pleas of their non-elite base, the far-left won even greater control of the party—electing woke, anti-gun, pro-trans, defund-the-police, ICE-abolishing, climate change-pimping DNC leaders in Chairman Ken Martin and Vice Chair David Hogg. To the everyday Democrats, who’d been “begging the party to ditch the radical Left,” it was an astonishing betrayal. “The weaknesses of Democrats among non-white voters, particularly Hispanic and black working-class voters, is pretty significant,” authors of a new book, “Where Have All the Democrats Gone?” insist. “They’re sort of realizing this is a problem. On the other hand, they’re so invested in this whole vector of cultural issues. They’re worried about the blowback on social media and from the college-educated ‘liberalish’ voters who are increasingly a loyal base of the Democratic Party. Trump understood that and he played upon it. He continues to play upon it. He continues to get votes upon it. And the Democrats are oblivious to it.”

Not all Democrats, it seems. A growing chorus of disillusioned officials are starting to speak up about the continued reckoning that awaits the party in future elections. During snippets of his interview with NPR Monday, Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., sounded outright logical in his assessment. “We can’t just resist. It can’t just be why we’re against Trump and what’s wrong with Trump. … The Democratic brand has been damaged.”

“When you ask people … ‘What do the Republicans stand for?’ They say, ‘Well, Make America Great Again. They want to cut the size of government, they want to give tax cuts, stuff like [that].’” Then, Suozzi said, when you ask, “‘What do the Democrats stand for?’ And I think the people are kind of scratching their head a little bit, they believe in, like, [abortion] and LGBT rights—which I believe in those things too—but I don’t know that you can build a whole party around that.” He talked about running on the border issue in 2024, and his consultants protested, arguing, “‘Well, Tom, that’s a Republican issue. I don’t know if you should be talking [about that].’ I said, ‘No, this is what the people of my district are talking about. We can’t ignore what the people are talking about.’”

Read more …

“States competed for capital and labor by keeping their taxes and regulations light and efficient. As a result, America became the world’s most competitive economy, attracting a flood of foreign capital and workers.”

• What Made America Great In The Gilded Age (Loyola)

“We were at our richest from 1870 to 1913. That’s when we were a tariff country,” said President Donald Trump recently, and he’s not wrong. But tariffs aren’t the whole story. The genius of the Gilded Age was interstate regulatory and tax competition. That economy boomed. From 1870 to 1913, America’s gross domestic product grew at nearly 5% per year. Even though America’s population nearly tripled during that time, with 30 million immigrants, per capita GDP doubled. Steel production boomed, surpassing Britain, France, and Germany combined. Railway miles quadrupled. A period that began amid the ruins of civil war ended with America in first place among the world’s great economic powers. Washington collected lots of tariffs then, but little else.

Before the 16th Amendment paved the way for federal income taxes in 1913, Congress was spending barely 1% of GDP—compared with nearly 25% today. Meanwhile, the federal power to regulate commerce was limited to transactions that actually crossed state lines, leaving the vast majority of regulation to the states. States competed for capital and labor by keeping their taxes and regulations light and efficient. As a result, America became the world’s most competitive economy, attracting a flood of foreign capital and workers. It’s no surprise that the booming economy of the Gilded Age was able to sustain tariffs. Of course, that period had its dark sides—political corruption, “Robber Barons,” child labor, and environmental degradation. These excesses sparked the progressive movement.

The sprawling administrative state created by President Woodrow Wilson was soon dictating prices for nearly every major commodity and service, leading to massive economic distortions. By the stock market crash of 1929, the economy was no longer competitive. A new round of tariffs—the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930—devastated the economy, deepening the Great Depression. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal doubled down on progressivism, dramatically expanding the reach of the federal government. His court-packing scheme coerced the Supreme Court into dismantling the crucial constitutional limits on the federal power to regulate commerce, and the federal leviathan was born.

Progressives viewed interstate competition as a “race to the bottom” and held that it was the federal government’s role to stop it. What this meant in practice was protections from competition for every special-interest group that could hire lobbyists in Washington. Government became a system for wealth redistribution through subsidies, unfunded mandates, and government-created cartels—from the farm program to the National Labor Relations Act to socialized medicine. America’s private sector remains the world’s most innovative and productive, but a century of progressive policy has driven companies and jobs offshore. Such policies have proven particularly toxic in areas of low-skill labor, as attested by today’s Rust Belt towns, Appalachian communities, and inner cities.

Investment flows where taxes and regulations are low and production factors like labor and electricity are reliable and affordable. In all those metrics the U.S. is falling further and further behind much of the world. In the energy sector, heavily subsidized renewable energy is pushing America’s electricity rates toward European levels. America could soon be facing the same deindustrialization that Germany and Great Britain are facing today. Even in America’s most innovative sectors—like high technology—warning signs are everywhere. The entire supply chain for semiconductor manufacturing has moved offshore, with only high-end engineering remaining in the U.S. China is already making inroads into these areas, and if America doesn’t act fast, it could soon start falling behind even in the high-tech race.

Today, both parties are trapped in the maze of progressive government, a system that subordinates the public interest to special-interest groups seeking protection from competition—from the Jones Act to the sugar program. That is the real swamp, and escaping it will require thinking outside the box, with ideas such as Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. As President Donald Trump recognizes, the U.S. must become once again the world’s most attractive place to do business. Tariffs alone will not get us there. We must free America’s economy from the stifling burdens of progressive government and tax policy, and return to the interstate competition that made America great in the Gilded Age.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Midwives

 

 

Soon Shiong

 

 

Vietnam

 

 

Bittern

 

 

Caracal

 

 

Zoetrope

 

 

Small world

 

 

Emanuel

 

 

Bell
https://twitter.com/TheFigen_/status/1906132035220979887

 

 

Whale

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Ratle March 23 2025

Mar 232025
 
 March 23, 2025  Posted by at 11:01 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  30 Responses »


Albrecht Dürer Praying hands 1508

 

• Russia ‘100%’ Doesn’t Want To Invade Europe – Witkoff (RT)
• Witkoff: The ‘Elephant In The Room’ Which Will Decide Peace In Ukraine (ZH)
• Witkoff Names ‘Largest Issue’ In Ukraine Conflict (RT)
• Moscow Issues Warning To Kiev (RT)
• The Americans Want Zelensky Out – Is This Woman Their Plan B? (Ryumshin)
• Ukrainian MP Claims Zelensky Tried To Kill Him (RT)
• EU ‘Stabbed Its Economy In The Heart’ With Russia Sanctions – Hungarian FM (RT)
• Explosive Growth In Federal Spending Since 2021 (DS)
• Bookmakers See 20% Chance Of Third Trump Term – Media (RT)
• John Roberts Is Responsible for the High Court’s Self-Delegitimization (DS)
• Welcome to the Krytocracy: The BorderLine (Hankinson)
• Border Czar Homan Says Border Security Will Bankrupt Cartels (JTN)
• Guess Who Wants to Rename the Department of Defense? (Margolis)
• VA Secretary Doug Collins Vows More Cuts: We’re ‘Not An Employment Agency’ (NYP)
• FBI On ‘Frenzied Mission’ To Redact Epstein Files – CNN (RT)

 

 

 

 

 

 

It’s immediately obvious why Trump selected this unknown real estate developer as his representative. Smart, affable, self-effacing. Nothing to not like.

One thing, though. Witkoff mentions the status of Crimea and the four regions as the main area of contention. They are not, They are part of Russia now. Not because Russia wanted that, but because in multiple rounds of talks (Minsk et al), Ukraine wouldn’t guarantee their protection. If they had, they would still be part of Ukraine. Putin will not change this back now. He tried all he could. Besides, the vast majority of people living there are Russians. He can’t betray them.

How long before Witkoff and Trump acknowledge this?

 

 

Broke

Sacks

Putin
https://twitter.com/MyLordBebo/status/1903530185468596608

Rosie
https://twitter.com/ImMeme0/status/1903446924289564693

 

 

 

 

 

 

What in Euope they call blasphemy.

• Russia ‘100%’ Doesn’t Want To Invade Europe – Witkoff (RT)

Russia has no desire to invade other European countries, US special envoy for the Middle East Steve Witkoff has said, dismissing such fears as “preposterous.” He made the remarks in an interview with American journalist Tucker Carlson on Friday. Asked to comment on the UK’s declaration that it is ready to send troops to Ukraine to help guarantee a potential peace deal between Moscow and Kiev, Witkoff suggested that British policymakers want to be “like Winston Churchill,” who warned that “the Russians are going to march across Europe.” Asked by Carlson if he thinks Russia wants to do this, Witkoff replied: “100% not.” “I think that’s preposterous, by the way. We have something called NATO that we did not have in World War II,” he added.

Moscow also does not want to “absorb Ukraine,” according to Witkoff. “That would be like occupying Gaza. Why do the Israelis really want to occupy Gaza for the rest of their lives? They don’t. They want stability there. They don’t want to deal with that.” Witkoff argued that Russia has already achieved its goals in the conflict. “They’ve reclaimed these five regions. They have Crimea, and they’ve gotten what they want. So why do they need more?” Crimea voted overwhelmingly in favor of joining Russia in a referendum in 2014, following a Western-backed coup in Kiev, with the regions of Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, and Zaporozhye following suit in autumn 2022.

Witkoff’s interview came out after he held face-to-face talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier this month as part of diplomacy aimed at mediating an end to the Ukraine conflict. Following the talks, he suggested that a complete ceasefire could be reached within “a couple of weeks,” adding that the US could ease the sanctions on Moscow once an agreement is reached. Amid the Ukraine conflict, a number of European leaders have claimed that Russia harbors plans to attack NATO countries within several years. Putin has dismissed the claims as “nonsense,” arguing that Russia has no interest whatsoever in doing so.

Read more …

“Will the world acknowledge that those are Russian territories?”

• Witkoff: The ‘Elephant In The Room’ Which Will Decide Peace In Ukraine (ZH)

Tucker Carlson has just released a wide-ranging new interview with Trump’s Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff, who has also been deeply involved in efforts for the peaceful settlement of the Ukraine war. Witkoff has been active in the Saudi hosted talks between the US and Russia, as well as between the US and Ukraine, with more rounds of talks set for Monday. Perhaps the most interesting part of the interview came when Witkoff addressed the key, central issue to achieving the end of the war. The US top envoy described the question of the fate of the annexed territories in Ukraine’s east as “an elephant in the room” that “no one wants to talk about.”

“They’re Russian-speaking. There have been referendums where the overwhelming majority of the people have indicated that they want to be under Russian rule,” Witkoff told Carlson. Witkoff admitted that militarily and politically, Moscow now exercises full control over the bulk of these territories, as Ukraine forces continue to be steadily retreating from their remaining holdouts in Donetsk. Putin had first described in February 2022 that the people of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia regions are “our citizens forever” – and soon after a series of referendums resulted in their absorption into the Russian Federation.

Witkoff in the interview actually struggled to identify or say the names of the territories, which he numbered at five – noting that Crimea remains hotly disputed as well.”When that gets settled… this has always been the issue” – Witkoff continued, describing that this is the question likely to finally resolve the war. He asked, “Will the world acknowledge that those are Russian territories?” But that’s when he noted that there are serious domestic issues in Ukraine which would make such a significant territorial concession very difficult. “Can Zelensky survive politically if he acknowledges this?” Witkoff questioned.

Read more …

“There are constitutional issues within Ukraine as to what they can concede to with regard to giving up territory..”

• Witkoff Names ‘Largest Issue’ In Ukraine Conflict (RT)

The status of the former Ukrainian territories that have joined Russia following referendums is key to resolving the conflict between Moscow and Kiev, Steve Witkoff, US President Donald Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, told American journalist Tucker Carlson in an interview released on Friday. Witkoff, who has also been actively involved in the US efforts to resolve the Ukraine conflict, described the issue as “an elephant in the room” that “no one wants to talk about.” “They’re Russian-speaking. There have been referendums where the overwhelming majority of the people have indicated that they want to be under [the] Russian rule,” Witkoff told Carlson during the hour-and-a-half-long interview, adding that Moscow also exercises effective control over the territories.

Kherson and Zaporozhye Regions, as well as the two Donbass republics, officially joined Russia in autumn 2022 following a series of referendums. Kiev has never recognized the votes and continues to claim sovereignty over the territories, as well as over Crimea, which joined Russia back in 2014. The Ukrainian military still controls parts of Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporozhye regions, including the regional capitals of the latter two. According to Witkoff, the issue now is whether the world will acknowledge these territories as Russian and whether Kiev will agree to drop its claims to them. “There are constitutional issues within Ukraine as to what they can concede to with regard to giving up territory,” the envoy said, adding that it could also be particularly difficult for Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky as it could jeopardize his political career.

“Can Zelensky survive politically if he acknowledges this? This is the central issue in the conflict,” Witkoff said. The envoy still maintained that the US had “very, very positive conversation” on the issue with both sides. The interview with Witkoff came out shortly after he held face-to-face talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin as part of diplomatic efforts aimed at mediating an end to the conflict. After the talks, he suggested that a complete ceasefire between Kiev and Moscow could be reached within “a couple of weeks.”

Read more …

“Kiev is once again demonstrating its complete inability to negotiate, as well as its lack of desire to achieve peace..”

• Moscow Issues Warning To Kiev (RT)

Moscow reserves the right to retaliate in kind if Ukraine continues to strike Russian energy infrastructure in violation of the recently agreed partial ceasefire, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has warned. On Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin held phone talks with his US counterpart, Donald Trump, and agreed to a US-mediated partial ceasefire. As part of it, Moscow said it would halt strikes on Ukrainian energy sites if Kiev does the same. Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky also agreed to the terms. Despite this, Kiev struck an oil depot in Russia’s Krasnodar Region the day after the agreement and blew up a gas metering station in Sudzha on Friday. The Ukrainian army also deliberately targeted “residential buildings and social institutions,” Zakharova said in a press statement on Saturday.

“Kiev is once again demonstrating its complete inability to negotiate, as well as its lack of desire to achieve peace,” the spokeswoman said. “As in 2022, they have once again turned to provocations aimed at disrupting the negotiation process.” Moscow is free to retaliate if this continues, she warned. We clearly warn you that if the Kiev regime continues this destructive course, the Russian side reserves the right to retaliate, including symmetrically. Kiev struck an oil facility operated by the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC) in southern Russia overnight on Tuesday, immediately after the US-brokered ceasefire was agreed on, the Russian Defense Ministry reported on Wednesday. The CPC’s international shareholders include US giants Chevron and Exxon Mobil.

Early Friday, Ukrainian forces destroyed a gas metering station in Sudzha as they were retreating from Russia’s Kursk Region.Moscow has condemned both attacks as violations of Ukraine’s ceasefire responsibilities, and accused Kiev of attempting to derail US peace efforts. According to the Kremlin, Putin brought up Kiev’s history of sabotaging peace processes in his phone call with Trump on Tuesday. The Russian leader stressed that Ukraine has “repeatedly sabotaged and violated the agreements reached,” the Kremlin press service said earlier this week.

Read more …

Ukraine will need new people, not the same old again.

“Should Zelensky step down, Timoshenko would become acting president by default..”

• The Americans Want Zelensky Out – Is This Woman Their Plan B? (Ryumshin)

While international attention remains focused on the high-stakes negotiations involving Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, and Vladimir Zelensky, Ukraine’s internal political theater continues to play out in full force. Though less headline-grabbing than the drama in Jeddah or Washington, the developments in Kiev are no less consequential. Two major events have shaken the domestic landscape in recent weeks. First, former Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko, long dormant since the launch of Russia’s military offensive in 2022, has suddenly re-emerged. Timoshenko kept a low profile during the early years of the conflict, occasionally criticizing the government from the Rada’s rostrum, traveling to hospitals, and attending international forums. Her support for Zelensky, when it suited her, was loud and clear. Yet earlier this month, she shocked observers with an emotional rebuke of German intelligence chief Bruno Kahl, who opposes a ceasefire.

Timoshenko accused him of attempting to weaken Russia at the expense of “the very existence of Ukraine and the lives of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians.” Her social media presence has since taken a distinct turn. Timoshenko now praises Trump and openly advocates for a swift peace deal. This puts her in direct contrast with Zelensky and his administration on Bankova Street, who continue to delay settlement talks. Behind the scenes, according to media reports, it turns out that both Poroshenko and Timoshenko have been in covert communication with Donald Trump’s circle, aiming to pave the way for new elections in Ukraine. Poroshenko, it seems, is primarily angling for a role as a go-between for Washington and Kiev. Timoshenko, however, appears to be playing a longer game.

According to Politico, Timoshenko has been working behind closed doors to gather support from members of parliament, hoping to position herself as the head of a future ruling coalition. Then came a cryptic comment from Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, who claimed that a certain Ukrainian politician had secretly reached out to Putin. Many believe the description fits Timoshenko. In a recent interview with Bild, former CIA director John Brennan – who bitterly opposes the current US president – was blunt: Timoshenko is under consideration by the Trump team as a potential replacement for Zelensky. Of course, Washington is not about to push Zelensky aside overnight. Timoshenko’s role, for now, is to serve as a pressure point – a reminder to Zelensky that his options are not unlimited. On the surface, this seems like a strange move. Timoshenko is considered a political relic, well past her prime. Her popularity is low, and her public trust ratings are among the worst in the country. So why invest in her?

Because, politically speaking, she makes sense. Consider General Valery Zaluzhny, the former head of Ukraine’s armed forces. Though still popular, his sharp criticism of Trump has caused his ratings to dip dramatically. Then there’s Poroshenko and the rest of the post-Maidan elite. Their track record – particularly the failure to implement the Minsk agreements – makes them unacceptable to Moscow. Any peace deal with these figures would be dead on arrival. A more plausible candidate is former Rada speaker Dmitry Razumkov, a moderate figure who could be palatable to all parties. Timoshenko falls into a similar category but brings with her a distinct advantage: Experience. She has spent decades in Ukrainian politics, has deep connections, and once maintained close working ties with Putin. If Ukraine is to undergo a painful but necessary peace process, Timoshenko’s political skill set could prove invaluable.

And it wouldn’t be difficult to bring her to power. As a sitting MP, she could be made Rada speaker. Should Zelensky step down, Timoshenko would become acting president by default – granting her the legal mandate to steer Ukraine through the transitional period, broker peace, and organize new elections. What happens after that? It scarcely matters. If Timoshenko performs well, she can run and potentially win the presidency. If she fails or becomes politically toxic during negotiations, she can be discarded – as Friedrich Schiller wrote, “The Moor has done his duty, the Moor may go.” Either way, it would be a manageable outcome for both Russia and the US. Timoshenko, a seasoned survivor of Ukraine’s cutthroat politics, may well be the figure who guides the country to a post-conflict reality – not because she is beloved, but because she is useful.

Read more …

“The order to commit these crimes against me was given personally by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Andriy Yermak, and the head of the Odessa SBU..”

• Ukrainian MP Claims Zelensky Tried To Kill Him (RT)

Artyom Dmitruk, a fugitive member of the Verkhovna Rada, has claimed that Vladimir Zelensky directed the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) to kidnap and kill him. He said that SBU agents detained and severely beat him during an incident in the Black Sea port city of Odessa in 2022. Dmitruk was elected to parliament as part of Zelensky’s Servant of the People party in 2019. He was expelled from the party two years later and continued serving as an independent MP. He fled the country in August 2024, claiming that the authorities had plotted to “liquidate” him. The Prosecutor General’s Office has since placed Dmitruk on a wanted list on suspicion that he had assaulted a police officer and attempted to steal his gun. In a video posted to X on Friday, Dmitruk detailed his accusations against Zelensky and his chief of staff, Andrey Yermak, as well as shared photos of his injuries.

“I was brutally beaten, tortured in basements, and nearly killed on Zelensky’s orders for my opposition activities,” the self-exiled politician wrote in an accompanying post. He insisted that the government targeted him because of his “political activities.” Dmitruk claimed that in 2022, Viktor Dorovsky, the head of the SBU office in Odessa, had threatened him over the phone. “We’re going to kill you. We’ll cut your head off,” Dorovsky said, according to Dmitruk. The politician said that a group of SBU agents abducted him on March 4, 2022, when he was delivering aid to a military checkpoint. According to Dmitruk, the agents put a bag over his head and handcuffed him. “They beat me severely with rifle butts, feet, and hands. I lost consciousness,” he said.

Dmitruk claimed that he was taken to a basement where he was “tortured” and had his nose broken. He said that the agents wanted to force him into making incriminating statements. They then drove him to several locations, including a regional SBU office, where the threats and beatings continued, he added. The legislator said that the agents threatened him with a gun and made him promise on camera that he would stop criticizing Zelensky, Yermak, and the government. According to Dmitruk, the agents eventually dropped him off at a parking lot. “The order to commit these crimes against me was given personally by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Andriy Yermak, and the head of the Odessa SBU Viktor Dorovsky,” Dmitruk wrote on X, using the Ukrainian spelling of the names. “There are thousands of stories like mine. There are people who have been sitting in the basements of the SBU for more than two years,” he said.

Read more …

Szijjarto said it was “becoming unserious, ridiculous, and really harmful” for Brussels to squeeze out new restrictions for the sake of anti-Russian “ideology.”

• EU ‘Stabbed Its Economy In The Heart’ With Russia Sanctions – Hungarian FM (RT)

The sanctions against Russia have greatly backfired on the EU economy and are becoming increasingly “ridiculous” and “harmful” with each new package, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has said. In an exclusive interview with RT released on Saturday, Szijjarto reiterated that the bloc’s measures targeting Russia have failed in both of their presumed goals – to destabilize the country’s economy and bring about an end to the Ukraine conflict. The EU has adopted 16 packages of sanctions against Russia since the escalation of hostilities in February 2022. Hungary, while critical of the approach, has ultimately backed each round, but only after carving out exemptions, including from the oil embargo and restrictions on the nuclear sector. Both Budapest and Moscow, as well as numerous international observers, have maintained that the restrictions have backfired on the nations that imposed them.

“The EU has basically stabbed the European economy in the heart by the sanctions,” Szijjarto told RT. He argued that the sanctions have eroded the EU’s competitiveness and isolated the bloc. Now, Szijjarto said, Brussels is preparing a 17th round despite the obvious failure of the strategy, which he said “made no sense.” “We are three years after the first package. Russian economy is far from being on its knees. And we are now close to peace, but not because of the sanctions,” he stated. Szijjarto said it was “becoming unserious, ridiculous, and really harmful” for Brussels to squeeze out new restrictions for the sake of anti-Russian “ideology.”

According to the minister, Budapest has “made it very clear” that it won’t support any future sanctions if Hungary’s national interests were in danger. He also expressed concern about the EU’s growing militarization and plans to continue supplying Ukraine with weapons, warning that such decisions “prolong the war” and increase the risk of escalation. “This pro-war sentiment of the European leaders is really, really dangerous,” Szijjarto warned. “Our clear expectation is that they should not put obstacles in the way of the peace process… in the way of [US President Donald] Trump and [Russian President Vladimir] Putin negotiating about how to make an agreement and how to make peace here.”

Russia and the US are currently negotiating a ceasefire in the conflict. Trump earlier indicated that sanctions on Russia might be used as leverage in the talks. Putin has dismissed any notion that Western sanctions are temporary, saying earlier this week they were a tool for applying “systemic, strategic” pressure on Russia. Moscow has repeatedly slammed the measures as illegal, but the country’s officials have often noted that the restrictions have ultimately boosted domestic industry and reduced dependence on Western technologies.

Read more …

“The Department of Commerce’s annual spending grew from roughly $13.1 million in 2021—the year former President Joe Biden took office—to an estimated $20.5 million in 2024..”

• Explosive Growth In Federal Spending Since 2021 (DS)

A host of federal government agencies have overseen massive spending for years while greatly expanding their workforces, according to an OpenTheBooks report. Annual spending across multiple federal government agencies has exploded over the past several years, often outpacing growth of staff and even inflation rates, according to a report from OpenTheBooks first obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation. The report comes amid President Donald Trump’s ongoing efforts to crack down on wasteful spending across the federal government and reduce the federal workforce to save American taxpayers money. The Department of Commerce’s annual spending grew from roughly $13.1 million in 2021—the year former President Joe Biden took office—to an estimated $20.5 million in 2024, OpenTheBooks’ report found. Meanwhile, the department’s workforce declined from 53,939 in 2020 to 47,650 in 2024.

“Time after time, at agency after agency, we see spending skyrocketing since 2000, even when headcounts grew modestly and stayed flat,” OpenTheBooks wrote in the report. “In this most recent batch of examples, we also saw Biden administration spending priorities reveal themselves through the outlays at key agencies” The Biden-Harris administration notably oversaw massive government spending, with a large sum going toward costly COVID-19 relief funding in the aftermath of the pandemic. Biden’s administration also funneled millions of dollars into various left-wing initiatives such as programs related to diversity, equity, and inclusion and environmental justice. While federal agency funding levels are set by Congress, OpenTheBooks said that “upticks in spending since 2021 also appear to comport with key priorities of the Biden administration.” Throughout Biden’s time in office, many American consumers struggled with an ongoing cost-of-living crisis amid rampant inflation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s employee count declined from 106,715 in 2000 to 92,072 in 2024, according to OpenTheBooks. Despite this, the report found that the USDA’s annual spending soared during the same time period, rising from $75.1 billion to $254.2 billion. Moreover, the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s estimated annual spending grew from $33.2 million in 2020 to nearly $56.4 million in 2024, OpenTheBooks reported. HUD’s workforce also increased slightly during the same period, growing from 7,845 employees in 2020 to 8,825 in 2024. The Biden administration’s hefty government spending also worsened the growing U.S. national debt and widening national deficit, which reached $36.2 trillion and $1 trillion as of Thursday, respectively. The federal workforce also greatly expanded during Biden’s term, while the private sector shed jobs and many other jobs were lost to foreign-born workers.

Additionally, while the National Endowment for the Humanities’ workforce only slightly increased over the past four years, from 173 in 2020 to 197 in 2024, the agency’s spending grew massively in the same time period, increasing from $160 million in 2020 to a whopping $305 million in 2024, according to the report. The Council on Environmental Quality, a little-known division of the Executive Office of the President, maintained between one to three members each year from 2000 through 2020, according to OpenTheBooks. But the number of council members increased greatly under the Biden administration, reaching 17 in 2024. While the Council on Environmental Quality only spent $12 million in 2020, the council’s annual spending grew during Biden’s presidency, hitting a whopping $51 million in 2024, according to the report.

Shortly after returning to the White House, Trump established the Department of Government Efficiency to target any wasteful spending in the federal government, which has thus far conducted mass layoffs at multiple federal government agencies. The Trump administration’s massive push to reduce government waste has been met with public outrage from many Democrats and corporate media outlets. DOGE reported that it has thus far saved American taxpayers an estimated $714.29 per person as of Friday. As part of his ongoing push to abolish government waste, Trump signed a Feb. 11 executive order to reform the federal workforce by “eliminating waste, bloat, and insularity” at government agencies.

“To restore accountability to the American public, this order commences a critical transformation of the Federal bureaucracy,” Trump wrote in the executive order. “By eliminating waste, bloat, and insularity, my Administration will empower American families, workers, taxpayers, and our system of Government itself.” Notably, the federal government shed an estimated 10,000 jobs in February, marking the largest downturn in jobs in the sector since June 2022. “Secretary [Brooke] Rollins fully supports the President’s directive to improve government, eliminate inefficiencies, and strengthen USDA’s many services to the American people,” a USDA spokesperson told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “We have a solemn responsibility to be good stewards of the American people’s hard-earned taxpayer dollars and to ensure that every dollar spent goes to serve the people, not the bureaucracy.”

Read more …

“The leading contender is Vice President J.D. Vance, with 5/2 odds (28.6%). Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., is next in line with 9/1 odds (10%).”

• Bookmakers See 20% Chance Of Third Trump Term – Media (RT)

Bookmakers view US President Donald Trump as one of the top picks to win the 2028 election, despite the two-term constitutional limit, Newsweek has reported, citing the latest betting data. According to an article published on Saturday, British betting company William Hill has listed Trump as a favorite to win the next presidential race with 5/1 odds, giving him a 16.7% chance of securing what would be his third term in office. The leading contender is Vice President J.D. Vance, with 5/2 odds (28.6%). Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., is next in line with 9/1 odds (10%). Democratic governors Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania and Gavin Newsom of California are also in the top five, with 9/1 and 10/1 odds, respectively.

Trump won the 2024 election by a wide margin against Democratic candidate and then-Vice President Kamala Harris, becoming the second president in US history to serve two non-consecutive terms. The 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution states that “no person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.” The amendment was introduced after Franklin D. Roosevelt’s unprecedented four-term presidency. Trump has repeatedly joked that he may end up serving more than two terms. Former White House strategist Steve Bannon has claimed recently that Trump will run again in 2028. In an interview with journalist Chris Cuomo, Bannon said his team is working to find ways Trump could bypass the restrictions laid out in the Constitution.

A William Hill spokesperson told Newsweek that repealing the 22nd Amendment would be a difficult process, but Trump might attempt it due to his support in Congress. “Trump ally Steve Bannon predicted this week that the POTUS would run for a third term and win, so there’s certainly a feeling that it could be possible, and we’re not taking any chances as we’ve installed him in our next president market at 5/1, behind only favorite J.D. Vance,” the spokesperson added. Amendments to the Constitution must be approved by a 2/3 majority in both the House and Senate and then ratified by 3/4 of the states.

Read more …

“..in ham-handed and self-aggrandizing fashion—what he believes to be the judiciary’s integrity. But on this particular score, Roberts is dead wrong..”

• John Roberts Is Responsible for the High Court’s Self-Delegitimization (DS)

At his 2005 Senate confirmation hearing to be chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Roberts famously invoked America’s national pastime in describing his view of the judicial role in our constitutional order: “Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules, they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules, but it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire.” If only! Unfortunately, Roberts’ actual career on the high court has been one extensive repudiation of his lofty “umpire” proclamation. In exalting above all other concerns his personal conception of the institutional integrity of the Supreme Court, and by extension the entire judiciary, Roberts has ironically done more than anyone else to delegitimize the courts.

His recent wildly out-of-line criticism of President Donald Trump’s call for impeachment of a rogue lower-court judge is just the latest example. For the court’s own sake, in these politically tense times, Roberts must change course immediately. Roberts first showed his hand in the landmark 2012 Obamacare case, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. As was initially reported by CBS News’ Jan Crawford in the immediate aftermath of the decision and subsequently reported in later years by other court watchers such as CNN’s Joan Biskupic, Roberts initially intended to rule against the constitutionality of the health care law’s individual mandate—its most controversial feature.

But at some point during the court’s deliberations, Roberts changed his mind. He decided that he could throw a bone to the court’s conservative bloc by ruling against the mandate on Commerce Clause grounds, which the law’s drafters and the Obama administration alike had cited as its constitutional basis. But Roberts threw an even larger bone to the court’s liberal bloc, unilaterally opting to rewrite the statute so as to construe the mandate as a “tax”—which then-President Barack Obama himself had repeatedly told a skeptical public that it was not. Obama’s signature domestic achievement was thus upheld. That is not what a judicial “umpire” calling legal “balls and strikes” looks like. Making matters worse, the timing of Roberts’ flip coincided with Obama’s spring 2012 Rose Garden speech, in which he ludicrously described the possibility that the Supreme Court could nullify his health care law as “unprecedented” or “extraordinary.”

Did the chief justice conveniently switch his vote in a historically important case so as to mistakenly attempt to maintain the high court’s “institutional integrity” in the face of an imperious president? It certainly seems so. In the years since Sebelius, there have been any number of additional examples of Roberts ruling in a high-profile case in a way that can only be construed as a clumsy attempt to make “both sides” of the court—and both sides of the broader American public—happy. In the 2022 abortion case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which mercifully overturned the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973, Roberts notably refused to join the Justice Samuel Alito-written majority opinion, opting to write separately and merely concur in the judgment. It was a classic Roberts move: He argued the court could uphold Mississippi’s underlying 15-week abortion ban statute without overturning Roe.

Roberts’ Dobbs stunt was legally incoherent to the point of outright intellectual dishonesty, but it was politically convenient for Roberts’ idiosyncratic conception of the role of the Supreme Court chief justice—that of a jurist who should somehow attempt to “rise above the fray” and steer the ship of the court in a way that preserves the court’s public image and integrity. But once again: That is certainly not what a judicial “umpire” calling legal “balls and strikes” looks like. Roberts’ pointed criticism this week of Trump’s call for the impeachment of Judge James Boasberg, who last weekend ruled that midair flights deporting Tren de Aragua thugs had to be turned around, is in line with his history of prioritizing—in ham-handed and self-aggrandizing fashion—what he believes to be the judiciary’s integrity. But on this particular score, Roberts is dead wrong.

Read more …

“Krytocracy” is rule by judges.

“The Melian Dialogue taught that the strong do what they will, while the weak suffer what they must.”

• Welcome to the Krytocracy: The BorderLine (Hankinson)

We may think we live in a democracy, which comes from the Greek words “demos” (people) and “kratos” (rule). But with one federal district judge after another attempting to stop President Donald Trump from carrying out his policies, it’s starting to look more like a “krytocracy,” or rule by judges. Look at the litigation tracker from the organization Lawfare and you’d think it was from Trump’s first 100 months, not first 100 days. Here’s a small sample of what his administration is being challenged on: deporting criminal or terrorist-supporting aliens; freezing federal funding to avoid fraud and waste; giving federal employees a voluntary early severance package; DOGE (too many times to go into); making senior civil servants more accountable to the president; and dismantling federal agencies that no longer serve the national interest.

Some of the cases on the tracker seem to be meritless efforts to tie the Trump administration down with process and run out the clock. They should be dealt with swiftly, in the national interest, to let the president do what he was elected for. Let the people then judge for themselves and vote accordingly. But a few of the cases will decide the kinds of crucial questions that emerge from time to time as the tectonic plates of our democratic republic shift. For instance, should the president be able to manage federal agencies to carry out his constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed?” If not, and courts can mandate who he hires and fires, how he spends the money allocated to the agencies under his purview, and even what foreign and military decisions he makes, then we really are in a krytocracy—imposed by activist lawsuits and judicial coups.

A second vital question to the survival of our country is on immigration. One test case is Mahmoud Khalil, who arrived on a student visa around 2022 and apparently became a legal permanent resident last year. Since Oct. 7, 2023, he has been at the center of anti-Israel campus protests and disruptions at Columbia University. The Department of Homeland Security is seeking to deport Khalil for national security and foreign policy reasons. Activists who believe that noncitizens should be free to preach the destruction of Western civilization or support terrorism sued the government to let him stay. And when U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement flew a couple hundred illegal alien gang members to El Salvador where they will be held safely outside the U.S., another lawsuit by the ACLU (the “A” stands for “American,” you’d be amazed to learn) resulted in a temporary restraining order (that was too late to have effect) by a federal judge to keep them here, too.

I think most Americans agree that the president of the United States should be able to remove foreigners who hate our country or victimize our citizens. If lower-level judges don’t agree, I hope the Supreme Court sets them straight—fast.White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said Wednesday that “67% of all of the injunctions in this century have come against … President Donald Trump.” Sadly, if not surprisingly, 92% of these orders came from judges appointed by Democrat presidents. I say sadly because I studied history, law, and international relations and, having lived in eight countries and visited maybe 80, I know the value of the rule of law. In ancient Greek times, Thucydides told a story where the Athenians went to the tiny island of Melos and told them something like, “We outnumber you 100 to 1, and this is the way it’s going to be.” The Melian Dialogue taught that the strong do what they will, while the weak suffer what they must.

Read more …

This will take a long time, even without anti-Trump judges.

• Border Czar Homan Says Border Security Will Bankrupt Cartels (JTN)

At Thursday’s Florida Roundtable, former ICE Acting Director Tom Homan, who is Trump’s new “border czar,” defended the president’s border policies. At Thursday’s Florida Roundtable, former ICE Acting Director Tom Homan, who is Trump’s new “border czar,” defended the president’s border policies. Homan said that there were 400 individuals on the terrorist watchlist apprehended at the southern border over the past four years of the Biden administration, while there were 14 in total caught during Trump’s first term. Homan argued that overwhelming U.S. borders makes it more likely for drug trafficking and human smuggling, which is why he believes that strong enforcement essential.

Read more …

Well, it’s the original name…

• Guess Who Wants to Rename the Department of Defense? (Margolis)

In what can only be described as an unusual move, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has sparked debate over potentially renaming the Department of Defense back to its original name: the Department of War. Hegseth took to X to conduct an informal poll that garnered roughly 170,000 votes in just 18 hours. The results show Americans narrowly prefer “Department of War” over “Department of Defense.” Elon Musk chimed in, saying that “War is more accurate.” I can’t help but notice the contradiction in this proposed change. President Trump has proudly touted his record as the only modern president who kept America out of new conflicts. Given that, reverting to “Department of War” seems oddly out of step with his peace-through-strength doctrine.

So why not call it the “Department of Peace?” That would better reflect Trump’s commitment to avoiding unnecessary wars. Then again, he has also prioritized maintaining the most powerful and lethal military in the world—making “Department of War” a fitting choice in its own right. For those interested in the history, the Department of War was one of just four original cabinet departments established under George Washington’s administration in 1789, with Secretary Henry Knox serving as its first leader. It operated under that name until 1947, when President Truman’s National Security Act reorganized our military structure.

The bureaucratic evolution went through an awkward phase as the “National Military Establishment” (NME) before settling on “Department of Defense” in 1949. The same act established several crucial institutions we still rely on today, including the National Security Council, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the U.S. Air Force. While Trump recently referenced the “Department of War” in a Truth Social post, no official confirmation exists whether the administration is seriously considering this modification, or if it’s simply Hegseth testing the waters. It’s difficult to accept that he would post such a thing if a change wasn’t under serious consideration.

As you know, this wouldn’t be the first time the Trump administration has tackled federal nomenclature. The president has already renamed Mount Denali in Alaska back to Mount McKinley and the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. These changes were controversial, and renaming the Department of Defense would certainly be as well. The poll remains open for another day, but regardless of the final tally, the more pressing question is why this discussion is happening now. With multiple global challenges facing our military, one has to wonder whether a departmental rebranding deserves priority attention. Probably not. I’d rather attention be focused on increasing lethality and purging woke ideology and DEI from our military. I voted in the poll and voted to keep the name Department of Defense. Perhaps Elon Musk is right, that “War” is more accurate, but is such a change necessary? I’m not convinced.

Read more …

Not the easiest department to oversee cuts.

• VA Secretary Doug Collins Vows More Cuts: We’re ‘Not An Employment Agency’ (NYP)

In his first six weeks on the job, US Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Doug Collins has combed through less than 2% of the agency’s contracts — and is already stunned by the bloat he’s found, he told The Post this week. “The VA was paying for PowerPoint slides and meeting notes, for the watering of plants, and consulting contracts to do the work that we should be doing ourselves,” he told The Post this week. Not to mention DEI training, prosthetic private parts, gender affirming hair removal and gender affirming voice training. But that spend-happy era is over — and he’s not making any apologies for it. “I’m not going to allow the VA to be the whipping post anymore. We’re actually going to solve problems and keep doing our job, so for anybody on the Hill or in unions who wants to complain,” he said, firing back at critics across the aisle decrying cuts.

“We’ve got to make sure that we’re doing what is mandated by us and that is to take care of veterans, no matter what,” he said. “They’re all still going to have their benefits and healthcare. But we’ve got to remember we’re not an employment agency, we’re a service organization.” Collins has so far canceled hundreds of non-mission critical contracts to net $900 million in savings, and then saved another $14 million by ditching DEI employees and contracts. On Monday, he ended treatment for gender dysphoria to reallocate funds to treat severely injured veterans and amputees. The agency previously covered hormone therapy, prosthetic genitals and breasts, hair removal, voice training, and other so-called “gender-affirming care,” according to internal agency documents viewed by The Post.

Transgender people make up only about “one-tenth of one percent” of the 9.1 million veterans enrolled in VA healthcare, according to the agency. Likely the biggest savings will come from reductions in force — the department already axed 2,400 employees, and a leaked memo from the Elon Musk led Department of Government Efficiency earlier this month recommended firing 80,000 more. If implemented, that number of terminations would return the VA to its 2019 staffing levels. During former President Biden’s term, the total number of VA full time staff grew by more than 52,000 employees, said a VA spokesperson. That accounts for two-thirds of the department’s expanded workforce set to be slashed.

“The previous administration added tens of thousands of employees, and frankly we’re not sure what they were hired for because we’re not seeing the benefit,” Collins told The Post. Biden tacked on a staggering $89 billion to the VA’s budget during his term, but Collins said the last administration had nothing to show for it. An 2024 Office of Inspector General documented hundreds of millions of dollars in improper payments and questioned costs under Biden, including $325.5 million in unauthorized dental procedures and $200 million in prescription costs lacking justification. Meanwhile, average VA wait times for primary care, mental health care, and specialty care all rose significantly between 2021 and 2024, according to a VA spokesperson.

Read more …

“Get us the information we asked for instead of leaking old info to press,” she wrote on X..”

• FBI On ‘Frenzied Mission’ To Redact Epstein Files – CNN (RT)

The US Federal Bureau of Investigation is “frantically” trying to complete the redactions of the files related to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation before their public release, CNN reported on Saturday. Agents are “working around the clock” and have even suspended ongoing investigations in order to process the files, it claimed, citing sources familiar with the efforts. Every FBI division was ordered to provide agents for the task, including those working on criminal and national security issues, the US broadcaster said. Agents were told to put aside ongoing probes, including into threats allegedly posed by China and Iran, to assist the redacting work, according to CNN’s sources. The redactions have been ongoing for “much of the week” in the FBI headquarters in Washington, DC, as well as in offices in New York and Chantilly, Virginia, the report said. Agents have reportedly spent hours making redactions to both text files and videos.

According to the report, the redactions were required under federal law. The US Justice Department (DOJ) still vowed to “deliver unprecedented transparency for the American people” in a statement to CNN. US President Donald Trump signed an executive order shortly after taking office mandating the release of the Epstein files along with classified documents related to the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Jr. The DOJ released what it called ‘The Epstein Files: Phase 1’ in late February. The documents were heavily redacted and contained mostly previously reported information. US Attorney General Pam Bondi then accused the FBI of withholding “thousands of pages” of documents related to the investigation.

The initial release was also criticized by Florida Representative Anna Paulina Luna, who leads Trump’s newly established declassification task force. “Get us the information we asked for instead of leaking old info to press,” she wrote on X at that time.The Epstein case has drawn significant attention due to the late financier’s extensive network of high-profile associates, including former US President Bill Clinton, Britain’s Prince Andrew, billionaire Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, and numerous other celebrities and business leaders. Trump also personally knew the convicted sex trafficker but denied ever visiting his private island and maintains that he cut ties with him in the 1990s – years before Epstein’s first arrest for soliciting prostitution in 2006.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

USAID

 

 

 

 

Empires
https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1903688161001181396

 

 

Genius
https://twitter.com/i/status/1903455578908750054

 

 

Guitar

 

 

Bees

 

 

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