Feb 272026
 


Banksy Honey Money pot 1999


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

 


 

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

 


 

It’s my Bday today.

 


 


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

Trump Report Card (John Stossel)

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


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

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

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

Read more …

Can we a cheer a medal?

Triggered and Traumatized by Scenes of Patriotism (Turley)

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


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

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

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

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

Read more …

“.. when both were private citizens…”

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more …

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

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

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


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

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

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

Read more …

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Read more …

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

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

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

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


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

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

Read more …

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Read more …

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more …

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

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

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


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

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

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

Read more …

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

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

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


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

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

Mamdani’s NYC Flirts With Chaos (Ben Shapiro)

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


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

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

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

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

Read more …

Just one hacker, actually…

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

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


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

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

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

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

Read more …

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more …

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Read more …

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Feb 252026
 
 February 25, 2026  Posted by at 10:54 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  62 Responses »


Piet Mondriaan Victory Boogie Woogie 1942-44


Are Democrats Working Against Their Own Voters? (Eric Florack)
How a Party Offends Its Voters (Daniel McCarthy)
What the FBI Is Investigating in Criminal Probe of 2020 Election (ET)
Democrats Double Down on SOTU Boycott (DS)
‘You Owe Us’ Is the Mantra of the Left (Victor Davis Hanson)
US To Integrate Musk’s Grok AI Into Classified Military Systems (RT)
Trump, Along With Democrats, Will Make Their Case Tuesday at State of the Union (JTN)
Netflix’s Stock Plunges After Refusing to Fire Susan Rice (Bryan S. Jung)
We Need to Talk About Artemis (Stephen Green)
Royal Theater, Silent Streets: Loud On Epstein Ties, Silent On The Roving Gangs (David Manney)
Ukraine (EU) Strikes Russian Oil Pumping Station (CTH)
Slovakia Halts Electricity Supplies To Ukraine (RT)
Hungary Vetoes €90 Billion EU Loan For Ukraine (RT)
Ukraine Hates Us – Hungary (RT)
The New Navalny Poison – This Swedish Disinformation is a British Lie (Helmer)

 


 

Apart from the SOTU, which deerves enough attention already, there’s the rumor today that France and Britain have de facto become Ukraine’s army, and are as we speak preparing to send a nuclear bomb to Kyiv.

 


 

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2026494398477803567 https://twitter.com/DD_Geopolitics/status/2026269269541916753?s=20

 


 


“I have a new philosophy. I’m only going to dread one day at a time.” — Charlie Brown

Are Democrats Working Against Their Own Voters? (Eric Florack)

Let’s start with a few quotes. This quote comes from a May 22, 2020, interview on The Breakfast Club, a popular radio show, where Biden was speaking with host Charlamagne tha God. As the interview was wrapping up, Biden famously said: “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.” Next, we offer up for your inspection this quote from New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, speaking at the Milken Institute Global Conference in Los Angeles on May 6, 2024: “Right now, we have young Black kids growing up in the Bronx who don’t even know what the word “computer” is. They don’t know. They don’t know these things.”She made the remarks while touting a $400 million supercomputer initiative in New York.


And finally, and most recently, we have this from California Gov. Gavin Newsom:”I’m not trying to impress you. I’m just trying to impress upon you, I’m like you. I’m no better than you. You know, I’m a 960 SAT guy… You’ve never seen me read a speech because I cannot read a speech.”nbNewsom was obviously trying to impress the predominantly black audience that attended the Atlanta event promoting his newly released memoir. If you wanted an indication of his presidential ambitions, you need look no further than his book release. If you were looking for an indication of how bad he would be in the role, look no further than the quote. I mean, if he believes black people can’t read, why in the world is he promoting his book to them? For the pictures?

It’s fairly obvious that these were not planned remarks. If they were planned, someone in Gov. Gruesome’s team needs flogging. We can assume these quotes just kind of slipped out, an untold truth.The quotes do reveal something of the inner workings of the leftist mind. Just as obvious, in every case of the above quotes, minority citizens are diminished in the eyes of the members of a party supposedly on their side. Can you imagine the howling and screaming if anyone in the GOP even came close to this level of stupidity? Why, the press would be 24/7 wall-to-wall with it for the next month, if not longer, And it would come up again at the next election. As it is, do a search on the Biden quote, as an example. You’ll find very few references to it.

In a sane world, any of these quotes would be career-ending for any political figure. But of course, these are Democrats, so sanity doesn’t even enter the discussion.Then we have the overarching antisemitism of the Democrats that goes back decades. In that direction, for example, lies the political demise of Joe Lieberman. The cause? His support for Israel in the face of attacks by the Palestinians, as directed by Iran. Matt Margolis gets into some of this: Axios is reporting that senior Democratic officials who worked on the party’s secret post-election autopsy concluded that Kamala Harris lost measurable support because of the Biden administration’s handling of the Israel-Gaza war. According to multiple sources, the DNC’s own data flagged the party’s Gaza position as a “net-negative” in the 2024 election.

That’s a rather diplomatic way of saying that they weren’t anti-Israel enough. According to the report, the DNC did meet with the Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU) Policy Project — a pro-Palestinian advocacy organization — as part of its evaluation process. During that meeting, according to IMEU spokesperson Hamid Bendaas, “the DNC shared with us that their own data also found that policy was, in their words, a ‘net-negative’ in the 2024 election.” Two other senior IMEU aides confirmed the same conclusion. Axios independently corroborated that Democratic officials believe the issue damaged the party’s appeal with specific voter demographics. Yeah, that demographic is the antisemitic left.

Indeed so. But of course, a bit under 70% of Jewish citizens vote Democrat at every opportunity. Similarly, black voters vote Democrat in huge percentages, though that’s been changing of late. In every case, the Democrat claim to speak for the advancement of traditional minority groups, for which they receive much support from voters. Democrats claim that the GOP is a bunch of racist, misogynist fools who would bring back slavery if they could.

And yet, finding anti-black, anti-woman, anti-religious, anti-farmer, anti-flyover states, and anti-middle class statements and actions by these same Democrats is easy enough. And of course, Donald Trump is the racist Nazi. Right? Yeah, makes no sense to me, either.nbTake care of yourselves today. I’ll see you here tomorrow.

Thought of the day: “I have a new philosophy. I’m only going to dread one day at a time.” — Charlie Brown

Read more …

“His way of bonding with black ppl is to tell them how stupid he is & that he can’t read..”

How a Party Offends Its Voters (Daniel McCarthy)

Gavin Newsom won’t be the Democrats’ 2028 presidential nominee unless he wins a significant share of the African American vote. So how’s he courting it? Promoting his new memoir to a largely black audience in Atlanta, the California governor decided to forge a connection by boasting about his poor SAT scores and difficulty reading. “I’m like you,” he said.”You know, I’m a 960 SAT guy” and “you’ve never seen me read a speech. Because I cannot read a speech.”Newsom suffers from dyslexia, but he obviously wasn’t assuming he was addressing a room full of voters with the same debility.He just looked around and concluded this audience wouldn’t have high academic aspirations.


“How insulting” was the response on X from Nina Turner, a former Democratic state senator in the battleground state Ohio and now a senior fellow with the Institute on Race, Power and Political Economy. The outspoken rapper Nicki Minaj was just as direct: “His way of bonding with black ppl is to tell them how stupid he is & that he can’t read,” she posted. Even a tactful Democratic consultant quoted in TheGrio said she was “disappointed” by Newsom: “He’s a great wordsmith, so I was kind of bothered by the way that he said it,” Ameshia Cross told the outlet. Luckily for Newsom, some of his rivals for the 2028 nomination have even less rapport with black voters. Polls often register Pete Buttigieg’s African American support at zero percent.

The likes of Buttigieg are no threat to Newsom no matter how many gaffes he makes, but his fellow Californian Kamala Harris is another story. It’s true her 2020 campaign didn’t even make it to the first primary — it imploded in December 2019. But Harris failed upward, getting chosen as Joe Biden’s running mate and then replacing him without a competition four years later. Now she’s Newsom’s roadblock. The ’28 race isn’t far away: In about a year, all the contenders on the Democrats’ side will be clear — and maybe they already are. Newsom and Harris have serious liabilities, not least the deteriorating condition of the blue state they both call home: Does the whole country want to wind up like today’s California?

Do businesses and families fleeing Newsom’s state for the freedom and lower taxes of Texas and Florida want the governor’s ruinous recipe attempted nationwide? Yet Democrats looking for an alternative to the California scheme represented by Harris and Newsom have little to choose from. Pennsylvania is the nation’s most important battleground state, and culturally and economically similar enough to other battlegrounds like Ohio and Michigan that a successful Pennsylvania pol might have the right stuff to sweep the Electoral College. But Josh Shapiro, the Keystone State’s Democratic governor, has problems of his own with one of the party’s key constituencies — critics of Israel.

Read more …

“Fulton County had more than half a million ballots to tabulate—almost 90 percent cast early or by mail. The result was announced several days later: Biden won the county by 26-point margin.”

What the FBI Is Investigating in Criminal Probe of 2020 Election (ET)

After the election offices of Georgia’s most populous county were raided last month, the FBI has disclosed information indicating where its investigation is heading. Federal laws may have been broken during the 2020 election according to the affidavit supporting the court-approved raid. Yet the breadth of the materials seized shows the FBI may be able to check the integrity of the ballots more broadly, uncovering further issues or putting speculation to bed. President Donald Trump’s campaign challenged the Georgia election most vigorously, as he lost the state to President Joe Biden by fewer than 12,000 votes according to the official tally.


The legal challenges failed. Instead, Trump was indicted based on rationale that his efforts to challenge the election results were allegedly executed with corrupt intent. The case was dismissed after he became president again in 2025. The renewed investigation now targeting Fulton County, which covers the broader Atlanta area, uses a rationale analogous to the case against Trump. The affidavit states that if known irregularities in the election were intentional, such acts would be criminal. On Jan. 28, agents seized some 700 boxes of election records, including physical ballots from the 2020 election. County officials have since filed a lawsuit seeking to have the materials returned.

The issues detailed in the affidavit were largely discovered years ago by concerned citizens using data obtained through freedom of information requests or litigation. Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who was responsible for overseeing the election and is running for governor of the state, has dismissed the issues as administrative and human errors too small to affect the election’s result. The FBI, however, has a different perspective. “If these deficiencies were the result of intentional action, it would be a violation of federal law regardless of whether the failure to retain records or the deprivation of a fair tabulation of a vote was outcome determinative for any particular election or race,” reads the affidavit signed by FBI Special Agent Hugh Evans.

Raffensperger has repeatedly stressed that the 2020 votes were counted three times, including a hand recount and a machine recount. However, many of the deficiencies outlined in the affidavit happened during these recounts. Vote counting in Georgia starts by law on election day. Fulton County had more than half a million ballots to tabulate—almost 90 percent cast early or by mail. The result was announced several days later: Biden won the county by 26-point margin. One issue with the results was a lack of receipts. Each tabulator machine should be “closed” at polls closing and tabulator tape should be printed out to show how many ballots and votes for each candidate were counted. Then, the tape should be signed by the poll manager and two witnesses.

Yet tabulator tapes for more than 300,000 votes weren’t signed, and some were missing altogether, wrote Evans, referring to an analysis by Clay Parikh, a voting machine security expert. Raffensperger said that was merely administrative oversight, as the vote tallies aren’t recorded on the tape alone. They are also preserved on memory cards in the machines. But Parikh’s analysis went deeper. “Parikh identified one tabulator that was used to close out 15 tabulator machines from 12 different locations. In addition, the poll closing time and report printed times on several closing tabulator tapes were close enough in time that Parikh believed someone had to have manipulated the times on the reports,” Evans wrote. “Parikh believed this showed that the memory cards were removed from the original tabulator and put in another tabulator to print out the closing tabulator tapes.”

The tabulators also have “protective counters” that track how many ballots have been scanned on them over their lifetime. “The protective counters on at least five tabulator tapes from the same unit were identical,” Parikh found, according to Evans. “Some of the reported ballots scanned exceeded the protective counter number.” “This indicated to Parikh that no ballots were ever scanned on these machines and that the numbers generated from those ballots were done so by placing an unencrypted memory card into the unit to generate the closing tape,” Evans wrote. “This would have allowed an opportunity for the tabulation to be tampered with.”

The tabulators are supposed to scan each ballot, creating a digital record. But the majority of the images from the original in-person voting count have not been preserved by the county, Evans said. At the time, the county was not legally required to preserve them, but it’s not clear why they were discarded to begin with. “This is another impediment to ruling out non-criminal explanations for the activities during the election,” the affidavit said.
Read more …

With the oldest and lamest trope imaginable: “Trump is marching America towards fascism.”

Democrats Double Down on SOTU Boycott (DS)

More Democrats are joining a boycott of President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address on Tuesday. Sens. Adam Schiff and Ruben Gallego recently joined the ranks of Democrat lawmakers over the weekend. “I am not going to the State of the Union,” Gallego said in a video posted to social media on Saturday. “There’s more productive things than I can do with my time than just sitting there for two hours and clapping on cue. Right now, this country is hurting.” Instead, the senator will be at home in Arizona during the address.


Schiff’s participation in the boycott was also announced on Saturday. MeidasTouch wrote on X that Schiff will instead speak at the “People’s State of the Union,” a counter address hosted by the news outlet and progressive-aligned nonprofit MoveOn Civic Action.

Democrats announcing their boycott of the State of the Union comes after progressive-aligned organizations, like Amplify Edge’s “Young People Address the Nation” campaign, pressured Democrat lawmakers last week to boycott the address. As the boycott grows, the left-leaning sports and political commentator Stephen A. Smith has come out against Democrat theatrics. Smith said on his SiriusXM radio show that the Democrats’ refusal to attend the address “ticks him off,” calling them “juvenile.” “Why do they get to circumvent the need and the insistence of mere decorum? This is the kind of stuff that ticks me off,” Smith stated. “At some point in time, ladies and gentlemen, there’s got to be an adult in the room.”

https://twitter.com/JasonJournoDC/status/2024450693252219275

“If you’re going to act as juvenile, as petulant, as petty as you accuse president of the United States to be, how are you ever going to hold a high moral ground at least high enough to judge him accordingly?” Smith added. During Trump’s address to Congress last year, some Democrats tried to steal the show. Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, interrupted the speech with shouts and gestures several times before he was removed from the chamber.mSchiff’s RSVP to the event hosted former MSNBC anchors Joy Reid and Katie Phang comes after 12 of his congressional colleagues—including Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.; Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Ill.; and the chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Rep. Greg Casar, D-Texas—announced last week that they would not “legitimize” Trump’s “lies.”

“Donald Trump will use the State of the Union address as a platform to gaslight the American people and normalize and justify their terror, abuse, and violations of our rights. I refuse to legitimize it,” Ramirez stated in a release. Van Hollen added on X that this “cannot be business as usual” because “Trump is marching America towards fascism.”

Read more …

“So, they’re paying 55% of their income and nobody ever says, “Thank you for doing that, you people, we have a very skilled elite that allows us to have this huge budget.”

‘You Owe Us’ Is the Mantra of the Left (Victor Davis Hanson)

Sami Winc: Two things that came together for me. One was [New York City Mayor Zohran] Mamdani’s 9.5% increase in the property tax for New Yorkers, but not that alone. I’m sure our audience has read about that. But I was looking at Power Line. I always like to give a shout-out to them because they have some great articles, and they were comparing New York State’s budget versus Florida’s budget. And they came up with, well, it’s only half at the state level. So, I thought, well, let’s look at the city level, New York City versus Miami. And while the billions that each of them has to spend is not meaningful in and of themselves. So, for example, New York City’s budget is $127 billion while Miami’s is only $3.4. But that being said, per citizen, what has to be paid into these cities? And so, for Mamdani, each of his citizens has to pay $14,431 in for his budget. And in Miami, it’s just half of that, at just under $7,000 per citizen.


Victor Davis Hanson: And it’s more disproportionate because in New York, the number of people who are actually paying taxes is a much smaller percentage than in Miami. He inherited the city that was this blue-chip financial market, this cultural, financial capital of the world, and the first thing he did was raise spending by $11 billion. Second thing he did was prove that he couldn’t get the trash or the snow off the street during the storm. Third thing he did, it was very hard to find an appointee who somewhere in their dark history had not issued or written something antisemitic. All he does is smile and try to be … basically, his message is: I’m not Lenin, and Trotsky or Stalin. I’m the nice, happy-faced communist, and you’re going to like me, and you’re going to like my communism. We’re all going to get along.

I mean, if you’re in New York, if you’re in California, you got a choice. If you’re in California and this billionaire tax passes, and you’ve got to come up with $50 million, you’re going flee. If you’re in New York, and they’re going to raise your property tax on these multimillion-dollar buildings, you’re talking what could be $20 or $30, $40, $50 million more a year, then you’re going to flee, get out. If you don’t, they’re just going to keep doing it. They’re going keep targeting you because they have an idea. I don’t think people realize that. nThe socialist mind … I knew a lot of socialists in the universities and some friends of mine, and they always think … The whole core of socialism is, I work hard, and no one knows how I suffer at my job as a nurse, as a farmer, whatever. And I believe in the labor theory of value.

Why is it that when Victor had a Ph.D. but he was pruning vines, he was only making $4 an hour—I was for three years—and then all of a sudden, five years later, he is an academic, and he is sitting in between classes and having coffee and he’s making $50 an hour. That’s not fair. And so, they don’t think about supply and demand, expertise, education, nothing. And somebody would say, “Well, when Victor was pruning vines, a lot of people could not only prune them, they could probably prune them better.” When he was teaching a particular Greek literature class, and they thought that was an important class to offer. Questionable, but that’s what they said. Very few people could do it. They don’t accept that.

And so, they run on this envy that we work hard, and we get up, and we do things, and therefore we should be compensated. And that’s what a socialist is, and they’re going keep raising taxes. The other thing about it is, when they raise taxes, they don’t ever say thank you. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, even former Sen. Dianne [Feinstein], they’re all wealthy, but they never said, “We want to thank the people in California that are the 1% that are paying 50% of the income tax.” And by the way, the 50% of the income tax in California, there’s only about, I don’t know what there is, 250 billionaires? They usually pay capital gains tax. They pay at about, I don’t know, 28%. The people in that 1% of Californians are highly compensated professionals and small businesspeople who make a million or two million, three million dollars, and then they get hit with a 13.3% tax rate, plus their federal plus Medicare.

So, they’re paying 55% of their income and nobody ever says, “Thank you for doing that, you people, we have a very skilled elite that allows us to have this huge budget.” They don’t. The attitude is always, “They have to. They have to pay more.”

Read more …

The Pentagon clashed with rival contractor Anthropic over ethics limitations on its tech … Still, not an rexclusive deal. ChatGPT, Gemini et al are there.

US To Integrate Musk’s Grok AI Into Classified Military Systems (RT)

The US Department of War has reportedly signed an agreement with Elon Musk’s xAI to integrate its Grok chatbot into classified military systems, escalating pressure on rival contractor Anthropic as it refuses to lift safeguards on its Claude model. The deal, first reported by the New York Times and confirmed by Axios on Monday, would make Grok the second AI system approved for use on the military’s most sensitive networks, where intelligence analysis, weapons development, and battlefield operations take place. Until now, Anthropic’s Claude has been the sole model available on classified platforms, through a partnership with Palantir Technologies.


The agreement comes as Secretary of War Pete Hegseth summoned Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei for what sources expect to be a tense meeting at the Pentagon on Tuesday. According to Axios, Hegseth is expected to present an ultimatum: agree to make Claude available for “all lawful purposes” without additional safeguards, or face consequences including potential designation as a “supply chain risk” – a label typically reserved for entities linked to foreign adversaries.


https://twitter.com/iam_smx/status/2026100949618442296?s=20

Anthropic has resisted Pentagon demands to remove restrictions that prevent its technology from being used for mass surveillance of Americans or deployed in fully autonomous weapons systems with no humans in the loop. xAI has reportedly agreed to the demands, but the company has yet to comment on the reports. Google is also reportedly “close” to a deal allowing classified use of its Gemini model, according to people briefed on the discussions, while OpenAI remains “not close” as it continues working on safety technology.

https://twitter.com/ns123abc/status/2026082317253439539?s=20

Pentagon officials acknowledge that replacing Anthropic within its classified systems could cause short-term disruptions. The model was used during the operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro last month – the first known instance of AI playing a direct role in an active military raid. Anthropic has positioned itself as the safety-conscious alternative within the AI industry. CEO Amodei has repeatedly warned of the existential dangers posed by unconstrained artificial intelligence, including “autonomy risks.” The company’s Safeguards Research Team lead, Mrinank Sharma, abruptly resigned last week with a cryptic warning that “the world is in peril.”

Read more …

And they did.

Trump, Along With Democrats, Will Make Their Case Tuesday at State of the Union (JTN)

President Donald Trump is set to deliver his State of the Union Address Tuesday evening, when he is expected to highlight his accomplishments during his first year back in office and spotlight goals for the coming year. During an event at the White House Monday morning, Trump teased that his address is “going to be a long speech, because we have so much to talk about.” The president is expected to tout his accomplishments over the last year, highlighting tax cuts, lower gas prices, a dramatic decline in illegal border crossings, lower crime rates, lower drug costs, international peace deals, and trade deals – despite presiding over the longest government shutdown in history.


Trump’s address comes as the federal government is in the midst of a partial shutdown that is affecting the Department of Homeland Security. Several Democratic lawmakers have announced their intention to boycott the address; it’s unclear if other Democratic lawmakers will protest the president in the House Gallery. Last year, several held paddles to make statements. The president will likely make the economy one of his top priorities, highlighting the passage and signing of the Big, Beautiful Bill last summer. In briefings and news conferences, Trump and his administration often point to higher tax credits and a tax break for tipped workers as well as a healthy stock market, as evidence that his economic policies are winning.

Among the top issues Trump will likely spotlight are crime and immigration. During the past year, the president has deployed the National Guard to select major U.S. cities, including Washington, D.C., to tackle crime. The president will likely spend part of his speech trying to sell his economic agenda, including his use of tariffs. Trump could also use the opportunity to push his Senate Republicans to eliminate the filibuster to pass key legislation, such as election security measures. While Trump will likely point to lower gas prices and lower taxes, Democrats have been pushing affordability.

Democrats have tapped newly inaugurated Gov. Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., to deliver the Democratic response to Trump’s address Tuesday night, with Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., to deliver a Democratic response in Spanish. The address comes ahead of a critical mid-term election, where both Republicans and Democrats have a lot riding on their messaging. It’s unclear who the president will be hosting in the gallery Tuesday evening. However, multiple reports indicate that the men’s U.S. hockey team, which just brought home the gold, has been invited to attend.

Read more …

“.. How much is she being paid, and for what???“

Netflix’s Stock Plunges After Refusing to Fire Susan Rice (Bryan S. Jung)

Netflix’s stock plunged after its refusal to fire former senior Obama and Biden official Susan Rice from its board, following her threats of retribution against supporters of President Donald Trump under a future Democrat administration. Rice was national security adviser and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under former President Barack Obama, and later served as a senior advisor in the Biden White House. She returned to Netflix’s board in 2023 after leaving her role as director of the Domestic Policy Council in the Biden administration. Rice boasted during a podcast last week that “it is not going to end well” for corporations, news organizations, and law firms that “bent the knee” to Trump, claiming that their deference to the president is unpopular.


She said that firms aligned with Trump could face an “accountability agenda” if Democrats return to power, stating, “This is not going to be an instance of forgive and forget.” “I think they’ve got another thing coming … they’re going to be surprised. Democrats have had a bellyful, and we’re not going to play by, you know, the old set of rules,” added Rice. Trump has since demanded that Netflix fire Rice and warned the company to get rid of Rice or “pay the consequences.” “Netflix should fire racist, Trump Deranged Susan Rice, IMMEDIATELY, or pay the consequences,” Trump wrote on Truth Social over the weekend. ”She’s got no talent or skills – Purely a political hack! HER POWER IS GONE, AND WILL NEVER BE BACK. How much is she being paid, and for what???“

The streaming service is currently in the midst of a bidding war with Paramount Skydance Corp. to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery Inc., excluding the company’s cable networks, including CNN, which the White House has the power to scuttle altogether. Netflix’s $72 billion bid for Warner Brothers Discovery requires regulatory anti-trust approval from the U.S. Department of Justice, which is scrutinizing the deal during this latest political controversy. Paramount Skydance launched a hostile takeover bid for all of Warner Bros. Discovery, promising shareholders $30 per share in an all-cash deal.

Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos has so far refused to fire Rice and told the BBC that the acquisition is a “business deal, not a political deal.” “He [Trump] likes to do a lot of things on social media,” Sarandos said, according to the BBC. Sarandos added that regulatory bodies, not the White House, should make a decision on the deal. The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month that the DOJ is investigating whether Netflix’s takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery could hurt competition and whether the streaming service’s previous acquisitions may have affected the industry’s creative talent.

The streaming giant has been accused of anticompetitive tactics in negotiations with independent content creators for acquiring programming, reported Bloomberg.It is unknown if the decline in Netflix’s stock price at market open reflected investor concerns over political interference in corporate governance, but the media company’s shares tumbled Monday before slightly recovering at $76.02 per share at closing, a 3.37% loss.

Read more …

Let Elon Musk reorganize US space programs.

We Need to Talk About Artemis (Stephen Green)

We need to talk about NASA’s Artemis program to get the U.S. back to the Moon because things can’t continue like this.The initial reports of last week’s Artemis 2 wet dress rehearsal (WDR) made it sound like the hydrogen leaks were acceptable and our first manned mission around the Moon would be good to go for launch during the first week of March. That was Thursday evening. Friday’s midday press conference was all happy talk about how well the WDR went.Before anyone at NASA had time to grab lunch on Saturday, agency chief Jared Isaacman revealed that “overnight data showed an interruption in helium flow in the SLS interim cryogenic propulsion stage,” and “teams are troubleshooting and preparing for a likely rollback of Artemis 2 to the VAB [NASA’s massive Vehicle Assembly Building].”


Easy fixes are performed outdoors, right there on the launch pad. Trickier fixes require a slow journey back to the VAB on NASA’s tracked Crawler-Transporter 2 (CT-2). As it turns out, Artemis 2 requires one of those trickier fixes. So much for that March launch window. Now it’s “fingers crossed!” for early April, depending, of course, on how long it takes to find and fix whatever went wrong during last week’s WDR. Here’s the thing to remember about the SLS rocket that by law must launch at least the first three Artemis missions: This is as good as it gets. Leaks, delays, regular trips on CT-2 to and from VAB? That’s the norm for SLS. As discussed in a couple of previous columns, each SLS is a unique snowflake.

Earlier this month, space reporter Eric Berger asked NASA’s top civil servant, Amit Kshatriya, about the SLS’s issues and low flight cadence. “Every time we [try to launch] these are very bespoke components, they’re in many cases made by incredible craftsmen,” Kshatriya replied. “It’s the first time this particular machine has borne witness to cryogens, and how it breathes, and how it vents, and how it wants to leak is something we have to characterize.” nIn other words, figuring out how to correct the hydrogen leak on the Artemis 1 SLS rocket taught NASA very little about the leaks it might encounter on the Artemis 2 rocket. Or what leaks NASA will find on Artemis 3 two years from now. Or maybe three.

The Artemis program was designed during the first Trump administration, using existing hardware with the hope of getting us back to the Moon by 2024. Now NASA claims 2028. 2030 might be more realistic. So whatever the original hope was, it hasn’t materialized. And at $4 billion-plus per SLS, everybody (including high-ranking NASA people) understands that SLS is a dead end. My modest proposal is this: As Dr. Evil might say, a ONE BILLION DOLLAR prize for the first private company to put at least three astronauts on the lunar surface (leaving a fourth one in orbit to crew a command vehicle is fine, if needed) near the southern ice resources. The landing mission must also include a “useful” amount of cargo for at least getting started on a permanent habitat.

The crew must also return safely to Earth, naturally. A billion dollars is a lot of money. But it’s also a little less than 25% of the cost of a single SLS rocket, not including everything else that goes into a manned NASA mission. Just on rockets alone, taxpayers would stand to save more than $7 billion on Artemis 2 and 3 — and at the SLS’s unpredictable launch cadence, we might even get to the Moon sooner.

Read more …

All the attention goes to the man formerly known as prince.

The 1,400 mass-raped girls? Not so much. Their story doesn’t sell. The press make sure of that.

Royal Theater, Silent Streets (David Manney)

Need an idea about how to start an argument between people in the UK? Mention a royal name alongside Jeffrey Epstein. That should get the fires started. The elite formerly known as Prince Andrew’s association with Epstein remains a global fixation — global if you mean England. Political editor and commentator Emma-Jo Morris recently highlighted how authorities moved aggressively in matters tied to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, while long-running grooming gang cases have dragged on for years without any similar feelings of urgency.


Andrew, formerly the Duke of York, stepped back from the spotlight after the crown stripped him of public and royal duties following his 2019 BBC Newsnight interview with Emily Maitlis, which generated massive political shockwaves. In America, Virginia Giuffre filed a civil lawsuit against Andrew, which was later settled. Because of the scandal, the Royal Family removed his honorary military titles and patronages. The Epstein story burned like hydrogen fueled by leaking inert helium gas and combusting front pages like the Hindenburg. Every development generated debate in Parliament and endless commentary across Britain.

Meanwhile, documented grooming gang scandals in towns such as Rotherham, Rochdale, and Telford revealed systematic sexual exploitation of young girls. In Rotherham alone, independent investigator Professor Alexis Jay concluded that around 1,400 children were abused between 1997 and 2013, while many of the perpetrators were identified as men of Pakistani Muslim backgrounds. Alexis Jay, who authored the report, used to be chief inspector of social work in Scotland. She’s seen a lot. But despite being deeply familiar with the details of this report, even she seemed shaken by the words coming out of her mouth at Tuesday’s press conference about the victims, some as young as 11, abused from 1997 until last year.

“It is hard to describe the appalling nature of the abuse the child victims suffered. They were raped by multiple perpetrators. They were trafficked to other towns and cities in the north of England. They were abducted, beaten and intimidated,” Jay said. Nine men in Rochdale were convicted in 2012 for grooming and trafficking underage girls.

The nine defendants were jailed for a total of 77 years, with the ringleader, a 59-year-old man from Oldham, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, receiving a 19-year term after being convicted of two rapes, aiding and abetting rape, sexual assault and trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation.Kabeer Hassan, 25, of Oldham, was jailed for nine years for rape and three years, concurrently, for conspiracy. Hamid Safi, 22, an illegal immigrant of no fixed address, was jailed for four years for conspiracy and one year, concurrently, for trafficking.Greater Manchester Police were criticized for earlier failures of intervention. The story remained the same in Telford, where an independent inquiry led by Tom Crowther KC discovered that as many as 1,000 girls may have been sexually exploited over decades.

In his closing comments, Telford added: “People will not forget Telford’s history of child sexual exploitation – and nor should they. But in my view Telford’s approach – the Council’s approach – to the Recommendations, to engagement with its key partners and most of all with those three people it let down as children, now stands as a model. All involved – but particularly the Consultees, who put aside hurt and anger and years of being dismissed in order to ensure that next generations are better protected than they were – deserve our very high praise.”

Read more …

“.. we see European leaders attacking their own European “allies” through the use of Ukraine. If you do not support the continued bloodlust, you are an enemy of the EU collective hive mind”

Ukraine (EU) Strikes Russian Oil Pumping Station (CTH)

The Ukraine military, technically and non-pretendingly accepted as the EU military, has targeted a key oil pumping station in Russia that feeds into the westerly directed oil supply. However, if you stand back from the western media, what you will notice from this attack is not the target in Russia, but the customers at the end of the pipeline in Europe, mainly Hungary and Slovakia.


[…] Through local stations, including infrastructure around Kaleykino, oil from Tatarstan and neighboring regions feeds into the main pipeline, which runs through the Samara region and continues westward toward Belarus and further to countries in Eastern and Central Europe. […] There were also earlier reports that Ukrainian forces carried out several attacks on Druzhba pipeline infrastructure inside Russia, which at times disrupted Russian oil supplies to Hungary and Slovakia. {source}


So, what’s going on here?Well, with the anniversary of the Russian Federation beginning the war into Ukraine, the Europeans who now control the military operations inside Ukraine are targeting European countries who do not align with their bloodlust, specifically Hungary and Slovakia. Both Hungary and Slovakia are land locked countries without easy access seaports. Because of their geographic locations, they rely on Russian oil and gas for their energy needs. Hungary and Slovakia have not wanted to expand the war against Russia. The EU is demanding Hungary and Slovakia agree to expanded war. The European ‘coalition of the willing’ is now targeting key Russian infrastructure that supplies energy products to European countries who are not in compliance with the EU dictates of war.

Putin says threats to energy pipelines sabotage peace process with Ukraine. In his televised speech, the Russian president also accused Ukraine of threatening Russian energy pipelines with the help of Western intelligence agencies. He claimed these attacks were aimed to sabotage the peace process. Putin also stressed it was vital for Russia to strengthen the defence of energy infrastructure and other strategic sectors. {source} This is why Secretary of State Marco Rubio travelled to Hungary and Slovakia last week. Essentially, now we see European leaders attacking their own European “allies” through the use of Ukraine. If you do not support the continued bloodlust, you are an enemy of the EU collective hive mind.

https://twitter.com/DD_Geopolitics/status/2026291115100418176?s=20 Read more …

Ukraine blocks the flow of Russian oil to Slovakia, but still expects Slovakia to send it power.

Slovakia Halts Electricity Supplies To Ukraine (RT)

Bratislava has stopped providing emergency electricity supplies to Ukraine until Kiev restores the flow of Russian oil to Slovakia through the Druzhba pipeline, Prime Minister Robert Fico has said, warning of “further reciprocal steps.” The prime minister made the announcement on Monday, when the ultimatum he issued over the weekend to Kiev to resume operations of the Soviet-era pipeline expired. The Druzhba pipeline, which connects Russia to Slovakia and Hungary, has been out of commission since late January. Kiev claims it was damaged in Russian strikes, which Moscow denies. Both Slovakia and Hungary have accused Ukraine of deliberately withholding supplies for political reasons and threatened retaliation.


Announcing the halt to electricity supplies to Ukraine, Fico reiterated that Ukraine’s actions were a “purely political decision aimed at blackmailing Slovakia.” “Reciprocity is a fundamental rule in international relations. The government’s first response to the hostile acts of the Ukrainian president in the form of stopping emergency electricity supply is therefore entirely appropriate,” Fico stated, warning of “further reciprocal steps” if oil supplies are not resumed. Kiev has been increasingly reliant on electricity imports to stabilize its power grid, which has been battered by Russian strikes on Ukraine’s dual-use infrastructure. According to Fico, Ukraine received twice as much electricity from Slovakia this January as it did throughout 2025.

The retaliatory move came hours after Hungary vetoed the EU’s latest sanctions on Russia, as well as a proposed €90 billion ($106 billion) emergency loan for Ukraine. Budapest tied the double veto to the Druzhba standoff, accusing Kiev of imposing an “oil blockade” on the country and “blackmailing” it. Last week, both Slovakia and Hungary announced that they would suspend diesel exports to Ukraine until the Druzhba pipeline becomes operational again. Budapest has also mulled cutting emergency electricity supplies to Ukraine.

Read more …

“Budapest has also opposed the bloc’s proposed 20th package of sanctions against Russia amid an oil supply row with Kiev..”

Hungary Vetoes €90 Billion EU Loan For Ukraine (RT)

Hungary has blocked the EU’s proposed €90 billion ($106 billion) emergency loan for Ukraine, as well as the latest package of sanctions on Russia, citing Kiev’s allegedly deliberate disruption of oil supplies to the country. Hungary placed the double veto on the initiatives on Monday as Kiev and Budapest remain locked in a bitter row over the Soviet-era Druzhba oil pipeline – which carries Russian crude to Hungary and Slovakia and has been out of commission since late January. Kiev claims that it was damaged by Russia, which has denied the allegations. Budapest has echoed Moscow’s stance, accusing Kiev of deliberately withholding supplies for political reasons and subjecting the country to an “oil blockade,” and threatening retaliation.


“Ukrainians cannot blackmail us; they cannot jeopardize the security of Hungary’s energy supply by colluding with Brussels and the Hungarian opposition. No, a clear no,” Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said after a meeting of the bloc’s top diplomats to discuss the loan and sanctions package. EU foreign affairs chief Kaja Kallas said the bloc’s leadership expected the measures to be approved at the meeting, adding that it was a major setback and a “message we did not want to send today.” The €90 billion loan was agreed to in December, when Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic secured an opt-out scheme, allowing them to not contribute to the scheme financially.

Hungary, as well as the other nation affected by the oil supply disruption, Slovakia, has threatened retaliation over the Druzhba issue, demanding that Kiev resume its operations immediately. Last week, both countries announced that they would suspend diesel exports to Ukraine until the pipeline becomes operational again. This weekend, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico also threatened to stop providing Ukraine with emergency electricity supply unless Kiev restores oil deliveries within two days. Fico said on Monday that he will keep his promise, raising the issue with the nation’s electricity provider. In January alone, Kiev received more emergency electricity from Slovakia than throughout 2025 to stabilize its energy grid amid Russian long-range strikes, he noted. https://twitter.com/HungaryBased/status/2026333804428705922?s=20

Read more …

“We don’t hate Ukraine. The problem is that the Ukrainian state hates Hungary..”

Ukraine Hates Us – Hungary (RT)

Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has rejected accusations that Budapest hates Ukraine, suggesting that it’s Kiev that’s been pursuing hostile policies toward his country for years. The remarks came in response to questions from reporters on the sidelines of the EU Foreign Affairs Council, as Hungary threatened to veto the bloc’s latest sanctions package against Russia. When one journalist confronted Szijjarto, suggesting that Hungary should direct its ire at Moscow, the minister offered a scolding response. “We don’t hate Ukraine. The problem is that the Ukrainian state hates Hungary,” Szijjarto said, accusing Kiev of undermining Budapest’s energy security by blocking crude oil supplies via the Druzhba pipeline, among other issues.


At the heart of the dispute is the Soviet-era Druzhba pipeline, the main artery carrying Russian crude to Hungary and neighboring Slovakia. As landlocked countries in Central Europe, both are heavily dependent on it. Another journalist charged that Hungary’s Russian oil purchases mean Budapest is “financing the war.” Szijjarto dismissed the claim, pointing out that the value amounts to a mere 0.2% of Russia’s gross domestic product. Later in the day, Hungary followed through and vetoed the sanctions package. Szijjarto said that Budapest would consider lifting its block only when Ukraine resumes oil flow via the Druzhba pipeline. Previously, Budapest halted diesel supplies to Ukraine and threatened to cut off electricity and natural gas.

When the oil flow stopped in late January, Ukraine blamed a Russian airstrike. Moscow, however, insisted that Kiev was using energy as leverage to blackmail the two EU countries, which have been critical of the bloc’s support for Ukraine. The diplomatic dispute between Hungary and Ukraine has escalated in recent weeks, spilling over into personal jabs. Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky launched a string of attacks against Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, including fat-shaming him during the Munich Security Conference earlier this month.

Orban, a vocal critic of EU support for Kiev, responded by saying Zelensky’s comments demonstrate why Ukraine “cannot become a member of the European Union.” The Hungarian prime minister has long opposed Ukraine’s push to join the bloc and has repeatedly refused to send it weapons or approve EU military aid, calling for diplomacy instead.

Read more …

Between Novichok and Navalny, we’ve come to know we cannot trust one single word from the British government.

And that’s how we also know that Russia did NOT kill Navalny.

The New Navalny Poison – This Swedish Disinformation is a British Lie (Helmer)

The Swedish Government has admitted it has no direct evidence of the cause of Alexei Navalny’s death – only British Government hearsay.In a series of email exchanges last week, the Swedish Foreign Ministry has revealed that its military laboratories and scientific establishments have not received post-mortem samples of Navalny’s tissues. There has been no Swedish analysis of the toxicology of those samples. There is no Swedish documentation proving in the toxicology of the Navalny samples epibatidine poisoning as the cause of Navalny’s death on February 16, 2024. Forensically speaking, the Swedish Government does not know — cannot know — if Navalny died of natural causes or was poisoned to death. Ten days ago, however, on February 14, the Swedish Government signed with four other states – UK, Germany, France and The Netherlands – an announcement of fact and allegation of murder it had no intention to verify.



“The UK, Sweden, France, Germany and The Netherlands are confident [sic] that Alexei Navalny was poisoned with a lethal toxin,” the statement declared. “This is the conclusion [sic] of our Governments based on analyses [sic] of samples from Alexei Navalny. These analyses have conclusively [sic] confirmed the presence of epibatidine. Epibatidine is a toxin found in poison dart frogs in South America. It is not found naturally in Russia. Russia claimed that Navalny died of natural causes. But given the toxicity of epibatidine and reported symptoms [sic], poisoning was highly likely the cause of his death. Navalny died while held in prison, meaning Russia had the means, motive and opportunity to administer this poison to him.”

Sic is the old Latin adverb manuscript which editors traditionally used to mark an original word or term that applied to a surprising claim, faulty reasoning, fabrication, or falsehood which the reader might otherwise interpret as a mistake of transcription. No mistake here by the Swedes – this wording is their cover for not being caught at a provable lie. An investigation in Stockholm by lawyer Mats Nilsson, based on Swedish freedom of information law, has produced the record to show that the only conclusion the Swedish Government has reached is to accept that Porton Down, the British Government’s chemical warfare laboratory, which synthesized epibatidine at least a decade ago and has accumulated operational stocks since then, has reported the discovery of that poison in the Navalny samples.

However, the British Government has not transferred these samples to Sweden for investigation. The Swedish Government’s chemical warfare laboratory at Umeå does not confirm it has either received the samples, or analysed them, or reported any findings. Instead, a series of emailed answers from the Swedish Foreign Ministry’s Disarmament Non-proliferation and Export Control (NIS) Unit has repeated the February 14 joint statement allegations. When requested to substantiate them, the Ministry has added a series of disclaimers:

“we will not comment on the details regarding how the samples were obtained. What we can say is that we have high confidence in the integrity of the process… We will not comment on the details of the entities involved in the forensic investigation… We will not comment on the exact details of the identification process. We will not comment on the details regarding how the samples from Navalny were obtained. What we can say is that we have high confidence in the integrity of the chain of custody.”

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/InvestWithD/status/2025921193019346964?s=20 https://twitter.com/JimFergusonUK/status/2026006356918992965?s=20 https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/2026541355820831115?s=20

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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


Piet Mondriaan The red cloud 1907


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

 


 

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

 


 

 


 


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

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

TRUMP Declares WAR On Euro CENSORSHIP (MN)

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more …

They don’t want transparency.

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

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


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

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

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

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

Read more …

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Read more …

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

Read more …

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more …

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

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

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


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

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

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

Read more …

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

Trump is Losing His Base – Mark Taylor (USAW)

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


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

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

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

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

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

Read more …

Send the bill to Reid Hoffman.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Read more …

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

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

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


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

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

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

Read more …

Trump throw nukes? I doubt it.

Trump is Netanyahu’s Puppet (Paul Craig Roberts)

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


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

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

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

Read more …

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

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

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


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

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

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

Read more …

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

British Police Take Former Ambassador Mandelson into Custody (Manney)

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


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

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

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

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

Read more …

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

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

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


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

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

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

Read more …

 

 

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

 


 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Feb 222026
 


Pierre-Auguste Renoir Dance at Bougival 1883


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

 


 

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

 


 

 


 

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

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

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


Trump claims that when you read their dissenting opinions, there’s no way anyone can argue against them. “Foreign countries that have been ripping us off for years are ecstatic. They’re so happy,” he said. “And they’re dancing in the streets, but they won’t be dancing for long — that I can assure you. Trump said that he knew the Democrats on the court were an automatic “no,” just like the Democrat members of Congress, no matter how great the case. “They’re against anything that makes America strong, healthy, and great again,” he said. He also called them a “disgrace to our nation.”

He said the others, presumably Justices John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett, are being “politically correct,” which happens far too often, and he called them “fools and lap dogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats.” “They’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. It’s my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests, and a political movement that is far smaller people would ever thing,” he said, adding, “I won by millions of votes — we won in a landslide, with all the cheating that went on, and there was a lot of it.” He claimed that “certain justices” are “afraid” of the loud, obnoxious, and ignorant minority.

“This was an important case to me, more as a symbol of economic national security and also, I would say just for our country itself — so important because we’re doing so well as a country,” he said. “The good news is that there are methods, practices, statutes, and authorities, as recognized by the entire court in this terrible decision, and also as recognized by Congress, which they refer to, that are even stronger than the IEEPA tariffs available to me as president of the United States.”

Trump claimed he was actually modest in what he asked of other countries because he was trying to be “well-behaved,” and wanted to be a “good boy” because he knows how the Supreme Court works and knows they’re easily swayed. He also touted some economic wins, like recent stock market records and the decline of fentanyl coming into our country, and how tariffs helped him settle eight wars. The president said it’s ridiculous that the law allows him to “destroy” foreign countries, tell them they can’t do business in the United States, or even embargo them, but he can’t charge them a cent.

“It’s okay because we have other ways — numerous other way,” he added. “Therefore, effective immediately, all national security tariffs, under Section 232 and existing Section 301 tariffs… remain fully in place and in full force and effect. Today, I will sign an order to impose a 10% global tariff, under Section 122, over and above our normal tariffs already being charged.” He said he’s also initiating other investigations to “protect our country from unfair trading practices of other countries and companies.”

Read more …

Bumped it up to 15%.

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

President Donald Trump on Friday signed an executive order that formally ends a range of tariffs that the Supreme Court shot down earlier in the day, and imposed a new 10% global tariff that will be in effect for 150 days. The Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 split that Trump could not impose massive tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, however the majority opinion did not weigh in on other means to impose the tariffs. Trump said the new 10% global tariff is being enacted under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, which comes as tariffs imposed under Section 232 and Section 301 remain in place

.
“It is my Great Honor to have just signed, from the Oval Office, a Global 10% Tariff on all Countries, which will be effective almost immediately,” Trump said in a series of posts on Truth Social. “Those members of the Supreme Court who voted against our very acceptable and proper method of tariffs should be ashamed of themselves. “Their decision was ridiculous, but now the adjustment process begins, and we will do everything possible to take in even more money than we were taking in before,” he added. The new tariff will take effect just after midnight on Tuesday, Feb. 24.

Read more …

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

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

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

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


The majority of the court decided presidential ability to levy countervailing duties is not part of the ability to “regulate” importation. In the opinion of the court, the President can block imports, nullify imports and prohibit imports, but the president cannot “regulate” imports through the use of tariffs. This is the representative logic of a John Roberts court, the voice of Bush Inc.

It is what it is – and many of us saw this nonsense as a likely outcome, but it is still frustrating to see such a detached parseltongue approach to legal opinions when the national security of our nation is at stake. These are the judicial minds who will watch the nation burn to the ground, just so they can remain in power ruling over the ashes. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch joined the court’s three liberals in the majority. Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.

(Via Politico) – […] “The President asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope. In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it,” Roberts wrote, declaring that the 1977 law Trump cited to justify the import duties “falls short” of the Congressional approval that would be needed. The ruling wipes out the 10 percent tariff Trump imposed on nearly every country in the world, as well as specific, higher tariffs on some of the top U.S. trading partners, including Canada, Mexico, China, the European Union, Japan and South Korea.

Several of those countries have entered trade agreements with the U.S. — and before the ruling indicated that they would continue to honor those agreements. That is because the victory for the 12 Democratic-run states and small businesses that challenged Trump’s tariffs is expected to be short lived. The White House has signaled it will attempt to use other authorities to keep similar duties in place. “We’ve been thinking about this plan for five years or longer,” U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer told POLITICO in December. “You can be sure that when we came to the president the beginning of the term, we had a lot of different options” “My message is tariffs are going to be a part of the policy landscape going forward,” Greer said. (read more)”

Justice Thomas agrees with CTH prior position on the issue. IEEPA grants the president the authority to regulate imports, and tariffs are a tool for regulation.


Despite this decision the tariffs will remain in place, perhaps using various authorities which have not been challenged as noted in the Kavanaugh dissent:

“That said, with respect to tariffs in particular, the Court’s decision might not prevent Presidents from imposing most if not all of these same sorts of tariffs under other statutory authorities. For example, Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 permits the President to impose a “temporary import surcharge” to “deal with large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits.” 19 U. S. C. §2132(a). Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 provides that, if the International Trade Commission determines an article is being imported in such quantities that it is “a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industry producing an article like or directly competitive with the imported article,” the President may take “appropriate and feasible action,” including imposing a “duty.”

§§2251(a), 2253(a)(3)(A). Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 authorizes the President through a subordinate officer to “impose duties” if he determines that “an act, policy, or practice of a foreign country” is “unjustifiable and burdens or restricts United States commerce.” §§2411(a)(c). Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 permits the President to impose tariffs when he finds that “any foreign country places any burden or disadvantage upon the commerce of the United States.” §1338(d). And Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 authorizes the President to, after receiving a report from the Secretary of Commerce, “adjust the imports of [an] article and its derivatives so that such imports will not threaten to impair the national security.” §1862(c)(1)(a).

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

Read more …

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

Clarence Thomas Unloads on the Supreme Court Over Tariff Ruling

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


What made the decision especially striking was the coalition that produced it. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, alongside the court’s three liberal justices. Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented. His dissent goes straight to the constitutional text and history. “I write separately to explain why the statute at issue here is consistent with the separation of powers as an original matter,” he wrote. His argument is grounded in the Founding era’s actual understanding of foreign commerce — not a modern reinterpretation of it.

Thomas draws a hard line between domestic legislative power and foreign trade authority. Congress holds the taxing power and the power to set domestic rules governing life, liberty, and property. Foreign commerce is a different animal entirely. “Power over foreign commerce was not within the core legislative power, and engaging in foreign commerce was regarded as a privilege rather than a right,” he explained. If foreign trade regulation isn’t a core legislative function, then delegating it to the executive doesn’t violate separation of powers at all. In fact, that would mean it’s actually consistent with how the Founders understood the relationship between the branches.

Thomas backed this up with history. From the Founding forward, Congress routinely handed trade regulation, including the power to impose import duties, to the executive branch. Courts upheld that arrangement every time it was challenged. “The power to impose duties on imports can be delegated,” Thomas wrote. He concluded, “Congress’s delegation here was constitutional.” That framing treats unlimited tariff authority the same way the Court treats other major questions — skeptically, demanding Congress speak clearly before the executive acts broadly.Thomas thinks that’s the wrong test applied to the wrong power. His reading of the original Constitution puts the executive branch in charge of foreign commerce. He argues the majority conflated two distinct constitutional functions and punished the president for Congress’s longstanding practice of handing him the wheel on trade.

In his own dissent, Justice Kavanaugh argued that the majority’s decision would lead to chaos. “The United States may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the IEEPA tariffs, even though some importers may have already passed on costs to consumers or others,” he wrote. Kavanaugh also noted that Trump used tariffs as leverage while making trading deals worth trillions of dollars, and that the court’s ruling “could generate uncertainty regarding those trade arrangements,” he wrote.

Read more …

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

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

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


Justice Samuel Alito is 75 years old — and will be 76 by the end of this term. Justice Clarence Thomas is 77 years old — and will be 78 by term’s end. Alito just celebrated 20 years of service on the high court, and Thomas would mark 35 years of service this October — nice round numbers. Alito has a forthcoming book set for release this October, around the start of the next Supreme Court term. That isn’t anywhere near dispositive — Justice Amy Coney Barrett published a book last September, and Justice Neil Gorsuch has released two books since he was confirmed to the court in 2017 — but it has certainly fed speculation.

Thomas and Alito are, by some order of magnitude, the two most principled conservative justices currently sitting on the high court. It stands to reason that they would like to be replaced by ideological fellow travelers — something that likely requires a likeminded president and a likeminded U.S. Senate majority. As the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who was very much an ideological fellow traveler, told Chris Wallace in a 2012 interview, “I would not like to be replaced by someone who immediately sets about undoing what I’ve tried to do for 25-26 years. I mean, I shouldn’t have to tell you that, unless you think I’m a fool.”

If there is one thing we can say with certainty about Thomas, who is the perhaps the single greatest living American, and Alito, who is perhaps the most authentic Burkean conservative on the high court, it is that they are decidedly not fools.

Republicans currently hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate. What’s more, they face a remarkably favorable map this November: The GOP is defending very few (if any) swing-state Senate seats, and it will have enticing Senate pickup opportunities in Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota and New Hampshire. But to paraphrase the old quip from former Israeli diplomat Abba Eban, Republicans oftentimes never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Accordingly, the increasingly voluble scuttlebutt out of Washington is that there is a chance Democrats retake not merely the nearly evenly divided House, but the Senate as well. Those odds are below 50% — the online exchange Polymarket, for instance, currently places the GOP’s odds of retaining the Senate around 60% — but there is certainly a chance it happens.

That wouldn’t just spell doom for the final two years of President Donald Trump’s second term. It would be potentially calamitous for the future of the Supreme Court as well. Does anyone think that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and his Democratic caucus are not prepared to stall and refuse to confirm any prospective Trump nominee to the high court? (SET ITAL)Of course(END ITAL) they are prepared to do that. If Republicans lose the Senate this November and Thomas and Alito stick around through the 2028 presidential election, they will in essence be wagering on Republicans maintaining the White House and winning back the Senate.

Is that a risk worth taking? In fairness, it might be. Republicans have historically botched few things more than they have Supreme Court nominations — from Justices William Brennan (brought to us by President Dwight Eisenhower), Harry Blackmun (President Richard Nixon), and David Souter (President George H.W. Bush), to some of the more milquetoast Trump selections such as Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh. The track record is not exactly inspiring. And because Thomas and Alito are the two finest conservative jurists on the high court, there is little to no room for improvement, from a constitutionalist perspective — there can only be regression.

Nonetheless, in spite of the GOP’s woeful judicial nominations track record, there are plenty of outstanding potential justices-in-waiting. My former boss Judge James C. Ho of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, a former Thomas clerk, is likely the single most principled originalist of all current lower-court federal judges. His 5th Circuit colleague Andrew Oldham, a fellow stalwart, happens to have the corresponding symbolism of being a former Alito clerk. D. John Sauer, the outstanding current U.S. solicitor general, is a former Scalia clerk and a rapidly emerging dark horse contender. There are other possible rock-solid nominees as well.

Read more …

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

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

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


They also argue that such requirements would disenfranchise Hispanic voters. Yet Mexico, all twelve South American countries, and Spain require government-issued photo IDs to vote. All of these countries have lower per-capita incomes than the United States. If citizens in those nations can obtain the necessary identification to vote, why would American Hispanics and blacks be unable to do the same? While 83% of American adults support requiring government-issued photo identification to vote, support is also strong among the very groups Democrats claim would be harmed: 82% of Hispanics and 76% of black Americans favor the requirement. Those figures suggest that most black and Hispanic Americans do not view obtaining a photo ID as the obstacle Democrats describe. Ten U.S. states have similarly strong photo ID requirements.

Democrats claim that women are disproportionately disenfranchised by voter IDs, but women are also strongly supportive of IDs and have exactly the same level of support as men.Democrats argue that voter ID requirements disproportionately disenfranchise people with the least education and lowest incomes. Yet, ironically, survey results show that voters who did not graduate from high school were 27 percentage points more likely to support photo voter ID laws than those who attended graduate school. Similarly, individuals earning less than $30,000 per year were seven percentage points more likely to support photo ID requirements than those earning over $200,000 annually.

The well-educated and higher-income individuals thus express more concern about the impact of ID laws on the less educated and lower-income groups than those groups express themselves.But it isn’t just South American countries and all of Africa that require voter IDs to vote. Both of our neighbors, Canada and Mexico, require them, with Mexico also requiring a thumbprint. All 47 European countries, except parts of the United Kingdom, require a government-issued photo ID .

After widespread vote fraud, Mexico enacted major voting reforms in 1991. The government mandated voter photo IDs with biometric information, banned absentee ballots, and required in-person voter registration. Even though these changes made registration more difficult and eliminated absentee voting, turnout increased after the reforms took effect. In the three presidential elections following the 1991 changes, an average of 68% of eligible citizens voted, compared with 59% in the three elections before the reforms. As confidence in the electoral process grew, more citizens chose to participate. Many countries in Europe and beyond have learned the hard way that fraud can result from looser voting regimes – and they have instituted stricter voting measures in direct response to it. In Northern Ireland, where a bitter sectarian conflict fuels hardball electoral tactics, parties on all sides have engaged in what observers describe as “widespread and systemic“ voter fraud. Both Conservative and Labour governments enacted reforms to curb it. In 1985, under the conservative Margaret Thatcher, the U.K. began requiring voters to show identification before receiving a ballot, but that measure did not solve the problem.

In 1998, a Select Committee on Northern Ireland reported that people could “easily forge” medical cards – accepted as ID under the 1985 law – or obtain them fraudulently, enabling non-existent individuals to cast votes. By 2002, the Labour government strengthened voter identification cards to make them far harder to forge and used the more secure IDs, along with additional rules, to stop people from registering multiple times. These anti-fraud measures immediately reduced total registrations by 11%, suggesting to Labour how extensive earlier fraud had been.

Read more …

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

Washington Post Editorial Board Brutally Mocks Mamdani (ZH)

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


“That’s a city budget bigger than the state budgets of 47 states. Even the state government of Florida (population 23 million) spends less than New York City’s,” explains The Washington Post editorial board. “And the state still managed to attract hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers in recent years.” “The reality is that Americans may like the idea of ‘free’ stuff — it’s how socialists win elections — but they are less excited about having to pay for it” they continued. “They’re even less excited when they live in a state that ranks at the very bottom of the Tax Foundation’s State Tax Competitiveness Index.”

During a press conference earlier this week, Mamdani called on New York Gov. Kathy Hochul to raise income taxes on the “ultra-wealthy” help fund his budget for New York City. “The onus for resolving this crisis should not be placed on the backs of working and middle-class New Yorkers,” Mamdani said. “If we do not fix this structural imbalance and do not heed the calls of New Yorkers to raise taxes on the wealthy, this crisis will not disappear. It will simply return, year after year, forcing harder and harsher choices each time. And if we do not go down the first path, the city will be forced down a second, more harmful path. Faced with no other choice, the city would have to exercise the only revenue lever fully within our own control. We would have to raise property taxes.”


Hochul rejected the tax hike demand without hesitation, telling Mamdani to expand his “ridiculously low” proposed spending cuts instead. Mamdani has claimed his administration identified $1.7 billion in cuts. The Post’s editorial board was not impressed, calling it a “laughable number.” “The reality is that Mamdani is trying to expand a city government that already does way too much,” they argued. “ The city should provide basic services, such as law and order, but instead it pours billions into social spending like housing and health care.” They even cited California as a cautionary tale, warning that in the Golden State, “a slew of billionaires are fleeing at the mere possibility of a wealth tax. They’ll avoid the wealth tax — and California will miss out on the billions that these individuals otherwise would have contributed before a wealth tax was even imposed.”

More experienced Democrats in New York understand this. Gov. Kathy Hochul, no one’s idea of a fiscal hawk, nevertheless instigated Mamdani’s tantrum by refusing to go along with more tax hikes. The city council speaker and comptroller also have sway and are skeptical of new taxes. This week, it was revealed that acclaimed director and filmmaker Steven Spielberg officially became a New York resident on January 1, effectively avoiding the billionaire tax—though a representative for Spielberg and his wife Cate Capshaw claimed the move was to be closer to family.

Mamdani’s pre-election promises — free buses, expanded child care, cash assistance, rental aid, and smaller class sizes for teachers’ unions — were crowd-pleasers that earned him “tax the rich” chants at campaign rallies. The problem is that governing a city with a structural deficit requires something more than slogans. His preliminary budget now acknowledges a $5.4 billion shortfall for the current fiscal year, with projections that worsen over time. “No one in New York is ambitious enough to dramatically reshape city government, and residents either vote for class warfare or vote with their feet. A reckoning will have to come eventually. The question is how bad it gets before reality sets in,” the board concluded.

Ouch.

Read more …

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

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

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


Instead of arguing policy, opponents now look for ways to redraw the political court around him. They protest enforcement agencies, stage walkouts, and shift attention to anything except measurable results. When outcomes favor one side so decisively, critics often stop debating the scoreboard and start questioning the game itself. Migrant encounters fell to the lowest level in more than 50 years; Customs and Border Protection recorded just 237,538 encounters for all of fiscal year 2025. January 2026 brought only 6,070 southwest border apprehensions and marked the ninth straight month with zero releases into the interior. Nationwide encounters dropped 84% in January 2025, while seizures of fentanyl dropped sharply, too.

Violent crime falls to record lows
Nationwide, murder rates fell through the floor, as major cities saw homicides drop 19% to 21% in 2025 alone. The murder rate hit its lowest point since at least 1900, marking the largest one-year decline ever recorded. Robberies fell about 20%, aggravated assaults fell nearly 10%, and overdose deaths shrank as narcotics imports dried up.

National Guard restores order in the capital
In Washington, D.C., Trump declared a crime emergency in August 2025, launching the Make DC Safe and Beautiful Task Force and bringing in federal agents, local police, and National Guard troops. Since then, authorities made more than 10,000 arrests and taken more than 1,000 illegal guns off the streets. Once real help arrived, homicides dropped extremely fast. In 2017, Forlesia Cook lost her grandson to gun violence in Washington. She stood up at the White House Black History Month reception on Feb. 18 and looked critics straight in the eye. The room erupted in applause, and Trump urged her to run for office.

Save America Act highlights the deeper divide
The SAVE America Act requires documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in federal elections and a photo ID to cast a ballot: Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) introduced the bill. President Trump pushes hard for its passage because nothing matters more than clean elections. The House passed it on Feb. 11. Polling shows roughly 75% to 84% of registered voters favor voter ID and proof of citizenship. Support cuts across Democrats, independents, black, and Hispanic Americans. Yet far-left politicians fight it tooth and nail; Senate Democrats, led by Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), vow to block it in the Senate, warning about voter suppression and arguing it harms women who changed their names (I-9 Forms for their jobs, anyone?) or low-income voters who lack

The deeper fear shines through: Secure elections could cut off loose votes some candidates rely on to stay in power. The loudest defenders of democracy often resist clear rules that strengthen it. It’s a familiar enough-looking pattern. Open-border policies under the previous administration flooded the country with millions of people and left voter rolls vulnerable. Record border crossings from 2022 through 2024 raised real questions about who votes. Officials looked the other way while colleges, courts, and much of the legacy media repeated the same, tired story. Trump fixed the border, lowered crime, and now demands the same common-sense security at the ballot box, reaching Americans directly through streaming platforms and rallies because old gatekeepers refuse to carry the message.

Democrats protest the very agents who deliver results
Democrats and the left (pardon the redundancy) limit every argument to that old chestnut: Calling Trump evil, while demanding that he suffer defeat and humiliation. They protest ICE agents who carry out the exact policies voters chose, ignoring the sealed border, safer streets, and stronger economy. Their big idea? Stage-side rallies or boycotts for the upcoming State of the Union Address set for Tuesday, Feb. 24. How convenient. ESPN commentator Stephen A. Smith, definitely not a Republican, spoke plainly, saying Democrats show zero sense of decorum. He said they put raw politics ahead of their own constituents by planning to skip or disrupt the president’s upcoming speech.

Trump’s ready to talk with anybody; he spends the time, shows the patience, and treats people with respect. The other side offers only venom because that’s all they have left, their old arguments collapsed years ago.

Read more …

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

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

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


Reports that read like activism
One report warned that women embracing traditional motherhood could drift toward violent extremism, with analysts describing motherhood as a white supremacist objective, suggesting that women sharing cooking videos or family values content could aid recruitment networks. The product relied heavily on open-source material rather than on classified intelligence collection. One was an Oct. 6, 2021, assessment titled “Women Advancing White Racially and Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremist Radicalization and Recruitment” that waded into “foreign political debates about gender roles rather discussing any actual threats of political violence,” the senior CIA official said.

It had labeled the far-right Canadian YouTuber Lauren Southern as a white racially and ethnically motivated violent extremist and spoke of the dangers such figures pose to societies — in addition to women pursuing traditional roles as mothers. A July 8, 2020 a CIA report also centered on family planning and the disruptions of condom supply chains worldwide using “unobjective sources of information such as Planned Parenthood,” the official noted. Another assessment from 2020 warned that birth control shortages during the pandemic would damage economic growth in Egypt, Nigeria, and Pakistan, using sources such as Planned Parenthood, the Guttmacher Institute, and Marie Stopes International. Another report from 2015 promoted LGBT academic programs in North Africa and the Middle East while criticizing conservative governments.Intelligence Community Directive 203 requires objectivity, independence, and avoidance of any political slant. Ratcliffe said the flawed reports fell short of the high standards the agency must uphold, stressing there’s no room for bias in intelligence analysis.

Directors and oversight
The January 2015 report was issued during the tenure of CIA Director John Brennan; the July 2020 report landed on the desk of CIA Director Gina Haspel; and the October 2021 motherhood report circulated while William Burns served as CIA Director. Each director presided over an agency required to enforce Directive 203’s standards of impartiality. None of the prior directors rescinded large batches of reports over bias concerns. Past intelligence controversies drew scrutiny; the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, produced under George Tenet, later proved deeply flawed.

Read more …

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

The Shattered Dreams of Steve Bannon (Scott Pinsker)

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


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

And not without reason. As far as personal bios go, Bannon was an odd duck with a helluva story. He had military experience as a Navy officer. He was financially savvy enough to work at Goldman Sachs. He was clever enough to acquire a financial stake in Seinfeld (Bannon still receives residuals for Seinfeld reruns). He knew enough about conservative media to run Breitbart — a platform that had long championed Trump’s candidacy. And then he assumed command of Trump’s campaign in August of 2016, just in time to claim credit for the victory?Maybe he really was the maestro of it all!

Bannon, for very obvious reasons, worked feverishly to advance the narrative of “Steve Bannon, Political Genius.” Within the Trump White House, his media leaks became increasingly self-serving. Instead of leveraging media relations to elevate his boss or the MAGA mission, he sought to mythologize himself. It all culminated with Bannon losing his job in the White House and getting fired from Breitbart after he leaked negative information about Trump’s children to the fierce Trump critic, journalist Michael Wolff. Among the delightful headlines Bannon helped produce was Business Insider’s Jan. 3, 2018, story, “Steve Bannon Says Ivanka Trump Is ‘Dumb as a Brick’.” Trump responded in typically Trumpian fashion:

“Steve Bannon has nothing to do with me or my Presidency,” Trump said. “When he was fired, he not only lost his job, he lost his mind.” […] “Steve doesn’t represent my base — he’s only in it for himself,” Trump said. “Steve pretends to be at war with the media, which he calls the opposition party, yet he spent his time at the White House leaking false information to the media to make himself seem far more important than he was. It is the only thing he does well. Steve was rarely in a one-on-one meeting with me and only pretends to have had influence to fool a few people with no access and no clue, whom he helped write phony books.”

Today, of course, we know the truth: Steve Bannon didn’t control Trump — because NOBODY controls Trump. The very premise is preposterous. For better or worse, Donald J. Trump is his own man. He’s like a wild stallion — uncontrollable. Then in 2024, with Steve Bannon sidelined, Trump proved his point by winning the presidency once again — this time by an even greater margin. Turns out that Bannon was less the leader and more the luggage, because Trump did more to carry him than the other way around. That’s not to say Bannon is a dim bulb. Clearly, he’s an exceptionally bright man. Some of his political calculations are off-the-charts prescient, i.e. his April 2025 prediction that Cardinal Prevost would become the first American-born pope:

https://twitter.com/PiersUncensored/status/1917308154427367583

He’s also a man brimming with ambition. Just 40 days ago, Axios reported that Bannon was planning to run for president in 2028: “Former Trump White House adviser Steve Bannon is laying the groundwork for a 2028 run for president, two people familiar with his thinking tell Axios.” […] Former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), who has appeared on Bannon’s “War Room” podcast, said: “The Bannon campaign will merge the foreign policy of Rand Paul with the tax policy of Elizabeth Warren.” (Not sure if the MAGA base is clamoring for a Warren-Paul themed agenda, but whatever. Not my monkey, not my circus.) Either way, it’s a deeply damaging PR look. Setting up your own presidential bid barely a year into Trump’s term seems awfully arrogant and self-indulgent. That’s a poor plan for winning GOP hearts and minds.

[..] He’s a conspiracy peddler who denies conspiracies — while participating in conspiracies! No matter. The Epstein revelations were a deathblow to Bannon’s presidential ambitions. There’s ZERO demand in Republican circles for a 75-year-old Epstein-whisperer to replace Vance, Rubio, or anyone else as MAGA’s heir apparent. Because, the more we learned about Epstein, the more we realized that Steve Bannon isn’t a political savant, a super-genius, or a 4-D chess mastermind. He’s a lying, duplicitous, self-serving hypocrite who can’t be trusted. And that’s not a “coincidence” either. It’s causation.

Read more …

It looks easier from the outside.

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

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


President Trump’s first term, Congress squandered its moment. The first two years were consumed by infighting, hesitation, and internal paralysis, even with Republican control. Then came the midterms, control was lost, and meaningful legislative progress effectively ended. What followed were impeachment spectacles and relentless political warfare, while entrenched corruption inside the federal government remained untouched. Now, just past the first year of President Trump’s second term, the pattern feels disturbingly familiar. The urgency voters demanded is not being matched by the actions of those entrusted to deliver it.

The question that must be asked plainly is this: when is the Trump administration actually going to root out the Deep State?

Executive Orders are being signed at a rapid pace, but Executive Orders are not reform. They are temporary directives that can be erased with a single signature the moment someone like Gavin Newsom takes office. Without legislation, without prosecutions, and without accountability, nothing is secured. Power is being exercised, but it is not being anchored, and lasting change is never achieved that way.

Kash Patel built his credibility by telling the truth about corruption in Washington. His book and documentary, Government Gangsters, documented in detail how entrenched bureaucrats and intelligence officials worked against President Trump from within the federal government. He even came on my show and spoke openly about this corruption, and he stated repeatedly across multiple platforms that the FBI, particularly at its highest levels, was deeply compromised and required fundamental reform. He did not argue that the Bureau should be abandoned, but that it could not be trusted without aggressive leadership, restructuring, and accountability for the Deep State operatives within the bureau. He warned that the Deep State would never reform itself and would have to be confronted directly. He also told Glenn Beck that the head of the FBI possessed Jeffrey Epstein’s client list. These were not casual remarks. They were core assertions made publicly and repeatedly.

Now Kash Patel is the head of the FBI, and the public posture has shifted dramatically. The same institution he once described as captured is now treated as credible and restrained. The Epstein client list, once discussed as a known reality, is now dismissed as conspiracy, even as new Epstein-related documents continue to be released to the public over the protest of the Trump administration. Each document release raises more questions, not fewer, and every delay from federal law enforcement deepens public distrust rather than restoring confidence. A reversal this significant demands explanation. Trust is not rebuilt through silence, and credibility is not preserved by pretending prior statements were never made.

These questions extend far beyond the FBI and land squarely on the Department of Justice, where accountability appears to collapse the moment it threatens entrenched power. The removal of Ed Martin from his role inside the DOJ is not just a minor personnel decision; it appears to be a clear signal that real investigations into weaponization and lawfare are not being tolerated. Ed Martin was positioned to expose how the Biden Department of Justice targeted Americans, abused prosecutorial authority, and used federal power as a political weapon. According to Emerald Robinson, whose reporting has repeatedly exposed corruption others refuse to confront, Martin was removed from his position by the same people who refer to parents as terrorists: “Vance Day, senior counsel for Todd Blanche, refers to parents targeted by Biden DOJ as ‘terrorists’ in recent meeting with one parent asking for accountability. Blanche’s office also removed Ed Martin from his role at the DOJ.” That disclosure alone should alarm every American paying attention.

Parents who were targeted and persecuted by the Biden Department of Justice are now being labeled terrorists by senior DOJ leadership, while the man tasked with investigating that persecution is sidelined. Whether this is described as a firing or a demotion is irrelevant, because the outcome is the same. Another one of the good guys has been removed from doing the work voters were promised would finally drain the swamp. This is not an isolated incident or a misunderstanding but a pattern that repeats with disturbing consistency. Every time someone begins making real progress against the Deep State, authority is stripped, investigations are stalled, and momentum is deliberately crushed before accountability can be delivered.

So the questions must be asked: Where are the arrests? Where are the prosecutions? Why has Attorney General Pam Bondi not brought cases against members of the January 6 Committee despite documented misconduct and destroyed records? Why has the Department of Justice taken no action against Anthony Fauci even after Sen. Rand Paul issued criminal referrals? Why is the DOJ actively fighting to shut down Brook Jackson’s case against Pfizer instead of allowing it to proceed and standing with a whistleblower who exposed documented fraud? Why do Epstein-related documents continue to surface while no meaningful accountability follows? What happened to transparency, and what happened to equal justice under the law?

Read more …

Serious threats.

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

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


Rice insisted an “accountability agenda” was coming for the people and corporations who worked with the Trump administration if Democrats win back the majority in the House or Senate this November. “If these corporations think that the Democrats, when they come back in power, are going to play by the old rules, and, you know, say, ‘Oh, never mind. We’ll forgive you for all the people you fired, all the policies and principles you’ve violated, all, you know, the laws you’ve skirted.’ I think they’ve got another think coming,” she told former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara.

Rice, who worked in the Obama and Biden administrations, claimed the corporations and other entities like universities acted in a “very short-term self-interest” when deciding to work with the administration in certain capacities. “Companies are already starting to hear they better preserve their documents,” she said. “They better be ready for subpoenas. If they’ve done something wrong, they’ll be held accountable, and if they haven’t broken the law, good for them. “This is not going to be an instance of, you know, forgive and forget,” she continued. “The damage that these people are doing is too severe to the American people and to our national interest.”

Read more …

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

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

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


In late December, the State Department announced its intention to revoke the visas of five foreign individuals who have allegedly censored Americans. The most consequential member of this group is Imran Ahmed, a British Labour Party political operative now living in the U.S., who is the CEO of an influential nonprofit, the Center for Countering Digital Hate.

In documents released Feb. 6 in federal court, the State Department claims Ahmed and the Center have been key players in efforts to censor Americans. A memo written by State Department Undersecretary Sarah Rogers asserts that “Ahmed was a key collaborator with the Biden administration on weaponizing the national security bureaucracy to censor U.S. citizens and pressure U.S. companies into censoring, and his group advocates for foreign regulatory action that extraterritorially impacts American citizens and companies.”

In a follow-up memo, Secretary Marco Rubio wrote that Ahmed had led efforts to censor Americans and harm U.S. media outlets, including ZeroHedge and The Federalist. “I have determined that Ahmed’s activities and presence in the United States have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences and comprise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest.” Rubio asserted. While the Center casts itself as a disinterested nonprofit trying to stop online hate, Rubio noted that documents leaked from inside the group outline ambitious plans to “kill Musk’s Twitter” and “trigger EU and UK regulatory action.”

Ahmed has a small army of lawyers working to halt his deportation proceedings, which are now being litigated. Ahmed’s lead attorney is Roberta Kaplan – a former advisor to New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo – who sued President Trump on behalf of his niece, Mary Trump. Ahmed is also represented by Norm Eisen, a Democratic Party fundraiser and former advisor to Obama. Last Thursday, they filed an updated court complaint against the U.S. government to keep Ahmed in the United States.

International Implications
. The effort to deport Ahmed has broader political implications because of the close ties he and his associates have to the highest reaches of the British government. Morgan McSweeney, who co-founded the Center with Ahmed, is widely seen as the architect of Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Labour Party victory in 2024. McSweeney served as Starmer’s chief of staff until earlier this month, when he resigned because of a separate scandal connected to Jeffrey Epstein.

U.K. government documents reviewed by RCI show that the organization’s influence extends throughout Starmer’s government. The Trump administration’s pushback on Ahmed’s weaponization of speech against U.S. citizens and companies suggests a deep concern about foreign intervention and censorship stemming from one of America’s closest allies.In a recent interview with Undersecretary Rogers, RCI noted that the State Department appeared to be “knocking on the door of the Prime Minister’s office.” Rogers demurred, declining to detail her discussion with Starmer officials. “We have a very special relationship with the British government,” she responded. “The issue has been communicated.”

Senior Labour Minister Chi Onwurah accused the Trump administration of attacking free speech after Rubio announced shortly before Christmas that the administration was seeking Ahmed’s deportation. “Banning people because you disagree with what they say undermines the free speech the administration claims to seek,” Onwurah said, adding that Ahmed was an articulate advocate for greater regulation of online speech. However, internal British government documents show that Onwurah is one of Starmer’s many advisors who have been working with Ahmed on activities many consider censorship..

Read more …

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Feb 192026
 
 February 19, 2026  Posted by at 10:25 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,  51 Responses »


Ceiling painting from the palace of Amenhotep III, New Kingdom ca. 1390–1353 B.C.


Ukraine Should Come To The Table ‘Fast’ – Trump (RT)
Under Pressure To Reach Deal, Zelensky Explodes: No Time “For All This S**t” (ZH)
Putin Aide Urges Retaliation To ‘Western Piracy’ (RT)
US and Dutch Pilots Flying F-16s For Ukraine – Western Media (RT)
Hungary’s Opposition Made ‘Secret Pact’ With EU On Ukraine – Orban (RT)
18 Ways To Reverse The EU’s Immigration Disaster (RMX)
Judge Orders ICE Not to Re-Detain Abrego Garcia (ET)
Disinformation Board Member Jennifer Daskal Appointed as FISA Court Advisor (CTH)
Fear Is The Only Thing The EU Understands – Karaganov (RT)
Can You Buy A Country? (RT)
Former Trump Strategist Defends Ties with Epstein (RT)
The Last Temptation of the Least Dangerous Branch (Turley)
German Public Broadcaster Ran Fake Ai-Generated Clip of ‘ICE Troops’ (RMX)
Macron Calls Free Speech Online ‘Pure Bullshit’
Trump Posts Tribute to Rush Limbaugh on the Anniversary of His Death (Margolis)

 


 

Optimus

 


 

 


 


They don’t want peaxe. They want to beat Russia.

Ukraine Should Come To The Table ‘Fast’ – Trump (RT)

Ukraine must swiftly give up its uncompromising stance in the negotiations to settle the conflict with Russia, US President Donald Trump has warned. He made the comments ahead of talks between Russia, the US, and Ukraine in Geneva, Switzerland on Tuesday and Wednesday. The parties previously held two trilateral meetings in Abu Dhabi in January. Territorial issues – namely Ukraine’s refusal to abandon its claim to Donbass – reportedly remain the key item hampering progress towards peace. When asked about his expectations from the Swiss negotiations by journalists aboard Air Force One on Monday, Trump said they will be “very big.”


“Ukraine better come to the table fast. That’s all I’m telling you… we want them to come,” the president insisted. During his speech at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky again ruled out any territorial concessions, claiming that it “would be an illusion to believe that this war can now be reliably ended by dividing Ukraine.” Instead, he demanded more weapons from Kiev’s European backers and called for Ukraine to be included in NATO, which is one of Moscow’s clear red lines. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said earlier that only a few issues remain to be addressed by the sides in Geneva. “The bad news is they’ve been narrowed to the hardest questions to answer,” he stressed.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Monday that the members of the Russian delegation in Geneva, led by presidential aide Vladimir Medinsky, “intend to discuss a broader range of issues, including the main questions concerning territories… and those related to the demands we have.” Moscow maintains that any sustainable settlement requires Ukraine to withdraw from the areas still under its control in Donbass – which voted to join Russia in referendums in the fall of 2022 – give up on its NATO aspirations, and commit to demilitarization and denazification.

Read more …

Zelensky represents a corrupt cabal. He’s getting rich doing it.

Under Pressure To Reach Deal, Zelensky Explodes: No Time “For All This S**t” (ZH)

Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky has increasingly made his frustrations with the Trump administration public, but he may have just crossed the line with the US President, who Zelensky admits can be tough and unbending. Zelensky has newly complained amid the latest Geneva trilateral talks that the US delegation could pressure him to make “unsuccessful decisions” and he is urging Washington to back off, even using expletives to make his point. For starters, he claims that the Ukrainian public won’t let him cede territory to Russia for the sake of peace even if he wanted to, as we highlighted previously.


But the latest colorful verbal broadside, cited by Axios on Tuesday as Russian and Ukrainian delegations convened in Geneva, saw Zelensky take direct aim at the head of Moscow’s negotiating team, Vladimir Medinsky. Kiev’s frustration at the state of dialogue has been boiling over. Medinsky has argued – along with numerous Russian officials, including President Vladimir Putin – that the conflict’s historical roots must be addressed as part of any settlement, especially given the bulk of the Ukrainian population in the east (Donbas) has always been Russian speaking and looked to Moscow historically.mZelensky dismissed that approach outright: “We don’t have time for all this shit,” he told the outlet. “So we have to decide, and have to finish the war.”

Regardless, the Kremlin has lately made clear its aims to take the full Donbas either through talks or by force. Ukraine’s military still holds 10% of the Donbas, however, and Kiev is rejecting a US proposal for it to draw back its forces as part of a conflict freeze leading to settlement. The White House this month has finally appeared to be ratcheting up the pressure directly on Zelensky to make some kind of serious land concession. This was evident in the latest comments by President Trump on the topic of Geneva issued near the start of the week. Frustration with Kiev was evident when he told reporters aboard Air Force One, “Well, we have big talks.” He stated that “It’s going to be very easy. I mean, look, so far, Ukraine better come to the table fast. That’s all I’m telling you.”

Zelensky after this bitterly complained that it’s ‘not fair’ for Trump to take aim at Ukraine and not Russia, and suggested maybe it’s simply easer for Trump to do this given he doesn’t want to upset the far larger, more formidable country. Meanwhile, Medinsky has said Wednesday that the U.S.-mediated peace talks in Geneva had been “difficult but business-like, and that a new round of talks would be held soon,” according to Reuters.

Read more …

Patrushev is an important voice.

Putin Aide Urges Retaliation To ‘Western Piracy’ (RT)

Russia’s response to “Western piracy” targeting its maritime trade should be forceful and not limited to diplomatic means, an aide to President Vladimir Putin has said. Nikolay Patrushev, a veteran national security official who heads a naval policymaking body, called for stronger action against Western moves targeting vessels described as part of an alleged Russian ‘shadow fleet’. Attempts to paralyze Russian foreign trade will only intensify, Patrushev warned in an interview with Argumenty i Fakty published on Tuesday. “Unless we push back forcefully, soon the English, the French, and even the Balts will get brazen enough to try and block our nation’s access to at least the Atlantic,” he said.


“The Europeans are in essence making steps to impose a naval blockade, deliberately pushing towards a military escalation, testing the limits of our patience and provoking our retaliation. If the situation is not resolved peacefully, the Navy will be breaking and lifting the blockade,” Patrushev said. “Let’s not forget that plenty of vessels sail the seas under European flags. We may get curious about what they are shipping and where,” he added. Patrushev expressed skepticism that tensions could ease, saying “there is little hope that the West has an ounce of respect for diplomacy and the law.” He argued that “the old practice of ‘gunboat diplomacy’ is being revived,” citing US operations targeting Venezuela and Iran.

Washington has used warships to target suspected drug smuggling boats off Venezuela and intercept outgoing oil tankers, including one sailing under a Russian flag. The Pentagon is now concentrating assets in the Middle East as President Donald Trump pressures Iran to accept restrictions on its missile deterrence against Israel. In today’s world, the Russian Navy is “a geopolitical tool that combines might with flexibility and is suitable for both peacetime and armed conflicts,” Patrushev said. Its strength is needed to protect Russia’s “ability to export oil, grain and fertilizers, and the normal functioning of the state.”

Read more …

“.. intelligence, planning, troop training, and maintenance of complex Western hardware – are handled by foreign personnel.”

US and Dutch Pilots Flying F-16s For Ukraine – Western Media (RT)

The Ukrainian military is secretly using a squadron of veteran NATO pilots to fly donated US-made F-16 fighter jets, the French outlet Intelligence Online reported on Monday. Moscow has long warned that Western nations are moving closer to direct conflict with Russia. The report, which Kiev has denied, said the covert mission relies primarily on experienced US and Dutch air force veterans. The foreign personnel are deployed far from the front lines and focus on intercepting Russian long-range weapons, the outlet said. They are no longer part of their original militaries and reportedly work for Kiev as civilian contractors, without military ranks and outside the Ukrainian chain of command.


A shortage of trained Ukrainian pilots was previously identified as the main obstacle to using F-16s donated to Kiev. Training courses were reportedly undermined by language barriers, a lack of qualified trainees, and other issues, and were simplified for speed. Shortly after the first F-16s arrived in Ukraine in August 2024, Kiev began losing pilots in botched air defense missions, with four such incidents acknowledged. The secret foreign squadron provides pilots with the experience needed to operate advanced F-16 equipment, Intelligence Online said.

Moscow views the Ukraine conflict as a NATO proxy war against Russia, in which key elements of Kiev’s military effort – including intelligence, planning, troop training, and maintenance of complex Western hardware – are handled by foreign personnel. Western specialists were reportedly involved in Ukrainian strikes using Storm Shadow/SCALP air-launched cruise missiles on Russian territory. German officials opposed supplying Taurus missiles because Ukrainians cannot launch them independently. Russia also says Western nations tacitly support Kiev’s recruitment of mercenaries from among their military veterans. Ambassador-at-Large Rodion Miroshnik estimated that around 20,000 foreign fighters have taken part in the conflict on the Ukrainian side.

Read more …

“… an election he has framed as a choice between “war or peace.”

Hungary’s Opposition Made ‘Secret Pact’ With EU On Ukraine – Orban (RT)

Hungary’s opposition parties are colluding with EU leaders to fast-track Ukraine’s accession to the bloc, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban was claimed, warning that should the pro-Brussels Tisza Party come to power, it could drag the country into a direct conflict with Russia. Hungary’s April 12 parliamentary election is expected to be a tough test for Orban’s longstanding conservative rule, during which time he has criticized the EU’s financial and military support for Kiev and its sanctions on Russia. Orban also opposes Ukraine’s bid for EU membership. Recent polls show a tight race between his Fidesz party and the opposition, led by former party member Péter Magyar, who met with European leaders at last week’s Munich Security Conference.


“Last weekend, the Tisza Party made a secret pact with Brussels in Munich. Part of this pact includes giving up its veto power, supporting the migration agreement, and accepting Ukraine into the EU. They are following Brussels’ orders and thus dragging us into war,” Orban remarked at a meeting of Fidesz and its coalition partner, the Christian Democratic People’s Party, which was broadcast on Hungary’s M1 television. Magyar met EU leaders on the sidelines of the conference last week, where he held talks with Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, according to his office.

“Our friends belong to the international peace camp led by the United States. Their friends are leaders of the European military camp led by the German chancellor,” Orban said, referring to his political opponents. He claimed that Merz had openly signaled readiness to support Magyar’s party in the April vote because he wanted Hungary to relinquish its veto power within the EU. “The chancellor needs this to establish Germany’s sovereign rule in Europe,” Orban stated. The Hungarian leader has previously accused Magyar of acting under Brussels’ influence, saying the bloc uses “censorship, intervention, and manipulation” to undermine his government in an election he has framed as a choice between “war or peace.”

Read more …

“European Union member states can reclaim effective authority over migration and asylum policy without changing the EU treaties.”

18 Ways To Reverse The EU’s Immigration Disaster (RMX)

Due to years of uncontrolled mass migration, many Europeans are asking what concrete options there are to reverse course, with many feeling that the situation is hopeless and cannot be significantly reversed. However, a new report titled “Taking Back Control from Brussels: The Renationalization of the EU Migration and Asylum Policies” — produced by the Mathias Corvinus Collegium (MCC), Hungary’s Migration Research Institute, and Poland’s Ordo Iuris Institute — provides comprehensive solutions to the crisis.


The paper’s core thesis offers bold and practical solutions today, noting that the power still rests with member states. The authors write: “European Union member states can reclaim effective authority over migration and asylum policy without changing the EU treaties.”

The report outlines how asylum policy has “completely collapsed” in the EU and reached a point of “total failure.” The authors contend that the current system lacks democratic legitimacy and has turned the Schengen area into a “sieve” that facilitates illegal migration and prevents effective border protection. Given the recent legalization actions of the far-left Spanish government, aimed at regularizing approximately 500,000 migrants who can then move freely across Europe, the paper’s proposals may be more relevant than ever.

The paper calls for a fundamental “paradigm shift” to restore migration sovereignty to individual nation-states, asserting that renationalization is a necessity for Europe to regain control over its borders and territory. The following 18 proposals from the second part of the paper outline a roadmap for this renationalization. The paper itself provides far more details about each proposal and is recommended reading for any European party looking for a blueprint to regain control of immigration.

https://twitter.com/RMXnews/status/2016823717800624625
Read more …

“The illegal immigrant from El Salvador is also facing federal human smuggling charges.”

Judge Orders ICE Not to Re-Detain Abrego Garcia (ET)

A federal judge has blocked U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE) from re-arresting Kilmar Abrego Garcia, one of the men at the center of the Trump administration’s deportation battles.The Salvadoran national’s case attracted attention across the country, including widespread protests, after the federal government detained him in March 2025 and shipped him to El Salvador’s maximum security prison, the Terrorism Confinement Center, along with an airplane full of other deportees. He was later returned to the United States, where he has had long-running legal battles with the administration.


U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, who ordered the administration to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return last year, ruled on Feb. 17 that he cannot be deported again because the federal government has not presented a feasible plan for removing him from the country. The judge said that despite releasing Abrego Garcia, the government appeared to be making plans to re-detain him, so Abrego Garcia filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order to prevent being re-detained. The court previously granted the requested order.In the new order, the court granted Abrego Garcia’s request to upgrade the temporary restraining order to an injunction to prevent him from being re-detained.

Abrego Garcia, who entered the United States illegally more than a decade ago, had been living in Maryland when federal agents arrested him. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security takes the position that Abrego Garcia is a “violent criminal illegal alien, and MS-13 gang member,” who “belongs behind bars and off American soil.”Abrego Garcia, who is facing separate criminal charges, denies being a member of MS-13, which has been designated a terrorist organization. Xinis previously ordered his release on Dec. 11, 2025, finding that because the federal government had never issued a final order of removal against him, it could not detain him in order to force him from the country.

The government said in a brief last month that Abrego Garcia may be detained because an immigration judge issued an order of removal on Dec. 11, 2025, that became final on Jan. 13 of this year. Detention after that order “does not require that the country of removal be certain in order for detention to be lawful,” the brief said. The judge suggested the federal government is not serious about removing Abrego Garcia from the United States.Since he secured release from criminal custody in August 2025, the government has “made one empty threat after another to remove him to countries in Africa with no real chance of success,” she said.

Read more …

“.. one of the core officials who used the term dis-mis-mal-information to censor speech on social media platforms ..”

Disinformation Board Member Jennifer Daskal Appointed as FISA Court Advisor (CTH)

A good catch by Chuck Ross at WFB drawing attention to the latest Amici curiae appointed to the FISA Court. Adding to a string of leftist ‘advisors to the court’ Jennifer Daskal has been appointed by FISA Court Presiding Judge Anthony Trenga. Daskal was the Biden administration principal deputy general counsel at the Department of Homeland Security who launched the Disinformation Governance Board (Ministry of Truth) ultimately led by Nina Jankowicz. Jennifer Daskal’s career has centers around controlling information from a leftist perspective and was one of the core officials who used the term dis-mis-mal-information to censor speech on social media platforms around COVID-19 and the vaccination protocol.


Daskal’s reach and control into big tech and social media is well documented. Appointing her as an advisor to the FISA court is troubling as she has joined Amy Jeffress, appointed amicus curiae in 2015 (Biden’s personal attorney), David Kris, a 2016 amicus curiae selection (denied Carter Page FISA application contained fabrications), and the infamous Mary McCord appointed amicus curiae in 2021 (sits at the center of every stop-Trump operation).

“Washington Free Beacon – A Biden administration official who launched the Disinformation Governance Board and served as co-chair of the so-called Ministry of Truth has been appointed to advise the powerful Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, prompting concerns from some Republican lawmakers. The presiding judges of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review appointed Jennifer Daskal on Feb. 1 to serve as amicus curiae for the court. Amici curiae, known as “friends of the court,” advise judges on legal issues related to foreign surveillance warrants in national security cases. Daskal served as acting principal deputy general counsel at the Department of Homeland Security under Biden. In that role, she drafted the charter for the Disinformation Governance Board, according to a Jan. 31, 2022 memo. (read more)”

Read more …

“Our strategy must change fundamentally. The objective is to accelerate the United States’ withdrawal from Europe. The method is firm deterrence.”

Fear Is The Only Thing The EU Understands – Karaganov (RT)

The current phase of the West’s conflict with Russia may be nearing its end. It has dragged on longer than necessary. The principal reason is a lack of determination to employ active nuclear deterrence. This is the only mechanism capable of resolving the “European problem,” which has once again become an existential threat to our country.The Ukraine military operation has acted as a powerful catalyst for Russia’s internal renewal. It has mobilized society, awakened patriotism, and allowed people to demonstrate their best qualities. Pride in the Fatherland and respect for service to it have grown. Engineering, science, the military profession, and skilled labor have regained their rightful status. The economy and science have revived. Teachers, regrettably, have not yet received similar recognition, but that is a subject for later.


By drawing Western hostility onto ourselves, we have seriously weakened the position of the comprador bourgeoisie and its Western-educated allies. The Portuguese once used the word compadres to describe local merchants who served colonial interests. After the reforms of the 1990s, this class expanded in Russia to unhealthy proportions. Fortunately, the process of cleansing the country of this Western-oriented stratum has begun. It has been achieved without mass repression, but with historical inevitability. This revival has come at a terrible cost. Tens of thousands of brave soldiers lost their lives at the opening stage of national recovery. They deserve eternal gratitude. When – or rather, if – the unfinished war resumes, such losses must not be repeated.

In 2013, I personally warned a group of Western European leaders that their policy of dragging Ukraine into the EU and NATO would lead to war and mass casualties. No one met my gaze. They looked down at their shoes, then continued talking about democracy, trust, and human rights. In reality, they wanted to exploit another forty million people. Something they have partly succeeded in achieving through the creation of millions of refugees. They spoke of containing Russia, which was still loyal at the time. Our response to NATO’s aggression in Libya in 2011 was weak. We are now paying for years of appeasement and the comprador instincts of part of our elite.

Russia briefly slowed down the EU’s march toward military adventurism by returning Crimea in 2014 and intervening in Syria in 2015. Then we relaxed. Had an ultimatum on NATO expansion been issued in 2018–2020 and backed by credible nuclear deterrence, the current war might have been avoided. Or at the very least it would have been far less bloody. By 2022, it was obvious that both the West and the Kiev authorities were preparing for war.Ukraine is not a homogeneous entity. In the east and south live people culturally close to us. West of the Dnieper lies a different historical and cultural community, shaped by Austro-Hungarian, Polish, and Western influence and infused for decades with anti-Russian ideology. We must accept this reality and pursue a rational separation from both Ukrainian and European pathologies, forging our own healthy model of development.

Militarily, we are winning. Politically, we have yet to respond adequately to a series of openly aggressive actions: pirate seizures of Russian vessels, threats to close straits, attempts to impose a de facto economic blockade, attacks on oil terminals, and efforts by the Kiev regime to sabotage our tankers. Often with Western European connivance. Our response so far has been intensified strikes on Ukrainian targets. This is not a strategic solution. Ukraine was deliberately thrown into the furnace so that the fire would spread to Russia. EU elites do not care about Ukrainians. The conflict will continue until its true source is addressed: Western Europe’s degenerated ruling classes, intellectually, morally, and materially exhausted, who cling to power by fueling war.

Unlike 1812–1815 or 1941–1945, we have not yet destroyed a hostile coalition or broken its will. The war has entered what chess players call the middle-game. The remnants of Ukraine, supported by the West, will continue sabotage and terrorism. Sanctions will remain. The EU is preparing for a new confrontation, potentially involving rearmed Ukrainian forces and mercenaries from poorer European states. Any violations of future agreements will require military responses. We will again be accused of aggression. Open conflict will likely resume. Our strategy must change fundamentally. The objective is to accelerate the United States’ withdrawal from Europe. The method is firm deterrence. The task is to defeat Western Europe’s current elites, who see Russophobia as their last political lifeline.

Read more …

It’s getting harder as time goes by.

Can You Buy A Country? (RT)

When US President Donald Trump revived the idea of buying Greenland – and refused to rule out stronger measures if Denmark declined – the reaction across Europe was swift and indignant. The proposal was framed as an anachronism: a throwback to imperial horse-trading that modern international politics had supposedly outgrown. But the outrage obscures an uncomfortable historical reality. The United States was not only forged through revolution and war; it was also built through transactions – large-scale territorial purchases concluded at moments when the balance of power left the seller with limited options. From continental expanses to strategic islands, Washington has repeatedly expanded its reach by writing checks backed by leverage. If the idea of buying land now sounds jarring, it is worth recalling that some of the largest such deals helped shape the United States into the country we know today. To understand why the Greenland debate resonates so strongly, we should revisit the major acquisitions that redrew the American map.


Louisiana: The biggest purchase
French explorers ventured into the Mississippi Valley in the late 17th century, claiming new territories and naming this vast expanse Louisiana after King Louis XIV. In 1718, they established New Orleans at the mouth of the Mississippi, gradually populating the colony not just with French settlers but also through policies enacted by Louis that granted freedom to children born of unions between white settlers and black slaves. Still, the population remained sparse. The region’s bad climate and complex relationships with Native Americans made settlement difficult. As a result, France didn’t particularly value this territory, despite its huge size: French Louisiana encompassed not just modern-day Louisiana but, either partially or wholly, the modern states of Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Colorado, Wyoming, North and South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Montana, Nebraska, Texas, New Mexico, and even parts of Canada. Despite this, however, it was hard to find a Frenchman beyond New Orleans.

New France in 1750 before the French and Indian War. © Wikipedia


In 1763, following the Seven Years’ War, France ceded Louisiana to Spain. The Spanish administration didn’t oppress the French settlers and managed the colony quite competently. However, much of this enormous land remained largely uninhabited aside from the Native Americans. The total number of settlers, including black slaves, amounted to several tens of thousands of people. By the early 19th century, Europe saw many changes. Napoleon regained control of Louisiana, aiming to revive France’s overseas empire. However, this ambition crumbled when his attempt to restore French rule in Haiti failed. A force sent by Napoleon was decimated by black rebels and succumbed to tropical diseases.

Against this backdrop, Napoleon quickly realized that he could not hold onto Louisiana, and the English or Americans would easily seize it. As for the US, it had mixed feelings about Louisiana; controlling the mouth of the Mississippi was crucial, but Americans were also wary of potential French aggression. Finally, US President Thomas Jefferson initiated negotiations with France for the purchase of Louisiana. Napoleon saw this as a big opportunity. He recognized that he could get real money by selling the territory which France didn’t really need and couldn’t control.

Jefferson and the American side initially aimed to purchase only New Orleans and its surrounding areas, offering $10 million. However, the French surprised their American counterparts: they asked for $15 million, but as part of the deal, offered vast territories stretching up to Canada. However, beyond New Orleans, the French essentially sold the freedom to claim land inhabited by the Native Americans. The French had very little control over this vast territory, and the Native Americans didn’t even understand what the sale entailed. In fact, aside from the Native Americans, the vast territory was inhabited by only about 60,000 settlers, including black slaves.

Regardless, the deal was concluded, and America’s territory effectively doubled overnight. Robert Livingston, one of the Founding Fathers and then US ambassador to France, famously declared, “We have lived long, but this is the noblest work of our whole lives… From this day the United States take their place among the powers of the first rank.”

Read more …

“The strategist’s spokesman said he conducted about 12 hours of interviews with Epstein for the documentary. ”

Former Trump Strategist Defends Ties with Epstein (RT)

Steve Bannon, a former White House strategist and prominent MAGA figure, has defended his extensive communications with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, insisting they were part of an effort to produce a documentary. His comments come after the release of millions of pages of Epstein-related files by the US Justice Department, which reveal a far cozier relationship between Bannon – a former adviser to President Donald Trump – and the financier who was found dead in his Manhattan jail cell in August 2019.


According to the New York Times, Bannon’s name appears in the Epstein emails nearly every day in the six months leading up to financier’s July 2019 arrest on sex trafficking charges. In April 2019, Bannon texted Epstein a strategy to rehabilitate his image. “First we need to push back on the lies; then crush the pedo/trafficking narrative; then rebuild your image as philanthropist,” he wrote. Epstein also appears to have offered Bannon lavish perks, including private jet travel, lodging at his Manhattan townhouse, and medical care. While Bannon’s spokesman denied he accepted the jet or medical care, records suggest he had stayed at Epstein’s Paris apartment on at least one occasion in March 2019.

In a statement to the New York Times, Bannon said his interactions with Epstein were strictly professional, noting that he is “a filmmaker and TV host with decades of experience interviewing controversial figures.” “That’s the only lens through which these private communications should be viewed – a documentary filmmaker working, over a period of time, to secure 50 hours of interviews from a reclusive subject,” Bannon insisted. The strategist’s spokesman said he conducted about 12 hours of interviews with Epstein for the documentary.

However, so far only two hours have been released by the Justice Department. In the footage, Epstein acknowledged being “a criminal” and a sexual predator, but Bannon did not focus on his treatment of women and instead discussed finance and science. His spokesman said he planned to address the topic later on.The Epstein files, totaling over 3.5 million pages, include multiple mentions of numerous global elites, including Bill Clinton, Elon Musk, and the former Prince Andrew. Attorney General Pam Bondi has declared all the Epstein files released, though critics claim this represents only a fraction of the seized data.

Read more …

” These judges are using their offices to amplify their personal outrage over policies. The result is that they are erasing the distinction between our courts and our politics.”

The Last Temptation of the Least Dangerous Branch (Turley)

This month, the U.S. Judicial Conference issued new ethics guidelines, a publication that rarely attracts attention beyond a small circle of legal nerds. These guidelines, however, are not just the usual tweaks on rules governing free meals or travel. They include a new policy that could materially alter the character of the American courts, allowing judges to engage in commentary to rebut what they deem “illegitimate forms of criticism and attacks.” It is not just injudicious, it is dangerous.


Over two centuries ago, the Framers had to sell the Constitution to skeptical states, leery about yielding power to a central government, including federal courts. In Federalist #78, Alexander Hamilton sought to put these fears aside and assured the states that the federal judiciary is “the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.” One can certainly disagree with Hamilton whether history has borne out his prediction that the court would have the least capacity to “annoy” others in our system. However, Hamilton’s pitch would later be reinforced by the adoption of apolitical ethical standards in our courts that separated them from political activities and commentary.

It did not begin that way. Early federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, were often openly partisan. Federalist judges took active roles in hunting down Jeffersonians under the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts. That changed as the nation embraced a new model of judges who would stand apart from politics. While judges often reflect the ideological views of the presidents who nominated them, they have largely followed rigid rules that have prevented them from engaging in political commentary. Judges are expected to address the legal issues in their opinions and leave political commentary to others regarding the implications or basis of those opinions.

It has not been a perfect system. Recently, some of us have criticized judges who have made overtly political statements in their opinions or in public. The deviation from the traditional line of judicial silence has grown in recent years. I previously wrote about this pattern of extrajudicial commentary, including inappropriate commentary in court statements and opinions. These comments often undermined the integrity of the court and the public’s faith in the neutrality of our judges.

District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee, was criticized for failing to recuse herself from the Special Counsel’s case against President Donald Trump after she made highly controversial statements about him from the bench. Chutkan lashed out at “a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.” That “one person” was still under investigation at the time, and when Trump was charged, Chutkan refused to let the case go. Chutkan later doubled down when asked to dismiss a case due to Trump pardoning Jan. 6 defendants. After acknowledging that she could not block the pardons, she proclaimed that the pardons could not change the “tragic truth” and “cannot whitewash the blood, feces and terror that the mob left in its wake. And it cannot repair the jagged breach in America’s sacred tradition of peacefully transitioning power.”

One of Chutkan’s colleagues, Judge Beryl Howell, also an Obama appointee, denounced a Trump policy as “a revisionist myth relayed in this presidential pronouncement.” Then there is Judge Amit Mehta, another Obama appointee, who has been criticized for conflicted rulings in Trump cases and his bizarre (and ultimately abandoned) effort to banish January 6th defendants from the Capitol. He called Trump’s policies “shameful.” D.C. Circuit Judge Reggie Walton called Trump a “charlatan.” U.S. District Judge Robert Pratt of the Southern District of Iowa made public comments calling Trump a “criminal.” Other federal judges have made other public statements denouncing Trump and Republican priorities. Even before this change, these judges felt that they could engage in such political declarations.

Even Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson declared publicly how she sees her position as a judge “as a wonderful opportunity to tell people in my opinions how I feel about the issues, and that’s what I try to do.” Last year, the Supreme Court condemned U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, for his attacks on Trump as a bully bent on “retribution.” He also accused the administration of “racial discrimination” and “discrimination against the LGBTQ community,” and asked in one order, “Have we no shame?” There is no paucity of such criticism in our country. Many pundits have leveled such attacks against the President, but this was a sitting judge. These judges are using their offices to amplify their personal outrage over policies. The result is that they are erasing the distinction between our courts and our politics. ccu

Read more …

Here’s one use of AI.

German Public Broadcaster Ran Fake Ai-Generated Clip of ‘ICE Troops’ (RMX)

The German public broadcaster ZDF has admitted to a significant editorial oversight after its flagship news program, Heute Journal, aired AI-generated images featuring U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arresting an immigrant family. After uproar on social media over the fake news segment, which included a visible OpenAI’ “Sora” watermark on the screen, the broadcaster expressed regret over the error and has since updated the report to remove the synthetic content. Critics pointed out that while it is becoming harder to differentiate fake AI content from real events, the appearance of the Sora watermark made it clear that this was AI content.


https://twitter.com/RMXnews/status/2023482983303573586


The controversy from the Feb. 15 report featured fake AI scenes of a woman and two children being led away by ICE. During the segment, ICE agents were referred to as “troops.”m When questioned about the incident, ZDF stated that the images should have been clearly marked. The broadcaster explained: “This marking was not transferred when the article was transferred for technical reasons.”nThe question now is whether ZDF generated these images in-house. ZDF has declined to comment on whether the editorial staff was aware that the footage was AI-generated at the time of the initial broadcast.

If ZDF created them, the fact that arguably the biggest public broadcaster is creating AI-generated content for public broadcasting is raising concerns about how often AI-generated content has been produced without proper labeling in the past. In response, ZDF reiterated its commitment to transparency, noting: “ZDF’s AI principles stipulate that AI-generated images are always transparently labeled.” The incident caused further confusion when the original broadcast was temporarily removed from YouTube and the ZDF media library, leading some media outlets to report that the broadcaster had “deleted its fake video.” ZDF clarified that the removal was only a temporary measure while the editorial team replaced the AI sequences with authentic video and still images.

A revised version of the program is now available in the media library, accompanied by a disclaimer stating: “Video subsequently changed for editorial reasons.”All German households are required to pay nearly €20 per month to fund ZDF and other public broadcasting outlets like ARD. That translates to billions every year. The outlets are routinely accused of bias against conservatives, including negative reports targeting the Alternative for Germany (AfD) and a high rate of rejection for AfD guests on the networks .

Read more …

“.. Elon Musk slamming Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, when he wrote “Dirty Sánchez is a tyrant and traitor to the people of Spain.”

Macron Calls Free Speech Online ‘Pure Bullshit’ (ZH),

French President Emmanuel Macron on Wednesday said that the notion of free speech on social media platforms – is “pure bullshit,” because algorithmically served content can lead to hate speech (such as the right to say his elderly wife has a penis and gives him black eyes). The comments come after the US recently imposed bans on a former European official and pro-censorship activists for trying to police online speech, while US Secretary of State Marco Rubio justifies the moves as pushback against the “global censorship-industrial complex.”


Europe, including Germany and the UK, have been weighing social media bans for minors, a move that could impact critical advertising revenue for companies and platforms such as Meta, TikTok, YouTube, Snap, X, and others. “Having no clue about how their algorithm is made, how it’s tested, trained and where it will guide you — the democratic consequences of this bias could be huge,” Macron said in New Delhi on Wednesday, Bloomberg reports. “Some of them claim to be in favor of free speech — OK, we are in favor of free algorithms — totally transparent,” he continued. “Free speech is pure bullshit if nobody knows how you are guided to this so-called free speech, especially when it is guided from one hate speech to another.”


Earlier this month, Macron said he expects a battle with the Trump administration over the bloc’s regulation of digital services, and that countries such as France and Spain could be punished if they move forward with proposed social media bans for children. nThe Trump administration has vowed to oppose efforts by foreign nations to “censor our discourse” or otherwise limit free speech that has been used to disadvantage anti-immigration political parties, and that the US would foster “resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations.”

Vice President JD Vance, speaking last year at the Munich Security Conference, accused the EU of suppressing free speech and said Europe’s retreat from its fundamental values was a bigger threat to the continent than Russia or China. Calling Trump Washington’s “new sheriff,” Vance slammed attempts to moderate speech on social media. Some EU officials were concerned that the US was using free speech as a pressure point to cow the bloc into softening its regulation of technology platforms, Bloomberg reported earlier. -Bloomberg In response, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said that freedom of speech ends with hate speech. Hilariously, Bloomberg highlighted Elon Musk slamming Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, when he wrote “Dirty Sánchez is a tyrant and traitor to the people of Spain.”

As the FT’s Stephen Bush opines regarding the UK’s push: Children are a lot like terrorists, and I don’t mean that as a commentary on their behaviour. I mean that being defined as one in a liberal democracy means that you lose at least some of the rights and freedoms that other citizens take for granted. Your freedom to marry who you want, to work or not work, to vote, to seek or not consent to medical procedures; these and many other rights granted to adults are curtailed for anyone the state defines as a child.

Another way in which they are like terrorists is that invoking children is a good way to get people to stop asking difficult questions and arguing against policy proposals. One big reason why banning under-16s from social media is taking off as a policy idea is that it is more palatable than banning all of us. But it is far from clear that any of us are well served by algorithms that dish up addictive material, violent pornography or endless footage of atrocities. Nor is it clear that “protecting” the under-16s will not make 16, 17 and 18-year-olds more vulnerable. The large number of first-time internet users who are taken in by fraud or are susceptible to harmful behaviour online, suggests that all it may do is move the problem along.

Read more …

“I’ll never forget, 2015, and I got a call, all excited, that Rush Limbaugh just endorsed you.”

Trump Posts Tribute to Rush Limbaugh on the Anniversary of His Death (Margolis)

It’s hard to believe it, but it’s been five years since the passing of Rush Limbaugh. Five years. Conservative talk radio has never been the same since. Honestly, I wish I had listened to him more, but as a writer, I found anything other than music distracting from my ability to write.mI did listen occasionally, and any time Rush read one of my articles, I would get a whole bunch of texts from people alerting me to it, which was pretty awesome. The last time he read one of my articles (that I know of) was the day of Biden’s inauguration, less than a month before he passed. Limbaugh had unmatched insight. In fact, even before Biden took office, Rush observed that Democrats were still very much afraid of Trump and would indict him to try to take him down.


“I know they desperately want Trump gone and I know that they desperately want it codified that Trump cannot run again because make no mistake, they remain scared to death of you and they remain scared to death of Trump, Trump — 75 million, 80 million votes — and I’m going to tell you, you’re not going anywhere,” Limbaugh said in January 2021. “Even if Trump does, you’re not. They can’t separate you from Trump, and more importantly, they can’t separate you from the ideas. They can’t separate you from MAGA. They can’t separate you from Make America Great Again, which I think remains one of our big campaign strengths going forward.”

On Tuesday evening, President Donald Trump released a video tribute honoring Limbaugh and reflecting on their friendship. Trump called it “the fifth anniversary of the loss of a really great man.” He described Limbaugh as “a great conservative, somebody that loved our country, loved his family, loved a lot of things.” He added on a personal note, “he was a friend of mine, Rush Limbaugh.” Trump recalled that the two had never met when he first launched his presidential campaign in 2015. “I’d never met Rush when I announced that I was running,” he said. Then came a moment he still vividly remembers. “I’ll never forget, 2015, and I got a call, all excited, that Rush Limbaugh just endorsed you.”

At the time, Trump said, Limbaugh’s support came purely from what he heard. “I’d never met him. He liked my opening speech.” Trump pointed to his campaign launch that June, when he descended the now-famous escalator alongside the woman who would become first lady. Limbaugh, he said, responded to the message immediately. “He liked, uh, when I got up in June, and I said, ‘You know, uh, we got bad borders, we got bad crime, we got bad everything,’ and he liked it,” Trump said. “I came down the escalator with now our first lady, and he thought it was great, and, uh, he endorsed me, and then I got to know him, and I realized what a great guy he was.”

Five years after Limbaugh’s death, Trump said the loss is still deeply felt. “But it’s five years, and we miss Rush,” he said. Echoing a frequent refrain from Sean Hannity, Trump added, “As Sean Hannity would often say, ‘There will never be another Rush Limbaugh.’” He closed by offering condolences to Limbaugh’s loved ones. “So to his family, his great wife and family, I just wanna say we miss you all,” Trump said. “We miss him, and there’ll never be anybody like him. Thank you very much.” A year before his death, Trump awarded Rush with the Presidential Medal of Freedom during the 2020 State of the Union address, honoring him days after Limbaugh revealed his Stage 4 cancer diagnosis.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Cybercab https://twitter.com/EvaFox/status/2023710868207292719?s=20

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Feb 172026
 
 February 17, 2026  Posted by at 10:35 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,  67 Responses »


Pablo Picasso Head of a Woman 1946 ..gifted to Greece’s National Gallery by Picasso in 1946 in recognition of Athens’s resistance to Nazi occupation; he inscribed on the back: “For the Greek people, a tribute from Picasso.”


Trump Derangement Syndrome Has Hit a Sick New Low (Matt Margolis)
Reid Hoffman Funded Suit Against Trump Alleging Rape (Tim O’Brien)
The Trump Administration Officially Kills DEI at the FAA (Matt Margolis)
Big Losses for Banks Coming in 2026 – Charles Nenner (USAW)
Welp, Here Comes the ‘Death Spiral’ (Stephen Green)
Marco Rubio Joint Press Conference with Hungarian PM Viktor Orban (CTH)
Macron’s AI Clown Show: Europe’s Digital Dilemma (ZH)
Ro Khanna and the Impunity of “Wealthy, Powerful Men” (Turley)
Hillary Clinton Admits Mass Migration Is “Disruptive & Destabilizing” (ZH)
Steve Bannon and Jeffrey Epstein (CTH)
Epstein-itis (James Howard Kunstler)
Newsom and AOC Go to Europe to Pitch High Tax, High Regulation Policies (Turley)
No Prospect’ Of EU Governments Preventing CIVIL WAR: British Army Colonel (MN)

 


 

Palantir AI teaching itself $145 M https://twitter.com/gabrelyanov/status/2023241194684264472?s=20 Cybercab

 


 

 


 


“..It doesn’t matter if the target is a child rapist or a murderer. Opposing Trump’s immigration policies matters more than anything else.”:”:

Trump Derangement Syndrome Has Hit a Sick New Low (Matt Margolis)

A Minnesota woman just put on full display the moral rot at the heart of the anti-ICE movement, and she did it with a camera rolling. Last week, Olivia Jensen stalked ICE agents around Rochester, Minn., harassing them while they tried to track down an illegal immigrant accused of child rape and murder. When an agent finally told her what kind of monster they were after, Jensen’s response cut through every pretense the left hides behind: “No, I don’t care.” This wasn’t some slip of the tongue. Jensen said this, and posted her confrontation to Facebook and TikTok like a trophy, complete with a lengthy explanation of how she followed the agents from Walmart to her old address in Claremont, 30 miles away.


“Today, 2/11/26, I went to a NW area of Rochester after hearing that there was ICE activity in the area. I located the dark Gary Durango […] with 3 agents inside following a woman in her car,” Jensen posted on Facebook. “They followed her to Walmart north where I interacted with them while completely staying within my rights. They took pictures of me and the inside and outside of my car for simply exercising my rights. I will share the video of this interaction below. They very clearly were running my plates and trying to obtain information about me in an effort to intimidate me.”

She accused them of intimidation for running her plates and visiting her former home. But the agents were just making sure she got home safely after she’d been tailing them across southeast Minnesota. The exchange stripped away any illusion about what drives these ICE agitators. After Jensen screamed “race traitor” at a Hispanic agent, he calmly explained they were hunting a child molester. She called him a liar. The other agent stepped in with a reality check: “If you actually cared, you would care about the child who got raped and also by the person who got murdered by the person we are looking for.”

That’s when Jensen said the quiet part out loud. She admitted she didn’t care. Then she pivoted to the standard talking point about how ICE should only go after “illegal, violent immigrants” before insisting “that’s not what you are doing.” Except it was exactly what they were doing. They were literally chasing a suspect wanted for raping a child and murder. “If you actually cared, you probably would care about the child who got raped and the person who got murdered by the person we’re looking for, but you see, you don’t care,” an ICE agent told Jensen. “No, I don’t care,” Jensen admitted.

This is what Trump Derangement Syndrome looks like. The activist class wants Americans to believe their beef is with detaining and deporting otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants. They frame it as compassion, as standing up for families just trying to build better lives. But when push comes to shove, and ICE is hunting someone accused of the most heinous crimes imaginable, the mask comes off. These agitators don’t want ICE arresting anyone, period. It doesn’t matter if the target is a child rapist or a murderer. Opposing Trump’s immigration policies matters more than anything else.

Read more …

“In one email, it says that “Reid will spend the night at 71st,” which is a reference to Epstein’s Upper East Side townhouse. ”

Reid Hoffman Funded Suit Against Trump Alleging Rape (Tim O’Brien)

The disclosures from the Epstein files have been enlightening to say the least, particularly if you wonder if you are seeing what you think you’re seeing. More to the point, do you remember that 2023 lawsuit against candidate Donald Trump from E. Jean Carroll? That’s the one where Carroll, who is now 82 years old, waited all these years and, after two of Trump’s presidential races and one term as president, decided to sue the billionaire on allegations of defamation, rape, and sexual abuse.


The case was mostly based on unsubstantiated accusations that Trump sexually abused and raped Carroll in 1996, 23 years earlier. In the end, a jury awarded Carroll $5 million in a judgement that rejected the plaintiff’s claim that she was raped, but it found Trump responsible for sexual abuse. The jury verdict also gave Trump’s dishonest critics the opportunity to falsely claim he raped someone. Before, during, and after the trial, Carroll made a number of curious statements that make you wonder just how right in the head she is. Like the time in 2019 that she told CNN’s Anderson Cooper, “Most people think of rape as being sexy.” Now the Epstein files are providing some new context to that case and, more specifically, to the man with the money behind the lawsuit.

Since 2023, we knew that billionaire leftist and founder of LinkedIn Reid Hoffman bankrolled the litigation. He provided most, if not all, of the money needed to pay those blue-chip lawyers who represented Carroll. The Denver Gazette reported in 2023 this fact, along with the fact that he’s donated to “Democratic causes including former 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton,” adding, “He also partnered with megadonor George Soros in 2021 to form an organization to combat disinformation.” Hoffman is a certified never-Trumper with advanced-stage TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome). Hoffman was all too happy to take credit for the role his funding played in supporting Carroll’s lawsuit.

So, you heard Hoffman, right? He said, “Her (Carroll’s) voice should be heard, that because she was challenging someone who was so much more wealthy and powerful that shouldn’t be squashed.…Providing that voice for, you know, people who otherwise would be ground down by the system, or the powerful, is I think a good thing, obviously especially in the case of women, and especially in the case of sexual, and other, kind of torture, and attack…So, providing that support was something I was very happy to do.” As a leftist billionaire, all of this is very on brand for Hoffman. Hypocrisy and double standards are also on brand for the left. In that spirit, it appears Hoffman has not disappointed.

Hoffman was mentioned quite a bit in the Epstein files, and it would appear not as a mere acquaintance of Epstein. That said, it’s important to know that not everyone mentioned in the files did anything wrong. In a few cases that we already know of, some who are mentioned explicitly rejected Jeffrey Epstein and what he was all about. Others were simply people who had crossed paths with Epstein along the way. Hoffman’s interactions with Epstein suggest he did a lot more than simply cross paths with Epstein. His name is mentioned in the files 2,658 times. The New York Post has reported that some of the recently released Epstein email files “reveal LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman discussing visits to Epstein’s infamous private island, his New Mexico ranch, and his New York apartment.”

In one email, it says that “Reid will spend the night at 71st,” which is a reference to Epstein’s Upper East Side townhouse. The Post also reported, “An apparent 2014 scheduling memo lists a variety of dinners and parties, as well as the line: ‘Jeffrey will have Joi Ito and Reid Hoffman will go to the ranch for the weekend (JE did not give exact dates).’” Ito is a notable Japanese venture capitalist. Here are some of the emails in question. While there is nothing specifically incriminating in the wording of the emails, Hoffman’s obviously close relationship with Epstein raises a number of questions, especially for a man who, when he funded Carroll’s lawsuit against Trump, said that in providing that funding, he was supporting “people who otherwise would be ground down by the system, or the powerful.”

And then he added that he thought this was “a good thing, obviously especially in the case of women, and especially in the case of sexual, and other, kinds of torture, and attack.” Let’s say, for sport, that Hoffman didn’t engage in the perks of spending all that time on Epstein’s island or in his pervert Bed and Breakfast. Do you think he knew what an unsavory character Epstein was? Do you think he ever offered to pay for lawsuits on behalf of Epstein’s victims? Do you think Hoffman had his share of opportunities to get to know any of them? I guess we just need to stay tuned.

Read more …

“These disastrous policies began under Obama, were reversed during Trump’s first term, and then roared back under Biden. The result? A staffing crisis filled with underqualified controllers who couldn’t handle the job. ..”

The Trump Administration Officially Kills DEI at the FAA (Matt Margolis)

Last year’s deadly midair collision at Reagan National Airport, which killed all 67 people aboard an American Airlines plane and a U.S. Army helicopter, was a wake-up call that many on the left refused to hear. President Donald Trump, however, understood the problem and sought to fix it. He pointed directly at the Barack Obama and Joe Biden DEI policies that prioritized checkbox diversity over actual competence in air traffic control. He was absolutely right. Air traffic control whistleblowers confirmed that the FAA’s obsession with Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives has led to a shortage of qualified personnel. These disastrous policies began under Obama, were reversed during Trump’s first term, and then roared back under Biden. The result? A staffing crisis filled with underqualified controllers who couldn’t handle the job.


The whistleblowers revealed that meeting diversity quotas became more important than actual ability. I’m sorry, but when you’re juggling planes full of passengers through the skies, “good enough for diversity” doesn’t cut it. The problems were so severe that near misses occurred multiple times a week. Reagan National wasn’t a random tragedy; it was an inevitable disaster created by DEI. But those days are over. Last week, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced that the FAA issued a mandatory “Operations Specification” that forces every commercial airline to commit to merit-based hiring for pilots. No more woke hiring practices and no more prioritizing race and sex over skill. If airlines don’t comply, they face federal investigation.

“When families board their aircraft, they should fly with confidence knowing the pilot behind the controls is the best of the best,” Duffy said. “The American people don’t care what their pilot looks like or their gender—they just care that they are most qualified man or woman for the job.” This shouldn’t be controversial. It’s just common sense. But under the Biden-Buttigieg regime, common sense got tossed out the window. The FAA spent years focused on renaming cockpits to “flight decks” and investigating racist roads and bridges while actual safety standards crumbled.The new mandate requires all U.S. carriers to certify they’ve terminated race and sex-based hiring practices. Airlines must prove they’re identifying candidates based on specific experience and technical aptitude that match their operating environment.v

Imagine that: hiring people who can actually do the job. Such a novel concept, right?“At the FAA, the safety of passengers is our number one priority,” said FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford. “It is a bare minimum expectation for airlines to hire the most qualified individual when making someone responsible for hundreds of lives at a time. Someone’s race, sex, or creed, has nothing to do with their ability to fly and land aircraft safely.” This action follows Trump’s Executive Order on Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity and his Presidential Action on Keeping Americans Safe in Aviation. The FAA has already raised performance standards, dismantled DEI offices and contracts, and scrapped the worst of the Biden-era directives. But until now, allegations of airlines hiring based on race and sex persisted.

The safety of our skies should never take a backseat to diversity quotas. Period. Americans deserve to know that the people monitoring their flights and flying their planes earned those positions through competence, not because they checked the right demographic boxes on a form. It’s about time the FAA refocused on hiring the most competent individuals who can ensure the safety of everyone traveling through our airspace. And you can bet this fix wouldn’t have happened under a Democrat administration — it would still be prioritizing DEI initiatives and then scratching its head over what caused preventable crashes.

Read more …

“..if you are a banker and you lose a fortune, then you are always bailed out with tax money. This is why they never improve.”

Big Losses for Banks Coming in 2026 – Charles Nenner (USAW)

Last April, renowned geopolitical and financial cycle expert Charles Nenner predicted a depression cycle starting at the end of 2025 into 2026. The economy is clearly slowing down, and the latest “1 million plus” negative jobs revision that comes out Wednesday (2/11/26) certainly points to a tanking economy. Nenner says, “I have to adjust for all the immigrants let into the country, but we will soon see unemployment numbers go up.” The next big downward surprise for the economy is big losses for the banks. Nenner predicts, “The institutions I work with that are selling real estate in New York are telling me a lot of banks are already negative. If you look in their books in California, they already had these big losses.


“They did not get out of their bonds because they thought interest rates would never go up. There are a lot of things that are already wrong, but it has not come out yet. I don’t know if there are going to be failures, but it will come out, and they will have big losses when they have to show the books.” So, what is Nenner predicting will happen with the troubled banks? Nenner says, “I guess the Fed will step in or the government will step in . . . because if you are a banker and you lose a fortune, then you are always bailed out with tax money. This is why they never improve.”

With gold and silver, there is good news and bad news. First comes the bad news. I asked Nenner if he would be a buyer of silver and gold now? Nenner says, “No, not right now because the cycle is down for the moment. . .. It is the same thing for gold. The cycle is down. If we close below $4,700, we will get some downside price targets. Usually, things that go up fast also go down fast. It’s not over for gold and silver; it’s just a correction.” Nenner put his clients in gold at $1,600 an ounce, and he bought silver at $29 per ounce. Now comes the good news, as Nenner points out, “The bull market for gold and silver will continue to the end of 2027. By then, we can do some fine tuning.”

On the war cycle, good news—for now. In the Middle East, Nenner says, “Right now, the war cycle is not going to heat up.” How about the war cycle for Europe and Russia? Nenner says, “No, they are not going to heat up either. The war cycles are topping right now. It’s not going to heat up for the short term.” Nenner is still worried about China and Taiwan at some point in the future. The really bad news on the war cycle comes in the 2030 to 2032 time frame. Nenner says, “The 2030 to 2032 war cycle is going to be very bad. There are going to be a lot of casualties. They start shooting rockets, and how many people are going to die? I think it will be in the billions of people, and that is what the numbers show.”

Nenner warns of terrorists let into the country by the Biden Administration that could set off bombs in the US “on a big scale.” Nenner contends this will be part of the war cycle that comes at the end of this decade. Nenner also said Trump could help cushion the financial fall of the USA, but he could not stop the down financial cycle. Nenner pointed out, “You cannot stop winter, but you can get a winter coat, and Trump is a winter coat.” Now, Nenner says, “There was so much damage done to America that Trump can’t fix it. . .. The cycle is turning down, and you can’t do anything about it.” Nenner also predicted in January of 2024 that President Trump “would be coming back.”

So, let’s all pray to God the Father and His Son Jesus for divine help.

Read more …

“So how about a devastating debt spiral to perk you up on this fine Presidents’ Day? “:

Welp, Here Comes the ‘Death Spiral’ (Stephen Green)

So how about a devastating debt spiral to perk you up on this fine Presidents’ Day? The latest Congressional Budget Office report — with the thrilling title “The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2026 to 2036” — doesn’t use the phrase “debt spiral,” but Fortune’s Jason Ma did on Saturday, and I’m totally stealing it. Ma wrote of a debt “tipping point” that most people aren’t aware of but that could “arrive soon” with potentially devastating effects. I think I lose readers every time I write about this stuff, and yet I persist.


Before we get to that spiral, let’s set the stage. Ma noted that “publicly held debt is currently at $31 trillion and is about 100% of GDP. By fiscal year 2030, debt is expected to exceed the 106% record set after World War II, then surge to 120% by 2036.” Of course, we won the war in short order, spending returned to normal, and the debt became manageable.&; I think pretty much everybody reading PJ Media is at the very least vaguely aware of these current figures, but the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget warned last week: “Later in the decade, under CBO’s baseline, the average interest rate on all federal debt will exceed nominal economic growth, which could represent the start of a debt spiral.”

“Fearing the political backlash of fiscal austerity, lawmakers often point to the prospect of robust economic growth as an alternative way to keep U.S. debt under control over the long term,” Ma wrote, “But the threat of interest costs growing faster than the economy risks sending debt into escape velocity and forcing more drastic measures to prevent a crisis.” So let’s talk about the reality that few people seem willing to address. And Another Thing: Maybe people would pay more attention to these CBO reports if they gave them titles like, “Louisiana Johnson and the Spiral of Doom.”There are three ways out from under trillions and trillions in debt. Only three.

Washington can inflate away the debt, which is the preferred method of corrupt governments throughout history. The Biden Cabal managed to knock the real value of our debt down by 20% or so in just a couple of years, and all they had to do was set the typical American’s income back by years (not to mention wipe out any cash savings) to do it. The second option is default, although it does come in two flavors. There could be an orderly default, where Washington goes to our creditors at home and abroad and says, “Look, you and I both know we can’t pay back all the interest we owe you. So let’s negotiate how big a haircut you’re going to take while we get our finances in order.” Then there’s a disorderly default, where Washington just stops paying and there’s a global run on the dollar, markets collapse, and savings evaporate. The first flavor is almost too foul for even a small taste. The second melts your face off.

The third option is to grow out way out, and this is Trump’s preference. Mine, too, for that matter. Washington needs to do everything in its power to spur growth — primarily deregulation and tax cuts — while Congress keeps spending growth smaller (even just slightly smaller) than GDP growth. If the bond markets saw Congress rein in spending growth, those long-term interest rates would come down fairly quickly. Until that happens, however, the bond markets must — must — price in the risk of inflation and/or default. What that means in, no matter how low the Fed cuts short-term rates, those long-term rates will remain stubbornly high.

And Another Thing: Come to think of it, there is a fourth option, and that’s send the military into foreign countries to steal what we can’t pay. That’s a bad way, mmkay? That isn’t the Fed’s fault, and we can’t blame Jerome Powell for this one. It’s simple economic reality. Or as Bill Clinton advisor James Carville put it more than 30 years ago, when a nasty bond market reaction put the kibosh on Clinton’s grander spending plans, “I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the President or the Pope or as a 400 baseball hitter. But now I would like to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody.” Everybody, it seems, but those reckless fools in Congress who hold the nation’s purse strings — and all our fates — in their hands.

Read more …

Vance or Rubio in ’28? Place your bets here.

Marco Rubio Joint Press Conference with Hungarian PM Viktor Orban (CTH)

Secretary Marco Rubio went out of his way in this joint presser to emphasize the personal relationship between Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and U.S. President Donald Trump. Orban is facing a serious election challenge this April and all of the EU/NATO systems are actively trying to create pressure points to remove him. Secretary Marco Rubio is in Budapest today for meetings with Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his government to include the signing of a civilian-nuclear cooperation agreement heralded by the Trump administration.


Hungary is one of the few voices within the European Union who is pushing back against Brussels efforts to go to war against Russia. Prime Minister Orban has been very critical of Ukraine, openly stating his opposition to EU membership for the embattled country. In response President Zelenskyy has weaponized Ukraine’s geographical stewardship of oil and gas pipelines to shut down Hungarian energy and drive-up prices.

Read more …

“.. politicians stage themselves retroactively as initiators of the new, attempting to position themselves at the forefront of developments they have ignored or actively obstructed for decades..”:

Macron’s AI Clown Show: Europe’s Digital Dilemma (ZH)

The European Union has lost its place in the global race for artificial intelligence. In a single tweet on platform X, France’s President Emmanuel Macron inadvertently outlined the convoluted situation while simultaneously revealing his personal emotional fragility. The leading representatives of the European Union like to present themselves as emotionless technocrats. Maintaining the greatest possible distance from citizens, they execute their agenda of societal transformation toward what they understand as a net-zero transformation economy. This ostentatious distance from the citizenry acts as a simulacrum of power, which, in politicians like Emmanuel Macron, often veers into the caricatural.


Macron’s striking presence in foreign affairs—whether regarding the Ukraine war or recurring provocations toward the United States—correlates with his aggressive censorship policy toward his own population. A president without a people, steering his minority government through a budgetary crisis that brings France ever closer to the fiscal abyss.In Macron’s persona, the European misstep is condensed: economically failed, deeply unpopular among his own people, geopolitically essentially irrelevant—and yet imbued with lofty, messianic plans. This performative play of power, coupled with hardly disguised impotence and incompetence, inevitably produces an effect that can be described as clownish. It is the expression of a political style that can no longer reconcile claim with reality—and thus delivers less leadership than a tragicomic performance.

Politicians like the French president are indeed aware of the growing public anger over their policies and, behind the technocratic façade, very much experience emotional states—Macron revealed this for a brief moment on February 7 on the platform “X,” which he otherwise fights. This moment of exposure was triggered by a reaction to Israeli AI investor Dr. Eli David. The entrepreneur had ridiculed the French government’s plan to initiate an AI revolution with a mere initial investment of €30 million, publicly calling the president a “clown.”

Macron responded in classic social media fashion: fast, unconsidered, emotional. And this was precisely the real revelation. His message not only displayed personal fragility but simultaneously exposed Europe’s fatal economic strategy in the field of artificial intelligence. Macron directly addressed David’s criticism and slid into a rhetorical trap, writing: Yes, exactly this “clown,” meaning himself, would trigger an investment boom with €30 million, eventually mobilizing over €100 billion in private funds. Macron plans a French Silicon Valley south of Paris and intends to catapult his country to the Olympus of artificial intelligence—with €30 million of state money, initially benefiting those who provide the technological framework for the upcoming rollout of digital IDs.

In this sentence, Europe’s dilemma crystallized: self-assurance and denial, the familiar pathos of EU Europeans combined with an astonishing detachment from reality—and a political style that reveals more about Europe’s position in the global AI race than any sober analysis could. Those familiar with the codes, memes, and recurring keywords of digital platforms understand the significance of this label. When “clown world” or “clown politics” is mentioned, it refers precisely to the comedy we witness daily: the routine evasion of European top politicians from the consequences of their centrally controlled policies—be it economic and industrial policy, migration, or the grotesquely perceived energy policy.

The clown meme condenses the cynically self-ironic perception of the viewer of this comedy—a viewer aware that they are not only the target of these policies but will ultimately bear their consequences.Clown politics takes many forms. These include the countless crisis or innovation summits in which politicians stage themselves retroactively as initiators of the new, attempting to position themselves at the forefront of developments they have ignored or actively obstructed for decades. These summits are a particularly pernicious form of masking incompetence: political self-validation rituals simulating activity while merely covering up structural stagnation.

Read more …

” Both seemed to put the onus on the Justice Department to protect them from their own folly..”

Ro Khanna and the Impunity of “Wealthy, Powerful Men” (Turley)

Last year, I wrote a column expressing concerns over the move to release the Epstein files en masse, including grand jury material. The files include a wide range of tangential figures and unsupported allegations common to criminal investigations. Politicians eager to capitalize on the scandal would likely show little concern for the underlying facts in “outing” names and repeating unproven allegations. That fear was realized this week with the chest-pounding speech of Rep. Ro Khanna (D., Cal.) on the House floor in which he took credit for outing six “wealthy, powerful men” who he suggested were actively shielded by the DOJ from public exposure. After the DOJ unredacted the names at his request, he read them on the floor. It turns out that four have nothing to do with Epstein.


Had Khanna made these comments outside of the House floor, he would be looking at four defamation lawsuits. However, Khanna knew the men could not sue him because of the immunity afforded to him under the Constitution’s Speech and Debate Clause.Khanna has been clearly positioning himself for a 2028 presidential run by pandering to the far left of his party. That includes his support for a wealth tax that has already reportedly led to a trillion dollars leaving the state and could harm his own Silicon Valley constituents. The Epstein files offer an easy platform for another “Spartacus moment” for politicians, who portray themselves as public avengers. That was evident on the House floor as Khanna took credit for exposing these six men.

It would turn out to be another Rep. Jasmine Crockett disaster where a gotcha moment became a spectacular face-planting. Khanna portrayed himself and Rep. Thomas Massie (R., KY) as ferreting out the names of the “wealthy, powerful men” whom the Trump Administration has fought to conceal. The Justice Department had previously agreed to let any members review the unredacted material. I have spoken with members who were part of the conference on the petition to force the release of these documents. They have told me that Massie, Khanna, and Marjorie Taylor Greene opposed repeated efforts to amend the petition to allow for greater resources and protection in the review of the millions of documents to avoid this danger.

In the conference, their colleagues specifically raised the danger of the release of entirely innocent names like the ones released by Khanna on the floor. They dismissed the danger and refused to amend the petition to avoid this type of error. (Indeed, in the hearing with Attorney General Pam Bondi, Rep. Brad Knott, R-N.C., makes reference to that failed effort to give the staff and resources to avoid the release of names with no connection to the underling criminal conduct). The media, again, eagerly spread the false claim of six men “likely incriminated” in the Epstein scandal. Khanna congratulated himself and his colleague for discovering the cover-up: “Why did it take Thomas Massie and me going to the Justice Department to get these six men’s identities to become public? And if we found six men that they were hiding in two hours, imagine how many men they are covering up for in those 3 million files.”

There is another possible explanation. Four of these men have little or nothing to do with Epstein. One of the names was previously connected to Epstein in public files. That is Les Wexner. Another, Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem, was the head of a Dubai logistics company called DP World. However, the other four were just photos used in a photo lineup. In other words, they were just random individuals used by the police to fill out a lineup. The Justice Department responded to Khanna’s public demonstration by declaring that “Rep Ro Khanna and Rep Thomas Massie forced the unmasking of completely random people selected years ago for an FBI lineup – men and women. These individuals have NOTHING to do with Epstein or Maxwell,” the spokesperson told the Guardian…”

What is curious is that Khanna blamed the Justice Department for his going to the floor to out the men as suspected wealthy and powerful predators. However, Massie admitted that he previously raised the possibility that the men were just used randomly in a line up. Both seemed to put the onus on the Justice Department to protect them from their own folly. [..]

Read more …

“The West-West Divide: What Remains of Common Values..”

Hillary Clinton Admits Mass Migration Is “Disruptive & Destabilizing” (ZH)

After U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke earlier on Saturday at the Munich Security Conference, where he said the U.S. and Europe “belong together” and argued for a stronger West, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who served under former President Barack Obama, appeared on a panel later that afternoon and made surprising remarks about mass migration. Clinton participated in a panel titled, “The West-West Divide: What Remains of Common Values,” and said that mass migration invasion involving millions of illegal aliens has been “destabilizing” to society.


Clinton continued: “So this debate that’s going on is driven by an effort to control people, to control who we are, how we look, who we love. And I think we need to call it for what it is. There is a legitimate reason to have a debate about things like migration. It went too far. It’s been disruptive and destabilizing, and it needs to be fixed in a humane way, with secure borders that don’t torture and kill people, and with a strong family structure, because it is at the base.”

Clinton’s comments about how mass migration has been an utter failure probably made White House border czar Tom Homan blush. In fact, unhinged Democrats, such as the Democratic Socialists of America, are probably furious with Clinton, given her very blunt public stance on immigration policy. In fact, if we circle back to Rubio’s comments earlier in the day, he slammed “mass migration”. Let’s not forget that Rubio’s State Department last fall recognized that mass migration was an “existential threat” to the West and risks “undermining the stability of key American allies.”

“America First” politicians are coming to their senses about the illegal alien invasion, as it was a move by globalists, NGOs, and their Democratic Party allies to install a new voting bloc and transform America into a one-party rule of left-wing kings and queens (think California). That’s why “America First” politicians and Elon Musk are pushing hard for the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act to secure the integrity of elections.
Read more …

“Bannon and Epstein were very close and talked to each other about seemingly everything.”

Steve Bannon and Jeffrey Epstein (CTH)

Through the years I didn’t really have much of an opinion of Steve Bannon, I approached any story of interest that surrounded him by simply looking at the factual details of the current event in question. CTH well understood that Bannon, and subsequently his expressed opinion and objective, was simply an outcome of his position – downstream from the billionaire of the moment who paid him. In essence, Steve Bannon always seemed to be, much like Kellyanne Conway, an advocate for whoever was financing him. From Robert/Rebekah Mercer at Breitbart forward to any endeavor thereafter, it always just appeared the same.That said, with the release of the Epstein files, the relationship between Steve Bannon and Jeffrey Epstein is something CTH did not expect. {HERE} Bannon and Epstein were very close and talked to each other about seemingly everything.


I can never unsee what I have read. Nor will CTH ever entertain the possibility that Bannon was ever a good element within the MAGA effort. There is a solid argument to be made that the Bannon War Room was funded, or organized in the funding mechanisms, by Jeffrey Epstein. {HERE} The files of messages between them contain some shocking stuff happening in the background while Steve Bannon was in very close proximity to candidate and President Trump. The level of disdain Bannon had for Donald Trump’s family and for Donald Trump himself is really something CTH did not expect to see. {examples: HERE and HERE} I am left to wonder now how much of the vitriol against Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, ie. “Javanka hatred”, actually originated from the Braintrust behind Bannon and the assembly of people in his immediate orbit.

Initially, I saw some Twitter accounts attempt to defend Steve Bannon by saying Epstein did all the talking in their text exchanges and Bannon was less communicative. However, that only applied to the first batches of files reviewed. As a few days went along and people started citing files, reading them gives a much more fulsome picture of the relationship. Steve Bannon may have been focused on the financial gains and perhaps networks of people in his association with Epstein; but he certainly got deep into it and expressed extreme praise for Epstein, even going so far as to call him a god. {LINK} These were two men in a very close friendship. There is no political or ideological distance between Bannon and Epstein.

The level of expressed skullduggery that has been going on for years in the background is very unsettling to accept, and I say that as a person who doesn’t customarily get shocked by duplicity. This is not about division; this is about something more akin to betrayal. While putting on a MAGA face for the War Room broadcasts, in the background Bannon was actually plotting and advising of ways to eliminate Donald Trump from republican politics. This is Brutus level disloyalty, even accepting the guy has no moral compass other than his bank account. I can never unsee what has been seen.

There’s also some weird stuff in the exchanges about contextual things from years past. As an example, in one set of text messages Bannon and Epstein were discussing Patrick Byrne who is now part of the Emerald Robinson/Mike Flynn network. Bannon notes in 2018 that Byrne told him he was working for the CIA, and apparently Bannon did not believe him. This is the same November, 2018, message exchange where Epstein is advising Steve Bannon on how to set up a media network to maximize privacy, structure the financing and eliminate the problems with transparency. This is the origin of what would less than a year later become Bannon’s War Room on Real Voice America. Did Jeffrey Epstein provide the seed capital to assist the start-up of Bannon’s War Room? That question isn’t clear, but sheesh, the creepy irony of the possibility is really over-the-top.

I guess in the big scheme of things, considering all of the potential creepy stuff that is far more consequential to the Epstein file release, the relationship with Steve Bannon is not at the top of the issues of concern. However, the reality of seeing this relationship and reading how much they both hated MAGA is just so darn deflating. Trust lost can never be reestablished.Ugh. All of it. Just, ugh. Now we reevaluate everyone who openly, frequently and willingly associated themselves with Steve Bannon on that “War Room” platform. Including: Julie Kelly, Mike Davis, Jack Posobiec, Lara Logan, John Solomon, Laura Loomer, Harmeet Dhillon and so many more. Did they know about this Bannon-Epstein network?

Read more …

“If you tolerate the intolerable, you’re communicating that it’s okay to mistreat you.” —Aimee Terese on X

Epstein-itis (James Howard Kunstler)

Did you think the American zeitgeist — our collective spirit plus our thinking — could not get crazier? Gird your loins. It’s getting worse by the hour. The Jeffrey Epstein files suggest that people will do anything and that people will believe anything. Pizza, hot dogs, white sharks. . . boys, girls, babies, teens, Russian whores. . . celebrities by the score. . . billionaires. . . cannibal orgies. . . vivisection parlors. . . adrenochrome. . . blood. . . dead bodies. . . demon worship. . . a depraved and insane global leadership. . . lemme outa here!

I don’t know what’s real in Epstein and what’s not — but neither do you. What you ought to know is that the colossal inventory of Epstein files is perhaps the greatest instrument of mass mind-fuckery ever seen in the history of Western Civ. How interesting, too, that the deluge of material coincides exactly with the critical capability emergence of Artificial Intelligence as a tool for the manipulation of documentary evidence. And also consider all the years since 2019 that interested parties have had to mess with, destroy, possibly fabricate, and catalog all this stuff.

Apparently, the Woke-Jacobin-Marxist eruption was not enough to destabilize the consensus about reality. The absurdities you were asked to swallow about all-women-are-women-including-men. . . the police killed George Floyd. . . mostly peaceful riots. . . the vaccine is safe and effective. . . the free-est, fairest elections ever. . . “Joe Biden” is president. . . the border is secure. . . speaking English is white supremacy — did not push America deeply enough into Crazyland. More was required to completely demolish your sense of an ordered world.

Donald Trump was correct, at least, that releasing the Epstein files would bring on more chaos than clarity and impede the effort to get our country back on the rails with an economic engine based on the production of goods instead of financialized hyper-casino voodoo. Well, now we’re in a maelstrom of innuendo, code-talk, gossip, and redaction, and you can hardly begin to sort it out. The Attorney General of the USA, bless her heart, has already botched the management of this monster.

Epstein’s relations with Israel and its Mossad intel blob, along with his connections to global banking interests, have aroused the zestiest breakout of antipathy to Jews since the SS busied itself loading the crematoriums of Europe. Hatred of Jews is a recurring symptom of civilization distress. But it is also possible that Israel has behaved badly — and it is certain that many political intellectuals are reevaluating the way that nation was established after World War Two. To some degree, Israel has become a paranoid state (though even paranoiacs have real enemies).

Where does that go from here? Thoughtful people are pessimistic. For sure, they resent the money and influence seeded by Israel in the US Congress. They might be concerned as well about all the other interests pounding money into American politics. Grift is everywhere, and everyone can see it now. The looming end of the grift orgy is probably behind the Democratic Party’s current psychotic disposition. Having lost its 20th century base of factory workers, the party has had to work the extreme margins of American life to build a coalition of the feckless, the reckless, the brainles

s, and the shameless. They have become the party’s wards in a reimagined patronage system even more pernicious than the old one under characters like Boss Tweed and Mayor Richard Daley-the-First of Chicago. The Democratic Party can’t win elections without rigging them and it’s astonishing that they’ve gotten away with building such sturdy armature of ballot fraud in plain sight with next to zero objection from the supposed guardians in officialdom. The features of it are so arrant that a political class with any sense or dignity would have laughed it straight into the criminal courts — and its perps straight into the penitentiary. The fraud became especially acute with the 2020 and 2022 elections. It is about to be revealed in the troves of evidence extracted lately from Fulton County, GA, and presently from Maricopa County, AZ. These birds are cooked. Not a few people will eventually go to jail over these shenanigans. And meanwhile, the SAVE Act pulsates in the Senate like a lump of kryptonite.

Now, you may realize that a political party based entirely on socially marginal persons — many of them mentally ill — will adopt a roster of ideas and policies that are patently marginal, which is to say, crazy. The party elders are now straining to eliminate some of that. Last week, Barack Obama unloaded on California Governor Gavin Newsom’s botched handling of the state’s epic homeless crisis. “We should recognize that the average person doesn’t want to have to navigate around a tent city in the middle of downtown,” the ex-president said in an interview with progressive YouTuber Brian Tyler Cohen.

Hillary Clinton, dropping in on the Munich Security Conference, said, amazingly, “There is a legitimate reason to have a debate about things like migration. It went too far, it’s been disruptive and destabilizing. . .” before tossing in some Woke word-salad: “. . . and it needs to be fixed in a humane way with secure borders that don’t torture and kill people and how we’re going to have a strong family structure because it is at the base of civilization.” Say, what. . . ?

But then, poor Hillary, who can’t help being a Cluster-B psycho, turned up moderating a panel at the same Munich meet-up to take up the issue: “Girls Just Want to Have Fundamental Rights: Fighting the Global Pushback.“ To nail down her point, Hillary brought onstage as the featured speaker, Rep. Sarah McBride (D-DE), known previously as Tim McBride, a man. The insanity is, of course, self-evident. The take-away from all this. They’re not trying hard enough to get their minds right.

And in the meantime, America and the other nations of Western Civ, must contend with the gigantic trip laid on them that is the Epstein files. We know the newspapers and cable news channels are hopeless. Is there anyone or any sense-making institution that can usher us through this nightmare back into the daylight?

Read more …

“..58 percent of voters believe their party is “too liberal.” But Newsom and Ocasio-Cortez found a welcoming audience in Europe.”

Newsom and AOC Go to Europe to Pitch High Tax, High Regulation Policies (Turley)

This week, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) joined the many Californians now seeking their fortune elsewhere. The difference is that Newsom is planning to come back to California, even as billionaires, investors, and companies flee his state for greener pastures. Newsom and Democrats such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) were selling a brave new world that looked a lot like the broken old world. It was an ironic moment. They were addressing countries at the Munich Security Conference that had previously destroyed their economies through socialist and far-left policies. The rush of liberal Democratic officeholders to Europe was telling. A new poll shows that a record 58 percent of voters believe their party is “too liberal.” But Newsom and Ocasio-Cortez found a welcoming audience in Europe.


The global elite gushed over Ocasio-Cortez and sat enraptured as she rattled off socialist platitudes. That included New York Times correspondent Katrin Bennhold, who thrilled the audience by treating it as a given that Ocasio-Cortez will run for president.Both Newsom and Ocasio-Cortez spoke of returning the U.S. to the good graces of the global elite. Newsom assured the Europeans that Trump’s reign is temporary, and that the U.S. will soon enough dismantle the “wrecking ball” that the administration has taken to the EU.

Newsom offered his leadership and his state as the model, proclaiming that “California is a stable and reliable partner” for Europe. The model includes high taxes, massive spending programs and greater bureaucratic regulations — precisely the policies that have driven the European economy into its current stagnation. In other words, Democrats were in Europe to offer precisely what Newsom outwardly condemned: “doubling down on stupid.” When not fumbling with security questions about issues such as Taiwan, Ocasio-Cortez was demanding that wealth taxes be implemented in the U.S. “expeditiously.” Such a tax on billionaires’ wealth, including unrealized gains, is currently being pushed in California. The predictable result is that billionaires and other wealthy citizens are rushing to leave the state and taking their investments and companies with them.

Ocasio-Cortez had the audience at hello. Rather than having Vice President J.D. Vance shaming them for their attacks on free speech, the Europeans positively gushed over Democratic leaders pushing far-left agendas. It did not matter that such policies devastated European economies in the 20th century. In my book “Rage and the Republic,” I discuss the rise of support for socialism in both the U.S. and Europe. Many of those supporting it are young voters with no memory of the collapse of socialist economies in the 20th Century. In 1977, Labour Prime Minister James Callaghan pursued many of the same socialist policies, leading to what was called the “winter of discontent” as inflation hit 25 percent.

With the collapse of the British pound, the United Kingdom had to take the demoralizing step of securing a loan from the International Monetary Fund, as if it were a developing country. In France, François Mitterrand was also elected to pursue his “rupture with capitalism.” The French economy collapsed; Mitterrand quickly had to reverse himself and restore capitalist policies. That history is rarely discussed or taught today. The “warmth of collectivism,” as New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani put it, is back in vogue. It does not matter that, in Argentina, President Javier Milei is achieving one of the most impressive economic turnarounds in history — dramatically curtailing runaway inflation, government deficits and poverty — by reinstating free-market policies and reducing government spending.

What is chilling about Europe is that the EU has strangled growth with its increasingly centralized controls and massive bureaucracy. My book describes the instability of the EU and its global governance model. Europe is facing populist movements and, like many Democrats, the response has been calls for further consolidation of power. This included the creation of a new, uniform European corporate law, known as the “28th Regime.” With an economy crushed by a massive EU bureaucracy and regulations, the solution of many is all too familiar: borrow more money. French President Emmanuel Macron and others want to issue “Euro bonds” to spend their way into an economic recovery — another policy ideal shared with many on the American left.

This week was only the latest effort of the American left to strengthen an alliance with the EU. Previously, American leaders such as Hillary Clinton pushed the EU to censor Americans online after free speech protections were restored by companies like Twitter. Likewise, the American left is enamored with the EU’s global bureaucracy and regulations. Newsom and Ocasio-Cortez certainly found their element in Munich, and the EU certainly found the “reliable partners” it has longed for in creating “a new World Order with European Values.”

Read more …

“..already in a “pre civil war” state, with “dire social instability,” “economic decline,” and “elite pusillanimity” as key precursors..”

No Prospect’ Of EU Governments Preventing CIVIL WAR: British Army Colonel (MN)

Major unrest looms as political leaders kick the can down the road on immigration and integration failures, according to a seasoned military expert. Retired Colonel Richard Kemp, a former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, has issued a stark warning about the trajectory of social cohesion in Europe and Britain. Speaking to Israeli broadcaster i24News, Kemp highlighted how integration breakdowns have worsened over the past two decades, paving the way for inevitable conflict.“Things have been getting worse, getting bad, for many years, and they are only going to get worse,” Kemp stated, pointing to the reluctance of governments to confront the issues head-on.


Kemp, who also served in counter-insurgency operations in Northern Ireland and held intelligence roles in Westminster and the Cabinet Office, emphasized the lack of political will to address what he termed the “Islamification” of the UK. “No government, the government now or any prospective government of the UK, has the guts to stop it,” he said. “If they want to take strong action to prevent the Islamification of the UK, it’s going to mean big trouble for them. They don’t want trouble, they look four years ahead, they will kick the can down the road to someone else. ”This political shortsightedness, according to Kemp, is fueling the risk of “civil war in Europe.” He described a potential scenario resembling Northern Ireland but on a far more intense scale, where “you have the indigenous British and some of the immigrant population and the British government all on three different sides fighting against each other.”

The officer attributed the slim chances of maintaining social order to democratic dysfunction and a lack of real choice for voters. “The big problem that British people have is they don’t have political choice. We don’t really live in a democracy,” Kemp asserted. “Whatever party you vote for, you get the same policies. That applies also to immigration and to the way in which the Islamic population is allowed to grow in numbers and dominance.” Kemp also noted the rise of Islamist politics in the UK, with Gaza-focused candidates winning seats in high-migration areas. “We’re going to see much more of that in the next election,” he predicted, referencing concerns within the Labour Party, including Health Minister Wes Streeting’s private message:

“I fear we’re in big trouble here – and I am toast at the next election. We just lost our safest ward in Redbridge (51% Muslim, Ilford S) to a Gaza independent. At this rate, I don’t think we’ll hold either of the two Ilford seats.”This isn’t the first time Kemp has raised the alarm. As we highlighted last year, he previously warned of growing unrest over mass migration and allegations of child sexual abuse by new arrivals, stating: “There’s only so much that I think people can take of that, and they’ve been very quiet up until now, the people in the UK have not really raised their voices against this, or in a very limited way only. But the more it develops, and it is going to develop more and more, the more unrest we are going to see.”

In that earlier commentary, Kemp went further: “And they have no option. I’m not encouraging or supporting this, but I think the people will feel they have no option than to take action into their own hand rather than rely on political leaders who are doing nothing, in their eyes. I think there is every likelihood, I don’t know what the timeframe is, but I would go so far as to not just predict civil unrest, but civil war in the UK in the coming years if this situation continues which I believe it will.” Kemp’s views align with broader expert analyses on Europe’s fracturing societies. King’s College London Professor David Betz has warned that countries like the UK, France, and Sweden are already in a “pre civil war” state, with “dire social instability,” “economic decline,” and “elite pusillanimity” as key precursors.

Betz stated: “We’re already past the tipping point, is my estimation… we are past the point at which there is a political offramp. We are past the point at which normal politics is able to solve the problem… almost every plausible way forward from here involves some kind of violence in my view.” Betz further urged: “I would probably avoid big cities. I would suggest you reduce your exposure to big cities if you are able,” and concluded: “Things are bad now, but they are going to get very much worse. Hopefully after they will get better, but you will have to go through the period of very much worse before you get there.”Echoing these concerns, academic Michael Rainsborough described Britain’s path as intentional rather than accidental, rooted in elite strategies of division.

He referenced historical policies under Tony Blair aimed “to rub the Right’s nose in diversity,” and warned of a “descent into what we termed dirty war,” involving internal repression and low-intensity strife. Rainsborough highlighted the erosion of national sentiment, noting public spaces filled with “Pride flags, Palestinian flags, Ukrainian flags — anything, it seems, but the Cross of St George.” He cautioned that such dynamics could lead to “Balkanisation — or, in the local idiom, Ulsterisation,” drawing parallels to Northern Ireland’s troubles. These repeated warnings from military and academic figures underscore a pattern: unchecked mass migration, elite detachment from public will, and a refusal to enforce borders are eroding the fabric of Western societies. As globalist policies prioritize appeasement over security, the pushback from ordinary citizens grows—demanding leaders who put their own people first, before the powder keg ignites.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/Real_RobN/status/2023175702938554542?s=20 Tucker https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/2023412775851110657?s=20

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Feb 162026
 


John William Godward Dolce Far Niente (Sweet Idleness, or A Pompeian Fishpond) 1904


Marco Rubio Expands on Purposeful Speech to Munich Security Conference (CTH)
Eric Schmidt Warns Ukraine’s “No Man’s Land” Is Future of War (ZH)
Trump Promises Voter ID “Whether Congress Approves Or Not” (ZH)
Judge Weighs Whether to Block Vaccine Changes From CDC, RFK Jr. (ET)
Comedian Zelensky Turned Munich Conference Into Circus – Political Consultant (RT)
Trump ‘Very Serious’ About Annexing Greenland – Danish PM (RT)
Russia Open To Discussing Ukraine’s ‘External Governance’ – Senior Diplomat (RT)
Fetterman Reveals His Parents Are TRUMP Supporters (MN)
We Actually Needed a Law to Stop Paying Dead People (Margolis)
Bondi Says ALL Epstein Files Have Been Released (Salgado)
‘The Search for the Cause of Havana Syndrome’ (Moran)
Senator Unloads On Minnesota AG Ellison Over Fraud Scandal (ZH)
Hillary’s Script, Interrupted (David Manney)

 


 

https://twitter.com/JasonJournoDC/status/2022457483537567991?s=20 Mustafa Share

 


 

 


 


Marco wants to be president. What does Trump say?

Marco Rubio Expands on Purposeful Speech to Munich Security Conference (CTH)

Marco Rubio appears for an interview with John Micklethwait of Bloomberg News. The interview was pre-scheduled as a follow up to the rather historic speech in Munich at the security conference. Within the interview {video and transcript below} Rubio expands on the baseline of the speech, the ‘why‘ is the U.S-EU alliance important. Beginning with the end in mind, Rubio reminds the interviewer that an alliance must first accept the purpose of the assembly. There are common values and common social components to the relationship that sit at the core of the decision to be allies.


We have a shared civilization based on shared values, and within that central component the Trump administration is staring at the Europeans and saying they have lost focus on these values. Europe is diminishing itself; it is fracturing its culture and has lost its sovereign identity. The United States wants to stay partnered with Europe, but we are not going to be a partner anchored to a collective mindset that has lost its identity. This culturally Marxist status, a gathering of nations infected with political correctness, pontificating wokeness and apologetic self-flagellation, is the core problem the Europeans are not willing to face.

President Trump and Marco Rubio are essentially telling the EU to shake it off, quit being woke, get proud of your heritage, institute political systems that give benefit to the population and regain pride in themselves and their identity. The process begins with national security, but that is not just about military spending. Their energy industry needs to support economic independence; they cannot outsource component manufacturing; they need to reestablish economic baselines that are not dependent on Russia, China, India or any other risk vector that could be used to manipulate.

QUESTION: Marco Rubio, Secretary of State, thank you for talking to Bloomberg. You’ve just made this rather remarkable speech where you talked about the destiny of Europe and America always being intertwined. You talked about the alliance which has stretched all the way, culturally, from Michelangelo to the Rolling Stones – a first, I suspect, for a secretary of state – but a culture that has bled and died together. But the very common theme of your speech was the need to share the burden, the need for Europe and America to do things together, which was slightly different from the Vice President last year. Were you kind of offering a carrot where perhaps he was offering a stick?

SECRETARY RUBIO: I think it’s the same message. I think what the Vice President said last year very clearly was that Europe had made a series of decisions internally that were threatening to the alliance and ultimately to themselves, not because we hate Europe or we don’t like Europeans but because – what is it that we fight for, what is it that binds us together? And ultimately, it’s the fact that we are both heirs to the same civilization. And it’s a great civilization and it’s one we should be proud of. It’s one that’s contributed extraordinarily to the world and it’s one, frankly, upon which America is built, from our language to our system of government to our laws to the food we eat to the name of our cities and towns – all of it deeply linked to this Western civilization and culture that we should be proud of, and it’s worth defending.

And ultimately, that’s the point. The point is that people – people don’t fight and die for abstract ideas. They are willing to fight and defend who they are and what matters and is important to them. And that was the foundation he laid last year in his speech – and we add on into this year – to explain to people that when we come off as urgent or even critical about decisions that Europe has failed to make or made, it is because we care. It is because we understand that ultimately, our own fate will be intertwined with what happens with Europe. We want Europe to survive, we want Europe to prosper, because we’re interconnected in so many different ways and because our alliance is so critical. But it has to be an alliance of allies that are capable and willing to fight for who they are and what’s important.

(more…)

Read more …

“..swarms of drones operated remotely and increasingly automated with AI targeting “

Eric Schmidt Warns Ukraine’s “No Man’s Land” Is Future of War (ZH)

Google’s old motto, “Don’t be evil,” was retired for very good reasons about eight years ago.


Former CEO Eric Schmidt has found a new obsession and is linked to a covert drone production pipeline that has supplied hundreds of FPV drones to Ukrainian front-line units, reinforcing his warning in a new Financial Times op-ed that “Ukraine’s no man’s land is the future of war.” “Future wars are going to be defined by unmanned weapons,” Schmidt wrote in the op-ed. He said, “The winner of those drone battles will then be able to advance with unmanned ground and maritime vehicles, which move slowly but can carry heavier payloads.” Schmidt described a stretch on the first line as “no man’s land.”

He explained: “Ukraine is ready for the next stage of warfare, with swarms of drones operated remotely and increasingly automated with AI targeting. No man’s land has expanded as each side pulls its most valuable personnel back from the front while new generations of drones achieve longer ranges and increased lethality through better batteries, sensors and aerodynamics. Automating operations so personnel can operate safely behind the lines has become an urgent Ukrainian priority, with plans to move drone pilots even farther from the front in 2026.

The combination of unblockable satellite communications, cheap spectrum networks and accurate GPS targeting means the only way to fight will be through drone vs drone combat. Drones share data in real time, meaning that many inexpensive platforms can act as a single weapon. They will carry air-to-air missiles to defeat attackers, just like a fighter jet does, but will be cheaper and more abundant. Within this kill zone, reportedly extending for miles – and in some assessments, approximately 15 miles or more wide – FPV drones and ground robots dominate, with AI kill chains that, in some cases, reduce or remove direct human-in-the-loop to kill.

Schmidt continued: “When the war in Ukraine is eventually settled, the result may be a tense peace that offers as many lessons for western nations as the conflict itself. In the future, a “drone wall” could be established along the division between Russia and Ukraine, where omnipresent automated drones monitor the border like an intelligent electric fence. Because these drones are valuable enemy targets, they will need to be armed to repel attackers, creating a hard border that is miles high and miles wide.”

Numerous publications have documented the rise of Schmidt’s secretive military drone company, White Stork, including a 2025 Forbes report. A separate report from Aviation Weekly said that Schmidt’s drone company “will expand production to deliver hundreds of thousands of drones to Ukraine this year and more in 2026.” And while humans are still embedded in the kill chain, we must share the gamification of war story that Ukraine’s Unmanned Systems Forces have been using since last year, even keeping an online “killboard” that lets anyone track confirmed Russian losses from Ukrainian drone strikes in near real time.

Read more …

“Even Democrat Voters agree, 85%, that there should be Voter I.D.”

Trump Promises Voter ID “Whether Congress Approves Or Not” (ZH)

The SAVE America Act squeaked through the House this week by five votes. The final tally was 218-213, with Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas standing as the lone Democrat to cross party lines. On Friday, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) gave Republicans their 50th vote late Friday afternoon, telling Maine Wire the revised bill strikes an appropriate balance between election security and voter access. “The law is clear that in this country only American citizens are eligible to vote in federal elections. In addition, having people provide an ID at the polls, just as they have to do before boarding an airplane, checking into a hotel, or buying an alcoholic beverage, is a simple reform that will improve the security of our federal elections and will help give people more confidence in the results,” she told Maine Wire.


“Requiring voters to produce passports or birth certificates on Election Day — as opposed to just a state-issued ID — would have placed an unnecessary burden on the voters. That provision is no longer in the bill, and dropping this requirement was key to getting my support.” With Will Collins on board, Republicans have enough support to pass the bill even without additional backing, with Vice President JD Vance ready to break any tie. Unfortunately, 50 votes only get the GOP so far. The legislation still lacks the 60 votes needed to overcome a Democratic filibuster, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has made clear the bill is “dead on arrival.” And Collins herself opposes scrapping the filibuster to ram the measure through.

“I oppose eliminating the legislative filibuster,” Collins said. “The filibuster is an important protection for the rights of the minority party, that requires Senators to work together in the best interest of the country. Removing that protection would, for example, allow a future Congress controlled by Democrats to pass provisions on anything they want — DC Statehood, open borders, or packing the Supreme Court — with just a simple majority of Senators.” President Trump, however, is promising that requiring a photo ID to vote will get done with or without Congress. In a post on Truth Social, he accused Democrats of opposing Voter ID and citizenship verification because “they want to continue to cheat in Elections.”

He said this “was not what our Founders desired” and promised to present an “irrefutable” legal argument on the issue soon. Trump vowed that “There will be Voter I.D. for the Midterm Elections, whether approved by Congress or not,” and stated that Americans demand “Citizenship, and No Mail-In Ballots, with exceptions for Military, Disability, Illness, or Travel.” Trump also slammed Democrats as “horrible, disingenuous CHEATERS” for opposing Voter I.D., claiming they “boldly laugh in the backrooms” while opposing it. He called the lack of Voter I.D. “even crazier, and more ridiculous, than Men playing in Women’s Sports, Open Borders, or Transgender for Everyone.”

Trump urged Republicans to make it “a CAN’T MISS FOR RE-ELECTION IN THE MIDTERMS, AND BEYOND,” noting that “Even Democrat Voters agree, 85%, that there should be Voter I.D.” He called Democratic leaders “Crooked Losers like Schumer and Jeffries,” who label it “racist,” and promised to present legal arguments for action via an Executive Order. Trump warned that if Democrats regain power, they will “PACK THE COURT with a total of 21 Supreme Court Justices” and warned the country “will never be the same if they allow these demented and evil people to knowingly, and happily, destroy it.” Trump previously signed an executive order attempting to impose proof-of-citizenship requirements on federal voter registration forms. That effort crashed into multiple legal challenges and has been systematically dismantled by the courts.

Read more …

Judges set policy here?

Judge Weighs Whether to Block Vaccine Changes From CDC, RFK Jr. (ET)

A federal judge weighing whether to block changes to U.S. vaccine guidance and an advisory panel did not immediately rule Feb. 13 after hearing from attorneys representing medical groups and the government. Lawyers for the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and other groups told U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy during a hearing at the federal courthouse in Boston that recent changes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccine schedule and the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel violate federal law and will reduce vaccination rates. “This is a clear and present danger to public health,” said James Oh, a lawyer for the groups.


Oh said the schedule update, which removed the broad recommendation for six childhood vaccines for diseases including rotavirus, influenza and hepatitis A, “set off alarms” in the medical community and occurred without any rational explanation from the agency. The CDC on Jan. 5, with backing from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., narrowed the number of vaccines routinely recommended by the childhood schedule. Government officials said in filings that the the reasoning behind the change was in part due to an assessment carried out by senior health officials that analyzed the U.S. childhood schedule against schedules from other countries.

“The U.S. is a global outlier among peer nations in the number of target diseases included in its childhood vaccination schedule and in the total number of recommended vaccine doses,” the officials, Drs. Tracy Beth Hoeg and Martin Kulldorff, concluded. The plaintiffs, which also include several women who say changes under Kennedy have prevented them from receiving vaccines, are challenging a series of actions. They focused on arguments for and against imposing an injunction blocking that update and the health secretary’s remaking of the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee.

Oh said that the committee is not fairly balanced because it is dominated by people who oppose vaccines, in violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and urged Murphy to block the committee’s upcoming Feb. 26–27 meeting. Government lawyers said in a recent brief that the advisory committee members have a variety of employment histories and that the accusation they are anti-vaccine “does not accurately represent the members’ complex and nuanced perspectives and their committee voting records.” Murphy asked during the hearing whether he could consider the “broader public health impacts” of the changes in vaccine recommendations while weighing the case.

Department of Justice lawyer Isaac Belfer told him health officials were not pursuing an anti-vaccine agenda and welcomed “spirited debate about vaccine policy.” But he said the Department of Health and Human Services had broad authority to change policy to address a decline in public trust in vaccines following the COVID-19 pandemic. “The court cannot substitute its judgment in place of the agency,” Belfer said. Murphy did not immediately rule. With the meeting upcoming, he said he “must make a decision in this case on an uncomfortably tight timeline.”

Read more …

“:Orban previously dismissed Zelensky’s rhetoric as the behavior of “a man in a desperate position” and has accused Brussels and Kiev of “declaring war on Hungary.”

Comedian Zelensky Turned Munich Conference Into Circus – Political Consultant (RT)

Vladimir Zelensky turned the Munich Security Conference into a circus with a personal and “childish” attack on Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, political risk consultant and lawyer Adriel Kasonta has said. The controversy stems from remarks made by Zelensky on Saturday, in which he mocked Orban’s physique while claiming that Ukraine is fighting to protect the entire EU from Russia. “It’s Ukrainians who are holding the European front… And even one Viktor can think about how to grow his belly, not how to grow his army to stop Russian tanks from returning to the streets of Budapest,” Zelensky said.


The comment was met with applause from the largely pro-Ukraine and pro-EU audience in Munich, but critics argue that the insult was unbecoming of a “serious” leader. Speaking to RT, Kasonta described the Ukrainian leader’s behavior as that of a “desperate man” resorting to the antics of his former comedy career on one of the world’s most important political stages. “He’s trying to take his tricks from the comedian past into the public fora like the Munich Security Conference – turning this previously very important gathering of Western leaders or world leaders discussing important issues related to world security into a farce,” he said.

Kasonta argued that spectacles like Zelensky’s are alienating global observers. “This security conference is observed around the world and countries outside of the Western hemisphere are just scratching their heads and wondering why instead of discussing important issues related to this war-torn world that we are living in currently, we are simply allowing leaders like Mr. Zelensky to turn it into a big circus,” he said. Orban, who has refused to send weapons to Ukraine and blocked EU funds for military aid, responded to the insult on X with characteristic coolness, suggesting that Zelensky’s words would “greatly help Hungarians see the situation more clearly.”

“This debate is not about me and it is not about you. It is about the future of Hungary, Ukraine, and Europe. This is precisely why you cannot become a member of the European Union,” Orban wrote. Orban previously dismissed Zelensky’s rhetoric as the behavior of “a man in a desperate position” and has accused Brussels and Kiev of “declaring war on Hungary.”

Read more …

Show you can protect it.

Trump ‘Very Serious’ About Annexing Greenland – Danish PM (RT)

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has warned that US President Donald Trump remains “very serious” about annexing Greenland, despite recently toning down his rhetoric about using military force to take over the resource-rich Arctic territory. Trump has repeatedly expressed his desire to acquire the autonomous Danish territory, citing its strategic location and alleged threats from Russia and China – claims dismissed by Copenhagen, Moscow, and Beijing. Although he initially did not rule out using military force, last month he announced a framework deal with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte. Speaking at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday, Frederiksen argued the threat is far from over, describing the pressure on Greenland as “unacceptable.”


“Unfortunately, the US president remains very serious,” she said, adding that “the people of Greenland have never been threatened by anyone before.” While Copenhagen is willing to work with Washington to allow an expanded military presence, Frederiksen stressed that “there are, of course, things that you cannot compromise on” – such as sovereignty and territorial integrity. “We now have a working group. We will try to see if we can find a solution… we will do whatever we can, but of course, there are red lines that will not be crossed,” she said, following a 45-minute meeting on Friday with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Details of the talks have not been made public.

Greenlandic Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen echoed the concerns, calling it “outrageous” that Greenlanders are being threatened by a NATO member. Frederiksen warned last month that the annexation threats could undermine “everything,” including the US-led military bloc. French President Emmanuel Macron also criticized Washington’s stance, calling the “Greenland moment” evidence that the Trump administration is “openly anti-European.”

Read more …

“Moscow has since said Zelensky’s legal status is a major obstacle to concluding a binding peace deal “

Russia Open To Discussing Ukraine’s ‘External Governance’ – Senior Diplomat (RT)

Russia is ready to discuss establishing “temporary external governance” in Ukraine under UN auspices to facilitate long-overdue democratic elections, Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin has said. In an interview with TASS released on Sunday, Galuzin noted that the idea was first floated by Russian President Vladimir Putin in March 2025, describing it as one possible way to further the peace process. This step, he said, “would make it possible to hold democratic elections in Ukraine, bring to power a capable government with which a full-fledged peace treaty could be signed, along with legitimate documents on future interstate cooperation.”


“In general, Russia is prepared to discuss with the US, European nations, and other countries the possibility of introducing temporary external governance in Kiev,” he added. Galuzin acknowledged that while the UN “does not formally have a standardized mechanism” for these types of cases, there are historical precedents.Moscow proposed the idea of external governance after the expiration of Vladimir Zelensky’s presidential term in 2024. At the time, the Ukrainian leader refused to hold new elections, citing martial law, which prompted Russia to declare him “illegitimate.” Moscow has since said Zelensky’s legal status is a major obstacle to concluding a binding peace deal.

Following US pressure, Zelensky signaled that he is open to having an election, but demanded security guarantees from the West and Russia. In March 2025, the US dismissed the external management proposal, saying governance in Ukraine is “determined by its Constitution and the people of the country.” Prior to this, however, US President Donald Trump branded Zelensky “a dictator without elections.”

Read more …

“..Democrat extremists are already plotting to primary Fetterman ahead of his 2028 reelection bid, viewing his moderate positions as a betrayal.”

Fetterman Reveals His Parents Are TRUMP Supporters (MN)

Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman has once again set himself apart from the radical elements in his party by admitting that his own parents support President Trump—and using that as a reason to reject the Democrats’ over-the-top attacks on MAGA voters. In a recent interview with Politico’s Dasha Burns, Fetterman again explained why he won’t join the chorus labeling Trump supporters as threats to democracy, emphasizing personal connections over partisan hysteria.Burns asked Fetterman directly about Trump’s praise for him as the “most sensible Democrat,” questioning if it’s a “badge of honor or kryptonite for a Democrat in 2026.” Fetterman responded, “My parents would appreciate it.”


He continued, “I know, and I love a lot of people that vote for Trump. And that’s part of why I refuse to call these people Nazis, or they’re brownshirts, or they’re trying to destroy our democracy.” Fetterman made it clear he’s not engaging in that rhetoric, stating, “I’m not defending the president, but I will say he hasn’t defied a single court order yet. He hasn’t. And there was the big freak out that he was going to run in 28.” “And I’m like, no, he’s not going to run. That’s not going to happen. And now, of course he’s not going to run,” the Senator added. When Burns pressed on his relationship with Trump, Fetterman said, “If I have something to say it’s not going to be, you know, in an insult. It’s not going to be extreme things…when you have members of Congress calling him a piece of shit.”

“And I think it’s crazy, it’s like you just don’t, you know, I’ll always talk and speak, you know, with respect, because I really want to find a way forward.” This admission underscores Fetterman’s ongoing pushback against his party’s extremes, a stance that has increasingly isolated him from Democratic insiders. As we previously reported, Democrat extremists are already plotting to primary Fetterman ahead of his 2028 reelection bid, viewing his moderate positions as a betrayal. Despite his popularity in Pennsylvania, including strong support from Republicans, party officials are contemplating challenges because he won’t fully embrace their radical agenda.

Fetterman recently warned Democrats that socialism and far-left ideas are electoral poison, stating that such policies “pushed our party over the cliff” and led to recent losses. He called for “common sense” to prevail, highlighting the party’s shift toward figures like New York City’s socialist mayor Zohran Mamdani as a warning sign. Fetterman has also urged his colleagues to dial back the constant outrage, telling them to stop turning everything into a “national freak out.” He criticized Democrats for overreacting to issues like the firing of Jimmy Kimmel and risking government shutdowns over partisan squabbles, emphasizing that “people need to just chill a little about a lot of things.”

These repeated calls for moderation have earned Fetterman bipartisan respect, even as they fuel internal Democratic discord. His refusal to demonize Trump voters, rooted in his own family’s views, exposes the growing divide between the party’s base and its leadership’s ideological purity tests. Republicans stand to benefit from this chaos, as Fetterman’s crossover appeal could complicate Democratic efforts in swing states like Pennsylvania. If pushed too far, he might even consider running independently, further splintering the left.

Fetterman’s approach highlights a rare willingness to prioritize respect and practicality over division, a move that contrasts sharply with the Democrats’ ongoing embrace of extremism. As the party grapples with its identity, his voice serves as a reminder that alienating everyday Americans—including Trump supporters—only weakens their position.

Read more …

”I’m not sure what’s worse: the fact that we needed a bill to stop paying dead people or the fact that a bill to stop paying dead people met resistance. “

We Actually Needed a Law to Stop Paying Dead People (Margolis)

Last week, President Donald Trump signed the Ending Improper Payments to Deceased People Act. Believe it or not, we actually needed a bill to end fraudulent payments to dead people. And it took four years to get done. “Using dead Americans to rip off taxpayers is as low as it gets,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), who wrote the bill, said in a statement. “Many Americans have seen these scams play out across the country and are tired of watching these fraudsters game the system—so am I. That’s why I wrote this common-sense bill to end this outrageous abuse permanently, and I’m grateful President Trump signed it into law so we can ensure taxpayer dollars go to living Americans who actually need our help.”


Kennedy appeared on NewsNation this week and discussed the bill. “The idea that we send billions of dollars to dead people, and they get cash. The checks get cashed. It’s obviously a lot of fraud,” Kennedy told NewsNation’s Katie Pavlich. When Pavlich asked if he was specifically talking about Social Security checks, Kennedy clarified: “No, we’re talking about all kind of checks.” The root of the problem lay in bureaucratic turf-guarding. The Social Security Administration maintains a comprehensive list of deceased Americans but refused to share that information with other federal agencies, including the Department of Treasury. Kennedy’s attempts to reason with the agency hit a brick wall of excuses, prompting him to write the bill.

“I went to them, and I said, ‘Why won’t you tell Treasury who the dead people are?’ And Social Security said, ‘Well, we don’t have the legal authority.’ And I said, ‘Sure you do,’ and they said, ‘No, we don’t.’ So I knew I wasn’t gonna get anywhere with them, so I had to go pass a bill,” Kennedy explained. The reason the bill took four years to become law, believe it or not, was that he faced opposition, which Kennedy found hard to believe. But his persistence paid off. Kennedy being Kennedy, he couldn’t resist a dig at the state of American elections while discussing his legislative achievement: “And so far as I can tell, dead people can still vote, but they can’t cash checks … ’cause we’re not gonna be sending them to them anymore, and it’s gonna save billions and billions and billions of dollars.”

Kennedy also delivered some harsh criticism of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. According to Kennedy, state cooperation on fraud prevention varies wildly, and Walz falls into the non-cooperating category. “Well, every state is different,” he said. “Some state governors cooperate, some of them don’t. Governor Walz didn’t cooperate. He knew about this fraud. He knew all about it. And he lied about it.” Then came the trademark Kennedy zinger: “I’m sorry. Uh, no offense to the governor, but he learned to lie before he learned to talk.” I’m not sure what’s worse: the fact that we needed a bill to stop paying dead people or the fact that a bill to stop paying dead people met resistance.

Read more …

I thought there were 3 million more?!

Bondi Says ALL Epstein Files Have Been Released (Salgado)

Attorney General Pam Bondi confirmed Sunday morning that all of the Justice Department’s files related to convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein have been released. Bondi made the announcement in a letter first obtained by Fox News, which quoted the letter: “In accordance with the requirements of the Act, and as described in various Department submissions to the courts of the Southern District of New York assigned to the Epstein and Maxwell prosecutions and related orders, the Department released all ‘records, documents, communications and investigative materials in the possession of the Department’ that ‘relate to’ any of nine different categories.”


Among the famous names in the letter are Barack and Michelle Obama, Bill Gates, Prince Harry, Mark Zuckerberg, Woody Allen, Kim Kardashian, Kurt Cobain, and Bruce Springsteen. In accordance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the list of names includes “all persons where (1) they are or were a government official or politically exposed person and (2) their name appears in the files released under the Act at least once,” the letter said, adding that the names appear in a “wide variety of contexts.”

Amid the bombshells of the recent rounds of files were revelations of billionaire Bill Gates’s ties to Epstein, his STDs from “Russian girls,” and efforts to drug his then-wife Melinda. We also saw a message about the burial of two abused girls at Epstein’s Zorro Ranch through machinations of “Madame G,” probably Ghislaine Maxwell. One of Donald Trump’s major and most popular campaign promises was the release of the Epstein files. Some people have asked the DOJ to re-release some of the files with fewer redactions, which protect the names and details of pedophiles, and perhaps this latest release is that answer.

Read more …

“What if, instead of continuous microwaves beamed at people, it were a “pulsed” energy weapon?”

‘The Search for the Cause of Havana Syndrome’ (Moran)

I made a classic mistake in college by taking a course in “Icelandic and Scandinavian Sagas.” The mistake was that I was told it was an easy “A” and the professor was a soft touch. Instead, I got a Viking of a professor with the temperment of “Ivar the Boneless.” What’s worse, the course was a real gonad-buster. Nevertheless, it was one of the most interesting classes I took in college. “Sagas” aren’t like folk tales or legends. They’re more like prose narratives with a rhythm and meter all their own. Unlike many medieval legends filled with dragons and magic, sagas often read like historical novels. They focus on real people, genealogy, and the legal or social disputes of the time. As I found to my chagrin, the sagas are also endless tellings of unremarkable stories and violent people.


What I took away from that course was that the last person you want to run into in your travels is a 10th-century Viking raider. Steer clear if at all possible. I have been following the “saga” of the search for the cause of the affliction known as Havana syndrome, which the U.S. government refers to as an “Anomalous Health Incident ” (AHI), for much of the last decade. The number of theories about the syndrome nearly matches the number of victims. Bureaucratic infighting, State Department politics, and intelligence agency rivalries have all contributed to confusion and a lack of consensus about the real, serious symptoms our diplomats suffer.

Havana syndrome first appeared in 2016, when several diplomats at the U.S. interests section in Havana began to complain of a host of symptoms, including headaches, nausea, vertigo, and lethargy. Some patients reported severe symptoms that prevented them from performing their jobs. Some were even forced to retire. Not all personnel suffered the same symptoms to the same degree. Therein lies the mystery. Some patients suffered from some of the symptoms, but not all of them. Others reported only mild discomfort.

In 2020, the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) released a report on Havana syndrome that concluded: “directed, pulsed radio frequency energy appears to be the most plausible mechanism in explaining these cases.” “It is just a totally incredible explanation for what happened to these diplomats,” said University of Pennsylvania bioengineer Kenneth Foster. “It’s just not possible. The idea that someone could beam huge amounts of microwave energy at people and not have it be obvious defies credibility.

What if, instead of continuous microwaves beamed at people, it were a “pulsed” energy weapon? Such a weapon would be impossible to test on people, right? Who’d volunteer? Enter an unnamed Norwegian scientist who was so skeptical that any device could cause Havana syndrome symptoms that he actually built his own “directed pulse energy” machine and tried it out on himself. Washington Post:

“Working in strict secrecy, a government scientist in Norway built a machine capable of emitting powerful pulses of microwave energy and, in an effort to prove such devices are harmless to humans, in 2024 tested it on himself. He suffered neurological symptoms similar to those of “Havana syndrome,” the unexplained malady that has struck hundreds of U.S. spies and diplomats around the world. The bizarre story, described by four people familiar with the events, is the latest wrinkle in the decade-long quest to find the causes of Havana syndrome, whose sufferers experience long-lasting effects including cognitive challenges, dizziness and nausea. The U.S. government calls the events Anomalous Health Incidents (AHIs). The secret test in Norway has not been previously reported. The Norwegian government told the CIA about the results, two of the people said, prompting at least two visits in 2024 to Norway by Pentagon and White House officials.”

The German daily Der Spiegel and 60 Minutes and conducted their own investigation and concluded that it was possible that a directed energy weapon was being used by the shadowy Russian GRU intelligence outfit known as Unit 29155. That group is responsible for sabotage and assassinations. They were in the vicinity of many reported Havana syndrome attacks, according to the investigation. Hardly a smoking gun. But U.S. intelligence did acquire a pulse-directed energy weapon in 2024 for a few million dollars, according to the Post. v Tests are continuing on the device with no definitive answers. The Post reports that the device acquired by the U.S. government is different than the device built by the Norwegian scientist. The story continues. Since it’s not likely that Russia or any other nation is going to fess up and admit they’re targeting our diplomats, the mystery will remain, and our diplomats will continue to be at risk.

Read more …

“No donations came.” He insisted, “You’re completely wrong. … I did not see anybody.” Hawley countered with video proof of their nearly hour-long sit-down—easy to find online.”

Senator Unloads On Minnesota AG Ellison Over Fraud Scandal (ZH)

During a Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee hearing this week, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) confronted Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison. The Missouri Republican exposed Ellison’s ties to the Feeding Our Future scandal, where fraudsters stole $250 million in federal child nutrition funds. Hawley didn’t hold back, charging the Democrat with protecting fraudsters who funneled cash to terrorists and traffickers, as well as Ellison’s own campaign coffers, and telling him he “ought to be in jail.” Hawley opened the confrontation by spotlighting $10,000 in campaign donations Ellison pocketed from players in the Feeding Our Future mess, which the New York Post broke last year, detailing how the money flowed in right after a December 11, 2021, meeting at Ellison’s office.


Ellison repeatedly denied it, calling it a false statement. But Hawley read directly from the meeting transcript, where money was discussed repeatedly. An audio recording of that meeting revealed that Ellison met with members of the Somali community who were later convicted in the scandal. In the recording, the individuals ask Ellison for help securing funding before discussing campaign donations. “The only way that we can protect what we have is by inserting ourselves into the political arena,” a man is heard saying on the audio.“Putting our votes where it needs to be. But most importantly, putting our dollars in the right place. And supporting candidates that will fight to protect our interests.” “That’s right,” Ellison replied.

Ellison accepted $10,000 in campaign contributions from the fraudsters mere days later, as did his son, Minneapolis councilman Jeremiah Ellison. Hawley proceeded to read from that recording, quoting Ellison’s own words back to him. “Send me the names of all these folks who are investigating them,” Ellison said. He promised to call the Education Department and ask what was going on. “I already have my team working on this,” he told them, according to the transcript. “What day should we get together to discuss it again?” Ellison pledged repeatedly to help them fight the investigators. “You have my attention. I’m concerned about this,” he said. “Let’s go fight these people.””Why’d you do it? Was it worth it?” Hawley asked.

“This is what accountability looks like, of which you’ve had none,” Hawley countered. “You helped fraudsters defraud your state and this government of $9 billion, and you got a fat campaign contribution out of it. You ought to be indicted. That’s the truth.” Ellison shot back hard. He denied the donations flat-out: “a lie” and “No donations came.” He insisted, “You’re completely wrong. … I did not see anybody.” Hawley countered with video proof of their nearly hour-long sit-down—easy to find online. Ellison dismissed Hawley’s quotes as “cherry-picked.” As the exchange got heated, Ellison repeatedly talked over Hawley, which the senator didn’t appreciate. “It’s my hearing, pal,” he snapped. “Don’t call me ‘pal,’” Ellison shot back. “Well, I should call you a prisoner because you ought to be in jail.”

He demanded resignation. Ellison flipped it: “I was thinking the same thing about you.” Hawley didn’t stop there. He brought up testimony from the previous day showing where the fraudulent money went: to terrorist groups, transnational criminal organizations, drug trafficking, and child trafficking. “You took $10,000 and helped them do it,” he said. Ellison kept denying everything, but Hawley had receipts. He cited a Minnesota Star Tribune report that Partners in Nutrition raised concerns with the attorney general’s office in 2018 and 2019, but Ellison did nothing. The New York Post reported that Ellison accepted campaign donations from individuals linked to the fraud after meeting with them. “You’ve been right at the center of this fraud thing from the beginning, and you’ve enabled it,” Hawley said. “You should resign.” Ellison shot back, “And, sir, you should resign. I was thinking the same thing about you.”

Read more …

Not clear why she’s there.

Hillary’s Script, Interrupted (David Manney)

Hillary Clinton, a former all-star American leader, took the stage in Munich expecting a stroll on familiar ground. The setting felt friendly, the crowd leaned globalist, and the talking points seemed well-rehearsed. Then a Czech politician, calmly stepping outside the approved script, asked a question that didn’t flatter the room. It was as if a thousand voices in the Force suddenly vanished; the room’s temperature changed. Czech Deputy Prime Minister Petr Macinka challenged prevailing narratives on sovereignty, migration, and Western leadership. He spoke; he didn’t shout. He didn’t posture, he simply disagreed. Clinton’s composure tightened as her facial expression stiffened. Her infamous temper flickered across her face in full public view.


The exchange quickly spread online, showing Clinton sharply reacting while Macinka remains measured. It was a contrast that told the story better than any summary could dream of.A widely shared Facebook clip captured the moment from a different angle, showing how visibly irritated Clinton grew as her preferred narrative met resistance. Clinton has well over 40 years of navigating hostile interviews and political storms; few situations publicly rattle her. Yet the Munich moment felt different: Macinka didn’t attack her character; he questioned her assumptions in a calm, rational voice.That alone proved disruptive.

Western elites have gathered in European conferences for years to reinforce shared assumptions about global governance, open borders, and centralized authority. Dissent rarely appears in those halls without first being filtered, because when it isn’t, tension quickly rises, offering a glimpse into the human nature hidden behind long-built façades.Macinka spoke as an elected official representing voters who increasingly resist top-down mandates from Brussels and beyond, arguing for national sovereignty and accountability to his country. Clinton appeared completely off guard, as if the ground she felt safe standing on had shifted.

Let me be the first to express grave concern for Macinka’s well-being. Given recent political history, he may want to publicly confirm he’s enjoying excellent health and has no plans to be found in mysterious circumstances anytime soon. Purely a precaution, of course. This incident exposed something deeper: Democratic figures for years have accused President Donald Trump of destabilizing Western alliances and eroding global cooperation. Yet in Munich, frustration erupted not from chaos, but from calm contradiction. When agreements fill the air, Clinton appears comfortable, but when respectful disagreement entered the conversation, she clearly bristled.

Her reaction undercut the image of seasoned steadiness she often projects on global stages. Clinton wasn’t the only Democrat in Munich struggling with optics. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and California Governor Gavin Newsom also faced criticism during their appearances. Both tried to present themselves as seasoned global leaders, but drew scrutiny for remarks that appeared tone-deaf and disconnected from global realities. mThe contrast between confident branding and uneven performance created friction. Munich has long been intended as a platform for polished leadership, but it has also been a stage for awkward exchanges.

Global politics demands agility and tolerance for dissent. Leaders seeking authority need to have thick skin to withstand questions without visible irritation. A raised eyebrow, or a wrinkled face that suddenly appears smooth, speaks louder than a thousand words. As we’ve seen from Democrats the past few weeks, they work from prepared frameworks, where talking points guide conversations in friendly venues that reinforce comfort. But when somebody interrupts the rhythm, their ability—or, in this case, inability—to keep it together matters. Clinton’s body language suggested she wasn’t happy with Macinka’s calm, reasoned approach. I imagine that in her mind’s eye, she was wishing for a little Darth Vader dark side to squeeze Macinka into a sugar cube.

Political leaders regularly insist that democracy thrives on debate, but debate loses its meaning when only one side fails to respect the other. Hillary’s Munich moment reminded us that the elites don’t appreciate it when the unwashed speak up. People across Europe and America have increasingly questioned centralized power structures, voting for leaders who promise to prioritize national interests. Those voters expect representation, not lectures from on high. When a representative from that moment speaks plainly on an open stage, dismissing alternative views doesn’t work.

Until somebody ignored it, Hillary’s script ran smoothly. The interruptions showed something more than policy differences; they revealed the moment when Clinton ran into legitimate opposition to the soup she’s been dealing out. Confidence requires calm under pressure, and leadership demands composure when challenged. Hillary failed in both accounts. Munich offered a brief snapshot of that reality. As global politics grows increasingly volatile, moments like this matter: when a steady, shrieking voice, sharing talking points discussed in safe forums, gets interrupted by a dose of reality, we get to see the real person behind the mask. It’s in moments like this that the 2016 presidential election reminds us of just how close we came to, well, you know, living in Hell.

https://twitter.com/WyattCatarina/status/2023029449315504573?s=20 Read more …

 

 

 

 

Dalio X https://twitter.com/TheChiefNerd/status/2023034863545376817?s=20 Homan https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2023039139005047267?s=20 Swan Muslim

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Feb 152026
 
 February 15, 2026  Posted by at 10:46 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,  33 Responses »


Ito Shinsui Snowy night 1923


Newsom Tells EU “Trump Is Temporary,” Doubles Down On Failing Green Agenda (ZH)
Rubio on Fire! (Sarah Anderson)
Vast Majority Of Americans Want Voter ID And Democrats Don’t Care (ZH)
The Least Laid Generation in History: Gen Z Is Ghosting Sex (Pinsker)
OH BABY! Couples Could Make Big Money on Trump Accounts (DS)
Americans Could Be Silenced by EU Online Speech Laws (ET)
More Nations Are Mulling Social Media Bans For Teens (ZH)
The Unsettling Truths the Epstein Files Reveal About Power and Privilege (ET)
California Democrats Trigger a Reverse Gold Rush with a Wealth Tax (Turley)
FBI Opened 1,200 ‘Assessments’ Of Sensitive Figures (JTN)
US Smuggled Starlinks Into Iran Amid Riots – WSJ (RT)
Trump Makes A HUGE Promise About Voter ID
American Workers Have Less Than A $1000 in Retirement Savings (Turley)
Stolen Land At The Grammys: How Hollywood Groupthink Threatens Democracy (ET)
“Billion Dollar Movie In One Prompt” (ZH)

 


 

Make sure you take your time today for the Debt Rattle. I know it can seem overwhelming. Watch some videos. Use the time well. Everything goes faster than you think.

Then again, Elon Musk says we are In The Singularity. That means ALL predictions are off. Including Elon’s.

 


 

Miles Deutscher@milesdeutscher

Ok fine – maybe you don’t want to listen to me. I’m just a 25-year-old on the internet.

But maybe you’ll listen to them.

I documented every major warning from the people actually building AI.

Every CEO. Every founder. They’re all saying the same thing.

Read this slowly:

• Mustafa Suleyman, CEO of Microsoft AI: “Being a lawyer, an accountant, a project manager, a marketing person – most of those tasks will be fully automated by AI within 12 to 18 months.”

• Elon Musk: “AI and robots will replace all jobs. Working will be optional.” Called AI his “biggest fear.”

• Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic: AI will eliminate 50% of entry-level white-collar jobs. Unemployment could hit 20%. Called it “unusually painful.” Then said: “Most lawmakers are unaware this is about to happen.”

• Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI: “Some areas, I think just like totally, totally gone.” Said changes that normally take 75 years will be compressed into a short period. Admitted he loses sleep over it.

• Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia: “Every job will be affected, and immediately. It is unquestionable.”

• Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase: “It will eliminate jobs. People should stop sticking their head in the sand.” Warned mass AI layoffs without safeguards could trigger “civil unrest.” Said he’d welcome a government ban on mass-firing for AI.

• Stuart Russell (author of the most-used AI textbook in history): Political leaders are “staring 80% unemployment in the face”.

• Kai-Fu Lee, VC & former head of Google China: Called predictions of 50% job displacement by 2027 “uncannily accurate.”

These aren’t journalists. These aren’t influencers. These aren’t politicians trying to get elected.

These are the people building it. Funding it. Deploying it.
And not one of them is saying your job is safe.

 


 

Elon Musk just gave retirement planning the most radical advice possible:

“Don’t worry about squirreling money away for retirement in 10 or 20 years — it won’t matter.

You won’t need to save for retirement.” His reasoning (from the same conversation):

We’re already in the singularity — “the event horizon” where prediction breaks down.

The accelerating timeline makes long-term saving irrelevant.

Services, homes, healthcare, entertainment — abundance will be so extreme that the old rules vanish.

Peter Diamandis: “The way this unfolds is fundamentally impossible to predict because of self-improvement of the AI and the accelerating timeline.”

Elon: “We’re in this beautiful sweet spot… like being at the top of the roller coaster about to drop. I don’t just have courtside seats — I’m on the court.”

If saving for retirement becomes pointless in the next 10–20 years because we’re already past the event horizon…

what’s the first thing you’d change about how you live right now?

 


 

Software that rewrites itself. https://twitter.com/Khulood_Almani/status/2022315978575483386?s=20 Huang GenZ 4 Hours? 18 hrs https://twitter.com/iam_smx/status/2022743830491988095?s=20

 


 


Two -very- different futures for America, courtesy of Rubio and Newsom.

Newsom Tells EU “Trump Is Temporary,” Doubles Down On Failing Green Agenda (ZH)

California Gov. Gavin Newsom spoke at the Munich Security Conference earlier on Friday, telling European elites that President Trump is “temporary” and will be gone within three years. Newsom, noticeably angered by Trump’s push for deregulation and the rollback of climate policy, lashed out at the president, calling him “more destructive” than the current occupant of the White House. The issue for Newsom is that he still operates within the climate crisis framework promoted by globalists, even as the West is moving on from two decades of nation-killing green policy regime that hollowed out parts of the industrial base and fueled inflation.


On Thursday, President Trump rescinded the 2009 Obama-era “Endangerment Finding,” a determination that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare, which he said has been used by the radical left to justify $1.3 trillion in regulatory costs that have hurt American households and sent consumer prices soaring, especially for automobiles. “The single largest deregulatory action in American history. That’s a big statement in American history, and I think we can add the words by far,” Trump told reporters. Also this week, there was considerable discussion among industry leaders in Europe about Brussels watering down carbon-pricing markets, which have made electricity outrageously expensive and crushed the industrial base (Goldman explained more here).

And it is not just Trump and European industry leaders pushing to unwind green policies that have financially crushed working-class families and hollowed out the industrial base; major companies are also dialing back EV production plans and softening green targets as the net-zero dream collides with reality. Here’s what Newsom said earlier at the MSC (courtesy of Real Clear Politics):

GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM: “Donald Trump is doubling down on stupid. California has been a leader in climate policy going back to Ronald Reagan. In 1967, Governor Ronald Reagan established the first tailpipe emissions standards in the United States of America and created the California Air Resources Board. Three years later, a president by the name of Richard Nixon — another Republican — codified California’s leadership under the Clean Air Act.

Never in the history of the United States of America has there been a more destructive president than the current occupant in the White House in Washington, D.C. He’s trying to recreate the 19th century. He’s a wholly owned subsidiary of big oil, gas, and coal. He’s quite literally reopening coal plants in the United States of America. He’s received close to half a billion dollars in campaign contributions. He asked for $1 billion — look it up — in return for basically eliminating all regulations in the United States of America. De facto, he just did that yesterday with federal regulations and the endangerment finding.

It is code red in terms of American leadership in this space — low-carbon, green growth — and I know a thing or two about this. I represent the fourth-largest economy, from a GDP perspective, in the world, and we ran the fourth-largest economy last year nine out of ten days on 100% clean energy — two-thirds renewable energy. We’ve seen our GDP grow by 81% since 2000, and we’ve reduced our greenhouse gas emissions by 21%. Seven times more clean energy jobs than fossil fuel jobs.

We’re proving at scale that we can implement, we can compete, and we can dominate. But Donald Trump is trying to turn back the clock. And so we’re showing up, but we’re also showing what can be accomplished — the power of emulation. We are in the great implementation in my state. Final word. I hope, if there’s nothing else I can communicate today: Donald Trump is temporary. He’ll be gone in three years. California is a stable and reliable partner in this space, and it’s important for folks to understand the temporary nature of this current administration in relationship to the issue of climate change and climate policy.

MODERATOR]: Governor, many have called Joe Biden the climate president, but that didn’t help with his re-election. So how important do you think climate issues will be for the 2028 presidential election?

GAVIN NEWSOM: Well, you may not believe in science, but you’ve got to believe your own eyes. I mean, people are burning up, choking up, heating up. We have simultaneous droughts and floods. Historic wildfires. You may know little about California, but you’ve seen those images of these wildfires. Talk about being as dumb as we want to be — places, lifestyles, traditions being wiped off the map. Greenville. Paradise, California. And so this issue has been brought home in a very personal way, not a political way. Senator Whitehouse is here — he’s also someone who deeply understands that climate risk is financial risk. It’s becoming uninsurable.

This is an economic issue, not just a moral issue. It’s not just a competitiveness issue. And so it’s incredibly important that we talk in those terms to address some of the political dynamics. But it’s again something we’re on the other side of in California. It’s a big blue state, but it also has more Republicans than most Republican states. And we have long moved beyond the partisanship on this issue, because there is no Republican thermometer, there’s no Democratic thermometer — there’s just reality.And people in my state have been mugged by reality. Those that have been in denial understand that we’re on the other side of the debate.

Read more …

“And that is what we are defending: a great civilization that has every reason to be proud of its history, confident of its future, and aims to always be the master of its own economic and political destiny.”

We Won’t Be ‘Polite and Orderly Caretakers of the West’s Managed Decline’

Rubio on Fire! (Sarah Anderson)

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2022816808403615888?s=20
“The world is changing very fast right in front of us. The old world is gone… We live in a new era in geopolitics, and it’s going to require all of us to reexamine what that looks like and what our role is going to be.” That’s what Secretary of State Marco Rubio told the press before he boarded a plane to Munich, Germany on Thursday evening. Little did we know that this quote was setting the stage for what turned out to be a momentous speech at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday morning, a speech that framed the end of one major geopolitical era and the beginning of another. We may well look back on this speech in Munich as another defining moment in the secretary’s career.


Rubio told European leaders that the post–Cold War era is over, that the “euphoria of this triumph led us to a dangerous delusion: that we had entered, quote, ‘the end of history;’ that every nation would now be a liberal democracy; that the ties formed by trade and by commerce alone would now replace nationhood; that the rules-based global order – an overused term – would now replace the national interest; and that we would now live in a world without borders where everyone became a citizen of the world.” He said that this idea was foolish and “ignored both human nature and it ignored the lessons of over 5,000 years of recorded human history.”

While championing the Donald Trump administration’s America-First foreign policy, he also reaffirmed the bond between our nations, saying that the Western Hemisphere may be our home, but we’re a child of Europe, and we share history, culture, and heritage. “We belong together,” he said. But he also made it clear that the world has reached a turning point and course correction is required. Europe must save itself because, “we in America have no interest in being polite and orderly caretakers of the West’s managed decline.” Rubio called on our European allies to revitalize their nations and reject policies leading to their decline.

That includes the embracing of “a dogmatic vision of free and unfettered trade” and shuttering our plants, which resulted “in large parts of our societies being deindustrialized, shipping millions of working and middle-class jobs overseas, and handing control of our critical supply chains to both adversaries and rivals.” He continued: “We increasingly outsourced our sovereignty to international institutions while many nations invested in massive welfare states at the cost of maintaining the ability to defend themselves. This, even as other countries have invested in the most rapid military buildup in all of human history and have not hesitated to use hard power to pursue their own interests.

To appease a climate cult, we have imposed energy policies on ourselves that are impoverishing our people, even as our competitors exploit oil and coal and natural gas and anything else – not just to power their economies, but to use as leverage against our own.”n nAnd in a pursuit of a world without borders, we opened our doors to an unprecedented wave of mass migration that threatens the cohesion of our societies, the continuity of our culture, and the future of our people. We made these mistakes together, and now, together, we owe it to our people to face those facts and to move forward, to rebuild.

Under President Trump, the United States of America will once again take on the task of renewal and restoration, driven by a vision of a future as proud, as sovereign, and as vital as our civilization’s past. And while we are prepared, if necessary, to do this alone, it is our preference and it is our hope to do this together with you, our friends here in Europe. But it wasn’t just a critique or warning about globalization. Rubio explained that it’s the fundamental part of national security. “The fundamental question we must answer at the outset is what exactly are we defending, because armies do not fight for abstractions. Armies fight for a people; armies fight for a nation. Armies fight for a way of life,” he said.

“And that is what we are defending: a great civilization that has every reason to be proud of its history, confident of its future, and aims to always be the master of its own economic and political destiny.” Rubio also spoke of how “we can no longer place the so-called global order above the vital interests of our people and our nations,” and how we must reform global institutions. He used the United Nations as an example, explaining that it has potential to be a “tool for good” but right now, it’s basically useless. “But we cannot ignore that today, on the most pressing matters before us, it has no answers and has played virtually no role.”

It could not solve the war in Gaza. Instead, it was American leadership that freed captives from barbarians and brought about a fragile truce. It had not solved the war in Ukraine. It took American leadership and partnership with many of the countries here today just to bring the two sides to the table in search of a still-elusive peace. It was powerless to constrain the nuclear program of radical Shia clerics in Tehran. That required 14 bombs dropped with precision from American B-2 bombers. And it was unable to address the threat to our security from a narco-terrorist dictator in Venezuela. Instead, it took American Special Forces to bring this fugitive to justice.

He concluded: “…America is charting the path for a new century of prosperity, and that once again we want to do it together with you, our cherished allies and our oldest friends. We want to do it together with you, with a Europe that is proud of its heritage and of its history; with a Europe that has the spirit of creation of liberty that sent ships out into uncharted seas and birthed our civilization; with a Europe that has the means to defend itself and the will to survive.”

The speech, which ended with a long standing ovation, was similar to that of Vice President JD Vance’s Munich moment from last year but a bit softer, a bit more diplomatic. Rubio assured the Europeans that the United States is not abandoning them, but the old playbook is shelved. If the alliance is to continue, Europe must adapt and defend the true interests of its people and Western civilization unlike ever before. You could almost hear a sigh of a relief in the room, but how these European leaders will actually respons remains to be seen. I, for one, am not particularly hopeful.

Read more …

Democrats Don’t Care.

Vast Majority Of Americans Want Voter ID And Democrats Don’t Care (ZH)

Are voter ID requirements considered a controversial idea in the eyes of US citizens? If you watch the establishment media or follow leaders in the Democratic Party then you might think bills like the SAVE Act are the end of freedom as we know it However, outside the echo chambers of DNC propaganda, the vast majority of Americans have no problem whatsoever with people proving their US citizenship before they vote in local and federal elections. The widespread support for voter ID is undeniable. Surveys from the past year including those from Pew and Gallup show that, regardless of party or ethnicity, Americans citizens want elections to be protected from manipulation through mass illegal immigration.


A Pew Research Center survey from August 2025 found that 83% of Americans favor requiring all voters to show government-issued photo ID to vote. This includes:
95% of Republicans
71% of Democrats
Only 16% of people oppose it.

A Gallup poll from 2024 shows 84% support for requiring photo ID to vote, with 98% of Republicans, 84% of independents and 67% of Democrats in approval.A recent CNN segment featuring number cruncher Harry Enten confirms that the backing for the SAVE Act is also dominant regardless of ethnicity: 85% of white voter, 82% of Latino voters and 76% of black voters all want voter ID. It’s difficult to find many issues which the American public universally supports at this level.

Democrat leaders, however, don’t care that the majority of their own base wants voter ID laws. Party officials and the left-wing media have engaged in a shameless propaganda campaign designed to frighten the public into opposing the SAVE Act, despite their previous platforms defending majority rule. They consistently compare the new laws to “Jim Crow” era restrictions, claiming that minorities (and rural Americans) are too dumb to figure out how to get access to state IDs and birth certificates.

In truth, every state that already has some form of election ID laws has seen a spike in voter participation, not a decline. Only 8 states have laws demanding proof of citizenship before voting (half of the states are in legal battles to implement them); the other 42 only require that you check a box that says you are a citizen. When Democrats are asked why they are ignoring their majority of their constituents when it comes to the SAVE Act, they launch into tirades about racism and fascism, but never seem to be able to answer the question.

It’s difficult to reconcile the rhetoric of Democrats from 2024 when they wailed and screamed about conservatives being a “threat to democracy” compared to their rhetoric today. At bottom, the political left only supports majority public decisions when those decisions work in the favor of leftist elites. The majority of Americans continue to support the Trump Administration’s deportations of all illegal migrants (not just migrants with violent criminal records), but Dem leaders and their NGO partners continue trying to thwart the will of the people. By extension, voter ID makes it far more difficult for non-citizens to vote and makes it easier for voting records to be checked for discrepancies.

It’s clear that ID requirements and tighter controls on mail-in ballots will work heavily against Democrats and, if passed, they are likely to see a sharp decline in votes across the board. They are fighting against the SAVE Act because they want oligarchy, not “democracy.” They want minority elitist control over government policy. Voter ID is perhaps the most important legal question of our era; it will determine the course of elections for many years to come. Most western countries have laws in place to prevent illegal migrant voting and foreign manipulation of elections. The US is the only country in which this type of law is treated as “racist”.

Read more …

Ask the one-child Chinese how fast this can get out off hand.

The Least Laid Generation in History: Gen Z Is Ghosting Sex (Pinsker)

So, barmaid, bring a pitcher, another round of brew
Honey, why don’t we get drunk and screw?
—Jimmy Buffett, Why Don’t We Get Drunk (and Screw)


It’s not just sex: Alcohol consumption has dropped by 54%, with youth (18 to 34) drinking falling ANOTHER 9% just between 2023 and 2025. From TIME magazine’s article, “Why Gen Z is Drinking Less”: “[R]esearch from the National Institute on Drug Abuse shows that lifetime drinking, past month drinking, and past year drinking among young people began to decline around the year 2000. That means that such declines have especially impacted Generation Z, defined as anyone born from 1997 to 2012, and some Millennials, born between 1981 and 1996. […]

“It is becoming clear that, for whatever reasons, today’s younger generations are just less interested in alcohol and are more likely than older generations to see it as risky for their health and to participate in periods of abstinence like Dry January,” said National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism George F. Koob in a statement. Maybe that’s not coincidental. Perhaps there’s a causal link (as famed philosopher Jimmy Buffett suggested). Maybe, just like peanut butter and jelly are complementary products, sex and alcohol are, too. Koob seemed to agree with Buffett:

“Another contributing factor has to do with the changing socialization patterns of younger generations. “Alcohol tends to be a social drug, even for young people, so part of the decline in underage drinking could be related to less in-person socializing,” said Koob. On average, the amount of time people spent with friends in-person decreased from 30 hours a month in 2003 to 10 hours a month in 2020, according to the U.S. Surgeon General’s advisory on the epidemic of loneliness. That decline was especially marked for people aged 15 to 24.

Back in 1991, more than half — 54.1% of all high school students — were sexually active. (The other 45.9% lied about it.) By 2007, the number fell to 47.8%. Four years later, it dropped again to 43%. By 2017, it was just 39.5%. As of 2023, it’s 31.6%. What’s going on with kids today, with their wild, out-of-control abstinence and crazy teetotalling?! It’s one of the strangest, most inexplicable cultural shifts in recent memory. I was certainly blindsided: I figured our sex drive was so biologically ingrained, it would never go away! But it has. And with it, so has the U.S. birthrate: It’s now at a 40-year low.

We need a birthrate of 2.1 babies per woman to maintain our population. We’re currently at 1.6.mnFor decades, our shrinking birthrate was masked by immigration growth. In 1991, the U.S. population was 253 million. By 2025, it grew to 343.6 million. = Since 2020, immigration has been the #1 driver of American population growth. With the new crackdown on illegal immigration, we’re flirting with our first-ever population decline. And it’s not just an American phenomenon — all over the world, birthrates have collapsed. At least one geopolitical strategist and demographic expert predicts it’ll lead to the end of China within the next 10 years:

“And three months ago, the Chinese government updated the data. They’re now reporting a 70% drop in the birthrate since 2017. That’s a faster decline than what was suffered by the Jews of Europe during the Holocaust. And the Shanghai Academy of Sciences, which is kind of the Wiseman organization of statisticians in China that interprets all the data, says that this is still wrong. They estimate that the Chinese system has overestimated its population by over 100 million people. With all of the missing millions being people who would’ve been born during the one-child era, which is a rather sterile way of saying that all the missing millions are under age 40 suggesting that these yellow bars don’t even exist. China has, at most, 10 years before it faces national dissolution. They will not be a unified industrialized nation state 10 years from now. ”

—Peter Zeihan

Read more …

Prediction: “The Least Laid Generation in History” will start boinking for cash. Then again, Elon says they won’t need the cash.

OH BABY! Couples Could Make Big Money on Trump Accounts (DS)

The Trump administration has created an incentive for Americans to have more children within the next three years. Any baby born between Jan. 1, 2025, and Dec. 31, 2028, is eligible for $1,000 of seed money in a tax-advantaged investment account known as a “Trump Account,” though any parent with a child under 18 can open an account for their son or daughter. The account operates similarly to an IRA, and parents, relatives, and friends can contribute up to $5,000 annually, though they do not have to make regular contributions.


“Your child’s funds will automatically be invested in American companies,” according to the Trump Accounts website.mWhen the child turns 18, they can either allow the account to continue to grow, or they can withdraw the funds for education costs or to purchase a home. If the maximum amount is contributed to the account annually from the time the child is born, the account will have grown to over $270,000 by the child’s 18th birthday.

Between the rapid increase in the cost of living over the past 20 years and many young people in debt with student loans, true financial freedom is a distant dream for many in their 20s and 30s, but Trump Accounts could change that for the next generation. If Americans take advantage of the program to its full extent, Generation Alpha, born between 2010 and 2024, and Beta, born between 2025 and 2039, can hope to avoid the financial situation many Millennials and members of Gen Z find themselves in today.

Read more …

Trump will not accept this.

Americans Could Be Silenced by EU Online Speech Laws (ET)

Europeans who face criminal charges for what they said or wrote warned that Europe’s speech laws can silence Americans as well, regardless of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment protections. While testifying before the House Judiciary Committee last week, Paivi Rasanen, a member of parliament in Finland, recounted how she has been prosecuted since 2021 for quoting Bible verses to church members and on social media that questioned her church’s participation in a Gay Pride march. Although she was acquitted, first by a local district court and then by an appellate court, prosecutors appealed the decision to Finland’s supreme court, where the case currently sits.


“My prosecution shows how quickly democratic societies can abandon free expression when the state decides which beliefs are acceptable,” Rasanen told The Epoch Times. “I never imagined that quoting the Bible in a Twitter post would lead to years of criminal charges, yet this is now the reality in Europe,” she said. “Americans should be concerned because once censorship is normalized, it never stays confined to one country.”

The trend among Western countries to restrict religious speech has spread beyond Europe, with the Canadian government currently advancing a bill that would remove a religious exemption from “hate speech” laws in the country’s Criminal Code. Similarly, newly proposed legislation in Queensland, Australia, would criminalize certain symbols and phrases, with penalties of up to two years in prison. While speaking before Congress, Rasanen was joined by Graham Linehan, an Irish writer and comedian who was arrested upon traveling through Heathrow Airport in 2025 for statements he had made in America on transgender issues. “For a decade, the British police have harassed me for expressing views that the majority of the public share,” Linehan stated. “We have simply been punished for objecting to fashionable yet incoherent orthodoxies.”

‘Foreign Censorship Threat’
Their testimony was underscored by the release of a Feb. 3 House report titled “The Foreign Censorship Threat,” which charged that “The European Commission, in a comprehensive decade-long effort, has successfully pressured social media platforms to change their global content moderation rules, thereby directly infringing on Americans’ online speech in the United States.” More specifically, the report states that “though ostensibly meant to combat ‘misinformation’ and ‘hate speech,’ nonpublic documents produced to the Committee show that for the last 10 years, the European Commission has directly pressured platforms to censor lawful, political speech in the European Union and abroad.”

This included regular meetings between U.S. tech companies and European Union regulators to put “content moderation” policies and algorithms in place to conform to European laws regarding “hate speech” and “misinformation,” the report states. The EU claims these initiatives were voluntary, but subpoenaed emails from tech executives stated that “we don’t really have a choice.” Judicial Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) told hearing attendees that, based on subpoenas issued to U.S. tech companies regarding their correspondence with EU officials, a pattern of compelled censorship emerged that included U.S. citizens.

“The European Commission successfully pressured social media companies to change their global content moderation rules, directly harming the speech of Americans in the United States,” Jordan stated. He also referenced an incident in which European commissioner Thierry Breton warned X owner Elon Musk that his company may face penalties for posting an interview with Donald Trump during the 2024 presidential campaign. “The European Commission is trying to censor speech and meddle in elections worldwide,” Jordan said. “When the European Commission makes censorship demands, platforms have to listen.”

According to the European Commission’s website, the Digital Services Act (DSA) “empowers citizens by strengthening the protection of their fundamental rights online and giving them greater control and more choices when they navigate online platforms and search engines.” The DSA also requires platforms to “minimise the risks of exposing citizens, including children and young people, to illegal and harmful content.” nCritics of EU speech laws say they have become a tool to punish U.S. tech companies for allowing any content that a European country has deemed to be illegal. In countries such as Germany, that could include insulting government officials.

French member of the European Parliament Virginie Joron called the DSA a “Trojan horse for surveillance and control.” Joron accused government officials of having “seized upon the DSA as a political tool to control speech, particularly targeting platforms like X, Facebook, and Telegram.” And legal analysts say that the reach of the DSA extends beyond Europe. The DSA “creates a pathway for foreign governments to influence public debate inside the United States without ever passing a single American law,” Lorcan Price, an Irish barrister who defended Rasanen and testified at the House hearing, told The Epoch Times.

“The EU’s Digital Services Act gives European regulators unprecedented leverage over American tech companies, which means European speech rules can end up shaping what Americans are allowed to say online,” Price said. “Once U.S. platforms are forced to comply with European censorship demands to avoid massive fines, those restrictions don’t stop at Europe’s borders.”

Read more …

Maybe they should see if they can agree on something. 15, 16, 18, not at all?

More Nations Are Mulling Social Media Bans For Teens (ZH)

After Australia’s first-of-its-kind social media ban for adolescents under the age of 16 came into effect in December, more countries in Europe and elsewhere are taking steps to implement their own restrictions. As Katharina Buchholz reports, according to Statista research, France and the United Kingdom have gotten furthest, with laws passing in one chamber each of the countries’ bicameral legislatures as of early February. While the latter country is also aiming to ban social media for kids under the age of 16, France’s proposed law targets only those under the age of 15.


.


Six more nations have seen country leaders announce initiatives aiming to ban social media access for adolescents. While Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand and Spain all have more restrictive regulations in mind, excluding those under the age of 16, Greece is aiming to exclude those under the age of 15 and Austria those under the age of 14 from social media.Social media, including personalized algorithms and the possibility to scroll endlessly, is receiving scrutiny for its effect on mental health, especially in younger people.

.


Social media addiction can affect any age group, but it is seen as especially harmful in adolescents which are still developing social behaviors, body image and time management skills. Two more planned bans announced in Europe, by Portuguese and Danish leadership, are reportedly willing to leave a back door open for parental consent, putting them in a different category that already exists in several nations like France, Italy and, since recently, Brazil, where children of the applicable ages can access social media sites if their parents are in agreement.

While outright bans like the Australian one often plan implementation via a strict official age-verification mechanism, parental consent regulation can work by linking parents accounts, for example. Instagram has meanwhile already rolled out this feature in Europe, the U.S., Australia and Canada, with teenagers between the ages of 13 to 15 only in the position to disable a special restricted account mode with the consent of their parent’s account. Like other platforms, Instagram accepts users from the age of 13, but this restriction is so far not tied to verification. In the EU, social media sites are since 2018 under further restrictions concerning the use of personalized ads for minors.

Read more …

“He functioned as a social broker among financiers, politicians, academics, royalty, and celebrities…”

The Unsettling Truths the Epstein Files Reveal About Power and Privilege (ET)

The public fixation on the Epstein files has settled, predictably, on the most lurid elements of the story. This is understandable. Sexual exploitation, particularly of the young, is among the most corrosive of crimes, and the scale of Epstein’s abuse, as well as the apparent indifference of powerful institutions to it, demands moral outrage. But to focus exclusively on the sexual scandal is to miss the deeper and more unsettling lesson the affair reveals. What the Epstein files expose, above all, is the social and moral estrangement of American elites from the people they claim to govern.


Epstein was not merely a predator who gained access to power. He was a node within a closed world of wealth, influence, and immunity. The scandal is not that powerful people behaved badly in private—history shows many such examples—but that they did so with a confidence rooted in the belief they were insulated from the consequences of their behavior. They moved through a transnational elite culture that had largely severed itself from ordinary moral constraints, legal accountability, and civic obligation. That culture did not merely tolerate Epstein but normalized him.

This echoes the point Christopher Lasch made decades ago, long before private islands and hedge-fund philanthropy became familiar symbols of elite excess. In his 1994 book “The Revolt of the Elites,” Lasch argued that the modern American ruling classes had stopped seeing themselves as stewards of a shared national project. Instead, they increasingly saw themselves as a mobile, globalized caste, educated in the same institutions, moving through the same cities, governed by the same tastes, and primarily accountable only to each other. Citizenship was seen as a minor inconvenience. Nationhood and patriotism were just sentimental relics from less enlightened times.

The Epstein affair reads like a case study in Lasch’s thesis. Here was an individual whose wealth was opaque, whose sources of income were rarely scrutinized, and whose social standing seemed immune to ordinary reputational risk. He functioned as a social broker among financiers, politicians, academics, royalty, and celebrities, many of whom publicly advocated policies of moral uplift, social justice, and global responsibility. Yet in private, they inhabited a world defined by indulgence, entitlement, and a contempt for limits.

Elite detachment today is not only economic but also existential, and it is hardly confined to Americans. The governing classes of advanced democracies increasingly inhabit a world defined by mobility, abstraction, and insulation from consequence. Their loyalties are professional rather than civic, global rather than national, and managerial rather than moral. They experience society less as a shared inheritance than as a set of problems to be administered at a distance. In such a world, attachment to place, memory, and common fate appears parochial, even suspect, while belonging itself is quietly redefined as an obstacle to progress.

Those who create policies affecting immigration, policing, education, public health, and national security rarely face the consequences themselves. They do not send their children to failing schools, live in high-crime neighborhoods, compete for scarce housing, or navigate broken public institutions. Their lives are shielded by wealth, location, private services, and increasingly by law itself.

The Epstein files sharpen this reality because they reveal not just hypocrisy, but impunity. Despite extensive documentation, repeated warnings, and credible testimony, accountability arrived slowly and incompletely. This is not because the crimes were ambiguous, but because the accused moved within a protected sphere where consequences were negotiable and enforcement discretionary. Justice, like morality, was something applied elsewhere for other people.

What enrages the public is not prurience, but recognition. The scandal resonates because it confirms a growing suspicion among ordinary people that there is one moral universe for the governing class and another for everyone else. Elites preach restraint, sustainability, and responsibility while living lives of extraordinary consumption and indulgence. They urge social sacrifice while exempting themselves from its costs. They speak the language of progress while practicing a refined form of decadence.

Lasch warned that such a ruling class would eventually forfeit legitimacy, not because of ideology, but because of character. A society cannot be governed indefinitely by people who do not believe they belong to it. When elites become tourists in their own countries, financially global, culturally unrooted, and morally untethered, their authority rests on little more than coercion and spectacle. The Epstein files should therefore be read less as an aberration than as a symptom. They reveal a governing class that has lost the habits of self-restraint that once justified its power, and the sense of common fate that once bound leaders to citizens. For many, the salient point of the Epstein files is the scandal. I think it is more accurately seen as a disclosure.

The danger is not merely that such elites are corrupt, but that they are bored. Bored with limits, bored with norms, bored with accountability, and ultimately bored with democracy itself. That boredom, Lasch understood, is the precondition of revolt, not by the masses, but by those who no longer feel answerable to them. If the Epstein affair provokes lasting anger, it is because it crystallizes a truth many citizens already sense, that the people shaping the future live in a world apart, governed by different rules, and increasingly incapable of moral seriousness. No society can long endure that division without consequence. The question is not whether further revelations will emerge. It is whether the public will finally insist that elites once again live under the same moral and civic conditions as those they presume to lead.

Read more …

“.. you made…all your money in California, you ungrateful piece of s***, you could figure out a way to pay more taxes, and we deserve the taxes from you, given you made your wealth here . . . so why don’t we just do shock and awe at this point, because you don’t seem to be availing yourself to thinking that you owe your state something more.”

California Democrats Trigger a Reverse Gold Rush with a Wealth Tax (Turley)

This month, the anniversary of the California Gold Rush came and passed with little mention … for good reason. When James W. Marshall found gold at Sutter’s Mill, millions traveled great distances to seek their fortune in the “Golden State.” Now, 178 years later, California has engineered an inverse Gold Rush, virtually chasing wealth from the state. Rather than covered wagons going West, there is a line of U-Hauls going anywhere other than California.


From boondoggle projects to reparations, California politicians continue to rack up new spending projects despite a soaring deficit and shrinking tax base. Rather than exercise a modicum of fiscal restraint, Democrats are pushing through a tax that takes five percent of the wealth of any billionaires left in the state. I have long criticized the tax as perfectly moronic for a state with the highest tax burden and one of the highest flight rates of top taxpayers. In my new book, “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution,” I discuss the reversal of fortunes in California and other blue states as politicians unleash new “eat the rich” campaigns before the midterm elections.

The problem, of course, is that billionaires are mobile, as is their wealth. Liberals expect billionaires to stay put in a type of voluntary canned hunt. They are not. Billionaires are joining the growing exodus from the state, taking their companies, investments, and jobs with them. The latest billionaire to be chased off may be Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who is reportedly heading for Florida. The growing departures have triggered outrage among many on the left, who are in disbelief that billionaires will just not stand still to be fleeced.

Former New York Magazine editor Kara Swisher captured that rage in a recent posting, declaring “you made…all your money in California, you ungrateful piece of s***, you could figure out a way to pay more taxes, and we deserve the taxes from you, given you made your wealth here . . . so why don’t we just do shock and awe at this point, because you don’t seem to be availing yourself to thinking that you owe your state something more.” By some estimates, California has already cost over a trillion dollars in lost investments and business. That is no small achievement. Here’s a mind teaser: How can you burn a trillion dollars (which would create a stack some 67,866 miles high) without taking years and destroying the environment? California politicians have a solution: Have people take it out of the state in a reverse gold rush.

In addition to saying that they want to grab 5 percent of the wealth of these billionaires, California Democrats are planning to base wealth calculations on the voting shares of corporate executives. Often, particularly with start-ups, entrepreneurs have greater voting shares than actual ownership. However, they will be taxed as if voting shares amounted to actual wealth. In other words, California is moving to nuke the entrepreneurs who created the Silicon Valley boom. Emmanuel Saez, the U.C. Berkeley economist who helped design the tax, insists that they may not want to stay, but they will still be tapped. They are planning to trap the wealthy fleeing the state retroactively: “The tax is based on residence as of Jan. 1, 2026, sharply limiting their ability to flee the state to avoid paying. Despite billionaires’ threats to leave, I think extremely few will have been able to change residence by Jan. 1, given the complexity of doing so.”

The effort to retroactively impose such a tax is legally controversial and will face years of challenges. In my view, this is unconstitutional, but admittedly it is a murky area. Regardless of the outcome, a wealth tax will affect a wide range of other wealthy taxpayers. If Democrats can get a retroactive wealth tax to be upheld, it is doubtful that they will stop with billionaires. Why should other top taxpayers stick around to find out where the next cull will fall in the tax brackets? Recently, Gavin Newsom boasted, “California isn’t just keeping pace with the world — we’re setting the pace.” That is undeniably true if the measure is the record number of U-Hauls fleeing the state — more than any other state. Indeed, the only thing harder to find than a wealthy taxpayer in California appears to be a U-Haul.

According to U-Haul’s data, the state is again leading blue states in the exodus. The Washington Post noted recently that “California came in last. Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey rounded out the bottom five. Of the bottom 10, seven voted blue in the last election.” Conversely, “nine of the top 10 growth states voted red in the last presidential election,” with Texas again leading the growth states. The Post put it succinctly, “People want to live in pro-growth, low-tax states, while the biggest losers tend to be places with big governments and high taxes.” The problem is that, while the economics are horrific, the politics remain irresistible.

Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna, who represents part of Silicon Valley, recently mocked billionaires rushing to escape the state. Laughing at his own constituents, Khanna quipped, “I will miss them very much.” You will not be alone as California becomes known as the La Brea Tar Pit of taxation. They are on the verge of converting the state motto from “Eureka” to “Welcome to Hotel California, you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.”

Read more …

I have questions.

FBI Opened 1,200 ‘Assessments’ Of Sensitive Figures (JTN)

The FBI opened 1,200 probes related to politicians, journalists, religious leaders, academics and others tied to “sensitive investigative matters,” using a special investigative tool that requires no factual predicate to launch, according to a Government Accountability Office report. The GAO report, which was obtained by Just the News, was published last month but not made public, and it was titled FBI Investigative Activities: Oversight Efforts of Opening and Conducting Assessments Should be Strengthened.


The report, which assists in congressional oversight of the executive branch, provided details on the roughly 127,000 FBI “assessments” in all opened from 2018 to 2024, the vast majority of which were eventually closed without accusations of wrongdoing or criminal charges against those targets being scrutinized. The 57-page report did not include any names of those targeted for assessment. Among the total assessments, 1,200 were related to “sensitive investigative matters” that target public officials, news organizations, houses of worship or members of academia, which the bureau views as more sensitive in nature.

So-called “assessments” were established by Justice Department guidelines in 2008, providing the FBI with an investigative tool short of opening a full-fledged investigation requiring a factual predicate. The probes are used by the bureau to “address a potential threat to national security or potential violation of federal criminal law,” the congressional watchdog said. They allow FBI agents to open probes on authorized matters but without a factual basis and allow them to employ investigative such techniques as physical surveillance on subjects.

If sufficient basis is found, assessments can turn into preliminary investigations, full investigations or enterprise investigations. But most assessments are closed without meeting the standards for a full inquiry by the bureau, the GAO said. nn The revelations were detailed in the GAO’s January 2026 report, which was designated “For Official Use Only” because of the sensitive information it contains. GAO noted that the report should be “safeguarded when not being used and destroyed when no longer needed.”

Read more …

I don’t think Trump wants to attack Iran. But does he have a choice anymore?

US Smuggled Starlinks Into Iran Amid Riots – WSJ (RT)

The Trump administration covertly smuggled approximately 6,000 Starlink satellite internet terminals into Iran amid a nationwide unrest earlier this year, the Wall Street Journal has reported, substantiating Tehran’s claims of foreign interference behind the deadly riots. The operation, which senior US officials said involved State Department funding, came after Iranian authorities imposed a sweeping internet blackout in January. President Donald Trump was aware of the deliveries, officials told the WSJ on Thursday, though it remains unclear whether he personally approved the plan.


Iranian officials have repeatedly blamed Washington and Tel Aviv for fueling the unrest, which began in December as peaceful demonstrations over economic hardship but escalated into widespread violence. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated last month that more than 3,000 people had been killed, including nearly 700 individuals he described as “terrorists,” alongside civilians and security personnel. President Masoud Pezeshkian has accused the US and Israel of embedding “foreign terrorists” within protest crowds, alleging they have employed what an Iranian diplomatic source described to RT as “ISIS-like” tactics – including beheadings of law enforcement officers and civilians being burned alive.

At the height of the unrest, Trump openly encouraged “peaceful” Iranian protesters, posting on Truth Social: “All Iranian patriots, keep protesting. Take over your institutions if possible.” He also promised that “help is on its way,” and deployed a “beautiful armada” to the region, raising speculation of an imminent military intervention. The State Department supports a range of so-called “internet freedom” tools, including virtual private network (VPN) service providers to Iran. To purchase Starlinks, the department reportedly redirected funds from US-supported VPNs, which had allowed an estimated 20-30 million Iranians to stay online during the previous 2022 riots and the Israeli-US bombing last year.

Washington seeks to pressure Iran into accepting a new nuclear deal, after Trump unilaterally withdrew from the 2015 agreement (JCPOA) during his first term, reimposing sanctions against Tehran under a “maximum pressure” campaign. Decades of US economic pressure were the primary driver of the country’s economic deterioration, according to officials in Iran – the world’s second most sanctioned country after Russia. Despite the US administration’s public denials of involvement in fomenting anti-government riots, the reported Starlink operation reveals expanded covert support for what Moscow called an attempt to “destroy the Iranian state” through a “color revolution” playbook.

Read more …

“I will be presenting them shortly, in the form of an Executive Order.” An executive order would not be ideal, but I’m hoping it won’t be necessary.”

Trump Makes A HUGE Promise About Voter ID

They finally have the votes. Now the real fight begins. The SAVE Act already cleared the House in a tight 218–213 vote, with just one Democrat, Henry Cuellar, willing to break with his party and support basic election safeguards. That tells you everything you need to know about where Democrats really stand on election integrity. Senate Republicans also just locked down the 50 votes they need to move ahead on the SAVE Act, thanks to Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) finally jumping off the fence and signing on as a cosponsor. With Vice President JD Vance ready to break a 50–50 tie, Republicans now have the votes to pass the bill if it ever reaches a final vote. That’s the good news.


The bad news is that Democrats still have one powerful weapon left: the filibuster. In the Senate, the math is brutally simple. Republicans have the votes to pass the bill, but they do not have the 60 votes needed to break the filibuster. Not even Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) will support the SAVE Act — and he claims to support voter ID. So what’s the next move? Well, that’s up to the Senate GOP leadership. If they are serious about this bill, they have to force a real, old-school, stand-on-the-floor-and-talk-until-you-drop filibuster. Not the fake Cory Booker kind, either, but a real filibuster. It’s time for the Democrats’ abuse of the filibuster, effectively turning it into a de facto veto of the minority party, to be over.

Sen. Mike Lee laid out the path in a video message on X. “If senators want to debate this, if they want to filibuster it, make them work for it,” he said. “Make them stand up, make them speak. If we do it this way, we can continue this progress, and I think we can get this thing done.” The only problem is that even then, nothing is guaranteed. A talking filibuster is a tool, not a magic wand. It forces a showdown. It does not promise victory. “Look, there are no guarantees here,” Lee conceded. “But the only shot we’ve got at this is through the talking filibuster. Thanks for fighting. Keep going. We’ll get it done.”

There is, of course, a backup plan. On Friday, President Donald Trump announced that if the SAVE Act can’t pass the Senate, he plans to bypass Congress altogether and use executive action to require voter ID for the November midterms. “There will be Voter I.D. for the Midterm Elections, whether approved by Congress or not!” he wrote on Truth Social. “This is an issue that must be fought, and must be fought, NOW!” he wrote in a follow-up post. “If we can’t get it through Congress, there are Legal reasons why this SCAM is not permitted. I will be presenting them shortly, in the form of an Executive Order.” An executive order would not be ideal, but I’m hoping it won’t be necessary.

Read more …

But Elon says in 10 years it won’t matter anymore.

American Workers Have Less Than A $1000 in Retirement Savings (Turley)

There is a new, troubling study on the financial status of most American workers. The National Institute on Retirement Security (NIRS) found that the median American worker has just $955 saved for retirement through defined-contribution plans such as 401(k) accounts. Given the expected job losses from robotics and AI, the study only deepens concerns about the economic and political pressures facing this country in the years to come.


In my new book, “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution,” I discuss those impacts from robotics and AI on our democracy. Using the most conservative estimates of job losses, the book explores how a large population of unemployed citizens will affect their relationship with the state. We cannot maintain a “kept citizenship” while preserving the essential elements of the American republic. A large population of static, unemployed citizens poses challenges for what I call a “liberty-enhancing economy,” an economy that affords citizens independence from the state.

This study magnifies those concerns. If accurate, it suggests that even a short displacement in employment will return state support. Many jurisdictions are already launching Universal Basic Income (UBI) pilot programs. If this republic is to survive in the 21st Century, it will require developing new areas of “homocentric” jobs while avoiding predictable measures to subsidize positions that will inevitably be lost to robotics. Notably, the study found that among those with positive retirement plans, median savings were much higher at $40,000. Those with a defined contribution (DC) plan are far better off with an average savings of $179,082.

The takeaway from the report, for me, is the need to instill greater private savings. Some workers are barely paid above subsistence. However, we also need to educate citizens about the importance of setting aside retirement funds to the extent possible. As I previously wrote, I am a great fan of the Trump Accounts. The $6.25 billion gift of Michael and Susan Dell (now augmented by dozens of corporations) could offer the single best hope for the survival of our system. Millions of young people will be able to experience the benefits of investments, savings and, most importantly, economic independence.

The study also shows the growing dangers of the collapse of the social security accounts. Despite assurances made when Congress established the system, Congress has continued to draw on Social Security funds to avoid reducing spending levels. The system could fail for these workers, who will not be able to draw upon money taken from their paychecks for the purpose of retirement. It is one of the most outrageous betrayals in United States history.

To this day, Democrats are opposing efforts to make major changes to guarantee the viability of the system for future generations, including the use of private investment accounts that could no longer be raided by Congress for easy money. All politicians express alarm at the potential failure, but they attack any efforts to address the underlying problems as an attack on social security. As a result, we just drift toward this cliff knowing that most citizens have practically no other source of retirement support.

Read more …

AI trumps groupthink too.

Stolen Land At The Grammys: How Hollywood Groupthink Threatens Democracy (ET)

Among the consolations of youth is the certainty with which one holds beliefs about the world. There is comfort in the conviction that one’s moral bearings are firmly set, that one’s understanding of complex questions is not only sincere but also correct. The world appears legible; right and wrong seem sharply drawn; doubt and nuance are dismissed as weakness or evasion. There is rarely a single moment when these certainties collapse. They loosen instead through the slow accumulation of experience. Over time, one discovers that life resists easy judgments. Circumstances complicate principles. Good intentions collide with unintended consequences. Our friends betray us. The world proves denser, more conflicted, and less amenable to neat and tidy conclusions than youthful confidence would suggest.


This recognition of complexity, fallibility, and the limits of one’s own certainty is among the quiet achievements of maturity. It marks the point at which conviction learns restraint and moral seriousness acquires humility. Yet much of our public culture now moves in precisely the opposite direction. It rewards juvenile certainty while punishing hesitation, qualification, or good-faith disagreements. Confidence is applauded regardless of depth; slogans substitute for argument; restraint is recast as moral failure. That inversion was on clear display at the recent Grammy Awards, when Billie Eilish declared to enthusiastic applause that “no one is illegal on stolen land.”

It was left unspecified just whose land was being referenced, by whom it was stolen, and according to what historical or legal criteria that claim could be made. The audience, however, needed no clarification. Eilish’s statement was rewarded exactly because it avoided complexity and invited no questions. What was on display was not moral seriousness but a high school performance, an adolescent sense of righteousness delivered with absolute certainty and accepted as self-evident truth. One might charitably attribute such unthinking, categorical statements to Eilish’s youth. Alas, hers is a posture that we have come to expect from many of Hollywood’s men and women: confident, declarative, and curiously uninterested in the burdens of thought that genuine moral judgment requires.

This brings us to the core issue. The greatest threat to free expression today isn’t obvious censorship or government orders. Instead, it’s a more subtle and widespread force: cultural groupthink. This informal but influential system of rewards and punishments quietly limits the range of acceptable opinions, shaping what people feel allowed to say, what they hesitate to voice, and which questions are no longer askedn Nowhere is this trend more evident than in modern celebrity culture. Hollywood and the broader entertainment sector have become models of ideological conformity, especially on divisive social and political topics.

From climate change and gender issues to racial justice and international conflicts, Hollywood repeats the same messages, all delivered with youthful confidence. The same moral language, slogans, and conclusions are echoed with ritualistic consistency. The Eilish episode was not an aberration but a symptom. It illustrated a broader pattern in which public speech functions less as a means of inquiry than as a test of ideological conformity. The cost of dissent is not a thoughtful and considered rebuttal. Rather, it takes the form of reputational damage through social media pile-ons, calls for boycotts, professional exclusion, or quiet blacklisting.

Under such conditions, silence is often the rational choice. Most people have families to support and livelihoods to protect.The greater danger lies in the lesson this celebrity culture teaches: that there is only one permissible way to think and speak about certain issues, and that deviation signals not error but moral failure. Political and social questions are reduced to dogma rather than debated. Once moralized in this way, disagreement becomes illegitimate by definition. This logic now extends well beyond Hollywood. Similar patterns can be found in journalism, medicine, academia, corporate governance, and even the legal profession.

Approved vocabularies narrow discussion; certain premises must be affirmed before conversation can begin; others may not be questioned at all. Arguments are no longer answered on their merits but dismissed as evidence of bad character or suspect motives.The consequences for democratic culture are profound. Democracies do not depend on unanimity but on citizens who can weigh competing claims, tolerate uncertainty, and revise their views in light of evidence and argument. Groupthink undermines these capacities by rewarding conformity and punishing independent judgment. Over time, public discourse loses its corrective function. Errors persist not because they are persuasive, but because questioning them carries too high a cost.

[..] Free speech, properly understood, is not a threat to democracy. It is its foundation.

Read more …

“AI Disruption Crosshairs Hone In On Hollywood Studios ..”

Why pay Brad Pitt 100 million when a computer can “build” his scenes?

“Billion Dollar Movie In One Prompt” (ZH)

:AI-driven equity disruption was everywhere this past week, spreading like wildfire beyond software into insurance, commercial real estate, financials, shipping, wealth management, and likely many more industries in the coming trading sessions.One industry in the crosshairs of AI disruption is Hollywood. Some of the publicly traded studios include The Walt Disney Company, Warner Bros. Discovery, Paramount Global, Sony Group Corporation, Netflix, Lionsgate, and others.nOn Friday, Axios reported that the Walt Disney Company sent a cease-and-desist letter to ByteDance, alleging that the Chinese tech firm has been infringing on its films to develop Seedance 2.0 without compensation.

Disney’s outside attorney, David Singer, wrote a letter to ByteDance global general counsel John Rogovin, accusing the AI company of “pre-packaging its Seedance service with a pirated library of Disney’s copyrighted characters from Star Wars, Marvel, and other Disney franchises, as if Disney’s coveted intellectual property were free public domain clip art.” “Over Disney’s well-publicized objections, ByteDance is hijacking Disney’s characters by reproducing, distributing, and creating derivative works featuring those characters. ByteDance’s virtual smash-and-grab of Disney’s IP is willful, pervasive, and totally unacceptable,” Singer said.

He added, “We believe this is just the tip of the iceberg, which is shocking considering Seedance has only been available for a few days.” It’s not just ByteDance’s Seedance 2.0 that has spooked Hollywood studios. A growing wave of video-generation models suggests that Hollywood’s moat is crumbling, and its control of the media game is nearing its end.

“Authorities should use every legal tool at their disposal to stop this wholesale theft,” the Human Artistry Campaign – a coalition that includes dozens of creative groups such as SAG-AFTRA and the Directors Guild of America – said in a statement on Friday. Seedance 2.0 model …

Hollywood is living on borrowed time. The next big AI disruption trade could be studios.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Optimus COVID RFK jr Joe Rogan and Dr. Robert Malone https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/2022601763405103379?s=20 Pepe Casey https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/2022673982432886873?s=20 https://twitter.com/MAGAVoice/status/2022410612689768945?s=20

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Feb 142026
 
 February 14, 2026  Posted by at 11:00 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , ,  45 Responses »


John Singer Sargent The moraine 1908


Ukraine To Ban Russian Literature – Culture Minister (RT)
Zelensky’s Escape Hatch: An Emergency Election Could Be His Only Option (RT)
EU Weighs Training Sites In Ukraine As Kremlin Warns: ‘Legitimate Targets’ (ZH)
Donald Trump Negotiates Like King Solomon (Rabbi Michael Barclay)
Microsoft AI CEO: Most White Collar Jobs Fully Automated in 12-18 Months (ZH)
CNN ‘Circling the Drain’ As Warner Buyout Heats Up (Stephen Green)
Even CNN Admits That Democrats Are in Big Trouble (Matt Margolis)
Ellison Scalp? DOJ Antitrust Head Departs, Possibly Fired (CTH)
ICE Director Says 800,000 Criminals With Deportation Orders Tracked (Salgado)
Zelensky Attacks The Olympics (RT)
Ilhan Omar Under Fire For ‘Execute Trump’ Tweet (RT)
Trial Date Set For Trump’s $10 Billion BBC Lawsuit (MN)
Sure, Take That Time-Out (James Howard Kunstler)
Kathryn Ruemmler Out at Goldman Sachs Over Epstein Ties (CTH)

 


 

Lots of human voices. But how does AI understand AI?

https://twitter.com/cb_doge/status/2021830155464061286?s=20

 


 


Book burning. For a lot of Ukrainians, Russian is their mother tongue.

Ukraine To Ban Russian Literature – Culture Minister (RT)

The Ukrainian authorities are preparing a draft law to take all Russian and Russian-language books out of circulation, Ukrainian Culture Minister Tatyana Berezhnaya told Interfax-Ukraine in an interview published on Thursday. Moscow maintains that Kiev’s discriminatory policies against ethnic Russians in Ukraine, as well as its persecution of the Russian language and culture are some of the fundamental causes of the current conflict. According to Berezhnaya, Ukraine’s media authority is working on a bill to ban Russian books with the support of her ministry. She did not specify whether the measure would only remove them from store shelves or include confiscations from private collections.


Vladimir Zelensky’s predecessor, Pyotr Poroshenko, banned the import of books from Russia and Belarus in 2016, long before the escalation of the Ukraine conflict six years later. Kiev has since systematically purged Russian literature from state curricula, and intensified a purge of cultural monuments, memorials, and inscriptions to remove historical links to Russia. Kiev has also steadily cracked down on the use of the Russian language in public life, restricting or banning its use in media and in professional spheres. Nevertheless, it remains the first and primary language for many people in Ukraine, especially in metropolitan areas and in the east of the country. In December, the Ukrainian parliament stripped Russian of its protection under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.

Berezhnaya at the time proclaimed that the move would “strengthen Ukrainian” as the state language. Moscow has noted that this crackdown has largely been ignored by Kiev’s Western backers. “Human rights – ostensibly so dear to the West – must be inviolable. In Ukraine, we witness the comprehensive prohibition of the Russian language across all spheres of public life and the banning of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Wednesday, accusing the EU and UK of not addressing the issue in their peace proposals. Russia has long said that stopping the persecution of Russians in Ukraine is one of its core peace demands, which it is ready to continue pursuing through military means if Kiev resists diplomacy.

Read more …

“Should Zelensky face a public backlash for using an unfair election to stay in power, his team has a ready-made excuse to roll out: Trump made them do it.”

Zelensky’s Escape Hatch: An Emergency Election Could Be His Only Option (RT)

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky’s team has floated and later rejected the idea of holding an election this summer. Like much of what leaks out of his office, the report was likely an exercise in narrative management. Zelensky “has begun planning presidential elections alongside a referendum on any peace deal with Russia,” the Financial Times reported on Wednesday, citing unnamed “Ukrainian and Western officials.” By holding both a presidential vote and referendum this summer, Zelensky would reassure US President Donald Trump that he is serious about peace, the British newspaper explained. Simultaneously, Zelensky’s plan would “align with a US” push for Kiev to organize elections before May 15, or risk losing US security guarantees, it added.


The plan, as described by the Financial Times, is so well-developed that Zelensky is reportedly ready to announce it on February 24, the four-year anniversary of the start of Russia’s special military operation. Six hours later, Zelensky’s team denied the report. “As long as there is no security, there will be no announcements,” a source within his entourage told RBK Ukraine. Shortly afterwards, Zelensky reiterated that there will be no election planned until Ukraine receives “the appropriate security guarantees.” Zelensky has insisted ever since his presidential term ran out in 2024 that he will only hold elections if a ceasefire or peace deal is reached, citing the difficulty in administration, campaigning, and voting during an active conflict. The FT report is the first sign of a “political pivot” – as the paper puts it – by Zelensky.

Behind the text, the report bears the hallmarks of a trial balloon: flown by his staff to gauge domestic and international support, before being shot down with the subsequent statement to RBK. That Zelensky’s office would leak the story to the FT is unsurprising. The reporters credited in the piece, Christopher Miller, Henry Foy, and Max Seddon, have worked together on multiple stories relying on leaks and inside information from US-Ukraine peace talks. All three are considered close to power in Kiev.

Miller is a veteran reporter with US state media in Kiev, and Seddon is a former Buzzfeed writer who now “exposes Kremlin policies” for the FT. Foy is the paper’s Brussels bureau chief, who reported that European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s plane had been subjected to “Russian GPS interference” while en route to Bulgaria in August. The report was later proven false by open source flight data. It is also no surprise that Zelensky is toying with the idea of holding an election sooner rather than later. His popularity has been in freefall since some of his closest associates were ensnared in an ongoing corruption scandal last year; his approval rating sank to 20% in December, and a recent poll found that almost half of Ukrainians want his “completely tainted” cabinet out of power after a peace deal is reached.

Holding a wartime vote, therefore, presents Zelensky with the best possible chance of clinging to power. His secret police can bar candidates and arbitrarily close polling stations under martial law, nearly a dozen opposition parties have been banned since 2022, and there is no infrastructure in place for the millions of Ukrainian citizens living in Russia to vote. Furthermore, Zelensky has no clear challenger at the moment. Former commander-in-chief Valery Zaluzhny is widely viewed as his main rival, but he is currently a safe distance away in London. Former military intelligence chief Kirill Budanov is often portrayed as a viable candidate, but is now tied to Zelensky by heading his office. Former President Pyotr Poroshenko and Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko are both facing corruption cases, which Timoshenko has described as fabricated in order to “purge” potential contenders for the presidency.

Zelensky’s escape hatch: blame America
Should Zelensky face a public backlash for using an unfair election to stay in power, his team has a ready-made excuse to roll out: Trump made them do it. Speaking to the Financial Times, his officials said that they “signaled to the Trump administration that they were open to the extraordinarily swift timeline, despite the logistical hurdles of holding an election at short notice in wartime.” Likewise, if a referendum found broad support for territorial concessions to Russia, Zelensky could attempt to assuage nationalist anger by pointing out that he was forced by the US to hold the vote. Whatever insight Zelensky and his team gained from the publication of the FT report is unclear. Speaking to reporters on Wednesday evening, Zelensky said that he would not “go into details” as to whether the US was pressuring him to hold elections, but claimed that Washington does “not link elections with security guarantees.”

Read more …

Looking for war. If only Trump would join.

EU Weighs Training Sites In Ukraine As Kremlin Warns: ‘Legitimate Targets’ (ZH)

The European Union is weighing plans to set up two military bases inside Ukraine to train fresh troops – a move Moscow has already warned could make them targets of military strikes. “We have been discussing the training of the Ukrainian soldiers, also on the soil of Ukraine,” EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said Wednesday. “We have identified two training centers that could be used for that purpose.”


The Kremlin made clear just a month ago: “The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs warns that the deployment of military units, military facilities, warehouses, and other infrastructure of Western countries on Ukrainian territory will be classified as foreign intervention, posing a direct threat to the security of not only Russia but also other European countries,” according to the warning of spokeswoman Maria Zakharova. Western governments have already trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops over the course of the four-year grinding war with Russia – but this has been concentrated in countries like Britain, Denmark, and Poland.

On Thursday, Colonel General Andrey Serdyukov accused Europe of accelerating preparations for direct confrontation. “The militarization of Europe is continuing at an accelerated pace, openly aimed at preparing for a military confrontation with Russia,” he said. He added that “The territories are being rapidly fortified, and the relevant infrastructure is being improved.” The alleged ‘NATOization’ of Ukraine was a prime reason Moscow listed for going to war in the first place. Since Putin’s ‘special military operation’ next door, the opposite trend has happened: NATO is firmly ensconced in Kiev, in terms of the billions in weapons, equipment, and funds already poured in.

Meanwhile, the EU has just this week approved a fresh $100 billion loan package for Ukraine. As for proposed ‘EU bases’ – it’s hard to see this as in reality less than a full NATO established outpost in Ukraine. Russian leadership will see it as a recipe from taking the proxy war toward a full blown conflict directly with NATO. The minute an ‘EU base’ comes under Russian aerial attack, the gloves would be off, and NATO would likely seize the opportunity to enter the conflict directly against a nuclear-armed superpower.

Read more …

“Iran never won a war but never lost a negotiation.”

Donald Trump Negotiates Like King Solomon (Rabbi Michael Barclay)

U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met yesterday in Washington, D.C., for over two hours. Also at the meeting were Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth. Witkoff and Kushner have demonstrated that they want negotiations to continue with Iran and believe they can structure a deal that will work for everyone. Hegseth has been busy preparing for whatever military action Trump decides upon. Rubio has been saying since October 7 that Hamas should be destroyed and that Iran should be kept from having missiles as well as nuclear capability. I’m certain a passionate discussion took place.


There is no way of knowing the content, other than that afterwards Trump said he hopes negotiations with Iran will work out, or else there will be military action that dwarfs what happened last June. It has also been reported by many sources, including the Wall Street Journal, that the U.S.S. George H.W. Bush aircraft carrier is being deployed to the region, but this has not officially been reported by the Pentagon. Based on where the Bush currently is in the Atlantic Ocean, it will take about two weeks to get to the area. To understand what all this means, Nimitz-size aircraft carriers like the Bush (and the Abraham Lincoln, which is already there) are over 1,000 feet long, move faster than 30 knots, and carry over 6,000 sailors and Marines. Each aircraft carrier is accompanied by a fleet of over 90 helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft, guided missile cruisers, guided missile destroyers, and additional support and weapons ships.

But while we would all hope that this show of military might would make the Iranians pause their decision-making, the Iranian regime instead keeps doubling down on their aggressive rhetoric. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote on Wednesday night in a post on X that, “Reaching an agreement on the nuclear program is possible, but only if it is fair and balanced. Tehran will defend its sovereignty at any cost. Our rights and dignity are not negotiable.” Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan said the U.S. and Iran are showing flexibility in negotiations over the nuclear program, the British financial newspaper Financial Times reported. According to Fidan, “It is positive that the Americans seem willing to tolerate Iranian enrichment within clear boundaries.” He added that expanding the talks to include the issue of Iranian ballistic missiles would lead to “nothing more than another war.”

So President Trump is placed in the unenviable position of being a judge. He must judge between the advice of those who seek to negotiate with Iran, despite the fact that every day this extends allows Iran to build more weaponry, and those who desire to immediately go after the Iranian regime, which will undoubtedly cause many deaths and casualties on all sides. Added into this equation for “Judge” Trump is the president’s own belief that “Iran never won a war but never lost a negotiation.” Perhaps that is why he chose Witkoff to be the chief negotiator with Iran in the first place: his belief that Witkoff may be a better negotiator than Iran. Except that Witkoff has, to all outside eyes, been extremely ineffective so far… although we should remember that none of us have any real idea whether Witkoff has been extremely successful and we just don’t realize it yet.

ut we all do know one thing about Trump: He is an extremely good negotiator. With all sides. So what happened yesterday? Netanyahu obviously came prepared for the meeting with proof about Iran’s lies and misdeeds, as well as information about how Gaza is still not safe and secure from Hamas, which has repeatedly been saying that they will neither disarm nor disband. Hamas is not, and has never been, interested in having peace with Israel; they are committed to the destruction of Israel, as exemplified not only in all of their statements but in their actual charter. Netanyahu came to Washington wanting U.S. support on two major fronts: the destruction of Iran’s military infrastructure and creating a Gaza that is a safe neighbor to Israel.

President Trump recognizes the challenges and importance of both of these issues. But people forget that Trump is actually a peacemaker, committed to creating peace whenever possible. He recognizes that the immediate and greater threat to the United States is Iran, and also undoubtedly recognizes that there are problems with this entire Gaza Peace Council, but they are not as imminent nor as dangerous as the issues with Iran. So what probably happened at this meeting yesterday?

There was undoubtedly a lot of passionate dialogue between the parties present. President Trump probably listened a lot and was making internal judgments as to how he would want to proceed as he heard the conflicting voices of his advisors and allies. As a builder, he knows that one step should be taken at a time, with the most immediate challenges being taken care of first. And we know that he understands the art of a deal better than anyone and is extremely proficient at “horse trading” in order to get his desired result.

It would make a great deal of sense for Trump to make trades with Netanyahu—something to the effect that Israel would accept and go down the path of Trump’s plan for Gaza, and in exchange, Trump would be more aggressive with Iran. Looking at what has happened since the meeting, it seems as if this is exactly what he is doing.

Besides the meeting, two notable things happened yesterday. The Bush aircraft carrier and accompanying fleet have started traveling, apparently, toward the Middle East. This implies that the president is going down the military pathway of conflict with Iran. But less reported in most media, and equally important to understand, is that Netanyahu suddenly did the exact opposite of what he has been committing to: he agreed to be part of the Gaza Peace Council. He chose to start going down the path that Trump desires of Israel being actively involved in the reshaping of Gaza, even though others on that council are anything but allies of Israel. Given that Israel has been so recalcitrant to support Trump’s Peace Council vision of Gaza, it is probable that Netanyahu’s capitulation about this Council was predicated upon getting other direct support from the U.S. against Iran.

Whether we agree or disagree with the process, it makes sense on a practical level. The immediate threat of Iran will be eliminated, and a hopeful peace process can be created with Gaza as a new “Riviera of the Middle East.” Doing this will satisfy the contradicting points of view of his advisors without committing to only one side. Most importantly, it will hopefully lead to peace with Iran, a replacement of the Islamic regime, and still keep Trump’s optimism about the potential in Gaza for peace and prosperity. If this analysis is accurate, President Trump again demonstrated his negotiating skills and a judgment worthy of King Solomon.

Read more …

“.. AI will disrupt 50% of entry-level white-collar jobs over 1–5 years, while also thinking we may have AI that is more capable than everyone in only 1–2 years.”

Microsoft AI CEO: Most White Collar Jobs Fully Automated in 12-18 Months (ZH)

The specter of mass job displacement now haunts governments around the world, even as the true body count remains murky amid broader economic headwinds.A recent Challenger report showed that AI was blamed for 7,624 job cuts in January, 7% of the month’s total, and linked to 54,836 announced layoffs across 2025. Since tracking started in 2023, AI has been cited in 79,449 planned cuts, roughly 3% of the overall tally. “It’s difficult to say how big an impact AI is having on layoffs specifically. We know leaders are talking about AI, many companies want to implement it in operations, and the market appears to be rewarding companies that mention it,” said Challenger.


A stark illustration is unfolding at Bay Area startup Mercor, which has quietly hired tens of thousands of white-collar contractors, often highly credentialed specialists in medicine, law, finance, engineering, writing, and the arts, to train the very AI systems destined to replace them. Paid $45 to $250 per hour for weeks or months of reviewing and refining model outputs for giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, these workers are, in effect, being paid to hand over the keys to their own obsolescence, the Wall Street Journal reports. However, some jobs still remain immune from AI – for now. High on the list are occupations that hinge on physical presence and skills such as healthcare professionals and tradesmen such as plumbers and welders.

Those are just a sample of jobs that are safe until AI-powered Optimus robots are on the move. Want to know if your job is safe? Click here to see the list.On the other side of the argument – Morgan Stanley analysts recently warned clients that “AI impacts may take longer to appear in economic data,” with the first undeniable waves likely hitting “later this decade and into the next.” “While AI adoption may be faster than past technologies, we think it is still too early to see it in economic data, outside of business investment,” Stephen Byrd, the bank’s Global Head of Thematic Research and Sustainability Research, told clients.

Anthropic Warns Over ‘Heinous Crimes’
Meanwhile, Anthropic is warning that their latest Claude models could be used for “heinous crimes” such as developing chemical weapons. “In newly-developed evaluations, both Claude Opus 4.5 and 4.6 showed elevated susceptibility to harmful misuse,” in certain computer use cases, the company said in a new sabotage report released late Tuesday. “This included instances of knowingly supporting — in small ways — efforts toward chemical weapon development and other heinous crimes.” Anthropic also noted that in some test environments, when prompted to “single-mindedly optimize a narrow objective,” Claude Opus 4.6 appears “more willing to manipulate or deceive other participants, compared to prior models from both Anthropic and other developers.”

The company says that the risk is still low but not negligible, however the sudden departure of an Antrhropic AI safety researcher suggests otherwise. “I continuously find myself reckoning with our situation. The world is in peril. And not just from AI, or bioweapons, but from a whole series of interconnected crises unfolding in this very moment. We appear to be approaching a threshold where our wisdom must grow in equal measure to our capacity to affect the world, lest we face the consequences,” said Mrinank Sharma, who led the company’s safeguards research team. Today is my last day at Anthropic. I resigned. Here is the letter I shared with my colleagues, explaining my decision.

Last month Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei sounded the alarm on AI – warning of the following (via Axios):

Massive job loss: “I … simultaneously think that AI will disrupt 50% of entry-level white-collar jobs over 1–5 years, while also thinking we may have AI that is more capable than everyone in only 1–2 years.”

AI with nation-state power: “I think the best way to get a handle on the risks of AI is to ask the following question: suppose a literal ‘country of geniuses’ were to materialize somewhere in the world in ~2027. Imagine, say, 50 million people, all of whom are much more capable than any Nobel Prize winner, statesman, or technologist. … I think it should be clear that this is a dangerous situation — a report from a competent national security official to a head of state would probably contain words like ‘single most serious national security threat we’ve faced in a century, possibly ever.’ It seems like something the best minds of civilization should be focused on.”

Rising terror threat: “There is evidence that many terrorists are at least relatively well-educated … Biology is by far the area I’m most worried about, because of its very large potential for destruction and the difficulty of defending against … Most individual bad actors are disturbed individuals and so almost by definition their behavior is unpredictable and irrational — and it’s these bad actors, the unskilled ones, who might have stood to benefit the most from AI making it much easier to kill many people. … [A]s biology advances (increasingly driven by AI itself), it may … become possible to carry out more selective attacks (for example, targeted against people with specific ancestries), which adds yet another, very chilling, possible motive. I do not think biological attacks will necessarily be carried out the instant it becomes widely possible to do so — in fact, I would bet against that. But added up across millions of people and a few years of time, I think there is a serious risk of a major attack … with casualties potentially in the millions or more.”

Empowering authoritarians: Governments of all orders will possess this technology, including China, “second only to the United States in AI capabilities, and … the country with the greatest likelihood of surpassing the United States in those capabilities. Their government is currently autocratic and operates a high-tech surveillance state.” Amodei writes bluntly: “AI-enabled authoritarianism terrifies me.”

AI companies: “It is somewhat awkward to say this as the CEO of an AI company, but I think the next tier of risk is actually AI companies themselves,” Amodei warns after the passage about authoritarian governments. “AI companies control large datacenters, train frontier models, have the greatest expertise on how to use those models, and in some cases have daily contact with and the possibility of influence over tens or hundreds of millions of users. … [T]hey could, for example, use their AI products to brainwash their massive consumer user base, and the public should be alert to the risk this represents. I think the governance of AI companies deserves a lot of scrutiny.”

Seduce the powerful to silence: AI giants have so much power and money that leaders will be tempted to downplay risk, and hide red flags like the weird stuff Claude did in testing (blackmailing an executive about a supposed extramarital affair to avoid being shut down, which Anthropic disclosed). “There is so much money to be made with AI — literally trillions of dollars per year,” Amodei writes in his bleakest passage. “This is the trap: AI is so powerful, such a glittering prize, that it is very difficult for human civilization to impose any restraints on it at all.”

Call to action: “[W]ealthy individuals have an obligation to help solve this problem,” Amodei says. “It is sad to me that many wealthy individuals (especially in the tech industry) have recently adopted a cynical and nihilistic attitude that philanthropy is inevitably fraudulent or useless.”

Read more …

” I’m almost certain that Wolf Blitzer’s contract (first signed in 1990!) guarantees him an anchor spot for an additional 15 years following his death. This clause might already have kicked in.”

CNN ‘Circling the Drain’ As Warner Buyout Heats Up (Stephen Green)

CNN might be “circling the drain” after losing two-thirds of its primetime audience in recent years, and with rival offers from Netflix and Paramount for the network’s parent company adding to the uncertainty. “The decrease, from roughly 1.3 million in 2016 to 553,000 now,” the Daily Mail reported Wednesday, fueled “rumors of a possible network sale — something CNN’s up-for-grabs parent company has vehemently denied.” “The network’s daytime lineup has seen a similar decline as hosts such as Wolf Blitzer failed to move the needle, dropping from 752,000 to 433,000,” the U.K. tabloid continued, and “when compared to the same part of the year in 2021, the drops were even more pronounced – 71 percent for primetime and 73 percent during the day.”


One line from the Daily Mail report was such a howler that I had to read it twice before sharing it with you: “CNN has lost nearly two-thirds of its primetime viewers over the past decade, even with fresh figures like Kaitlan Collins leading coverage.” Fresh. Figures. Collins is fresh in the sense that she’s been around CNN less time than, say, Jake Tapper has — and I’m almost certain that Wolf Blitzer’s contract (first signed in 1990!) guarantees him an anchor spot for an additional 15 years following his death. This clause might already have kicked in.

Anyway, Collins joined CNN nine years ago, so we can debate just how “fresh” her face is after nearly a decade. But even after we acknowledge that she’s at least far fresher than Blitzer, what freshness — what alternative viewpoint, what captivating news beat, what viral social media attraction — did she bring to the network? [crickets] And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the crux of CNN’s problem. CNN, whatever its biases, used to be the place people went for breaking news. We go to X for that now, and only a little later come back to your favorite PJ Media writers for the analysis and perspective needed to try and make sense of it all. I watched the Gulf War almost every waking hour on CNN. I watched Israel’s 12-Day War on X.

It’s impossible to tell what CNN’s social platform strategy is, aside from posting links to the stuff on their website — and even that’s a bit of a bellyflop. According to that Daily Mail report, CNN.com gets about 120 million visits per month, and according to publicly available data, most of those visits are brief. Scan a headline, maybe read the first few sentences, and then move on. A not-so-large communications company that I might happen to work for attracts roughly the same number of visitors — company-wide, not at any individual site — and does it with a staff and budget much smaller than CNN’s. And let’s not even talk about CNN+, the network’s attempt at a paid streaming service that cost $300 million to set up, and was shuttered after just four months.

CNN missed the move to social media, blew it on streaming, and its embrace of 24-hour-a-day nonstop TDS ten years ago just happened to coincide with the loss of nearly two-thirds of their viewers, many of whom are literally captive audiences in airport terminals around the world. But here’s the real shocker: TDS actually worked for CNN for a while. But like a short-term sugar buzz, they quickly came crashing back down.=In 2015, CNN’s viewership was at a lousy 711,000 during primetime. So when Daily Mail reported that viewership dropped to 553,000 from 1.3 million, that only tells part of the story.Typical for CNN, eh?

Anyway, if we compare pre-TDS CNN to today, the network has lost less than a quarter of its audience. The two-thirds headline number only comes from the 2016-2017 TDS sugar high, led as the DM put it, “by anti-Trump anchors including Jim Acosta, Don Lemon and Brianna Keilar.” Acosta and Lemon are gone and mostly forgotten, Lemon’s recent antics aside. And while Keilar is still at CNN, I had to check because she seems to have gone into stealth mode, unable now to even generate any crazy-eyed TDS hits on social media. At least as a way to grab viewers and ad revenue, this tells me that TDS is a spent force.

Read more …

“That conservative part of the Democratic Party — adios amigos, goodbye..”

Even CNN Admits That Democrats Are in Big Trouble (Matt Margolis)

I don’t think any of this will shock you, but Democrats are in big trouble. But you don’t have to take my word for it, because even CNN is admitting it. CNN’s chief data analyst, Harry Enten, laid out the sobering reality for Democrats on Thursday morning, revealing how the party’s dramatic leftward shift is alienating mainstream voters. “The far left is significantly more powerful than they once were,” Enten explained, pointing to polling data that shows the transformation of the Democratic Party’s ideological makeup The numbers are quite alarming.


It’s hard to believe this, but back in 1999, conservative Democrats made up a sizable portion of the party, 26%, while just 5% called themselves “very liberal.” Enten emphasized that the far-left faction was “a smidgen, a smidgen, a smidgen” of the party. Fast-forward to today, and the party’s ideological diversity has pretty much disappeared. Now, 21% of Democrats identify as very liberal — more than quadrupling since 1999 — while conservative Democrats have nearly vanished, dropping to just 8%. “That conservative part of the Democratic Party — adios amigos, goodbye,” Enten said. Combined with somewhat liberal Democrats, three in five Democrats now identify as liberal, with the very liberal faction representing “a much larger portion of the party.”

According to Enten, “the far left, which used to just be a smidgen within the Democratic Party, has gained considerable power.” Here’s where things get really scary, though.When CNN asked Democrats whether they consider themselves Democratic socialists, the results were, frankly, disturbing: One-third of all Democrats — including independents who lean Democratic — identify with Democratic socialism.”Bernie Sanders and Zohran Mamdani are not alone,” Enten noted. “They are a considerable part of the Democratic base at this point.” Among younger Democrats, the numbers are even worse. A crazy 42% of Democrats under age 35 identify as Democratic socialists.

“What happened to New York City is not some aberration,” Enten emphasized. “It is something that we are seeing grow within the Democratic Party at this particular point.” There is good news, though, I promise: Mainstream America is still very much turned off by the leftward shift of the Democratic Party. When asked whether the Democratic Party is too liberal, 58% of all voters now say yes — up from 42% in 1996 and 48% in 2013. That’s a huge jump. “The Democrats are moving to the left, the far left is gaining power, and there could be some electoral repercussions because what we see right now is voters — the clear majority — say that they are too liberal,” Enten concluded.

When CNN is admitting that the Democratic Party has become too liberal and too extreme for mainstream America and that there “could be some electoral repercussions,” Democrats should take that seriously. The party has moved so far to the left that they are alienating the middle.

Read more …

There’s muic in them chairs.

Ellison Scalp? DOJ Antitrust Head Departs, Possibly Fired (CTH)

Asst Attorney General Gail Slater was the head of the Antitrust Division of the Dept of Justice. Today she announces she has “left her role.” CNN is reporting that AAG Slater was fired. Gail Slater was in charge of the antitrust division and a hawk on the mergers and acquisitions of Big Tech and Big Corporate media. As head of the DOJ Antitrust Division, Slater’s view on competition was against the interests of the major Big Tech billionaires and corporate media conglomerates who intersect with them. Slater was in a position to influence the Warner Brothers-Discovery’s deal to sell the Warner Bros. studio and HBO to Netflix, which Paramount (David Ellison) is trying to stop.


If you have followed the influence of Larry Ellison (Oracle, TikTok) and his son David Ellison (Paramount, CBS) in/around the Trump administration as it relates to Elon Musk (a beneficiary of Ellison), then the timing of Gail Slater’s removal doesn’t look good at all. Gail Slater came into the administration as a part of the JD Vance network (Peter Thiel, Palantir, etc.), and it looks like that same Vance network stood aside and watched Larry Ellison leverage his position to see her removed. Slater was a solid MAGA voice in a critical Antitrust position against the interests of Big Tech and Big Corp. However, I said on Christmas Day 2024 – we were likely to be very disappointed by the influence of Big Tech/Big Corp in the White House.

Via CNN[…] Slater said in her Thursday post on X: “It is with great sadness and abiding hope that I leave my role as AAG for Antitrust today. It was indeed the honor of a lifetime to serve in this role.” The anti-trust division is expected to play a critical role in assessing Netflix’s Warner Brothers Discovery’s deal to sell the Warner Bros. studio and HBO to Netflix, which Paramount is trying to stop by appealing straight to shareholders with its own bid. (CNN is owned by Warner Brothers Discovery.) In an NBC interview last week, Trump said, “I’ve decided I shouldn’t be involved. The Justice Department will handle it.” But Paramount CEO David Ellison returned to the White House last week to meet privately with Trump, two sources familiar with the matter told CNN. (read more)

There may be something else in the background that we do not understand. However, when former lobbyists and political consultants become key administration officials (Wiles, Bondi) these types of outcomes are possible.

Read more …

“ICE Director Todd Lyons testifies that ICE is currently tracking approximately 1.6 million illegal aliens with deportation orders in the US, approximately 800,000 of whom have criminal convictions.”

ICE Director Says 800,000 Criminals With Deportation Orders Tracked (Salgado)

Of the 1.6 million illegal aliens with previous deportation orders who are tagged in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) tracking, 800,000 of them already have criminal convictions. That’s what ICE Director Todd Lyons reportedly testified in the Senate Thursday. While every illegal alien is a criminal to the extent that he or she broke the law to be present in America, millions of them also have charges or convictions for other crimes too, including such horrific crimes as murder, rape, pedophilia, assault, human trafficking, drug trafficking, and terrorism.


Fox News correspondent Bill Melugin, who was sharing updates about the hearing on X, posted, “ICE Director Todd Lyons testifies that ICE is currently tracking approximately 1.6 million illegal aliens with deportation orders in the US, approximately 800,000 of whom have criminal convictions.” He also noted: ICE Director Todd Lyons testifies that when ICE was about to conduct a large operation in Aurora, CO last year, targeting an apartment complex full of suspected TdA gang members, ICE gave a heads up to local authorities, who he suspects leaked the operation. Lyons says when ICE arrived, protesters were waiting for them and the buildings were empty.

That’s just one of many instances where local leftist authorities undermined federal immigration operations, and on behalf of the worst sort of human scum imaginable. And even now congressional Democrats are determined to defund the Department of Homeland Security as their latest ploy to sabotage immigration enforcement operations. No matter how much you loathe the Democrat Party, it isn’t enough.Just think about the extent of money and efforts that Democrats, both politicians and activists, lavish on shielding and defending illegal alien criminals. Sanctuary laws, ICE-free zones, lawsuits, mass riots, appeals in court, the 1,347% increase in assaults on ICE, the doxing networks, the social media campaigns — everything that goes into protecting aliens and wasting taxpayer and donors’ money. How can they justify it?

Speaking of sanctuary politicians, senators also grilled Minnesota Democrat Gov. Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison Thursday, including an interchange between Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) and Ellison. Moreno asked, “If you enter the country illegally, or you overstay a visa, should you be deported?” Ellison pompously replied, “My simple answer is, sir, it depends.” Moreno fired back, “Okay, sir, somebody breaks into your home. Should they be arrested for breaking and entering, or does it depend?” Ellison sputtered, “It’s an entirely different scenario.”

He ended up admitting that civil laws should certainly be enforced, but balked when Moreno pointed out this meant immigration law. Ellison doesn’t want rule of law; he wants to be the arbiter of what is considered legally enforceable. This exchange ties in to the statistics from Lyons because the reality is Democrats who have sanctuary policies don’t give a hang how many foreign criminals roam free in our nation.

Read more …

He likes publicity.

Zelensky Attacks The Olympics (RT)

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has accused the International Olympic Committee (IOC) of playing “into the hands of aggressors” by banning a Ukrainian athlete while allowing Russians to compete under a neutral flag. Ukrainian skeleton pilot Vladislav Geraskevich was disqualified from the Milano Cortina Winter Olympics on Thursday for refusing to remove a helmet adorned with images of Ukrainian athletes killed during the conflict with Russia. The decision to ban Geraskevich was made because “he did not consider any form of compromise,” the IOC said in a statement.


Zelensky vented his frustration with the IOC in a social media post on Thursday evening. “The Olympic movement should help stop wars, not play into the hands of aggressors,” he complained. “Unfortunately, the decision of the International Olympic Committee to disqualify Ukrainian skeleton racer Vladislav Geraskevich says otherwise.” “And yet, 13 Russians are currently in Italy competing at the Olympics,” he continued. Despite these athletes competing under a neutral white flag, and not breaking the IOC’s rules on political messaging, Zelensky insisted that “they are the ones who deserve disqualification.”

At a press conference in Milan, OPC spokesman Mark Adams said that “you would have maybe five” countries represented at the Olympics if the organization banned every country engaged in wars or conflicts. “Because once you start, as a sporting organization, taking stands against wars and conflicts there is no end,” he said. However, Russia has accused the IOC of applying this logic unevenly. “The IOC has discredited itself entirely,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov declared in 2024, after the committee refused to apply any restrictions to Israeli athletes over the war in Gaza, but forbade Russian and Belarusian athletes from competing in the Paris games under their national flags.

The IOC’s ban on political messaging was put in place in 2021, a year before the escalation of the Ukraine conflict. Despite being offered other ways to honor fallen athletes, Geraskevich insisted on wearing his controversial helmet during all of his training runs in Milan, the organization said.Speaking after his disqualification, Geraskevich accused the IOC of making “a terrible mistake,” and playing “along with Russian propaganda.”

Read more …

“The US Republican Party has accused Democratic Representative Ilhan Omar of “calling for the execution” of President Donald Trump..”

Ilhan Omar Under Fire For ‘Execute Trump’ Tweet (RT)

The US Republican Party has accused Democratic Representative Ilhan Omar of “calling for the execution” of President Donald Trump, after she called him a “pedophile” and suggested that he would be put to death if he were in her native Somalia.“Last night, Ilhan Omar tweeted, calling for the execution of the President of the United States,” the Pennsylvania branch of the GOP stated on Wednesday. Pointing out that “calling for the execution of a federal official is a felony under United States law,” the party urged Democrats to “take responsibility” for the apparent threat to Trump’s life.

One day earlier, Omar shared a clip of Trump condemning Somali-led fraud rings in Minnesota. Omar, who was born in Somalia and represents Minnesota in Congress, accused the president of trying to deflect attention from his name appearing in the recently-released Epstein files. “The leader of the Pedophile Protection Party is trying to deflect attention from his name being all over the Epstein files,” Omar tweeted. “At least in Somalia they execute pedophiles not elect them.”

The leader of the Pedophile Protection Party is trying to deflect attention from his name being all over the Epstein files. At least in Somalia they execute pedophiles not elect them. https://t.co/xC3Ype3zXI — Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) February 10, 2026

The Republican Party’s ‘RNC Research’ account also accused Omar of “casually” encouraging Trump’s execution, and noted that Somalia “has one of the highest child marriage rates in the world.” RNC Research’s post did not push back against her labeling Trump a “pedophile.”Omar has not faced any criticism from her own party for the tweet. The US Justice Department released more than three million files related to deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein last month. Among thousands of emails and text messages between Epstein and his associates, Trump’s name is mentioned thousands of times. However, no smoking-gun evidence has emerged linking him to any child sex crimes.

The files suggest that Trump had more contact with Epstein than he previously admitted, and that he knew the financier was involved with teenage girls. However, several documents revealed that he told Florida police that he was glad they were “stopping” Epstein, because “everyone has known he’s been doing this.” The document dump also contains anonymous complaints submitted to the FBI in 2020, accusing Trump of child sex abuse and complicity in murder. The Justice Department has dismissed these claims as “sensationalist” attempts to smear Trump ahead of the 2020 election.

Read more …

“..how globalist media like the BBC, funded by UK taxpayers, peddle disinformation to undermine the truth ..”

Is it legal to use taxpayers’ money to knowingly spread lies?

Trial Date Set For Trump’s $10 Billion BBC Lawsuit (MN)

A trial date has been locked in for President Trump’s massive $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the BBC, following the broadcaster’s deceptive editing of his January 6, 2021 speech to falsely portray him as inciting violence at the Capitol. District Judge Roy Altman rejected the BBC’s motion to stay the merits-based discovery phase, allowing both sides to dig into evidence that could reveal the depths of this media manipulation. The two-week trial is set to kick off on February 15, 2027, one year from now, in Miami, Florida. This latest bombshell builds on the escalating saga that has already forced top BBC executives to resign in disgrace and drawn scrutiny from U.S. regulators, highlighting how foreign media outlets interfere in American politics with impunity.


https://twitter.com/BGatesIsaPyscho/status/2021961135507877986

Trump’s legal team accuses the BBC of splicing together disparate parts of his speech—separated by over 50 minutes—to create a fabricated narrative. In the doctored clip aired in a Panorama documentary, Trump appears to say: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol… and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell.” The BBC Conveniently omitted Trump’s explicit calls for peaceful protest, which undercut the entire “insurrection” hoax pushed by legacy media. The BBC has scrambled to defend itself, filing motions claiming lack of jurisdiction in Florida and denying the documentary aired in the U.S. via BritBox. A spokesman stonewalled with: “As we have made clear previously, we will be defending this case. We are not going to make further comment on ongoing legal proceedings.”

But the damage is done. As we previously reported in the President put the broadcaster “on notice” with a demand for compensation, a retraction, and an apology—or face a billion-dollar reckoning for “false, defamatory, disparaging, and inflammatory” content. That threat materialized into this lawsuit, amplified by revelations of internal BBC turmoil. Director General Tim Davie and News CEO Deborah Turness abruptly resigned amid the fallout, with Trump blasting them as “very dishonest people who tried to step on the scales of a Presidential Election.” Adding fuel to the fire, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr launched a probe into the “news distortion and broadcast hoax.”

Carr demanded answers from U.S. partners NPR and PBS on whether they aired the fake clip, warning that such manipulation is a “heinous act against the public interest.” Carr’s letter hammered the point: “That would appear to meet the very definition of publishing a materially false and damaging statement.” He pressed for transcripts and videos to ensure no tainted content poisoned American airwaves. This isn’t just about one edited clip—it’s a stark exposure of how globalist media like the BBC, funded by UK taxpayers, peddle disinformation to undermine the truth. Trump himself called out the foreign meddling, noting the BBC hails from “a Foreign Country, one that many consider our Number One Ally.”

Leaked internal memos, including one from former BBC adviser Michael Prescott, condemned the edit as “completely misleading,” arguing it ignored Trump’s non-incitement as a key factor in avoiding federal charges. With discovery now underway, expect explosive revelations about the BBC’s “reckless disregard for the truth” and potential “actual malice.” The broadcaster’s history of biased reporting, from Gaza coverage to anti-Trump narratives, could unravel under scrutiny. Meanwhile, UK regulator Ofcom is investigating, but the real accountability may come from this U.S. courtroom, where Trump’s team seeks not just damages but a blow against fake news empires.

Carr’s letter hammered the point: “That would appear to meet the very definition of publishing a materially false and damaging statement.” He pressed for transcripts and videos to ensure no tainted content poisoned American airwaves. This isn’t just about one edited clip—it’s a stark exposure of how globalist media like the BBC, funded by UK taxpayers, peddle disinformation to undermine the truth. Trump himself called out the foreign meddling, noting the BBC hails from “a Foreign Country, one that many consider our Number One Ally.”Leaked internal memos, including one from former BBC adviser Michael Prescott, condemned the edit as “completely misleading,” arguing it ignored Trump’s non-incitement as a key factor in avoiding federal charges.

With discovery now underway, expect explosive revelations about the BBC’s “reckless disregard for the truth” and potential “actual malice.” The broadcaster’s history of biased reporting, from Gaza coverage to anti-Trump narratives, could unravel under scrutiny. Meanwhile, UK regulator Ofcom is investigating, but the real accountability may come from this U.S. courtroom, where Trump’s team seeks not just damages but a blow against fake news empires.

Read more …

“Crisis is when brittleness meets shock. “— Yuri Bezmenov’s Ghost on X

Sure, Take That Time-Out (James Howard Kunstler)


By shutting down the government for a minimum of ten days supposedly over funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Wile E. Coyote Democratic Party is about to blow up another Acme bomb in its mangy muzzle. I will tell you why. First, this DHS business is just a stupid prank to bamboozle the public. It will not shut down ICE operations, as Chuck Schumer pretends. ICE was already funded with $75-billion in last year’s Big Beautiful Bill. The shutdown will only defund the Coast Guard and airport security. (Does that sound smart?)


Second, senators will be leaving the DC swamp and going home to their states where, it turns out, polls show that voters of both parties combined overwhelmingly favor election reform by 84-percent. The House has passed the SAVE Act onto the Senate for action, up or down. For at least ten days of the shutdown, the senators will have to explain why proving that you are a citizen to vote is a bad idea — or conversely, why allowing non-citizens to vote is a good idea. So, thanks, Democrats, for sending the senators home to face their voters.

Eventually, senators will have to return to the US Capitol and take up the SAVE Act. The act will require proof of citizenship to register, photo ID to vote in person and for requesting an absentee ballot. The bill would prohibit universal mail-in voting, require absentee ballots be received by election day, impose a five-year prison sentence for helping anyone to register without correct documents, and provisions to clean up the states’ voter rolls.

Additional legislation still in the House, introduced by Rep. Bryan Steil (R-WI), would provide for Election Day only in-person voting by paper ballots, and yet other bills awaiting action would eliminate electronic vote-tallying machines. All the provisions above are common in most other civilized nations (and even a few that are not, such as Afghanistan). The Democratic Party is against all of it because they can only win national elections by deceit and chicanery.

When Senators return to DC, they will have to overcome the filibuster in its current mode, which is the silent or so-called “zombie” filibuster. You see, in the old days, before 1972, if senators wanted to filibuster, they had to actually hold the Senate floor and keep talking — bringing all Senate business to a complete halt until either they gave up or the majority could gather enough votes for cloture (ending debate). It was physically very hard on the senators, an ordeal, and to get through the hours of mindless blather, they would read the phone book, or the World Almanac, or a Sunday newspaper from page one to the obituaries, which subjected them to ridicule.

After 1972, the Senate introduced what they called “the two-track” system, which allowed the body to move on to other business under a filibuster, without requiring a member to stand and speak. All that was needed was for a senator to inform the leadership that he intended to block a vote, with the backing of 40 other senators. This led to a dramatic increase in the use of filibusters — transforming them from a rare, physically demanding gambit into a routine procedural threat.

Now, the catch is that this change in procedure was never formally voted on. Going from “talking” filibusters to “silent” filibusters didn’t happen through a deliberate decision by the full Senate to change the rules — it emerged in 1972 from a procedural workaround that then Majority Leader Mike Mansfield introduced. It’s just a custom masquerading as a rule, and one that now Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) could declare null and void.

Doing so would bring back the old talking filibuster. Opponents of a given bill, such as the SAVE Act, would have to step into the well of Senate and offer arguments against election reform, or they could read through the Chicago phone book. In either case, they’d expose themselves to ridicule. Perhaps those ten days at home during the present government shutdown will lead to an attitude change.

If that doesn’t do it, consider that sometime in the weeks and months ahead, you will be seeing some results from the seizure of the Fulton County, GA, 2020 voting records that took place in January. Since the FBI went in there on a warrant — meaning a judge saw probable cause of voter fraud — the country will likely be exposed to real evidence, for the first time, that one crucial swing state ran a corrupt election operation, and it will no longer be possible for the Democrats to yell that such claims are “baseless” or “debunked.”

It’s an astonishing sign of cultural decay that we are even arguing over election reform at this point. The measures introduced during the dastardly Covid-19 trip — unlimited mail-in balloting, organized “ballot harvesting,” counting ballots for weeks after Election Day, doing so with Dominion / Smartmatic machines connectable to the Internet, and ignoring chain-of-custody requirements — these operations were patently and obviously dishonest. That’s what got you four years of “Joe Biden,” a walking-talking lie. Is there anything that the Democratic Party doesn’t lie about? I’ll wait for your answer.

Read more …

Chief Legal Counsel for Goldman Sachs is quite the job. She was paid $40-50 million.

Kathryn Ruemmler Out at Goldman Sachs Over Epstein Ties (CTH)

Former White House legal counsel/fixer to Barack Obama, and former personal lawyer/fixer of Susan Rice, Kathryn Ruemmler was Chief Legal Counsel for Goldman Sachs for the past six years. Throughout those jobs and networked professional relationships, Kathryn Ruemmler was also a personal friend and advisor to Jeffrey Epstein. Yesterday it was reported that Kathryn Ruemmler has resigned from Goldman Sachs.


NEW YORK – Goldman Sachs’s top lawyer, Kathryn Ruemmler, resigned on Thursday in the wake of the Justice Department’s release of emails and other material that revealed her extensive relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier. Ms. Ruemmler and representatives for Goldman said for years that she had a strictly professional relationship with Mr. Epstein, a convicted sex offender. But emails, text messages and photographs released late last month upended that narrative, leading to Ms. Ruemmler’s sudden resignation, which surprised many inside the firm.

Before joining Goldman in 2020, Ms. Ruemmler was a counselor, confidante and friend to Mr. Epstein, the documents showed. She advised him on how to respond to tough questions about his sex crimes, discussed her dating life, advised him on how to avoid unflattering media scrutiny and addressed him as “sweetie” and “Uncle Jeffrey.” Mr. Epstein, in turn, provided career advice on her move to Goldman, introduced her to well-known businesspeople and showered her with gifts of spa treatments, high-end travel and Hermes luxury items. In total, Ms. Ruemmler was mentioned in more than 10,000 of the documents released by the Justice Department.

Ms. Ruemmler, in addition to being Goldman’s general counsel since 2021, was a partner and vice chair of its reputational risk committee. She earlier served as White House counsel under President Obama and was a white-collar defense lawyer at Latham & Watkins. (read more)

Read more …

 

 

https://twitter.com/RyanAFournier/status/2021976778420675000?s=20

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Feb 122026
 
 February 12, 2026  Posted by at 11:30 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  50 Responses »


Camille Pissarro The Boulevard Montmartre at Night 1897


Elon Musk Vows To Establish A MOON CITY Within 10 Years (MN)
Economy Adds 130,000 Jobs in January, Unemployment Rate Falls to 4.3% (CTH)
Trump Orders CIA To Give 2020 Election Intel To ‘Stop The Steal’ Lawyer (ZH)
30 Years Later Massie Discovers Les Wexner Was Associate of Epstein (CTH)
Steve Bannon Messages About Trump Included in the Epstein File Release (CTH)
The Trump Admin Just Won the Mask Decision . . . Now it Should Appeal (Turley)
Jordan Opens Bondi Hearing By Railing Against Sanctuary Cities (JTN)
Lawmaker Probing J6 Worried US Capitol Police Intel Politicized vs GOP (JTN)
Munich 2007: Putin’s Warning To The West (RT)
Russia Will Stick To Nuclear Arms Limits If US Does The Same (ZH)
All the Media’s Men: When Journalism Became the Story -Part II of II (Wilson)
Texas Judges Strategize Ways to Block DHS From Enforcing Immigration Laws (CTH)
‘No Privacy’ CBDCs Will Come, Warns Billionaire Ray Dalio (CT)

 


 

https://twitter.com/BryceMLipscomb/status/2021305065852547259?s=20

 


 


Musk ponders his own mortality. He won’t make it to Mars in time to be the first settler.

“Priority Of SpaceX becomes a self-sustaining lunar metropolis to safeguard humanity’s future..”

Elon Musk Vows To Establish A MOON CITY Within 10 Years (MN)

Elon Musk and SpaceX are charting a bold new course for American space dominance, prioritizing a thriving city on the Moon to shield civilization from earthly perils like natural disasters or geopolitical chaos. With frequent launches and rapid iteration cycles, the Moon offers a practical launchpad for multi-planetary life, free from the constraints of overregulated space agencies that have stalled progress for decades. SpaceX’s announcement comes amid a renewed push for lunar exploration, where private enterprise is outpacing sluggish international efforts.


According to reports, the company aims to establish a “self-growing city” on the Moon within a decade, leveraging the proximity for hundreds of test cycles that Mars’ distant orbit simply can’t match. Musk elaborated on X, stating, “SpaceX has already shifted focus to building a self-growing city on the Moon, as we can potentially achieve that in less than 10 years, whereas Mars would take 20+ years.” He emphasized the logistical edge: launches to the Moon every 10 days with a two-day trip, versus Mars’ 26-month windows and six-month journeys.

This allows for swift advancements in life support, construction, and energy systems—key to breaking free from Earth’s vulnerabilities.

The shift doesn’t abandon Mars entirely. Musk noted that SpaceX will still pursue a long term plan for a Red Planet city, but the Moon takes precedence as a faster safeguard for civilization.

“The overriding priority is securing the future of civilization and the Moon is faster,” Musk posted. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/2020962635156684920

This pragmatic approach exposes the folly of pie-in-the-sky promises that have dominated space policy, often mired in wasteful spending and political gamesmanship. Musk also teased democratized space travel:

This development echoes broader frustrations with establishment space programs. NASA’s Artemis missions, while ambitious, are bogged down by delays and ballooning costs. SpaceX, unencumbered by such bureaucracy, is poised to deliver tangible wins, potentially including lunar data centers powered by constant solar energy, boosting U.S. tech supremacy. By prioritizing the lunar city, SpaceX advances an independent, resilient humanity—free from reliance on fragile international alliances that often prioritize control over innovation.

Read more …

In a time of large scale revisions, OK numbers.

Economy Adds 130,000 Jobs in January, Unemployment Rate Falls to 4.3% (CTH)

The Bureau of Labor and Statistics releases the employment figures for January today [BLS DATA HERE]. Overall, in the establishment survey, 130,000 jobs were added and the unemployment rate fell to 4.3%. This is much stronger than anticipated and there are indications of significant movement back to work as the exfiltration of illegal alien workers continues.


Via WSJ – “The U.S. added 130,000 jobs in January, surging past expectations and marking a strong start to the year following a weak year of job growth. The January numbers from the Labor Department were above the seasonally adjusted 48,000 jobs added in December, which were revised slightly lower. Economists polled by The Wall Street Journal were expecting 55,000 jobs in January.The unemployment rate, which is based on a separate survey from the jobs figures, fell to 4.3% from 4.4%.” (more)

What I find interesting in the Household ‘Employment’ Survey is the number of people going back into the workforce. I am left to wonder if the ICE removals are starting to create employer driven incentives, increased wages etc. that seem to be pulling sidelined workers back to the labor market.


528,000 more people employed. The unemployed dropped by 141,000, and the number of people not in the labor force dropped by 221,000. https://twitter.com/i/status/2021581691798618596

Read more …

“The administration last year hired Kurt Olsen, who more than five years ago took part in the “Stop the Steal” campaign that promoted baseless claims of widespread voter fraud, to investigate the 2020 election.”

Trump Orders CIA To Give 2020 Election Intel To ‘Stop The Steal’ Lawyer (ZH)

President Donald Trump has instructed the CIA and other spy agencies to hand over intelligence related to the 2020 election, a bunch of (presumably panicked) US intelligence officials told Politico and NBC News. The records are to be handed over to Kurt Olsen – now a temporary government employee in the White House – who four years ago was involved in the “Stop the Steal” campaign to determine whether Joe Biden won the 2020 election via cheating. And you know they’re freaking out by the way they tell us this… “The administration last year hired Kurt Olsen, who more than five years ago took part in the “Stop the Steal” campaign that promoted baseless claims of widespread voter fraud, to investigate the 2020 election.” -NBC News


… President Donald Trump has directed top U.S. spy agencies to share sensitive intelligence about the 2020 election with his former campaign lawyer, known for pushing debunked theories of electoral fraud, according to four people with knowledge of the effort. -Politico. Indeed:

“The president has asked Mr. Olsen to look at intelligence related to the 2020 election and the agency is ensuring that he has the access necessary to do his work,” a CIA official told NBC in an emailed statement (probably right after hanging up with the reporter). When asked about Olsen’s role, the White House told the outlet “President Trump has the authority to provide access to classified material to individuals as he deems necessary. The entire Trump administration is working together to ensure the integrity of U.S. elections.”

The admin did not specifically respond to questions about whether Olsen was focusing only on the 2020 election, or possible security threats to future elections. The freakout comes after the FBI’s recent search of an elections center in Fulton County, Georgia – where they seized ballots from the 2020 election. Now check out the tone over at Politico: “The decision to provide some of the government’s most sensitive spy material to Olsen is unusual, given that he has no known experience working with the U.S. spy community and only joined the Trump administration as a short-term special government employee in October 2025. Special government employees are supposed to work no more than 130 days during any period of 365 days, suggesting his time at the White House could end soon.”


The first person said that Olsen has passed a background check and a polygraph exam. It is not clear how close Olsen is to completing his report on the 2020 elections. Intelligence analysis is supposed to be nonpartisan, and it appears Olsen’s views on electoral fraud in prior U.S. elections are so deeply held that even some people close to the president question his ability to evaluate the material shared with him. “This guy has no background” in intelligence, said the second person, a close Trump ally. Olsen “will find some super classified report, say it’s evidence of fraud, but really it’s just completely out of context.”

… Olsen rose to prominence by working closely with Trump to undermine the results of the 2020 election under the slogan “Stop the Steal.” He urged several DOJ officials that year to file a complaint to the Supreme Court scrutinizing Trump’s loss, and even called the president multiple times during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. Wow! As we noted earlier Tuesday, an affidavit filed by FBI Special Agent Hugh Raymond Evans last month, which was unsealed Tuesday, lays out five categories of confirmed problems in Fulton County’s handling of ballots, raising questions that have simmered for over five years since Trump and his allies raised questions about the election in Georgia and other states where irregularities were alleged.

According to a report from Just the News, Evans filed the affidavit last month to establish probable cause for a raid that seized around 700 boxes of ballots from an Atlanta-area storage warehouse. The investigation stemmed from a referral by Kurt Olsen, President Trump’s election integrity czar. Evans interviewed roughly a dozen unnamed witnesses about allegations tied to the contested Georgia race, where Joe Biden edged out Trump by less than 12,000 votes in the official results. “This warrant application is part of an FBI criminal investigation into whether any of the improprieties were intentional acts that violated federal criminal laws.”

Fulton County admitted it lacks scanned images of all 528,777 ballots counted during the initial count and of the 527,925 ballots tallied during the state’s first recount. County officials also confirmed that during the recount, some ballots were scanned multiple times. Ballot images obtained through public records requests show identical markings appearing on duplicated images.During the Risk Limiting Audit, hand counters reported vote totals for batches that didn’t match the actual votes inside those batches. According to the affidavit, “The State’s Performance Review Board reported that Secretary of State investigators confirmed inaccurate batch tallies from the Risk Limiting Audit.

Read more …

“Wexner’s money was the originating capital for what would later become Epstein’s influence empire…”

30 Years Later Massie Discovers Les Wexner Was Associate of Epstein (CTH)

I said Monday on Twitter: “Seriously. Correct me if I’m wrong. For more than a decade we have known that billionaire Les Wexner from Victoria’s Secret was the originating money man behind Jeffrey Epstein. This should not be some kind of revelation, as it was widely discussed by those who researched Epstein over a decade ago. Wexner’s money was the originating capital for what would later become Epstein’s influence empire. Additionally, and again, stop me if this old news is incorrect, well over a decade ago it became openly known that the “PINK” brand of Victoria’s Secret was specifically created due to the sexuality of young girls becoming part of the marketing influence of Epstein. Wexner created the original VS girls, and the influence of Epstein (underage sexual perversions) then led to the adding of the VS “PINK” sub-brand.


Are we supposed to understand this is all new information? Honest question. No snark. I’m just confused by this sudden newness of it. We been knew.”The above VH1 segment was from 2007; however, even ten years prior to that it was commonly known that Les Wexner from Victoria’s Secret was the source of most of Jeffrey Epstein’s start-up finances. The resulting social network was fraught with sexual weirdos, and the VS brand alignment just fit with the club. Suddenly, Representative Thomas Massie, a Sea Island asset if ever there was one, is proclaiming the Epstein file information outlining the relationship with Wexner is new information, stunning in scope and worthy of extraordinary time to explore. It’s all weird.

https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/2021055705826943265?s=20

VIA NBC – […] The newly released version of the 2019 document shows eight people are listed as co-conspirators, including four whose names are not redacted: Wexner, the former CEO of Victoria’s Secret, Lesley Groff, Epstein’s longtime secretary, the late modeling agent Jean-Luc Brunel, and Ghislaine Maxwell, the only person who was charged in connection with Epstein. She was convicted of sex trafficking charges and is serving a 20-year prison sentence. Four other names on the document are still redacted. It’s unclear who those people are but prosecutors have said that Epstein used women he preyed on as recruiters. A separate document dated August 2019 indicated that some of the others were victims as well, and had been cooperating with investigators.

A Wexner legal representative said in a statement to NBC News Tuesday that “The Assistant U.S. Attorney told Mr. Wexner’s legal counsel in 2019 that Mr. Wexner was neither a co-conspirator nor target in any respect. Mr. Wexner cooperated fully by providing background information on Epstein and was never contacted again.” Wexner had a long relationship with Epstein that dated back to the 1980s, and hired him to manage his personal finances. He’s said he cut ties to Epstein after he was accused of sexually abusing minors in Florida. It was after that Wexner said he “discovered that he had misappropriated vast sums of money from me and my family.”

Wexner’s name was also mentioned in a July 2019 FBI email about possible co-conspirators that was made public as part of the DOJ release. Another August 2019 FBI email said there was “limited evidence regarding his involvement.” He is scheduled to be deposed by the House Oversight Committee next week. (more)The first time I heard the information about Wexner and Epstein was sometime in the mid 1990’s. It was well known. There is a lot of horrible, creepy and perverted stuff in the Epstein file releases that is factually new information. However, the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Les Wexner is not new. Perverse, yes -as it was even then; but not new. There were even documentaries about it, one of them I think was called “Angels and Demons“. Maybe it wasn’t as widely known as I thought?

Read more …

“Trust your instincts folks, and always remember…. It’s ALWAYS about the money”

Steve Bannon Messages About Trump Included in the Epstein File Release (CTH)

Apparently, Steve Bannon and Jeffrey Epstein had a considerable relationship together. Bannon is cited frequently in the 3 million+ Epstein files that were released by the DOJ. Unfortunately, part of the document production includes text messages between Steve Bannon and an unknown individual. Within a segment of the text messages Bannon calls Jared Kusher “the idiot son-in-law,” and frames himself as more important that President Donald Trump who Bannon sees as “transitory.”


STEVE BANNON (SB) – “To do that shows that [Trump] is center of gravity of this movement and not me — will never do — they are transitory figures — the dc game is to succumb to that — it’s why I never did before joining campaign — I could have been the trump whisperer years ago — avoided on purpose” This rather elevated sense of self-importance likely explains why Bannon was the source for Michael Wolf via leaks, and why President Trump seems to have kept distance from Mr. Bannon. However, people who walk the deep weeds of U.S. politics will also remember when Steve Bannon was the editor of Breitbart and together with financial owner Robert Mercer in 2015/2016 was backing Ted Cruz in the run-up to the 2016 election.


Both Steve Bannon and Kellyanne Conway were original political consultants and financial beneficiaries connected to the failed Ted Cruz presidential effort, before they abandoned the Cruz Crew and jumped aboard the MAGA movement. The Cruz Crew has essentially morphed into the Ron DeSantis coalition and this superiority attitude expressed by Bannon is one of the key characteristics of the group we affectionately call the “alligator emojis. Perhaps the best two words to describe the brilliant political strategies of Steve Bannon are ‘Roy – Moore’. I digress.

Trust your instincts folks, and always remember…. It’s ALWAYS about the money!

Read more …

“Judge Synder came to the right conclusion for the wrong reason.”

The Trump Admin Just Won the Mask Decision . . . Now it Should Appeal (Turley)

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has become increasingly Orwellian in his declarations of success. Last week, Newsom was proclaiming the great success of his high-speed train to nowhere – a project delayed by decades, reduced to a fraction of the original plan, and set to cost tens of billions over budget. This week, he is proclaiming victory after a court struck down his signature law requiring federal agents to unmask. The preliminary injunction issued Monday by Senior status Judge Christine Snyder against California’s No Secret Police Act was a victory for the Trump Administration. However, it should still appeal Judge Snyder’s flawed decision. In other words, the Administration won for the wrong reason.


Snyder, an Obama appointee, faced two laws passed in September 2025 with great fanfare in California: the Secret Police Act and the No Vigilante Act. As their titles indicate, they are not serious efforts at legislating but unconstitutional acts designed to pander to the politics of the moment. In the oral argument, some of us were concerned over the curious position staked out by Judge Synder. DOJ counsel Tiberius Davis tried to explain how such state laws usurp federal authority and violate the Supremacy Clause. He drove that point home by asking “Why couldn’t California say every immigration officer needs to wear pink, so it’s super obvious who they are? The idea that all 50 states can regulate the conduct and uniforms of officers … flips the Constitution on its head.”

That would seem an unassailable point, but not to Judge Synder. She asked, “Why can’t they perform their duties without a mask? They did that until 2025, did they not? How in the world do those who don’t mask manage to operate?” I remarked at the time that the court seemed to miss the central point. The question is not whether the federal government can continue to function under limitations imposed by various states, but whether those states have the authority to impose such conditions. I do not believe that they do. Nevertheless, Judge Synder came to the right conclusion for the wrong reason. She enjoined the mask requirement, but did so on the basis that California exempted its own officers.

“Even though the United States has failed to demonstrate that the facial covering prohibition of the No Secret Police Act unduly interferes with federal functions, the court acknowledges that it is nonetheless an incidental regulation on law enforcement officers. The intergovernmental immunity doctrine prohibits imposing such a regulatory burden, albeit minimal and incidental to operations, in a discriminatory manner against the federal government.” By adopting this narrow basis, the court was able to enjoin the No Secret Police Act while rejecting an injunction against the No Vigilantes Act and certain other provisions of the No Secret Police Act. I think the court is wrong and should be reversed.

Snyder rejected the rationale of the federal government that these masks are being used to protect ICE agents from “doxing,” even though various agents have been targeted and threatened. Synder waved off the concern and said that the government had not shown by such masking is essential to carrying out such functions. Her opinion relies on broad, unsupported assumptions. Because officers are facing these security concerns, she concludes that they will continue regardless: “Security concerns exist for federal law enforcement officers with or without masks. If anything, the court finds that the presence of masked and unidentifiable individuals, including law enforcement, is more likely to heighten the sense of insecurity for all.”

It is a bizarre rationalization. The court is simply imposing its judgment on what will make officers safer, rather than emphasizing whether these agencies have the discretion to make such judgments in the execution of federal law. Yet the court still enjoins the law because it discriminates between federal and state officers. (Not surprisingly, Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener, the author of the mask ban, immediately declared that they would amend the law to add state law enforcement).

The Court then upheld a state requirement that federal officers cannot conceal their identities in a discussion more befitting a legislative committee than a court: “The Court finds that these Acts serve the public interest by promoting transparency, which is essential for accountability and public trust. Moreover, the Court finds no cognizable justification for law enforcement officers to conceal their identities during their performance of routine, non-exempted law enforcement functions and interactions with the general public.” In my view, Judge Snyder twists the analysis into knots to try to preserve as much of these laws as possible while giving the Administration the minimum level of deference.

Under the intergovernmental immunity doctrine, the Supreme Court has mandated in cases such as McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 317 (1819), that “the states have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control, the operations of the constitutional law enacted by congress to carrying into execution the powers vested in the general government.” A state cannot intrude into this authority absent a “clear and unambiguous” authorization from Congress, Goodyear Atomic Corp. v. Miller, 486, U.S. 174, 180 (1988).

Snyder finds that the California laws discriminate but do not constitute direct regulation of the federal government. She does so through a “functionalist” approach that avoids bright lines of supremacy. She simply dismisses the objections, saying the federal government has not shown that wearing masks is “essential” to carrying out these functions. Consider that approach for a second. A wide range of state regulations on federal officers could be deemed permissible, since federal officers can still functionally carry out arrests. States could dictate everything from uniform requirements, such as masks, to vehicle conditions to verbal commands or warnings.

The opinion is spotty in its analysis and sweeping in its implications. It is, in my view, ripe for reversal either before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court.

Read more …

“..almost 1/3 of the American people live in a city, county or state where the left wing leadership tells local law enforcement not to work with federal law enforcement..”

Jordan Opens Bondi Hearing By Railing Against Sanctuary Cities (JTN)

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, on Wednesday opened a hearing with Attorney General Pam Bondi by railing against sanctuary cities and their impact on Americans.”The chairs now recognize 18 cities, 11 states, excuse me, three counties and the District of Columbia are sanctuary jurisdictions, accounting for 31% of the population in this country, 31% of the American people, almost 1/3 of the American people live in a city, county or state where the left wing leadership tells local law enforcement not to work with federal law enforcement,” he said.


Jordan then turned to the case of Abraham Gonzalez, an illegal alien whom Colorado authorities released from prison after ignoring a detainer from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) who later assaulted an officer. He then highlighted the voluminous instances of ICE detainers issued in sanctuary jurisdictions for violent offenders said that such policies were “helping create the environment that results in the tragic deaths.” Jordan made the remarks as part of his opening statement.

Read more …

“Now, why would you need these intelligence guys, these plain clothes guys, to just show up? It just stinks to high heaven, but I believe I was a target,”Now, why would you need these intelligence guys, these plain clothes guys, to just show up? It just stinks to high heaven, but I believe I was a target..”

Lawmaker Probing J6 Worried US Capitol Police Intel Politicized vs GOP (JTN)

The House chairman tasked with investigating law enforcement and intelligence failures related to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot says he is probing whether U.S. Capitol Police intelligence gathering was weaponized by House Democratic leadership against their Republican colleagues in the aftermath of the Capitol riot. Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., who is the Chairman of the Select Subcommittee on January 6, said he suspects that Democrats used the department to gather information on Republican lawmakers concurrent with the Justice Department’s wider Arctic Frost probe into alleged efforts by President Donald Trump and his followers to contest the 2020 election results. Loudermilk told Just the News that what former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund and others told his committee raises questions about how the department’s intelligence arm might have been used to further what he says was “weaponization against members of Congress.”


“Political weaponization against members of Congress”
“There may be some evidence out there that this [Arctic Frost] extended all the way into Congress, that there was investigation and political weaponization against members of Congress that may even have ties with the Select Committee on January 6,” Loudermilk told the Just the News, No Noise TV show on Tuesday, referring to the Democrat-led committee that probed the Trump administration alongside the Justice Department. “There’s others who have spoken to us about efforts within the political element of Congress, within the Democrat Party, who were actively seeking access to the Capitol Police database and their intelligence, and they were using that intelligence against sitting members of Congress,” Loudermilk added.

The probe into Trump and his allies in the aftermath of Jan. 6, code named “Arctic Frost,” was led by an openly anti-Trump FBI supervisor, and was eventually taken over by Special Prosecutor Jack Smith. The probe treated the effort by Trump’s allies to submit alternate electors to Congress to sway the certification of the 2020 election as a criminal conspiracy, even though two prior episodes in American history were not prosecuted as crimes. Experts told Just the News last year the FBI memo that officially launched the investigation, around the time that Trump announced he would run for president again, was thin on evidence and legal justifications.

Snooping and snapping
The House Judiciary Committee, the parent of Loudermilk’s subcommittee, released FBI records last year showing that the Arctic Frost investigators targeted more than 160 Republicans in Donald Trump’s orbit, including members of the president’s staff and Republican officials from the House and Senate. Loudermilk pointed to the case of Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Texas, a member of his subcommittee, who claims that Capitol Police searched his office. Nehls alleged in a lawsuit last year that an officer improperly entered his office during the 2021 Thanksgiving break and snapped a photograph of his office whiteboard. Later, plainclothes officers returned to the office and questioned a staffer about the whiteboard without the congressman’s permission, the court documents allege.

“That is totally outside the realm of anything acceptable here,” Loudermilk said of the Nehls search. “He was investigated as a member of Congress by the US Capitol Police, and I know he has litigation regarding that going right now, but I think this is just the tip of the iceberg of what may have been happening, not only in the Wray FBI, but under the Pelosi House of Representatives as well.” “It just stinks to high heaven, but I believe I was a target,” Nehls say Nehls also told Just the News that he believes the Capitol Police spied on him because of his outspoken criticism of the department in the wake of Jan. 6. “I think that the Capitol Police, they found a few weaklings in there to go out there and spy – I will say ‘spy’ – and look into members of Congress that were very, very outspoken and critical of January 6,” Nehls told the John Solomon Reports podcast.

“We found out that these employees worked for the intelligence division of the U.S. Capitol Police. Now, why would you need these intelligence guys, these plain clothes guys, to just show up? It just stinks to high heaven, but I believe I was a target,” Nehls added. Former Capitol Police Chief Sund confirmed that even before Jan. 6 he faced increasing pressure from Democratic leadership for access to the Capitol Police intelligence unit, which he called “very concerning.” Sund told Just the News that “it was an ongoing process where we had, you know, people, senior staffers, like from [Senator Chuck] Schumer’s staff that wanted to be involved in intelligence briefing, wanted to have access into the Capitol Police Headquarters, specifically to be able to access into the intelligence unit.”

Though he pushed back on those efforts, Sund told the John Solomon Reports podcast that he does not know what happened after he resigned on Jan. 16, 2021, just ten days after the riot during which hundreds of protesters entered the secured Capitol building. “My concern is, what happened after January 6? You know, did these people then all of a sudden, now get involved? They’re now on the intelligence calls, intelligence briefings, things like that. Now, are they using that for any political benefit?” Sund questioned. Loudermilk has doggedly investigated the Jan. 6 security failures and politicization related to the Democrat-led Jan. 6 Select Committee for years. He exposed a key witness who changed her story that was damaging to Trump and documented failures to secure key entry points at the U.S. Capitol before protesters entered.

Pipe bomb mystery solved by Patel’s FBI
He also relentlessly pursued accountability for what was the biggest unsolved mystery of that day, how the FBI had failed to identify a suspect in the planting of two pipe bombs at the Democratic and Republican Party headquarters. That case was blown open last year when the new FBI Director, Kash Patel, and his then-Deputy Director, Dan Bongino, brought a new team and a fresh perspective to the mountains of data collected by investigators. The new approach led to the arrest of suspect Brian Cole Jr. of Virginia. Earlier this month, Loudermilk subpoenaed T-Mobile for the phone records that it had turned over to the FBI and had languished in its possession until last year.

Read more …

19 years ago he spelled it out. Who listened?

Munich 2007: Putin’s Warning To The West (RT)

Exactly 19 years ago on Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin took the podium at the Munich Security Conference and demolished the myths and falsehoods underpinning the American-led world order. Did anyone heed his warning? To Russia, the “rules-based international order” has always been shorthand for a system in which the US makes the rules and issues the orders. “However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one center of authority, one center of force, one center of decision-making,” Putin told the audience in Munich. “It is a world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.”


Under the auspices of protecting this order, the US carried out “unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions,” in “disdain for the basic principles of international law,” he declared.In the decade before Putin’s speech, the US invaded Afghanistan, invaded Iraq, and led a NATO bombing campaign against Yugoslavia on behalf of Kosovo separatists. Four years after his speech, NATO forces dropped more than 7,000 bombs on Libya, ending Muammar Gaddafi’s rule and handing the keys of the country to jihadists and slave traders. “No one feels safe,” Putin stated in 2007, “because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them.”

Putin warned that NATO’s broken promises to halt its eastward expansion after the Cold War represented “a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust.” The Russian president noted that the US-led bloc had already placed its “frontline forces on our borders,” and asked “against whom is this expansion intended?” The following year, NATO published its infamous Bucharest declaration, assuring Ukraine and Georgia that they “will become members” at an unspecified future date. The consequences of this declaration – which flew in the face of warnings from Putin and American strategists – are playing out in Ukraine today.

No, the Atlanticist neoliberal establishment roundly ignored Putin’s layered and impassioned warning. But Russia kept trying. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov echoed Putin’s complaints when he spoke at the conference in 2018, pointing out that “NATO troops and military infrastructure are accumulating on our borders,” and that “the European theatre of war is being systematically developed.” By that stage several thousand people had been killed in Donbass. Lavrov urged European leaders to abide by the Minsk agreements, which were ostensibly aimed at ending hostilities in Donetsk and Lugansk and granting autonomy to the two predominantly Russian-speaking regions.

Following the collapse of the accords, and the escalation of the conflict in 2022, European and Ukrainian leaders admitted that the agreements were a ruse to enable Ukraine to buy time to prepare for a war with Russia.The organizers of the Munich Security Conference have not so much as attempted any introspection over the last 18 years. Instead, in their latest report, they blame US President Donald Trump for taking a “wrecking ball” to the so-called “rules-based international order.”

All the Europeans could do was cry. Literally, conference Chairman Christoph Heusgen broke down in tears during his closing comments, sobbing as he lamented the decline of the “rules-based international order” and proclaiming that “our common value base is not that common anymore.”nVance’s speech “illustrated just how different the current administration’s perspective on key issues is from the bipartisan liberal-internationalist consensus that has long guided US grand strategy,” Munich Security Conference Foundation President Wolfgang Ischinger wrote in a report ahead of this year’s conference, which kicks off on Friday. As such, discussion in Munich this year will focus almost entirely on “the United States’ evolving view of the international order,” he wrote.

Read more …

” For the first time since 1972, Russia (the former USSR) and the US have no treaty limiting strategic nuclear forces..”

Russia Will Stick To Nuclear Arms Limits If US Does The Same (ZH)


One of the globe’s biggest developing stories this month, but which has been largely underreported in mainstream TV networks and other press, is the collapse of New START – the last major nuclear arms control treaty between Russia and the United States. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Wednesday that Moscow will in good faith stick to the nuclear limits outlined in the now-expired arms control treaty, provided Washington does the same. It expired earlier this month after Washington declined to respond to President Vladimir Putin’s proposal for a one-year extension capping both sides’ nuclear arsenals.

The Trump admin has long wanted a more comprehensive agreement which brings China’s arsenal into the scope; however, there’s been no formal process on this front with Beijing or Moscow. Lavrov said Russia has no intention of rapidly expanding or deploying additional weapons, clarifying remarks from his ministry last week that suggested Moscow no longer considered itself bound by the treaty. “We proceed from the fact that this moratorium, which was announced by our president, remains in effect, but only while the United States does not exceed the outlined limits,” Lavrov told Russia’s parliament.

Some key aspects to the treaty have gone unobserved for some time, especially the regimen of mutual nuclear site inspections.President Trump has in the recent past called New START “badly negotiated” and said it “is being grossly violated. He has in mind Russia having blocked inspections of its nuclear facilities under the treaty framework in 2023, as tensions with Washington escalated over the proxy war in Ukraine. Moscow has in turn complained that Washington is the chief violator, and that it now refuses to respond to Putin’s overture to extend it by one year, while a more comprehensive and extended deal is negotiated.

That’s it. For the first time since 1972, Russia (the former USSR) and the US have no treaty limiting strategic nuclear forces. SALT 1, SALT 2, START I, START II, SORT, New START – all in the past. pic.twitter.com/D3TBZM9ffC — Dmitry Medvedev (@MedvedevRussiaE) February 4, 2026


Last week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio gave insight into why the White House has let New START expire: “Obviously, the president’s been clear in the past that in order to have true arms control in the 21st century, it’s impossible to do something that doesn’t include China because of their vast and rapidly growing stockpile,” he explained.

Read more …

Did the Internet make journalism worse?

All the Media’s Men: When Journalism Became the Story -Part II of II (Wilson)

There was once a professional rule in American journalism that functioned as a real constraint: report the story; do not become the story. It was not a claim of purity. Ego, ambition, and moral certainty were known dangers, and the rule existed to keep them from overwhelming the work. Journalism was never perfect. Nothing is. But it was once constrained by this rule and by rivalry among competing papers, by scarcity of publishing platforms, by reputational risk, and by audiences willing to walk away. Those constraints mattered more than ideology.mThe first visible crack came with Nellie Bly, fairly described as a stunt reporter. Her work was brave and effective, exposing abuses that would otherwise have remained hidden.


But it also introduced a dangerous precedent: the journalist as protagonist. Readers followed the reporter as much as the facts. The tool proved powerful and reusable. The profession corrected itself for a time. Through the 1940s and 1950s, likely learning from war reporting norms, American journalism emphasized impersonality and restraint. Authority came from distance. Reporters were meant to be interchangeable. Credibility rested on institutional voice rather than personality. Television eroded that equilibrium. Once news had faces, voices, and time slots, personality became unavoidable. The anchor was no longer merely delivering information but performing steadiness and judgment.

Journalism did not yet see itself as entertainment, but it had begun using entertainment tools: lighting, camera angles, makeup, vocal intonation, even on-scene reporting.The decisive rupture came with Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. What they uncovered mattered. Watergate took advantage of a nascent mythic template: the journalist as lone truth-seeker standing between power and the people. Reporting, fed by classic Hollywood movies that romanticized the crusading reporter, became an identity rather than a function.mFrom that point forward, becoming the story was no longer a lapse. It was aspirational.

Hollywood, Myth, and Moral Authority
Watergate supplied the moment. Hollywood, already primed to heroize the reporter, crafted the meaning. Films like All the President’s Men dramatized and then sanctified the Heroic Journalist. The journalist was patient, tenacious, hard-working, incorruptible, and uniquely qualified to Bring Truth to the public — a pattern that perfectly follows the Hero’s Journey. Opposition was framed not as disagreement but as ignorance or corruption. Journalism absorbed that image. It began to see itself as a secular clerisy: interpreters of reality rather than accountable informers. A clerisy assumes its authority by right of wisdom and superior knowledge. Questions are permitted only within bounds. Dissent is treated as moral failure rather than feedback.

Skepticism became asymmetrical. Journalists remained suspicious of every institution except one: their own. Tone displaced argument. Moral urgency crowded out evidentiary discipline. Entertainment tools such as emotion, narrative compression, repetition ceased to be aids and became substitutes for reasoning. And any pushback became grounds to cast the questioner out as a heretic.The pattern is familiar enough to be lampooned, as in my favorite satirical novel The Narrative, which captures how story replaces fact once the reporter becomes the hero and the audience becomes a problem to manage.

How Journalists Rise on the Left Today
Once journalism adopted that heroic clerical self-image, advancement followed a different logic. Status stopped coming from readers and started coming from institutions adjacent to power.Journalists rise by demonstrating narrative reliability, not truthfulness or factuality. Their stories must follow the Approved Narrative. Editors and other gatekeepers learn who can be trusted to frame events without destabilizing the approved story. This is rarely enforced explicitly. It works through selection. Those who create friction are sidelined; those who anticipate expectations are rewarded.

Read more …

“.. openly strategizing ways to work around that higher court ruling and keep giving bond releases to illegal aliens under the guise of “liberty interest.”

Texas Judges Strategize Ways to Block DHS From Enforcing Immigration Laws (CTH)

This is one step further than simple Lawfare, this story is about lower court judges openly strategizing ways to stop the enforcement of laws they are supposed to uphold. Last week the Fifth Circuit Cout of Appeals ruled that detaining illegal aliens during the deportation proceedings is entirely following current immigration law. Now, according to Politico, federal judges in Texas are openly strategizing ways to work around that higher court ruling and keep giving bond releases to illegal aliens under the guise of “liberty interest.”

POLITICO – […] two federal district court judges in Texas, who are bound by the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit’s ruling, said the 2-1 decision left an opening for them to continue granting immigrants’ release on other grounds, primarily constitutional arguments against detaining people who have established roots in the U.S. without due process. Those roots amount, in legal parlance, to a “liberty interest” that the Constitution says cannot be taken away without at least a hearing before a neutral judge. “This conclusion is not changed by the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision,” Judge Kathleen Cardone, an El Paso based appointee of George W. Bush, ruled late Monday in at least five cases, concluding that the circuit’s decision “has no bearing on this Court’s determination of whether [the petitioner] is being detained in violation of his constitutional right to procedural due process.”


Judge David Briones, an El Paso-based Clinton appointee, reached a similar conclusion. “The Court reiterates its original holding that noncitizens who have ‘established connections’ in the United States by virtue of living in the country for a substantial period acquire a liberty interest in being free from government detention without due process of law,” Briones wrote. The decisions from the Texas-based judges are notable in part because the administration has often rushed detainees there after their arrests in other states such as Minnesota.

A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment.n A Justice Department official, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said the rulings were in keeping with the view that there are rogue judges who continue to make results-oriented decisions to suit their personal policy preferences.The 5th Circuit’s ruling has yet to percolate through federal courts across Texas and Louisiana, where detained immigrants have been filing so-called “habeas” petitions in extraordinary numbers to seek freedom from what they say is illegal detention without the opportunity for bond. The losing parties in Friday’s ruling may still appeal the decision to the full bench of the 5th Circuit or the Supreme Court. (more)”

Lower courts trying to circumvent higher court rulings, even before any plaintiff brings them a case or argument. This is judicial activism in the extremes.
Read more …

Hedge fund manager Ray Dalio warns that CBDCs will eliminate financial privacy and enable governments to tax, seize funds and cut off political opponents.

‘No Privacy’ CBDCs Will Come, Warns Billionaire Ray Dalio (CT)

American billionaire and hedge fund manager Ray Dalio has warned that central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) are coming, offering benefits but also potentially allowing governments to exert more control over people’s finances. “I think it will be done,” said Dalio on CBDCs in a wide-ranging interview on the Tucker Carlson Show on Monday, which also included topics on the US debt crisis, gold prices, and even a potential civil war. Ray Dalio is a billionaire hedge fund manager who has been co-chief investment officer of Bridgewater Associates since 1985, after founding the firm in 1975.


During the interview, Dalio said CBDCs could be appealing due to the ease of transactions, likening them to money market funds in terms of functionality, but he also cautioned about their downsides. He said there will be a debate, but CBDCs “probably won’t” offer interest, so they will not be “an effective vehicle to hold because you’ll have the depreciation [of the dollar].” Dalio also cautioned that all CBDC transactions will be known to the government, which is good for controlling illegal activity, but also provides a great deal of control in other areas. “There will be no privacy, and it’s a very effective controlling mechanism by the government.”

A programmable digital currency will enable the government to tax directly, “they can take your money,” and establish foreign exchange controls, he said. mThat will be an “increasing issue,” particularly for international holders of that currency, as the government can seize funds from nationals of sanctioned countries. mDalio also said that you could be “shut off” from a CBDC if you were “politically disfavored.” An American CBDC is unlikely to be deployed in the near future, as US President Donald Trump has been vocally opposed to them.

Soon after taking office in January 2025, Trump signed an executive order prohibiting “the establishment, issuance, circulation, and use” of a US CBDC. According to the Atlantic Council’s CBDC tracker, only three countries have officially launched a CBDC: Nigeria, Jamaica, and The Bahamas. Another 49 countries are testing CBDCs, including China, Russia, India and Brazil. Twenty nations have a CBDC in development, and 36 are still researching central bank digital currencies. India’s central bank reportedly proposed an initiative in January linking BRICS CBDCs to facilitate cross-border trade and tourism payments.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/upholdreality/status/2021316872277266889?s=20

 

 

 

 

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