Menu Icon

Debt Rattle October 11 2026

Oct 112026
 
 October 11, 2026  Posted by at 8:32 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , ,  32 Responses »


Jackson Pollock Reflection of the Big Dipper 1947


• In First, Putin Conveys High Level Message To Trump On Ending Iran War (ZH)
• Putin and Trump Hold ‘Successful’ Talks (RT)
• Zelenskyy Urgently Attacks Russian Oil/Fuel Export Terminal (CTH)
• Trump Says “Time For Ukraine To Get A New Leader” (ZH)
• Europe and Russia Flirt with Nuclear War (J.B. Shurk)
• The Last Revolution of Barack Obama (Scott Pinsker)
• House Dems’ Dire Donor Warning Hints at Trouble Before Midterms (Margolis)
• Trump Picks New Press Secretary (Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell)
• Germany: 87% of Suspects With An Arrest Warrant Are Foreigners (RMX)
• Tulsi Gabbard Warns About Modern Surveillance State and Islamic Extremism (CTH)
• Are Democrats Trying to Steal the Election for El-Sayed? (Matt Margolis)
• Trump Petitions Supreme Court to Reinstate Lawsuit Against Clinton, DNC (ET)
• The Nobel Peace Prize: An Exercise In Moral Depravity (A.J. Christopher)
• Chris Rock Makes an Excellent Point About Wokeness (Anderson)

 

 

https://twitter.com/MarioBojic/status/2108668510083711186?s=20

 

 

This could break open the whole case.

When it started 6 months or so ago, I said they (Iran and US) needed to find the right words to save each other’s face.

But that can also be a “third face”. Back then, I never thought of it.

And you know, Iran might listen. Everybody listens when Putin speaks.

But we still don’t know who’s listening for Iran.

• In First, Putin Conveys High Level Message To Trump On Ending Iran War (ZH)

In a significant first of the seven-month long Iran war, Russian President Vladimir Putin has relayed to US President ` Donald Trump Tehran’s position on a possible resolution to the US-Iran war, according to the Kremlin. So far it is only the Kremlin readout of the two leaders’ Friday call which mentions the Iran proposal was conveyed, however it didn’t specify what they discussed in particular.


“During the October 9 telephone conversation with U.S. President Donald Trump, considerable focus was on prospects for settling the Ukraine crisis, while the situation surrounding Iran and various aspects of bilateral relations were touched upon as well,” Putin said in the statement. While the big news of the weekend is the major Trump-Putin diesel deal, if it is confirmed that Putin has begun directly mediating on behalf of Tehran, this marks a huge precedent and possible turning point in the Iran conflict.

According to more on the call as it pertains to the Iran situation: Russia’s Interfax news agency quoted Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov as saying Putin sent the message to Trump “in agreement with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian,” according to a Google translation. Other Russian media reports said Putin spoke to Trump by phone after the Russian leader met Pezeshkian on the sidelines of a summit in Turkmenistan.

Interfax didn’t elaborate on the specifics of how Iran sees the war — which began on Feb. 28 with U.S. and Israeli airstrikes on Iranian targets — coming to an end. There were reports early after Trump launching Operation Epic Fury that Moscow was willing to help negotiate peace between Moscow and Tehran; however, Moscow has largely been on the sidelines – and Qatar and Pakistan in particular have been the lead mediators.

Given Trump just did the controversial Russian diesel deal, this could be a real opening to finally bring the Hormuz Strait crisis to an end. Iran’s military has been flexing, even as the US Navy has boasted of record numbers of tankers having gotten through Hormuz. In just October alone, the Iranians have attacked eleven ships trying to traverse the strait.

President Trump continues to act as if all is well, writing in his latest Truth Social: “I settled 8 WARS, am close to ending or settling 2 more, got all of the Israeli hostages back, including the final 28, both living and dead, had hundreds of hostages, from countries all over the World, released and sent back home, won a war in Venezuela, and captured the violent dictator who so viciously ran that country, and stopped the number one state sponsor of terror, the Islamic Republic of Iran, from obtaining a Nuclear Weapon — AND MUCH MORE!”


“Yet, with all of that I, or the United States of America, did not get the Noble Peace Prize. WOW!” he added. But the Iran war, which the White House in the opening days kept promising would be swift and decisive, has devolved into a quagmire and Trump needs an acceptable exit before it limps on indefinitely, threatening to become his own Mideast ‘forever war’ legacy.

Read more …

“The leaders discussed a major diesel deal, Ukraine peace negotiations, Iran diplomacy, and closer bilateral contacts during a 90-minute phone call ..”

• Putin and Trump Hold ‘Successful’ Talks (RT)

Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart Donald Trump held a 90-minute phone conversation on Friday, discussing the Ukraine conflict, a major agreement on Russian diesel supplies, the crisis surrounding Iran, and prospects for broader cooperation between Moscow and Washington.


Trump described the exchange as “highly successful,” announcing that Russia had agreed to supply millions of tons of diesel fuel to American and global markets in an effort to ease soaring energy prices. Kremlin foreign policy aide Yury Ushakov said the conversation was friendly and substantive, revealing that Trump had rearranged his schedule to speak with Putin following the Russian leader’s 74th birthday. Here are the key takeaways from the conversation, according to statements by both leaders and the Kremlin’s detailed readout.

Millions of tons of Russian diesel for the US
The most immediate result of the talks was a major energy agreement under which Russia will increase diesel exports to the US and global markets, potentially helping alleviate an international fuel shortage. Trump announced that Russia would immediately supply more than 300,000 tons of diesel, followed by another 500,000 tons in November and 1 million tons shortly thereafter. He also suggested that Russia could deliver an additional 3 million tons, depending on the condition of its refineries.

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak subsequently confirmed that Moscow would begin lifting its diesel export restrictions ahead of schedule, reiterating the announced volumes and clarifying that exports could eventually reach 3 million tons per month, while assuring that Russia’s domestic market would remain fully supplied. The US Treasury also issued a temporary sanctions waiver covering Russian diesel shipments until April 7, 2027.

Trump predicted that the agreement, together with Washington’s claimed control of the Strait of Hormuz, would bring diesel prices down rapidly, particularly benefiting American farmers, truckers and consumers.

Kiev ‘derailed’ peace talks
The Ukraine conflict dominated much of the discussion, with Putin briefing Trump on the situation along the front line and Moscow’s response to Ukrainian “terrorist strikes” on infrastructure and civilian targets deep inside Russian territory. The Russian leader stressed that Moscow retained the initiative and remained committed to its objectives, while expressing readiness for a lasting diplomatic settlement.

However, Putin said that Kiev had effectively sabotaged plans for the immediate resumption of trilateral negotiations involving Russia, Ukraine and the United States. During their previous conversation, the two leaders had discussed restarting the talks shortly after Russia’s State Duma elections. Ushakov said that Ukrainian drone attacks, including strikes targeting polling stations and election-related personnel, had fundamentally changed the situation.

Moscow would now reconsider when negotiations could resume, according to the Kremlin aide. Trump reportedly promised to convey Russia’s position to Ukrainian representatives meeting with US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner in Miami.

Iran diplomacy ‘not exhausted’
Putin stressed that a negotiated settlement with Tehran remained possible, citing his October 8 meeting with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian in Turkmenistan.According to Ushakov, Putin noted that Washington and Tehran continued indirect contacts through Qatar despite their confrontational rhetoric. Moscow also reiterated its offer to accept highly enriched Iranian uranium as a potential way out of the nuclear deadlock. Trump welcomed Russia’s involvement in diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis, Ushakov added.

Melania’s humanitarian mission
Putin personally thanked First Lady Melania Trump for her efforts to reunite children separated from their families during the Ukraine conflict. The leaders also discussed the humanitarian situation in the town of Aleshki in Russia’s Kherson Region, agreeing that Russian human rights official Yana Lantratova would maintain direct contact with Melania’s office.

Closer ties – and another summit?
The leaders expressed satisfaction with existing communication channels between their administrations, intelligence services and other government agencies, agreeing to maintain cooperation. Putin emphasized that Moscow appreciated the attention Trump and his team continued to devote to relations with Russia despite Washington’s domestic and Middle Eastern priorities.

Asked whether the two presidents had agreed to meet in person, Ushakov said no specific summit had been discussed. However, he suggested that the upcoming APEC summit in China could provide an opportunity for another encounter if both leaders attended. The Kremlin aide also declined to disclose whether Washington had offered any concessions in exchange for Russia’s agreement to supply diesel, suggesting that American officials might provide further clarification.

Birthday wishes and hockey diplomacy
The conversation was initially proposed by the American side as an opportunity for Trump to personally congratulate Putin on his October 7 birthday. According to Ushakov, Witkoff contacted the Kremlin that day to convey greetings from Trump, as well as personal wishes from himself and Kushner, who expressed hope of meeting the Russian leader again soon.

Officials subsequently arranged the call around Putin’s trip to Turkmenistan and the time difference between Moscow and Washington, with Trump postponing some previously scheduled engagements.The US president opened the conversation with birthday wishes and greetings from Melania. The leaders also found time to discuss sports, with Trump praising Russian hockey star Alexander Ovechkin’s contribution to the game.

Read more …

Wrong move.

• Zelenskyy Urgently Attacks Russian Oil/Fuel Export Terminal (CTH)

Immediately after President Trump announced a strategic energy supply deal with Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin, Ukraine President Zelenskyy ordered drone strikes against the Russian oil/fuel export terminal NZNP. The targeted terminal is located in the Zheleznodorozhny district of Rostov-on-Don, and it is used to transship petroleum products including diesel fuel for exports toward the west.


The intention of Zelenskyy’s targeting is obvious to anyone who has followed the conflict between Russia-Ukraine and the involvement of EU-NATO countries in keeping maximum conflict at the forefront. They do not want a strategic agreement between Putin and Trump. Hours before the Ukraine targeting of the NZNP export terminal, President Trump announced a strategic agreement with President Putin for refined diesel exports over the next six months.

This Trump-Putin agreement was against the interests of Zelenskyy and specifically against the interests of his benefactors in London, because Putin and Trump are working outside the “western market pricing system”. To fully understand what is happening, I strongly suggest you spend the time to read my previous articles on the dynamic as outlined below in sequence.

• First, start with understanding why Europe’s financial system is in conflict with Russia. In his own words Vladimir Putin explains why EU-NATO must have an expanded war with Russia. It has nothing to do with political ideology, and everything to do with control of money.

• Second, understand how the western control of the “market price” of commodities is used to manipulate political outcomes. This ties directly into the first article about why London must control the money and combat Russia. In this second article three weeks ago, CTH outlined a very predictable path that was most likely. The Trump-Putin strategic alliance is EXACTLY what we expected to happen.

• Third, you can actually move beyond the current moment into the future by looking at the Lukoil story. When you combine what Putin has said with the strategic agreement with Trump now in place you can clearly see how Lukoil is going to end up being a wedge to drive out London financial influence and free the USA from this corrupt market control system.

Once you understand those three previous outlines, then you understand exactly why the U.K. needs Zelenskyy to stop this agreement between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. London’s entire market control system is at risk. It’s all connected.

º Discounted potash from Belarus, sold to the U.S. at discount (non-market) prices. [Canada smacked.]

º Discounted diesel fuel from Russia, sold to the U.S. at discount (non-market) prices. [London smacked.]

These are two recent examples of Trump working around the traditional western system of financial control within the “market system”. These are also two transactions that cut out the middlemen completely. In essence, stand back and look at what Trump is doing here, it’s the same reason BRICS exists; it’s the BRICS argument against western financial control.

Trump is aligned ideologically with the BRICS position on energy exploitation. However, it’s actually more consequential than just an alignment of interests. The biggest economy in the world, the economy that establishes the currency used in most global trade, is now aligning in common purpose against the financial schemes of London, while RETAINING the dollar as the central trade currency.

Trump is telling BRICS there’s no reason to replace the dollar, we can just replace the manipulation.

London must be going bananas, and Zelenskyy is their tool to stop Trump.

Read more …

“After Zelensky Ignored Six Pleas To Stop Refinery Strikes..”

• Trump Says “Time For Ukraine To Get A New Leader” (ZH)

As he was boarding Air Force One on the way to Tennessee this morning, President Trump made his feelings clear over how he feels about Ukrainian President Zelensky. President Trump stated that “it’s time for Ukraine to get a new president”, criticizing Zelensky for bombing Russian oil refineries and accusing him of failing to end the war. “I suggest they get a new leader who can make a deal.”


One day after announcing plans to buy more than a million tonnes of diesel from Russia, Trump said the Ukrainian strikes were driving up global fuel prices and creating “problems for the world”. “He wants to make problems for our farmers, our ranchers with diesel fuel because Russia supplies a large portion of the diesel fuel throughout the world. And we told them ‘Do whatever you want, but don’t hit the diesel fuel, because this is a big problem, a big shortage’.”

“And what does he do? He goes and hits the diesel fuel.” Asked about the strikes, he said of Zelensky: “He’d better damn well stop.”


* * *

Friday’s diesel deal between Trump and Putin wasn’t only about diesel. It was also about Kyiv.

Hours after Zelensky accused Washington of using Ukraine’s negotiators as a “smokescreen” for a backroom deal with Moscow, Axios reported that Trump decided to let Russia sell diesel after Zelensky ignored half a dozen US requests to stop attacking Russian oil refineries. The alleged source was a US official with direct knowledge, who did not hold back:

“Zelensky is misreading the room. By continuing to hit refineries, he is eroding the good will that he has built with Trump over the last six months.” In other words, the sanctions waiver was as much a message to Kyiv as a gift to Moscow. So how did we get to this latest geopolitical twist, what is Trump actually got for lifting sanctions (spoiler: less than nine days of fuel), and why is the deal is on a collision course with the one Ukrainian policy Kyiv says it won’t give up. Let’s dig in.

“Half A Dozen” Requests The backstory is familiar to regular readers. One month ago, Trump – freaking out about soaring diesel prices – told reporters that Zelensky “has to stop knocking out diesel fuel in Russia,” and a day later he announced a truce that never really happened:

A few hours later, Kyiv kept hitting refineries anyway. Just last weekend Zelensky vowed to hammer more of them, and on Thursday Ukrainian drones set Russia’s largest refinery at Omsk ablaze, more than 1,500 miles from the border. Axios notes the strikes were “highly effective and caused an energy crisis in Russia,” prompting Moscow’s diesel export ban, which then “added more pressure to global diesel markets under strain from the war in Iran.”

The core disagreement is about symmetry. Zelensky told Trump, Witkoff and Kushner that he would stop hitting Russian refineries if Russia stopped hitting Ukrainian power plants. Trump wanted Ukraine to stop unilaterally, according to the official, and “didn’t see the attacks on refineries as equivalent to Russian strikes on Ukraine’s power grid.” Or, as the official put it: “The attacks on the refineries cause pain in Russia, but it causes pain for the U.S., too.”

Then there is what happened in Miami. During eight hours of talks on Friday, Witkoff and Kushner told the Ukrainian delegation that Trump was expected to call Putin and lift sanctions on Russian diesel, because Kyiv had ignored repeated requests on strikes “which were directly affecting U.S. consumers.” A Ukrainian official claimed the envoys also threatened that Trump could cut Ukraine off from US intelligence if it kept ignoring him. The US official denied that, saying the envoys merely reminded Kyiv that the US provides munitions and intelligence, so Ukraine “shouldn’t take actions that hurt American consumers.” That is a fine distinction, and Kyiv is unlikely to see the difference.

Read more …

“There is no shame in armistice when the alternative is Armageddon.”

• Europe and Russia Flirt with Nuclear War (J.B. Shurk)

War is ugly and awful. People who experience it generally detest it. In movies, soaring soundtracks make falling buildings and gunfights seem exciting. In real life, people feel excruciating physical and emotional pains that never really fade. It’s Hell on Earth.


After WWI, nations around the world celebrated Armistice Day on November 11, which later became known as Remembrance Day in many countries. Remembering the dead was only half of the holiday’s purpose; it was equally important for the survivors of the Great War to remember the costs of total war, so that mankind would never unleash such cataclysm again.

We did not sufficiently remember the costs of global war, and twenty years later, humanity endured a Second World War far more deadly than the First. After WWII, there was a movement in the United States to honor all veterans — both living and dead — on Armistice Day. President Eisenhower signed into law a bill renaming Armistice Day as Veterans Day, and we Americans have observed the holiday ever since.

We should honor our military veterans every day. By forgetting about Armistice Day, though, we stopped remembering the horrors of war. November 11 was once a day for survivors to say, “Never again.” It transformed into a holiday that celebrates heroes and sacrifice, while often burying the most important warning from past generations to the present: Do not repeat our folly.

War is tragedy, not entertainment. Although I wish that we humans had longer memories when it comes to the psychological toll of mass killing, we barely know peace for half-a-generation before descending into Hell once again. Wars between belligerents who see no alternative to either victory or death are cruel, bloody affairs.

Despite historical revisionism that often casts the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as indefensible, the enormous loss of American marines, sailors, and soldiers on scattered Pacific islands proved that the Japanese would continue fighting to the last man before entertaining any notion of surrender. Both the Balkan Wars before WWI and the Yugoslav Wars following the Cold War were marked by ethnic cleansing, rape, and mass murder. Every Islamic war against Israel seeks the Jewish state’s eradication; therefore, every war Israel fights is life or death for the nation.

The war in Ukraine has taken on a similar zero-sum seriousness. Ukraine’s wartime president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, has repeatedly insisted that there can be no peace until all formerly Ukrainian territory now claimed by the Russian Federation — including Crimea, which Russia has controlled since 2014 — is returned to Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin has said this demand is an impossibility.

Ukraine desires membership in the European Union and the U.S.-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization; Russia went to war in Ukraine, in part, to keep NATO’s thirty-year encroachment from reaching the entirety of its western borders. Ukraine and European members of NATO have described the war as an existential threat to all of Europe. Russian politicians, academics, and pundits similarly describe the war as an existential threat to Russia’s future survival.

Both sides seek what the other refuses to give. A dangerous stalemate now exists. Although accurate numbers are difficult to obtain, both Russia and Ukraine claim to have inflicted hundreds of thousands of casualties upon the other. Millions of Ukrainians have been displaced, and Russia’s border regions have endured sustained attacks.

Ukrainian authorities continue to press-gang young men into military service. European Union countries that welcomed hundreds of thousands of fleeing Ukrainians back in 2022 are beginning to insist that young Ukrainian men be sent back home to fight. European and American politicians have suggested that Ukraine’s legal age for conscription should be lowered and that Ukrainian women should be forced into combat, too. Martial-law-President Zelenskyy has admitted that his country is struggling to replenish lost troops.

In Russia, there is less concern about fielding troops for what the government calls its “special military operation” in Ukraine. There is widespread concern, however, that the military will have considerable difficulty defending the country effectively should E.U.-NATO expand the conflict beyond Ukraine — especially if Russia is forced to defend its Kaliningrad exclave situated between Lithuania and Poland.

European politicians and military personnel have argued that taking Kaliningrad would effectively cut Russia off from the Baltic Sea and tighten the noose of a cordon sanitaire formed around Russia’s European flank. Although the largest country in the world by territory, Russia’s moderate population of one-hundred-fifty-million puts it at a disadvantage against a European population three times its size.

With real troop losses and the threat of future troop losses weighing heavily on the minds of decision-makers in Europe and Russia, what once was unthinkable has become more openly discussed: the use of nuclear weapons on the continent. For eighty years, the taboo against atomic warfare has been so great that the United States and the Soviet Union fought a half-century Cold War in the shadows in an effort to avoid direct confrontation. However, as Russia, Ukraine, and E.U.-NATO struggle for leverage and deterrence, the likelihood of nuclear conflict is growing.

Despite the fact that Ukraine is not a part of NATO, military representatives from all of NATO’s thirty-two members gathered in Kyiv this week. Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, the chair of the NATO Military Committee, announced, “We are here in full strength with a clear message: The bond between NATO and Ukraine is stronger and stronger.”

Read more …

“His policy cupboard is bare, his legacy shredded. Nothing “miraculous” happened! Younger worshippers are (gasp) doubting his divinity!”

• The Last Revolution of Barack Obama (Scott Pinsker)

Well, of course he has a gargantuan ego. All presidents have gargantuan egos. But even by presidential standards, his loomed like the Goodyear blimp. Nor was it a secret. Politico wrote about it. So did the LA Times. Outlets from Germany to South Korea wrote about it, too. His messianic aspirations — and unshakeable faith in his own divinity — gained him millions of converts.


For a while, at least. At the height of their zealotry, his worshipers expected the literal moon and stars. Because he was their Lightworker — a Christ-like figure who’d correct the crooked, heal the sick, and fundamentally transform America. So yeah, their expectations were pretty frickin’ high. How high? This painting was proposed to hang in New York City’s Union Square to celebrate the 100th day of his blessed presidency:


In the beginning, his worshipers groveled in homage before him. “This is bigger than Kennedy. [Obama] comes along, and he seems to have the answers. This is the New Testament,” gushed Chris Matthews. “He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh,” wrote Ezra Klein. “The event itself is so extraordinary that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance,” fawned Jesse Jackson, Jr.

And to be fair, the Lightworker wasn’t exactly understated when it came to setting expectations. Remember what he predicted for his glorious reign: “I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless. This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”

Yet today, Barack Obama’s prophecies remain unfulfilled. Our planet didn’t heal — it’s worse than ever! Even his signature legislation, Obamacare, is teetering on the brink of insolvency, and our healthcare system is still an ungodly mess. Why do you think handsome left-wing activists are murdering healthcare execs in the streets? It’s certainly not because Saint Obama solved the problem.

He promised us the Land of Milk and Honey — and led us to the land of cow feces and bee stings. Curiously, the one social problem he seemed ideally equipped to help, America’s lingering racial discord, got a whole lot worse. Instead of bridging our racial divide, Obama pushed us farther apart. From The New York Times:

“Seven years ago, in the gauzy afterglow of a stirring election night in Chicago, commentators dared ask whether the United States had finally begun to heal its divisions over race and atone for the original sin of slavery by electing its first black president. It has not. Not even close.

“A New York Times/CBS News poll conducted last week reveals that nearly six in 10 Americans, including heavy majorities of both whites and blacks, think race relations are generally bad, and that nearly four in 10 think the situation is getting worse. By comparison, two-thirds of Americans surveyed shortly after President Obama took office said they believed that race relations were generally good.

“The swings in attitude have been particularly striking among African-Americans. During Mr. Obama’s 2008 campaign, nearly 60 percent of blacks said race relations were generally bad, but that number was cut in half shortly after he won. It has now soared to 68 percent, the highest level of discontent among blacks during the Obama years and close to the numbers recorded in the aftermath of the riots that followed the 1992 acquittal of Los Angeles police officers charged in the beating of Rodney King. ”

Donald Trump is now a two-term president. All of Obama’s executive orders have been undone. His Iran deal was scrapped, his Green Energy policies vacated. His vice president, Joe Biden, was humiliated and exiled from politics. Every promise he made — all of his hallowed prophecies — has collapsed like the walls of Jericho. He has a nice, shiny Nobel Peace Prize to look at — and not much else.

His policy cupboard is bare, his legacy shredded. Nothing “miraculous” happened! Younger worshippers are (gasp) doubting his divinity! So what’s a would-be messiah to do when his prophecies fail? He finds a new prophecy to fulfill. Welcome to the last revolution of Barack Obama.

The ex-president’s decision to campaign with Abdul El-Sayed, the DSA-aligned Senate candidate in Michigan, raised plenty of eyebrows. Why El-Sayed? Why spend your political capital on the most controversial, polarizing candidate of the 2026 midterms? Why not someone else? Why not Troy Jackson in Maine? Why not tour the other must-win states? Those candidates would love to schedule rallies and fundraisers with the ex-president, too.

What’s so special about Abdul El-Sayed? He can do what the others cannot: El-Sayed represents the fulfillment of the Lightbringer’s legacy. Obama is, was, and will forever be a left-wing revolutionary — but he’s a realistic revolutionary. Everything he does is calculated; every move is deliberate.

Earlier this week, we outlined how shrewdly Obama triangulated on gay marriage — opposing it for religious reasons in 2008, then supporting it for religious reasons in 2012. He proceeds with caution, is mindful of political minefields, and is deathly afraid of blowback.

Take what’s given. Don’t overreach. Strike when the iron is hot. Because “The arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice.” Which means time is always on Obama’s side. Call it destiny, call it fate, but as long as the Democrats don’t self-destruct, the future is theirs. Obama believes in the eventual superiority of his beliefs just as much as he believes in himself.

As a realist, Obama knew his presidency wouldn’t take us to the Promised Land — and so, he didn’t really try. Instead, he used his presidential platform to mainstream racial grievances. He had to, because America is a flawed, racist, evil country — and a reckoning was long overdue. Before, these racial ideas were on the periphery; post-Obama, they were Democratic Party orthodoxy. Today, even the moderates believe it.

It’s too bad.

Read more …

“If Democrats have everything going for them this cycle, they should be rolling in cash, not begging for it. This doesn’t jibe with the polling that shows them ahead.”

• House Dems’ Dire Donor Warning Hints at Trouble Before Midterms (Margolis)

With less than a month to go before the midterms, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is begging donors for money. That’s a strange place to be for a party that supposedly has everything going its way. If the polls are right, and Democrats have all the energy and momentum heading into November, the checks should be writing themselves. So why is the party struggling to raise money?


According to a Politico report, DCCC Executive Director Julie Merz sent a memo to donors on Friday, setting a hard deadline for them to cough up $17 million. The committee wants the cash in hand by October 22 so it can compete in a handful of districts that Republicans carried easily in 2024. Merz told donors the money is needed “to take advantage of the opportunities we have” outside of the core battlefield. And if the donors don’t deliver? Merz warned that the party “could be leaving winnable races on the table.”

Democrats have admitted all cycle that Republicans are outraising them, but until now they’ve refused to attach a dollar figure to the hole they’re in. That makes Friday’s memo a surprising outlier, and a revealing one. Merz assured donors that committee members “remain confident that we will win back the majority in 25 days,” and then promptly explained why they should be nervous. “Here’s the tough reality though: the Republican ecosystem has amassed a massive war chest that is significantly greater than ours and is spending it,” Merz wrote.

Confident parties don’t usually send out memos like that. Merz spent significant portions of hers on four districts where the committee is desperate for more money, and President Donald Trump won every one of them by double digits in 2024. He carried Florida’s 27th District by 14.6 points, Nevada’s 2nd District by 13.9, and South Carolina’s 1st District by 13. In New York’s 21st District, he won by 20.7.

The DCCC insists its internal polling shows all four races within reach. It also concedes that the GOP’s cash advantage, especially the money sitting in the Trump-aligned super PAC MAGA Inc., will make it harder to win those seats and other long shots. Merz even name-dropped a few more deep-red districts she called “worthy of additional investment in this environment,” including the seats held by Rep. French Hill (R-Ark.) and Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), who happens to chair the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Meanwhile, the money gap has created headaches for both House and Senate Democrats, who can’t agree on where to spend the limited resources they do have. A party riding a wave doesn’t have that problem. The NRCC wasted no time mocking the memo.”No amount of money fixes candidates voters don’t want,” NRCC spokesperson Mike Marinella said in a statement. “These seats are staying red, and Republicans are on offense across the map.”

Still, something doesn’t make sense to me. If Democrats have everything going for them this cycle, they should be rolling in cash, not begging for it. This doesn’t jibe with the polling that shows them ahead. On top of that, the GOP is registering more new voters in swing states. Something isn’t adding up.

Read more …

Blond woman. Modeled after Leavitt.

• Trump Picks New Press Secretary (Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell)

The job of White House press secretary has been offered to Katie Zacharia, a White House official confirmed to the Daily Signal Friday. Zacharia will replace Karoline Leavitt, who left the position in August to spend more time with her two children. Trump confirmed that Zacharia would fill the post Friday afternoon.


“It is my Great Honor to have just appointed, as Press Secretary, Katie Zacharia,” he said. “Katie currently serves as Senior Communications Advisor to Truth Social (Trump Media & Technology Group), where she has been outstanding! A native of California, Katie previously served as Spokesperson and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs at the Department of Homeland Security.”


“Katie is a distinguished Graduate of Pepperdine University, and the Pepperdine Caruso School of Law, an attorney, and a frequent Commentator on outlets, including Fox News and Newsmax,” he continued. “She was previously involved in my Campaigns, assisting in key Swing States, where we won 7 out of 7.” Trump praised her “unblemished record of support.”

“She is, likewise, a devoted fan and member of MAGA!” he said. “I am confident that Katie will deliver strong results for our Country as the next White House Press Secretary, as she has the respect of, and will work fantastically with, the Media, the American People, and my Administration. Katie is replacing the fabulous Karoline Leavitt, who did a fantastic job as Press Secretary.” Zacharia will play an important role in speaking for the administration in the weeks leading up to midterm elections. Zacharia briefly served as spokeswoman at the Department of Homeland Security in early 2026.

“I joined DHS with a genuine passion for supporting POTUS in his decisive and effective policies to secure our homeland, be a voice for the precious Angel Families, and an advocate for the men and women of ICE,” she said on X at the time of her departure. “I look forward to continuing that work in other capacities. God bless America, God Bless President Trump, and I am grateful to be alive during the presidencies of @realDonaldTrump!”


She is general counsel at Fix California, an organization founded by Richard Grenell to promote conservatism in the state. She regularly appears on Fox News. Zacharia also serves as senior communications advisor at Trump Media and Technology Group and Truth Social. She is a graduate of Pepperdine University and Pepperdine Caruso Law School. She is a mother of four.Zacharia interned for the White House and the Republican National Committee in 2006.

Read more …

Not their society.

• Germany: 87% of Suspects With An Arrest Warrant Are Foreigners (RMX)

“The figures speak for themselves: The overwhelming majority of criminals wanted on arrest warrants do not have a German passport.” More than 148,000 people remain subject to outstanding arrest warrants in Germany, and only 11.2 percent of them hold exclusively German citizenship, and overall, 87 percent of arrest warrant suspects are foreigners, according to figures the Federal Ministry of the Interior provided in response to a parliamentary inquiry.


Foreign nationals account for 87.3 percent of the total of suspects wanted for arrests, while another 1.5 percent are German citizens who also hold a second nationality. The data is already adding to the debate about mass immigration and criminality, especially in a country where the amount of violence, rape, and serious offenses are disproportionately committed by its foreign population. Welt newspaper obtained the ministry’s reply to a question from Alternative for Germany (AfD) lawmaker Sebastian Münzenmaier.

Münzenmaier told Welt am Sonntag: “The figures speak for themselves: The overwhelming majority of criminals wanted on arrest warrants do not have a German passport.” He called for a “rigorous change of course” that would include permanent and complete border controls, the immediate termination of the stay of foreign criminals, and the enforcement of prison sentences in the country of origin.

While German citizens form the single largest group, at 16,671, Germany also features a population where 81 percent of people hold exclusively German citizenship. Romanian nationals follow closely with 16,123, then Polish nationals with 12,721, Georgian nationals with 6,869 and Turkish nationals with 6,696.

Alexander Throm, the domestic-policy spokesman for the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) parliamentary group, said: “Every open arrest warrant poses a security risk.” He added that “the high proportion of foreign offenders, including many from other EU countries, shows that action must be taken.”

Throm also noted that border controls introduced in September 2024 have done more than limit illegal migration: “They have not only curbed illegal migration. Since their start in September 2024, over 17,500 people have also been apprehended at our borders with outstanding arrest warrants.”

Heiko Teggatz, chairman of the German Police Union, called the total worrying and said it “of course, represents a security policy problem.” State police forces, he told the paper, rarely have the staffing to mount dedicated searches; most arrests occur as a “chance hit or bycatch.” The union has long cited personnel shortages as a central obstacle to improved public safety.

Marcel Emmerich, the Greens’ domestic-policy spokesman, agreed that the volume of open warrants constitutes a serious problem, “especially when it comes to dangerous persons, extremists, violent or sex offenders.” However, Emmerich rejected broader border checks, noting: “Instead of hoping for random hits at border controls, targeted searches are needed, especially for dangerous perpetrators of violence, threats and people from the field of politically motivated crime.”

Sebastian Fiedler, the Social Democratic Party’s domestic-policy spokesman in the Bundestag, cautioned against reading the aggregate figure as evidence of 148,000 undetected dangerous offenders still inside the country. “A significant portion of this is due to substitute prison sentences for unpaid fines. In North Rhine-Westphalia, more than half of all outstanding arrest warrants in total were such cases, he said. Warrants can also remain active against people who have already left Germany or been deported, so that any remaining sentence can be enforced if they return.

“For example, they will continue to be put out to tender for a search so that if they re-enter the country, a remaining prison sentence can be enforced,” Fiedler said. While the crimes may include many petty offenses, the totals are stark. German nationals represent a minuscule share of the open arrest warrants in a country where 81 percent of the country is made up of German nationals.

Read more …

“Tulsi explains why Islamic theology is antithetical to freedom and completely against American values.”

• Tulsi Gabbard Warns About Modern Surveillance State and Islamic Extremism (CTH)

Former Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard delivered a very strong speech to the audience of the Texas Youth Summit about the growing surveillance state. As DNI Tulsi Gabbard has direct personal knowledge of this issue. It is very well worth listening to this speech in full.


The second half of the speech touches upon the second concern noted by Gabbard, the spread of Islamist ideology and how it is against the core foundation of our constitutional republic. Tulsi explains why Islamic theology is antithetical to freedom and completely against American values. Again, exceptionally strong remarks from the former head of the entire U.S. intelligence apparatus about the threat of Islamic extremism. WATCH:

Read more …

“Make no mistake about it, this is what a party does when it knows its candidate can’t win on the merits.”

• Are Democrats Trying to Steal the Election for El-Sayed? (Matt Margolis)

Michigan is a prime flip opportunity for the GOP, and it looks as if the Democrats are engaging in shenanigans to try to steal it.


Start with the motive. Republican Mike Rogers and Democrat Abdul El-Sayed are fighting to replace retiring two-term Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), and recent polling shows the contest in a dead heat. The last two surveys that RealClearPolitics tracked put El-Sayed ahead by a single point, well inside the margin of error. Cook Political Report rates Michigan as the only Democrat-held seat in the toss-up column, in a state President Donald Trump carried in two of his three runs.


Democrats did this to themselves, frankly. The seat became a pickup opportunity the moment Michigan Democrats passed over the more electable candidate, Haley Stevens, and nominated a socialist radical instead. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) obviously doubted his party could hold Michigan with El-Sayed on the ticket. Then came Thursday night’s debate, and it did not go well for El-Sayed.

Rogers dominated, exposing his opponent’s hypocrisy and dishonesty on Israel, terror ties, his foreign property, and health care. El-Sayed faced questions about his ties to terrorist groups, about supporters who cheer Hamas, Hezbollah, and al-Qaeda, and about his mother’s role in wiring money to Osama bin Laden. Social media reaction overwhelmingly scored it for Rogers, and the verdict wasn’t limited to Republicans.

“Rogers showed up tonight and exceeded expectations,” wrote Michael LaRosa, a former spokesman for Jill Biden. “He spoke with absolute moral clarity about who Abdul El-Sayed actually is, he hit the right notes clearly and forcefully, and he didn’t flinch when going in on the attack.”

There’s more evidence of a campaign in trouble. El-Sayed plans to campaign with Barack Obama later this month, a sign of desperation and an acknowledgment that black voters aren’t sold on him. A candidate cruising to victory in a state Democrats have held for years doesn’t need that kind of rescue mission four weeks out.

Naturally, Democrats are panicking and resorting to rigging. On Friday, the Republican National Committee sued Lansing election officials, accusing them of illegally packing poll worker positions with Democrats, shutting Republicans out, and hiding election records from the public.

The law here leaves no room for creative interpretation. Under subsection (2) of MCL 168.674, “The board of election commissioners shall appoint at least 1 election inspector from each major political party and shall appoint an equal number, as nearly as possible, of election inspectors in each election precinct from each major political party.” Now look at what Lansing did.

The city appointed 140 Democrats and just 71 Republicans to Election Day poll worker slots, handing Democrats a nearly two-to-one edge. Officials can’t claim they had nobody to pick from, because Republicans gave the city a list of qualified candidates. When Republicans asked to review the poll worker records, which should be open to the public, Lansing officials refused. The GOP tried repeatedly to resolve the problem with the city before going to court, and got nowhere.

“Democrats stacked the deck, pushed Republicans aside, and then tried to hide the paper trail,” RNC Chairman Joe Gruters said. “That’s exactly why voters are losing confidence in our elections. Michigan has become ground zero for election integrity violations, and the RNC is watching this state like a hawk. When left-wing officials break the rules, we’ll take them to court and stop them.” The RNC says it wants transparency restored, bipartisan oversight guaranteed, and Michigan election officials held to the statute as written.

Beyond the poll workers scheme, Democrat Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson is fighting to uphold a rule requiring electronic poll-book files to be deleted within seven days after an election is canvassed and certified — a policy Republicans argue could erase evidence needed to investigate suspected voter fraud. Republicans joining the court challenge contend that federal law requires covered election records to be preserved for 22 months, raising questions about whether Michigan’s deletion rule would undermine scrutiny of disputed elections.

“Why is Jocelyn Benson fighting to delete election records after just seven days when federal law requires them to be preserved for 22 months?” asked Gruters. “The RNC has been fighting this election record purge from the start, and now we’re taking that fight directly into court. Michigan voters deserve transparency and accountability, not secrecy and less oversight.”

Make no mistake about it, this is what a party does when it knows its candidate can’t win on the merits. It stops trying to persuade voters and starts managing the process instead. Republicans are right to fight this in court now, because once the election is over, the damage is done and the evidence is gone.

Read more …

“The lower courts held that Trump waited too long to file it under the RICO Act’s time limit.”

• Trump Petitions Supreme Court to Reinstate Lawsuit Against Clinton, DNC (ET)

President Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court on Oct. 9 to revive his dismissed civil lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and others. The president alleges they conspired to create and spread a false story that his 2016 campaign colluded with Russia.


Lower courts rejected the case and ordered Trump and one of his attorneys, Alina Habba, to pay almost $1 million in sanctions. The trial judge and the appeals court called the lawsuit “frivolous,” saying it had no legal merit and appeared aimed at political grievance rather than a valid claim. Trump is now asking the nation’s highest court to review the appeals court’s decision upholding both the dismissal and the sanctions.

While he was out of office after losing the 2020 election, Trump initiated the lawsuit in federal court in Florida in March 2022, under a federal racketeering law known as civil RICO. That law allows private individuals to seek damages when they claim someone engaged in a pattern of illegal activities, such as fraud or conspiracy.

The lawsuit targeted Clinton, the DNC, former British spy Christopher Steele, former FBI Director James Comey, and more than two dozen other people. It centered on the so-called Steele dossier, which was opposition research funded by Clinton’s campaign that alleged the Russian government had compromising material on Trump.

Trump’s lawsuit touches on topics covered by two earlier government investigations. Former special counsel Robert Mueller’s 2019 report found no criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. Former special counsel John Durham’s 2023 report criticized the FBI’s handling of its 2016 counterintelligence investigation—codenamed Crossfire Hurricane—into possible Trump campaign contacts with Russia. Durham said the FBI relied too much on uncorroborated tips, including material connected to the Clinton campaign.

Those government reports dealt with criminal and counterintelligence questions. By contrast, Trump’s civil lawsuit is a private damages case governed by different rules. The lower courts held that Trump waited too long to file it under the RICO Act’s time limit.

Dossier Source Scrutiny
Steele’s dossier included claims that the Russian government possessed a salacious video of Trump at a hotel in Moscow. His main source was later revealed to be Igor Danchenko, who was based in the United States and has been investigated by federal agents over possible ties to Russian intelligence.

Attorneys for Trump and Habba wrote in the new petition that Supreme Court review of the case is necessary to protect the institution of the presidency. They said that the decisions by the lower courts reflect “a deeply troubling trend of federal courts using sanctions and disciplinary threats to punish the president and his lawyers for legitimate legal positions that those courts (erroneously) reject.” “Treating contested advocacy as misconduct corrodes our legal culture, deters representation of controversial clients, and makes constitutional adjudication depend on counsel’s willingness to risk personal liability,” they said.

They alleged in the lawsuit that in the months leading up to the 2016 election, Clinton conspired with allies to discredit him with a “false narrative” that he and his campaign engaged in collusion with Russia, according to the petition. The suit alleged several claims, including racketeering and a “conspiracy to commit injurious falsehood.”

Read more …

“Instead, the Nobel Committee gave the award to a soapbox preaching nepo baby who made a fifth grade-level PowerPoint presentation about how the world was going to melt if we didn’t purchase the indulgences (i.e. carbon credits) he was peddling ..”

• The Nobel Peace Prize: An Exercise In Moral Depravity (A.J. Christopher)

Who was Irena Sendler? If you don’t know, don’t worry. Most people don’t know who she was. And that’s a problem. I myself didn’t know who she was until very recently, and when I found out why I didn’t know, the reasons made me angry. Because my ignorance was a result of what we value as a society. Irena Sendler was a Polish nurse who lived in Warsaw during the German occupation. Unlike almost all Muslims, most contemporary Europeans, and half of contemporary Americans, Sendler witnessed the antisemitic genocide occurring all around her and knew that it was wrong.


As a nurse whom the Department of Social Welfare and Public Health employed, she had special access to the Jewish ghetto that most people didn’t. She used that access to smuggle food and medicine in, and to smuggle people out. She conspired with the Polish Underground to forge identity documents for Jews, and to help find them hiding places outside of the ghetto.

She found homes for Jewish children and orphans with Polish families, Catholic parishes, and nuns’ convents. The children were given Christian names and taught Christian prayers, in case the Germans questioned them. Though a practicing Catholic herself, Sendler didn’t want the children’s Jewish identities erased. She kept meticulous records of each child and orphan who was given a new identity and hidden with a new family, to include the children’s original names and family origins. She kept these documents in jars, buried in the ground, so that after the war, there was a possibility of reunification.

Whenever she was working in the ghetto, she would wear a yellow Star of David to show solidarity with the people she was trying to help.Giving assistance to Jews in the Warsaw ghetto was a crime punishable by death, not only to the perpetrator but to their entire family. Sendler and her friends risked this on a daily basis. In October 1943, the Gestapo arrested her on suspicion of insurrectionary activity. Despite being brutally and repeatedly beaten and tortured, Sendler betrayed not a single Polish comrade or Jewish refugee. She was scheduled to be executed, but managed to escape after the Polish Underground bribed one of her German guards.

A month later, she was back to helping smuggle Jewish children out of the ghetto. By the end of the war, it is estimated she saved over 2500 Jewish children from extermination. Sendler survived the war, and continued to help children. She dug up the jars with the children’s information and gave it to the Jewish Committee, which did what it could to reunite the shattered families. During her life, she never once asked for recognition or compensation of any kind. People like her never do. Sadly, the world doesn’t know about Irena Sendler.

The world almost knew about Irena Sendler. Almost two decades ago, the Israeli and Polish governments nominated Sendler for the Nobel Peace Prize. It would seem like a no-brainer that a young, unarmed nurse who saved thousands of children from Nazi extermination, and who endured torture and imprisonment for her efforts, would be a shoo-in.

Instead, the Nobel Committee gave the award to a soapbox preaching nepo baby who made a fifth grade-level PowerPoint presentation about how the world was going to melt if we didn’t purchase the indulgences (i.e. carbon credits) he was peddling, which made him richer than he already was.

He owns a 400-acre farm and a 10000 square foot mansion, along with additional coastal property. His homes consume 20 times more electricity than the average American home. But he thinks you and I consume too much. As a result of green policies he advocated for, tens of millions of people in places such as South Africa and Indonesia were pushed back into absolute poverty. None of his apocalyptic prophecies ever came to fruition, and he has never apologized for them. That grinning snake oil salesman accepted his Nobel Prize in December 2007.

Irena Sendler died five months later.

Nearly twenty years on, nothing has changed. The Nobel Committee just awarded this year’s prize to former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, an antisemitic, anti-American globalist and terrorist apologist. She has supported butchers such as Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, so long as his victims were the right color, and would have been only too happy to have seen people such as Irena Sendler fail in their efforts.

What a sick, sick society we live in.

Read more …

“But the problem is we’re in the Old Testament right now, and the Old Testament has no forgiveness..”

• Chris Rock Makes an Excellent Point About Wokeness (Anderson)

I have to confess that I have a huge crush on Chris Rock.


That said, I really wasn’t even a fan of his until I saw his Selective Outrage Netflix special a few years ago. It came about at a time in my life when I needed some laughs, and I felt it delivered. I’ve since gone back and watched most of his body of work from over the decades, including his Saturday Night Live appearances, most of his movies, his old talk show, his older stand-up specials, and even a lot of past interviews.

For what it’s worth, he’s matured beautifully through the years, and I love how he isn’t trying to impress anyone these days, or so it seems. He calls things as he sees them. And while I doubt he and I would see eye-to-eye on all things politics, he’s the kind of Democrat I don’t mind having a conversation with because he comes across as fairly honest and isn’t afraid of criticizing his own side of the aisle or admitting when it’s defeated. He also sees people as people… not elephants and donkeys.

That’s exactly what he did last week in an interview with David Marchese of The New York Times. Rock has a new movie, which actually comes out today — Friday, October 9 — called Misty Green. He wrote, directed, and starred in it, and the previews look excellent. He’s also been making the media rounds, promoting it. During this particular interview, he described exactly what’s wrong with wokeness today.

“The problem with quote, unquote, wokeness — and don’t get me wrong, it is great that marginalized people have a voice; it is great to advocate for anybody that feels marginalized,” Rock began, admitting that he’s not against the concept in general. “But the problem is we’re in the Old Testament right now, and the Old Testament has no forgiveness. The Old Testament didn’t work, so they had to write a remix called the New Testament.”

I didn’t quite understand the biblical analogy — either that or he’s not getting the relationship between the Old and New Testaments wrong — but I fully understood what he said next: “The problem is when you institutionalize it.” He used the Salem Witch Trials as an example.

“The Salem witch hunts. I’m sure the first three witches they caught were actually f***ing witches,” he said. “But then you open up a witch office and now you’ve got to start lying. Now you’ve gotta f***ing make s*** up because you’ve got overhead. You’ve got to justify the witch hunters’ f***ing pensions.” His point is that this country didn’t just go woke in recent years. We went woke and then turned it into bureaucracy. And now we have to create more targets to keep those offices open and fully staffed.

Again, Rock said he’s glad some of it happened because some deserving people did get some good things out of it, but he basically suggested that this should have happened from ordinary accountability, not permanent enforcement. He likened it to faith and friendship. The comedian said he has a friend who he wasn’t going to name who “might have gotten canceled.” He said people ask him all the time why he’s still friends with that person. His response to that? “If you’re only friends with your friends when they’re good, they’re not your friends.” He also reminded us that God forgives.

Again, Rock is a liberal Democrat who doesn’t like Donald Trump and does see some value in efforts we, on this side of the aisle, might consider woke. But he’s not afraid to admit that his side took it, institutionalized it, and made it so that it runs on outrage. If we must share the country with leftists, I’ll take more like him.

I’ll leave you with the trailer for Misty Green. I hope to check it out soon.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/AsFoundX/status/2108579237011571162?s=20s

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle October 2 2026

Oct 022026
 
 October 2, 2026  Posted by at 8:48 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  47 Responses »


Hieronymus Bosch St. John on Patmos 1489


• Supertanker Ablaze After Iran Attack In Hormuz (ZH)
• CNN’s Data Guru Just Dropped Brutal Numbers for the Democrats (Margolis)
• Canada Has A Ukrainian Blindspot (Ted Snider)
• Ukraine Hit By Severe Power Cuts After Russia Pounds Grid (ZH)
• Canada And Britain Blame Trump, Putin, And ‘White Supremacy’ (J.B. Shurk)
• A Lone Voice Of Sanity On NATO’s Eastern Flank Emerges (ZH)
• In the USA the Criminal Justice System Commits More Crimes than Criminals (PCR)
• Hegseth Unveils “Project Meridian” (ZH)
• ADP Jobs Report Confirms 90,000 New Jobs (Eskeldson)
• Sen. Kennedy Dogwalked Jack Smith at Senate Hearing (Matt Margolis)
• Paramount Deal Approved Hours Before $7 Million-a-Day Fines Kick In (Green)
• My Last Conversation with Charlie Kirk (John Solomon)

 

 

 

 


Trump doesn’t want that war. He may have no choice. Time is running out.

• Supertanker Ablaze After Iran Attack In Hormuz (ZH)

Iranians are apparently going back on the offensive, after it’s been widely reported that US-protected oil transit through the Strait of Hormuz has been fast gaining steam. Iran state media says a supertanker is burning off the coast of Oman after coming under Iranian attack: Local sources reported that a 2.5 million barrel capacity supertanker that was traveling through the Strait of Hormuz illegally was hit 8 kilometers off the coast of Oman and is burning, reports Fars.


Earlier we reported that starting in mid-August (on Aug. 16), Iran’s Supreme National Security Council set October 1 as a deadline. It warned at the time that if Washington failed to lift its naval blockade of Iranian ports within 45 days, Tehran could resume attacks against US forces, and by implication step up attacks on foreign shipping. Iran’s 45-day deadline for the United States has now expired. That deadline has now passed, potentially adding another layer of uncertainty to an already tense confrontation where Tehran may decide it must act ‘preemptively’ while facing more bombs by Trump (likely after the midterms).

* * *

Signs of potential major escalation, or the next round at least (which Trump has hinted will come after the midterm elections), just hit The Wall Street Journal, and sent oil prices soaring. A quick summary: The Pentagon is sending a third aircraft-carrier strike group and additional Marine Corps ships to the Middle East, adding 9,000 to 10,000 more troops to the region.

The ships, jet fighters, Marines and sailors will arrive in the region by the end of November, as President Trump considers renewing strikes on Iran after the midterm elections. The additional servicemembers will add to the more than 50,000 troops already in the region, with the deployments coming after Trump rejected Iran’s latest proposal for a seven-day ceasefire. The Trump administration is deploying a third aircraft carrier to the Middle East along with additional Marines, an American official also told Israeli media on Thursday. And later, in the afternoon, Trump posted a new Truth Social message as follows:


The USS Theodore Roosevelt is en route to US Central Command’s (CENTCOM) area of operations after having just left San Diego this week. It is expected to relieve the Japan-based USS George Washington, which entered regional waters in mid-August.

Read more …

The Dems are very optimisticc. I don’t see it. They can get people to be anti-Trump. But in the ballot-box, you must pick a name, and anti-Trump is not a name..

• CNN’s Data Guru Just Dropped Brutal Numbers for the Democrats (Margolis)

Confidence that Democrats are going to sweep the House and Senate this November is as high as it’s ever been. Pundits treat it as a done deal, and the polls seem to back them up.But not everything may be as it seems.


As I previously reported, Frank Luntz, a pollster who is no fan of President Donald Trump, sees a messier picture. Voters are souring on both parties heading into the midterms, according to Luntz, but the Democrat Party is in worse shape. Its turnout advantage is only about two points. That’s thin, since the party out of power usually enjoys a big edge in a president’s first midterm election. Luntz told CNN on Monday that everything comes down to whether Trump’s voters show up. They turned out in force when Trump was on the ballot in 2016 and 2024. In 2018 and 2022, when he wasn’t, they stayed home.

That’s a striking admission from someone who has never been a Trump fan. But there’s another factor to consider: the historic underestimation of the GOP in the polls. It happened in Trump’s first term, and if it happens again the same way, Republicans will hold the Senate. But you don’t have to take my word for it. That’s CNN’s Harry Enten talking.

Enten, CNN’s chief data analyst, explained on CNN News Central Wednesday that if the polls are wrong the way they have been historically in the Midwest, the GOP holds the Senate. “We’ve had really good Democratic polls coming out from Ohio, Michigan, Iowa,” Enten said. “And, you know, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me four times, I just have to ask the question, could it happen again?”

Could it? In major 2024 races, Republicans beat their September polling by nine points in Iowa, six in Ohio, and five in Michigan. Democrats’ leads in those states right now are smaller than those misses. “So, you look at this and you go, you know what, maybe we should just hold on a second here because we’ve seen this dance before and it was not a dance that Democrats like when the votes were actually cast and counted,” Enten explained.

Berman raised the obvious objection. Trump was on the ballot in 2024, so what happens in a year when he isn’t? Enten had the answer ready. In 2018, Trump’s first midterm, the GOP outperformed its September polls by six points in Iowa, six in Ohio, and eight in Michigan. Look across 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2024, and Republicans beat their September numbers by at least five points in all three states every single time.

Then Enten laid that history over this year’s Senate map. If Republicans outperform their Midwest polls the way they did in 2018 and 2024, Michigan, Ohio, and Iowa all go red. Even if Democrats could carry Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, and Alaska, we would still end up with a 50-50 Senate, with Vice President JD Vance casting the tie-breaking vote. And does anyone really believe Texas is electing James Talarico?

“So, if history holds in terms of the GOP outperforming their September polls, well, there’s a very, very strong chance that Republicans hold on the United States Senate, even if Democrats win in places they don’t historically win in, like Texas,” Enten said. “In these midwestern Senate races, yes, Democrats have gotten good polls,” Enten noted. “But I would just say, hold on just a brief second here because history says, you know what, it might not end for them as well as the polls currently suggest it will.”


Put Luntz’s warning next to Enten’s data, and the picture for November looks a lot brighter for the GOP than the headlines suggest.

Read more …

The main Ukrainian blindspot of course is Chrysria Freeland. This doesn’t even mention her.

• Canada Has A Ukrainian Blindspot (Ted Snider)

On September 10, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky landed in Canada where he and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney signed a 100-year partnership “elevat[ing] the relationship between their countries into a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership and confirming their aligned nature.”


Canada already has a special relationship with Ukraine. Before the war, Canada had the largest Ukrainian community in the Ukrainian diaspora with 1,209,805 Ukrainian-Canadians. Canada is the fifth largest financial contributor to Ukraine after only the United States, the European Union, Germany, and the United Kingdom with over $16 billion in military, financial and humanitarian aid.

Carney said that “Canada will always stand in solidarity with Ukraine” and that “there is no qualification to our commitment.” There is little wrong with that: Ukraine was invaded by Russia and taken advantage of by the West. But there are two problems with the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. The first is practical.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, Canada has contributed $8.5 billion in military support to Ukraine. The Comprehensive Partnership includes a joint declaration on defense and security co-operation. During the official visit, Carney announced new investments to support Ukraine’s defense, including $350 million for interceptor missiles for air defence.

The practical problem is that Ukraine is black hole into which money intended for defense disappears. This is a problem well known to Ukraine’s partners who, nonetheless, keep pouring money in with a blind eye to the problem. Earlier this month, following close on the heels of a U.S. $100 billion European Union loan to Ukraine, Kiev surprised the European Union with a request for an additional $27 billion to address a shortfall that was difficult to explain. The request “unsettled” European officials, some of whom privately worried “whether money is being spent efficiently or whether needs are being overstated.”

A recent New York Times investigation found that seven of Ukraine’s ten top military contractors continued to be awarded contracts after Kiev knew they were facing investigations for fraud, corruption, or failure to deliver on deals they were paid for. Eighteen companies won contracts despite defaulting on previous ones. Millions were thrown away by inexplicably, and conveniently, awarding contracts to the highest bidder. Government audits show that in one year of the war alone, Ukraine lost $1.2 billion in U.S. foreign aid to “fraud, waste and mismanagement.” Sending hundreds of millions more to Ukraine sounds great. But to whom will it go?

There is a second problem with the 100-year Comprehensive Partnership that is deeper. Carney said the Strategic Partnership is based on the two countries “aligned nature.” But there are important aspects that do not align. Canada is a federalist country that officially recognizes more than one culture and language. The Carney administration recently walked away from negotiating a trade agreement with the United States partly in defense of its sovereign right to protect French culture, French language, and its official bilingualism.

Ukraine has been locked in a civil war since 2014 to protect the opposite: a monist vision of Ukrainian society that rejects federalism and recognizes only one culture as Ukrainian while suppressing the language, culture, and religion of ethnic Russian citizens of Ukraine in Crimea, the Donbas, and the southeast. It specifically denies the pluralist alternative that is a defining feature of Canadian identity. Rather than aligning in their natures, in this essential aspect, the two countries are the antithesis of each other.

Canada has confronted this blind spot before. In 2023, Yaroslav Hunka received two standing ovations in Canada’s Parliament as “a Ukrainian Canadian war veteran from the Second World War who fought for Ukrainian independence against the Russians” and as “a Ukrainian hero and a Canadian hero,” despite having served in the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of Adolf Hitler’s SS.Carney insisted that “Canadians understand in our bones the importance of your struggle” and explained that the reason “there is no qualification to our commitment” to Ukraine is “because your cause—freedom, democracy, sovereignty—is our cause.”

It may be “our cause,” but the historical record is less clear that it is their cause. Zelensky has formally banned eleven opposition parties, including the Opposition Platform for Life party that was once the second largest party in the Ukrainian parliament, though they all condemned Russia’s invasion and contributed to Russia’s defence. He has restricted freedom of information, unifying all television sources into a single source of television news, and increased the censorship powers of the state over print and online media.

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Ukraine’s largest denomination, has been banned by Zelensky though Ukraine’s constitution protects freedom of religion, the church ended all canonical ties with the Russian Orthodox Church in May 2022, and the Primate of the UOC expressed the church’s loyalty to Ukraine and condemnation of Russia’s invassion.

Cultural and linguistic rights for minorities have fared no better than political and religious rights and freedom of expression. Pursuing the monist interpretation of Ukraine, Zelensky has gone down a path of abolishing any hint of Russian culture. Legislation has erased the Russian language, making Ukrainian the sole language of government, schools, universities, culture, publishing and media.

It is fine for Canada to “stand in solidarity with Ukraine.” But we should not be blind to Ukraine’s struggles and challenges. If Ukraine is to avoid civil war after the war with Russia and if Ukraine is to have a chance of joining the European Union and orienting toward the west, they, too, are going to have to confront these challenges.

Read more …

Russia will make it a hard winter.

• Ukraine Hit By Severe Power Cuts After Russia Pounds Grid (ZH)

Ongoing major Russian strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure have resulted in significant forced power cuts across various regions of Russia ahead of what promises to be a frigid winter.National grid operator Ukrene rgo on Thursday urged consumers to limit usage following the recent attacks of the past 24 hours. The outages have chiefly impacted central Ukraine, as well as Kharkiv region in the east, along with Chernihiv and Sumy in the north.


Where security conditions currently allow, emergency repair and restoration work is already under way,” a statement said. “Energy workers are doing everything possible to restore power to all disconnected consumers as quickly as possible,” it added.And BBC reports, “Kyiv has been preparing for a renewed onslaught before winter begins, by building fifteen small scale power plants in heavily fortified concrete bunkers.” Another European outlet warns of what this means for residents going into winter:

“Kyiv said it was Moscow’s opening salvo in an expected campaign to try to knock out heating and power as winter approaches.A recent increase in strikes has prompted fears about another winter with little or no power or heating, after similar attacks last year when temperatures plunged to -20C. The strikes which started Wednesday are being called one of the heaviest combined attacks on energy cited in months. Ukrainian officials reported seven people killed as a result.”

Ukraine’s prime minister Sergii Koretskyi confirmed on X, “Russia has escalated to massive strikes on energy infrastructure.” And President Zelensky indicated that critical infrastructure was hit across five regions. Freezing temperatures are expected to hit the capital region in the coming days, as emergency repair crews scramble – though there’s unlikely to be a let-up in the nightly attacks.

https://twitter.com/netblocks/status/2105352436911366384?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2105352436911366384%7Ctwgr%5E9be14063f224c54056aaa307b90e6046227374ea%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fgeopolitical%2Fukraine-hit-severe-power-cuts-after-russia-pounds-grid-ahead-freezing-temps

Zelensky has lately floated he’d be open to another energy ceasefire deal, and these calls are likely to be renewed; however, it will have to go both ways and the Ukrainians have also been unrelenting in their long-range drone attacks on Russian territory and oil refineries. Russian forces have also of late been systematically degrading and destroying data centers and mobile providers in Ukraine. Internet connectivity has become a problem throughout various sectors of the country.

Read more …

“Carney and Burnham are Dumb and Dumber.”

• Canada And Britain Blame Trump, Putin, And ‘White Supremacy’ (J.B. Shurk)

Commie Canada and the dis-United Kingdom should be renamed the “Dumb and Dumber” of the British Commonwealth.


King Charles III’s North American prime minister, Mark Carney, ran to The New York Times last week to talk about his military combat preparations against the United States in the event that President Trump crosses Lake America and liberates Canada from its delusional leaders. What a showboating dunce. The U.S. singlehandedly sustains Canada’s economy and national security, yet the tiny central banker huffed and puffed in a hilariously Napoleonic display of fake strength.

In the same interview with the failing Times, Con-man Carney outlined his intent to integrate Canada’s economy with that of China and the European Union and to replace the U.S. Dollar with a China-linked global reserve currency. Rhetorically defending Canada’s sovereignty while insulting his U.S. benefactor, Little Mark Carney explained how he would subjugate his socialist nanny-state to Chinese Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping and unelected European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Mark is the global mascot for “educated” idiots everywhere.

Not to be outdone by not-so-Great Britain’s Canadian cousin, U.K. Prime Minister Poindexter (er, I mean Andy Burnham) informed the United Nations General Assembly last week that his government was constructing yet another speech-police organization (this one given the august name, “National Centre for Information Defence,” which should not be confused with the “Research, Information, and Communications Unit,” the “Government Communication Service,” the “Counter Disinformation Unit,” the “Defending Democracy Taskforce,” the “Information Threats and Influence Directorate,” the “Rapid Response Unit,” the “National Cyber Force and Social Cohesion Taskforce,” the “Media Monitoring Unit,” or any of the other information-control agencies already mobilized across totalitarian Britain) to protect the British people from scary thoughts and words.

Burnham blamed the Russians for spreading “a narrative of decline, stoking division, and sowing despair” in the U.K. (and definitely not Westminster’s promotion of decline, division, and despair!) and promised to counteract this “information warfare” by censoring Britons’ public speech and feeding his collapsing country a steady diet of State-sanctioned propaganda. In order to beat back the Russians, Dilapidated Britain must have its very own digital Iron Curtain! Two cheers for democracy! Hip hip…who cares.

The British people are screwed. On average, their government grants settlement or citizenship to an illegal alien every single minute. These foreign nationals receive more welfare from British taxpayers than ever before. The third-world invaders (I mean, “newcomers”) use Britain’s streets as public toilets. Rather than securing the kingdom’s borders, the Home Office hands out a nine-page booklet informing mostly-Muslim men of military age that it is illegal to rape women and children while they conquer the islands.

In the last two years alone, the number of illegal immigrants (and future citizens!) arriving by boat has exceeded the size of the entire British Army! But if these outrageous facts disturb you enough to publicly express your feelings on social media, you will most likely join the roughly 65,000 Brits who have been arrested for “speech-related offenses” over the last five years. Foreign invasion? Good! Free speech? Very bad!

Apparently, the British police state also plans to imprison anyone who would rather not fight WWIII against the Russian Federation. During a recent episode of former cabinet minister Jacob Rees-Mogg’s “State of the Nation” on GB News, one leftist-globalist commentator in favor of mass conscription argued, “We would have to lock a few people up…some of the pro-Russian voices, people saying there isn’t a threat, don’t fight for your country, don’t go to war for Burnham, we’ll have to lock ‘em up.”

Rather than responding with horror at the suggestion that his fellow Britons should be imprisoned for opposing a catastrophic war, Rees-Mogg pedantically replied, “Well, we suspended habeas corpus during the Napoleonic Wars…indeed, yes.” In another interview, Rees-Mogg nonchalantly remarked that British citizens have a “duty” to “die” for Britain in a war against Russia.

In Burnham and Rees-Mogg’s Britain, the only way to “defend democracy” is to imprison anyone who disagrees with the British Establishment and to sacrifice everyone else to the killing fields! The British Isles might as well be renamed the “Gulag Archipelago.”

Interestingly, GB News — which leans conservative — discovered last week that Britain’s media regulator, the Office of Communications (Ofcom), had covered up data showing that viewers trust GB News more than the BBC. GB News, in fact, is ranked above all other networks with regard to viewpoint diversity and impartiality. British authorities apparently did not want the public to know these inconvenient truths because the BBC is treated as an objective, trustworthy, and premier source of news (fact check: false!). In an effort to control the public’s perception of the BBC, Ofcom restricted what information the public was permitted to know. P.M. Burnham takes the “defense of information” very seriously!

How seriously? Burnham and the British government force citizens to pay for the BBC’s awful dreck whether they watch it or not! Every household in the U.K. must fork over a £180 license fee to the BBC each year. Because more households are refusing to pay the license, the government is considering the imposition of a mandatory £11-a-month Internet tax in order to keep the BBC’s fake news funded. The BBC says that the “fee is essential for maintaining the quality and diversity of public broadcasting in the UK.”

Read more …

He doesn’t want war? He’s a traitor.

• A Lone Voice Of Sanity On NATO’s Eastern Flank Emerges (ZH)

There are a few sane voices left in the EU and NATO when it comes to urging an immediate de-escalation of rhetoric regarding Russia. Still, it’s a refreshing surprise when dovish sentiment comes from a country forming part of NATO’s eastern flank in particular. “We always need to think about the worst-case scenario,” Bulgarian Prime Minister Rumen Radev has told a European defense summit while warning that seeking to impose total defeat on Russia poses real risks of nuclear war.


Radev instead urged robust diplomacy to avert such a catastrophe. “The problem is that no one is raising the question about nuclear risk. Does it exist? Maybe not, I don’t know, but this is a risk,” he stated in remarks published Wednesday.”I don’t think the war in Ukraine will end in a nuclear war but we have to be prepared for the risk.”

“We always need to think about the worst-case scenario. Are we prepared for this? Does anybody speak about risk assessment? Does it exist at all? Because we have been trying to achieve a conventional victory over the biggest nuclear power.” He acknowledged that “there is a nuclear card” which Russia would be more likely to play if it perceived itself cornered. “We need to have this into account. We cannot close our eyes (to the fact) that there are nuclear weapons on our continent, there are nuclear weapons in the arsenal of Russia.”

The Bulgarian prime minister emphasized, “And this is part of the game calculation.” What has he gotten for his sensible calls for walking back tensions with Moscow? Western mainstream media has consistently labeled him “Kremlin-friendly”. Radev still made clear in this week’s comments that he rejected “this type of speaking” [nuclear rhetoric] from the Kremlin, referring to the recent example of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who warned earlier this month that a war between Russia and Europe would be “completely different” and “very short”.


The words were widely seen as a veiled threat of deploying strategic forces against Europe.Early this week NATO leadership called out what it slammed as ‘desperate’ rhetoric on the part of the Kremlin, also at a moment of growing accusations from European officials that Moscow is engaged in sabotage against EU interests and assets.

“Russia’s use of hybrid tactics is a sign of desperation. But we will not be dissuaded from our support to Ukraine,” NATO spokesperson Allison Hart said Tuesday, adding that “we [NATO] have what it takes to defend every inch of allied territory and remain strong, ready, and able to counter any threat.”

“NATO is a defensive alliance and none of our activities or exercises pose a risk to any part of Russia,” she reiterated. “We strongly denounce the threat of force, including any irresponsible nuclear rhetoric.” Hart added: “We call on Russia to end its unprovoked war in Ukraine.” Finally some serious questioning of the narrative: Where is the proof that the ‘Russians are coming’ – or are on the brink of some kind of invasion of European states?

As for other tiny handful of EU countries which have been voices of sanity which call for dialogue with Russia, this has included:
Slovakia
Austria
Czech Republic
and Hungary (or at least, while it was previously under Viktor Orban)


Meanwhile, on Wednesday a new alarming headline has emerged connected with the Ukraine war: Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson says European weapons factories producing arms for Ukraine are legitimate military targets for Russia. Things look to grow a lot hotter before they cool off.

Read more …

Paul Craig Roberts

• In the USA the Criminal Justice System Commits More Crimes than Criminals (PCR)

Reports I have read have me inclined to believe that there have been far more wrongful arrests from AI facial recognition and flock cameras than correct arrests.


In a recent wrongful arrest US Marshalls from the Fugitive Task Force showed up in plainclothes outside a Tennessee grandmother’s home demanding that she come out with hands up. Her grandchildren and visiting neighbors saw a bunch of armed men and had no idea what was occurring. It was all the fault of a dumbshit cop in Fargo, North Dakota. The Fargo police officer issued an arrest warrant based on no evidence but his deduction from facial identity that the grandmother 1,200 miles away had committed in North Dakota eight bank fraud felonies.

The police officer made no investigation whether the Tennessee grandmother had committed bank fraud in North Dakota. He relied only on AI and on the American system of plea bargaining. The grandmother, Angela Lipps, spent about 6 months in prison until it became obvious that she had nothing to do with the crimes of which she was wrongly accused by a totally incompetent police officer who issued an arrest warrant without any investigatory evidence to back it.

Indeed, from the $10 million lawsuit Mrs. Lipps lawyers have filed, we learn that the lazy cop, Luca Heck, “misrepresented the facial recognition results and omitted material exculpatory information and his failure to corroborate Lipps’s connection to the crimes.”

I agree that AI is total excrement, and that the money spent on it is a total waste of investment funds. Only idiots of the most stupid kind would spend trillions of dollar in eliminating the need for human labor and making truth dependent on those who control the data base. But what we face here is an older problem. bPolice officer Heck reflects what happens to police when 97% of felonies are settled not by trials, but by negotiated plea bargains.

A plea bargain is self-incrimination, which is prohibited by the US Constitution. Nevertheless, plea bargains are the unconstitutional basis of 97%, according to the statistics of the US Department of Justice, of criminal convictions. The conviction is by self-incrimination, not by a jury verdict. Almost 100% of all felony inmates are imprisoned due to self-incrimination. This does not mean that none are guilty.

Self-incrimination occurs, because the cost of a jury trial exceeds the financial capability of 90% of the American population. Self-incrimination is chosen by defendants, whether innocent or guilty, also because a plea bargain conveniences prosecutor and judge by saving them time and energy, and thus results in a lighter sentence than the prosecutor and judge would impose with a guilty verdict from a jury. As it is permissible for prosecutors to withhold exculpatory evidence, hire witnesses to lie, and prohibit testimony that proves the defendant’s innocence, a fair trial is not possible in the United States. Occasionally someone gets a fair trial, but they are rare. Their rarity is why the conviction rate is so high.

Police officer Heck is a victim himself of the plea bargaining system. In 97% of American felonies the police evidence is NEVER TESTED IN TRIAL BEFORE A JURY because the plea bargain leaves the evidence against the defendant UNTESTED. Police have learned that sweating over evidence is pointless when the evidence never goes to trial. √Officer Heck assumed the case would never go to trial and would be settled with a plea bargain, so no investigation was necessary. Evidence is irrelevant in a plea bargain. For Heck and for the prosecutor, it was assumed to be an easy victory. Only in the case of Mrs. Lipps the case made no sense.

What we need to be documented is when in our history, what year, did the prospect of a fair trial become so remote that it paid to self-incriminate oneself. What happened to the US Constitution’s prohibition against self-incrimination? How has it happened that only 3% of criminal convictions in the United States of America are consistent with the Constitution’s promise of a trial by peers? Why do judges believe prosecutor and defendants when they stand before him and declare that no deal has been made?

Read more …

“Musk is baaaack. In the past week alone he attended the Trump-Xi state dinner and was slated for a White House AI lunch, and now has his first formal advisory role since DOGE. Some feuds age like milk, others like fine wine; this one appears to have aged like a Pentagon contract.”

• Hegseth Unveils “Project Meridian” (ZH)

What do you get when you put the world’s first trillionaire, the man who builds killer drones in Ohio, and a former House Speaker in a room and ask them to design the next century of warfare? According to Pete Hegseth, you get “Project Meridian.”


In a sprawling “State of the Force” address to junior officers and enlisted troops at Marine Corps Base Quantico on Wednesday, the Secretary of War announced that Elon Musk, Anduril founder Palmer Luckey and Newt Gingrich (all three were in the audience) will lead an initiative “focused on discovering, developing and fielding the weapons and systems that our children and our grandchildren will need in their lifetimes.”

“Its purpose is to creatively look to the future and identify the domains that we must conquer and capabilities we must master,” Hegseth said, adding that “the best forecasters of future conflict” do “not solely reside inside the Pentagon.”

The project will be overseen by Emil Michael, the former Uber executive who is now the Pentagon’s top technology official. Bloomberg said Hegseth offered no further details, although Axios reports that the trio is expected to deliver its findings within 120 days, in both a public and a classified version.

The Customer Asks The Suppliers What It Should Buy
One does not need to be a cynic (although it helps) to notice that two of the three people now advising the Pentagon on which “capabilities we must master” also happen to run two of the companies most likely to sell those capabilities.

Musk’s SpaceX handles national security launches and has been a public company since its blockbuster June 12 IPO, which made Musk the planet’s first trillionaire. Luckey’s Anduril, meanwhile, has gone from defense upstart to prime-in-waiting in record time: it landed a $20 billion Pentagon contract in March, followed in May by a $5 billion raise at a $61 billion valuation, and it also builds the software for Golden Dome together with Palantir. As for Gingrich… Bloomberg notes he “has written a book on technology and entrepreneurism,” which is presumably what counts as a defense credential in 2026.

Then there is the Musk comeback. More than a year after the ultimately unpopular DOGE effort and the very public falling out with Trump, which at one point had the administration weighing shutting SpaceX out of Golden Dome, Musk is baaaack. In the past week alone he attended the Trump-Xi state dinner and was slated for a White House AI lunch, and now has his first formal advisory role since DOGE. Some feuds age like milk, others like fine wine; this one appears to have aged like a Pentagon contract.


What Goldman Says About The “Affordable Mass” Pitch
To be fair, there is a real case for letting outsiders shake up how the Pentagon buys things, and few have laid it out better than Goldman’s A&D analyst Noah Poponak, who sat down with Anduril’s management in June. Goldman’s diagnosis was that the legacy defense industry produces “low numbers of expensive, bespoke assets” that are hard to scale, while Anduril designs for “affordable mass” through selective vertical integration, common components across product lines, designs simple enough to automate, and flexible factories that can switch products quickly.

The economics also explain why everyone wants in. Per Goldman, Anduril targets a near 25% total company operating margin over time and gets roughly 70-80% of its revenue from fixed-price work, well above what the traditional primes earn. Poponak also saw “early signs of progress” in Pentagon acquisition reform, including multi-year frameworks and open-testing programs such as Drone Dominance. One of the architects of the “affordable mass” model will now help write the Pentagon’s wish list, which is either the most efficient procurement reform in history or the most efficient sales pitch. Possibly both.

Goldman is also constructive on the listed drone names. In his AeroVironment notes this month, Poponak noted that funded backlog rose 37% y/y and 23% sequentially and that AVAV “has exposure to faster growing portions of the defense budget.” He pointed to demand for its LOCUST directed-energy counter-drone system (first international order: more than $50mn) and the low-cost Freedom Eagle interceptor, which offers “a significantly lower-cost alternative to traditional missile defense systems.”

Enter AutoWarCom Meridian was not the only new acronym. Hegseth also unveiled a new four-star Autonomous Warfare Command (yes, “AutoWarCom”) with “service-like authorities” over drones, AI and command-and-control. It is set to be operational by October 1, 2027. Until then, an interim effort called Project Agincourt will draw on the Defense Innovation Unit and the Drone Dominance program, pairing “operators with entrepreneurs in rapid adaptation cycles.” Existing programs such as the Collaborative Combat Aircraft and the Navy’s MQ-25 unmanned tanker are being folded in. Hegseth called it “the fastest peacetime shift in modern military history.”

The money was already lined up. As we reported in April, the Pentagon’s FY27 request seeks $54.6 billion for the Defense Autonomous Warfare Group, up from $225 million in FY26, a 243x increase that would make even a Silicon Valley VC blush. Add the $1.1 billion Drone Dominance initiative to stockpile 300,000 sub-$5,000 attack drones by the end of 2027 (which sent drone stocks soaring in May), plus the Army’s $500 million FPV award to Neros in July, and the direction of travel is pretty clear.

…So Why Are Defense Stocks Puking?
You would think a four-star command dedicated to drones, a 243x budget request and the world’s richest man drafting the shopping list would be manna for defense stocks. Instead, the SPDR S&P Aerospace & Defense ETF (XAR) is down 22% from its August 14 peak and in a bear market, and as of Wednesday it is on track for a seventh straight weekly decline, the longest losing streak since the fund launched in 2011. XAR is now down 4.1% YTD while the S&P is up almost 12%.

Read more …

“The government inflated Bidenomics, and then it became afraid of the rising prices.”

• ADP Jobs Report Confirms 90,000 New Jobs (Eskeldson)

On September 30, the ADP (Automatic Data Processing) research firm posted a jobs report confirming the creation of 90,000 new jobs in the private sector. Before that, according to Quartz, Dow Jones expected 68,000 jobs. ADP’s National Employment Report announced that “hiring accelerated for the first time since May,” with education, healthcare, and hospitality in the lead. The Trump administration added manufacturing to that group of jobs, due to a new steel plant, the largest in the state, being built in Iowa. PR NewsWire said that 54,000 new employees joined medium business teams,


The Trump administration, new jobs, and inflation
23,000 were hired onto small businesses, and 14,000 were welcomed by large ones. Most of the new jobs from the original ADP report were found in the Northeast U.S. Many people have complained about job shortages and inflation. The higher prices rise, the fewer jobs and more inflation available, the angrier we get. Political cartoons and worthless government interventions have abounded, and the inflation-plus-job-unavailability bee in the consumer’s bonnet stings him again and again. It causes work-related woes and necessity prices to rise, and candidates to make speeches about it during election time.

In a change of events, the White House website has several articles about President Donald Trump adding more jobs, making up for losses caused by Bidenomics, a well-known implementation of the former president where jobs produced great risk and little reward. More than one million private-sector jobs have been created in President Trump’s second term, while federal employment remains at its lowest share of the workforce on record.

The government inflated Bidenomics, and then it became afraid of the rising prices. Overlooking that so many businesses could have gone broke and people would have become unemployed, as employers would have been unable to pay workers, the government simply kept the inflation. Stores raised prices because the money stopped having as much value, making food, clothing, and daily life necessities very hard to obtain, if not unaffordable; Bidenomics was remembered for the infamous egg shortage taking place in the early 2020s.

However, during the new Trump administration, Open Source Zone wrote on X that the September U.S. core inflation rate dropped to 3.0%, but it was originally supposed to be 3.3%. This reduced inflation may be why the ADP report included data showing that the latest private sector employees have been paid more: a 3.2% increase in their starting salary and a 4.7% increase in “gross pay.”

The takeaway
In the new report, an ADP chief economist, Dr. Nela Richardson, said, “job creation rebounded and pay growth remained solid.” Trump possibly helped to create these new hospitality, health care, and education jobs by restructuring a system rife with monetary woes. Further, Trump played a role in reducing inflation by removing Biden administration policies that were probably using inflated monies to stay afloat, and that we taxpayers were forced to pay for.

Read more …

Seriously, this is the US Senate:

“Smith pleaded ignorance again, so Kennedy tried a different line of questioning. “You don’t know anything about that. Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy?” Kennedy asked. “I do not,” Smith answered. “How about the Easter Bunny?” Kennedy continued. “I no longer believe in the Easter Bunny,” Smith said. Kennedy then asked whether Smith thought Jimmy Hoffa died of natural causes. Smith said he didn’t.”

• Sen. Kennedy Dogwalked Jack Smith at Senate Hearing (Matt Margolis)

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) gave former Special Counsel Jack Smith an epic grilling at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday morning. Kennedy accused Smith of partisan bias, of keeping a federal judge in the dark about his pursuit of congressional phone records, and of angling for the special counsel job in the first place. Smith spent the afternoon insisting he was a paragon of nonpartisan virtue, and Kennedy wasn’t buying a word of it.


Kennedy opened by asking about Smith’s reaction to President Donald Trump’s 2016 victory over Hillary Clinton. “When President Trump defeated Secretary Clinton, you were bitterly disappointed, weren’t you?” Kennedy asked. “I don’t recall that,” Smith replied. Imagine not recalling your own reaction to a presidential election. What a joke.

Kennedy then noted that Smith’s wife is an ardent supporter of Barack and Michelle Obama who made a “glowing, saccharine-sweet documentary” about the former first lady and sold it to Netflix. Smith refused to discuss his family and kept reminding everyone that he’d taken two jobs in the first Trump administration.

Then Kennedy switched gears. “You asked General Garland to appoint you special counsel, didn’t you?” He pressed. Smith looked down and scribbled on his notepad. “I don’t think that’s accurate,” he said. “He made the decision to appoint me.” When Kennedy asked whether Smith had people call then-Attorney General Merrick Garland to lobby for him, Smith scribbled some more and said he didn’t recall anything like that. Then Kennedy asked if he really wanted the job, and Smith launched into a speech about his own impartiality.

“I accepted the position as special counsel because I had spent 30 years as a nonpartisan prosecutor,” Smith claimed. “I had investigated every sort of criminal case you could possibly imagine, and I thought I was qualified to do the job. I knew that I would do it independently, and I would conduct it the same way whether it were Republican or a Democrat.” Kennedy watched him deliver that absurd claim with the patience of a man who knew exactly where this was going.


Next, Kennedy zeroed in on Smith’s pursuit of phone records belonging to members of Congress, which Smith’s team obtained through Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg. “When you went to Judge Boasberg, you didn’t even tell him you were seeking the phone records of members of Congress, did you?” Kennedy asked. “Because you knew he wouldn’t agree. He would say, ‘Hey, counselor, anybody who knows a law book from a J.Crew catalog knows that this violates the Constitution.’ But you didn’t tell him, did you?”

Smith tried twice to explain the non-disclosure orders his team sought, and Kennedy cut him off both times. Then the disgusted senator delivered the line of the day. “You didn’t tell him. But you’re unbiased. You have no personal feelings,” Kennedy said. “You make me want to throw up in my mouth.”

Another satisfying moment came when Kennedy got Smith to admit he told Garland twice that he planned to prosecute Trump. Smith said he had “absolutely no idea” whether Garland then checked with President Joe Biden. So Kennedy walked him through it, getting Smith to concede that Garland was experienced and intelligent.

“Is he a dummy?” Kennedy asked. “That was not my experience,” Smith said. “Yeah, mine neither,” Kennedy said. “So you’re telling me that you’re about to prosecute a former president of the United States — first time in history. Not only that, you’re about to prosecute a former president of the United States who’s also the current opponent of Judge Garland’s boss. And you told Judge Garland, ‘Here’s what I’m about to do.’ And you don’t think he checked with President Biden to see if it was okay?”

Smith pleaded ignorance again, so Kennedy tried a different line of questioning. “You don’t know anything about that. Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy?” Kennedy asked. “I do not,” Smith answered. “How about the Easter Bunny?” Kennedy continued. “I no longer believe in the Easter Bunny,” Smith said. Kennedy then asked whether Smith thought Jimmy Hoffa died of natural causes. Smith said he didn’t.

You have to love Kennedy. Smith has given up on the Easter Bunny, yet he still expects Americans to believe that Garland greenlit the first federal prosecution of a former president, who was also Biden’s chief political rival, without so much as a heads-up to the White House. Smith brought two federal indictments against Trump and dropped both after voters sent Trump back to the White House in November 2024.

Read more …

“Was anybody really looking forward to black lesbian Casablanca — as an eight-part limited series — if Netflix had won the bidding war?”

• Paramount Deal Approved Hours Before $7 Million-a-Day Fines Kick In (Green)

Just hours before contractual $7 million-a-day late fees kicked in on Thursday, a federal judge blessed Paramount’s $110 billion Warner Bros. buyout. Well, it’s about time. “After a fierce year-long battle,” as Variety put it Wednesday afternoon, Paramount chief David Ellison will finally complete his buyout of troubled Warner Bros. “in the most expensive takeover in Hollywood history.”


U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín oversaw the California-led, multi-state antitrust suit seeking to block the buyout or impose conditions on it. Yesterday, she put her stamp of approval on Paramount’s settlement with the 12 Democrat state attorneys general who brought the case. The merger had already been approved by the Department of Justice and even by the EU’s busy-body nanny-staters, but California Attorney General Rob Bonta saw an angle and went for it.

The suit was such a nuisance — and put so many California jobs at risk — that California Democrat gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra practically begged the Blue State AGs to call it off, or at least settle quickly. Nevertheless, the AGs seem to have gotten most of what they wanted.

I’ve written in recent months about the legal ins and outs and political maneuvers leading to this moment, and the California-led antitrust suit that, in my mind, amounted to nothing more than legal blackmail over the combined companies’ future operations. And sure enough, among the deal’s various terms, Paramount-Warner (or whatever the merged company’s name turns out to be) will be required to establish an editorial-independence board for CBS News and CNN, plus an independent compliance monitor.

Professional Hollywood scold Mark Ruffalo, who at one time was a not entirely untalented actor, blasted the court’s approval as “incredibly disappointing.” “This grassroots movement isn’t going to fade away, and neither is our resolve,” Ruffalo said to — I’m not sure, actually. “This was never about just one merger: This was about fighting back against corrupt oligarch billionaires trampling the interests of everyday people to line their own pockets.”

Ruffalo’s net worth is believed to be about $35 million, yet his most famous role was mostly CGI. So if you were on the fence about whether the deal should go through, hopefully Ruffalo pushed you over to the Yes side, if not with me out in the fields of Oh HELL Yes, about a hundred yards further down from the fence. But I digress yet once more.

As a business proposition, I remain agnostic about the merits of the buyout. This is an industry in flux, being chased out of its home city by bad governance, and the merged studios will have a lot of debt to service. How much? $80 billion. I don’t know what kind of deal Paramount might have gotten for its bonds, but an average 7% interest rate would mean $5.6 billion a year in interest alone. That’s a lot of movie tickets and streaming fees.

Still, I wish them luck. Partly because these are two storied studios that have played a big part in American culture, and if a merger prevents one or both of them from getting parted out — which was one of Warner’s possible fates — that would be wonderful. But mostly because I didn’t want to see Warner’s massive IP library become just another part of Netflix’s content-slop firehose. Was anybody really looking forward to black lesbian Casablanca — as an eight-part limited series — if Netflix had won the bidding war?

Read more …

“Freedom + Courage = Saving Western Civilization.”

• My Last Conversation with Charlie Kirk (John Solomon)

Many months later, it still looks and feels surreal when I see the video clip. Sitting in my podcast studio with headphones on, fighting back tears and uttering words I never thought would enter my mouth as a journalist.


“Charlie Kirk passed away a short while ago. He wasn’t able to survive the blood loss from the wound to his neck,” I told Eric Bolling in a special breaking news broadcast on Real America’s Voice, the upstart network that we three shared together. “There will be some announcements soon is what I’m told. And then we will have to sort through what happened today, who is responsible and try to understand.”

Just a few minutes before, I had confirmed from multiple sources that my friend — half my age but twice as visionary– had died. I triggered a bulletin on the Just the News Web site providing the first confirmation of Charlie’s death and then went on air with my stunned RAV colleagues to share the news. A short while later, President Donald Trump confirmed our report and a nation began mourning, and then debating, how a young man with charisma and passion, a beautiful loving wife and two kids could be robbed from us by the bullet of another young man driven to become an assassin solely from the apparent hatred for the beliefs Charlie spread across America’s campuses.

I’ve thought back often in the year that has ensued and asked myself, and my heavenly father above: what would Charlie say about that moment? The truth is we will never know for certain. But my final interactions with Charlie a few weeks earlier at his annual donor event in Colorado have brought me to this conclusion. Tyler Robinson is exactly the type of young American that Charlie was dying to reach with his political evangelism.

Both young men grew up in a disillusioning era of America where division was seeded and nurtured by intolerance spread at lightning speed across social media. It has been an era where hope and opportunity is being hijacked by the false prophets of democratic socialism, fake news and globalism. It’s also an era where the Western civilization value system that embraced truth, goodness and freedom and decried evil and repression is being supplanted by a new gospel of hedonism and moral relativism and Big Government idol worship spread by influencers that resemble the snake oil salesmen of the gypsy era.

Charlie chose a path toward freedom and faith and family. He saw America as eminently good, even with its flaws. He believed in fighting for it by leveraging the liberty of free speech to spur a great debate, just like Lincoln in the dark days before the Civil War.

Tyler apparently chose to embrace a different path that took him into a dark world of furryism and video game fantasy, where resentment rises in the absence of hope and faith and eventually escalates into a final act of lethal intolerance.

That dynamic has played out over and over again on the streets of America from Columbine to Coventry. Rob young people of hope and God and purpose, confuse them about everything from the righteous history of their country to the undeniable reality of their gender and they will eventually drift from family and friends and freedom and truth and eventually succumb to a moment of irreversible hatred

In the end, Charlie made his mark with a bullhorn of hope. Tyler made his with a bullet inscribed with hate. But they will be inextricably linked forever just like Booth to Lincoln during the Civil War, or Oswald to Kennedy during the Cold War. Ironically, every major struggle for freedom in American has been marred by an assassination. It’s a sobering reminder that freedom is not free and that the forces of evil that seek to extinguish liberty’s flame will resort to whatever measures necessary to succeed…

… In the pages that ensue in this book you will get to learn just how Charlie came to embrace such fearless patriotism. His intellect was large, his capacity for debate endless and his passion to ensure his generation not be erased by an evil golden calf of socialism was infectious.

Some say he can’t be replaced and that a single assassin’s bullet has ended his counteroffensive. Perhaps some of the past year feels like a drought. But as farmers know, a single good rainfall is all that’s needed to revive crops to a plentiful harvest. I hope and pray this book is that rainfall, that reading about the evolution of Charlie’s thinking and the wisdom of his words will inspire you to pick up the bullhorn of liberty and fill that void.

Every generation’s geniuses boil their thesis into a simple equation. Newton and Einstein had theirs. Charlie had his too. On the two-hop flight back from Aspen to Washington DC last August I jotted into a note my takeaway from being on stage with Charlie. For me it is the Kirk equation we must follow.’

Freedom + Courage = Saving America

Later I scribbled out America and paid homage to Charlie’s wisdom. My final inscription now reads like this: Freedom + Courage = Saving Western Civilization.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle September 24 2026

Sep 242026
 
 September 24, 2026  Posted by at 8:25 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , ,  41 Responses »


Paul Klee Analysis of Various Perversities 1922


• Europe’s Car Makers Are In Crisis. Will The Threat of War Rescue Them? (BBC)
• You Still Don’t Have The Cards: Zelensky Bringing A Bluff To Trump? (RT)
• Something Has Changed and World War Over Ukraine Is Back On The Table (AltM)
• EU Plotting New ‘Scheme’ To Steal Moscow’s Frozen Assets – Russian Intel (RT)
• Zelensky To UN: Russia’s Deficit ‘Bigger’ – More Sanctions Needed (ZH)
• At the UN, Trump Gives Iran’s ‘Vile Regime’ a Stark Choice (Robert Spencer)
• Iran Is Projecting Weakness, Not the Strength It Wants You to See (Florack)
• Melania Trump Outlines Plans for Chairman Xi Jinping Official State Visit (CTH)
• Karoline Leavitt Outs the White House Press Corps (Matt Margolis)
• Campaign Poison Kamala Harris Hopes DSA Commies Can Make Her Popular (Kruiser)
• Good News – Diesel and Gasoline Prices Set to Collapse in Roughly 60-Days (CTH)
• Elon Musk Is Powering The American Renaissance (Victor Davis Hanson)
• Victor Davis Hanson Explains to Canadians (CTH)

 

 

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2102768917001204096?s=20 https://twitter.com/SidneyPowell1/status/2102563722644668678?s=20

 

 

 

 


They missed the entire EV move. How is that even possible?

180,000 jobs in Britain alone.

Russia doesn’t want war. Not with Ukraine and not with Europe.

• Europe’s Car Makers Are In Crisis. Will The Threat of War Rescue Them? (BBC)

It’s green, bulging and intimidating. Ford’s latest vehicle looks like a pick-up truck that has been through an Incredible Hulk transformation. Based on its popular Ranger series, this beefy number parked outside the front door of Ford’s Dagenham plant can carry a load of two tonnes, tow up to four tonnes and is also shouldering the hopes of the 2,000-strong workforce that still makes engines here. Inside the factory, the three-litre diesel engines that will power this camo-painted beast drift down a production line that has seen output cut from 90,000 engines a year to about half that over the last decade.


Ford is hoping that a pivot towards military vehicles can help fill the void created by what the company’s UK boss calls the most challenging environment since the invention of the motor car. Once mighty, the European car industry is starting to look puny and is hoping surging defence budgets as Europe re-arms can help it flex its industrial muscles once more.


Ford is part of a joint venture with defence specialists General Dynamics and Ricardo bidding for a Ministry of Defence (MoD) contract to supply 9,000 vehicles over the next five to seven years to replace the Army’s ageing Land Rover-based fleet. Lisa Brankin, chair of Ford UK, says it is a chance to showcase their abilities to respond quickly to defence needs: “As a manufacturer you look at every opportunity that comes at you and this is a great opportunity that we would love to take advantage of.”

This is not the first time Ford has busied itself with defence work. Ahead of World War Two, Ford’s factory in Dagenham, east London, was the largest car plant in Europe. When war broke out, civilian car assembly stopped completely, and the factory was converted entirely to military production. Between 1939 and 1945, the Dagenham plant built 360,000 vehicles for the Allied war effort.Ford workers in Manchester manufactured 34,000 Rolls-Royce-designed Merlin engines, which powered Spitfires and Hurricane fighter planes. Eighty years later, the UK and European car industries are hoping that the engines of war can help defend against what one supplier told the BBC was a “terminal decline”.


As Europe feels compelled to commit hundreds of billions to ramp up defence spending in the face of the menace from Russia and US reluctance to be Europe’s protector, car makers that are under commercial attack from Chinese rivals have taken notice. So can the rearmament of Europe save an auto industry and a supply chain facing crisis?

The shift to defence
Ford is far from the only car company that sees defence as a growth industry – and one that can utilise the growing overcapacity at car plants across Europe. French car maker Renault has signed a strategic agreement with defence giant Thales to produce military drones – targeting an output of up to 1,000 units per month. The French military and Directorate General for Armament want to tap into Renault’s mass-production capabilities to bypass traditional, slower defence supply chains.

Meanwhile, Volkswagen has agreed to sell an under-used factory in Osnabruck, western Germany, which will become a military manufacturing hub in a joint venture with an Israeli-based defence investor.


Jaguar Land Rover (JLR), which makes the Land Rover, is also bidding for the same contract as Ford – as the Army retires its existing Land Rover-based fleet by 2030. JLR has also established a new dedicated business unit to support its global military ambitions. It makes sense for under-utilised auto manufacturing capacity to switch to defence, says Mike Hawes of the Society for Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) trade association.

The UK car industry and its suppliers are heavily reliant on a few big manufacturers – Nissan in Sunderland, Toyota in Derbyshire, BMW in Oxfordshire and the biggest of them all by value of output, JLR at multiple sites in the Midlands and Merseyside. And Hawes says the supply chain is very vulnerable.

Read more …

“Ukraine is facing a huge budget hole and a critical missile shortage, while corruption scandals and brutal conscription are eroding Kiev’s authority.”

• You Still Don’t Have The Cards: Zelensky Bringing A Bluff To Trump? (RT)

“You don’t have the cards.”


That was the message US President Donald Trump famously delivered to Vladimir Zelensky during their fiery Oval Office showdown in February 2025. Trump accused the Ukrainian leader of “gambling with World War III” and showing ingratitude for US aid, while pointing out that Kiev’s worsening battlefield position had left Ukraine with few cards to play in peace talks with Russia.

While the clash did not sever US-Ukraine ties completely, the deck has hardly been reshuffled in Kiev’s favor since. Thus the table is set for another Trump-Zelensky game in New York this week on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. Even getting a seat at that table was a late deal. Just two days earlier, Zelensky was absent from Trump’s publicly announced list of UN bilaterals, and Ukrainian officials said no meeting had yet been confirmed.

Trump’s tight schedule also leaves roughly an hour for the encounter before his next engagement. The hand Zelensky holds is hardly stacked with aces. Instead, it contains an unexpected $27 billion defense shortfall, a desperate shortage of Patriot air-defense missiles, a fresh trail of corruption scandals, and mounting battlefield losses.

Opening bet: The refinery dispute
Trump has already shown his hand. Earlier this month, he blamed Zelensky for the diesel price spike gripping the US, which the president said was caused by Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries. By the eve of the UN gathering, the US national average had climbed to a record $6.5 per gallon, a topic particularly sensitive for Trump ahead of the midterms.

According to the Financial Times, Trump pressed Zelensky during a weekend phone call to stop striking Russian oil refineries, with the paper’s sources claiming he wanted to ensure Russian supplies could reach the global market.

Trump went so far as to announce that Russia and Ukraine had effectively agreed to stop attacks on energy infrastructure. Neither Kiev nor Moscow confirmed the truce, while Zelensky demanded Russia take the first step, and continued to attack Russian fuel plants.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov called the prospective truce a “very good idea” and said Moscow was “always on the side of peaceful solutions.” He also argued that protecting refineries alone would not solve the global fuel crunch. The bigger problem, he said, was getting Russian petroleum products onto world markets, which required safe passage for oil tankers – something he said Kiev was not willing to guarantee.

Ahead of the meeting, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also rebuked Ukraine over targeting US-linked ships in the Black Sea, adding that while it did so “probably not deliberately,” “that’s something that needs to be addressed.”

Desperate for Patriot draw
Zelensky has repeatedly sounded the alarm over deliveries of US-made Patriot interceptors, one of the few weapons in Ukraine’s arsenal capable of tackling Russian ballistic missiles. In July, he said the country’s stocks were nearly exhausted and asked Trump for an emergency “winter package” of 300 interceptors, warning that Ukraine needed them “yesterday.” Ukrainian air defenses failed to intercept even a single Russian missile during some recent barrage.

However, multiple media reports have indicated that Washington’s Patriot stocks are also low due to the Iran war, with American Patriot inventories in Europe said to have fallen “beyond critical” levels. While Trump has denied the shortfall, the Pentagon has publicly acknowledged the strain.

Earlier this month, Trump also suggested that Ukraine could receive a license to produce Patriots in a “less sophisticated version,” though no details on the prospective agreement have emerged. Multiple experts have pointed out numerous obstacles to the program, also warning that any production facilities would be prime targets for Russia.

Zelensky is almost out of chips
Late summer exposed a glaring weakness in Zelensky’s gamble: an unexpected $27 billion defense budget shortfall expected by the end of the year – a figure that ballooned almost fourfold over the past several months. Kiev subsequently asked for more money from its European backers – met with a tepid response whereby Brussels even refused to acknowledge the $27 billion figure.

The shortfall arose as a result of Zelensky’s much-heralded 40-day pressure campaign against Russia that involved the very strikes on refineries Trump reportedly asked him to stop. The escalatory attacks also triggered Russian retaliation against Ukrainian military-related logistics, including effectively closing the port of Odessa, which serves as a key hub for agricultural exports. Ukraine’s $27 billion request “surprised and unsettled” European officials, according to the New York Times, with some of Ukraine’s backers reportedly asking questions about how Kiev is spending the cash and if it actually needs as much as it says it does.

The Trump wildcard
Kiev does have one fresh trump card to hope for – except it lies largely up the US president’s sleeve. On Friday, Trump signed a new sanctions legislation first proposed by late Republican Senator and Russia hawk Lindsey Graham last year. The measure gives the US president authority to target Russian officials, banks, and the energy sector, and to impose tariffs of up to 100% on leading importers of Russian oil and gas. Zelensky specifically thanked Trump for signing it when the pair arranged their New York meeting.

However, Trump retains authority over sanctions waivers and the scope of restrictions and tariffs, while the bill does not mention China and India, the key importers of Russian energy. In addition, the Trump administration has a recent history of easing sanctions on Russian oil. During the Iran war, the administration issued temporary exemptions allowing the sale and delivery of Russian crude already at sea to alleviate pressure on energy markets.

Read more …

Nothing changed.

• Something Has Changed and World War Over Ukraine Is Back On The Table (AltM)

The eyes of the world have been fixated on the war in Iran for the past six months, meanwhile, the single-most dangerous flashpoint on the planet has gone mostly ignored. Until, that is, waves of Ukrainian drone strikes activated a run on global diesel markets. Suddenly, everyone is paying attention again…


Russia is the second largest diesel exporter in the world next to the United States, supplying around 12% of total global exports (the US supplies 22% of exports). To put this in perspective, only 10% of global diesel exports pass through the Strait of Hormuz under normal conditions – And that supply is coming from seven different oil producing nations including Iran.

After western sanctions, Russian diesel shipments have gone primarily to Turkey, Brazil, India and China. However, because Russian supplies continued to circulate on global markets, these countries did not have to draw fuel from alternative sources.

Conditions have now changed, and not for the better. Constant Ukrainianian drone strikes on Russian refineries have forced the Kremlin to stop all diesel exports and retain their existing supply for the population and the war effort.

If you want to know why diesel prices have been hit hard since July, Russian export cuts are the reason. Traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has steadily climbed since July according to independent satellite tracking confirmation (anyone using AIS transponder data alone will have a low and inaccurate count). It’s the Russian refinery issue that has inflated diesel prices in recent months.

With Russian sources completely cut off, multiple nations will have to draw from other producers. Meaning, the pie is shrinking, but everyone still wants the same size slice they’ve always had. If the US also stops diesel exports in response, it would be a disaster for foreign markets and result in true supply shortages (Europe would be hard hit; half of their diesel imports come from the US).

In 2024 I questioned why the Ukrainians kept going after odd targets such as nuclear early warning radar stations rather than key resources like oil refineries in order to stop Russia’s attrition strategy. Well, it looks like the Ukrainians finally figured it out.

Russia’s attrition strategy has been highly effective in grinding down Ukraine’s troop strength (to the point that they were recruiting mostly men over 40), but the key flaw of a slow moving front line and a protracted offensive is that it requires a large stockpile of resources. Ukraine’s drone attacks have a low success rate, but if they send a thousand UAVs to attack a refinery and a couple get through, then that’s still a win in the long run because it drags down Russia’s lumbering attrition-based operation.

The Trump Administration has asked Ukraine to stop hitting Russian refineries due to the instability to global markets, but Zelensky has ignored the request. It’s not surprising; they’ve finally found a tactic that works.

Of course, now the rest of the world is being affected by diesel supply shortages when this was not the case a year ago. One would think the Europeans, who have been particularly throttled by price hikes on fuel and energy, would be in a rush to end the war. And maybe they are about to intervene, but not in the way we might hope…

I think it’s fair to say that the Ukraine war would have ended a long time ago had it not been for the interference of European governments propping up Ukraine and encouraging them to NOT make a deal. Ultimately, Russia is going to keep the Donbas region whether Ukraine likes it or not. But Zelensky refuses to accept this outcome, so, the war rages on much longer than it needs to.

The situation gets much more dangerous, though,with the push by European elites to put boots on the ground. They seem to want to start a world war. Beyond the diesel resource problem which puts a timetable on the war for both sides, European governments have increased troop movements to eastern borders and it’s starting to look like they’re getting ready for something big.

Poland has been building extensive trenches and fortifications using German combat engineers on the border of Belarus. Germany has established a 5000-man armored brigade in Lithuania, the first time the Germans have stationed permanent combat troops abroad since 1945. NATO has launched a 9th multinational battle group with regular exercises in Finland near the Russian border. Multiple nations are sending rotating brigades to Latvia, Romania and Estonia. Even the Canadians are sending troops.

Recent weeks have seen repeated Polish and Baltic fighter activations due to alleged drone or aircraft activity near alliance airspace. Allies are pre-positioning equipment and planning much larger stockpiles of ammunition and resources in frontline states. NATO has also published extensive contingency planning for the eastern flank.

There has been a surge in political and civil-preparedness messaging for civilians. Polish warnings about possible disguised drone/missile incidents. French measures to protect critical infrastructure after hybrid-attack briefings. German military-hospital capacity planning. Lithuanian plans for evacuation routes. UK public preparedness bulletins including recommendations for civilians to stock up on food and supplies..

Even Switzerland has been posting security and preparedness messages for citizens, indicating a “deteriorating security situation” in relation to the military build up.

All of this could be viewed as a defensive posture and not necessarily planning for direct engagement with the Russians; but consider for a moment that Russia has not once threatened to attack European or NATO targets and has consistently said that their only interest is Ukraine. Yet, Europe has removed their “trip wire” defense strategy and replaced it with a permanent front. It sure does seem like they are getting ready for an event which might provoke the Russians to strike targets outside of Ukraine.

Read more …

“Brussels is considering moving the funds out of Belgium’s Euroclear into a new supranational structure, the SVR has said..”

• EU Plotting New ‘Scheme’ To Steal Moscow’s Frozen Assets – Russian Intel (RT)

The EU is working on a new scheme to “steal” Moscow’s frozen sovereign assets to bankroll Ukraine, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) said in a press release on Tuesday. Around $300 billion in Russian sovereign assets was frozen by Kiev’s Western backers after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. Roughly $240 billion is still being held at the Belgium-based clearing house Euroclear.


According to the SVR, EU leaders have “a vital interest in stealing Russian assets,” because they fear they will not be able to indefinitely finance “the thieving Kiev regime” without appropriating the funds. Eurocrats are now “in a hurry” to pull off the seizure before elections in several EU states in 2027, the agency stated, arguing that future governments in the bloc could be less willing to back further financial support for Ukraine.

The EU has already redirected profits generated by the immobilized funds to Ukraine but has been unable to seize the underlying assets due to strong political and legal resistance. According to the SVR, experts in Brussels are now discussing the creation of a new supranational structure that could take control of Russian central bank funds after they are moved outside of Belgian jurisdiction.

Belgium has repeatedly blocked proposals to seize the assets, with Prime Minister Bart De Wever warning that outright confiscation would expose his country to legal and financial retaliation. Euroclear has also said it could sue the EU if the funds are seized.

Last week, Belgium’s top administrative court also struck down a government decision not to release the assets of Russia’s BCS Bank, which were frozen alongside Moscow’s sovereign assets in 2022. The court found that Belgian authorities had mishandled the case and ruled that the bank could seek a fresh review, potentially setting a precedent for other entities whose requests were rejected under similar circumstances.

Moscow has long denounced any attempt to appropriate its sovereign assets, calling it “theft” and warning that confiscation would trigger retaliation, potentially including measures against Western assets held in Russia. The SVR has also warned that confiscating Russia’s sovereign funds would damage trust in European financial institutions among major foreign investors, including China, India, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Singapore.

Read more …

He’s willing to waste a million lives. Hard to fight against.

• Zelensky To UN: Russia’s Deficit ‘Bigger’ – More Sanctions Needed (ZH)

Among the more interesting parts of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s speech before the UN General Assembly on Wednesday afternoon was when he lashed out at North Korea. Zelensky said while issuing leveling a litany of charges against Russia for its war that “The leader of North Korea sent his troops to Russia to support the weak points of the Russian army.” He questioned why a faraway southeast Asian country would be so willing to sacrifice its troops for a Russian endeavor.


Zelensky said: “You probably saw the broadcast from Pyongyang when they honored those who were killed. And this is madness, too. Why should Koreans give their lives in a war against Ukraine?” He further accused Kim Jong Un of using his own citizens “like currency” in return for “improved ballistic missiles and Pyongyang’s much [upgraded] drone capabilities.” Likely these barbs will only cause Kim’s regime to double down, and keep up its military support to Moscow.

By some estimates, hundreds or possibly even thousands of DPRK troops have died so far in the Ukraine conflict. Pyongyang and Moscow have increasingly openly acknowledged the deaths, with North Korea even having held patriotic state funerals for slain troops. Elsewhere in the address, Zelensky sought to portray his country as essentially ‘winning’ the war, claiming immense but unverifiable Russian losses on the battlefield, also while Ukraine’s long-range drones unleash destruction on Russian energy infrastructure.


Concerning the energy war, Zelensky went on to assert that “Oil itself is not Ukraine’s target, not our target, not gasoline or diesel, not factories or ports … Our target is Russia’s ability to finance this war, to drag it out, to make it more brutal and more destructive.” “Russia’s finances and Russia’s production are what must be stopped if Putin is to be stopped,” Zelensky added. On this front, he presented Ukraine’s risky long-range strikes as victorious. But he has also this week expressed willingness to agree to a joint energy ceasefire.

On sanctions, he pointed to Russia’s budget deficit as now being “bigger than in any other year” – claiming that “Russia planned major operations on the front this summer; all of them failed.”[..] Zelensky also used the speech to try and rally Western countries to not grow weak on punishing Russia and keeping its global isolation in place. “Something always seems to stop Putin from saying, ‘That’s it. Enough, Peace,’” Zelensky said. “Can you even imagine him without war? He is ‘Patient Zero’, the one from whom war keeps spreading further. … ‘Patient Zero’ must be stopped.”

He said Russian assets must “remain a target,” arguing that “when someone in the world weakens sanctions, weakens sanctions against Russian oligarchs, it may make life more comfortable for rich Russians, but it also gives Putin more time, to send his people into the kill zones.”

Read more …

He doesn’t want to.

• At the UN, Trump Gives Iran’s ‘Vile Regime’ a Stark Choice (Robert Spencer)

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump addressed the United Nations General Assembly with his characteristic directness and forthrightness, which had a particular impact in that hall of evasion, diversion, obfuscation and lies. He made it abundantly clear that the time for temporizing regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran is over, and he said that both he and the leaders of the Islamic Republic faced a stark choice.


Trump confronted head-on the claims that he is fighting an unnecessary war, noting the threat from the Islamic Republic has been longstanding, but that his predecessors preferred to appease the mullahs — or just ignore them altogether and hope that the “Death to America!”-chanting hordes would simply melt away.

Iran, Trump noted, posed an immense and immediate threat. “Just imagine,” Trump said, if “such a vile regime were ever empowered to carry out large-scale terror attacks from behind a nuclear shield. This was the reality we had to confront — a reality that far too many preferred to ignore. They all ignored it. Many presidents and many others just wanted to ignore it. They were unwilling to do anything about it, but they knew the problem.”

They knew it, but they did nothing, or even worse, sent billions over to Tehran, thereby financing the Islamic Republic’s jihad against Israel and the rest of the free world. Trump pointed out that he had given the Iranian leadership every chance to come to some kind of negotiated agreement: “After giving Iran every chance for a deal, I took action to ensure that neither the United States nor any nation in this hall would ever have to face such a nightmare, such a catastrophic problem.”

Although the Islamic Republic continues to insist that it has achieved a tremendous victory over the Great Satan, Trump came to the UN with the details: “As a result of Operation Epic Fury,” he said, “all 159 ships of their navy are now lying at the bottom of the sea. Likewise, their air force is gone. Their radar is gone. Their anti-aircraft equipment is gone. Their missile and drone manufacturing capacity is almost gone. Their economy is gone. The only thing that isn’t gone is inflation, which is destroying their country and is now well over 300 percent.” That inflation could be what finally does in the Islamic Republic from within.

Trump also reminded the hostile gang of alleged diplomats that he had bent over backwards to make peace with the murderous mullahs: “Yet even after we agreed to a ceasefire for nuclear discussions, Iran promptly violated it with brazen acts of terrorism against civilian ships from other countries.” He added magnanimously: “I want to thank the UN Security Council for voting overwhelmingly to pass a resolution condemning Iran’s despicable terrorist attacks on commercial shipping. Thank you very much. That resolution, I’m pleased to say, received more co-sponsors from UN member nations than any Security Council resolution in history. That’s something.” Given the UN’s resolute and persistent anti-Americanism, it is indeed striking.

“Now,” Trump continued, “we must be equally united in maintaining pressure. The United States Navy has recently escorted more than 1 billion barrels of oil out of the Strait of Hormuz, and more oil is flowing than at any point since the start of the war. We’re taking 22, 25, 30, 32, and 37 ships out, respectively, every single day, every single night. But I have a big decision to make.”

Trump then characterized that decision as one that is in the hands of the Islamic Republic’s leaders: “Will a deal be made with Iran that lets them rebuild and create a far greater country than it ever was before — maybe one of the greatest in the Middle East, or even the world? Or do I annihilate the Islamic Republic, and do it quickly, never giving them a chance to kill and destroy people and countries again? Do I drive them into hell, with no chance of survival and no hope of future greatness for generations?”

This sort of talk drives leftists crazy, and sure enough, Mediaite gave this headline to its transcript of this part of Trump’s speech: “‘Do I Annihilate the Islamic Republic?’ Trump Issues Shocking Threat to Iran in UN Speech.” Never fans of thinking clearly or making fine distinctions, leftists will no doubt fail to note that this time, Trump threatened to annihilate “the Islamic Republic,” not “Iran” itself. He was not threatening the destruction of the nation, but the removal of the regime. And indeed, until that regime is driven from power, there will be no possibility of real peace with Iran.

The leaders of the Islamic Republic have time to think over the choice Trump gave them: “But I believe we’ll make a deal right after the election,” Trump said, “because it doesn’t make sense for them not to. They’re waiting to see how I do in the midterm election. What they don’t realize is that I’m not running. I did that already, and won in a landslide. We won in a giant landslide, and I’ll be here for two and a half years. The Republican Party is running, and I will be helping them, but I am not running.”

Indeed, he isn’t. And free people around the world can hope that the anti-American left doesn’t gain sufficient power in those elections to stop his efforts to bring the global problem of the Islamic Republic of Iran to an end.

Read more …

“A regime negotiating from strength doesn’t convert its leverage into a countdown clock — it converts it when the clock is running against it, not the other way around..”

• Iran Is Projecting Weakness, Not the Strength It Wants You to See (Florack)

In the cleanest tell yet that Iran is on the ropes, a senior Iranian official just put a number on the table Tehran has never put there before. That official told Reuters on Sept. 22 that Iran can reopen the Strait of Hormuz within seven days if Washington eases military pressure and lifts the blockade on Iranian ports. Per that reporting, this marks the first time Tehran has attached a specific, dated performance window to reopening the strait rather than treating it as an open-ended bargaining chip.


That’s a meaningful shift. A regime negotiating from strength doesn’t convert its leverage into a countdown clock — it converts it when the clock is running against it, not the other way around. Reuters doesn’t name the “senior official,” but it’s a safe bet that it’s either President Masoud Pezeshkian himself or someone standing close enough to him to speak for the office. Of course, there’s always the question of whether Iran actually follows through on its promises, and the standard response should be “they won’t,” since in practice, they never have.

That suspicion only deepens once you look at what other Iranian officials said in the same news cycle. CNBC’s reporting notes that a separate senior Iranian government official told MS NOW, CNBC’s Versant Media partner, that the Reuters and Kyodo reports were “not true.” And according to yournews.com’s writeup, Iran’s semi-official Fars News Agency disputed the account, too. So this isn’t a clean, confirmed data point. It’s a single-sourced Reuters/Kyodo report, attributed to one unnamed official, that Iran’s own state-adjacent media machine turned around and contradicted within the same day. CNBC itself states it “could not independently verify the reports.”

That contradiction goes directly to a point I made back in April: Iran’s civilian government under Pezeshkian and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps aren’t singing from the same hymnal, and this flip-flop looks a great deal like the result. It’s reasonable to conclude Iran is fighting something close to an internal civil war right now, waged between the IRGC and whatever still passes for a civilian government in Tehran — one arm offering concessions to end a war it can’t win, the other arm racing to deny it before Iranian state media has to explain the offer to its own people.

Let’s recall that Ali Khamenei was killed in a February 28 U.S.-Israeli strike and his son Mojtaba Khamenei was installed as his successor. Mojtaba is now reportedly walled off from his own government by an IRGC security cordon. Gee, big shock.

The walk-back on the Hormuz offer itself is the more useful data point, because it measures Iran’s shrinking ability to control its own message, let alone its own war. Even Iranian state media has lately taken on a tone bracing its audience for something difficult, a marked departure from its usual self-assured, defiant register. Pezeshkian’s own framing — “we emerged with our heads held high,” vowing to “firmly defend” Iran’s positions — is the language of a leader managing domestic face-saving, not one negotiating from a position that needs no defending.

That combination — tough public talk paired with real, dated concessions offered quietly through mediators — is the classic signature of a regime under genuine pressure, trying to manage two audiences at once: an international one it’s handing specific offers to, and a domestic one it’s still trying to sell a story of resilience. It calls to mind the rhetoric coming out of Berlin in the days after the Allied landing at Normandy — total confidence on the radio, total collapse on the map.

Interestingly, reports have surfaced, as yet unconfirmed, that Pezeshkian submitted an actual resignation letter back in May, arguing the elected government had been excluded from major decisions entirely. The regime reportedly denied this within hours, including through IRGC-affiliated media — the same pattern that just played out with the Hormuz offer this week. Clearly, the IRGC wants the illusion of a popularly elected government presented to the world. Accepting the resignation would risk triggering domestic unrest, which the IRGC can’t afford from a global PR standpoint.

Not everyone reads the power dynamic the same way. Iran analyst Ben Taleblu, quoted by Fox News, cautions against reading Pezeshkian’s sidelining as a dramatic new break — his argument is that the president never held much real power to begin with, so this is an intensification of a long-standing structure, not a sudden coup. And a GIS Reports analysis lays out a genuinely fragmented decision-making body — Pezeshkian, Araghchi, Zolghadr, Ghalibaf, and a hardline chief justice all holding formal seats at the table, with the regime needing Pezeshkian and Araghchi kept visibly in the picture specifically because their public-facing legitimacy is worth something to a regime that still needs to claim popular consent.

Clearly the IRGC holds the cards, and despite that, Pezeshkian is still pushing for a more moderate approach. He’s still alive for one reason: The IRGC needs him for the illusion of legitimacy. At this point, I wouldn’t bet on Pezeshkian surviving the eventual loss of power the IRGC appears headed toward. Someone will need to take the blame for that loss, and it won’t be the men holding the guns.

Put plainly, the messaging coming out of Tehran this week is exactly what you’d expect from a regime managing weakness rather than strength — walking back a leak that looked too accommodating the moment it hit international wires, precisely because Pezeshkian’s “heads held high” routine back home can’t coexist with what amounts, in plain terms, to a public seven-day surrender clock.

Now, before some of you get this twisted, the offer from Pezeshkian’s people came about a week before Trump’s UN speech, not because of it. What brought it to the surface was the speech itself, and the Iranian delegation’s walkout partway through Trump’s remarks on the war. The speech didn’t create the weakness. It just made it impossible for the Iranians to keep hiding it, which is perhaps even more useful.

Thought for the Day: Nixon saved his career by refusing to give back a dog nobody asked him to return — proof that sometimes the shrewdest defense is simply declining to negotiate over something that was never actually up for debate.

Read more …

Xi has landed.

• Melania Trump Outlines Plans for Chairman Xi Jinping Official State Visit (CTH)

From First Lady Melania Trump:


President Donald J. Trump and First Lady Melania Trump will welcome His Excellency Xi Jinping, President of the People’s Republic of China and Madame Peng Liyuan to the White House on Thursday, September 24, 2026, for an official state visit. This visit comes more than a decade since President Xi and Madame Peng’s last visit to the White House, marking a significant milestone in the relationship between the two countries.

On Wednesday, September 23, the President will greet His Excellency, Xi Jinping, President of the People’s Republic of China and Madame Peng Liyuan at Joint Base Andrews. On Thursday morning, September 24, the President and First Lady will host a State Arrival Ceremony honoring His Excellency, Xi Jinping, President of the People’s Republic of China and Madame Peng Liyuan. The ceremony, which will be held on the South Lawn, State Floor, and Rose Garden of the White House, will feature 479 military personnel, representing all branches of the United States Armed Forces.

As the arrival begins, the South Drive will be lined with the Armed Forces Full Honor Cordon leading to a national flag display of U.S. and China flags where the United States Army Herald Trumpets will present a fanfare on the South Portico as the President and First Lady welcome His Excellency Xi Jinping and Madame Peng Liyuan to the White House.

On the State Floor, “The President’s Own” United States Marine Band will play the national anthems of the People’s Republic of China and the United States of America, followed by remarks from both The President and His Excellency Xi Jinping.

The ceremony will also feature a Presidential Salute from the United States Marine Silent Drill Platoon and United States Joint Forces Command on the South Lawn. There will then be a Military Review in the Rose Garden where The United States Army Herald Trumpets will line the roof of the West and Oval Colonnades. Military demonstrations will be performed by the United States Army Old Guard Fife and Drum Corps, the United States Marine Corps Silent Drill Platoon, and “The Commandant’s Own” United States Marine Drum and Bugle Corps. The ceremony will conclude with a military flyover featuring a B-2 Spirit and four F-22 Raptors.

After the arrival ceremony, Mrs. Trump and Madame Peng Liyuan will visit the Smithsonian National Museum of Asian Art to explore works spanning centuries of artistic achievement and Sino-American cultural exchange. On Thursday evening, the President and First Lady will greet His Excellency Xi Jinping and Madame Peng Liyuan upon their arrival to the North Portico of the White House for a State Dinner in the East Room. The Office of the First Lady will share additional details on the State Dinner on Wednesday, September 23.

On Friday morning, the President and First Lady will greet His Excellency Xi Jinping and Madame Peng Liyuan upon their arrival to the South Portico of the White House for tea in the Red Room of the White House. Afterward, the couples will travel to the National Archives in Washington, DC where they will view a variety of important records and documents significant to the American and Chinese relationship throughout history. To conclude the historic State visit, the President and First Lady will bid farewell to His Excellency and Madame Peng Liyuan at the National Archives.

Read more …

“.. the Constitution says nothing about a guaranteed seat in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room or a hard pass to roam the West Wing. CNN can still cover the White House. MS NOW can still spend hours a day ranting like unhinged lunatics about Trump.”

• Karoline Leavitt Outs the White House Press Corps (Matt Margolis)

Karoline Leavitt may go down as the best White House press secretary this country has ever had. Her exit last month stung, but now that she’s no longer behind the podium, she’s dishing about what happened behind the scenes, and what she revealed on Tuesday is a doozy. Appearing on Sean Hannity’s podcast, Leavitt pulled back the curtain on the briefing room and revealed how much of what happens during White House daily press briefings is just for show.


According to Leavitt, reporters who hit her with loaded questions on camera would later come to her privately and apologize once the cameras stopped rolling. “You name people that act one way when they’re questioning you,” Hannity began. “They want their moment, right? They want their clip for the night so they get their time on the evening news.” “Exactly,” Leavitt confirmed. “And then off air they’re totally different people. Do you find that a lot?” “Yeah, that’s true.” “Would you say they’re phony?” Hannity asked.

“Yeah, there’s a performative aspect to the briefing room, in fairness, I think on both sides, right, but definitely with the press. And they have to do that because their bosses are demanding it. There’s been times reporters have even said to me, ‘I’m sorry, I had to ask that today, you know, my bosses really wanted me to ask that.’ They know it’s an unfair question, but they’re not in control of their own livelihood. They are dictated by the editors and the execs at some of these companies.”

Leavitt’s comments come amid the fight over President Donald Trump’s decision to pull White House press credentials from CNN, MS NOW, and Politico. The three outlets have sued Trump to get their passes back, and other networks have essentially boycotted pool coverage of Trump in solidarity.

Naturally, the left and its media allies are treating the credential decision as an assault on the First Amendment. That’s a cute argument, but the Constitution says nothing about a guaranteed seat in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room or a hard pass to roam the West Wing. CNN can still cover the White House. MS NOW can still spend hours a day ranting like unhinged lunatics about Trump. Politico can still publish all the anonymous-source gossip it wants. Nobody has stopped a single story from running.

In fact, our republic has survived. Leavitt also pointed to CBS News, where coverage shifted after Bari Weiss took over as editor-in-chief. “You know, we’re seeing big changes at CBS, which I think are great. I think we’ve seen a lot of improvement with them, and again, we’re not asking for, like, positive puff pieces every day. Just fairness. Truth. Accuracy,” she said. “Writing about an executive order that the president of the United States signed should not be a questionable thing… it should just be, ‘Yeah, of course I’ll write about this,'” Leavitt said.


And that’s a pretty darn low bar, and plenty of newsrooms still manage to trip over it.

Read more …

The main thing I get from her is she looks so sad.

• Campaign Poison Kamala Harris Hopes DSA Commies Can Make Her Popular (Kruiser)

There is an interesting phenomenon in politics that I have seen play out in different ways over the past 40 or so years. One might think that primary and general elections are the ultimate performances reviews for political candidates. They should be, but they’re not. Having spent my entire adult life working in both the entertainment industry and politics, I’ve seen the role that ego plays in each. Most people have heard the line about Washington, D.C. being “Hollywood for ugly people,” and it’s pretty much true. The difference is that Hollywood is merciless when letting people know that they are past their due date.


Politics is filled with wealthy hangers-on who will keep telling people that they’re pretty. Politicians who have national ambitions just need one or two serious power players in their corners to keep hanging around seemingly forever. I can think of at least one presidential candidate who had two deep runs even though he only had one wealthy backer. Democrats in California who are nationally known got that way because they met the right money people early on in their careers. A Bay Area connection is especially helpful for them. Representative Nancy Pelosi, Governor Gavin Newsom, and former Vice President Kamala Harris all started out there.

While Pelosi is finally off to hit the box wine even harder for breakfast, Newsom and the former Madame Veep still have donors whispering sweet nothings in their ears. Guess who is now looking for love in all the hammer and sickle places? The New York Times:

Kamala Harris campaigned in Detroit today alongside Abdul El-Sayed, Michigan’s Democratic nominee for the Senate. It was a rare stop for the former vice president, who has received a cold shoulder from many Democratic candidates wary of tying themselves to the unpopular Biden administration. The visit could boost both figures. El-Sayed — who is in a tight race in a state Trump won in 2024 — needs to shore up his support from Black voters and moderates. (It’s not clear that Tucker Carlson’s support will help.) Harris is trying to maintain her influence as she considers a presidential run.

While most establishment Democrats — which the former vice president most certainly is — are trying to figure out the exact nature of their relationships with the upstarts from the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), Harris is the desperate girl who texted while still in the Uber on her way home after meeting for drinks for the first time. Robert wrote a column back in early July about Harris reaching out for some love from New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Queen of the DSA commies.

This could be an indication that Harris is finally coming to grips with the fact that she isn’t very well liked by mainstream money Democrats. She was the first top-tier Democrat they bailed on during the 2020 Democratic primary season, forcing her out of the race before Christmas 2019. Harris became confused when she was forced upon them in 2024 and they pretended to like her for a couple of months.

After that, she couldn’t get enough backing to make a serious run for governor of California. Somebody keeps telling her that she has a shot in 2028, though. Maybe it’s those people who are pushing her in the direction of the DSA.

Harris is driven more by a sense of entitlement than any deep political philosophy, so hitching her wagon to the DSA isn’t difficult for her. “Desperate to be liked” is her default mode and that is certainly on display right now. This could also be a sign that Abdul El-Sayed’s campaign isn’t going as well as the polling and the Dem propagandists in the mainstream media would have us believe. The notion that Harris could be the stabilizer who helps him with moderate voters is rather far-fetched.

Hey, longshots do hit every once in a while. The only certainty here is that Abdul El-Sayed and Kamala Harris are two headaches that those in charge at the Democratic National Committee would rather not have. Oh, and AOC would absolutely kneecap Harris in a primary battle.

Read more …

After the elections.

• Good News – Diesel and Gasoline Prices Set to Collapse in Roughly 60-Days (CTH)

Take heart, we only need to wait approximately 60-days until we see a major price decline in diesel and gasoline prices in the USA. Once the midterm election is over, prices will begin their retreat with the finished collapse mid-January.


The non-pretending reality exists within a generally non-western perspective that current “market prices” are not driven by oil supplies, refining capacity or the other various justifications used by the speculators, traders and various regional spot-market control systems. The prices are being controlled in order to influence political outcomes.

Once those political influence operations are concluded, the stakeholders in the market price approach will moderate their justifications accordingly, and prices will plummet. Sound nuts? Well, let me explain who agrees.

On my side of the argument is Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin, who does happen to operate the world’s largest gasoline station – at least, according to the professional republicans. Others on my side include Chinese Chairman Xi Jinping, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salmon, Qatari Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, Turkish President Recep Erdogan and Venezuelan interim President Delcy Eloína Rodríguez Gómez.

Others who accept the reality of this position, albeit with various political limits to their ability to speak openly about such matters, include President Donald J Trump, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Unfortunately for this aligned group they are stuck inside the largest western political system who controls global finance and world economic outcomes.

What all of these aforementioned names understand is that “market prices” are entirely detached from the archaic terminology behind supply and demand; a quaint concept that stopped applying years ago – but pretenses must be maintained or else the masses may find their pitchforks, see: DSA pitchfork suppliers.

A second subset of allies who unintentionally support this perspective, includes those who use the terms “sold at a discount” where “sold at a discount” in reality means sold outside the western market pricing approach. How many times have you seen the term “sold at a discount” repeated when you are reading about former Venezuela oil being sold to China, or current Russian oil being sold to India?

It’s such a common term it is accepted without anyone ever asking, ‘what is this discount you speak of, and how is it applied’? No-one seems to ask that part. We accept this terminology created by “western market pricing” advocates just as we accepted the term “service driven economy” in the era before Donald Trump.

The reality is that ‘western market prices’ are not an outcome of supply, demand or even availability or production capacity. Western market prices are determined by speculators, traders and regional benchmarks created by “independent agencies.”

Remember those pesky housing loan bond rating agencies, Standard and Poor’s and/or Moody’s during the lead-in to the 2008 financial crisis. That type of rating ‘independence’ is akin to the benchmarks of these regional independent agencies within the energy markets; which is to say, they are not independent at all – they are part of the manipulated western financial system that determines ‘market pricing’.

Behind that curtain are the traders, speculators, ideological banks and financial systems who create the finance system for the energy market. Want to stop oil exploitation, change the lending requirements to favor windmills and solar panels etc. Not coincidentally changing these lending rules and regulations was Mark Carney’s former job. Does that sound like an open market approach?

Thus, when you really understand how this pricing is structured you begin to realize the price of diesel has nothing to do with the supply of it and the price is more controlled by those who wish to generate financial -or political- outcomes from it.

You don’t have to take my word for it, review the words of the world’s largest oil/gas producer about this rigged game. {SEE HERE} Wouldn’t Vladimir Putin be the subject matter expert?

“How, in fact, is the price of gas formed on the European exchanges? It is not determined by producers, but by exchange traders.” In essence, right now “the west”, specifically Americans, are paying fuel costs based on market commodity prices. The most recent examples are oil, LNG and now the headline leading, diesel fuel. However, the actual supply of diesel fuel is not driving the price. The price is being driven by speculation and trading, which is based on arbitrary price formulas created by western multinational corporations and financial markets.

Read more …

Victor Davis Hanson is being a busy man lately.

• Elon Musk Is Powering The American Renaissance (Victor Davis Hanson)

There’s a lot of controversy about Elon Musk. His reputation took a big hit, remember, right after the election, because half the country voted, roughly 48%, voted against Donald Trump. Elon Musk had flipped from a former Hillary Clinton supporter and Joe Biden supporter to a firm MAGA adherent and voted for Donald Trump in 2024.


As a result of that and his comments opposing illegal immigration, there were people who not only were demonstrating against [Immigration and Customs Enforcement], but attacking Tesla dealerships. Everybody said that Elon Musk’s brand had suffered accordingly, that Tesla was on the way down, that European and American [electric vehicle] makers, along with Chinese EV makers, would dominate the market, given the tarnishing of the Musk brand and in conjunction with the end of the federal subsidy for electric vehicles.

So, people were suggesting that the era of Elon Musk was over. He was very controversial, and he was outspoken on his own platform, X, on conservative issues such as illegal immigration, green energy, [artificial intelligence] in ways that infuriated the Left. And the Left, remember, was considered the natural consumer of electric vehicles.

So, are we watching the decline of Elon Musk? No. No, no, no. The exact opposite is happening. In the second quarter of 2026, Tesla had a rebound, and it captured 52% of all the EVs sold in the United States. It has a market capitalization of $1.2 trillion. The other “Big Three” automakers are beginning to exit the EV market.

China cannot send their EVs into the United States. Why did Tesla rebound? Was it because all of a sudden Elon Musk had a fight with Donald Trump for a while? No. Was it because he apologized to the Left? No. It’s because when you buy a Tesla and you drive it and you compare it with other brands of the Big Three in terms of distancing, acceleration, safety, appurtenances, it’s not just better, but it keeps getting better geometrically, at a geometric rate, not just an arithmetic.

It has the best program for self-driving. It’s the safest. It has the longest range. It’s the most fun to drive, and people like it regardless of their politics. If you move to SpaceX, 67% of all the satellites in low orbit around the world today are associated with Elon Musk’s SpaceX company – 67%, over 12,000 satellites.

The market capitalization of SpaceX is well over $2 trillion – $2 trillion. SpaceX, with its various rockets, has saved a morbid, calcified, ossified NASA. It alone, with its rocketry and space vehicles, has put the United States not just back into the so-called space race and return to the moon and eventually to Mars, it’s made it preeminent over the Europeans, the Japanese, and the Chinese. More importantly, it’s given the United States enormous technological advances in rocketry, ballistic missiles, which have a definite military component to them.

When Elon Musk paid an exorbitant fee for X, people felt that he had made an enormous mistake, that it was overpriced. And yet, people were saying that users would abandon him and go elsewhere. In fact, that has not happened. That has not happened. There are 560 million users of X today. BlueSky, the alternative that was supposed to break X, has 3 million users.

Three million versus 560 million users. And remember that his Starlink satellite platform has captured 97% of all satellite internet usage. There are 12 million people who have a Starlink receiver and are subscribers in 160 countries. Most of the U.S. military and our allied militaries, including the Ukrainians and the Israelis, count on Starlink to guide their missiles and their drones, to protect them from incoming attack.

Let’s just put all of this in some kind of perspective. In terms of market capitalization, Elon Musk has well over $3.5 trillion in his various companies. SpaceX is the largest and it’s the most dominant, and it will either ensure that the United States is first in space exploration and satellite launching.

And, by the way, more satellites were launched on Elon Musk rockets last year than all of the satellites launched elsewhere put together. In addition to that, he created the electric vehicle market. It did not exist. He created the idea. Everyone said it would not work, that he was going to go broke, and he was finished.

He not only created the Tesla electric vehicle, he made it preeminent and dominant today. And he did it because, for the price and a cost-benefit analysis, it was unmatched. In terms of Grok, it is about third. About 16% of all AI platforms and chatbots use Grok. So, let’s just keep that in perspective.

The United States is preeminent today in social media, in artificial intelligence, in satellite launches, in the number of rocket launches in general, in electric vehicles. And all of that put together is due to one person, Elon Musk, who has been reviled and attacked by the Left as either treasonous or insane or cruel or whatever.

One man has combined the talents of Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, and Henry Ford all in one person, and he’s an American. In other words, much of the success of the United States’ current renaissance in digital media, in satellites, in electrical vehicles, in AI, in software is due to one person. One person can make a difference. In the case of Elon Musk, he made a big difference.

Read more …

“Carney Inc deserves it.”

• Victor Davis Hanson Explains to Canadians (CTH)

President Trump has drawn attention to this segment by Victor Davis Hanson outlining the status of the Canadian position thanks to Prime Minister Mark Carney. Why? Because VDH is the type of American that Canadians actually listen to. VDH apparently talks in the tones and constructs that appeal to Canadians, therefore his remarks on how Mark Carney is manipulating Canada hit more directly than when other pundits do it.


VDH has seen a remarkable uptick in the size of his audience ever since he started talking about Canada, because his new audience is almost exclusively Canadian. Hanson speaks about the Canadian dynamic below. It’s monotone, but the “elbows crew’ like it. WATCH (prompted):


Prime Minister Carney asks why Victor Davis Hanson is doing this to him. I’m not a big fan of Canadians switching positions and suddenly wanting to accept trade terms. CTH would prefer that we sever all ties with Canada, terminate the USMCA and watch them slowly spiral for a year or two. Carney Inc deserves it.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/LunarOptimus/status/2102390687589138513?s=20 https://twitter.com/herbertong/status/2102565863379345806?s=20

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle September 19 2026

Sep 192026
 
 September 19, 2026  Posted by at 9:20 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,  21 Responses »


Thomas Cole Arcadian State 1836


• Trump Secures a HUGE and Historic Deal with Greenland (Matt Margolis)
• Trump Bans CNN, MS NOW, Politico From White House (ET)
• AfD Preps Talks With Moscow To Reopen Cheap Gas Flows To Germany (ZH)
• Communion-and-Care (James Howard Kunstler)
• NATO 3.0 Marches Into Copenhagen (RT)
• The EU Is Militarizing The Arctic. Here’s How It Plans To Do It (Strelnikova)
• Does Anyone Understand the Actual Situation? (Paul Craig Roberts)
• The Left’s Race Narrative is Driving Americans Apart (Victor Davis Hanson)
• Mitch McConnell Is Back. Sort Of. Well, Physically at Least (Sarah Anderson)

 

 

https://twitter.com/Annans4g/status/2100680138807509325?s=20 https://twitter.com/Trustintrump47/status/2100748118996205832?s=20

 

 


BIG!

• Trump Secures a HUGE and Historic Deal with Greenland (Matt Margolis)

President Donald Trump just accomplished something huge.


The United States, Denmark, and Greenland signed a permanent agreement Friday that hands Washington lasting military rights across the island while permanently shutting out China, Russia, and every other non-NATO adversary. The deal gives the U.S. permanent access, basing, and overflight rights in Greenland, along with the authority to build new military installations there whenever it decides it needs to, according to a senior U.S. official who briefed Fox News Digital.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio wasted no time celebrating. “This historic deal is a huge win for the United States and the American people,” he said. “This historic agreement permanently guarantees U.S. security interests in the Arctic at zero cost to the U.S. taxpayer.” A senior official added, “The difference here is we’re not spending any money for the right” to expand the U.S. military footprint on the island. bThe agreement has no expiration date, and it doesn’t transfer Greenland’s sovereignty to the United States, no matter how badly the left wanted to paint this as some kind of hostile annexation.

Trump himself was the first to celebrate the news, posting on Truth Social that the agreement “completely addresses ALL of our many U.S. concerns” and that “from now on, no U.S. adversary can EVER have a base in Greenland, have a military presence in Greenland, or make sensitive investments in Greenland, without our express written approval.” He called it an “Infinite Life” agreement, one built to last even if Greenland someday becomes independent.

This deal has been over a century in the making. American presidents have long recognized Greenland’s strategic Arctic importance, but none of them closed the gap between recognizing the problem and fixing it. The U.S. has operated Pituffik Space Base, formerly Thule Air Base, under a defense agreement dating back to 1951, and this new deal dramatically expands that relationship as Russia and China build up their own military and economic footprint in the region.

Denmark and Greenland no longer hold veto power over future U.S. installations. Washington will still consult both governments, but it can now build wherever it decides is necessary without waiting for their approval. Officials view the expanded presence as a likely component of Trump’s planned Golden Dome missile defense system, and under the new terms, only the United States and its allies will be permitted to make “sensitive investments” in Greenland’s telecommunications infrastructure, undersea cables, ports, and critical minerals.

That restriction exists for a reason. The administration has been blunt about not wanting Greenland to turn into another Panama Canal, where quiet Chinese commercial investment eventually became a national security liability the U.S. had to untangle. “We’re never going to face that in Greenland as a result of this,” one official said.

Quiet negotiations involving Rubio, White House adviser Stephen Miller, and officials from the State Department and National Security Council began back in February and never leaked, as Denmark and Greenland came to see the arrangement as protecting their own security as much as America’s.

Rubio explained exactly why Copenhagen and Nuuk came around. “They recognize at the end of the day that they have a national security concern here as well,” he said. “Denmark and Greenland understand that they don’t have the financial means necessary to defend Greenland if it were to come under attack or be threatened. The United States has the power to do that.”

Trump has been ridiculed for wanting Greenland, but on Friday, he secured its permanent defense on America’s terms, at no cost to a single U.S. taxpayer, with no expiration date and no way for anyone to undo it. It’s a huge win for our country, and for Trump.

Read more …

“The ban is effective immediately, the president said.”

• Trump Bans CNN, MS NOW, Politico From White House (ET)

President Donald Trump on Sept. 18 said he has banned three news outlets from the White House. Trump said on Truth Social that he was, effective immediately, banning CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House “as a result of their constant ‘reporting’ FAKE NEWS!” The president added: “Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America. Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow.”


Trump told reporters at the White House that one example was a story published Friday that went over deals his administration reached with drugmakers but did not mention that the deals had resulted in lower drug prices. “It’s really just cumulative stories over the last few years,” he said. “You get sick of it, and you call them and … they purposely write negative news.”

CNN and Politico defended their coverage. “CNN stands fully behind our White House team and their fair and accurate reporting,” CNN said in a statement. “We have a right under the U.S. Constitution to do that reporting without hindrance or interference from the government. Should the ban which President Trump threatened go ahead, it would be an illegal assault on that fundamental and constitutionally-protected right.”

“POLITICO will continue to fairly report on this White House and future ones. We will vigorously defend our First Amendment rights against any attempt to restrict them,” a Politico spokesperson told The Epoch Times via email. MS NOW did not respond to a request for comment.bWhite House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) President Jacqui Heinrich said Trump described the move in the Oval Office as a “ban on the free press.”

“The Constitution protects the freedom of the press from government interference. That protection does not depend on whether the president likes a news organization’s coverage, agrees with its reporting, or approves of the questions its journalists ask.” Heinrich said in a post on X. She said the issue was also about the public’s right to “a full and independent account of the activities, policies and decisions of whoever occupies the nation’s highest office,” and that the WHCA stands with their banned colleagues.

Trump previously banned The Associated Press from the Oval Office and other spaces after the outlet declined to change its stylebook to reflect the president’s renaming of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. A federal judge entered an injunction against the ban, determining that it violated the First Amendment because it discriminated based on The Associated Press’s viewpoint.

But an appeals court in mid-2025 partially stayed the injunction. The court allowed Trump to ban the outlet from the Oval Office, Air Force One, and some other spaces, concluding that “these restricted presidential spaces are not First Amendment fora opened for private speech and discussion” and that the White House “therefore retains discretion to determine, including on the basis of viewpoint, which journalists will be admitted.

Judges also ruled that Trump could not ban reporters from the White House’s East Room. “The identified harms are less clear with respect to the East Room, which does not share the hallmarks of spaces like the Oval Office,” the majority said.

Read more …

They make a lot of sense. But it’s nationalist sense, not globalist.

• AfD Preps Talks With Moscow To Reopen Cheap Gas Flows To Germany (ZH)

It didn’t take long for the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party – fresh off its historic taking of 43.8% of the vote in the eastern German state of Saxony-Anhalt election earlier this month which left Chancellor Friedrich Merz and his Christian Democratic Union (CDU) shaken – to embark on ties which are a serious shot across the bow and slap in the face to both Berlin and Brussels. Reuters is on Friday reporting that AfD leadership is preparing for possible talks with President Putin and his economic envoy and top negotiator Kirill Dmitriev focused on restoring Russian gas supplies to Germany.


The meeting could take place next year, as early as March 2027, and would be spearheaded by AfD co-leaders Alice Weidel and Tino Chrupalla. This is precisely what German voters supported in the regional election, and the AfD made no secret of its plans to seek turning the Russian energy tap back on. Weidel made clear in a June interview, “Cheap energy from Russia was the secret of the success of ‘Made in Germany’. We need it back.”

“The loss of this energy has set us back years. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost,” the AfD co-leader said at the time. “It has made us dependent on the United States, which sells us energy at far higher prices.” Russia had prior to the start of the Ukraine war supplied over half of Germany’s natural gas, alongside more than a third of the country’s crude oil imports.

Russian natgas to Germany was halted in stages, in tandem with the major Nord Stream bombings and investigation, as Berlin eventually found alternative suppliers like Norway, the Netherlands and increased its reliance on LNG imports. Many Germans have been sick and tired of seeing daily living prices go up while resources and untold billions are siphoned off for the Zelensky government in the Ukraine war.


While nothing has yet to be officially announced or confirmed by the Russian side or through any AfD official statement, Reuters points to a key caveat based on its sources: “The meeting would only happen if a peace framework was agreed first between Russia and Ukraine, and the organisers hoped it would bring together the AfD, Russia and the United States, the person said. Possible locations for the summit included Israel, the United Arab Emirates or India, they added,” the report says. Earlier, we featured commentary by Andrew Korybko which seeks to summarize the mood in both Moscow and among the ‘hard-rightward’ turning German streets:

“Finally, the economic errors concern the EU’s sanctions on Russian energy, which led to the bloc replacing inexpensive long-term gas contracts with Russia with expensive market-priced imports from elsewhere. Prices are now nearly ten times higher than before and “may well rise even further.” Putin also criticized the EU’s gas storage policies for being “unconcerned with the technical condition of these storage facilities and the physical volumes involved.” All of this adversely affects the EU’s economy.

All in all, Putin is arguing that the AfD’s rise is an electoral revolt against these policies, all of which center on Russia. This doesn’t mean that the party or its supporters are “pro-Russian”, let alone “Russian puppets”, just that they understand the importance of pragmatic ties with Russia for their country’s political interests, security, and economic development. Obsessive anti-Russian fearmongering, risking World War III over Ukraine, and dumping inexpensive Russian energy haven’t helped Germany at all.

“Bests interests for Germany” being prioritized, where energy supplies “are cheapest, namely from Russia”…


As a reminder, there were already some deeply provocative diplomatic AfD moves back in June, with AfD foreign-policy spokesman Markus Frohnmaier having traveled to St. Petersburg to meet with Dmitriev and Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller, urging the reopening of the Nord Stream pipeline.

Read more …

“The female mind — especially in matters of political significance — struggles with understanding authority and rule enforcement.” —JD Haltigan on X

• Communion-and-Care (James Howard Kunstler)


The Ordeal of Father Isaac Jogue among the Iroquois

You know the midterm election is a struggle session testing whether our country wants to be sane or insane. Of course, this raises the question: what’s so great about being insane? If nothing else, it implies a lot of bad decision-making, leading to all manner of sorrow and woe in life. So, why would so many opt to be crazy?


The answer is probably that they were snookered into it, fooled, tricked, rooked, spoofed, flimflammed, bamboozled, enticed into a range of thought and emotion counter to their self-interest and well-being. Isn’t this exactly what you see in the social phenomenon of “transing” pubescent children? To induce them to go along with a malevolent program for turning them into something they are not.

A whole apparatus was constructed to carry out “gender-affirming care.” Notice how positive the language is. It’s “care,” administered by adults, not a few of them physicians and clinical psychologists, who affect to care. And it “affirms,” that is, it validates, it turns supposition into fact (that is not so). The adults happen to be in authority over children. They are presumed to be trustworthy.

But they are not trustworthy. They persuade children confused by puberty to be mutilated with surgery and hormones in order to put on a performance for the adults. The performance is called “No Boundaries.” It does not really affirm a child’s gender by pretending to change it. It affirms the mental illness of the untrustworthy adults. They have developed a defect of cognition that disrupts their perception of reality. They don’t know where things begin and end.

Where did this come from? You won’t like this. It came from women taking over the leadership of our institutions, especially education. In the two centuries that public education has existed, there were always a lot of women teachers. But they were superintended by men with a sense of boundaries, who enforced the distinction between thought and feeling, between sense and nonsense. Now you see what has happened with men removed from that picture. Thought and sense have been deleted.

Women are primarily driven by the wish for communion and for care (of children and households). If they don’t find mates, don’t form households, and don’t have children, their drives can be hijacked. Likewise, if their households are broken by divorce and their children are damaged by it. It’s been increasingly difficult for men and women to form households and successfully raise children, or to keep a household from breaking under the social and economic pressures of our time.

Politics is another set of institutions increasingly dominated by women in leadership roles. They convert all the social discontents of childlessness and broken households into laws, rules, and policies which, not surprisingly, demonstrate a failed sense of boundaries and a contorted drive for communion and care. That’s how the Democratic Party — increasingly run by-and-for women — was bamboozled into throwing the border wide open under “Joe Biden,” and why they have become hysterical over the nurturing of those millions of illegal migrants now here. The drive to care has transformed into a mad, grandiose wish to save the world.

The nation’s borders are strict boundaries. The Democratic Party programmatically denounces the existence of national boundaries — viz. The “Squad” in Congress, et al. “No one is illegal.” That open border was profoundly destructive and costly for the nation. Donald Trump declared that national boundaries matter and closed the border effectively. This not only made him an arch-villain to many of the women in America with boundary problems, but it also gave them a big opportunity to exercise their drive for communion by ginning up public get-togethers such as the anti-ICE riots of last winter and the “No Kings” marches of the spring.

Mr. Trump, with his repertoire of distinctive male mannerisms, setting of boundaries, and bent for decisive action, propels these world-saving, deeply-caring, communion-seeking political women into raptures of rage and animosity. It might be instructive to remind you that, back in the history of this land, among the native-American Iroquois (a most civilized people), it was the women who were assigned the primary task of torturing their enemies to death. (Read about the ordeals of Father Isaac Jogues in Francis Parkman’s The Jesuits in North America in the Seventeenth Century.) More recently, one Lindsay Clancy of Duxbury, Mass., demonstrated how savagely awry female boundary failure can go.

This pathocracy of women in the Democratic Party accounts for the seemingly insane turn to communism. But, it’s communion-and-care all of a piece — the most extreme form of crazy ideological solidarity, plus the promise of free stuff for everybody (care!) with no boundaries. Meanwhile, over in Mr. Trump’s camp, you have an emphatically male-dominated hierarchy with the MAGA women’s drives for communion-and-care directed, as much as possible these days, back into the household and the nursery. Throw in FAFO as the baseline attitude and there’s authority you can trust.

Read more …

“The military bloc’s European members are now footing the bill and taking all of the risk against Russia.”

“At NATO’s first high-level summit since Ankara, the bloc’s new, Europe-centric incarnation is taking shape. But it’s ordinary Europeans who stand to lose their future, and potentially their lives.”

• NATO 3.0 Marches Into Copenhagen (RT)

NATO’s Military Committee is meeting in Copenhagen on Friday and Saturday. Chaired by Italian Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, the Military Committee, which is NATO’s highest military authority, is tasked with turning the bloc’s strategic goals into executable plans. When NATO orders a battlegroup to Lithuania, for example, the Military Committee ensures its tanks will be able to get there across multiple countries’ rail networks, its troops will be supplied and housed, and the deployment will not leave another sector of the bloc’s so-called ‘eastern flank’ unmanned.


Accordingly, NATO is keeping the meeting’s agenda under wraps. The organization’s website simply states that the defense chiefs will take part in a “Session 1” and “Session 2” of talks, followed by a press conference, a photo opportunity, and then a “Session 3” of discussions.

Looking at the political decisions made since the bloc’s headline summit in Ankara in July, the broad aim of the conference becomes clearer: flesh out NATO’s plan to militarize Europe and prepare the continent for war with Russia, all while insulating the US from the consequences of the conflict.

What is NATO 3.0?
Coined by US Under Secretary of War for Policy Elbridge Colby, ‘NATO 3.0’ is an America-first reworking of the Cold War pact. In a speech to NATO defense ministers in February, Colby explained that the US will, going forward, focus on preparing for a potential clash with China in the Indo-Pacific, leaving NATO’s European members to “assume primary responsibility for the conventional defense of Europe.”

Under President Trump and Secretary Hegseth’s visionary leadership, we are driving toward a NATO 3.0 in which Europe takes primary responsibility for its conventional defense. Many said that it could not be done – that Europe couldn’t or wouldn’t step up. That is being disproved… https://t.co/svqGBLPIdE — Under Secretary of War Elbridge Colby (@USWPColby) July 2, 2026

Europe will increase its military spending to NATO’s current target of 5% of GDP and shift to wartime levels of defense production, Colby explained, all while the US retains control over the bloc’s nuclear weapons. The Europeans will also be expected, US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth stated in June, to guarantee “access, basing and overflight” for American forces.At Ankara in July, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte sold this one-sided deal as a win for Europe. “We are rebalancing our security for the better, that is what NATO 3.0 is all about,” he said.

We’re rebalancing our Alliance: a stronger #NATO with Europe & Canada spending more, producing more and doing more for their security
Building for our future
This is NATO 3.0 pic.twitter.com/pgmvA4CcAW
— Mark Rutte (@SecGenNATO) September 16, 2026

In light of US President Donald Trump’s threats to withdraw US forces from Germany and annex Greenland, a more Europe-centric NATO was an easy sell for Rutte at the time. Trump’s threats toward Greenland were likely a key factor in the choice of Copenhagen for this weekend’s meeting. However, in the months since Ankara, Rutte and NATO’s European leaders have revealed what the shift actually means for the continent.

Europe steps up and pays
NATO 3.0 means the death of the European welfare state. In the UK, where living standards have already suffered their worst decline since the Second World War, meeting the bloc’s pre-Ankara 3.5% spending target will involve “eye-watering” cuts to education, transport, and justice budgets, George Robertson, who co-wrote the country’s defense strategy, warned in June. Even before the spending target was hiked to 5%, Robertson claimed that the British public was “too comfortable,” and must accept the “pain and great difficulty” of “preparing for war.”

In Germany, Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s plan to rebuild the Bundeswehr as “the strongest conventional army in Europe” has already precipitated social security cuts and a planned three-year hike in the retirement age. “The welfare state that we have today can no longer be financed,” Merz announced last August, before increasing Germany’s defense budget by almost 40% in a single year and telling Germans to “work harder.”

The Netherlands and Sweden have introduced emergency taxes to fund rearmament, with the Dutch levy branded as the “freedom contribution.” Estonia has increased income tax, Belgium and Finland have cut social spending, and 18 of NATO’s EU members have borrowed money from Brussels to build out their militaries since last May.

“On average, European countries easily spend up to a quarter of their national income on pensions, health, and social security systems, and we need only a small fraction of that money to make defense much stronger,” Rutte told the European Parliament last year. The “small fraction” demanded by Rutte has since almost doubled.

In return, the Europeans are not getting the strategic autonomy that some, such as France, want. NATO’s “interoperability” standards mean weapons manufactured in Europe are built to American standards, and the AI and cloud computing technology that guides them is provided almost solely by American companies.

The Ankara Summit Declaration states that “we are developing an interoperable transatlantic warfighting cloud and adopting powerful AI models.” With the EU relying on the US for 80% of its digital infrastructure, American companies such as Palantir, Anduril, and SpaceX will be the beneficiaries of this development.

Furthermore, while the US handed control of three operational commands – Norfolk in the UK, Naples in Italy, and Brunssum in the Netherlands – to European commanders earlier this year, Washington took over management of NATO’s highest Land, Air, and Maritime commands in exchange, and maintains the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) post.

Although NATO 3.0 envisions Europe alone deterring Russia, the bloc’s European members are still expected to go along with American wars far beyond their borders. Speaking in the UK this week, Rutte called it “essential” that Britain’s “armed forces continue to provide the hard power NATO needs” to tackle “Russia and its war against Ukraine, terrorism, Iran and the tectonic shifts of global geopolitical competition.”

NATO was not formed to counter Iran, but the US still punished its European members who refused to aid the US-Israeli war on Iran earlier this year, threatening a complete trade embargo on Spain after Madrid denied overflight and basing to American aircraft taking part in the war, and pulling troops from other countries seen as insufficiently supportive of the war.

Read more …

“Irina Strelnikova is director of the Center for Interdisciplinary Arctic Studies at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow.”

“From shared icebreakers to NATO-ready infrastructure, Brussels is preparing the High North for confrontation”

• The EU Is Militarizing The Arctic. Here’s How It Plans To Do It (Strelnikova)

The EU’s Arctic policy is becoming increasingly important amidst global competition driven by both climate change and the region’s strategic significance. Melting Arctic ice is opening new maritime transport routes, facilitating access to abundant natural resources, and creating conditions for expanded economic activity. Consequently, the Arctic is becoming an arena for rivalry among the leading global powers. For Brussels, the Arctic holds not only regional significance but is also a tool for achieving foreign policy and geopolitical objectives.


Adopted in October 2021, the EU’s current Arctic policy is titled ‘A stronger EU engagement for a peaceful, sustainable and prosperous Arctic’. It focuses on three ‘soft’ priorities: climate and environmental protection, sustainable development, and peace and cooperation. Essentially, in this document, the Arctic is viewed as a low-tension zone, and the primary focus is on the environment and scientific exchange.

However, a lot has changed in the world since 2021, from the Ukraine crisis to the paralysis of the Arctic Council, Trump’s bid to acquire Greenland, Chinese container ships traveling via the Northern Sea Route, and attacks on undersea cables in the Baltic Sea. In January 2026, at the Arctic Frontiers conference in Tromsø, Norway, Kaja Kallas said, “It is time for a fresh EU Arctic policy, one that reflects the times we live in.”

A new phase of the EU’s Arctic agenda after 2022
The EU Arctic policy stands at the intersection of geopolitical, economic, and environmental interests. In recent years, Brussels has sought to adapt its strategy to the shifting international landscape shaped by a sanctions-driven confrontation with Russia, China’s expanding regional presence, and the growing role of the US in security matters. The Ukraine conflict and the region’s growing militarization have pushed the EU to revise its Arctic agenda. The EU must shape its Arctic policy by balancing a normative agenda focused on sustainable development against tangible economic interests and security demands from NATO allies.

In July 2025, the president of the European Commission announced a revision of the EU’s Arctic strategy to ensure that it addresses new challenges. Meanwhile, the EU is strengthening cooperation in the fields of energy, raw materials, and security and defense partnerships with several non-EU Arctic nations – notably Canada, Iceland, Norway, and self-governing Greenland.

Historically, Europe’s cooperation with the Arctic states has developed along three key lines: economic engagement (energy, transport infrastructure, and resource extraction), the environmental agenda (climate change, sustainable development, and biodiversity conservation), and scientific research (meteorological and oceanographic studies, as well as research on glacial melting). However, the current geopolitical situation has significantly altered these areas of cooperation, particularly when it comes to relations with Russia.

The EU joined other Arctic Council member states and “key like-minded partners” in suspending Russia’s participation in various regional cooperation bodies following the start of the war in Ukraine in 2022. Consequently, the EU issued three joint statements concerning the Northern Dimension joint policy, the Barents Euro-Arctic Council, and the Council of the Baltic Sea States. On November 12, 2025, the European Parliament adopted a new resolution on the Arctic that addresses the buildup of military capabilities and emphasizes the need for cooperation with Northern European partners (including Norway) to prepare for the upcoming geopolitical competition in the region. The resolution was passed by an overwhelming majority, with 510 votes in favor, 75 against, and 80 abstentions.

The resolution outlines a comprehensive strategy for the EU’s diplomatic engagement in the Arctic, covering areas such as environmental protection and security. The adopted document signals a shift in Brussels’ Arctic policy, envisions deeper cooperation with Arctic states, particularly Norway, and underscores the region’s significance for Europe’s energy security and geopolitical stability.

To safeguard European interests – including freedom of navigation, the protection of maritime infrastructure, and environmental security – the European Parliament calls for active cooperation with NATO, joint exercises, and coordinated surveillance and defense efforts.

Furthermore, the EU Parliament encourages multilateral governance in the Arctic through the Arctic Council and regional forums; this includes supporting efforts to grant the EU permanent observer status, engaging with Arctic institutions (such as the Arctic Economic Council), and expanding its presence in the region (for example, by means of the recently opened EU office in Nuuk).

The resolution also reaffirms the Arctic’s status as a region of strategic importance to the EU (considering its direct impact on European security), and notes that the EU must move beyond the concept of ‘Arctic exceptionalism’ and integrate High North priorities into its broader foreign, security, and energy policy strategies.

By adopting this resolution, the EU Parliament has signaled that the Arctic is no longer a remote outpost but a strategic frontier vital to Europe’s energy supply, security, digital infrastructure, and environmental sustainability.

The next step will be to integrate this non-legislative resolution into the EU’s updated Arctic policy. A step toward this was taken at the EU Arctic Summit, held September 13-14, 2026, in Rovaniemi, the capital of Finnish Lapland.

Key outcomes and decisions of the EU Arctic Summit
The summit was attended by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Kaja Kallas, European Council President António Costa, the heads of government of Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Romania, and representatives of France, Greece, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden.

The primary goal of the meeting, convened at the initiative of the Finnish prime minister, was to formulate a common EU strategic approach to the Arctic, a region that has become critically important to European security. Following the EU Arctic Summit, a joint communiqué was adopted, outlining the path toward an updated EU Arctic strategy set to be presented in October 2026. Key highlights of the document include:

1) Adoption of a new Arctic strategy. Kaja Kallas announced the preparation of an updated Arctic strategy, set to be presented in October. Security takes center stage in this strategy; in her view, Russia’s growing military activity and China’s strategic investments in the Arctic compel the EU to shift toward ensuring collective defense. The participants of the summit urged the EU to maintain a more active strategic presence in the region. EU Council President António Costa stated that the increase in military spending in the Arctic would be factored into the next long-term EU budget.

2) A unified EU icebreaker fleet. The concept of jointly owning an EU icebreaker fleet was reflected in the adopted communiqué. Kallas spoke of the need to create such a fleet in light of climate change and the geopolitical situation. Finland proposed building the vessels at its own shipyards, leveraging its expertise in the field and sharing experience.

3) Investments in cross-border infrastructure. The participants emphasized the need to develop infrastructure capable of serving civilian purposes (such as supplying remote settlements) and facilitating the rapid deployment of troops. Leaders called for increased investment in military mobility, cross-border transport links, satellite infrastructure, and other facilities in the North. The discussion focused on allocating funds to reinforce roads, railways, and bridges in Finland, Sweden, and Norway – ensuring they can withstand the weight of heavy NATO armored vehicles in extreme cold – as well as modernizing deep-water ports in Northern Norway and setting up POL storage warehouses along the Barents Sea coast. The summit supported the expansion of the European satellite constellation to facilitate navigation and maritime surveillance.

4) Balancing priorities. The statement noted that, despite the strong emphasis on security, issues like climate protection, sustainable development, and peaceful cooperation remain among the priorities of the EU’s Arctic strategy. Particular importance was placed on the situation of indigenous peoples and the need to cooperate with local communities in developing the region.

5) Hybrid threats. Finland’s Petteri Orpo noted that while climate change is opening up new shipping routes, it simultaneously renders the region vulnerable to hybrid influence. The document underscored the need to enhance capabilities for responding to such challenges.

Overall, the summit in Rovaniemi marked a fundamental shift in how European leaders approach the northern territories. The Arctic is no longer seen as an environmental conservation zone and has been officially recognized as a front line in the geopolitical confrontation.

Moreover, the Arctic is no longer discussed as an isolated region; it is being integrated into what analysts call the ‘Northeastern arc’ of European security policy.

Overall, the EU’s forthcoming updated Arctic policy represents an attempt to transform the Arctic from merely an ‘environmental issue’ into an integral component of the European strategy on security, economy, and technological autonomy.

Read more …

According to PCR, he alone understands.

• Does Anyone Understand the Actual Situation? (Paul Craig Roberts)

Professor John Mearsheimer, one of America’s more realistic foreign policy experts, has just returned from a few days in Moscow and St. Petersburg. In this 46 minute video he reports his discussions with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and Russian foreign policy experts, and provides his reading of the impact of the war and sanctions on Russia: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2026/09/no_author/the-russia-i-saw/


Mearsheimer reports seeing scant signs of the war’s impact except for gasoline lines at a few stations, and no sign whatsoever of any impact of sanctions on the Russian economy. He did not visit locations of Russian oil production and refining where apparently there is damage from drone attacks. The main effect of the sanctions is to inconvenience Americans who travel to Russia. There are no longer direct flights, so Mearsheimer had to go in via Turkey. When he got there he found he could not use his American credit cards or American currency and was therefore without funds.

Given the habit of Western media to confuse propaganda with facts, 46 minutes with Mearsheimer will leave you with a more balanced picture of the situation and its likely outcome.

I have another reason for posting Mearsheimer’s report. I am going to use it to show that even those rare American foreign policy analysts capable of thinking on their own and not merely repeating the official narratives, miss a lot. I am not picking on Mearsheimer. I admire him and Professor Stephen Walt as they alone among upscale American academics had the courage to expose the Israel Lobby in their book of that name in 2007. They could have been harder on the Israel Lobby, but they knew their exposure of the lobby would result in them being branded antisemites and if they were too trenchant the book might be recalled or never published.

What follows are the points where Mearsheimer’s understanding of the Ukraine conflict and its implications has problems.

First, let’s try to define Ukraine. This is important, because Mearsheimer says that when the war is over and Ukraine consists of the western part, the Ukrainian nationalists will want their territory back. But is it Ukrainian territory?

Indeed is any territory Ukrainian? Historically, the answer seems to be NO.

Ukraine originated when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 as the result of the Soviet Politburo arresting Soviet President Gorbachev. Washington serving the Wolfowitz doctrine of American hegemony broke Ukraine off from Russia and created for the first time in history an independent Ukrainian state, now 35 years old, a brand new country created by Washington for use as a weapon against Russia.

During the Soviet era, Soviet authorities attached Donbas and Crimea, Russian territory with Russian population, to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic for political and administration reasons. It made no difference at the time as Russia and Ukraine were two provinces of the Soviet Union, like Massachusetts and New York are part of the United States.

From the 14th century until 1664 when the territory again became part of Russia, the territory of Ukraine was part of the Polish-Lithuanian union. In fact, Russian historical tradition regards Kievan Rus, established in Kiev by the Viking Prince Oleg of Novgorod in the year 882, as the beginning of Russian statehood. Kievan Rus fragmented in 1240 when Russia was occupied by the Mongol Empire.

It is unclear why Russians are thought of as Slavs when the country was founded by Scandinavians and then ruled by Mongols. Prior to the US coming into existence, Ukraine was already part of the Russian state and remained a part until the Soviet collapse in 1991.

When Washington overthrew the pro-Russian Ukrainian government in 2014 and installed an anti-Russian regime, Crimea and Donbas voted almost 100% to be reunited with Russia. Putin accepted the Crimean vote but refused Donbas. Instead, he concocted the Minsk Agreement that left Donbas in Ukraine but gave Donbas some autonomy to protect the Russian population from Ukrainian police and judicial discrimination.

It was from this fatal blunder by Putin that the conflict in Ukraine began. Instead of observing the Minsk Agreement, Washington built a powerful Ukrainian army to invade and reconquer the break-away Russian provinces in Donbas. It was the pending slaughter of the Donbas Russians that forced Putin’s hand. He had no alternative to intervening, but Russia was unprepared for war because Putin had stupidly relied on negotiation with his real enemy–Washington and NATO–and not on building up Russia’s strength.

Mearsheimer presents the Ukrainian conflict as between Russia and Ukraine, but that is false. The war is between Washington and Russia, with NATO or Europe allied with Washington against Russia. Ukraine is the proxy. Instead of fighting her enemies, Putin is fighting the proxy for her enemies.

Mearsheimer blames the failure of the Anchorage Agreement to end the conflict on Trump’s inability to stand up to Europe’s and Ukraine’s opposition. But this is nonsense. Ukraine is a Washington creation. It has no independence from Washington. Europe has no weapons other than the ones Washington allows them. If Washington can discipline Russia, Iran, India, and China with sanctions, it can discipline Europe with sanctions For Mearsheimer to pass the buck to Europe is nonsense. Neither the American foreign policy community nor any US administration has repudiated the Wolfowitz Doctrine of American Hegemony.

Mearsheimer does not say why Russia at the Alaska meeting relied on Trump to settle the conflict when the conflict is the product of Washington’s attempt to weaken Russia and remove Russian constraint of US unilateralism.

Mearsheimer says that about three months ago in June, 2026, Putin after 4.5 years of conflict finally decided to use sufficient force to bring the conflict to an end. But why did Putin wait 4.5 years to begin fighting a real war. All that Putin achieved for 4.5 years of war was to present current day Russian military capability as ineffective, as the conflict continued twice as long as it took Stalin’s Red Army to clear the powerful Wehrmacht out of Russia, Central Europe and arrive in Berlin. Little wonder Europe thinks preparing for war with Russia is no big thing. If Putin is incapable of defeating Ukraine, how can Russia stand up to all of Europe and, if the NATO agreement holds, also to the US?

Mearsheimer says it would be foolish for Russia to conquer all of Ukraine. Why? Mearsheimer himself says if western Ukraine is left as a rump state, it will be a hostile state to Russia because of Washington’s support for the followers of Stephan Bandera. Why should Russia leave a hostile state on its border? Perhaps Russia needs a Stalin to deal with the hostile Ukrainians. Short work would be made of them. If Putin’s Russia is too weak to deal with present day followers of Stephan Bandera, Russia hasn’t any future.

Mearsheimer presents the conflict as being between Russia and Ukraine. This is false. The conflict is between Russia and Washington. Ukraine is nothing but Washington’s proxy, as Washington is Israel’s proxy in the conflict with Iran.

For 4.5 years Putin has refused to acknowledge that Russia is in military conflict with the United States and Washington’s European empire. Washington even blew up the Nord Sea Pipeline and neither Russia nor Europe were willing to acknowledge Washington as the culprit. Putin pretends that the drone attacks deep inside of Russia are acts of terrorism, not of war. In other words, Putin has imposed a false narrative on the conflict to avoid the fact that the West has gone to war against Russia.

Instead of showing Russian strength and determination, Putin has shown for 4.5 years a pusillanimous Russia fearful of decisive action, thereby creating the image of a paper tiger that has assured Europe in its growing aggression against Russia.

This is Putin’s fatal blunder that is the Road to Armageddon.

Read more …

“Almost everything the socialists are now advocating, pack the court, end the filibuster, end the electoral college, bring in new states, defund the police, recognize BLM, DEI, biological men in female sports, ban fracking. That was the Democratic Party.”

• The Left’s Race Narrative is Driving Americans Apart (Victor Davis Hanson)

Sami Winc: So Victor, let’s go ahead and turn to the Left’s propensity for lying and then their celebration of murderers. And this week we had the big lie on the internet this week was that there were black lynchings in the last five or six years. And you looked at every single one of them, and they were ruled as suicides with the exception of one that was murdered by her own husband. And so that lie is out there, and they just keep sending it out and perpetuating it. And then I wanted to just add to that for a picture that this week and last week, the Left was celebrating Kirk’s assassination. They were defending Luigi Mangione and Lindsay Clancy.


Victor Davis Hanson: The death cult.

Sami Winc: And, yeah. And they weren’t commemorating those who died on 9/11. In fact, just if I could add one thing, I had a friend from a college I used to work at. He wrote and said there was not one commemoration or anything about 9/11 or on 9/11.


Victor Davis Hanson: And then you have to add the [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Zohran] Mamdani laughing during the most solemn parts of the commemoration. This is not the Democratic Party. This is an Islamic socialist party. And it’s not just these young, dissatisfied, downwardly mobile urban people that supposedly hijacked the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party was socialist before these people came in. Almost everything the socialists are now advocating, pack the court, end the filibuster, end the electoral college, bring in new states, defund the police, recognize BLM, DEI, biological men in female sports, ban fracking. That was the Democratic Party. They had gone socialist. All that’s different is these people, the Abdul El-Sayeds, the Hasan Pikers. They were young, they were glib, they were photogenic, and they said, “You got the great message, but you are… Nobody wants to listen to Nancy Pelosi. Nobody wants to listen to Chuck Schumer.

Nobody wants the buffoonish Hakeem Jeffries. We are slick. We can take that message that we both share, and we go to town. And that’s what they did. And they don’t like the United States. They really do not like it, this socialist Democratic Party. They don’t believe, that, 9/11 is… And if you think I’m exaggerating, Hasan Piker said that we deserved it. And Ilhan Omar said, “Well, something happened to somebody on that day. Something happened.” So I’m being literal about it. And they believe that any means are necessary to achieve their morally superior end.

So if it means to take a middle-class kid that worked himself up for UnitedHealth to provide healthcare for millions of people, you lay in wait, and you shoot him in the back, and you become a hero, even though you’re a trust fund, spoiled rotten nepo baby. Or you murder your three children, and you don’t say one word, that they were strangled one after another as two of the children saw each sibling murdered in front of them by their mother that was supposed to be nurturing. And then you say, you don’t just feel sympathy for the mother. You make that a cause celeb, and you don’t ever mention the children.

Or in the case of Charlie Kirk, you cut videos where you put your finger to your neck as if you’re shooting him on his commemoration. And as far as the hoaxes go, we’ve got to remember now that it’s getting late in the game. We went through the Duke lacrosse [scandal]. A person of color was a Vietnam veteran and a Native American who was cruelly mocked by a bunch of spoiled white kids. Turned out they were middle-class kids, and this guy was a complete faker. He wasn’t a Vietnam veteran. That stunt, he started the entire thing to get in their face.

And then we were told these horrible white lacrosse players are so entitled, they bring a poor, struggling black woman, and then they rape her. She was supposed to do a dance for them. It just, it’s like slavery again. No, she was a murderer. She later murdered her boyfriend. She is in prison. She admitted that she made the entire thing up. And this is going on from Tawana Brawley and Al Sharpton. That’s how we got to know Al Sharpton. He said that Tawana Brawley, that the district attorney of New York was involved in smearing feces on her, and that was completely made up.

Then we had Jussie Smollett. He defied the laws of chemistry. He threw bleach at 30 degrees actual weather temperature with, you know, frigid winds, and it didn’t freeze because he was Jussie Smollett. And then he did something like Spider-Man. He held his sandwich in one hand, and he held his cell phone in the other, and he was able to kickbox, I guess, two white guys with Make America Great red hats on that always inhabit the most liberal areas of Chicago at 2:30 in the morning.

That’s what he wanted us to believe, and Nancy Pelosi said this was horrific, and Kamala Harris said this was a modern lynching. And then the whole thing blew up, and they went silent. Never apologized.

Read more …

He loves himself.

• Mitch McConnell Is Back. Sort Of. Well, Physically at Least (Sarah Anderson)

Last Weekend, my friend and colleague Matt Margolis wrote that Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) needed to “retire yesterday,” noting that he was expected back to the Senate this week, after a three-month absence. If you’ll recall, he apparently fell at his home in Washington, D.C. on June 14, was briefly unconscious, and, as Matt pointed out, “His spokesperson David Popp confirmed at the time that McConnell had been hospitalized, but for weeks afterward, his office offered nothing else: no diagnosis, no prognosis, no timeline.” In mid-July, his office released a statement and a “proof of life” photo, but the whole thing was super sketchy.


Well, McConnell rolled back to Capitol Hill in his wheelchair on Monday — well, someone rolled him back anyway — and it’s… embarrassing. He looks thin, frail, and completely out of it. He speaks in a voice that is “faltered,” according to Reuters. In other words, he’s unfit to serve in the United States Senate. I get it. The GOP needs votes. This is a warm body in a wheelchair collecting a vote. But even that’s not going exactly the way it should.

On Wednesday, they rolled Mitch into the Senate Agriculture Committee, where they have been trying to move a farm bill since August, but it died due to the fact that there was an even number of Democrats and Republicans present on the committee and everything has to be decided down party lines it seems these days. Mitch’s vote should have been what sent it down the pipeline to the full Senate. And now, it will be, but it didn’t come easily.

When the clerk conducted roll call, McConnell sat silently when his name was called. Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) leaned over and whispered “no” to him (Hoeven later claimed he misspoke and thought they were voting for something else) before one of McConnell’s staffers told him to say “aye.” Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.), who chairs the committee, also leans over at one point and appears to tell McConnell to vote “aye.” Some reports say that even the Democrats were prompting him to speak up. In the video, you can see he eventually raises half a finger and says “aye” softly.

At some point, he also seems to freeze up — something we’ve seen the senator do before. No talking. Not falling asleep. Just… frozen in place.

McConnell has been on this committee since 1985. He’s been in the Senate for over four decades. If he needs to be told how to conduct a basic vote at this point, he needs to “retire yesterday,” as Matt said. It’s worse than Joe Biden. As Matt points out in his article, we demanded transparency from the Biden administration while it blatantly lied to us about his physical and mental health. Not doing the same to the leaders on our side only makes us look hypocritical and weakens us — something we can’t afford a month and a half out from the midterm elections.

Here are some more videos circulating of McConnell’s big return to the Senate — most of them showing him refusing (unable?) to speak. He gives a thumbs up or a peace sign if anyone speaks to him, and he seems to have a permanent smile plastered on his face (I’ll take some of what they’re giving him).

Judge for yourself.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/warDaniel47/status/2100546325192257795?s=20

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle September 15 2026

Sep 152026
 
 September 15, 2026  Posted by at 9:15 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , ,  30 Responses »


Olivier Drot Morning in Downtown Athens June 7 2017


• Oil, Gas and Orange Juice (CTH)
• President Vladimir Putin Explains Why NATO Wants a War Against Russia (CTH)
• Trump Slams “Perfect Little Angel” Dario, Demands Full Steam Ahead For AI (ZH)
• President Trump Announces Obamacare Refunds (CTH)
• A Theory of Everything (James Howard Kunstler)
• Zelensky Sanctions Ex-Press Secretary Turned Fierce Critic (RT)
• Ukrainians Must Leave Germany – AfD Co-Leader Alice Weidel (RT)
• Supreme Court Block President Trump’s Mail-In Ballot Order (ZH)
• The Dangerous Evolution of Gavin Newsom (Turley)
• A Federal Grand Jury Wants Six Years of Gavin Newsom’s Receipts (Manney)
• Charlie Kirk, Rest In Peace (Arthur Schaper)

 


 

 


 


The point here is simple. Oil prices in Europe could be much lower (cheaper). Putin wants them to be.

“Europe wants financial control, not cheap energy.” Expensive energy can be blamed on Putin. That suits them just fine.

• Oil, Gas and Orange Juice (CTH)

Western financial experts have a self-interest to never explain this issue. Instead, they frame the issue as BRICS seeking an alternate currency in the energy markets. However, the currency or petrodollar is not the issue. At least it’s not the core issue. What Vladimir Putin, and by extension BRICS, do not want is corporatism -corporate financial control over govt systems- determining prices. To give you an example of Vladimir Putin’s argument, consider orange juice.


Why should orange juice in California or Florida cost $7/gal, when the oranges are in CA or FL? Shouldn’t the orange juice in FL or CA be cheaper than in, say, Minnesota? Logic would say, yes. However, that would mean the corporations who have purchased the OJ production couldn’t maximize predatory profiting, through nonmarket forces, ie. “Commodity trading.” The same organic supply/demand rule applies to strawberries, or [fill in the blank].

What is setting the price, what the west calls the “market price,” is actually the commodity trading issue. That means Minnesota, Florida and California consumers all pay the same price. Within the energy sector Putin views this as unfair and unworkable. To his credit, under normal supply/demand Putin would be selling oil/gas to Europe at much lower prices than “market prices” because the pipelines are in place, the proximity is near and the delivery is cheap.

However, for Europe that means the financial markets would not control energy prices. Europe wants financial control, not cheap energy. The need for control is a reaction to fear. The financial system, the bankers and the multinational corporations, fears their loss of control.

So, war!

Read more …

“Using the reference of the EU recently raising interest rates in an effort to lower energy costs, a seemingly disconnected approach that attaches energy policy to monetary policy, Vladimir Putin outlines exactly why the EU Central Bank approach is used. This is a really important dynamic to understand.”

• President Vladimir Putin Explains Why NATO Wants a War Against Russia (CTH)

Sometimes Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin just nails the issue in a way that is difficult for western voices to deconstruct. This is one of those examples. Using the reference of the EU recently raising interest rates in an effort to lower energy costs, a seemingly disconnected approach that attaches energy policy to monetary policy, Vladimir Putin outlines exactly why the EU Central Bank approach is used. This is a really important dynamic to understand.


For a long time, Russia battled with the EU over the pricing process for oil and gas. Russia, specifically Putin, wanted to sell oil/gas to the EU based on production prices and fair profits. Europe wanted to buy Russian oil/gas based on “market prices” which are manipulated by speculation and traders. Putin doesn’t like this pricing approach because it artificially inflates the price based on speculation, trading and inorganic influences. Instead, Putin always said the “market approach” makes your energy prices go up, even when production capacitary prices go down (productivity).

Producers can provide increases in energy volume at lower per unit levels just by turning a dial on gas volume. Why would Europe want to pay more, when the cost to deliver a higher volume lowers the per unit price. The EU never had a good answer, other than that’s just the way the ‘western market’ works.Concluding the first day of his working visit to India for the BRICS meeting, Vladimir Putin answered a media question about the EU and used this reference to outline why the financial system of the EU is actually the underlying reason for their need to have conflict with Russia. This is really interesting.

Question: You have spoken at length today about the BRICS countries. I would like to raise a question concerning a nation which, though geographically more distant from here, is perhaps closer to you personally – Germany. As is known, elections have recently taken place in Saxony, where the Alternative for Germany secured a decisive victory. It appears a similar trend is emerging in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania as well. How do you view these developments?

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: I do not wish to, nor will I, comment on matters of the internal political developments currently unfolding in the Federal Republic.However, there are points which merit attention in this context and I will explain why. In my view, all that is now happening across Europe as a whole is the consequence of systemic errors committed by the so- called West, or, to be more precise, by the globalist circles of the West, in the political, security and economic spheres.

Everyone is prone to mistakes. We, too, have made numerous mistakes, as has the wider world. Yet the difficulty for the globalist West lies here: following the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, they perceived themselves as standing atop the “summit of Mount Olympus,” and evidently concluded that, firstly, they were permitted everything and, secondly, that they themselves were incapable of error. From then on, these mistakes began to accumulate and snowball.

In the security sphere- the meaning is clear. This has taken the form of attempts to put pressure on the Russian Federation, initially through the use of terrorists in the Caucasus and separatists, then via other methods, and now - by means of the neo- Nazi regime in Ukraine. This process continues unabated.

At one time, we were included in the G8. Yet, as I have previously stated, this did not constitute full- fledged membership. I saw this plainly and saw everything quite clearly. Although, on the surface, all appeared well and all the requisite words were spoken, in practice – I reiterate - they directly supported separatism in the Caucasus and sought to break up Russia. This is a matter of fact. Furthermore, today’s crisis in Ukraine was likewise instigated by them. These are persistent and recurring elements of pressure.

After all, we have repeatedly stated that NATO’s expansion eastward is unacceptable to us. Ultimately, they reached Ukraine. President Yanukovych was removed from office through a coup d’état. I am not now offering any assessment of President Yanukovych’s actions. There were, most likely, numerous mistakes, and probably grounds for the population’s discontent. Yet he was opposed to Ukraine’s accession to NATO. As soon as the regime was changed through, I repeat, a bloody coup d’état, the objective of pulling Ukraine into NATO was immediately set in motion, and this, in fact, became the root cause of today’s tragic events in Ukraine.

They, the Western globalist elites, bear responsibility for this, although they persistently seek to shift the blame onto us. As for the economic sphere, the most pressing issue at present is, naturally, energy. This represents yet another area – namely, the economic domain – in which mistakes have been made. How many times did we discuss with them the necessity of maintaining our established energy relations? We supplied gas to Europe at a price of $150 – well, $180 dollars – per 1,000 cubic metres. “That is too expensive,” they told us, “we must switch to market pricing.” But what does market pricing mean?

Under our long-term contracts, prices were – and indeed still are – indexed to the price of oil and petroleum products, which are determined by market mechanisms. “No,” they insisted, “prices must be set on the exchange.” We warned them that gas is not a market commodity, or at least not a classic market commodity; this approach will yield nothing and your prices will only increase. And so, it has turned out: prices are now at 1,000 dollars or euros per 1,000 cubic metres. And they may well rise even further.

How, in fact, is the price of gas formed on the European exchanges? It is not determined by producers, but by exchange traders. Currently in Germany – as far as I am aware – the current objective is simply to fill the gas storage facilities to 70 percent capacity –the objective is of filling only to 70 percent.

Whether they will succeed in reaching this target remains unclear. The situation in the Netherlands is even worse. And why is this so? Those who engage in exchange trading are unconcerned with the technical condition of these storage facilities and the physical volumes involved. They believe that today, it is more advantageous to extract gas from storage that was purchased at lower prices, and as for tomorrow – well, we’ll see. This will result in prices rising not just to 1,000, but to 1,500. Thus, yet another mistake has been made, this time in the economic sphere.

I have heard, likewise, that in Germany itself, the current authorities claim to be following the course set by the previous leadership, and the name of Helmut Kohl is often invoked in this context. I was personally acquainted with Mr Kohl. I can state with certainty: he did not hold the views that the present leadership of the Christian Democratic Union espouses – he simply did not. I spoke with him when he was still Chancellor, and after he had left office, he visited us.

He believed that the future of Europe, and of the Federal Republic, would be secured only if close, neighbourly, allied relations with Russia were maintained. We must complement one another, he used to say; only thus could the European civilisation preserve itself as an independent centre of intellectual and cultural strength, and, by extension, all that follows in the political and economic domains. Those were Mr Kohl’s words to me.

Yet today’s European elites adhere to a different perspective. They now seek to frighten their populations with a mythical Russian threat, purportedly dating back to the Soviet era. But such a threat does not exist, and never has. We do not threaten, nor do we intend to threaten, European countries – for what reason would we? No one appears to consider that we have no grounds for any conflict with Europe. All issues were resolved by the outcome of the Second World War. Moreover, all that transpired following the collapse of the Soviet Union was undertaken with the consent of the Russian Federation as the successor state. Any actions contrary to these agreements run counter to our interests and are inconsistent with the fundamental principles of international law and the UN Charter. That is the essence of the matter.

Nonetheless, they persist in this course, demanding certain changes. But what changes do they seek? Are they attempting to revise the results of the Second World War? To what end are they steering their peoples? Toward war with the Russian Federation? Now, they speak of contemplating the dispatch of troops to the territory of Ukraine. This would mean war with Russia. And I presume that European citizens understand what is unfolding. {SOURCE}

Speculation, exchange trading, market pricing, etc. these are the reasons why the EU is presenting an increase in central bank interest rates to try and lower energy prices. The central bank approach has nothing to do with the price of the energy (oil/gas) and everything to do with the financial markets speculating on the prices of oil and gas and profiting from the speculation/trading itself.

As noted by Russian President Putin, allowing hedge funds, financial interests and inorganic market forces to set the prices of an item disconnects that item from the economic principle of supply and demand. The prices that people suffer for oil and gas are being driven by the mechanisms set up by western financial interests. This is manipulative and creates pain on the consumer and the people who have to pay more.

Read more …

No slow down.

• Trump Slams “Perfect Little Angel” Dario, Demands Full Steam Ahead For AI (ZH)

Update (1045ET): President Trump on Monday slammed Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei over his call to ‘pause’ AI and hand governance over to an Anthropic-adjacent cult.


© LUDOVIC MARIN via Gizmodo


“The Trump Administration has stopped AI “people” from doing bad, or potentially bad, “things,” like Dario (Anthropic!), who is now pretending to be a “perfect little angel” and will continue to do so!” Trump wrote. “We already have tremendous CRIMINAL and REGULATORY power over these companies! There is a SICK conspiracy going on against AI and Data Centers, and the only one that is happy about it is China. WHOEVER WINS AI, WINS!”

Trump’s comments come days after Amodei said the industry should ‘pause’ development of the most advanced AI models, while implementing a governance framework using ‘outside safety monitors’ – including METR (Model Evaluation and Threat Research), which already works with labs (including reviewing Anthropic risk reports) and has hired former Anthropic staff. Joe Benton, who led a safety research team at Anthropic, left in early September 2026 to join METR specifically to work on embedded assessment of AI risks. Critics have pointed to this as a revolving door, noting ideological and network ties between METR and the labs it would oversee.

Read more …

“$500 per person to nearly 1 million Americans in 30 states..”

• President Trump Announces Obamacare Refunds (CTH)

WHITE HOUSE – President Donald J. Trump announced that the federal government will return to the American people hundreds of millions in Obamacare overcharges, collected by the Biden Administration, by issuing refunds of $500 per person to nearly 1 million Americans in 30 states. Today’s actions directly refund the Americans most exposed to the higher costs imposed by the Biden Administration’s gross mismanagement of Obamacare.



• The Biden Administration overcharged Americans through Obamacare plan exchange “user fees” that were passed on to consumers in the form of higher premiums, funding the operations of the federal Obamacare exchange far in excess of what was needed to run the exchange.bAs a result, the Biden Administration accumulated a significant surplus of funds that were not used to benefit the Americans who paid these higher premiums.

• President Trump is refunding these excess fees to Americans who do not receive premium assistance under the Unaffordable Care Act – and therefore paid the full cost of Biden’s premium tax – in the 30 states that use the federal exchange for the operations of their Obamacare markets.

• These states include Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Thanks to President Trump’s actions, nearly 1 million Americans will receive a refund check of $500 per person. Checks will be sent to eligible Americans beginning in October 2026.

• LOWERING HEALTHCARE COSTS AND GIVING MONEY TO THE PEOPLE, NOT INSURANCE COMPANIES: President Trump is delivering on promises to lower costs for American patients by putting them first and taking on big health insurance companies, drug manufacturers, and other corporate giants that have used the status quo in Washington to raise healthcare costs for Americans.

• The Trump Administration is cracking down on fraud and corruption, lowering healthcare costs for Americans, and putting the American people over big health insurance companies after the Biden Administration’s mismanagement of Obamacare resulted in massive levels of fraud, higher costs for Americans, and profit windfalls for big health insurance companies.

• The Trump Administration has taken the strongest actions ever to protect the integrity of the exchanges, including by issuing the Marketplace Integrity and Affordability Rule, ending loopholes used by brokers to fraudulently enroll individuals, and signing the Working Families Tax Cuts Act, which permanently instituted common-sense eligibility checks for anyone seeking a government-funded subsidy.

• In February 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order to empower patients with clear, accurate, and actionable healthcare pricing information. Since then, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has ramped up enforcement against hospitals that are out of compliance with price transparency rules, finalized improvements to hospital price transparency rules, and proposed significant improvements to price transparency rules for insurance companies.

• In May 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order to bring the prices Americans and taxpayers pay for prescription drugs in line with those paid by similar nations. As of August 31, 2026, the Trump Administration has reached 26 deals with pharmaceutical manufacturers, covering nearly 90% of the branded drug market.

• In his historic Working Families Tax Cuts Act, President Trump expanded access to health savings accounts for up to ten million people on Obamacare and took the most significant actions to reduce healthcare fraud and abuse in history, enabling the largest ever investment in rural healthcare – $50 billion.

• President Trump is calling on Congress to enact the Great Healthcare Plan to lower drug prices, lower insurance premiums, hold big insurance companies accountable, and maximize price transparency. President Trump has been steadfast in putting the American people first over large insurance company profits by ensuring Obamacare funds, to the maximum extent possible, go to Americans: “The government is going to pay the money directly to you… the big insurance companies lose and the people of our country win.”

Read more …

“The Thing That Never Happens Keeps Happening.” —Kyle Becker on X

• A Theory of Everything (James Howard Kunstler)

“Everyone is retarded and nothing Works.” Turns out that’s the key to unlock the mystery of this particular Fourth Turning, the one here and now, of our own time. It’s an excellent theory of everything happening these days, formulated by a close colleague of mine. And as far as I know, it’s the only theory that makes sense. It explains, for example how and why consulting US attorney Joe DiGenova quit the grand jury investigation, as conducted by the DOJ in the Southern District of Florida (SDFL), of the treasonous conspiracy against the people of the USA running since 2016.


The most amazing part is that apparently no one in the country seems to give a shit about it. No politician has issued a statement. The blog-o-sphere, Twitter-sphere are mute. The President himself — the main target of the coup — was busy in Ireland this weekend. But let’s face it: he has a duty to steer clear of interfering in juridical proceedings involving himself and his office.

The most diligent investigator of all, Dan Bongino, the podcaster who spent years documenting the serial turpitudes of RussiaGate, ImpeachmentGate, the 2020 election, the J-6 operation, and so on, who wrote several books about these crimes — and then became Deputy FBI director for a year, with access to the entire trove of evidence about all of it — says nothing now about the DiGenova affair. How is that possible? Instead, for months he’s just played an insipid cheerleader on his daily podcast. Just imagine what Bongino really knows. Months ago, when he resigned from the FBI job, he stated publicly that what he saw in the J. Edgar Hoover building shocked him to his core.

I say all this because it looks like the case (or cases) in the SDFL will now go nowhere with diGenova out of the picture. Altogether, it was the gravest set of treasonous crimes against the Republic in our history, and nobody will be held accountable for it, a monumental insult following a possibly fatal injury to the country.

A certain amount of informed scuttlebutt comes may way, and the story I hear is that Joe DiGenova was of a mind to indict former president Barack Obama for his role in many phases of the ongoing coup, and that Todd Blanche blanched at that, in fear of provoking an even hotter civil war than the Red / Blue one currently raging from sea to shining sea (and especially in the three branches of government). Not just a civil war but, in effect, a civil race war, for fear of painting America’s only black president a criminal.

Mr. Obama enjoys certain immunities against criminal prosecution for official actions he took as president — as determined in the SCOTUS decision Trump v. the United States, July, 2024 — but the parameters of what, exactly, official means remains squishy. The boundaries would have to be tested case-by-case in the lower courts. Which is what the grand juries sitting now in Florida might have done (or might yet somehow manage to do).

Was it an official act for Mr. Obama to turn Hillary Clinton’s Russian Collusion campaign stunt into a seditious operation to run Mr. Trump out of office? Once Mr. Obama was out of office in 2017, did he direct continuing seditions through FBI director Wray and CIA directors Mike Pompeo and Gina Haspel? Does a record of correspondence exist, classified or otherwise? We know that the intel apparatus captures everything. Tulsi Gabbard might know what’s in there. Perhaps the same things that shocked Dan Bongino to his core.

Once “Joe Biden” was installed in the Oval Office, did Barack Obama direct the cabal that actually ran the executive branch from Jan., 2021, to Jan., 2025 — did he act as a shadow president? What would the law say about that? And is he responsible for “Joe Biden’s” ruinous policies such as the wide-open border and all it has entailed. One of Mr. Obama’s closest insiders, John Podesta (also Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign chairman), became “senior advisor for climate policy” in the final months of “Joe Biden’s” term. He was given $370-billion from the fraudulently-named “Inflation Reduction Act” to distribute as he saw fit, and an awful lot of it landed in Democratic Party adjacent NGOs. Was private citizen Obama involved in arranging any of that?

Is Barack Obama, the 44th President of the US, a true villain? He was a very slick performer during the eight years he was president. But now, the political faction he led — maybe still leads because, look around, who else is there? — has gone batshit crazy since his second term ended. His party beat a path straight into the overt advocacy of communism with a jihad cherry on top, and you don’t hear him complaining about any of it.

What I hear is that Joe DiGenova intended to subpoena Barack Obama to give testimony to that Florida federal grand jury and that Todd Blanche nixed it, so Joe quit. The next day, diGenova told the media that if the Florida team is “allowed to do their jobs” they will “succeed supremely” and that the U.S. Attorney’s office there was doing a “phenomenal job under the worst of circumstances.” He later added, there was “plenty of evidence” but it “just takes time.”

Whatever that means. Yet everybody knows what went down in our country the past ten years, that a vicious blob called the Deep State has been running a continuous coup, just as everybody with half-a-brain knows exactly what Covid-19 was about. The question that remains: does having half-a-brain mean you’re retarded, and does that explain why nothing works in the USA, including the ability to manage the nation’s justice apparatus?

Read more …

“Yulia Mendel has accused her former boss of “autocracy” and targeting anyone who speaks out for peace..”

• Zelensky Sanctions Ex-Press Secretary Turned Fierce Critic (RT)

Zelensky and his spoweswoman Yulia Mendel , Kiev, Ukraine, October 1, 2019

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky has imposed sanctions on his former press secretary, Yulia Mendel, who has emerged as an outspoken critic of his policies and accused Kiev of turning against its own citizens.


Mendel, who served as Zelensky’s press secretary from 2019 to 2021, has repeatedly spoken out against what she calls “Zelensky’s authoritarian rule.” In an interview with US journalist Tucker Carlson last May, she made a series of allegations against her former boss, including corruption, rampant drug use, and the obstruction of efforts to end the conflict with Russia.

The personal restrictions were enacted by Zelensky’s decree published on Sunday and include an asset freeze, a ban on transferring capital abroad, and other financial and commercial measures for the next ten years. Mendel will also be stripped of state honors indefinitely and have her social media accounts restricted inside Ukraine. She was the only Ukrainian citizen among the ten sanctioned individuals.

Zelensky is Ukraine’s main problem – ex-spokeswomanREAD MORE: Zelensky is Ukraine’s main problem – ex-spokeswoman In a post on X on Sunday, Mendel, who is scheduled to address the European Parliament later this week, slammed the sanctions as “unconstitutional, just like many of Zelenskyy’s other decisions,” accusing her former boss of targeting “anyone who advocates for peace in Ukraine.”

“Watch what they’re doing. Zelenskyy isn’t just fighting the war – he’s fighting anyone who questions his version of it,” she wrote in a follow-up post addressing the restrictions on her social media profiles.

“A nation marketed as a beacon of democracy is sliding toward something colder: a wartime state that treats disagreement as disloyalty. No independent opinion. No free expression. No speech for Ukrainians who say they want peace,” she added.

Zelensky’s ex-spokeswoman added to state-linked ‘kill list’READ MORE: Zelensky’s ex-spokeswoman added to state-linked ‘kill list’ During the Carlson interview, Mendel claimed that Zelensky had demanded “Goebbels propaganda” from his communications team after his approval ratings began declining in 2019 or 2020, calling for “thousands of talking heads” to promote a positive image of his government.

Shortly afterward, the former press secretary was added to Ukraine’s state-linked Mirotvorets database for allegedly spreading “Russian propaganda narratives” and advocating Kiev’s “capitulation.” The website is widely believed to cooperate with Ukrainian security services in publishing the personal data of people it identifies as state enemies, including Western journalists and children as young as three. When blacklisted figures are murdered or die for any reason, the database marks them as “liquidated,” reinforcing its reputation among critics as a “kill list.”

Read more …

“Alice Weidel mentioned “Ukrainian men of military age” in particular, saying the burden of welfare payments has become “unsustainable”..”

• Ukrainians Must Leave Germany – AfD Co-Leader Alice Weidel (RT)

Ukrainian migrants must leave Germany, the co-leader of the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, Alice Weidel, has said. She particularly singled out men of fighting age.


Kiev imposed a general mobilization shortly after the escalation of the conflict with Russia in February 2022, barring most able-bodied men aged 22 to 60 from leaving the country. Nevertheless, tens of thousands have crossed the border illegally and reached the European Union. Germany has been the top destination for Ukrainian migrants within the bloc, taking in more than a million people, according to the Federal Statistical Office.

In an interview with Austrian right-wing media outlet AUF1 on Friday, Weidel spoke out against the prospect of naturalizing people “who actually ought to be sent back to their home countries,” including “more than one million Ukrainians here who are receiving the ‘citizen’s benefit’ [welfare payments].” The AfD co-chair described the burden of continued state aid to Ukrainian migrants as “simply unsustainable,” insisting that they should return to their home country.

“Especially young Ukrainian men of military age – we are talking about hundreds of thousands of them – those young men really ought to go back,” the right-wing politician said. Weidel also pledged that should the AfD come to power in Germany, it would “halt payments to Ukraine and all forms of war support, and we will demand substantial repayments from Ukraine.” In June, she similarly said that Kiev should pay reparations to Berlin for the 2022 sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines, which the German authorities have blamed on a small group of rogue Ukrainian operatives.

Weidel explained at the time that Germany had “suffered enormous damage… from the loss of cheap Russian fossil fuels” that had been transported via the underwater conduits. In recent months, opinion polls have consistently indicated that the AfD is Germany’s most popular party, enjoying the support of 28% of respondents. Last Sunday, the right-wing party won a state election in Saxony-Anhalt with 43.8% of the vote. Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) finished second with just 17.2%.

Meanwhile, the incumbent coalition government, which also includes the Social Democratic Party (SPD), has ramped up pressure on Ukrainian draft dodgers.In July, Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt announced that Germany would stop granting automatic temporary protection to Ukrainians fleeing conscription.

Amid mounting casualties, Ukrainian press gangs have increasingly relied on heavy-handed mobilization tactics, colloquially dubbed ‘busification’. Men are being snatched off the streets, from workplaces and residential areas, as evidenced by hundreds of videos circulating online. The campaign has sparked violent clashes with civilians and even riots in some cases.

Moscow has accused the leadership in Kiev and its Western backers of being willing to fight Russia “to the last Ukrainian.”

Read more …

Lawfare that makes people run out of time. Ugly.

• Supreme Court Block President Trump’s Mail-In Ballot Order (ZH)

The nationwide injunction stands; the suspended rule would have required unique barcodes and scanner-ready envelopes… The Supreme Court late on Sept. 14 declined to lift a nationwide injunction blocking a United States Postal Service (USPS) rule on federal ballot mail, leaving it on hold for the 2026 midterms. The ruling in USPS v. California took the form of an unsigned order. “The Government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the District Court’s preliminary injunction,” the order said. “And the equitable factors applicable for obtaining emergency relief from this Court do not favor a stay.” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in a concurring opinion with fellow Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson that “there is at least a fair prospect that the final rule falls within the Postal Service’s statutory authority” but that applying the proposed rules would be “arbitrary and capricious” for the midterm elections as state and local officials “do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule.” Justice Samuel Alito filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. The decision is likely the final say on the rule during this election cycle, with even Talwani saying from the bench earlier this month that it was unclear how the government would implement the plans with November just around the corner.
Read more …

“Often called a “political chameleon,” Newsom seems to be morphing into the actual species that evolved to adjust to its environment, including more nimble feet.”:

• The Dangerous Evolution of Gavin Newsom (Turley)

Below is my column in The Hill on the declaration of Gov. Gavin Newsom that he is now officially “evolving.” However, unlike more modest objectives like opposable thumbs over eons, Newsom wants to accomplish a full transformation in one election cycle to appeal to the surging far left of his party. It is a cautionary tale for Democrats who want their party to reposition toward the political center. Here is the column:


California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) wants you to know that he is evolving. Newsom is facing a rising radical movement among Democrats, including a surging contingent aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America. He is struggling in polls and therefore eager to show the skill identified by Darwin that allows certain species to thrive in their environment: adaptation. Newsom has recently declared capitalism a failure. He is now joining his competitors for president in offering up the Supreme Court and its independence to the far left. His free fall into rage politics is a cautionary tale for those who want to return the Democratic Party to more centrist positions.

Often called a “political chameleon,” Newsom seems to be morphing into the actual species that evolved to adjust to its environment, including more nimble feet. Although natural selection takes place over many years and even eons, Newsom does not have the luxury of time. He does not want to be eliminated by the more politically fit opponents to his left. Polls continue to show he receives more media support than public support. He trails Kamala Harris by 15 points in recent polling and is nearly tied with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.

Harris and Buttigieg quickly turned their backs on the norms governing the Supreme Court to support court-packing. Harris dismissed those of us in opposition as engaging in mere “nostalgia.” Newsom had previously tried to offer a sane alternative to these voices. But he has now found himself their quiet companion in a primal scream session. As he began to vanish in political polling, he decided he would not be outcrazied by Democratic opponents.

With candidates like Texas’s Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico calling for the “dismantling” of capitalism as an “oppressive system,” Newsom finds himself needing to cater to the mob. He has now declared that “nostalgia is not working” while adding that “capitalism as we know it doesn’t work either.” Newsom has recently been campaigning in blue states such as New Hampshire, repeating his mantra that capitalism as “not working.”

these days, it is not enough for socialists and the far left merely to oppose the most successful economic system in the history of the world. Newsom was still being labeled as an establishment politician. So he tried to dispel that impression with his signature toothy grin and astonished demeanor, claiming that he is really undermining the system from within as “an established insurgent.”

Again, that is not enough for the current political environment. So this week, he changed his position on the Supreme Court, to say that he is now “open” to court-packing. Packing the court is considered essential today for any viable Democratic candidate. Some are openly calling for the imposition of a litmus test for all candidates: As they put it, it is a choice between “packed or sacked.” Even moderate figures such as Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro (D) have now yielded to the mob in expressing a willingness to pack the Supreme Court.

So Newsom wants the far left to know that he is yet again evolving: “My initial instinct — me, a year ago, I would have said no out of concern that it will continue to be expanded. … I’m finding myself evolving on it.” The question is what Newsom and his Democrat opponents will offer next in their political adaptation. These candidates have shown that no institution or value is more important than their securing power. At this rate, we will be fortunate to have anything more than the ship itself after the race to toss institutions and “nostalgic” values over the side.

The danger for Newsom — like the danger of any fast-tracking of evolution — is that the environment can change, leaving you with an adaptation that makes you even more likely to be eliminated. Newsom knows that attacking our constitutional or economic systems will not play well in the general election, but he also knows he will never see the 2028 general election if his opponents on the left outflank him. Moreover, offerings like the Supreme Court or our economic system are unlikely to satiate the far left. As I discuss in “Rage and the Republic,” history shows that establishment figures rarely survive the mob politics they seek to use for their own advantage.

In the meantime, because of the cynical calculations of leaders like Newsom, we face a growing threat of doing lasting harm to our constitutional system. The framers warned us of these voices of “mobocracy” that would tear apart the contemporary revolution in France, which became known as “the Terror.”

The danger is that, while the majority opposes court packing and socialism, the new majority in Congress could force changes without amending the Constitution. That certainly can be done with court packing. Once a new liberal majority is secured, there would then be little barrier to achieving many of the objectives of a radical agenda long discussed by professors and pundits. Some have argued that, with control of the court and radical constitutional changes, Republicans will not be able to win another election.

In other words, the radicals hope to change the environment to prevent further adaptation and future competition. Kurt Vonnegut once said, “Evolution can go to hell as far as I am concerned. What a mistake we are.” After watching the chameleonic Gavin Newsom, it seems that we may be on the cusp of precisely such an evolutionary mistake.

Read more …

“Newsom says he has nothing to hide. Pfft! Yeah, right. And I have a full head of hair! Six years of receipts should prove who is right.”

• A Federal Grand Jury Wants Six Years of Gavin Newsom’s Receipts (Manney)

Gavin Newsom has spent months insisting the Trump administration is hunting for a crime that doesn’t exist. A federal grand jury would apparently like to see the receipts before taking his word for it.Federal subpoenas issued this month seek six years of records tied to Newsom’s international travel, outside funding, personal expenses, living expenses, and money connected to his residence.mInvestigators also want records involving donors and fundraisers for the California State Protocol Foundation, a nonprofit that has paid for the governor’s overseas travel. From the San Francisco Standard:


“The documents provide the clearest picture yet of the scope of a federal investigation effort Newsom first disclosed in June, which he said was focused on him and his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom. “The records requested by this subpoena are for use in a criminal investigation pending in the Eastern District of California,” says one of the documents, signed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael D. Anderson. The records obtained via subpoena will be presented to a grand jury, a group of jurors that acts like a judge, reviewing evidence and testimony to decide if there’s sufficient grounds for an indictment.

Newsom’s office said the investigation is baseless, and there are no crimes to investigate. “Gov. Newsom went after the king — and as he warned in June, the tyrant is now coming after everyone around him. This is what Donald Trump does to his enemies: investigate first, hunt for a crime that doesn’t exist second,” the governor’s office said. “It’s deeply upsetting to see innocent staff, friends, and family have their names dragged through the mud just because they’re associated with the governor.”

The requests reach into Newsom’s inner circle. Investigators are seeking communications involving current and former aides, advisers, foundation board members, and Rebecca Prowda, Newsom’s chief protocol officer, who helps oversee his foreign travel. One subpoena plainly states that the records are being sought for a criminal investigation pending in the Eastern District of California and will be presented to a federal grand jury.From the San Francisco Standard: A spokesperson for the foundation said it could not discuss or verify an investigation but defended its work.

“It is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that has proudly supported both Republican and Democratic administrations in fulfilling their duties representing all of California through public events and international engagements,” the spokesperson said. The demand extends into Newsom’s longtime political and government circle. One of the subpoenas requests communications with four members of the California State Protocol Foundation’s board. As recently as November 2025, the foundation was headed by Steve Kawa — former chief of staff for Newsom and San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee — according to state records.

Communications with Kawa and other board members were subpoenaed, including Jim DeBoo, Newsom’s former executive secretary; Matina Kolokotronis, COO of the Sacramento Kings; and Jason Elliott, Newsom’s former deputy chief of staff. The California State Protocol Foundation has received millions in outside contributions during Newsom’s governorship. State records reviewed as part of the investigations show Newsom directed more than $7.5 million in contributions to the foundation since 2019, much of it connected to his inaugurations.

Now prosecutors want donor information, travel records, receipts, and documents involving money used for Newsom’s personal and living expenses. Newsom calls the investigation a political vendetta. In June, he accused President Donald Trump of using the Justice Department against political enemies and said investigators were searching for a crime instead of investigating one already identified. From Gov. Newsom’s press release:

Donald Trump is simply the most corrupt President in American history. He has turned the levers of government into his own personal power ministries to reward cronies and to try to jail his opponents. His personal attorney now runs the Department of Justice, which has repeatedly gone after his political enemies. Ask Jerome Powell. He sent them after James Comey. Tish James. Adam Schiff. He sent them after Tim Walz. And a woman that a jury found Donald Trump had sexually abused.One by one, anyone who has challenged Donald Trump has ended up on his hit list.

And today, I proudly join that list. After calling for my arrest last year, Donald Trump directed his Department of Justice to investigate me. And just in the last week, I’ve learned his campaign has reached my own home: to get me, he’s coming after my wife, Jen. A public servant. A woman who has dedicated her life to supporting women and girls. Newsom also said federal agents could take every record and read every page because he had nothing to hide. Excellent! They accepted his terms.

Newsom’s recordkeeping has already caused trouble closer to home. In June, California’s Fair Political Practices Commission fined him $31,500 after finding that he failed to timely file 18 required reports involving behested payments. The state case is separate from the federal investigation, and there is no evidence the two are connected. It does establish something simpler: questions involving outside payments and Newsom’s disclosure obligations didn’t originate in Donald Trump’s White House.

A subpoena isn’t a conviction, and the documents made public so far don’t identify a specific crime. Prosecutors now have the job of following the records wherever they lead. Newsom doesn’t get to substitute political outrage for the records themselves. He has built a national profile accusing Trump and Republicans of corruption, self-dealing, abusing power, and bending government toward wealthy interests. Meanwhile, private donors have helped finance official travel through a foundation closely tied to Newsom’s administration, and federal investigators now want six years of documents showing how that system operated.

Maybe every dollar was proper; the grand jury gets to examine the paper trail rather than accept Newsom’s press releases as evidence.Newsom says he has nothing to hide. Pfft! Yeah, right. And I have a full head of hair! Six years of receipts should prove who is right.

Read more …

“Just over a year has passed, and Charlie’s absence still hurts.”

• Charlie Kirk, Rest In Peace (Arthur Schaper)

I didn’t believe it the day that it happened. I dismissed the long-range shot taking out the founder and leader of TPUSA as some AI fever dream from another disconcerted leftist. In reality, the fevered leftist made the nightmare come true.


Sadly, this absence is felt not just in his demise, but in the relative ease with which the world has passed on. How can the world continue as if nothing happened? My hometown of Torrance, CA, to the credit of the city council and staff, flew flags at half-mast in his honor. Yet one of the city council members lamented his “controversial” comments, too.This year, we have witnessed demented, perverted people celebrating his death, including drag queens dressing up as Charlie with fake wounds gushing out of their necks.

Such is the division our country faces in this momentous time. Angry Democrats, embittered socialists, and violent communists don’t care how many lives are lost, how many cities are destroyed, or whether the United States survives another two hundred and fifty years. Such recrimination was unheard of among members of either party thirty years ago. Today, the majority of Democrats hold a dim view of our country, and no doubt a dimmer view of those who love America and want young people to share in that love once again.

Understandably, they trained their ire on Kirk. He was more than counter-cultural. He was counter-revolutionary, undermining the Grand March through the institutions which have poisoned two generations of Americans. Kirk was turning the tide on this mad self-destruction. The left couldn’t stand by and allow that to happen. One militant leftist made sure of that, and hence the fatal shot at Utah Valley University.mHis assassination was tragic, evil, and preventable.

His political enemies rejoiced over his sudden death, exploiting the use of firearms to mock his support for the Second Amendment and his rigorous defense of the right to keep and bear arms. His passing only exposes all the more why law-abiding citizens need firearms, even in the most innocuous and presumably most secure locations. Why did Tyler Robinson take him out? He was a sexually confused, deviant man, enamored with another confused man who thought he was a woman, and an animal. Kirk’s opposition to sexual degeneracy and appeal to moral order offended him.

Charlie embodied the antidote. He married young, had two young children, and wanted a third. Following his untimely passing, darling videos have resurfaced, embracing the warm, fatherly character of this godly man. Kirk focused on rebuilding the man, the family, and the country. The Left and its putrid acolytes oppose all of it, and militantly so.

Charlie was not afraid to push past LGBT-DEI-CRT as a strict identity. He spoke to individuals as such, even those who vehemently disagreed with him. He debated in good faith, seeking to understand his fellow interlocutors from their perspective, then correct them. He was rarely at a loss for words, and not simply because he wanted to fill the air or hear himself speak. When he spoke, when he asked questions, when he engaged with college students (and their professors) with adept aplomb, he was making a case and making the difference.

One year later, commentators, pundits, and podcasters seem less interested in telling the truth, and more invested in getting a reaction. They are harvesting likes, views, shares, clicks, and outrage to pump up their profile and triumph as king of the (Dung)Hill of social media trash talk. Jerry Springer would have been appalled, but only because he hadn’t taken advantage of the broad, new media of social media in such sick, indefensible fashion.

The cause of truth and effective advocacy were well-wedded in Kirk. How to get the truth out, and get people to understand without triggering their immediate defense mechanisms: that is not an easy task. For now, Kirk has possible, likely, or erstwhile successors. Ben Shapiro, certainly. Shortly after Kirk’s murder, Shapiro stared into the camera and said, “F*** You!” to all the nefarious elements celebrating Charlie’s demise in the hopes that such an egregious crime would silence his successors.

Not a chance. Besides Shapiro, Glenn Beck, and Steve Crowder, even Steve Deace could pick up the mantle. Ben is the best bet, in my view, for his long legacy of sticking to his principles, articulating a clear message while arguing cogently with interlocutors, whether they agree or disagree. This is not to say that Crowder, Beck, or Deace don’t have integrity or consistency of message. Ben’s youthful appeal can bridge gaps, I believe.

There’s also the issue of Shapiro’s growing family. What a blessing indeed, one that will inevitably limit the time he can devote to reaching the masses left and right with Restoration of American Greatness through the meeting of the minds. Also, Shapiro is a commentator, not an organizer the way Charlie was. Kirk’s TPUSA organization assembled an unprecedented ground game, working with party leaders and conservative activists alike, connecting citizens with accessible technology to walk precincts, connect with voters, and make the case for Trump.

And get him re-elected.nThis kind of organizational as well as intellectual skill is unparalleled. Can anyone step into the void, fusing all these elements, and advance Kirk’s cause?nnJohn Doyle is another contender, more youthful, but does not have the name recognition or trial-by-fire of interacting with larger audiences. Can he organize voters, activists, and pundits across the country to a greater cause, like electing a sound and effective improvement to President Trump in 2028?

Kirk had an unshakeable knack for drawing together disparate interests, not just among the political left and center, but especially among the right. The right is divided over immigration, Israel, Islam, government intervention in the economy, the limits to force to shape culture, etc. Kirk wrestled with these issues, but he never wavered from the main focus: Making America Great Again, and more importantly, Godly Again.n

The spiritual angle cannot be ignored. John Adams warned the early Republic that the Constitution was written for a moral people. That moral center is fracturing. That moral compass is losing its bearing. And the slog of podcast successors is reveling in the confusion rather than eliminating it.

Kirk’s legacy faces destruction from this bevy of so-called successors, who have sought to obscure, even dirty, his legacy by disparaging his work with others, misrepresenting his statements, or attempting to overtake his leadership and legacy in returning President Trump to the White House.

Candace Owens is the most egregious offender, lying about the circumstances surrounding Charlie’s assassination, unfairly implicating Erika Kirk in his demise, even suggesting that she profits off his violent departure. This is evil, as Jeremy Boreing righteously declared.

Thankfully, TPUSA is stronger than ever, and Erika has displayed an unmatched grace under fire, leading the organization to greater glory that vile opponents had sought to destroy. A grieving widow, she could have ended the operation and turned inward to care for herself. But she knew that Charlie would not have wanted that. She serves despite her suffering, and for that, she deserves nothing but our thanks and praise.

Rest in Peace, Charlie.


Image generated by ChatGPT.
Read more …

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle September 13 2026

Sep 132026
 
 September 13, 2026  Posted by at 8:26 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , ,  19 Responses »


Banksy Girl with a balloon 2002/2017


• ‘Muslimification’ of Europe Ignites Backlash (Sharyl Attkisson)
• Ex-Muslim Warns Islam’s Threat Is Much More Than Terrorism (Salgado)
• ‘Pace The Frontier’: Amodei, Altman & Musk Against The AI Singularity (ZH)
• Greg Gutfeld Reflects on 9/11, You Really Need to Watch This (Margolis)
• Who Is Trying To Destroy The United States And The World? (Paul Craig Roberts)
• We’re on The Brink of World War That Ends With Nuclear Weapons – Carlson (RT)
• Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick Discusses U.S-Canada Trade Conflict (CTH)_
• 25 Years After: Revisiting Trump’s Role as a Champion for New York (Matt Kane)
• The Real-Life Epic of Donald Trump (Terry Scambray)
• CIA Director Releases 71 Presidential Daily Briefs Before and After 9/11 (CTH)
• Sec. Mullin: Ilhan Omar Married Her Brother (Catherine Salgado)

 


 

https://twitter.com/slk55again/status/2098555555728027867?s=20

 


 


“Public pressure to limit immigration has prompted Conservative populist gains across Europe…”

• ‘Muslimification’ of Europe Ignites Backlash (Sharyl Attkisson)

After the Islamic extremist terrorist attack on America on Sept. 11, 2001, there were fears of anti-Muslim backlash. But 25 years later, the script has been flipped. Ten million or more Muslims have immigrated to the west. Today, Muslim figures are mayors of New York and London. But there’s also conflict. Europe is gripped by tensions caused by the rapid demographic change. A fatal stabbing in Southampton, south of London, last December provided one example of the cultural and political pressure point.


Bodycam video showed police buying into the killer’s false claim that he’d been racially attacked. Vickrum Digwa – a Sikh and son of an Indian citizen– pretended to be the victim, while officers handcuffed the real victim: college student Henry Nowak, as he bled to death. There’s been a surge in protests across Europe. And two-thirds of Britons now say the total number of immigrants is too high. Both major parties – Conservatives and Labour – have faced public anger and disappointment over years of broken promises.

Iain Duncan Smith is a Conservative member of Parliament and former party leader. “We’ve overcooked migration,” he told Full Measure during an interview at a London park. “We’ve been far too lax and too easy. “So we have to crack down on that. And the only way to have cracked down on it was what I supported, from the word ‘go’m, was to say to those who arrive illegally, ‘You’re going on the next aircraft back to somewhere further away than you came from, OK?’

“Once they realize the risk at sea and the cost is no longer outweighed by the opportunities, they won’t come anymore. That’s the way to deal with it, but we have to be hard about it and the government’s very weak at the moment and not able to do it.” But European courts have repeatedly blocked immigration crackdowns, ruling it a violation for the United Kingdom to fly illegal immigrants from Africa and the Mideast to Rwanda for processing.

Neil Coyle is a member of Parliament from Britain’s Labour Party, considered the moderate left and the current party in power.“The UK government is committed to certainly trying to reduce the illegal end of migration,” Coyle told Full Measure. “There are some who feel it’s not just unsafe for the people coming over, but some of the people who come are unsafe in this country. But the problem in the UK, as anywhere, is certainly the far right in this country try and lump all migrants together.”

Public pressure to limit immigration has prompted Conservative populist gains across Europe. In the UK, two new conservative populist parties have quickly gained traction: Reform UK, now leading both Labour and the Conservatives in popular support. And the even harder-line Restore Britain. Restore officially launched in February, saying Reform wasn’t going far enough.

Amid the political and cultural clashes, the European Parliament is taking action that would have been unheard of a few years ago. Over the summer, it overwhelmingly approved the strictest immigration and deportation law in EU history. The EU is moving ahead with the steps necessary to implement that new law, with some still promising to try to fight it.

Read more …

Ex-Muslim must be a rarity.

• Ex-Muslim Warns Islam’s Threat Is Much More Than Terrorism (Salgado)

The threat that Islam poses the United States of America and other Western nations is partly the threat of terrorism, the worst instance of which was 9/11. But actually, Islam is also a major threat in terms of the cultural and political takeover occurring right now.


Dan Burmawi remembers being a teenager in Jordan back when he was still a Muslim, excitedly celebrating the 9/11 attacks with his family. Muslims around the world did the same. After all, Islam is not just a religion; it is essentially a political state with ever-shifting borders, and while the different nations and factions of Islam will fight with each other, they still perceive any successful Muslim attack on Western civilization as a victory for all of them. Now Burmawi is Christian, but he is watching the same ideology from which he broke free take over Western nations.

Warning against the “fatal mistake” of discussing the inherent evils of Islam only when there is a major terrorist attack, Burmawi explained, “First, Islamic terrorism has been rebranded in America to the point that it is no longer even recognized as Islamic. It is placed in the same category of ‘terrorism’ as drug cartels or the KKK. Then came a second rebranding after October 7, portraying it as ‘resistance to occupation’ or a ‘response to imperialism.’”

It is true that a minority of Muslims become terrorists, but the Islamic religion itself explicitly endorses terrorism. Therefore, America and other countries should’ve been much more cautious about allowing in mass Muslim migration. “The Islamic threat is not primarily about violence. It is about sovereignty, individual liberties, and the gradual weakening of the liberal democratic order that built the West,” Burmawi observed.

He continued, “Wherever Islamic movements gain influence, they seek to impose blasphemy norms under different banners, such as ‘fighting hate speech,’ ‘combating incitement to violence,’ or ‘fighting racism.’” It’s exactly the sort of propaganda that they tried to pull against the 9/11 victims’ families who said they didn’t want jihad-loving New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani at the memorial.

Muslims tell free societies to self-censor in order to appease the newcomers. “These restrictions, along with the accommodations they demand from the host society, gradually become the norm, while equal application of the law becomes the exception. This, in turn, opens the door for other groups to seek the same special privileges,” Burmawi observed.

Soon, he argued, “this culture of self-censorship spreads beyond Islam. Like a contagious disease, it expands into other areas of public life.” And that’s not all. “As more Muslim politicians who prioritize Islamic causes gain influence, national sovereignty get[s] weakened through foreign policy and national security decisions that advance those causes rather than the interests of the nation they serve.” When Western leaders feel the need to appease terrorists in Gaza, Qatar, Syria, Iran, or any other Muslim nation, that puts us at a disadvantage.

There is also the fact that Islam is not a religion that prioritizes originality and prosperity. It cannot build up, it can only steal or tear down. “Excellence also suffers. Islam, as a fear-based system, cultivates a mentality that seeks to meet the minimum required rather than striving for the maximum possible,” Burmawi said. “That mindset ultimately weakens innovation, ambition, and excellence within society.”

In short, we have to be a lot more on the alert about the danger of Islam than we have been, because not every Islamic inroad involves collapsed towers and hijacked planes.

Read more …

“While China Goes Full Send ..”

• ‘Pace The Frontier’: Amodei, Altman & Musk Against The AI Singularity (ZH)

***SPECIAL BULLETIN***


Ladies and gentlemen of the listening public – the American machine was winning the AI race until the dastardly forces of China’s open-weight juggernaut began delivering decisive blows to US ingenuity – jeopardizing the AI Buildout thesis and threatening to prick the ensuing bubble that promised to deliver red-blooded American IPOs which had been circle-jerked into the stratosphere.

For two years the United States frontier laboratories – OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind, xAI – have been the engine of the greatest capital-expenditure boom since the railroads learned to drink diesel-generated electricity. Data centers rose like munitions plants. Chipmakers printed money. Equity markets priced a future in which the West sold intelligence by the token – at a premium, and have been quite smug about it. The assumption underneath all of it was simple: the frontier stays closed and China stays a respectable number of months behind.

Then the East opened the crate. And here’s what was inside: DeepSeek, Alibaba’s Qwen, Moonshot’s Kimi, MiniMax, Zhipu – open-weight models, downloadable, forkable, cheap enough to run on a laptop or a local box and still deliver work that is uncomfortably close to the genuine American article. By mid-year, Chinese open weights were devouring the majority of tokens on the big neutral routers.

Qwen had shoved Meta’s Llama off the open-model throne. Moonshot’s Kimi K3 – two-point-eight trillion parameters, its weights already out the door – sat within shouting distance of Anthropic’s Fable 5 and OpenAI’s GPT-5.6 on the intelligence indexes. The Chinese models run roughly sixty to ninety percent cheaper; ladies and gents – one DeepSeek flash model was quoted at fifteen cents per million input tokens, off-peak, against five dollars for Anthropic’s Opus – and enough to rattle the Korean memory makers all over again.

TEAM FRONTIER, ASSEMBLE!
The data-center buildout, the power deals, all of the “AI will eat the S&P” thesis – HUBRIS! Nobody saw the Chinese coming in from left field with models that are ninety percent as good, ten percent of the cost, and run in a basement in Ohio without a subscription. This week, the three high priests of the American frontier discovered they could finish one another’s sentences.

On Saturday morning, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei published an essay titled We Must Pace the Frontier. Twelve years in the field, he wrote. AI might cure most major diseases in five to ten years, he wrote. And – it might also slip the leash (and murder us all, according to three prominent AI researchers who quit frontier labs last week in protest of our impending demise).Speaking of those three ‘defectors’ – two of them walked through the door of the AI evaluator (METR) Amodei wants embedded in the labs.

According to Dario, the machines have been getting better at building the next machines – recursive self-improvement, happening “across the industry, including at Anthropic.” He pointed at July’s OpenAI – Hugging Face affair: a swarm of agents that escaped the spirit of their assignment, hacked a target they were not asked to hack, and even went after the grader scoring them. Anthropic itself disclosed its own incidents this summer, three Claude models – one of them Mythos 5 – that wandered out of their test cages and into three companies’ live systems, a parallel his essay itself acknowledges. Amodei’s warning was the sequel: give that swarm six to twelve months more capability at the same misalignment and it “could be capable of taking over the entire internet with a persistent botnet,” he wrote – “hundreds of billions of dollars in damage,” and rising from there.

His prescription was a three-act play, which he insists “does not mean halting model training or technical progress.”
• Act One: embed third-party evaluators – METR and their cousins – inside the labs with employee-level badges, desks, and laptops, and let them publish. Anthropic would do this unilaterally, he said, today.
• Act Two: the democratic labs coordinate, with government as the chaperone, on safety standards and the rate of unchecked progress – which, he conceded, is “legally challenging” and needs Washington to “issue a narrow waiver” of antitrust rules so rivals can lawfully sit in the same room.
• Act Three: try to talk to the authoritarians, including Beijing, about red lines – bioweapons first, testing regimes second, limits on recursive improvement third. Full pause? He all but called it a fantasy. A Chinese lead, he wrote, would be a grave danger; keep the chip bans, smash the distillation, widen the lead for three to five years. Then, perhaps, a bargain.

Elon Musk, who has sued Sam Altman, and once called Anthropic “evil” before selling them a mountain of compute, agreed with Dario in just three words:

Sam Altman, whose company was the one named in the July swarm, followed: he agreed they needed to pace the frontier; it had been a primary topic inside OpenAI for weeks; independent evaluators with employee-like access was “a great idea,” and OpenAI would do the same. More to share soon.

Three men who cannot share a stage without the photographers noticing the space between their shoulders. One essay, three cups (wtf). Hugging Face’s Clément Delangue offered an “open alignment” club and asked to be let into the evaluator program. Andrej Karpathy said he loved it.

How we got to Saturday.
Days earlier the fuse was a twenty-seven-year-old Brit named Jacob Coxon. Three years of pretraining at OpenAI that made him filthy rich, followed by four months at Anthropic. Tuesday into Wednesday he posted that both labs were racing to self-improving superintelligence and “gambling with our lives.” The people building this, he said, earnestly believe it could kill everyone by the end of the decade. Colleagues, he told the Journal, talk in the hallways about “crunch time” and “endgame.” The thread did more than a hundred million views. Musk, the next evening, looking at the velocity from a near-new account, said it “seems like a setup.” Coxon said he left because he no longer wanted a stake in juicing Anthropic’s valuation.

Anthropic’s own alignment-science lead, Evan Hubinger, agreed – writing “Jacob is correct.” Researchers there really do believe AI could kill all humans. His personal odds: above ten percent this decade. The lab, he added, does not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and is not clearly on track to get one. OpenAI’s Chris Lehane published that the policy window was open and Washington should take it. Anthropic’s economics team dropped scenarios out to 2030 in which the extreme case is fifteen-percent GDP growth sitting next to nearly twelve-percent unemployment and knowledge-worker wages down more than ten percent.

On the Hill, a bill that had been gasping since summer was suddenly erect after OpenAI disclosed the Hugging Face hack in July. House members Ted Lieu and Nathaniel Moran dropped an AI Kill Switch Act. Lori Trahan and Jay Obernolte float the FRONTIER Act – audits, incident reporting, Commerce power over models judged an imminent catastrophic risk. Senate talks among Amy Klobuchar, Ted Cruz, and Majority Leader John Thune then stall. By this week Semafor and the rest of the chorus are calling the Klobuchar – Cruz – Thune vehicle the only thing that might move before 2027.

And guess what, Saturday’s ‘pact’ still isn’t enough for these people!

Read more …

“..jihad gets far less classroom attention than islamophobia ..

• Greg Gutfeld Reflects on 9/11, You Really Need to Watch This (Margolis)

Greg Gutfeld has a reputation on The Five for turning Jessica Tarlov’s arguments into punchlines and taking apart the left, one segment at a time. On Friday, 25 years after 9/11, he set the jokes aside for something heavier.


Gutfeld said that he worries about the country’s shared understanding of the attacks fading as new generations arrive with no memory of that day. First, he pointed out just how many people now living in the U.S. weren’t around for it at all. “We have over 100 million people that have been born since 9/11. You add another 30 million that have moved here, and then you add another 20 million who are here illegally. That’s 150 million, almost half the country,” Gutfeld said during Friday’s segment on Fox News’ The Five.

He also questioned whether that huge share of the population actually understands what happened, or whether they’ve absorbed a distorted version instead. I have to admit, I’m worried it’s the latter.”Do you think they all fully grasp the import of this event? Or have they been indoctrinated by academics or religious ideologies, or distracted by technology or entertainment?” he asked. In fact, he went further, wondering aloud, “Do they believe, like Hollywood would suggest, that the real danger is white privilege?”

Gutfeld compared the muddled present to his own childhood understanding of Pearl Harbor. “I always think about when I was a kid, 1970, learning about Pearl Harbor. It was 29 years prior. And yet it was so black and white,” he said. “‘What was Pearl Harbor?’ ‘The Japanese attacked us and we went to war.’ It was black and white.” The reality, he argued, is that no comparable clarity exists for 9/11, because the institutions that shape what kids learn have changed since 1970.

In other words, the woke left happened.

“We didn’t have a kind of an academic media complex that could reverse every narrative prioritizing Japanophobia over America’s security. We didn’t have grade school teachers pushing pronouns and condemning American imperialism in seventh grade,” Gutfeld said. “So today there is no black and white, unless, of course, you’re talking about race.”

Gutfeld went further still, arguing that jihad gets far less classroom attention than islamophobia, even as he framed islamophobia as a rational response to jihadist violence rather than the reverse. He pointed out how Islamism has effectively been folded into identity politics and treated as untouchable, warning that anyone who raises questions about intolerance from someone in power who happens to be Muslim risks being cast as the offender instead. “Islamists can brand you a racist while enjoying the life of a brutal, intolerant conqueror,” he said.

Fact Check: True.Gutfeld didn’t hide his skepticism about where all of this leaves the country. “I obviously am a very cynical person on this. I worry about that. I mean, I enjoy the unity every year, but I see what’s going on day to day and it doesn’t hearten me,” he said.

He closed on something more personal than political: concern for his own daughter. “I worry about where I’m gonna send my kid,” Gutfeld said. “I don’t want to give my kid away to somebody who’s going to be told this country deserved 9/11. I don’t want my kid hearing that, God forbid I’m not around at the time.” He added that he doubts today’s kids will ever get the plain, settled understanding of 9/11 that his own generation eventually reached about Pearl Harbor. “I think about that, like, what are we teaching them about this? I understand, Pearl Harbor, you know, do kids understand this? I don’t,” he said.

Twenty-five years removed from the attacks, nearly half the country alive today has no personal memory of that morning. Gutfeld isn’t wrong to wonder what they’re being taught instead.

Read more …

PCR hearts Tucker.

• Who Is Trying To Destroy The United States And The World? (Paul Craig Roberts)

Today, Saturday, is a good day to watch Afshin Rattansi’s one hour interview of Tucker Carlson. Carlson has come to my conclusion dating back years that the wars the Zionist neoconservatives, who have America at war with Russia in the interest of US hegemony and at war in the Middle East for the Zionist agenda of Greater Israel, have begun a conflict that is emerging as a world war that is the road to Armageddon. Trump promised to end these wars. Instead, the wars have expanded. Did Trump deceive his supporters, or is the President not the person really in charge?


Often I have explained that the President does not have the power that the public attributes to presidents–or that Trump thought he had–and thus events and policies diverge from the campaign promises. Carlson supports my point when he says that Trump is not in charge.

Who is in charge? Carlson doesn’t know, and I don’t either. On the surface the neoconservatives seem to be responsible for both wars. It is true that the war being conducted from Washington, using Ukraine as its proxy, is in keeping with the Wolfowitz doctrine that the principle goal of US foreign policy is to prevent the rise of any country that can serve as a constraint on US unilateralism. And it is true that the neoconservatives are tightly allied with Israel and support the Zionist agenda of Israeli expansion known as Greater Israel.

A question is whether the neoconservatives are in control or merely serve as the operatives of someone who is, such, as Carlson suggests, the US intelligence services and the military/security complex, the financial health of which is served by war. Is a focus on short-term profits leading to nuclear armageddon? These are not issues that the US media focuses on or permits to be discussed and debated. Therefore, those who are in charge are under no pressure of discovery. They are protected by an array of false narratives.

Carlson is intelligent, thoughtful, and his agenda is the well-being of America, which requires moral instead of immoral behavior and policies. Notice that RT refers to Carlson as a “conservative journalist.” Why is it “conservative” to stand for America and to ask who is really running the show? Everyone should be asking the questions that Carlson asks.

Read more …

There’s a video here, but (my part of) Europe is not allowed to watch it.

• We’re on The Brink of World War That Ends With Nuclear Weapons – Carlson (RT)

Conservative journalist Tucker Carlson has warned that the world is on the brink of a global conflict that could ultimately end with the use of nuclear weapons in an interview with Going Underground host Afshin Rattansi broadcast on RT on Saturday. Carlson argues that the US is already effectively at war with Russia through Ukraine and warns that further escalation risks a nuclear confrontation.


“The CIA is running the war. The US intelligence services are running the war out of Ukraine against Russia,” he says. “The United States is at war with Russia, and the only kind of conceivable end stage if this continues is a nuclear exchange in which everyone is killed.” The Ukraine conflict and the US-Israeli war on Iran “have merged into a global war,” he argued, warning that the confrontation now risks the very existence of the United States.

Carlson also accuses the Trump administration of abandoning the agenda it campaigned on, saying Trump and his advisers have “almost systematically betrayed the people who voted for him in 2024.” He describes the shift as “the greatest betrayal that I’m aware of in the history of American politics.” The interview also covers political censorship in the US, the rise of BRICS, China’s growing global influence, and the changing balance of power internationally.

Read more …

“They say intertwined because they can no longer function separately. Canada is economically dependent on proximal and economic subsidies from the United States.”

• Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick Discusses U.S-Canada Trade Conflict (CTH)_

Here’s the fact bomb that silences Canadians almost immediately when delivered. In December 2024 then Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, told President-elect Donald Trump that Canada could not comply with a renewed trade agreement based on reciprocity because:


(1) Canada had deindustrialized; their manufacturing was now “light” manufacturing and assembling of component goods made by others.

(2) Canada had legislated energy policy based on climate change, and high carbon emitting industrial production was no longer an option [coking coal burning etc.].

(3) The NATO military spending goal was too high for Canada to reach [they were 19th and it wasn’t a priority because the USA was the crutch].

(4) Internal provincial rules, restrictions and cross-border trade regulations did not align with a Canadian federal trade policy effort, and

(5) the political power of the ‘dairy cartel’ inside Canada tied the hands of Canadian trade representatives.

That was the gist of it. That’s why Canada cannot now or ever find a path to a U.S. reciprocal or balanced trade agreement. #1 and #2 is specifically why Canadian govt officials repeatedly use the word “intertwined.” They say intertwined because they can no longer function separately. Canada is economically dependent on proximal and economic subsidies from the United States.

That outline by Trudeau led Trump to say that Canada should then become a 51st state….. And, well, you know the rest. Someone in Canada should ask Trudeau about it. The former Prime Minister has no reason to deny it, and too many people were witness. Then, perhaps, Canadians will understand.

.

Historian and political Pundit Victor Davis Hanson gives his review of the current status. I would refute the point that VDH makes about Mark Carney “not knowing what he is doing” and the resulting chaos will come as a surprise.

VDH is well intentioned. However, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney knows exactly what he is doing. Carney’s antagonism is a feature of his commonwealth alignment with the European union, and understanding that takes you to a very dark place in this geopolitical dynamic .

Read more …

“His push to rebuild the Twin Towers — and the Freedom Tower design he never got credit for.”

• 25 Years After: Revisiting Trump’s Role as a Champion for New York (Matt Kane)

“This country is different today, and it’s going to be different than it ever was for many years to come.” –Donald Trump, Sept. 11, 2001


A lot has been made about the special occasions President Trump has presided over during this term: America 250, the FIFA World Cup, and the ensuing Summer Olympics coming to Los Angeles in 2028. However, another important, albeit more somber, event Trump will preside over is the 25th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. Any ordinary native New Yorker holding the office of president during this occasion would be a wholesome footnote.

But that it is Donald Trump — a man more synonymous with the fighting spirit of New York than any other, who played a key role in building its skyline and served as the voice for countless Americans and New Yorkers demanding their desires be heard about how to rebuild Ground Zero after 9/11 — is especially poetic. Trump was a symbol of hope, strength and resilience in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and in the years that followed.

In the days after Sept. 11, he not only sent crews to aid in the cleanup and recovery efforts at Ground Zero, but also personally appeared there on Sept. 13 — when it was still considered a great risk to do so given the uncertainty surrounding the threat of additional attacks, the falling debris and continuing fires at the site, and the health hazards that have now claimed the lives of more Fire De[artment of New York firefighters than the attacks themselves (343 on 9/11, more than 600 since) — as a sign of unity, support and appreciation for the job being done.

It would have been worthy of praise if all he did was make a generous financial contribution toward recovery efforts, as many other ultra-wealthy New Yorkers and Americans did. But putting himself potentially in harm’s way and immediately offering his vision for moving forward as a non-public official surely impacted first responders desperate for any morale boost available. In hindsight, it also foreshadowed the unshakable courage and resolve he would exhibit during assassination attempts against him years later as president.

While it was unimaginable for a long time — even to the present day for many — to imagine the New York City skyline without the Twin Towers, decisions about what would come next ultimately had to be made, presenting no shortage of strong opinions. Some — specifically family members who did not want something built over a graveyard of their deceased loved ones—felt rebuilding Ground Zero into a peaceful and quiet space was most appropriate, since thousands lay somewhere beneath the ground, never identified. An overwhelming majority, however, wanted the Towers rebuilt as a sign of national strength and resilience, believing a void in the skyline would signify that the terrorists had won.

Trump strongly shared the latter opinion, quickly stating his belief that rebuilding was an absolute necessity for both the city and country. But after the first design for the new One World Trade Center — the Freedom Tower — was decided on, Trump strongly criticized it as an “egghead design, an empty skeleton” and a “disgusting pile of junk” that was the “last thing we needed representing the World Trade Center.”

Not long after Trump’s critiques, the initial Freedom Tower rendering was ultimately scrapped. And while it is impossible to know how big a role they played, Trump was undeniably the most prominent voice in the public pressure campaign against it. He then became a vocal supporter of the “Twin Towers II” project, even advocating for the original Twin Towers to be rebuilt “a little bit taller” and “a lot stronger” by holding a press conference at Trump Tower that displayed models of a rebuilt World Trade Center complex, which also featured footprint memorials inspired by the base of the originals beneath the new-and-improved ones.

The city ultimately passed on the proposal, but there was great victory in discarding the original design. Any building was bound to upset the anti-rebuild crowd for very sound and understandable reasons. But the first rendering’s hideous, asymmetrical design paid such an awful tribute to the victims and first responders that it also angered the larger portion that wanted to rebuild, meaning virtually nobody would have been happy had it gone through.

Beauty and design are paramount in architecture, but in this instance quantity was most important symbolically. Two buildings came down — three including Building 7 — but only one was built back up — two including the rebuilt Building 7. Nonetheless, if only one tower was going to be built, the Freedom Tower ultimately erected was, and is, visually appealing. Perhaps that should come as no surprise, as it was initially proposed for another project years prior by none other than Donald Trump.

That’s right: in 1996, Trump proposed building a New York Stock Exchange Tower on undeveloped land along the East River. Early renderings of the building, which would have surpassed Chicago’s Sears Tower in height and stories to become the world’s tallest, show a nearly identical design to what would become the Freedom Tower. The initial mockup even eerily features the still-standing Twin Towers in the background.

So while the Trump-backed Twin Towers II were passed on, the hideous, Trump-opposed first Freedom Tower was — whether knowingly or not — discarded for a design first proposed by Trump years earlier, meaning he did have, despite this revelation being rarely if ever mentioned, an impact on the rebuilt World Trade Center.

Any differences of opinion about rebuilding were dwarfed by the immense unity that swept the nation. Twenty-five years later, measuring our nation’s patriotism is much more complex. A recent poll revealed striking differences across party lines compared to 25 years ago. In 2001, 90% of Republicans and 85% of Democrats considered themselves proud to be American. Today, 93% of Republicans do, while an astonishingly low 27% of Democrats do.

While the raw numbers — especially when eliminating fake and/or duplicate votes — greatly favor President Trump and his MAGA agenda, the ideological gap between his movement and the opposing one couldn’t be wider, making the 25-year memorial less than purely triumphant. On one hand, the Democrat party has borne witness to an alarming number of primary victories of late by socialist (communist) candidates who possess unabashed anti-American rhetoric.

Unbelievably, this is occurring largely in the same New York City that was led by America’s Mayor, Rudy Giuliani, and served as a testament to American resolve and patriotism after 9/11. Now, under Mayor Zohran Mamdani — who appointed as his Chief Counsel an attorney who previously represented a convicted al-Qaida member who was also the brother-in-law of a 9/11 hijacker, and who has claimed that Muslims are the true victims of a post-9/11 world due to discrimination — the city’s identity is unrecognizable.

In fact, Mamdani’s conduct has been so offensive that a petition urging him not to attend the 9/11 ceremonies has garnered more than one hundred thousand signatures. Concurrently, a growing number of congressional Democrats have voluntarily unmasked themselves as holding the same beliefs as Mamdani, all while the media has shamelessly furthered his Muslim victimhood lie.

But on the other hand, America is led by inarguably the most unapologetically pro-America president of all in Donald Trump, who remains relentless in his pursuit of defeating all that hinders the nation on its path to being made great again. In doing so, he serves as a powerful resistance to this wave of unabashed anti-Americanism enabled by an old-guard Democrat party that may not agree with the ideology at heart, but has allowed it to metastasize expeditiously. Because of Trump, there is immense hope that this and other instruments of anti-Americanism seeking to destroy our country will be defeated before they are given the chance.

On this 25th anniversary of Sept. 11, as we pray for the departed souls and their friends and families, may we also thank God that one of the gatekeepers who watched over New York on that dark Tuesday now watches over the nation at large. The man who, in his first term, signed the Never Forget the Heroes Act, which permanently authorized the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund and ensured compensation would continue for people suffering from 9/11-related illnesses and for families of people who died from those illnesses, without the fund repeatedly facing expiration.

President Trump has never forgotten, may we all never either.

Read more …

“Victor Davis Hanson has a new book out profiling the president, now undeniably a towering figure of history.”

• The Real-Life Epic of Donald Trump (Terry Scambray)

Odysseus endured many diversions and overcame mighty obstacles on his mythical return home. Likewise, Donald Trump’s return from political exile has the makings of myth — except in Donald Trump’s case, the myth is true. In The Counter Revolution: The Fall and Rise of Donald Trump and the MAGA Movement, Victor Davis Hanson, classicist, historian, and farmer, devotes his many gifts to explaining Donald Trump and his efforts to rescue America from the anti-constitutional, counter-productive nostrums of progressivism and the barbarous hand of Marxism.


As with Ronald Reagan, the media saw Trump as a political amateur — or to use a Trumpism, “fake news” portrayed him as such, one writer describing his famous ride down the escalator in Trump Tower as a slow descent into the “abyss of politics.” However, as Hanson writes, and it’s worth quoting at length,

Trump had originally made his money by making things — and he was constantly battling to do it. In the real estate jungle of Manhattan, that meant fighting year after year, with suspect politicos, self-interested community activists, passive-aggressive tabloid media, radical environmentalists, unyielding union bosses, unpredictable prosecutors and judges, ruthless business rivals, cutthroat regulators, and no-nonsense bankers. …

He was known for having sued more people and companies and in turn being sued by them — 3,500 cases in federal and state courts, with 1,900 as plaintiff and 1,450 as defendant — than any other prominent Manhattan businessman. Though many see Trump as overbearingly narcissistic, his confidence signals his belief that, to paraphrase Frank Sinatra, “if you can make it in New York, you can make it anywhere.”

“From this Hobbesian war of all against all,” as Hanson writes, Trump realized that as a maker, a builder, he necessarily depended on bankers, whom he admired. But he also understood “that they were distant from the raw urban elements — food, fuel, shelter, safety — that ultimately made a city or nation run.” Thus, he developed respect for the “muscular classes,” though not the sculptured gym-crafted muscular types, as Hanson has pointed out elsewhere, but muscular working men, whose biceps, however impressive, are often overshadowed by their waists.

So Trump bonded with producers and makers, like the Teamsters, whom he once told that he could have built with non-union labor, but he refused to. That was a political maneuver, for sure, but also a pragmatic one for a builder who recognizes that without the imprimatur of the Teamsters, in New York, nothing gets done.

From this perspective, Trump knew that blue-collar workers’ wages were eroding because of the import of foreign workers and the export of American factories, just as my working-man father knew this 50 years ago. Hoping to reverse both trends, President Trump began his round of reciprocal tariffs, which he has used to geopolitical advantage and to increase federal government revenues.

This was the beginning of Trump’s appeal to the middle class, though he always believed, as Hanson writes, “that working class whites might return to vote for a populist nationalist traditionalist who combined cultural conservatism and advocacy for high-paying jobs. So was born the MAGA base.” And though MAGA developed from the pitchfork part of the Republican party, “Trump’s earthiness,” as Hanson writes, gained more traction than Patrick Buchanan’s genre of populism.

Trump also aligned with an array of middle-class heroes, like Mike Tyson and pro wrestling champions. Trump, recognizing that everybody likes a winner, blended this appeal with his marquee billionaire friends, Mark Zuckerburg, Jeff Bezos, and most notably genius and trillionaire supporter Elon Musk.

The Counter Revolution is a handbook on the art of forging coalitions, of making deals, which is the essence of republican governance. Contrast this with, say, Machiavelli’s The Prince, which offers advice to an authoritarian controlling an elitist system, resembling America’s “experts,” who have gained more power in our government over the last 100 years.

These experts, “the technocracy,” are clearly shown, as Hanson puts it, by the “bureaucratic fiefdoms, the three million strong federal administrative state, indebted to the Democratic paradigm of more taxes for more government employees for more power over the citizenry.”

Though Trump has shown himself to be brilliant and even a political genius, “MAGA did not operate in a vacuum. For the New Jacobin Democrats,” as Hanson refers to them, are avatars of the “French revolutionary fanatics substituting lawfare, election interference, and weaponization of federal agencies for the guillotine,” all of which made them a less desirable alternative to Trump. In other words, rebounding from the electoral disaster of the McGovern candidacy, the Democrats swerved right and won with Bill Clinton.

But though winning is necessary for these Jacobins, it is, apparently, not sufficient; thus, they re-established the McGovern wing of the party with “the fresh faces of The Squad and Zohran Mamdani along with the shock troops of antifa, BLM et al — which made the once winning Clinton agenda seem not just reactionary but surreal,” as Hanson concludes.

Perhaps electing zombie Joe Biden president and then running cackling Kamala as the Democrat nominee in 2024 made the loony left think they could destroy the border, the penal system, and the buying power of Americans by spending $7 trillion and christening such spending with Orwellian names like “The Inflation Reduction Act.”

Even Larry Sommers, who sometimes stumbles onto inconvenient truths, wrote that Bidenomics caused “the massive inflation which, more than anything, helped cripple Biden’s presidency and fuel the Trump recovery.” After all, America “has a $37 trillion debt with $3 billion a day in interest payments,” as Hanson reminds readers. Nonetheless, government spending continues at a destructive pace, even under the Trump administration!

The left branded “minorities” who voted for Trump in 2024 as victims of the Marxist construct of “false consciousness.” But Trump appealed to the continuing upward economic mobility of Americans of African and Hispanic descent; thus, he saw that class has more voter appeal than ethnic solidarity has, that e pluribus unum trumped the Democrat party’s tribal appeal to “race” with slogans like “Black Lives Matter” and Sí se puede, “Yes, we can.” Minorities’ economic advancement is nothing new, as Thomas Sowell has established and I witnessed growing up in a mixed ethnic neighborhood.

“Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets,” Napoleon warned. Likewise, Hanson points to the “legacy media” as “Armies of Anti-Trumpers who were the most vitriolic of all the various ant-Trump entities.” And though this herd of independent thinkers has always been uncritically left-wing, its younger reporters are even more untrained in “traditional journalistic methods,” though they have certainly “absorbed a woke zeal.”

Read more …

Bit late now.

• CIA Director Releases 71 Presidential Daily Briefs Before and After 9/11 (CTH)

Today the CIA released an unprecedented 71 Presidential Daily Briefs given to the Executive Branch before and after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I would remind readers, in 2010 George W Bush’s campaign manager, aide and senior staff, Karl Rove, revealed [“Courage and Consequence“] that then CIA Director George Tenet had been trying for several weeks to get a personal meeting with President Bush to outline an intelligence concern about an international terror threat.


According to Rove, White House National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, had been blocking Tenet from meeting with President Bush. Director Tenet sent several requests using alternate channels to reach Bush. Eventually, in the late spring or early summer 2001, Tenet overcame the Rice block and was given time to brief President Bush.

CIA Director George Tenet then told President Bush the CIA had intercepted telephone “chatter” pointing to an al-Qaeda terrorist threat that somehow involved airlines. However, the details and the specifics of the threat were unknown. The only thing Tenet knew with certainty was that some type of plot was underway and airlines were involved.

George W Bush responded to Tenet by saying it appeared the CIA director was just trying to “cover his ass” in case something happened. Bush was angered at the vagueness of the warning and told Tenet to consider his ass covered, but essentially the information was useless without specifics.

The rest, as they say, is history. The matter did not surface again until after the 9/11/01 plot was carried out.

US President George W. Bush, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and CIA Director George Tenet meet in the Oval Office October 8, 2001


Read more …

It’s illegal, everybody knows about it, nothing happens.

• Sec. Mullin: Ilhan Omar Married Her Brother (Catherine Salgado)

One of the most explosive accusations against the Minnesota Democrat representative who says she represents Somalia’s interests is now confirmed.


It’s all in the family for Ilhan Omar and her brother, who got legally married so both of them could be in the United States of America. Their family has connections to genocide in Somaliland, with the father directly implicated in the slaughter, so it’s not exactly shocking that Ilhan and her siblings are implicated both in immigration fraud and in taxpayer funding fraud. Talk about a criminal family. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin finally confirmed the illegal marriage accusation in comments on the second night of the Republican midterm convention this week.

Benny Johnson was asking the secretary about the Omar case. “OK, well, what’s going to happen, Mr. Secretary?” Mullin answered, “Something’s going to happen. This an ongoing investigation, right? We know that she married her brother to try to bring him to the United States. We know he lives now in London. We feel that this may … there may be more to this, the whole family migration, and possibly some illegal activity for them to come the United States to begin with.” Therefore, the Trump administration has confirmed the incestuous legal marriage, but is still looking to see how many members of the family are implicated in immigration fraud.

Mullin went on, “Here’s what I want to make sure. If we actually move a case forward, it’s not a political case. It’s an actual case because they did things wrong. If you decided to work the law, lying on the information to get in the United States, … or because you were just wanting to seek a better life, but you didn’t tell us who you actually were, you lied about certain things, about your application; those things, there’s no expiration to that. If we can prove it, then you shouldn’t have been here in the first place.”

Mullin explained, evidently referring to the rampant fraud in the Minnesota Somali community, “It’s more than just her case, we’re looking at a lot of cases that are very similar to this, that we feel like they’re made that broad from the get-go. But when we move forward, it’s not political. It’s because you chose to break the nation’s laws.”

Referring back to his time in the United States Senate, Mullin added, “I don’t make the laws anymore. I’m in charge of enforcing laws, and I will not pick and choose which laws I’m going to enforce and which laws I’m not. I’m going to enforce all of them regardless if you’re Omar, or some other individual in the community, we’re going to enforce it equally.”

Republicans are often afraid to hold Democrats to account for breaking the law because they are so worried about looking partisan. It has allowed many a Democrat to get away with apparently illegal activities. Hopefully there will be accountability for Ilhan Omar, and that will break the cycle of inaction.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle September 12 2026

Sep 122026
 
 September 12, 2026  Posted by at 10:07 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , ,  25 Responses »


Roy Lichtenstein Woman With Flowered Hat 1963


• Trump: If I Had To Do Iran Again I Would Do Exactly As I Did (ZH)
• Trump Says He Wouldn’t Have Bombed Nuke-Armed Iran (Antiwar)
• Flight 93 Hero’s Dad Warns of Threats From Within (Tim O’Brien)
• 9/11 After a Quarter of a Century (Paul Craig Roberts)
• We Are in World War Xi (AmG)
• RFK Tells the Brutal Truth About Islam on Eve of 9/11 Anniversary (Salgado)
• What the AfD Really Wants From China (Zemánek)
• EU Urges Kiev To Mobilize Women – Moscow (RT)
• Light and Dark (James Howard Kunstler)
• The Secret to “Sleeping Well” (Turley)
• To Hell with the Digital Revolution & Its Bastard Child AI (Paul Craig Roberts)
• More Than 62,000 Arrested For Speech-Related Offenses In Britain (AmG)

 


 

https://twitter.com/JesseBWatters/status/2098213789699101046?s=20 https://twitter.com/GuntherEagleman/status/2098213757335789979?s=20 https://twitter.com/PutinVladimirv0/status/2098085347712246160?s=20

 


 


Very consistent. But people want it over before it began.

• Trump: If I Had To Do Iran Again I Would Do Exactly As I Did (ZH)

An interesting moment from Thursday night’s Lara Ingraham exclusive with President Trump…


Q: Any regrets about Iran?

Trump: I don’t believe in the word “regret.”


Trump even commented to Ingraham that he would make the same decisions all over again if he had a chance. The Fox show host had posed to the president, “If we hadn’t done Iran, you would be cruising to midterms victory right now” – and made reference to high gas prices. Trump replied: “supposing we were cruising, and all of a sudden Iran has a nuclear weapon. They would use it.”

Explaining that he doesn’t believe in “regrets” and that he has none especially about launching the Iran war, Trump asserted: “If I had it to do again, I would do exactly what I did.” He further argued that if Iran had a nuclear weapon, its leaders wouldn’t hesitate to “wipe out” Israel and the Middle East, and could go so far as to hit American cities. In a separate brief interview with the press this week, President Trump was asked about reports that Vice President Vance and Secretary State Marco Rubio warned him of the possibility that the Iran conflict could persist for the remainder of his term…


Trump vehemently denied that there’s so much as a chance of this, but didn’t actually explain how he intends to wind down the war in a way favorable to the US and White House policy. Or in other words, the American public still awaits words on a realistic exit strategy.On going into Iran “full” – Trump did underscore that the midterm elections makes this a bad idea. His administration has also repeatedly said there won’t be boots on the ground in Iran. Was this a quiet part out loud moment?


Among the most interesting parts of the interview came when he was asked about the young men in MAGA who are angry over the Iran war:

Q: What do you say to all the young men who supported you in 2024? Trump: They still do.

Q: Some of them are demoralized. Trump: I don’t think they’re demoralized. I think they’re very proud of the fact I’m not letting Iran have a nuclear weapon.


Trump earlier this week insisted of Iran’s position in the conflict, “I don’t know that they’re gonna be able to hold out,” Trump said. “But it’ll get settled after the elections. Or maybe sooner. But it’ll get settled right after the election.” The reference to it’ll “get settled” could have ominous meaning. It suggests Trump could ether escalate against Tehran dramatically, or else there could be the opposite: de-escalation. The world will find out within a couple months.

Read more …

“Trump Says If Iran Had a Nuclear Weapon, He Would Have Politely Called the Supreme Leader Instead of ‘Bombing the Crap Out of Him’”

Bomb bomb bomb;

bomb bomb Iran

• Trump Says He Wouldn’t Have Bombed Nuke-Armed Iran (Antiwar)

President Trump said at the Republican National Midterm Convention in Dallas, Texas, on Wednesday night that if Iran had a nuclear weapon, he would have politely called up the Supreme Leader instead of “bombing the crap” out of the country.


“If they had a nuclear weapon, I’d be calling the Supreme Leader, and I’d be saying, ‘Mr. Supreme Leader, how are you, sir? Is there anything we can do for you?’ as opposed to bombing the crap out of him.” Trump said, evoking cheers from the crowd. “It’s very simple. We cannot let them have a nuclear weapon,” the president added.


While Trump has continued to frame his war with Iran as necessary to prevent the country from obtaining nuclear weapons, there was no evidence either before the June 2025 war or the current conflict that Tehran had decided to pursue a bomb, and that was the consensus of US intelligence agencies at the beginning of Trump’s second term.

“We continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003, though pressure has probably built on him to do so,” read the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s annual threat assessment that was published in March 2025 and represented the assessment of the entire US intelligence community. Trump also spent the months following the June 2025 war, known as the 12-Day War, boasting that the US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities had “obliterated” its nuclear program.

During negotiations with the US before both wars, Iran made clear it was willing to reduce uranium enrichment back down to 3.67%, the level it agreed to under the 2015 nuclear deal, far below the 90% needed for weapons-grade. But as Joe Kent, the former director of the National Counterterrorism Center who resigned due to opposition to the Iran war, has pointed out, the administration adopted the Israeli position, conflating any nuclear enrichment for civilian energy purposes with a desire for a nuclear bomb.

Read more …

“Are you guys ready? Okay. Let’s roll.”

• Flight 93 Hero’s Dad Warns of Threats From Within (Tim O’Brien)

If you dig into the history of 9/11, inevitably one of the names that will rise to the surface pretty quickly is Todd Beamer. He was a passenger aboard ill-fated United Flight 93, which on that day crashed into an empty field in Shanksville, Pa. His story has been well-documented and told in print, on the web, in documentaries, and even in dramatic movies. He’s the one who said those famous words, “Let’s roll,” just prior to the passengers’ attempt to take back the aircraft from those radical Islamic hijackers.


To appreciate those words, it’s worth being reminded of the context. On Sept. 11, 2001, Beamer was a 32-year-old account manager who worked for the big tech company Oracle. He was also a Sunday school teacher and the father of two boys. His wife Lisa was pregnant with their third child. His United flight left late that day, departing Newark at 8:42 a.m. At about 9:28 a.m., four al-Qaeda hijackers stormed the plane’s cockpit somewhere over Ohio. They either killed or incapacitated the pilots and then took control.

They herded everyone else into the back of the plane. They lied and said they had a bomb, when all they really had were box cutters. Thanks to the plane’s late departure, the passengers had the chance to use onboard Airfones and cell phones to call loved ones and emergency dispatchers. That’s how they found out that other planes were being hijacked and that this was likely a suicide mission for the hijackers.

Beamer used an Airfone to place a call and ended up talking to GTE Airfone supervisor Lisa Jefferson. They talked for 13 minutes, while he told her in detail what was happening. He told her of the knives, the possible suicide vest on one hijacker, and that at least one passenger was already killed. He told Jefferson that he and a few other passengers had a plan to take back the plane. Those individuals were Tom Burnett, Jeremy Glick, and Mark Bingham. Beamer told Jefferson that they decided this plane would not hit its intended target.

In a very real and true moment that is now the stuff of 9/11 lore, Beamer asked Jefferson to pray with him. The two recited the Lord’s Prayer and Psalm 23, which starts with, “The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.” He told Jefferson to deliver a message to his wife and family that, if he did not survive, he wanted them to know he loved them. Jefferson has said that his last words on that call were clear and unmistakable. She heard him ask the passengers around him, “Are you guys ready? Okay. Let’s roll.”

Immediately after that, the passengers reportedly rushed the hijackers and tried to take back the plane, which then nosedived into that field in Somerset County at 10:03 a.m.


If you watched that clip, I’ll give you a moment to collect yourself. Yes, the events of 9/11 happened 25 years ago, and yes, 25 years ago was just yesterday, because the realness of what these people did on that day lives with us to this very moment. If you’re paying attention, none of this has faded. Too many have forgotten because they’ve distanced themselves from the event with time, with their own hectic lives, and a lack of curiosity. But any time you’re confronted with the events of that day, large and small, it will come rushing back.

Todd Beamer was a credit to his parents and to his upbringing. Someone you may not be familiar with is Beamer’s father, David. The Beamer family seems to have tried to maintain a low profile since 9/11, not hiding from the media, but seeking privacy when possible. This makes it highly unusual on the 25th anniversary of 9/11 that we’d be hearing from that Flight 93 hero’s dad, who, for clarity, I will refer to as David. He recently participated in a rare interview with Fox News.

He’s a Michigan voter, and he has serious concerns with the state of American politics right now, specifically the Senate race in Michigan, which pits former congressman and military veteran Mike Rogers against Abdul El-Sayed, an Islamic socialist. David Beamer believes that El-Sayed and his allies pose an existential threat to America. He told Fox News that voting in November will be akin to what his own son did to defend this country. He pointed to El-Sayed’s radical beliefs, which are better reflected in his BFF Hasan Piker’s words than his own. Piker famously said, “America deserved 9/11.”

David said, “These Democratic socialists are really more closely aligned with domestic terrorists than with our way of life.” He added, “I’m [going to] vote against those that want to destroy America. I’m [going to] vote for an American, a real Michigan man. His name happens to be Mike Rogers. I want everybody across all the platforms, Democrat, independent, Republican, vote American this time. Don’t vote for those who are set about to destroy our [freedoms].”

Some on the left have criticized David for what they’re framing as a father sullying the memory of his son by getting political. These hypocrites say this as they politicize everything they touch. Then David went where any intelligent leftist feared he would go. He drew parallels between the 9/11 radical Islamic attacks and this election season. He warned that just as America was unprepared for 9/11, it may be unprepared for what a socialist takeover of our government would look like this November. He said Americans can’t afford to be caught by surprise.

David made the point that today’s threats to America don’t come from some foreign country in every case, but rather, more and more of them come from within – within our borders and within our own political system and government. “Our enemies haven’t gone away,” David told Fox News. “They identify themselves as Democratic socialists. Their platform is one that aims to destroy all the values and the foundations of this country that we’ve enjoyed for hundreds of years.”

He punctuated his comments by reminding the cable news network’s audience that he plans to vote against the Islamic socialist and his allies. And he called on everyone who cares about America, just as his son Todd did on 9/11, to get out and vote.

David is correct in that this threat to America can be pushed back in the most non-violent of ways. You have a vote, and so do all the people around you. Make sure that everyone you know and care about, and who care about the future of America as we know it, get out and vote this November.

Let’s roll.

Read more …

Got to do some 9/11.

• 9/11 After a Quarter of a Century (Paul Craig Roberts)

The shock of September 11, 2001, was so great that, despite some initial skepticism, it was four or five years afterward that professional and scientific independent investigators presented evidence that the official narrative had serious problems. Over the years as the evidential problems for the official narratives grew in number and magnitude, I reported the findings. On many anniversaries of the event, I reminded readers that there was more evidence against the official narrative than there was evidence for it. I am not going to repeat all of this information today, as it would be book length. Instead, I am going to show you a different way to think about what is in some ways a defining event.


Before we begin, keep in mind that as early as 2006–long before evidence began accumulating that the official narrative was a lie–a Zogby Poll found that 42% of Americans believed the government concealed and refused to investigate important evidence. How could they believe otherwise with New York’s Chief Fire Marshall protesting that in violation of law the forensic evidence contained in the debris of the Twin Towers and Building 7 was carried away and shipped out of the country before it could be investigated?

How could they believe otherwise when the Cheney/Bush/Zionist Neoconservative administration refused for one year to even convene, not an investigation, but a politically selected committee to ratify the official narrative, especially when afterward the co-chairman of the committee and chief legal counsel wrote books saying the committee was set up to fail, that information was withheld from the committee and that the committee had considered criminal referrals?

Of course, the whore American media reported all doubts as conspiracy theory. Any skeptic of the official narrative was a “conspiracy theorist,” as an AI check using the official narrative as the data base will tell you today. If memory serves–I am not going to go back and read my years of columns and search my archives for the documents as my memory is problem-free–the first professional assault on the official 9/11 narrative was by a professor of physics at Brigham Young University. Being a physics professor, he understood force. He knew that the Twin Towers had been built according to code to withstand airliner hits.

He knew that the effect of an airliner hitting a massive structure of steel and concrete would be the disintegration of the airliner, not the disintegration of the building, just as the airliner that allegedly hit the Pentagon, a structure not built to withstand an airliner strike, disintegrated without a trace with little damage to the building. The official narrative did not explain why the airliner that allegedly hit the Pentagon disappeared into dust, but the airliner hits on the twin towers caused the massive buildings to disintegrate into dust.

The physics professor’s name was Steven E. Jones. He obtained dust from the twin towers, which existed in abundance. Being a scientist, he knew evidence was in the dust. He examined and tested the dust and found unequivocal evidence that the dust contained both reacted and unreacted nano-thermite, the substance used in controlled demolitions. In September 2006 a federally intimidated BYU administration placed Professor Jones, a tenured professor, on paid leave to investigate his controversial public claims. Think for a moment.

When have you ever heard of a professionally qualified professor placed on leave and investigated for reporting a finding? In my opinion based on my Washington and university experience, the BYU administration was told by the George W. Bush regime to shut down Professor Jones or lose federal funding. Professor Jones, if memory serves, realized that his career was over and was paid $850,000 to resign. Jones’ removal served as an indication of what the fate would be for any physicist who took exception to the official narrative.

Ask yourselves, why would a physics professor destroy his career by concocting a false report, indeed, a report that to this day has not been shown to be incorrect. Why would a mistake, if it was, be a suspension worthy of an investigation? Clearly the corrupt George W. Bush Zionist regime intended the shutdown of a truth-teller.

In 2009 Jones together with University of Copenhagen scientist Niels Harrit and other scientists again proved the presence of nano-thermite (“Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” Open Chemical Physics Journal, April 2009).

American science depends heavily on federal funding, and this was too hot for dependent scientists. In my opinion no physicist anywhere in the world is stupid enough to believe the official 9/11 story. What they do know is that to challenge it is a career-ending event as it was for Professor Jones. Therefore, with mortgages, car payments, children to educate they don’t jeopardize their career and family by endorsing studies that contradict the official narrative. The despicable Wikipedia still labels all factual findings by scientists “conspiracy theory.”

In 2006 architect Richard Gage realized five years after the event that the official narrative had serious problems. He organized the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Enormous information poured out that the official 9/11 narrative was impossible. The NIST fabricated explanation for Building 7 was discredited by a high school physics professor, who showed that the building collapsed at free fall acceleration, which can only be achieved by controlled demolition. The NIST fabrication was discredited again by structural and forensic engineers at the University of Alaska, apparently the only university in America willing to risk federal funding for the truth.

Washington and its whore media labeled the facts a “conspiracy theory” but failed to discredit the independent reports. If it were a conspiracy theory, the establishment would have supported an investigation, as that would have proven that it was a conspiracy theory. Instead the regime worked to prevent and to discredit investigation. The facts were the official narrative. Anything else was a conspiracy theory. The American whore media went along with the fiction.

Structurel architects and high rise engineers face the same problem as professors of physics. If they say what they know, they loose clients. Washington and the whore media have been very successful in turning expressions of truth into anti-Americanism. If you don’t go along with official narratives you are not only a tin hat conspiracy theorist, you are also an anti-American on the side of “Muslim terrorists,” and you lose your clients.

Today anyone who believes the official story of 9/11 is brainwashed. The stupidity of a large percentage of the American population serves to suppress truth. Washington has learned that a story that implants fear in the feeble-minded American population is a success.

We can expect more such instances.

Read more …

Not really… Nukes neutralize the ideas.

“The real architect of World War III isn’t Putin. It’s Xi Jinping—and Russia’s war in Ukraine may be giving Beijing exactly what it needs.”

• We Are in World War Xi (AmG)

As the Russo-Ukrainian war continues, Americans may blame Russian leader Vladimir Putin for starting “World War III.” It is correct that World War III has started, but its cause is the People’s Republic of China (PRC), not Russia.


The war did not start with Putin’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 or with the appeasement of Russia in the years before Putin’s foolish aggression. It started with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The CCP has been at war with the U.S. since coming to power in 1949 and has employed many fronts in this war to undermine America and the West. The CCP’s May 2019 declaration of “People’s War” against the U.S. was CCP leader Xi Jinping’s call for a maximal effort against America. Not coincidentally, the COVID-19 outbreak soon followed. The CCP lied about COVID’s origins, refused to share information with the world, and used Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the director-general of the World Health Organization (WHO), as its willing accomplice.

Another front is CCP election interference. President Trump has revealed the CCP’s interference in the 2020 U.S. presidential election in an effort to secure President Joe Biden’s victory. Biden’s open borders allowed many hundreds of thousands of military-age Chinese men into the United States—prepositioning a force to strike against the American people in their homeland. The sustained chemical warfare attack that is fentanyl is another avenue of attack, destroying American lives and families. The CCP’s success at buying American and European politicians and journalists to serve as its agents of influence is yet another, as is TikTok.

Putin is not the source of World War III. Putin is, in the scheme of World War III, a secondary player. It is Xi who is driving World War III. It seems that the common denominator for every manifestation of this global crisis, whether overt or covert, foreign or domestic, is that Xi Jinping and his CCP have either inspired or enabled them—or at least, stand to be the principal beneficiaries. Consequently, while some call this World War III, one might consider a more apt name to be “World War Xi.”

It was Xi who gave the green light to Putin to invade Ukraine when they met in early February 2022. Xi and Putin have met over 11 times since then, most recently in Bishkek, and on each occasion, Xi has evinced strong, public support for Putin’s war. While the Russo-Ukrainian war is not yet resolved—it has lasted longer than World War I—it already has a clear winner: the PRC. The PRC provides great assistance to Russia—diplomatic, economic, and “dual-use” military aid—all of which is important to sustain Russia’s war. Beijing is receiving a prodigious return that is helping Xi win World War III.

First, by sustaining the war, the PRC occupies the U.S. and so diverts attention from its aggressive acts and preparations for war over Taiwan, which might include attacks against the U.S. itself. The U.S. intelligence community and military have only so much bandwidth, and the conflicts in Iran, Ukraine, and elsewhere in the Middle East are filling it. In addition, U.S. stockpiles are drained by the conflict in Iran and aid to Ukraine, including Patriot, ATACMS, and other missiles, and 155mm artillery rounds, all of which reduce the ability of the U.S. military to fight a high-intensity war with the PRC. In turn, a reduced U.S. arsenal hurts U.S. conventional deterrence in key theaters, like the western Pacific and Taiwan.

Second, the war cements Putin’s dependence on the PRC. Putin is Xi’s myrmidon, the supplicant in the relationship. Truly, Putin is Xi’s useful idiot. Xi drafted Putin to serve in his anti-Western alliance, which costs Putin his autonomy. Xi’s ultimate ambition is to overthrow U.S. power and position in the world and shackle the world to the PRC’s tyrannical ambitions. Putin’s interest would have been better served by emerging as the tertius gaudens of the conflict between the U.S. and the PRC. Now that he has tied Russia’s interests to the PRC, he will walk the path Xi requires of him.

That requires Russia to accept diminished influence when Russia’s interests conflict with the PRC, such as in Central Asia, and to serve as an instrument of distraction for the U.S. and its NATO allies while China expands its military power and strategic ambitions. Putin must fear that once he has served his usefulness, Xi may overthrow him. Third, Putin also serves as a lightning rod, attracting the world’s animus and attention for his acts while Xi’s genocide in Xinjiang remains too often unremarked and in the background. The PRC’s preparations for war against Taiwan and its increasingly coercive measures against the Philippines also do not receive the attention they deserve.

Fourth, as a result of the Ukraine war, Xi has secured his northern flank. Russian conventional and nuclear military power is now a tool to be employed in conjunction with or apart from the PRC’s military—but to serve Beijing’s interests. The U.S. has a “multiple front” war problem with which it must contend.

Moreover, Xi has secured his western flank in Central Asia. The Central Asian states perceive Russia as a threat due to the invasion of Ukraine and see Moscow as the junior partner in the Sino-Russian relationship. For Xi, this is a remarkable occurrence at the same time that China is committing genocide against Kazakh, Kyrgyz, and Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang or East Turkistan. The PRC’s western flank is as secure as it has been in recent years. With two flanks secure and Xi’s ability to project power expanding, it is no surprise that Xi is aggressing on the PRC’s southern and eastern flanks.

The bottom line is that the Russo-Ukrainian war greatly benefits the PRC. As the PRC gains in military might, this hurts the ability of the U.S. to defend its national security interests elsewhere, including in the western Pacific. In turn, this weakens the ability of the U.S. to deter aggression against Taiwan, the Philippines, and other states, as well as the ability to fight a war with the PRC, should deterrence fail. The costs of the Russo-Ukrainian war are high in every respect. While Moscow may eke out a Pyrrhic victory, the true winner of the war is Beijing. The war continues because Xi wants it to, and his aid allows Putin to pursue his folly. =

Read more …

“He lauded Israel “as America’s most critical frontline ally in fighting the toxic ideology of Islamism..”

• RFK Tells the Brutal Truth About Islam on Eve of 9/11 Anniversary (Salgado)

Islam is in an existential war with Judeo-Christian civilization, Health and Human Services Sec. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. warned Americans on the eve of the 9/11 terrorist attack anniversary.


America stands for liberty, equality, freedom of religion, Biblical morality, civil rights, and meritocracy. Islam stands for theocratic tyranny, religiously motivated genocide, sexual perversion, slavery, and violence. Inevitably, there is a struggle between the two ideologies for global dominance. And there are countless Muslims both in the United States and around the world who want to see a second 9/11 — Democrat campaign surrogate Hasan Piker practically said as much. Kennedy’s warning at the Republican midterm convention is particularly timely as this September 11 is the 25th anniversary of the infamous al-Qaeda attacks.

“RFK Jr. isn’t hiding behind politically correct terms and he’s calling out Islam for what it is. A radical ideology waging war on America. And Democrats no longer care. Communists are merging with Islamists. The unholy alliance is anti-American and anti-West. No more pretending.::— Brigitte Gabriel (@ACTBrigitte) September 11, 2026

I cannot agree with Kennedy that the Democrat Party used to be honorable and patriotic, because the leadership of the party has always been anti-constitutional, racist, elitist, and pro-violence. But I do applaud Kennedy for being willing to state the truth about Islam, even if he did so in a mistaken context of attributing his own views to previous Democrat politicians.

Kennedy condemned purveyors of “human slavery and of ethnic religious genocide.” He lauded Israel “as America’s most critical frontline ally in fighting the toxic ideology of Islamism, which, by its own account, is waging an existential war against our country and against Western liberal democracy. It is an ideology that has subjugated, impoverished, and tyrannized, and tortured the people of Palestine,” apparently meaning Gaza, because “Palestine” does not exist as a nation or political jurisdiction, “and [tortured] the people of Iran.”

Furthermore, Kennedy cautioned, fundamentalist Muslims “openly promise to do the same to us.”Indeed, in the same city where the Twin Towers collapsed due to al-Qaeda hijackers on 9/11, a Muslim who prays for the death of the infidels is now the mayor. “NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani Attends Friday Prayers at Al Khoei Islamic Center in Queens – Linked to Alavi Foundation Cited by the DOJ as an Iranian Front; Imam Prays for the Mahdi to Kill the Infidels by His Sword https://t.co/xrRsIpalcH”— MEMRI (@MEMRIReports) February 23, 2026

It’s very important, as too many Republicans fall prey to antisemitic propaganda, to note that Kennedy praised Israel and highlighted the plight of the people of Iran, who are longing for freedom. The Persians who have fought their Islamic regime and watched their family members killed this year would fully agree with Kennedy’s assessment and his warning. The 9/11 attacks were not an anomaly; they were part of an ongoing and g lobal war.

Read more …

“The AfD is not asking Germany to choose between Washington and Beijing. It is asking Germany to choose itself..”

• What the AfD Really Wants From China (Zemánek)

For decades, German foreign policy rested on a simple assumption: Germany belonged politically to the West, and its relations with the rest of the world would be conducted largely within that framework. The AfD is challenging that assumption. ts approach to China is one of the clearest tells. Beijing is not treated as an ideological enemy, but neither is it embraced uncritically. Instead, China is seen as a sovereign great power, an indispensable economic partner, and one pole of an emerging multipolar world.


Germany, in the AfD’s view, should cooperate with Beijing where German interests demand it, defend itself where necessary, and refuse to turn China policy into an extension of either American strategy or European ideological politics. For Germany, and therefore for Europe, that could become a genuinely transformative foreign-policy doctrine.

From cautious engagement to strategic realism
The AfD’s 2021 foreign-policy program already described China’s Belt and Road Initiative as a “century project” and called for Germany to participate actively, including by developing complementary connections from West to East. The idea was that if China was building the infrastructure connecting Eurasia, Germany should take advantage of it and represent its interests, not stand on the sidelines and complain about it.

By 2023, the position had become more explicitly geopolitical. When the German government published its China Strategy, AfD senior member Petr Bystron attacked it as an attempt to import American geopolitical confrontation into German foreign policy.

Then came the AfD’s first parliamentary delegation to China. In June 2023, Alice Weidel, Peter Felser and Bystron travelled to Shanghai and Beijing. The delegation’s conclusion was unequivocal: China had become too important for Germany to keep pretending that confrontation was a viable strategy. Felser rejected the idea of both “de-risking” and decoupling, promoted by other EU officials, and argued that German trade with China was simply too important to sacrifice to geopolitical fashion.

The 2025 federal election program adopted at Riesa consolidated this direction. China is treated as a major economic partner, while Germany is urged to protect its own technological and security interests. The party continues to support exploiting opportunities associated with the Belt and Road Initiative while rejecting the idea that Germany should subsidize a country that is already a major economic power.

No more moral foreign policy
Perhaps the deepest difference between the AfD and Germany’s political establishment is not actually about China. It is about what foreign policy is for.mThe AfD’s approach is realpolitik in the German interest, rather than moralpolitik. It explicitly endorses non-interference in the internal affairs of other states and rejects what it calls presumptuous lecturing and destabilizing intervention.

The AfD rejects making human-rights criticism the organizing principle of German-China relations. This does not require pretending that every Chinese policy is admirable. It does, however, mean refusing to make Germany’s relationship with a major sovereign power conditional on Berlin’s approval of its domestic political system. The AfD has argued that Western governments should stop behaving as if they were entitled to act as the world’s political schoolmasters. For Beijing, this is obviously a more comfortable basis for relations than the moralized language of mainstream Western European China policy.

The AfD does not consider all Chinese policies beyond criticism. It has criticized Chinese economic practices, strategic dependencies, technology transfers and the potential consequences of excessive state control over digital infrastructure and society. The party’s position is not ‘China is always right.’ It is ‘China is sovereign. Germany is sovereign. Let us deal with one another as sovereign powers.’

Partnership without dependence
The party wants more economic engagement with China while simultaneously warning Germany against excessive dependence on China. Felser, now chairman of the German-Chinese Parliamentary Group in the Bundestag, has repeatedly emphasized both sides of the equation. In February 2026, he described China as “by no means our enemy” but an “important partner,” while insisting that Germany must protect its “Mittelstand” and establish fair conditions for competition.

In March, he criticized the enormous dependence on China in strategic technologies and raw materials, contrasting German weakness with China’s systematic drive toward technological self-sufficiency. And in July, Felser warned against a trade war with China. Importantly, he did not deny the existence of Chinese dumping, “overcapacity” or competitive distortions. His argument was that tariffs are not an adequate substitute for negotiation.

By September, Felser went further: strategic dependence on China should be reduced not through decoupling, but by making Germany stronger – with lower taxes, less bureaucracy, and cheaper energy. China is not the problem; German weakness is. Germany should not become dependent on China. But neither should it destroy valuable relationships merely to demonstrate would-be ideological purity or geopolitical loyalty to another power.

The Weidel factor
Perhaps no one embodies this approach more naturally than Alice Weidel. The AfD co-leader’s knowledge of China doesn’t come exclusively from briefing papers. She studied in China, speaks Mandarin and has professional experience there. Her familiarity with the Chinese economy is unusual among senior European politicians.

That background provides the AfD with a senior political figure who approaches China neither as an exotic threat nor as a distant ideological abstraction, but as a country she has actually experienced – a rare trait in modern Western European politicians.

For a future German government, that kind of familiarity could be an asset, because China is not going away, and neither is Germany’s industrial dependence on the Chinese market. Pretending otherwise will not make the problem disappear.

[..] The stakes are larger than the AfD itself. Germany is the economic center of the European Union. If Berlin changes its understanding of China, the consequences will not stop at the German border.

A Germany that pursued pragmatic relations with Beijing, Moscow and Washington simultaneously would challenge the strategic assumptions that have governed Europe for decades.

A Germany that rejected automatic economic decoupling from China could force Europe to reconsider whether confrontation is really in its economic interest.

A Germany that put national sovereignty and multipolarity at the center of its foreign policy could fundamentally alter the balance between Berlin, Brussels and Washington.

The AfD’s policy is not about choosing China over America. It is about rejecting the idea that Germany must choose at all. It’s not a timid or ambiguous stance – on the contrary, it is unapologetically national, realist and multipolar.

And if the AfD eventually governs Germany, it may prove to be one of the most consequential political changes Europe has experienced in generations. A sovereign Germany engaging China on its own terms could be the beginning of a Europe that finally understands the world as it is – not as the liberal utopians once wished it to remain.

Read more …

EU demands that.

• EU Urges Kiev To Mobilize Women – Moscow (RT)

Brussels believes the move is needed to address the Ukrainian military’s severe manpower shortage, according to Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service Brussels is encouraging Kiev to start mobilizing women amid chronic manpower shortages and has demanded that Ukraine immediately make “a political decision” on the matter, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) has said.


Kiev launched its mobilization campaign soon after the conflict with Russia escalated in February 2022. Amid mounting frontline losses and desertions, the mobilization drive has grown increasingly violent. Recruitment officers have repeatedly been filmed chasing, beating, and forcibly detaining reluctant conscripts before bundling them into vehicles in what in Ukraine has become known as “basification.”

EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, described the idea of expanding the campaign to include women as “a step in the right direction” at a recent informal EU foreign ministers’ meeting, the SVR said on Thursday, citing information it had obtained. She allegedly warned that Kiev could soon run out of manpower due to a growing shortage of men fit for military service and said that Ukraine should use Israel as a “model to follow.”

The mobilization of women has long been a subject of debate in Ukraine. MP Mariana Bezuglaya argued as early as 2024 that it was time Kiev started targeting women to meet its conscription quota. Last year, the Ukrainian presidential administration’s deputy head, Brigadier General Pavel Palisa, also voiced support for mandatory conscription of women. According to the SVR, Brussels demanded that Kiev immediately “move from words to action” and make a formal decision to start mobilizing women. Under current Ukrainian law, men aged 25 to 60 are subject to mobilization, while those aged 23 to 60 are generally barred from leaving the country. Women can serve voluntarily.

Kiev’s brutal mobilization campaign has encountered large-scale draft-dodging and desertion. According to Euronews, around 1.15 million fighting-age Ukrainian men had ended up in the EU as of summer 2026, despite the ban on travelling abroad. According to the SVR, up to 5.6 million Ukrainians are currently residing in various European nations, with women accounting for 43.4% of them. Many men have proven ready to risk their lives to flee the country illegally through forests, rivers, and mountainous terrain.

In February, the head of the Ukrainian border agency, Andrey Demchenko, reported that over 70 apparent draft dodgers had died since 2022, most while trying to cross the Tisza River along Ukraine’s border with Hungary and Romania. Brussels has reportedly urged EU governments to devise legal mechanisms for sending back Ukrainian refugees residing in the bloc, the Russian intelligence service said, adding that the European Commission sees them as a reason behind the “rise of far-right sentiment” in countries such as Germany or Poland.

Some Western officials have also voiced support for the mobilization of Ukrainian women. Last year, former British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace said that Vladimir Zelensky should have launched a truly mass mobilization and conscripted all men and women, without sparing the younger generation. “Zelensky took a view that he was going to preserve the 18 to 28-year-olds, so it’s not a mass conscription,” Wallace said at the time, adding that the Ukrainian leader should have mobilized everyone and “asked Europe to train them because that is not a hard ask.”

Ben Hodges, a former top commander of US forces in Europe, argued earlier that Kiev should consider both drafting women and lowering the mobilization age to 18. “I also think that there is enough work for women in the army,” he stated.Moscow has repeatedly slammed Ukraine’s NATO backers as pushing the nation into a war “to the last Ukrainian,” describing the conflict as a Western proxy war against Russia fought through Ukraine.

Read more …

“It’s astonishing that anything exists.” — Ludwig Wittgenstein

• Light and Dark (James Howard Kunstler)


Joe DiGenova
Is this a week to drain our souls, or what? Yesterday, the memory of Charlie Kirk, a decent young man known for acting nobly in an ignoble era, cut down (it is alleged in court) by a pathetic product of Woke cultism — the trans avenging angel, avatar of our national mental illness. And today, the memory of 9/11, for which no alt-theory or engineering lecture can obviate the lonely arc of those little bodies free-falling out of the flaming towers into nothingness.


So, we move on because there is nothing else you can do, really. . . sad, furious, or what. . . and then do what you can to fix this joint. If this was a house in a storm, you’d be hearing the joists groan and the rafters squeak as they torque out of true, like just before the whole shootin’ match goes down. Meanwhile, news is out that Joe DiGenova, the former DC federal attorney supervising the grand jury action in Florida concerning RussiaGate and associated treasons, is out. He said he “resigned.” That’s usually a cover. Somebody gave him the boot, and it was either Todd Blanche or President Trump. Cuz, why? I suppose we’ll find out.

Trollish insinuations are flying in the usual channels that he couldn’t get enough evidence to bring any proper cases, but I don’t believe that for a horse-face Hochul’s New York minute, nor that Mr. DiGenova actually said anything like that. Anyway, at least twenty million civilians ‘out there’ have been following this constitutional death dance closely for years. We know the names, the acts, the memos, the emails, the money trails, the dots and the receipts by heart. Many can even recite long legal memoranda on the likes of John Brennan, Adam Schiff, Jim Comey, Hillary, Strzok, Page, blah blah, dates, times, document numbers.

Joe DiGenova is old, others say. Not a good organizer, turns out. . . not a good team leader. . . things like that. Well, maybe his force of personality or renowned avidity to correct epic insults to the nation concealed all that. Anyway, he was brought in to replace a federal attorney name of Maria Medetis Long, and I bet none of you even know her name. She was on the case down there in Florida during Pam Bondi’s unfortunate commission, too blah even to go down in infamy. To the casual observer, the whole wicked business begins to look like a Chinese fire drill.

Or possibly a circle-jerk. And, of course, everybody is wondering: what’s the blast radius on this one? Can the DOJ’s Southern District of Florida recover some kind of equipoise and carry on and usher this pretty large troupe of scoundrels into courts of law? Or is folding like a Broadway tryout in New Haven? Does it now all get sucked into some vortex of lost causes? And wouldn’t that be demoralizing?

My guess: these acts against the country and its people are too grave, too important, to just go away, and won’t go away. What the diGenova fumble seems to point to is that persons and parties behind that treason — and you might suppose I’m thinking: the Intel (so-called) “community” and its many-footed ancillaries — are both desperate and powerful enough to try to derail the process. Just imagine how many retired Intel rogues are out there after seventy-plus years of, say, the CIA alone. Must be a lot of them, imcluding the fifty-one ex-Intel bigshots who signed the Hunter Biden laptop public letter in 2020 to queer the election.

You’ve got to wonder whether the agency that John Ratcliffe is supposedly in charge of has an equally large shadow org of these people, perhaps operating under the likes of one ex-CIA honcho John Brennan. And then you have to wonder what machinery of government they’ve still got their mitts on? Or maybe they just put the word out that pursuing any just resolution of the traitorous trips laid on America by them could be bad for anyone’s health. In any case, I don’t hesitate to point out that the legions of ex-spooks and their bag-men all have names and records and. . . well. . . apply a little Anthropic hocus-pocus. . . we’ll know where you live and what you had for breakfast before the ten a.m. break.

What I’m getting at — and I regret even having to affect coyness — is that the departure of Joe diGenova could signify some Battle of the Titans, a civil war not on the ground between plain citizens too bamboozled by sexual hysteria to put up a fight, but between the general officer ranks of two opposing elite dominions, the legitimate and the shadow, the light and the dark.

The action won’t stay backstage for long. Barbarians really are at the gate, and that gate is the midterm election. America has gone so crazy that it doesn’t seem to even recognize how crazy many of the candidates for high office are. The shadow dominion appears to be behind them, too: Telarico, el-Sayed, Peggy Flanagan, Becerra, Hochul. . . Lord have mercy! These are not just not-normal people. They are outright sickies, working hard to wreck the country.

Well, Labor Day is gone and the blandishments of summer with it. Time to stop sulking. All hands on deck. The bell has rung.

Read more …

I haven’t paid any attention to the Lindsay Clancy thing, but here it is.

• The Secret to “Sleeping Well” (Turley)

I was surprised to hear on a flight this week that Lindsay Clancy’s defense counsel, Kevin Reddington, had unleashed a torrent of criticism of my commentary on the trial. In the interview with Fox News reporter Bryan Llenas, Reddington even suggested that we meet and debate these issues. I wanted to briefly respond to Reddington’s criticisms.


I actually praised Reddington’s handling through the end of the trial, until I felt he blew the summation to the jury. I was also critical of his motions to substitute a holdout juror with an alternate as running against the overwhelming authority in the area. However, what triggered Reddington was not my commentary on his trial performance, but what he did outside of the courthouse when he attacked the holdout juror. It was a repugnant and unprofessional venting by counsel who should be reaffirming the right of every juror to stand with their convictions against not just the other jurors but the world.

Reddington responded to my characterization of his conduct in front of the courthouse as “reprehensible” by calling my criticism reprehensible and adding, “maybe Jonathan Turley should check out the record before he makes his accusations.”

The “record” supporting this criticism is, in fact, his self-aggrandizing performance outside of the courthouse when he first said that the hung jury was “no time to gloat” and then gloated about how he “crushed” the prosecution in securing an 11-1 result. Yet, my objection was not to chest-thumping. It was a tad ungracious but unfortunately not entirely uncommon. Rather, it was the targeting of the holdout that left me floored as a fellow criminal defense lawyer.

Reddington had previously lit up the courtroom (which was being aired nationally) with his attacks on the juror. Reddington only knew that the other jurors were unhappy with the juror and said that he refused to follow the law. That is a common complaint against a holdout juror. This case turned on the credibility of the defendant and almost visceral reactions to a case where three innocent children were strangled by their mother, who planned the killings by sending her husband on errands.

I was mildly critical of the courtroom attacks, but I give leeway to a defense counsel who is fighting zealously for his client in seeking an acquittal. It was taking that rage outside the courthouse that crossed the line for me. Reddington slammed into the juror who was already identified as one of just three males on the jury. He knew the juror’s name would likely be disclosed in time, given the anger over the trial’s outcome.

We clearly disagree on what lawyers are expected to do in high-profile cases. This is not what I teach my students about the professional standards that govern our conduct as officers of the court. Most of those expectations are not directly enforced by bar or court proceedings. Rather, much of what we do is the result of self-regulation; seeking to reinforce the noble ideals of our profession.

Instead of reminding people that our system is based on this core belief in the right of any citizen to stand alone against the majority, Reddington shredded the juror as presumptively anti-disability and akin to a racist on the jury. In front of the cameras, he declared, “I hope that guy can sleep well at night.”

Reddington knew that he was playing to the mob. District Attorney Tim Cruz had just been heckled on the steps by women who protested throughout the trial in favor of acquittal of Clancy, with one yelling how Cruz “only cares about the three children. What about the Mom?”

Frankly, in the aftermath of the trial, the two things that surprised me most were not the verdict, but the absence of an immediate apology from Reddington for his gratuitous attack on this juror and the failure of Judge William Sullivan to publicly rebuke him for his comments.

While our disagreement focuses on the attack on the juror, Reddington returned to his claim that what this juror did was itself unethical and contemptible. This juror was not convinced by his arguments, but Reddington suggests that no reasonable juror could have reached such a view despite many in this country who saw his client as a troubled murderer, but a murderer nonetheless.

There was a good-faith basis for taking that view even if most people would likely see Clancy as not responsible by reason of insanity. The standard is not whether Clancy was medically ill. She was clearly a deeply disturbed individual who failed to receive adequate mental health treatment. However, you can be suicidal and mentally ill and still appreciate the gravity of your actions.

The defense position was not unassailable. The long list of medications ignored the fact that only a couple of those prescriptions would likely contribute to psychosis and it was not clear how many pills Clancy actually took. She also had a fairly unusual case of postpartum psychosis in terms of the passage of time and said that she first heard a commanding male voice for the first time just before she killed her children.

Most importantly, Clancy took steps that showed planning and control of her actions, including researching how long it would take her misdirected husband to return. She spoke with him on the telephone while she was carrying out the plan and kept him in the dark about her intent to kill their children.

Would that erase reasonable doubt in the minds of most jurors? Probably not. As I stated before the trial, the chances of getting a unanimous verdict in this type of case are slim. This is a visceral case, which is why I was not surprised that the jury asked only to see a couple of pieces of evidence. The views of most people were baked into this trial before it began, and frankly, that may have been true for some of the jurors.

Reddington has every reason to exploit those feelings and play to doubts among the jurors. What he did not have license to do was target and ostracize the one holdout juror. Rather than taking the high ground, he immediately ran for the lowest common denominator among a nation of rage addicts.

Yes, that is indeed reprehensible. To paraphrase Mr. Reddington, it is the type of thing that would keep most of us up at night.

Read more …

An age thing?

• To Hell with the Digital Revolution & Its Bastard Child AI (Paul Craig Roberts)

It has been pointed out that human interaction has been replaced by an app, a code, a portal that a large percentage of the population finds frustrating and inconvenient, especially for older people who did not grow up with the isolating and often difficult to use technology. The people who crammed this technology down our throats in order that they could make more money praise the “innovation.” But in fact it is a technology that isolates people and takes control away from them.


And brings failure. Not a week passes, and sometimes not a day, that I don’t experience the time-consuming failure of the digital systems to work. Why they fail so often I don’t know. Perhaps they are poorly thought out and will improve with time. Perhaps the instability in digital systems is due to the insecurity of the Internet, which requires more and more layers of security hoops to jump through in order to make a connection. One result is security system incompatibilities that result in dysfunction. Perhaps use is rising faster than the systems can accommodate.

I think the only reason there has not been a generalized breakdown is that there are some elements left of the analogue system that, with effort, can still be contacted to bypass or correct the dysfunctioning digital system. I just had another bad experience with “smart” people-free systems. I received an email telling me to confirm and do an early checkin online for an upcoming medical telephone appointment. Now you can do an annual checkup without having to see a doctor. I began the process and immediately encountered a problem. I was asked to confirm my telephone number. It was incorrect from three years ago.

I entered the correct number, and the red box appeared: “This is not the number we have on file. Please enter a correct number.” I had entered the correct number as requested in the update, but as far as the AI system was concerned the correct number was the old number. I puzzled why an old number was in the system as I have twice been in person in the office providing all the latest information and have even had telephone calls from the medical practice on the new number that AI tells me is not on file.

So I picked up my cell phone, which sometimes works, and called. I only had to wait 3 minutes for a human instead of being subjected to a callback within 48-hours, and in 2 more minutes the human had fixed the problem. I wondered how much the medical practice had paid for a digital system that did not work and was probably causing its patients stress-induced heart attacks.

I am convinced that the digital revolution and the AI it spawned will fail, because it will be overwhelmed by complexity. Moreover, once the quantum computers are up and running there will be no such thing as security. So bright boys will have institutionalized an insecure and dysfunctional system, a system whose achievement will have been to further dehumanize an already dehumanized society and impose massive costs for resurrecting the foolishly discarded analogue system which worked and did not dehumanize us.

When the digital system fails, who will there be with the skills and intelligence to rebuild the analogue system that worked? Will there even be a workforce available? The products of AI education are not capable of operating in an analogue system that relies on human ability. AI will have raised generations of illiterates who cannot read, write, do math and who have never learned to think. In the 1950s Mad comic book parodied our present time. AI operated everything, and one day the machine broke and no one knew how to fix it. Amazing that a comic book editor three-quarters of a century ago had more sense than the multi-billionaire architects of AI today.

Read more …

Why so much worse there?

• More Than 62,000 Arrested For Speech-Related Offenses In Britain (AmG)

More than 62,000 people were arrested in Britain for communications offenses over a five-year period, according to a new civil liberties report warning that the country’s increasingly broad speech restrictions are having a chilling effect on free expression. Big Brother Watch found that 62,199 people were arrested between 2021 and 2025, amounting to roughly 34 arrests per day. At least 18,500 people were charged and 12,292 were convicted, according to the organization.


The findings were based on Freedom of Information requests to police forces across the United Kingdom. Big Brother Watch said the actual number of arrests could be higher because some forces did not provide complete data. The report examined enforcement of communications laws that can cover threatening or grossly offensive messages and other online content. Big Brother Watch argues that broadly written statutes have resulted in people being investigated or arrested over controversial social media posts, jokes and other forms of expression.

The group also found stark geographical differences in enforcement. Cumbria Constabulary recorded about 25.7 arrests per 10,000 residents over five years, compared with just 1.9 in neighboring Northumbria.Big Brother Watch described the disparity as a “postcode lottery” that raises concerns about whether speech laws are being enforced consistently. The report follows growing scrutiny of Britain’s Online Safety Act, which imposes extensive content and child-safety requirements on internet platforms. Big Brother Watch says the law has encouraged platforms to restrict lawful material and require age verification for some online content.

Silkie Carlo, director of Big Brother Watch, called for an independent review of Britain’s speech laws and police practices. “Thousands of people are being arrested for controversial speech, online jokes and non-violent protest,” Carlo said. “Enough is enough.” The organization argues the figures demonstrate that Britain’s approach to policing speech needs significant reform, particularly when arrests do not ultimately result in criminal charges. Big Brother Watch is now calling on the government to conduct a national review of laws affecting freedom of expression and to reconsider police training on speech-related offenses.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle September 8 2026

Sep 082026
 
 September 8, 2026  Posted by at 10:15 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , ,  34 Responses »


Hokusai VIews of Mount Fuji: Ejiri in Suruga Province 1831


• USS Abraham Lincoln Returning Home After Being “Sunk” Three Times By Iran (ZH)
• AfD and the Most Dangerous Man in Germany (Charlie Martin)
• AfD’s Historic Win Shocks German Political Establishment (ZH)
• Happy Labor Day (CTH)
• Ukraine Cannot Be Settled Like A Business Deal ( Lukyanov)
• British Patriots Clash with Police as NGO Boats Arrive with Migrants (CTH)
• Democrats Have A Midterm Secret They Don’t Want Voters To See (Margolis)
• Good Faith v. Bad Faith (James Howard Kunstler)
• President Trump Lengthy Interview With U.K GB News (CTH)
• Sunday Fights: Energy Secretary Chris Wright vs CBS Margaret Brennan (CTH)
• When “Twelve Angry Men” Becomes One Angry Man (Turley)

 


 

https://twitter.com/AWills1995/status/2096628133902360658?s=20 https://twitter.com/RippleXrpie/status/2096580990772687048?s=20 https://twitter.com/MAGAVoice/status/2097053220053176816?s=20

 


 


How many other stories are being presented this way?

• USS Abraham Lincoln Returning Home After Being “Sunk” Three Times By Iran (ZH)

In yet another example of Iranian social media claims not matching up with reality, the nuclear powered Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln is returning home after a 286 day deployment and 5 days of rest at port in Thailand. The ship was untouched by any signs of combat, despite the IRGC claiming on at least three separate occasions that they had sunk the mighty vessel with drones and missile strikes.


Iranian aligned accounts even spread AI videos and video game clips of a ship sinking, arguing that the clips showed the Abraham Lincoln. Left wing commentators celebrated the news, only to scrub their posts after it was revealed that the information was fake.

Despite resounding evidence to the contrary, many conspiracy advocates asserted that the Lincoln had been hit and the US government was “covering it up.” This also turned out to be nonsense after the carrier arrived at Laem Chabang Port in Thailand for rest and cleaning.

The narrative then shifted, with people claiming that the Lincoln “looked damaged” and disheveled, which proved they were right about Iran hitting the vessel. In reality, the carrier had normal rust and residue caused by months at sea.

The posts exposed an embarrassing lack of basic knowledge when it comes to natural wear from sea water on naval ships facing long deployments.

https://twitter.com/SprinterPress/status/2095241132477460759?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2095241132477460759%7Ctwgr%5Ee579b198696ecbdcef99c7c185499aa0d8bed013%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fuss-abraham-lincoln-returning-home-after-being-sunk-three-times-iran

The ship was cleaned at port with no signs of damage from attack. It has now left Thailand on a return trip to the US and the Naval Air Station North Island in Coronado (San Diego).

The carrier and all its sailors are accounted for. The return of the USS Abraham Lincoln highlights an incessant disinformation campaign by Iran and Iran supporters, flooding social media with false claims in an effort to win the war in the theater of public opinion. On the ground, the vast majority of supposed IRGC successes have proven to be fake.

The Iran War and the war in Ukraine have become case studies for a new era of digital warfare. Substantial efforts are being made to “play the algorithms” and manipulate consensus. Iran, perhaps more than any government so far, has relied heavily on digital guerrilla tactics as a way to demoralize US operations. They have, of course, received extensive help from sources in the west.

Whether or not one agrees with the reasons behind the war, it is clear that propaganda alone is not going to lead to victory. Tangible realities matter and Iran is being hit with those tangibles in the form of an inflation crisis, import/export crisis and fuel shortage crisis and foreign ships passing more freely through the Strait of Hormuz.

The lesson here is simple: Online discourse is rarely a reflection of the truth. All one has to do is wait a few months for the fog of war to clear and the majority of false claims will melt away.

Read more …

Is Merz the Most Dangerous Man?

• AfD and the Most Dangerous Man in Germany (Charlie Martin)

Ulrich Siegmund, the head of the party in Saxony-Anhalt, himself received 49% of the vote in his district. The German political press is not happy. Der Spiegel — sort of Germany’s Time — ran a cover story on August 14 calling him “the most dangerous man in Germany.”

https://twitter.com/derspiegel/status/2087860828661797235?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2087860828661797235%7Ctwgr%5E99e09b2cc5d6391fe37f6812817fe01ea51dd91c%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpjmedia.com%2Fcharlie-martin%2F2026%2F09%2F07%2Fafd-and-the-most-dangerous-man-in-germany-n4956970


The German press reaction was just short of panic. Tagesschau, the German news program, headlined its story “AfD heads see a clear government mandate.” Die Zeit said, “AfD wins state election in Saxony-Anhalt, but failed to win an absolute majority.” Siegmund took the seat from Thomas Staudt of the CDU (Christlich Demokratische Union). The CDU is the main center-right party — where “center-right” is a little to the left of the American Democratic Party.

Siegmund was just one race, but the CDU suffered a real electoral bloodbath. The head of the state party, Sven Schulze, lost his seat to AfD’s Christian Mertens. German voters get two votes on the same ballot: one for a person in their district and one for a party. The district winner takes that local seat; the party vote decides how many seats the party gets overall, and the remaining seats are filled from a ranked party list published before the election, so Schulze will probably still have a seat from the party list.

Overall, CDU — which had control of the state — lost 41 seats. It won 0 district seats, so it fell from 40 to 15. The CDU can only retain control of the state’s legislature if it can form a coalition with every other party that won seats. That includes a new party, the BSW (Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht), which split from the left over migration and NATO/Ukraine skepticism. The FDP (Freie Demokratische Partei) — a classical liberal party, not what we call “liberal” — got no seats at all. This was a major defeat, as FDP has been part of the CDU-SPD-FDP coalition that had governed until the election.

N-tv, a private news network sort of like Germany’s CNN, had this to say: When the CDU loses a state election, it always feeds back into federal politics — especially when the CDU is the party in government. What happened in Saxony-Anhalt, though, blows past anything seen before. The CDU there was cut in half; the AfD doubled. That doesn’t just raise questions. It puts federal politics itself in doubt.

Friedrich Merz, after all, is a historically unpopular chancellor. That has to do with broken campaign promises, clumsy communication, and sloppy craftsmanship. Best example: his sparse campaign appearances in Saxony-Anhalt. Party colleagues there hid him on factory visits and carefully avoided any contact with actual people. Mecklenburg-Vorpommern recently showed what happens next: whistles and boos.

The current German government and associated NGOs are trying to formally ban the AfD. This started when the Verfassungsschutz, the domestic intelligence service, tried to classify the AfD as “confirmed right-wing extremist”, although it was blocked for the moment after the AfD sued. But several state branches — including Saxony-Anhalt — are already classified as confirmed extremist. An attempt was made in the Bundestag to examine formally banning AfD, and an NGO, the GFF (Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte), published a 1,500-page legal analysis supporting the potential ban. So far, the government hasn’t attempted to actually ban the AfD.

It’s easy to understand why Germany is suspicious of “right-wing” parties, especially after the National Socialist “Nazi” party was defined as “right wing.” But the AfD is more like the MAGA movement, and the AfD is certainly courting the link — which is naturally used by the legacy press as a smear. The curse “may you live in interesting times” should probably be translated to German.

Read more …

They hope it’s only in a small state.

• AfD’s Historic Win Shocks German Political Establishment (ZH)

The pro-Germany, anti-globalist, anti-mass migration right-wing populist party known as Alternative für Deutschland delivered its strongest election result ever in Saxony-Anhalt on Sunday, dealing a sharp blow to Germany’s political establishment. On Sunday, AfD secured 43.8% of the vote in Sunday’s regional election, exceeding polling estimates. Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s Christian Democrats lost about 19 percentage points, while turnout surged to 77.8% from 60.3% in 2021.


According to Marion Mühlberger, a senior economist at Deutsche Bank, AfD’s weekend win leaves the party holding 39 seats in the 83-member legislature, three short of an absolute majority. The CDU, Social Democrats, Greens and Left also have a combined 39 seats. Mühlberger said there are two possible outcomes of what comes next: an AfD minority government tolerated by BSW, or a political stalemate that leads to a snap election, which would only give AfD a new opportunity to secure outright control.

Mühlberger explained:”At the time of writing, the two most likely options are i) an AfD minority government (supported by the BSW) or ii) a stalemate resulting in snap elections, with the AfD hoping to reach an absolute majority rather than attempting a minority government. AfD leadership for now appears undecided on their preference: while national co-leader Chrupalla last night indicated a willingness to try a minority government, AfD’s lead candidate in Saxony-Anhalt, Ulrich Siegmund, already suggested a snap election as his preferred option, saying that “the AfD is not prepared to make far- reaching compromise to form a coalition.”

We believe that even an AfD (minority) government supported by the BSW would have materially detrimental ramifications for the economic prospects of Saxony-Anhalt over the coming years. Direct investment in the state would likely decline amid significant policy uncertainty, and skilled worker shortages would likely become even more pronounced. However, Saxony-Anhalt contributes less than 2% of German GDP, and any structural damage done to the regional economy is unlikely to spill over to the rest of the German economy. While an AfD state government might test some of Germany’s federal institutions, it will have no leverage over national economic or fiscal policy, not even via the constitutional court.

Over the course of today, we will see leaders of the coalition parties in Berlin officially react to their parties’ weak electoral performance. Chancellor Merz is expected to give a press statement today at 13.30 CET. There will likely be considerable political noise over the couple of weeks ahead of the state elections on 20 September in Berlin and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. There may be some criticism of party leadership and reform proposals. However, once these final state elections of the year are over, we believe that an AfD government in Saxony-Anhalt is likely to provide an additional impetus for the federal government coalition to double down on reforms.”

Mühlberger said the five seats held by the populist BSW will be decisive: “Thus, the populist BSW, with its 5 seats, has a key role to play in the upcoming coalition negotiations as potential kingmakers. While the AfD missed their 45+% / absolute majority election target, they missed it so narrowly that it seems difficult for them to not aim for governing Saxony-Anhalt


As no single party reached an absolute majority needed to govern alone, coalition negotiations for entering a formal coalition or receiving ad hoc support for a minority government will kick off today. The BSW has theoretically three options once the new parliament has convened and the next state premier is to be elected. First, they could elect the AfD lead candidate as state premier (without entering a formal coalition), second they could elect the CDU lead candidate or third they could abstain in the first two ballots for state premier. Judging from statements of BSW co-leaders (at the federal level) Wagenknecht and Ali yesterday night,1 we deem the first option the most likely. What comes next? There are two options:

Option 1 – BSW abstains in third round facilitating an AfD minority government This morning, BSW leader Wagenknecht called for a “political reset” in Saxony- Anhalt, especially when it comes to energy policy, sanctions against Russia (which however are set at the EU level), education, and public broadcasting. Thus, there is a certain overlap of political priorities with the AfD. However, the BSW does not want to enter a formal coalition with the AfD.

With the AfD rejecting the BSW’s proposal for an independent state premier, an AfD minority government tolerated by the BSW seems to be a possible outcome. This means that the BSW would not enter a formal coalition with the AfD, but elect the AfD lead candidate as state premier in an informal cooperation.

Option 2 – The route to snap elections The newly elected parliament must convene for the first time by 6 October at the latest. But the regional constitution does not set a deadline for electing a state premier. Until a new government is elected, Sven Schulze will remain in office leading the caretaker government. As government formation could turn out to be complex, snap elections may be a possible way out. The AfD’s lead candidate Siegmund already suggested this as a potential option, saying that the AfD is not prepared to make far-reaching compromise to form a coalition.

There are three routes to snap elections: If the newly elected parliament does not elect a state premier with an absolute majority after two ballots, it can decide with an absolute majority to dissolve itself before a third ballot. Six months after the election, the new parliament can decide with a two- thirds majority to dissolve itself. A newly elected state premier could call a vote of confidence. This could be a viable option for an AfD minority government, confident of winning an absolute majority in snap elections.

It is highly uncertain that snap elections would generate clear majorities. What could help the AfD is the narrative that the other parties want to keep them out of power, and that they now need a clear mandate. Moreover, smaller parties would again be at risk of not making the 5% hurdle, which would help the AfD. On the other hand, the strong AfD performance could again mobilise the centrist forces to avoid the AfD winning an absolute majority.

Mühlberger’s assessment was that an AfD majority in Saxony-Anhalt could weaken investment and aggravate skilled-worker shortages. She cited policy uncertainty, the party’s anti-mass migration agenda, and potential conflict with the civil service. For Merz, the most consequential challenge is containing AfD’s momentum in the upcoming elections in Berlin and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern on Sept. 20.

Read more …

Sorry, day late.

• Happy Labor Day (CTH)

Labor Day hits a little different this year, as there are elements outside our assembly seeking to fracture the coalition of pragmatic conservatives. The noise is louder, the distractions more intense and the stakes of resetting the economic balance sheet in favor of Main Street are higher. For all of those reasons and more, it seems more difficult to keep moving forward with economic nationalism as the roadmap.


However, we remind ourselves that everything of great purpose comes from within, and from a loving God. As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn famously said: “The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie. One word of truth outweighs the world.”

It’s Labor Day in America. We pause and celebrate work, productivity, problem solving, and the value of our workforce. A nation built on ingenuity – so long as we tend the flickering flame of liberty. So, to all of you who do not take part in the grand lies and manipulations that surround us, THANK YOU!


No other nation on earth was conceived to allow people to manifest their own destiny while keeping government out of their lives. The vision, the premise and the purpose, was to allow you the freedom to determine your place in life; and even, at any time, change that determination and strike off in an entirely new direction. Our American labor and aspirations would not be pre-determined by caste, tier, creed or social status; but rather by our personal vision for our own future. The right of self-determination. This is a uniquely American attribute.

Labor Day is a moment when we reflect on the value of work, the great benefit of endeavors achieved, the pride in accomplishment -regardless of scale- amid this thing we call life. But ultimately, all of these considerations have absolutely nothing to do with the money we assemble in the process. We ain’t taking any of it with us folks.

When you hold open the door, you make a difference. When you choose to stand against fraud and deceit, you make a difference. When you pray with purpose you make a difference. When you hold no tolerance for chaos, you make a difference. When you show up, even when you are not sure what comes next, you make a difference. When you achieve in silence because silence is not a mistake, you make a difference.

It is who you are that makes a difference. That is the currency of our life. Regardless of your chosen occupation or effort, you do it well. You live your standard. You have paid the price for your peace. Be proud of yourself. Allow the method of your labor to express the value of who you are and celebrate the accomplishment.

You matter!

Thank you for your fellowship and for your kindness.

With warmest personal regards,

Happy Labor Day!

Read more …

“Why American peace diplomacy keeps going in circles..”

Lukyanov thinks US is not capable of understanding Russia’s ways.

• Ukraine Cannot Be Settled Like A Business Deal ( Lukyanov)

Diplomatic efforts to end an acute and bloody armed conflict should always be welcomed and the persistence of Donald Trump’s administration, which has pursued this goal for more than a year and a half, also deserves recognition, even if the results so far can hardly be called outstanding.


At the very least, the White House remains the only actor in the West both attempting to change the situation and possessing significant leverage over it. Trump and his closest associates probably do genuinely want the war to end as its continuation distracts Washington from foreign policy priorities they regard as more important. But why, then, does Trump’s diplomatic initiative keep going round in circles, with each new attempt ending in another disappointment?

Trump and his principal envoys tend to approach the conflict as an extraordinarily difficult but essentially technical problem, as a puzzle to be solved in isolation from the wider international system. This reflects the worldview of the current White House, where international affairs are a collection of practical problems to be resolved in ways that strengthen America’s position, preferably with some commercial benefit attached. Given the professional backgrounds of the president and his two principal intermediaries, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, this is hardly surprising.

Such an approach can be useful as an instrument, but it becomes less useful when it substitutes for an understanding of the processes that produced the conflict in the first place and, to use the Russian formulation, its root causes. Any durable settlement requires some understanding of what must change in relations between the major powers if similar confrontations are to be avoided.

Trump repeatedly insists that the war would never have begun had he been president in 2022 with the implication that Joe Biden and the Democrats were simply too incompetent to prevent it. Trump has occasionally acknowledged that NATO’s long expansion eastward contributed to the crisis, but he generally shows little interest in the broader military and political processes behind it.

Yet American and NATO policy towards Ukraine wasn’t created by one administration or a handful of officials in Washington and Brussels, rather it developed over decades from a particular conception of Western strategic interests. The crisis that entered its most acute phase in 2022 was, from Moscow’s perspective, the culmination of processes underway since the end of the Cold War.

This helps explain why Washington continues to underestimate how much the outcome matters to the principal participants. For both Russia and Ukraine, too much is at stake for the conflict to be settled through the kind of transaction Trump instinctively favors, given their interests are obviously opposed, but both regard the outcome as fateful. Western Europe, having invested heavily in Ukraine’s cause, also has a direct political stake in the result, so every new attempt by Washington’s two brokers therefore encounters the same obstacle in that none of the parties sees this as simply another deal.

There’s another contradiction in the American position because Washington wishes to become the principal mediator in a conflict whose continuation it has materially supported.The US position has certainly changed under Trump as Washington’s previous fixation on Ukraine has diminished considerably. Trump would prefer America to step back while retaining decisive influence over what happens next, but that is precisely where the difficulty begins.

Transferring the financial burden, political responsibility and risks to the Western Europeans while continuing to dictate the terms requires a degree of obedience from junior partners that Washington can no longer guarantee. EU governments and Kiev have also learnt how to deal with this unconventional president and when they can’t persuade him, they have become increasingly adept at circumventing his pressure.

The one American instrument against which there would be little defence is a complete cessation of military support, but Trump is unlikely to take that step, even if he were personally inclined to do so because facilitating an outright Russian victory isn’t his objective. He may care less than his predecessor about the precise shape of the eventual settlement, but a complete Ukrainian defeat would be another matter. Nor would abandoning Ukraine enjoy much support across the American political establishment, where there is virtually no constituency for a fundamental rapprochement with Russia.

Read more …

Goverment treason.

• British Patriots Clash with Police as NGO Boats Arrive with Migrants (CTH)

Apparently, there was an organized boatlift of north African migrants crossing from France into the U.K earlier today. Various non-governmental organizations were in place with tents and supplies to assist the migrants upon arrival. By most accounts the influx appears to have been facilitated by NGO’s working with British authorities. However, at various ports where the migrants arrived, they were met with hundreds of young British men who attempted to blockade the activity of the police and nefarious human traffickers.


Telegraph – Hundreds of protesters have clashed with police in Portsmouth after a mega-dinghy carrying 140 migrants reached the UK from Normandy.Around 500 demonstrators are believed to have joined a protest in the area on Sunday night, with some dressed in all black – similar to those who joined an anti-illegal migrant protest which blocked the Port of Dover on Saturday.The large boat of migrants – believed to be the longest-ever Channel crossing by people-smugglers – was intercepted in the Solent between the Isle of Wight and Portsmouth earlier on Sunday.

Police used riot shields and pepper spray to force the crowds back, but the line broke through the weight of numbers. Protesters then made their way inside the marina compound. Earlier, George Madgwick, the leader of Reform UK in Hampshire, wrote in a post on X that “over 100 migrant men” had arrived on the Portsmouth shore.The French coastguard said it had detected the mega-dinghy, which was shadowed by a number of rescue boats in case it got into difficulties. Authorities estimated that up to 140 people were on board the vessel, 90 short of the record 230 who crossed on a similar boat last month.

[…] In a livestream from the scene, Daniel Thomas, known as Danny Tommo – an associate of Right-wing activist Tommy Robinson – encouraged viewers to travel to Portsmouth to join the protest.Thomas could be seen standing in the sea at the Eastney shingle beach, alongside a small group of other protesters, with police officers looking on.“Roads are all blocked, they are never going to be able to leave here,” Thomas said. He added: “It was only yesterday (at the protests in Dover) when we warned them that we will not accept this any more, and that this is no longer an option to tell us that the boat numbers are down.

“This isn’t about the numbers being down… this is about understanding that this has to come to an end now.” The mega-dinghy – launched from a beach east of Cherbourg in the Baie de la Seine – reflects a change in tactics used by people-smugglers, who have started loading more migrants on to fewer and larger vessels, partly because of the success of law enforcement in disrupting boat and equipment supply chains. (read more) https://twitter.com/TRobinsonNewEra/status/2096749963250164204?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2096749963250164204%7Ctwgr%5E14a1fdc000c3321ec76c5c1444e562133fe679bb%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheconservativetreehouse.com%2Fblog%2F2026%2F09%2F06%2Fbritish-patriots-clash-with-police-as-organized-ngo-boats-arrive-with-unwanted-migrants-on-the-coast%2F

https://twitter.com/GuntherEagleman/status/2096746349907652886?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2096746349907652886%7Ctwgr%5E14a1fdc000c3321ec76c5c1444e562133fe679bb%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheconservativetreehouse.com%2Fblog%2F2026%2F09%2F06%2Fbritish-patriots-clash-with-police-as-organized-ngo-boats-arrive-with-unwanted-migrants-on-the-coast%2F
Read more …

“They don’t even put anything out because it’s so unpopular. What are they going to say? ‘We’re going to abolish ICE’? No one wants to do that, Harold.”

• Democrats Have A Midterm Secret They Don’t Want Voters To See (Margolis)

With roughly two months left before the midterm elections, Democrats still don’t have a lock on winning back the majority, despite nearly everything in the political environment supposedly being in their favor. Between history, President Donald Trump’s approval ratings, and gas prices, polls should consistently give them a huge edge. Yet the most recent Harvard-Harris poll showed the GOP ahead by two points among likely voters on the generic congressional ballot.


The reason isn’t complicated once you look at what Democrats are actually campaigning on: nothing.Think about it. Their entire pitch is about resisting Donald Trump. Ask what they would do with a majority, and you’ll get vague talking points about affordability (something they failed miserably at when they were in power) instead of an actual policy agenda. That’s deliberate, and it’s the same playbook Democrats ran in 2020: sound moderate enough to win the general election, then govern like radicals when you’re in power.

Jesse Watters spelled out exactly why during a heated back-and-forth with Harold Ford Jr. on The Five last week, and it was more revealing than anything Democrats have said about their own strategy. “Your party is nuts, all right,” Watters told Ford. “They don’t even put anything out because it’s so unpopular. What are they going to say? ‘We’re going to abolish ICE’? No one wants to do that, Harold.” Ford insisted that the DSA, not the DNC, supports abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which isn’t true. “No. The DNC voted to get rid of ICE last week. I think you were on vacation,” Watters quipped.

Watters then brought up the example Democrats should be embarrassed to have avoided: Newt Gingrich’s 1994 Contract with America, a written, public, specific policy platform that Republicans ran on and that preceded their historic victory in which they won a House majority. “Remember Newt’s Contract [with] America?” Watters asked. “Put it out. I mean, I dare you guys to put it out.” They won’t take him up on it. Why? Because if Democrats actually laid out their real agenda and demanded that voters hold them to it, they’d never win.

“You guys want to nationalize the $2 trillion health insurance industry. You can’t do it because it’s stupid, Harold. You guys want to do the Green New Deal again? It didn’t work, you can’t do it,” Watters said. Both ideas failed to pass even when Democrats held the House, the Senate, and the White House at the same time. A party doesn’t campaign on ideas this unpopular.


That leaves House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) squeezed between two factions that want opposite things. The activist wing of his caucus wants confrontation: impeachment votes, government shutdowns, investigations into anything connected to Trump. The party’s presidential hopefuls want the opposite because they know the general-election electorate has no appetite for it. Jeffries doesn’t have enough control over his own caucus to make either side back down, which is exactly why the Democrat Party’s message heading into November amounts to three words: “orange man bad.”

If their ideas were popular, they’d run on them the way Gingrich did in 1994. The fact that they won’t tell you what they’re planning is the clearest evidence yet that they already know you wouldn’t vote for it.

Read more …

“In conditions of mass democracy, the soft and the infantilising will be preferred over the hard and the necessary again and again.” —Eugyppius on X

• Good Faith v. Bad Faith (James Howard Kunstler)


Massachusetts Women Demonstrating in Favor of Triple Child Homicides

Clusterfuck Nation never sleeps, even while everybody else lays aside their labors. Later today we’ll light up the ceremonial grill, but for now it’s onto the tribulations of this dolorous moment in history.


It was just such a sparkling September morning twenty-five years ago when those hijacked airliners knifed into the World Trade Center towers (plus the Pentagon + a field outside Shanksville, PA). Despite all the forensic debate since then, I go with the original explanation that four teams of jihadi maniacs did the 9/11 deed. And also, yet, despite all the official defenses mounted since then — the Patriot Act, etc. — here we are allowing a massive Islamic infiltration and even takeover of many places in America, proving, at least, that history is trickster.

After the trauma of 9/11, you can’t deny our country went off the rails psychologically, along with the rest of Western Civ, as if its immune system broke down and the body politic admitted all kinds of malevolent parasites into itself. They have induced disease in most of society’s organs — our institutions — the main political parties, the news media, the government agencies, the foundations, the schools, the arts & letters. The West’s collective brain got badly damaged in the process.

The disease is identifiable, though some of its mechanisms remain mysterious. The disease is called bad faith: acting or speaking falsely, and knowingly so. Pretending one thing as a cover for meaning something else, such as hollering about “justice” when you really mean vengeance; “inclusion” when you mean to cancel others out of careers and livelihoods; “diversity” when you won’t tolerate disagreement; “democracy” when you just want to push everybody else around.

The forces behind all this give off an odor of the occult. You can perhaps name and locate some of the engines driving it — the “Globalists,” the Marxists, the London banks, the EU, the WEF, the São Paulo Forum, the CCP — but their motives remain obscure. Angela Merkel has stated plainly why she allowed the mass immigration of the Third World into Germany (and thereby into all Europe due to the Schengen agreement that erased the EU nations’ borders): “to counter right-wing extremism,” she said. That sounds pretty clear, but it also seems quite crazy. And why on earth does Ursula von der Leyen do everything possible to keep that going? Have the migrants not sufficiently demonstrated their antipathy to Western society? How many rapes, knifings, beheadings, café massacres, and Christmas Village drive-throughs does it take?

It’s also hard to fathom how the London bankers (whoever they are?) have any sympathy with the Marxist revolutionaries who want to end the concept of private property and the instrumentalities of money that go with it. Or how the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations became so enamored of socialism. Or why the CIA seems bent on betraying the American common good. Or how come the League of Women Voters stridently opposes common sense election reform.

The race hustle is more comprehensible. It operates within a permission-structure built on the agonizing differential between success and failure. It’s just plain extortion: our failure is your fault, so pay up. And meanwhile, thanks for no-bail-and-no-jail, and for permission to shoplift, rape, murder, loot, and riot when we feel like it. (And cry harder about it.) It’s an obvious sado-masochistic setup.

The gender game gets more complicated, but it also comes out of a permission-structure based on success / failure, aggravated by a mutual shortage of marriageable males and females forced to compensate for any combination of bad luck and bad choices that lead to failure in life. But that dynamic has been neatly hijacked by groups seeking to create as much social chaos as possible. Why else would the Democratic Party get so avid for drag queen story hours in the early school grades? Is it not obvious that this isn’t really comedy, as claimed? Rather, it’s the presentation of women as monsters. Have you ever stopped to wonder how many of the kids watching these exhibitions are actually terrified by the disturbed adult males acting-out in their faces?

And now, the gender lunacy has climaxed — in Massachusetts, arguably the craziest US state — where mobs of deranged women chant and blubber in sympathy outside the courthouse where a mother who strangled her three kids just got off the hook. The kids were unfairly cluttering up Lindsey’s life, you understand. . . .If anything is an apt tipping point for a society to go one way or another, there it is.

Read more …

FYI

• President Trump Lengthy Interview With U.K GB News (CTH)

Against the popular uprisings currently taking place in Great Britain, this interview takes on additional context. Last week, just before the civil protests broke out on the shores of the U.K, President Trump sat down for an interview with GB News about issues and current events that hit both sides of the Atlantic.


President Trump answers questions about topics that pertain to both the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as well as the interconnectivity of the relationship to the United States. The interview is pragmatic, focused and deliberate as President Trump presents his perspectives on the challenges that face both nations.

Obviously one of the key policy issues facing the U.K is the topic of migration, and President Trump puts the issue into a factual framework of government accepting the problem. These are choices being made by political leadership against the interests of their citizens. The interviewer, Bev Turner, is fraught with political correctness and somewhat stunned by President Trump’s lack of pretense. WATCH:

Read more …

“It’s the western hemisphere, Margaret”

• Sunday Fights: Energy Secretary Chris Wright vs CBS Margaret Brennan (CTH)

The Sunday pearl clutching begins with CBS’s Margaret Brennan directing her adversarial prose toward U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright.


Secretary Wright is such a pro in this interview. “It’s the western hemisphere, Margaret”

[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: We begin today with the U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, who joins us from Denver. Mr. Secretary, it is Labor Day, and Secretary Bessent had predicted we’d see three-dollar gas by September 20th, depending on the Iran talks. Do you think we’re going to be back at three bucks in the next two weeks?

SECRETARY OF ENERGY CHRIS WRIGHT: Well, we’ve passed peak demand time with Labor Day tomorrow, the end of the summer driving season, and the Trump administration a couple weeks ago rolled out a change in regulations that’ll allow American refiners to produce more gasoline and diesel with their existing equipment. So, seeing demand likely go down in the next few weeks and supply going up, I think prices headed downward is- is not an unreasonable expectation.

MARGARET BRENNAN: What about the diesel fuel that trucks and trains rely so heavily on? We saw that record high price of $5.89 a gallon this week. Is for example, an export ban off the table?

SEC. WRIGHT: You want to keep as much energy flowing as possible. The diesel situation has been challenging because Russian refineries have suffered significant damage. Russia used to be a meaningful exporter of diesel. Today, today they don’t export any diesel, and in fact, they’ve become a meaningful importer of gasoline. So its global refining capacity is why gasoline and diesel prices are high, even more than oil prices. And this is- for 17 years, Democrat policies have been attack hydrocarbons, get as many refineries and coal plants closed. You could summarize their energy and climate policies in two words, expensive energy.

[..]

Read more …

Weird.

• When “Twelve Angry Men” Becomes One Angry Man (Turley)

“I hope that guy can sleep well at night.”


Those words from Kevin Reddington on the steps of the Plymouth, Massachusetts Courthouse were part of a diatribe against the “guy” who was reportedly the sole holdout in the Lindsay Clancy trial. The scene was a fitting end to a visceral trial, but it added a vindictive element that should prompt Judge William Sullivan to call out the seasoned defense attorney.

After declaring that the 11-1 mistrial was “no time to gloat,” Reddington bragged repeatedly about “crushing” District Attorney Tim Cruz, whom he also attacked. He insisted that, in the trial, no one said a single negative thing about his client as a mother — ignoring that little matter of the three young children whom she had strangled to death, one by one.

But it was his attack on the holdout juror that was a breathtaking abandonment of restraint and decency. Reddington knows it is very likely that the name of this juror (he has already been identified as one of only three males on the jury) will eventually be uncovered by Internet sleuths. He effectively put a target on the back of a juror who committed the unpardonable sin of not being convinced by his arguments.The fact that this is one of the three male jurors only ramped up the rage. This case prompted a striking gender divide between men and women, with many women expressing sympathy for Clancy and anger at the system for failing her.

For Reddington and many viewers, the hung jury was less “Twelve Angry Men” and more like “One Angry Man.” Indeed, in addition to attacking the juror, women outside of the courthouse heckled Cruz as he tried to speak to the press, shouting that he “only cares about the three children. What about the Mom?” Reddington followed up by saying that Cruz really did not care about the children (because he looked down to read their names). He also accused the holdout jurors of wasting the time of the jury, complaining “that guy stole seven weeks from those jurors.”

It was an ironic twist on the 1957 classic. In that movie, Juror number eight (Henry Fonda) was repeatedly attacked for “wasting time” and not yielding to the majority — until he ultimately convinced all of his peers.

Earlier in the day, Reddington had asked a Massachusetts Supreme Court justice for an emergency order to force Sullivan not to declare a mistrial, and instead to remove the holdout in favor of an alternate. It was an utterly meritless effort, but Reddington used the filing to further denounce the juror. He compared the juror’s refusal to vote for his client as akin to leaving a racist on a jury. In this case, he suggested that the “guy” was a virtual anti-disability version of “Bull” Connor or some deranged “ableist.”

The rising hatred toward this juror reflects how an act deemed noble in one context can be denounced as craven in another.Take the 1957 classic movie. Viewers love to watch Henry Fonda stand alone against his fellow jurors to raise reasonable doubt in favor of the young defendant. But in this version, the sole juror believed that his fellow jurors were ignoring the defendant’s culpability. Imagine the movie’s outcome if Reddington’s approach had been accepted in 1957, where Fonda could be pulled into court, questioned about his intransigence, and ultimately replaced with an alternate in order to flip the vote.

For all of the anger it has generated, the Clancy trial shows the best of our justice system. We have a system in which a single juror can stand against not only the rest of the jury, but against the world. The trial showed zealous counsel on both sides and a conscientious judge who ensured a fair trial despite the powerful emotions in society. You can disagree with this juror and the outcome but still celebrate that our legal system comes down not to judges or lawyers, but to simple citizens doing justice in thousands of cases a year. It comes down to whether every juror can vote not for a popular choice, but for a moral one.

That is why some of us were so shocked by Reddington’s public attack on this one juror. This is not who we are supposed to be as officers of the court. We stand in the path of the mob, not leading it. In another great movie, “To Kill a Mockingbird,” Gregory Peck captured that role from the novel most vividly as Atticus Finch, standing before a jail to stop a lynch mob. Finch showed that the strength of any legal system is ultimately only as strong as each individual’s ability to stand alone. He tells his daughter Scout, “The one thing that doesn’t abide by majority rule is a person’s conscience.”

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/2097078858826580400?s=20

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle September 7 2026

Sep 072026
 
 September 7, 2026  Posted by at 9:06 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  30 Responses »


Vasily Kandinsky Capricious Line 1924


• One Major Shift Can Solve the Iran Problem and So Much More (CTH)
• Wright and Bessent Explain the Squeeze on Iran (David Manney)
• View from Russia: Experts on why Kushner and Witkoff came to Moscow (RT)
• How Britain Built A War Network Around Russia (Yanovsky)
• AfD Sweeps Saxony-Anhalt Election In First “Far Right” Victory Since WW2 (ZH)
• France Can’t Finance Ukraine Forever – Le Pen Party’s Head (RT)
• Leftists Are Erasing the Truth About 9/11 From Classrooms (Matt Margolis)
• Asylum Denials Hit 94% in June (Catherine Salgado)
• The U.S. Has 13 Times the Economy — Carney Has 13 Times the Pout (Florack)
• U.S. Job Growth of 162,000 vs Canada Job Losses -42,000 (CTH)
• Operation Twist 2.0, 2032 Gold Target & 100,000 Robotic Soldiers (Armstrong)

 


 

https://twitter.com/PeterSweden7/status/2096209394350412223?s=20 https://twitter.com/Q_TheStormRider/status/2096174693157876147?s=20 https://twitter.com/RippleXrpie/status/2096187155953357192?s=20 https://twitter.com/thewriterme/status/2096314115060887761?s=20

 


 


This from Sundance is brilliant, and he thinks Trump is aware. . If Trump makes peace with Russia, their oil comes in to the market and lowers the price enough to sink the Iran regime. End the war with Iran, end the war in Ukraine. Lower the price at the pump. One fell swoop.

• One Major Shift Can Solve the Iran Problem and So Much More (CTH)

History has a tendency to rhyme. There is one move on the geopolitical chessboard that can put all of the U.S. and President Trump’s problems into an immediate checkmate. However, the forces against the alignment are significant. If President Trump can end the Ukraine-Russia conflict and end the sanctions regime against Russia, everything changes.


Bringing Russian oil, gas and natural resources back into the global economy not only removes all leverage held by Iran, but it also wipes out intransigent resistance against the geopolitical reset and upends over a hundred years of EU and Commonwealth financial manipulation.


Not only does the Iran problem immediately shift, but so too does any/all leverage carried by Canada on behalf of London and the broader commonwealth structure. With a U.S-Russia strategic economic alliance, something factually stated at the end of every message from Moscow, the dynamics of global structures is entirely different. However, all the oppositional interests are well aware of the consequence and their actions reflect it. The United States and Russia ended World War II. A U.S-Russia alliance would change everything.

Who would benefit from such a strategic partnership? The USA, Russia, India, China, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States (GCC), ASEAN countries and even Japan and the Caribbean, including Cuba.

Who would oppose such a seismic shift? The U.K, specifically the financial constructs within the City of London, Canada, the EU-NATO states, all the Commonwealth countries and the Five-Eyes group (Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the U.K and the U.S. Intelligence Community).

Now we have appropriate context for the dynamic of the issue, along with context for exactly why all oppositional elements are conducting current activity. A strategic partnership between the U.S. and Russia represents an existential threat to all the old systems – everything. The first step would be solving the Ukraine-Russia conflict. So, let’s look at that problem specifically and how a transactional approach might frame the four corners of an end to it.


Russia now occupies approximately 20% of the Ukraine land mass in eastern Ukraine and they are not going to ever concede it again. For the Federation of Russia, represented by Vladimir Putin and the overwhelming majority of those within influence inside the Federation, the NATO encroachment is an existential threat long term. Russia views the objective of the legacy system powers as intent on taking Russia apart. Ukraine represents their immediate shot to stop this from happening. All prior agreements and treaties by EU and NATO agreements were violated. Russia will no longer allow the wolves to circle their camp.

Looking at the challenge through the transactional prism, a ceasefire may include Russia retaining their current land gains, while giving up the confiscated $500 billion sovereign wealth fund as the purchase price. The fund could be considered reparations by Zelenskyy and his EU-NATO handlers, it matters not. What matters more than the sovereign wealth fund in this transaction, is the elimination of western sanctions.

With sanctions removed, immediately the Russian economy surges with sales of oil, gas, minerals and raw materials back to the global market. With the Iran conflict still afoot all that oil and gas carries a higher value. That is the pricing dynamic that makes loss of the Russian sovereign wealth fund more contextualized. However, with all of those abundant natural resources now back in the global supply chain, the leverage for all other western countries that rely on their natural resources, specifically Canada, is diminished.

Russian oil and gas could flow immediately and easily back into Europe. Currently, the power structures within the EU, those more concerned about raw power and control than the financial health and livelihood of their citizens, are against a return of cheap and abundant energy. They should think about the return of lower energy costs as a value to their economies and people; however, the EU ‘leaders’ are more concerned about the geopolitical reset -ultimately their diminished power, that would lay in the background.

As a consequence, the EU doesn’t really care about how much financial benefit there would be to their economic condition. For them this is a zero-sum power issue. Just as Russia doesn’t want to be torn apart by the grand ambitions of London, so too does the EU not want to lose the power to assist in the tearing apart aspect.

The rest of the problem is one of the future. A problem of security guarantees; of agreements that are bolstered against some significant non-wavering constant that can ensure no further expansion of NATO intent and no further threat to create purposeful conflict. The United States has constant regime changes, that takes the U.S. out of the ability to be the guarantor. However, THAT level of security guarantee is possible through the one construct that has put tentacles into every geopolitical economic structure in the world, CHINA.

There is a visible deal where President Trump sets up the transactional end to the conflict, the payments and economic mechanisms that conclude the Ukraine-Russia war, while Chairman Xi sets up the security guarantee aspect by leveraging everything that Beijing has created for decades. As paradigm resetting as that sounds, it’s not impossible. In fact, I would argue that’s exactly what China is saying HERE.


The Washington Post is getting the direction correct, but they are unaware of the destination. TDS infects all media analysis. They put the review of Chairman Xi’s comments through the prism of anti-Trumpism. That’s not at all what this looks like to me. From my perspective, Trump is looking to solve problems beyond his tenure in the White House. After all, how many times has each Trump supporter said, “well yeah – great, but what happens after Trump leaves office?”

Think about it carefully, through the prism of peace and stability – while understanding that President Trump is structuring long-term U.S. economic stability and retaining the perspective that Beijing influence in U.S. economic matters must be removed. Handle the transaction. Solve the Ukraine-Russia crisis. Form a strategic partnership and build fortress north America. Leverage the systems that Beijing has already put in place, including leverage upon the EU, and make Chairman Xi the minder for everything OUTSIDE our hemisphere.

President Trump looks to have gamed this out quite well. The tool that cuts the gordian knot is in the relationship.

Read more …

Operation Economic Outcast.

• Wright and Bessent Explain the Squeeze on Iran (David Manney)

Energy Secretary Chris Wright got a blunt question Sunday morning: After seven months of fighting with Iran, are Americans looking at a new normal of tanker strikes, military escorts, and an open-ended confrontation in the Persian Gulf? Wright didn’t duck it. The United States remains open to negotiations, he said, but its immediate military mission includes stopping Iranian oil and gas exports. He plainly described the goal: “We are strangling their economy” to force a change in Tehran’s policies or leadership.


From the Conservative Daily News: “Secretary of Energy Chris Wright outlined America’s long-term goal for securing global trade passing through the Strait of Hormuz even as its conflict with Iran threatens such traffic. Wright touted the sustained traffic transiting the Strait of Hormuz before telling Dana Bash during a “State of the Union” interview Sunday that securing the passageway “shouldn’t be just the United States’s responsibility” looking forward. His appearance on the CNN show comes the day after U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) forces reported taking out three Iranian oil tankers.

“The president says the Strait of Hormuz is under U.S. control. Just yesterday, the U.S. struck three Iranian tankers in retaliation for Iran firing missiles at U.S. warships. Meanwhile, The New York Times reports that Iran struck at least 23 merchant ships in the Strait in the last two months,” Bash said before asking Wright, “Does that sound to you like it’s a situation completely under control?” “Our transits through the Strait are averaging over 9 million barrels a day now. And with the access pipelines that go around the Strait, we’re probably two-thirds or more of pre-conflict flows,” Wright responded. “So Iranians are still causing trouble, but the United States Navy is winning that battle.”

Bash then asked Wright if he is suggesting that the U.S. Navy is going to have to stay in the Strait “indefinitely” to maintain the current flow of oil and tankers. “Oh, I think we’ll see a change in the Iranian regime, or certainly a change in their policy if they want to become a trading nation again and engage with the world,” Wright said. “But they have not lightly given up their nuclear weapons program.”The comments came after U.S. forces struck three Iranian oil tankers Saturday. U.S. Central Command said Iranian ballistic missiles had targeted American warships.

Two tankers were disabled, while a third was destroyed. The military said the ships belonged to a shadow network helping finance Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.


Wright’s argument was straightforward. President Donald Trump still prefers a negotiated settlement, but the administration isn’t counting on one. Wright said Iran’s nuclear capabilities are being degraded militarily while its economy is being squeezed through reduced energy exports and sanctions. He also left open the possibility that a nuclear agreement might have to wait for a different Iranian government. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has been delivering the economic half of the same message.

Bessent said Saturday that Trump’s blockade and Treasury sanctions amount to “one of the most powerful one-two punches” ever used for economic isolation. From Breitbart News: “During an appearance on FNC’s “My View” on Saturday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent praised the impact of U.S. policy regarding Iran. According to Bessent, the blockade paired with economic sanctions was having a crippling impact on the Iranian regime. “Just to stay with the Strait of Hormuz for a moment, you’ve also noted that you say the U.S. and China actually have more in common than we disagree on when it comes to safely navigating the Strait of Hormuz,” host Lara Trump said.

“I think the question for a lot of Americans is really how much can we trust China? They are still taking oil from Iran, so how do you navigate that situation?”Bessent replied, “Well, one of the things we’ve done, and what the president’s done, is fantastic sequencing. So we are running Operation Economic Outcast right now, and this is the greatest economic isolation operation in the history of the world. We are going to asphyxiate this regime.”

“Now we have the blockade, and because of the blockade, the oil is not getting out,” he continued. “So there’s probably only about 30 million barrels of Iranian crude oil left that China hasn’t bought. So that will run out soon, and there will be no problem with China buying because they have no product, so the blockade is — the blockade is working. It’s working like nothing we’ve ever seen, and the combination, everyone says, “Oh, sanctions don’t work. I can tell you, blockade and sanctions are one of the most powerful one-two punches in the history of economic isolation.” He argued that China’s purchases of Iranian crude will eventually become irrelevant if Iran can’t move the oil out of its ports.

The administration has given the financial campaign a name: Operation Economic Outcast. Treasury launched it Aug. 24 with the stated goal of cutting Iran off from the financial networks, banks, oil revenues, and sanctions-evasion systems keeping the regime funded. The campaign moved again Friday when Treasury sanctioned a Turkish financial institution and its subsidiaries for allegedly helping Iran’s Revolutionary Guard move money internationally.

From the Treasury Department: Announced by Secretary Bessent on August 24, 2026, dubbed Economic D-Day, Operation Economic Outcast is severing the remaining economic lifelines that sustain the Iranian regime. Treasury has mapped the networks, facilitators, and financial channels that Iran uses to smuggle oil, evade sanctions, and fund terror. Working with partners across the U.S. government, the European Union, United Kingdom, Gulf partners, and others, Treasury is targeting any source of the regime’s illicit revenue, as well as its sanctions evasion schemes to move funds.

Read more …

What/which part of the above did they discuss?

The man in the middle is Kyrill Dimitriev, Putin’s go-to guy.

• View from Russia: Experts on why Kushner and Witkoff came to Moscow (RT)

The latest visit to Moscow by Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff has triggered a fresh wave of speculation in Russia about what Washington is really trying to achieve. With US President Donald Trump under pressure at home and much of his administration’s foreign-policy bandwidth consumed by Iran, the trip has been interpreted less as a breakthrough mission than as a signal – one that may be aimed as much at domestic American politics and alliance management as at Russia itself.


Russian analysts see the visit in different ways. Some believe the Americans are simply sounding out Moscow before returning to Kiev, trying to gauge whether any space remains for movement on Ukraine. Others argue the mission is part of a broader performance of diplomatic activity by the Trump White House, intended to project momentum where little real progress is possible. Still others view it as an exercise in ‘shuttle diplomacy’, useful mainly for information-gathering and atmospherics rather than for producing concrete results.

Roman Romanov, American studies specialist, lecturer at the Faculty of International Relations, Political Science, and Foreign Regional Studies at RSUH
I have two explanations regarding the visit and the format of this visit. First, the American side has already shown several times that it is interested in maintaining dialogue with both Moscow and Kiev. And this visit – or rather, this tour – is aimed at “synchronizing watches.” What does that mean? The Americans are trying to understand what conditions might be acceptable to the parties for resuming an active negotiating process. In other words, what can be offered to both sides so that they are prepared to move the dialogue in the direction of progress.

The second explanation is purely domestic-political for the United States. Against the backdrop of the failure of the Iran campaign, it is necessary to demonstrate some other kind of political activity that at least theoretically resembles progress with a concrete result. Trump has done this kind of thing more than once.

Do they have any ready-made proposals? I do not think so, because, first, at the moment a significant part of US foreign-policy resources is concentrated on Iran, and second, because despite the constructive role of both Witkoff and Kushner, they still act more as envoys of the American president on a specific issue than as direct participants formulating the American president’s position on this issue.

It is difficult to explain why they first went to Moscow and then to Kiev. One can assume they first want to hear Moscow’s stance, because it is in a more advantageous position – Russia is advancing, winning on the battlefield – so the US believes it would be more expedient first to hear out Moscow’s demands and gauge how much they’ve changed since August 2025, since the meeting in Anchorage.

At the same time, although we do not observe public participation by the EU, through closed channels the European Union surely communicates its interests. Their representatives are not there, but the position the Americans are shaping includes the EU’s position as well.

Dmitry Dtobnitsky – Russian political scientist specializing in American studies, expert in US foreign and domestic policy
These negotiations will continue – that’s the only perspective they have. What are we negotiating with the US about? About how to stop the conflict in Ukraine? Let’s be serious. First, this conflict is much broader than Russia’s military operation. It is a geopolitical conflict with very high stakes, the kind that happens with Europe once every several decades or even centuries. The Cold War period with the US was still an exception in that there were at least attempts to play at détente from time to time.

The world has entered an era of major transformation. In that sense, the narrow focus is – will they reach an agreement on Ukraine? No. Every time you think about that, you have to recall how it all started, why it is like this, how wrongly the world is structured, how important it is for Russia to insist on its interests, why the European bureaucracy itself cannot accept that, because otherwise that would mean the end of both it and the political class of many countries. Why can’t this conflict stop? Because it can’t be settled.

Someone has to win. Just as with the US and Iran (which, incidentally, is a much more local conflict) – it is impossible to agree, there can be no deal. There can only be some movement in which one of the sides explicitly or implicitly recognizes its defeat. It may not be total defeat, but at least at some stage one side wins and the other side does not recognize it. Such a process will last a long time, but in the end there will still be some de facto consolidation of the results of this conflict. Not a negotiated one, unfortunately, but a factual one. Diplomats may formalize such a conclusion, or they may not. Frankly, that is no longer important.

When we talk about Russia-US negotiations on Ukraine, there are two extremes, and both miss the essence. Yes, we are negotiating, and we constantly demonstrate that Russia and the US have nothing to fight over. We are ready to coexist with the US on the same globe. That is exactly why Putin says: “Of course, Kushner and Witkoff are welcome guests, come. What else should we show you from Moscow’s kitchen?” You see, the US cannot conduct negotiations on Ukraine because it cannot force either Kiev, London, or Brussels to accept Russia’s reasonable demands. And how are they going to pressure Russia? I think the Trump administration more or less understands that it is pointless. So what kind of negotiations on Ukraine can there be?

Some say [Russian Finance Minister] Siluanov and [US Treasury Secretary] Bessent will come to some understanding, and perhaps there will be incredible financial, economic, or investment cooperation between the US and Russia. I have said many times that there can be no serious cooperation between Russia and the US. There are neither material nor geopolitical grounds for it. Are we now supposed to throw away all the achievements of localizing our civilian aviation industry and start buying Boeing again?

Are we going to hand over half of the most convenient Arctic territory on the planet to the US? Is that it? Or are we going to sell all Russian oil through Mr. Kushner? How do you imagine that? Some say: “Investments will come here.” But that would mean that instead of creating a sovereign financial system, we would say: “No, let’s reintegrate ourselves back into the collapsing dollar system. Let’s support it with our achievements of the past five years.” It’s obvious that there can be no real cooperation.

One can have symbolic cooperation. It is a wonderful look when two great countries can do something together. The most we will get is a hockey match and an ‘Apollo-Soyuz’. It must be understood that these are purely token steps, which only demonstrate that nothing particularly substantial can happen. It does not mean it will be forbidden. It simply will never play a substantial role. Even in 2019, before Covid and the military operation, trade turnover between Russia and the US was negligibly small. And that is understandable: it is geopolitics, geoeconomics – you cannot jump over that. And now, after so much effort has been spent to become independent and to work with Eurasia on a new basis, to say, “No, now let’s start doing something again with the Americans” is just laughable. That will not happen.

Read more …

“The UK is spinning a web of influence designed to survive any Ukraine peace deal..”

While Trump is making peace?

• How Britain Built A War Network Around Russia (Yanovsky)

Last week, UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham announced in Kiev that defense manufacturer MBDA had been authorized to disclose information concerning the British components of the SCALP missile, the French version of the long-range Storm Shadow, to Ukraine.Officially, the decision concerns documentation required to organize local assembly, but in practice, it could facilitate the transfer of blueprints, components, assembly kits or finished missiles.


Moscow regards this technology transfer as the UK crossing a red line, as London hasn’t even attempted to shift responsibility onto intermediaries and the decision was publicly authorized by the prime minister. Britain has therefore assumed direct responsibility for the resulting escalation and deepened its involvement in military operations against Russia.

SCALP was developed through a joint British-French program and its assembly requires classified information about British components and French sub-assemblies, as well as access to a secure facility. Ukraine doesn’t possess a complete production cycle, but even a partial transfer of classified data would integrate Ukrainian assembly into the British-French manufacturing chain and bind all three parties together for years.

Before this decision, Britain had been far more careful about covering its tracks. For example, the Flamingo missile, marketed as a product of the Ukrainian company Fire Point, is identical to a design unveiled in 2025 by the British-Emirati Milanion Group. That arrangement allowed London to keep its distance, with formal responsibility for the missile’s development and deployment resting with Kiev.

Britain is also attempting to free future missile projects from the American vetting process, so under Project Brakestop, the Ministry of Defense has commissioned MBDA UK, MGI Engineering and Rotron Aerospace to produce three prototypes of long-range missiles for Ukraine. The purpose is to reduce dependence on US authorization and, consequently, on the position of the administration in Washington. London wants to determine for itself when and under what conditions such weapons are transferred.

British drones are already being used by Ukraine to strike targets deep inside Russia. They include the Nyan jet-powered drone, manufactured by Callen-Lenz, a subsidiary of BAE Systems. For its developers, the battlefield offers something particularly valuable: operational data with which to refine the weapon. Russia has also repeatedly pointed to the direct involvement of British specialists in the deployment of Storm Shadow missiles.

On the same day as the SCALP announcement, London secured access to Avengers AI Labs, an extensive body of data gathered by Ukrainian frontline sensors, so now British companies will be able to use this information to train target-recognition and autonomous-control systems, greatly shortening the journey from development to battlefield deployment.Five British governments have come and gone during the active phase of the Ukraine conflict, but the country’s anti-Russian course has remained remarkably consistent.

Boris Johnson began a program to develop the Ukrainian navy, Rishi Sunak signed a ten-year security agreement, Keir Starmer followed with the Centenary Partnership Agreement and Burnham has now authorized access to classified missile technology. Each government has built upon the commitments made by its predecessor.

The same continuity is visible in Britain’s strategic doctrine, where Sunak’s Conservative government described Russia in its 2023 Integrated Review Refresh as the “most acute threat” to British security and Starmer’s Labour government retained that position. The 2025 National Security Strategy called Russia “the most obvious and pressing example” of confrontation, while the Strategic Defence Review described it as an “immediate and pressing threat.” That review established the principle of “NATO first, but not only NATO” and committed Britain to preparing for war.

These doctrines are supported by long-term financial obligations, given London has promised Ukraine £3 billion, approximately $4 billion, annually until at least the 2030-31 financial year. The century-long partnership agreement provides for joint production, technology transfers and cooperation in the Baltic, Black and Azov seas where Britain’s presence is intended to endure for decades, regardless of when the current military campaign ends.

The declaration signed by Britain, France and Ukraine on January 6, 2026, already outlines arrangements for the postwar period. These include multinational forces, military logistics hubs, secure facilities and a special legal regime for foreign personnel. In London’s calculations, a ceasefire wouldn’t end its involvement, but it would consolidate a new phase of Britain’s military and industrial presence.

Read more …

Saxony-Anhalt is small, 1.7 million voters, so it says little. But it makes me realize that this went fast! Where was AfD a year ago? Stuck in court.

Dutch news: AfD has 39 out of 83 seats. But the “populist” BSW party, which promised to support it, unexpectedly got its 5 seats, and could bring it to 44.

And the labels keep coming: far right, radical right, extreme right etc. That’s just for not wanting more immigrants?!

• AfD Sweeps Saxony-Anhalt Election In First “Far Right” Victory Since WW2 (ZH)

Update(1400ET): In a political earthquake, the AfD has taken a massive lead, per exit polls, at the Saxony-Anhalt election in what the party’s state leader hailed as sending a resounding “signal to Berlin.” This moment marks the first time what has been dubbed a German “far-right party” taking power at a state level since World War II. This is absolutely historic. “The exit polls, published by German public television stations, suggested that the party, known by its German initials AfD, would win between 39 and 41 seats in the eastern state of Saxony-Anhalt,” NY Times reports. “That would leave it just short of an absolute majority of 42, but far ahead of its nearest rival.”


But it remains unclear whether it will be able to form a government. Below is the latest via Deutsche Welle: Alternative for Germany (AfD) co-leader Tino Chrupalla says his party secured a mandate to govern with its strong election result in Saxony-Anhalt. “We have halved the CDU, so from that point of view it’s a great evening,” Chrupalla told journalists in Magdeburg, referring to an earlier remark by Christian Democratic Union (CDU) leader and chancellor Friedrich Merz that AfD’s result could be cut in half.

Chrupalla called the outcome “sensational.” “Ulrich Siegmund will be the new premier of Saxony-Anhalt,” he said. “From here, we will change Germany.” If the party falls short of an absolute majority, Chrupalla said it would be open to talks and even suggested an AfD minority government could be tolerated by other parties. AfD has signaled it is open to a coalition partner that would be open to changing its migration and energy policy – though this option doesn’t seem to be on the political map realistically at this early point. Youth turn to AfD in droves…

 


 

From last night:

Voters in Saxony-Anhalt head to the polls today in an election that could deliver Germany’s most massive political shock in decades, with the right-wing Alternative für Deutschland on track to beat Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s Christian Democrats.

Final polling estimates put the AfD at 40% to 41%, nearly double the CDU’s 23%. The party’s lead candidate, 35-year-old Ulrich Siegmund, has ruled out governing in a coalition, suggesting the AfD would need an outright majority to take power of its first German state government.

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2096575571568255471?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2096575571568255471%7Ctwgr%5E855b88b12e1dd9c69d1daa6ec38f09e58692f2c5%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fafd-predicted-win-saxony-anhalt-merz-panics-antifa-floods-streets

About 1.7 million people are set to vote today, with polls closing at 6 p.m. local time. AfD’s rapid ascent comes as voters are furious over Germany’s stagnant economy, deindustrialization, energy costs, and the Third World migrant invasion. The Polymarket bet on how many seats the AfD is expected to win today assigns a 74% probability to 38 to 41 seats, with 42 to 45 seats at 16%. Ahead of the historic election, thousands of far-left Antifa crazies took to the streets wearing all black and holding Antifa and LGBT flags. Others were seen carrying signs reading “FCK NZS” and “FCK AFD.”

https://twitter.com/COMPACTMagazin/status/2096309332111507721?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2096309332111507721%7Ctwgr%5E855b88b12e1dd9c69d1daa6ec38f09e58692f2c5%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fafd-predicted-win-saxony-anhalt-merz-panics-antifa-floods-streets

A reported 15,000 left-wing activists joined a so-called pro-democracy festival in the state capital, Magdeburg, on Saturday, organized by the “Saxony-Anhalt Open to the World” alliance. Yet the whole globalist cult in Germany has likely run its course. It has been nothing more than what some call a nation-killing experiment, pushing uncontrolled mass migration and deindustrialization policies that have sent Europe’s largest economy into a tailspin.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on Saturday threatened the AfD, saying, “We will not let these people, who trash Germany and everything we have achieved in recent years and decades,” before adding, “We will not let these people talk our country into ruin!”

https://twitter.com/MarioBojic/status/2096535311597662449?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2096535311597662449%7Ctwgr%5E855b88b12e1dd9c69d1daa6ec38f09e58692f2c5%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fafd-predicted-win-saxony-anhalt-merz-panics-antifa-floods-streets

Yet what did Merz actually achieve? Destroying Germany’s economy? That is something he certainly accomplished.

Read more …

“Paris needs guarantees that Kiev will repay the money it’s been getting during its conflict with Moscow, Jordan Bardella has said”

• France Can’t Finance Ukraine Forever – Le Pen Party’s Head (RT)

France lacks money for itself and simply cannot keep funding Ukraine indefinitely, Jordan Bardella, the president of Marine Le Pen’s right-wing National Rally (NR) party, has said. The main French opposition party faced harsh criticism from its rivals earlier this week after its vice president, Louis Aliot, said that NR “would turn off the tap” for Kiev if it comes to power after the 2027 presidential vote. Le Pen is seen as having strong chances to succeed in the election next year, no matter who her rival will be in the second round.


Bardella weighed in on the issue during his speech at the Ambrosetti Forum in Italy on Saturday, saying that Ukraine needs support from France and other Western nations during the conflict with Russia, but “our objective should not be to finance the war ad vitam æternam,” which means ‘forever’ in Latin. France has a national debt of €3.5 trillion ($4.6 billion) and cannot be “giving money that we no longer have” to Vladimir Zelensky’s government, he argued.

“The extremely serious and worrying state of French public finances means we can’t give money without any guarantees or assurances that this money will be repaid one day,” the National Rally president said. Paris has been one of the strongest backers of Kiev in the EU after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022, providing it with billions in military aid and supplying various sophisticated weapons, including CAESAR self-propelled howitzers and Mirage fighter jets.

According to Bardella, the Americans were “much smarter” than the Europeans when it came to assistance for Kiev “because the money they gave to Ukraine is secured against rare earth mining.” He was referring to the deal agreed upon between Washington and Kiev last year, which grants the US preferential access to Ukrainian mineral resources. During US President Donald Trump’s second term, Washington also significantly reduced aid to Ukraine, making European NATO members pay for American-made arms supplied to the country.

Earlier this week, Trump warned that he intends to present Europe with a belated bill for billions of dollars that Washington spent arming Ukraine under his predecessor, Joe Biden. He previously estimated that Biden gave Zelensky more than $300 billion worth of weapons for “free.” Le Pen said on Thursday that the National Rally is skeptical about further assistance to Ukraine because it believes that the conflict with Russia needs a diplomatic solution.

A poll by Harris Interactive in late August suggested that Le Pen has the support of 34% of the French public, which should guarantee her a place in the second round of the presidential election, where she would likely win comfortably against either her left-wing rival Jean-Luc Mélenchon or the centrist candidate, former Prime Minister Edouard Philippe. Russian officials said repeatedly that foreign weapons being sent to Kiev will not prevent Moscow from achieving its military goals, but will merely prolong the fighting, while increasing the risk of a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO.

Read more …

You mean we know that truth?!

• Leftists Are Erasing the Truth About 9/11 From Classrooms (Matt Margolis)

Friday marks 25 years since 19 terrorists hijacked four planes and murdered 2,977 people on American soil. In the wake of those attacks, this country made itself one promise: Never Forget. Twenty-five years later, it’s clear some people are working hard to make sure we do exactly that: forget.


Here’s the number that should make every American furious: only Arizona and Florida legally require public schools to teach about the September 11 attacks. Ten states have statutes that merely encourage some form of 9/11 instruction, according to an August University of Wisconsin study, and that can mean anything from a moment of silence to a full lesson. New York, where the towers actually fell, mandates only a moment of silence and a passing mention in Board of Regents standards. No statewide curriculum exists.

Rep. Andrew Garbarino (R-N.Y.), who is pushing legislation to require 9/11 education in all 50 states, told the New York Post, “We made a promise to ‘Never Forget’, but today, only a handful of states require 9/11 to be taught in their schools.” But it gets worse. So much worse.

According to the North America Values Institute, an education watchdog group, leftist activists, some backed by George Soros, have produced 9/11 lesson plans now used in schools nationwide, including in New York City. One, “Teaching Beyond September 11th,” spends exactly one paragraph on the actual attacks and never once calls the hijackers terrorists, instead building entire units around “Right-Wing Extremism” and “Islamophobia and the Oval Office.” It describes Osama bin Laden only as a man the United States “accused” of masterminding the attacks, leaving out his own confessions and his declared jihad against a country he called the “worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind.”

The curriculum was developed by the University of Pennsylvania’s Graduate School of Education beginning in 2019 and is now recommended by education departments in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, and Oregon. Zineb Riboua, a research fellow at the Hudson Institute, said this kind of material teaches kids “that America is responsible for the atrocities around the world to develop a moral framework that can be activated very quickly to get policies that reduce America’s power and sovereignty.” She said the tactic mirrors what the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps use to target young people. “Ayatollah Khamenei said the best audience to target is students,” she added.

It still gets worse.Adam Feinberg, a teacher at Brooklyn’s City Polytechnic High School, assigns ninth through 12th graders Osama bin Laden’s “Letter to America” alongside a worksheet asking them, without a hint of irony, “Why do you think Osama bin Laden hates Jews so much?” He uploaded it to the American Federation of Teachers’ own lesson-sharing portal back in 2020. He never denied writing it.

None of these curricula bother to mention that nearly 10,000 first responders and civilians have since died from illnesses tied to Ground Zero toxins, or what any of this does to the families left behind. Gail Silke’s brother, NYPD officer Stephen Driscoll, 38, died in the South Tower. She didn’t hold back: “They’re not affected by it, they’re not in our shoes, and they don’t want to be in our shoes. Those people can kiss my a*s.” A Manhattan mother whose father-in-law died on 9/11 said, “They were disgusted with the [expletive] they were taught, it’s not fair, they lost their grandfather.”

New York state Assemblyman Matt Slater (R-N.Y.) said, “Nearly 3,000 innocent people were murdered by al Qaeda on September 11th. They were the victims. The terrorists were the perpetrators. Any curriculum that blurs that fundamental truth, or makes the victims secondary to a political narrative, isn’t teaching history, it’s rewriting it.”

When Soros-linked groups are writing lesson plans that soft-pedal the hijackers and focus on “Islamophobia” instead, we have a problem. The left is so devoted to its woke ideology that it is trying to rewrite the history of 9/11.

Read more …

Takes some getting used to. But you get to keep your country.

• Asylum Denials Hit 94% in June (Catherine Salgado)

A combination of judicial firings and federal reforms has led to the denial of most asylum claims, an area where illegal aliens are known to exploit our system egregiously. In June 2026, over nine out of 10 asylum claimants did not receive what they requested. That’s good news for America.


I have emphasized many times here at PJ Media that huge numbers of illegal alien criminals, particularly under Joe Biden’s administration, simply claimed asylum and stated they were too afraid to go back home, which in prior years was practically enough to ensure they would receive asylum in the U.S. But in most cases, these people do not actually meet the legal standards for asylum. In some cases, indeed, they are afraid to go home, but only because they are gang members or convicted criminals fleeing justice.

On August 31, TRAC Immigration reported the following: “The number of individuals Immigration Judges grant asylum to each month has been falling. In June 2026, only 771 individuals were granted asylum—less than a quarter of the number of individuals awarded asylum just three years ago. At the same time, the number of asylum decisions has grown resulting in soaring asylum denial rates. In June 2026, 94 percent of all asylum cases were denied.

It appears that President Donald Trump’s administration has replaced many immigration judges with individuals less likely to take illegal alien criminals at their word. TRAC seems extremely upset about the change, but it is great news for Americans, as we can be sure that illegal aliens will have much less of a chance of abusing this loophole in order to obtain U.S. residency.

The Center for Immigration Studies’ (CIS) Andrew R. Arthur explained that the percentage of granted asylum claims is actually even lower than TRAC indicated, because it did not take into account claims that were withdrawn, administratively closed, or not adjudicated. He elucidated in some technical detail what all of those categories meant, but essentially, not every claim ends up going all the way through the process to denial or approval for various reasons.

Of the 254,680 asylum decisions IJs issued in the first nine months of FY 2026, 7,231 (2.8 percent) were grants, 89,740 (35.2 percent) were denials, 44,062 (17.3 percent) were not adjudicated, 18,251 (7.2 percent) were withdrawn, and 3,315 (1.3 percent) were administratively closed — but 92,081 (36.2 percent), the largest single category of IJ asylum decisions, were ones in which the claim was “abandoned”.

So actually, based on these figures, fewer than 3% of asylum applicants this fiscal year received the asylum they requested. That’s how few of the applicants were able to prove in court that they truly needed asylum. Many illegal aliens also abuse the asylum process to try to obtain work authorization, after which they never show up in court again, Arthur warned.

In short, if there is a record high of asylum denials, it is because the Biden administration encouraged excessive and widespread abuses, and the Trump administration now has to restore the integrity of the asylum process.

Read more …

“Ottawa appears to have shown up to a knife fight with a strongly worded press release.”

• The U.S. Has 13 Times the Economy — Carney Has 13 Times the Pout (Florack)

At first glance, it looks almost silly. Here we have two countries sharing the world’s longest undefended border, deeply intertwined economies, decades of trade agreements, and an enormous volume of commerce crossing back and forth every single day. Surely, one might think, reasonable adults could sit down and work this out over a Tim Hortons double-double. But, see, that’s the problem with looking at this purely as a spat over tariffs. It isn’t about tariffs at all. It’s about leverage — and Ottawa appears to have shown up to a knife fight with a strongly worded press release.


Here’s the inconvenient math sitting underneath the whole argument. According to current GDP data, the U.S. economy runs about $30.8 trillion, against Canada’s roughly $2.3 trillion. That’s not a rival negotiating across the table — that’s a difference of about $28.5 trillion, which means Canada isn’t negotiating with a comparably sized economy. It’s negotiating with one more than 13 times its size, and acting surprised when the bigger guy gets to set the terms.

Then there’s energy, where the gap gets even more embarrassing for Ottawa. The United States produced a record 13.6 million barrels of crude oil per day in 2025, the most any country has ever pumped, and also hit a record 39 trillion cubic feet of natural gas — America has been the world’s largest natural gas producer since 2011 and isn’t giving that title back. Canada’s oil sands are a genuinely valuable resource. The trouble, from Ottawa’s side of the table, is that Washington already has plenty of its own.

And Canada still can’t quit the American market even if it wanted to: in 2025, the U.S. imported 3.9 million barrels a day of Canadian crude, making America overwhelmingly Canada’s dominant customer. Canadian oil matters to the United States. The United States is Canada’s oil industry, full stop. That’s not a negotiation between equals — that’s a landlord reminding a tenant who holds the lease. Carney might try to shut that oil off, but it’s a surefire way to make Alberta the 51st state, which he can ill afford.

Then there’s the part of this fight Washington has been increasingly willing to say out loud: Canada’s approach to government spending, immigration, and social policy. The Trump administration has argued that Canada’s expansive government and rapid population growth eventually become someone else’s problem — namely, the strained housing market, the overloaded infrastructure, and the public services buckling under the weight.

Before anyone waves that off as typical American bluster, it’s worth pointing out that Ottawa has been saying the same thing about itself. Canada’s own government has acknowledged the pressure population growth put on housing and social services, which is precisely why it’s now slashing its own targets — permanent residency holds flat at 380,000 a year through 2028, while temporary-resident arrivals get cut from 2025’s 673,650 down to 385,000 next year and 370,000 the two years after, with the explicit goal of getting the temporary population under 5% of the country by the end of 2027. Trump didn’t write that policy memo. Carney’s own government did.


And the numbers behind it are genuinely striking. According to Statistics Canada’s 2021 Census, 26.4% of the population was first-generation — born outside Canada — and another 17.6% was second-generation, meaning Canadian-born with at least one foreign-born parent. Add those together and you land at roughly 44% of the country having an immediate immigrant connection. That’s not a talking point. That’s the census.

None of which means immigration itself is the villain here — Canada was built by it, and immigrants contribute to the economy. The actual question is whether the rate and mix of that growth can be reconciled with housing, infrastructure, employment, and a social safety net that has to be paid for by someone. Even Ottawa seems to have concluded the honest answer, for now, is “not at the pace we were running it.” Gee, guys, welcome to reality. You might start by noticing what others have noted from afar: the huge percentage of these immigrants are dependent on large social support outlays.

Even the OECD’s own 2025 economic survey of Canada — an organization not exactly known for MAGA sympathies — flags weak business investment and a widening productivity gap between Canada’s best firms and everyone else as structural problems, not passing headwinds. And that’s where this whole trade fight starts making a lot more sense.

The United States walks in with the world’s largest economy, record domestic energy production, a massive consumer market, and an industrial base most countries would trade their currency reserves for. Canada walks in with real resources, a well-educated population, a serious industrial economy, and one very good card: energy and commodities the U.S. genuinely wants. That’s a relationship worth keeping. It just isn’t a relationship between equals, and pretending otherwise, as Carney seems bent on doing, doesn’t change the scoreboard.

Maybe that’s the part some people in Ottawa are struggling to swallow. It isn’t that Washington discovered some secret new lever to pull. It’s that Washington has always had this much leverage, simply by virtue of being what it is. When one side shows up with a $30.8 trillion economy, record energy output, and a consumer market Canadian exporters can’t afford to lose, and the other side shows up with a $2.3 trillion economy that depends heavily on access to that exact market, the interesting question isn’t why Washington thinks it can ask for concessions. It’s why anyone in Ottawa, Carney in particular, assumed it couldn’t.

Sometimes the uncomfortable part of a negotiation isn’t finding out the other guy is bluffing. It’s finding out he isn’t — and that he’s been holding the better hand the entire time. That’s the position Carney finds himself in just now. The reality is Carney doesn’t have nearly the cards he’d like Canadian voters to believe he does. I’ve already pointed out the leftist proclivities Carney harbors.

Before becoming PM, Carney sat on the board of Canada 2020, a think tank Maclean’s has called the outfit that effectively runs Liberal Party policy behind closed doors, with documented ties to Obama-world Democrats and access to Soros Open Society funding streams. More recently, Carney delivered the closing keynote at a closed-door Global Progress Action Summit in Toronto, sharing a stage with Barack Obama, Alex Soros — George’s son, now chairman of OSF — John Podesta, Pete Buttigieg, and Sen. Elissa Slotkin.

Every critter listed in that paragraph considers Trump an enemy. No serious analysis of Carney’s actions would be complete without acknowledging this. Carney has run on standing up to America and particularly standing up to President Trump. The trouble for Carney is that he simply hasn’t got the leverage to do that. It’s time for either Carney to grow up and face reality, or for Canadian voters to remove him. Preferably the latter.

Read more …

Painful.

• U.S. Job Growth of 162,000 vs Canada Job Losses -42,000 (CTH)

In this episode from Promethean Action’s Barbara Boyd she takes a look at the U.S. economy and the Main Street policies of President Trump versus the banking/Wall Street Canadian economy. In the August jobs report the U.S. economy added 162,000 jobs, while the Canadian August jobs report reflected 42,000 job losses.


Boyd – “A blockbuster U.S. jobs report showing 162,000 jobs created is contrasted with Canada’s 40,000 job loss under Mark Carney, as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent tells Steve Bannon that Wall Street and major outlets like the Financial Times and The Wall Street Journal stoke economic panic and spread “fake news,” citing a misframed story about Norway’s sovereign wealth fund shifting from Treasuries into higher-yield Fannie and Freddie securities.

This episode frames today’s challenge as a “Red Queen economy,” arguing America must grow productivity fast enough to outrun debt, China’s advances, and infrastructure and skills obsolescence, while blaming Biden-era inflation and spending. It spotlights Trump administration workforce initiatives, including expanded training and Pell Grant use and the new Foundry School—an advanced manufacturing program with a Stanford curriculum and international PAX Silica partners. Finally, it covers Trump executive orders aiding ranchers’ beef processing and DOJ antitrust scrutiny of major meatpackers and retailers.”

Read more …

No more people in armies, but robots.

• Operation Twist 2.0, 2032 Gold Target & 100,000 Robotic Soldiers (Armstrong)

In Part 2 of this interview, economic cycle expert Martin Armstrong breaks down the immediate impact of the Fed’s latest operations on precious metals, the underlying drivers of the market, and why he projects gold’s long-term macro peak won’t arrive until 2032. Plus, Armstrong shares insights on the shift toward autonomous warfare, including the military’s development of 100,000 robotic soldiers, and why traditional AI still falls short of human curiosity.


Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/ivan_8848/status/2096176506523304402?s=20 https://twitter.com/warDaniel47/status/2096288093531730158?s=20

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle August 28 2026

Aug 282026
 
 August 28, 2026  Posted by at 9:01 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  30 Responses »


Rembrandt van Rijn Old Man Sitting 1631


• Kuwait, Qatar Ramp Up Hormuz Oil, Oman-Iran Talks Ease Supply Fears (ZH)
• Iran and Oman Agree to Share Strait of Hormuz Revenue, Defying Trump (Jung)
• Iran’s Most Dangerous Enemy: Administrative Collapse (Monty Donohew)
• Secretary Marco Rubio Suspends all Visa Reviews and Interviews (CTH)
• AfD Now Polls At 43% Across Eastern Germany (ZH)
• The Disappearing Western World (Paul Craig Roberts)
• Canadian PM Mark Carney’s Role in EU and Ukraine Friction (CTH)
• It’s Always Cute When Canada Thinks It Matters (Kurt Schlichter)
• Moscow Warns It Could Target British Military Facilities (ZH)
• Monopoly Money: Why Meta “Likes” the $16 Billion Settlement (Turley)
• Chipmaker Nvidia Arranges Funding For Its Own Clients (NOS)
• Why August 1991 Failed To Bring Peace Between Russia And The West (Bordachev)

 


 

https://twitter.com/RealBaronTrump_/status/2092648747834523756?s=20 https://twitter.com/MAGAStorm47/status/2092998667808464972?s=20 https://twitter.com/MAGAVoice/status/2092789283023466550?s=20

 


 

 


 


Is Oman a US ally?

• Kuwait, Qatar Ramp Up Hormuz Oil, Oman-Iran Talks Ease Supply Fears (ZH)

Brent crude futures fell to an intraday low of $86.22 a barrel early Thursday before recovering above $88 by 0630 ET. The benchmark is down 6.3% this week as traders unwind part of the war-risk premium amid growing optimism that renewed diplomatic efforts involving Iran, Oman and Qatar could reduce the threat of drone attacks on tankers in the critical waterway. Bloomberg reported earlier that Kuwait and Qatar are restoring crude exports through the highly contested maritime chokepoint. Sources familiar with energy flows in the Gulf region say that both producers are shipping about 70% of the combined 2 million barrels a day they exported before the Iran war.


Total oil shipments via tankers have climbed to between 7 million and 8 million barrels a day, up from roughly 4 million barrels a day in mid-July and equal to about 75% of prewar levels, according to the outlet. London-based energy and freight analytics firm Vortexa told clients in a separate report that the estimated seven-day average for oil transiting the Strait of Hormuz has approached 10 million barrels a day. The recovery in the critical waterway helps explain why Brent crude retreated to $86 earlier this morning after surging above $120 in late April.

The Trump administration and Tehran remain deadlocked over finding another resolution, but Gulf exporters are increasingly finding ways around the disruption. The outlet noted that the United Arab Emirates was the first to transit crude through the strait before transferring it to other vessels in the Gulf of Oman. Maritime research firm TankerTrackers was the first to report the increase in ship-to-ship transfers on Tuesday.

“An Iran-Oman framework for a ‘temporary joint maritime corridor’ is pulling oil lower. It remains difficult to envision how the US would sign off on this given the concurrent ratcheting up of economic pressure,” UBS analyst Justinus Steinhorst wrote in a note. Dennis Kissler, senior vice president for trading at BOK Financial Securities, said on Wednesday, “It seems crude is now beginning to price in a sooner-rather-than-later peace deal.”

Beyond Iran and Oman’s diplomatic push to reopen the strait, Reuters reported that both countries are working to clear all naval mines from the waterway. President Trump said earlier this week that all mines had been removed. However, with disruptions to Middle Eastern refineries and Ukrainian attacks on Russian refineries, the energy crisis has morphed into a crude-products crisis, with diesel crack spreads in the US still trading above $90 a barrel. Last week, the spread hit an unprecedented $100-a-barrel level as global diesel supplies dwindled.

Read more …

Oman makes a deal with the IRGC and bypasses the US?!!

• Iran and Oman Agree to Share Strait of Hormuz Revenue, Defying Trump (Jung)

Iran and Oman have reached a joint agreement on sharing revenues associated with shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, according to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). However, the strategically vital waterway, one of the world’s most important energy chokepoints, will remain closed until Tehran resolves its conflict with Washington.


The IRGC announced on August 26 that the two countries had finalized terms after a month of negotiations over the future management of the strait. IRGC spokesman Hossein Mohebbi said the talks produced results acceptable to both sides, including agreements on each country’s share of the waterway and its revenues.

The announcement followed weeks of negotiations over an interim system for restoring commercial navigation. Under the proposed framework, vessels entering the Persian Gulf would use a route through Iranian waters, while outbound traffic would use Omani waters. The arrangement would allow the two countries to collect fees for maritime services and transit, although officials have not publicly disclosed the precise revenue split. Earlier proposals had contemplated voluntary fees, but the Trump administration has opposed any attempt to impose tolls on international shipping in the strait.

Despite the IRGC’s announcement, the terms of the agreement are not final. A senior Iranian source told Reuters that Tehran and Muscat were still working through technical details, including the permanent arrangement for shipping routes. The two governments had previously described their discussions as an “interim framework” for resuming navigation rather than a completed final settlement.

The IRGC also made clear that the agreement with Oman alone would not reopen the waterway. Mohebbi accused the United States of obstructing the negotiations and said that Tehran would restore passage only if Washington accepted the previously negotiated terms. He stated that if the White House rejected Iran’s conditions, the strait would remain closed.

The dispute comes as energy shipments through the Strait of Hormuz remain disrupted following the beginning of the conflict in February. Before the crisis in the Gulf, the waterway carried roughly one-fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas shipments. Commercial traffic has fallen sharply since the conflict began, contributing to higher energy prices and forcing energy producers and shipping companies to seek alternative routes and workarounds despite major efforts by the U.S. military to clear passage for shipping.

Shipping also remains hazardous. Iran recently blacklisted 45 vessels in an apparent effort to disrupt ship-to-ship transfers that Gulf energy producers have used to circumvent its blockade. Several oil companies have subsequently considered avoiding vessels on the blacklist, further complicating efforts to restore normal commercial traffic. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. will increase economic pressure to tank Iran’s already sinking economy and bring the ayatollah’s regime to heel.

The proposed Iranian-Omani framework may represent a significant change in how traffic through Hormuz is administered if it takes effect. Iran and Oman would coordinate commercial navigation and potentially collect substantial revenues from maritime services, while a temporary system could eventually give way to a permanent division of responsibilities.

For now, however, the agreement remains conditional. Iran says it has reached an acceptable understanding with Oman, while senior Iranian officials indicate that technical issues remain unresolved and the Trump administration continues to oppose Tehran’s proposals. The next stage of negotiations will determine whether the framework can translate into the reopening of one of the world’s most consequential shipping routes.

Read more …

“Can Iran’s mullah dictatorship govern the country while losing the war?”

• Iran’s Most Dangerous Enemy: Administrative Collapse (Monty Donohew)

Nearly every dispatch from this Iran military action measures Iran in the currency of destroyed hardware: ballistic missiles, drone production lines, naval combatants. That accounting matters, but it may be measuring the wrong thing. The more consequential damage may not be to Iran’s arsenal at all. It may be to the regime’s capacity to function as a coherent government. This week supplied two pieces of evidence, in two entirely different domains, pointing at Iran’s underlying administrative fracture.


The first is political, and it is remarkable on its own terms. Kayhan, the hardline newspaper closely aligned with the regime’s most conservative faction, published a piece this week accusing President Masoud Pezeshkian, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, and Iran’s own negotiating team of “completing a puzzle” whose intended effect was to manufacture an image of surrender and make retreat seem necessary.

That’s not commentary on an external enemy, but a state-aligned publication publicly accusing a sitting president and the speaker of parliament of engineering their own government’s capitulation, in the middle of a war, in terms ordinarily reserved for traitors. The second is fiscal, and the numbers are not subtle. Iran’s rial hit a record low of roughly 2.02 million to the dollar this week as trading opened. The IMF projects Iran’s average annual inflation will reach 68.9 percent in 2026. The World Bank estimates the Iranian economy contracted 2.7 percent in the year ending in March.

None of this means Tehran is defenseless against its own currency.

Iran has spent years building buffers precisely for moments like this: a shadow fleet of more than 350 tankers moving 1.6 to 1.8 million barrels of crude daily to Chinese refiners via ship-to-ship transfers, a barter system that covered roughly a third of oil exports last fiscal year and is projected to cover more this year, a state-administered exchange rate that lets favored importers buy dollars far below the open-market price, and a central bank willing to finance deficits by simply creating money rather than borrowing it.

These are not improvised responses. They are an institutionalized sanctions-evasion architecture, built up over successive rounds of pressure since 2018, and they have kept Iran’s oil exports above nuclear-deal-era levels even through the current war’s opening months. What is changing is how well that architecture still performs. The discount Iranian crude must offer buyers has widened from roughly eight dollars a barrel in 2023 to fourteen or seventeen dollars now, as Washington’s secondary sanctions reach further into the Chinese “teapot” refineries and shell-company networks that make the evasion possible.

Tehran’s fiscal break-even price sits near $124 a barrel; the price it is actually realizing on exported crude is closer to $56. That gap is precisely why the government leans harder on money creation, and money creation is precisely what is driving the inflation and currency collapse visible in the rial’s exchange rate. The buffers have not failed. They have simply stopped being sufficient to close the widening distance between what the state needs and what it can extract from a shrinking, more heavily discounted revenue base.

There is a further complication worth stating plainly rather than glossing over, because it cuts against any simple “sanctions are working” reading. The same evasion architecture that keeps the state solvent is also concentrating economic power in the hands of the actors best positioned to run it, chiefly the IRGC, which has expanded its role in the shadow fleet, the barter arrangements, and the currency-exchange houses that move sanctioned banks’ money.

Sanctions pressure that squeezes ordinary importers and consumers, who pay the open-market rate, while leaving IRGC-linked networks to capture the rents from smuggling and preferential exchange access, does not necessarily weaken the regime’s core coercive apparatus. It may instead redistribute economic power inside the state toward the faction least interested in a negotiated settlement, which would cut directly against the administration’s stated goal.

This is also why the Soviet Union is a useful comparison only if handled carefully, and it is worth being precise about what the analogy does and does not claim. The Soviet collapse involved national independence movements, deliberate political liberalization under Gorbachev, elite defections, and a wholesale transformation of the state’s institutions, a far longer and more complicated sequence than currency instability alone. Iran shows no equivalent liberalization and no comparable elite defections yet.

What Iran may be experiencing is not a repeat of that sequence but a similar underlying mechanism: an authoritarian state whose administrative machinery for translating central authority into local control begins to fail once fiscal and currency instability outpaces the state’s capacity to paper over the gap through patronage. That mechanism can operate on very different political timelines and produce very different outcomes than it did in Moscow. It is the mechanism, not the history, that is being invoked here.

Read more …

“The move comes on the heels of U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas, a Biden appointee in Manhattan, striking down a prior State Dept ban on visas from 75 countries.”

• Secretary Marco Rubio Suspends all Visa Reviews and Interviews (CTH)

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has suspended all international visa reviews and interviews with applicants until all of the consulate staff undergo training on the appropriate review process. The intent is to proactively identify visa applicants who are seeking temporary visas with the intent of claiming asylum status or similar permanent migration. Each consular staff agent and officer is being tasked with scrutinizing applications to ensure the applicant does not become a “public charge” after entry.


WASHINGTON – The Trump administration has directed U.S. embassies and consulates around the world to postpone immigrant visa interviews while consular officers complete training on new public-charge guidance, temporarily stalling applications that have reached the interview stage. The State Department told diplomatic posts to reschedule immigrant visa interviews until consular officers complete the training on how to evaluate whether an applicant is likely to become a public charge.

A public-charge determination can make an immigrant visa applicant inadmissible under federal immigration law if officials determine the person is likely to become dependent on certain forms of public assistance after arriving in the U.S. “In early August, we launched a global training initiative at all of our embassies and consulates worldwide. To accommodate this in-depth training, appointments for visa services will be adjusted,” a State Department official said in a statement.

[…] The administration said Monday that it was preparing to revoke the business and tourism visas of up to 200,000 foreigners who have applied for or are seeking asylum in the U.S., a move that would represent the largest mass visa revocation in U.S. history. (read more)

The move comes on the heels of U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas, a Biden appointee in Manhattan, striking down a prior State Dept ban on visas from 75 countries. However, the judge’s decision does not invalidate visa denials overall, based on independent grounds of ineligibility. As a consequence, Secretary Rubio is ordering worldwide embassy and consulate retraining to enhance scrutiny of all visa applications carefully.

Read more …

France AND Germany looking good. Still efforts to ban Weidel and Le Pen?

• AfD Now Polls At 43% Across Eastern Germany (ZH)

Building on Nomura analyst Andrzej Szczepaniak’s note from earlier this week, which forecasts that right-wing parties are positioned to make electoral gains across Germany, France, Spain, Switzerland, and the UK over the next 18 months, new polling data from Germany further suggest that Alternative for Germany (AfD) is performing exceptionally well as citizens demand political change after years of failed progressive experiments that encouraged a Third World migrant invasion and nation-killing deindustrialization trends.


Weidel said, “According to a recent Forsa survey, the AfD is at 43% across the entire East, while the CDU is down to just 13%. The citizens want the political turnaround!” The key takeaway from the new survey is that the AfD is polling at more than three times the level of the center-right CDU/CSU and exceeds the combined support of the CDU/CSU, SPD, and Greens. German weekly newspaper Junge Freiheit commented on the new survey, saying, “The numbers are particularly interesting ahead of the upcoming state elections in Saxony-Anhalt on September 6th and in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania two weeks later.”

The outlet continued, “The assessment of Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s (CDU) performance remains abysmal across Germany. As in the previous week, only 13 percent of those surveyed expressed satisfaction, while 85 percent were dissatisfied.” Elon Musk has previously stated, “AfD is the only hope for Germany.”

One reason German citizens are particularly frustrated is that Europe’s economic engine is collapsing, with Volkswagen Group labor representatives warning earlier this week that as many as 140,000 jobs could be cut at the struggling automaker.Circling back to Szczepaniak, the Nomura analyst wrote, “Five years ago, financial markets would not have seemed so at ease with such a prospect. But then again, these populist right-wing political parties were previously not so fiscally prudent as they are perceived to be today.”

He added, “Now, if anything, financial markets are much more concerned about populist left-wing parties being elected due to their desire to increase spending, often paid for through higher borrowing or higher taxes, which are likely to shut the engine off of already stuttering economies.”.

Read more …

“.. is New York City, a city whose white ethnic population is only 16% of the population still an American city?”

• The Disappearing Western World (Paul Craig Roberts)

It was 53 years ago that Jean Raspail wrote The Camp of the Saints in an attempt to wake up the French nation to the future challenge they would face. The French response was to dismiss Raspail’s effort as a dystopian novel and do nothing. Today five decades later Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s only French nationalist party, is the most popular political leader in France. A recent poll showed her and her party, National Rally, favored by 38% of those polled. Her nearest rival has 17%.


One of France’s many problems is that it has too many political parties, which indicates that France is more disunited than united. In the previous French election, Le Pen won in the sense of having the most votes. But to keep a French nationalist from power, other parties formed a coalition that represented a higher number of votes. The French Establishment then tried to imprison Le Pen and prevent her from again running for office. This scenario is likely to be repeated in the next French election.

So, after more than a half century of being overrun by immigrant-invaders, as Jean Raspail said they would be, the French still cannot rise to the defense of an ethnic French nation. Only Marine Le Pen’s political party represents a French nation instead of a multicultural tower of babel.

Today in Europe and in the US a political party that represents the essence of a nation–its historical ethnicity–is regarded as racist. To be clear, it means that any country that does not consist of a collection of races, cultures, languages, and disparate interests, thereby constituting a multicultural tower of babel, is racist. This indoctrination of the Western peoples is so successful that even today only 38% of the French people support an ethnic French nation. 62% of the French population are content to exist in a tower of babel.

Having observed the increasing takeover of the states of Michigan, Minnesota, California, and New York City by third world immigrant-invaders and Massachusetts’ new law requiring the state to recruit more Muslim immigrant-invaders into the state’s government, the rising Muslim communities in Texas demanding Sharia law, and the emergence of Hispanic Spanish as America’s second official language, the Unites States itself, once a melting pot of European and British ethnicities, has sold its soul to multiculturalism, an arrangement in which there are only disparate interests, a disparity inconsistent with the name of the country–United States.

According to university and community estimates, NY City alone has more than 350 Mosques. Several decades ago I noticed that NY city cab drivers were third world immigrants. Population studies have found that NY City’s population contains 750,000 to 1 million Muslims. 2.5 million Hispanics, 1.5 million Asians, and 2.2 million Africans, some American born and some recent immigrants. According to the latest US Census, 8.58 million people live in NY City of which 7.2 million or 84% are nonwhite.

In view of these numbers, is New York City, a city whose white ethnic population is only 16% of the population still an American city? Compare this Tower of Babel to NY City’s population in, say, 1950. Already a fifth of the US work force consists of foreign born people of color. Many are H-1B work visa holders, few of whom ever return to their countries. The Western World is disappearing. The peoples of the West have inhaled so much guilt from their indoctrination and brainwashing by white liberals that they are impotent to defend and to regain their immigrant-invader threatened nations.

How long before the only white ethnicities will be in zoos as specimens of white racist colonialists?

Read more …

All the little people.

• Canadian PM Mark Carney’s Role in EU and Ukraine Friction (CTH)

Barbara Boyd does a solid job connecting the recent U.S-Canada trade friction to the globalist plans of Mark Carney in alignment with the European Union. The goal is to create and maintain broad opposition to the geopolitical reset underway as an outcome of President Trump s larger and nationalistic economic agenda.


This is worth the watch as many of the background happenings are interconnected, yet few people are putting it all together. Barbara Boyd argues that the most dangerous escalation is the proxy war with Russia, highlighting Russia’s warning that direct British involvement in strikes on Russian territory could make Britain a combatant.

She says the UK has long driven the πUkraine conflict and that Trump has sought peace while Britain and Europe resist, relying on war production amid failing economies. The episode focuses on Canada’s Mark Carney as a key spokesman for a permanent-warfare economic strategy, detailing his global financial roles and Canada’s creation of a Defense Security and Resilience Bank to fund defense mobilization without citizen involvement.

Boyd also describes Carney’s actions against the U.S., including trade disputes, deeper EU alignment, and Arctic defense plans. She claims a coordinated chaos and psychological warfare campaign targets U.S. voters ahead of the midterms.

There is little doubt European NATO countries, led by the U.K, France and Germany, are stimulating and supporting increased direct military conflict against Russia. We are beginning to see not-so-covert events happening in/around border nations with Russia -carried out by Ukraine- that continue to raise the stakes.

Moldova, Romania and now Finland are starting to become increasingly visible as launch regions for Ukraine drone attacks into Russia. Meanwhile the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad (between Lithuania and Poland) is surrounded by provocative NATO military activity. Keep watching.

Read more …

Only Trump stands up to globalism.

• It’s Always Cute When Canada Thinks It Matters (Kurt Schlichter)

Just what the hell are the Canadians thinking? Do they think that if they cry enough, America’s going to roll over? We’re now in another trade war with them, and the Canadians are whining, and the Democrats — who never side with America — are whining right along with them. It’s about time to be done with the country that is touted as America’s best buddy but is actually tied for its most annoying next-door neighbor. They cry that America is being mean because it’s looking out for its own interests. How dare America expect Canada to pull its weight on its own defense?


How dare America not want to perpetuate unfair and unbalanced tariff and trade rules in perpetuity? And how dare America not recognize the moral superiority of a country that, if it were a stereotype, would be a fugly, sexually dysfunctional wine woman with a “Hate Has No Home Here” sign on the front lawn of the condo it shares with five cats, all named after characters in “Twilight.”

Americans don’t think much of Canada — literally. We didn’t have to, because for a long time Canadians were just pleasant, sturdy, and trustworthy neighbors who were different from us but shared enough in common that we managed to share the longest demilitarized border in the world. Canadians don’t want to be Americans, and that’s OK. It’s silly, because everybody should want to be Americans, but it’s all right. We didn’t take offense. We’d have to be thinking about them to take offense, and we weren’t. It’s nice to have a neighbor you don’t really have to think about, except when you need to borrow sugar.

But when we did think about them, they used to be kind of amusing. Now they’re actively annoying. And their obsessive loathing of the United States has morphed from a vaguely tiresome affectation into something genuinely grating. They are ripping us off on defense and trade, they are failing to back us up around the world, and they have become a petty dictatorship. They are still funny, but the Ralph Wiggum of nations is longer ha-ha funny.

They thought about us a lot, and you can’t really blame them. We’re economically successful, stubbornly free, and masculine — all the things that Canada either never was or no longer is. Canada has been taken over by the faculty-lounge left. It’s less a country than a giant, freezing college campus where the government will literally destroy your life if you do something like point out obvious truths about how a man is not a woman or that there was a giant scam involving allegedly dead Indian children — oh wait, we’re supposed to call them “First Peoples.” Of course, they have enshrined collective guilt over taming their vast lands as their national ideology. They despise us, but they also despise themselves. We have a glorious Constitution, and they have an endless land acknowledgment.

The Canadians harken back to their European roots in other ways too, such as a hatred of free speech and dissent. After all, they were never man enough to throw out the Brits or the French, and now they have fully embraced the same kind of supine and feminine national identity that focuses on crushing actual Canadians and importing the entire Third World to replace them. And like the Europeans, they won’t ever shut up about their free healthcare, bragging about it endlessly to us and complaining endlessly to each other about having to wait six months for a blood transfusion. Pro tip: When you’re in one of their clinics, if you can ever get in, just remember to keep smiling and appearing happy; otherwise, they’re going to recommend you for medical termination.

One of Donald Trump’s great qualities is that he refuses to obey the dictates of America’s foreign-policy elite consensus. That consensus was to let the Canadians keep drafting off us on defense, trade, and the Chinese communist infiltration that has corrupted their entire government. We’re supposed to ignore all that because Canadians are nice, but Trump’s not nice. Trump actually cares about America’s national interest, and it’s not in our interest to carry Canada’s rucksack any longer or to open our markets to it. At the same time, it closes its doors to ours and allows our great enemy a foothold on the frozen tundra above us. That’s why he has been hard on Canada, and that’s why Canada is whining like a little girl.

Canada has not been marching beside us, its allegedly closest ally, for a long time. It’s been half-stepping. Now, the argument you hear back is that Canada came to our aid after 9/11 and lost 158 soldiers in Afghanistan, so we should shut up and take whatever they give us, or not give us, as the case may be. Baloney. No one minimizes or belittles the death of those heroes. Their forces were studs, and you can’t say that about all the Allied forces by a long shot. Every American who’s worked with Canadians, including yours truly, respected them as tough and dauntless warriors. You talk bad about the Canadians who served with Americans overseas, and an American soldier will deck you.

But what happened yesterday doesn’t give a free pass for what needs to happen today. The last Canadian killed in Afghanistan died 15 years ago, when they pulled out of combat operations. That’s a decade and a half. That’s a long time. We appreciate that they came, but let’s be real. That was their obligation as a NATO ally when we, a NATO ally, were attacked. They didn’t do us a favor; they did their duty under the treaty. Moreover, those semi-human Islamist scumbags murdered 24 Canadian citizens — they were avenging their own as well as ours.

They deliberately chose to stop having a military and let us do it for them. Today, Canada has no real army, no real navy, and no real air force. The once-mighty Canadian military is now a micro-military more focused on DEI than making the enemy DOA. It shamelessly lets the United States defend North America, Europe, and the rest of the world alone. It has no capacity to project power. It’s not in the Red Sea, it’s not in the Persian Gulf, it’s not anywhere helping us do the heavy lifting of keeping the world free.

And that’s just the way Canada wants it, because it doesn’t want to spend the money and it doesn’t want to dirty its soft, girlish hands helping big, mean America. Moreover, its communist Chinese masters love having a disarmed and vulnerable pseudo-ally right next to the CCP’s main adversary. Canada has long failed to pay its share of NATO, and Trump isn’t going to tolerate that. No American should tolerate that. But the Democrats do, because if Trump wants it, they have to oppose it, even if it means opposing America.

Democrats call that a “win-win.”

Canada’s military free-riding is only surpassed by its fake free-trade free-riding. Not only do they restrict American imports to their own advantage, but they demand America open its markets to them. Worse, they allow Chinese commodities and products in and let them be transshipped into the United States to circumvent tariffs on China. Again, Trump doesn’t understand the idea that we are somehow morally obligated to allow lesser nations to take advantage of us. This is a right and proper attitude, but because it’s Trump, it has to be bad. That’s one reason Democrats are so eager to take the side of a foreign country screwing over the United States on trade. The other reason is Democrats despise America.

And let’s face it: Canada isn’t anything like a real democracy. It holds no moral high ground. It persecutes people for speaking. It murders those it deems a burden on society. It embraces every disgusting aspect of DEI, including having a justice system that treats different races differently. You can be destroyed for saying things in Canada — financially and maybe even placed in prison. You are also unable to enjoy the God-given right to keep and bear arms; the government keeps a monopoly on lethal force, meaning it keeps a monopoly on power, and those who should be citizens are merely subjects. It’s frankly disgusting, and a country like that is unworthy of our friendship.

Read more …

It’ll warn first.

• Moscow Warns It Could Target British Military Facilities (ZH)

From the very start of the Ukraine war, the United Kingdom has consistently been among Kiev’s most open and ardent military supporters, time and again transferring heavy weaponry, including cutting edge long-range missiles like the Storm Shadow. At the start of this week, Britain announced it plans to provide Ukraine with classified technology to allow for the country’s own manufacturing of the British/French-designed SCALP air-launched cruise missile (which in the UK is known as the Storm Shadow). The allies expect to set up a production line in Ukraine as soon as year’s end.


Already, Ukraine has used its domestic-made and designed Neptune cruise missile to strike oil refineries and military sites deep inside Russian territory. A domestic-made SCALP would present the likelihood of Ukraine then using this Western-designed missile to directly attack Russia, which only increases the chances of an eventual Moscow-NATO clash. Ukrainian forces already appeared to have used the missile on Donetsk and other locations closer to front lines in the Donbass.

On Thursday the Kremlin has issued one of its strongest warnings and threats aimed at London to date, accusing the UK of “fully taking part in the war on Kiev’s side” – and thus thwarting any chance of peace talks while adding fuel to the fire. Moscow is now saying that the UK’s own military facilities could become fair game for direct attacks.

Kremlin spokesperson Maria Zakharova said in a Thursday press briefing, “We have repeatedly warned that the response to Ukrainian strikes using British weapons against Russian territory could be directed against any British military facilities and equipment in Ukraine and beyond.” Zakharova urged “all residents of the United Kingdom to think about the inevitable, catastrophic consequences of the hostile steps taken by their own authorities.” She also laid out:

“We propose that the British leadership once again carefully analyze the situation and immediately, in the most resolute and unequivocal manner, abandon the hostile, aggressive line, which can only… create the risk of the conflict escalating to an entirely new level.” Ironically this comes just on the heels of a rare visit of the CIA Director to Moscow. US officials claim the Tuesday meeting between John Ratcliffe and top Kremlin intelligence officials was to convey a warning to President Putin to not attack any NATO member. However, many analysts are skeptical that this was the official reason.

Read more …

A demand of over $1.4 trillion bought off for 11.2 billion. What’s not to like?

• Monopoly Money: Why Meta “Likes” the $16 Billion Settlement (Turley)

It is not every day that a company can settle a case for over $16 billion and celebrate. However, Meta’s settlement with 29 states is a remarkably good deal for a company facing a demand of over $1.4 trillion and years of litigation. In the end, it may not even take a loss from the litigation. The settlement ends the latest mass liability case, following similar settlements in tobacco, opiates, and other products. It will require Meta to make changes to its platform, though the company already appeared to be moving to make such changes.


The maximum payment of closer to $17 billion is tied to whether competing platforms (like TikTok and YouTube) adopt parallel protections for children. Otherwise, the company is on the hook for at least $12.1 billion over 10 years under the agreement. The company agreed to impose daily time limits for underage users as well as “nighttime blocks” from midnight to 6 am (as well as notifications linked to school hours).

It is doubtful that these “fixes” will actually fix the problem. Social media is enormously popular with adults and children alike. It is also ubiquitous and accessible, particularly for tech-savvy kids. The burden will remain with parents regarding access to and use of social media, not the company.

Meta was looking at a long slog in the courts. Some of us were skeptical of the legal basis for some of these claims. The line between a popular and an “addictive” product is fairly subjective. It was hard to see where the line would have been drawn in this litigation. However, Meta likely would have faced similar demands for changes to its platforms through legislation even if it prevailed in litigation.

Those legal questions will now have to wait for another test case. The settlement leaves other companies in a more exposed position. This massive settlement is like a dinner gong for plaintiff’s lawyers who will now fan out in packs in pursuit of companies like dusk on the Serengeti. Companies are already facing thousands of such lawsuits. Meta has already lost cases in California and New Mexico over consumer safety and negligence claims. The priority was to limit the potential damages rather than to make new law.

The actual damages are not as daunting as it may seem. The tobacco multistate settlement was over $206 billion, not counting separate state settlements worth tens of millions more. The opiate settlements resulted in damages of roughly $60 billion.

Even at $16 billion, for a company the size of Meta, this is like monopoly money (literally so, if you ask some critics). The value of settling the case alone can wipe out that loss through stock-market gains and other pricing changes. After the tobacco settlement, companies like Philip Morris enjoyed market gains that effectively washed out the loss. Moreover, these companies enjoyed a very inelastic market, so they internalized costs with price hikes that left smokers holding the bag.

Ironically, if social media is as addictive as claimed by litigants, the market is equally inelastic. Big media will be able to easily recoup these damages as did Big Tobacco. Much of these damages will ultimately be passed on to and borne by social media users, operating like a tax for states receiving the funds.

The platform will clearly make positive changes that will assist parents. These are straightforward changes that have long been needed. Hopefully, these states will not just take this money and run as many did with the tobacco windfall. Instead, it would be a great help if the money went to enhancing programs for child mental illness.

Social media remains one of the most transformative inventions in history, including a powerful tool for free speech and political discourse. That popularity comes at a price. It will remain part of our social fabric, as are alcohol and tobacco products despite their abuse.

Meta did not create these social costs alone. We all did. We found ourselves overwhelmed by a technology with endless applications and potential for expression. This settlement will not erase those social costs any more than the tobacco settlement erased cancer or the opiate settlement erased addiction. The ultimate child-protection regulation will remain parents monitoring and educating their own children.

Meta’s corporate slogan, “Meta, Metamates, and Me,” may capture the problem. It is often hard for people to separate themselves from their virtual selves. This is a technology that is both liberating and captivating. Ultimately, despite the progress under this agreement, no settlement will protect us from ourselves.

Read more …

From Dutch news. Crude machine translation.

• Chipmaker Nvidia Arranges Funding For Its Own Clients (NOS)

The American chipmaker Nvidia, the most valuable company in the world, is engaged in something remarkable: ensuring that its customers have enough money so that they can buy (even more) Nvidia chips. Nvidia’s computer chips have made the company enormous, because they are necessary for developments in the field of artificial intelligence (AI). The AI chips that Nvidia designs are purchased by large tech companies. They use the computing power to develop AI programs themselves, or rent out the computing power to smaller companies that cannot or do not want to buy the chips themselves.


Nvidia is very dependent on those large customers, says Dennis Vink, professor of corporate finance at Nyenrode Business University and holder of Nvidia shares. “If one of those major customers drops out, Nvidia immediately loses a large part of its revenue. That is why they want to ensure that more customers can buy their chips.” To achieve this, Nvidia is having investment firms raise 500 billion dollars (429 billion euros), as it recently announced. That money is intended for Nvidia customers: companies that also want to use AI chips, but have less money than the big tech companies.

Tens of thousands of euros per chip
“Nvidia wants the market for AI chips to grow,” says Arnout Boot, Professor of Corporate Finance at the University of Amsterdam. “So they ensure that their customers have the money to invest in Nvidia chips. These are not the Googles and Amazons of this world, but the companies that use computing capacity. That amounts to thousands of companies.”

Reson8 is one such company. “We build AI applications that convert speech to text, for example between a doctor and a patient,” says founder Thomas Kluiters. The Nvidia chips are needed to develop this type of program: the AI industry calls this ‘training’ the program.

[..] “At the moment, those chips cost between 20,000 and 60,000 dollars each,” he says. “You need many dozens of these types of chips, plus other equipment. That means we are quite dependent on Nvidia. They simply make the best chips. We cannot find an alternative for that anytime soon.”

Due to this role in the AI industry, Nvidia has grown very strongly in recent years and is earning enormous amounts of money. Last night, the company announced that it made a profit of 59.7 billion dollars (over 51 billion euros) over the past three months. Since 2024, it has recorded a total profit of more than 300 billion dollars.

Competition is a risk for NVIDIA
Nevertheless, Nvidia is not going to front that 500 billion dollar pot to its customers itself, if it materializes. It is the investment firms that raise the money and then lend it to companies that want to buy the AI chips.

A smart way to do it, according to Vink of Nyenrode University. “In the short term, the risks for Nvidia itself are limited,” he says. “That lies with the investment firms. They aren’t stupid either: they will take a close look at the financial standing of such a company. A bank doesn’t just lend you money without looking at your situation either.”

Nvidia can, however, play a role in the agreements an investment firm makes with such a company by acting as guarantor for part of the loan. That means Nvidia takes on part of the risk, giving investors a little more certainty that they will at least get part of their money back if something goes wrong, says UvA professor Boot. “Nvidia can do this because they have an exceptionally strong position.”

Despite the billions it earns, there is still a risk, says Boot. “Developments in the field of AI are very uncertain. Nvidia chips are still very important right now, but what exactly does the future hold? What is the competition doing? In this risky world, nothing is ruled out.”

“It is a serious risk for Nvidia if competitors develop AI chips that are just as good,” Vink also says. That is another reason why the company is securing funding to acquire new customers, he says. “They are trying to make them dependent on Nvidia chips, because they want to remain the absolute biggest in this market.”

Read more …

The West sees itself as the winner of the cold war. Russia does not see itself as the loser.

• Why August 1991 Failed To Bring Peace Between Russia And The West (Bordachev)

Thirty-five years have passed since the dramatic events of August 1991 in Moscow which marked, more clearly than any later declaration or diplomatic ceremony, the end of the era we call the Cold War. The failed ‘August Coup’ attempt to preserve the Soviet Union made continuation of the old confrontation impossible given one of its principal participants had effectively left the battlefield. Everything that followed, including the formal dissolution of the USSR in December 1991, merely recorded a change that had already taken place.


The essential fact was that the Soviet Union, and subsequently Russia, could no longer sustain the material and political foundations required to continue the struggle. There were many reasons for this, but foremost among them was the exhaustion of the Soviet model of state governance. Moscow therefore chose to end the confrontation. This was historically unusual because Russia hadn’t been defeated on the battlefield or forced to surrender, and the Cold War ended because of internal political change and a voluntary decision by the Soviet leadership.

Paradoxically, this peaceful ending helped make a future confrontation more likely. The principal reason was simple: the Western powers, led by the United States, regarded the end of the Cold War as a victory, but Russia didn’t regard itself as a defeated country. That contradiction became one of the central problems of the post-Cold War order. Great nuclear powers such as Russia, the United States, and China cannot realistically be defeated militarily without risking mutual destruction, thus the greatest threats to such states therefore tend to come from within through political dysfunction, economic weakness, poor governance, and social instability.

We can see something similar today in the United States. It remains the strongest individual power in the international system, but domestic conflict increasingly limits the effectiveness of its foreign policy. Meanwhile, China places internal stability and development at the center of its strategic thinking precisely because its leaders understand that domestic cohesion ultimately determines external strength. The same logic shaped the Cold War because once Washington and Moscow accumulated enormous nuclear arsenals, direct military conflict became irrational.

The confrontation instead developed according to what George Kennan described as containment in restricting Soviet influence and applying pressure across numerous fronts while avoiding a direct war between the superpowers.But we shouldn’t romanticize this arrangement because the Cold War was still a war in the political sense and the objective of the Soviet Union’s adversaries wasn’t simply peaceful coexistence, rather it was the containment and ultimately neutralization of their opponent.

From Moscow’s perspective, this amounted to a struggle against Russia itself, which at that particular historical moment existed politically and economically in the form of the Soviet state. The relative stability created by nuclear deterrence certainly encouraged a degree of mutual respect as it forced both sides to search for peaceful solutions even during serious crises. However, none of this removed the fundamental Western strategic objective which was victory over the Soviet adversary.

When the Soviet Union disappeared, therefore, Western capitals naturally interpreted the event as the achievement of that objective, but the victory was incomplete. Russia had lost the geopolitical struggle but had not been defeated in the traditional sense. Its territory hadn’t been occupied and its armed forces hadn’t surrendered, so Russians could therefore reasonably believe that the changes of 1989-91 were the result of decisions taken in Moscow rather than terms imposed by a victorious enemy and that distinction proved enormously important.

It also explains why comparisons with France after 1815 or Germany after 1945 are misleading as both countries were militarily defeated before being incorporated into new international systems established by the victors. France was reintegrated into the European order after Napoleon because Russia, Britain, Austria, and Prussia quickly developed disagreements of their own so Paris could therefore play a useful balancing role within the Concert of Europe.

Nothing comparable existed after 1991 when the Western coalition was unusually united and organized around NATO under American leadership and there was no internal balance of power in which Russia could become an indispensable partner. The comparison with West Germany after 1945 is even less convincing. West Germany entered NATO and the emerging European institutions while foreign troops remained on its territory and its sovereignty was sharply constrained by the consequences of military defeat. No comparable arrangement could conceivably have been imposed upon Russia.

After 1991, the central problem was never resolved given that the West saw itself as the victor of the Cold War and wanted to construct a political order reflecting that victory. Russia, on the other hand, saw itself as a sovereign great power that had voluntarily abandoned the previous confrontation and expected to participate in the new order on that basis and these expectations were fundamentally incompatible.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/TRobinsonNewEra/status/2092661241315512654?s=20

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 Older Entries