Menu Icon

Debt Rattle July 10 2025

Jul 102025
 
 July 10, 2025  Posted by at 9:34 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,  40 Responses »


Salvador Dali Cubist self portrait 1926

 

• US Patriot Missile Stockpile a Fraction of What Pentagon Needs (Anzalone)
• Patriots ‘Very Expensive’ – Trump (RT)
• EU Could Hand Another €100bn To Ukraine – Bloomberg (RT)
• Trump Ready To Back New Russia Sanctions Bill – Politico (RT)
• Ukraine Diplomacy ‘Exhausted’ – German Chancellor (RT)
• The West’s War On Russia Will Go Beyond Ukraine (Trenin)
• ‘Time To Go’: Orban Demands Von Der Leyen’s Departure (RT)
• How The Unelected Queen of the Union Plans To Keep Her Grip On Power (Amar)
• EU’s von der Leyen Issues Threat To China Over Russia (RT)
• European Court Rejects Le Pen’s Bid To Suspend Election Ban (RT)
• French Investigators Raid HQ of Biggest Opposition Party (RT)
• Linda Yaccarino Steps Down As CEO Of X (ZH)
• Biden’s White House Doctor Invokes 5th Amendment (ZH)
• Two Possible Fates Waiting in the Wings (Paul Craig Roberts)
• American Doctor Organizations Are Shills for Big Pharma (Paul Craig Roberts)

 

 

Bryant

Giuffre

Scott
https://twitter.com/jayplemons/status/1943018055396622353

“The cage is invisible because you were born inside it —
and they taught you to love the bars.”
– Mark Twain

 

 

 

 

The Patriot missiles, completely useless against hypersonics, are the only thing the US has, and they can’t even produce enough of them.

• US Patriot Missile Stockpile a Fraction of What Pentagon Needs (Anzalone)

The ongoing wars in the Middle East and Ukraine have depleted US stockpiles of missile interceptors. The Pentagon has just a quarter of the Patriot missiles it needs. According to the Guardian, “The United States only has about 25% of the Patriot missile interceptors it needs for all of the Pentagon’s military plans after burning through stockpiles in the Middle East in recent months, an alarming depletion that led to the Trump administration freezing the latest transfer of munitions to Ukraine.” US weapons manufacturers can only produce approximately 500 Patriot missiles per year. The US used dozens of interceptors to defend Israel from Iranian retaliatory attacks last month.

Additionally, the Pentagon engaged in its largest Patriot battle in history to repel a symbolic Iranian missile attack on the US airbase in Qatar. The US stockpile of air and missile defenses has been drained to aid Ukraine during the war with Russia. Missile interceptors are in short supply in the West. In May, Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Marco Rubio told Congress that “The Ukrainians asked for air defense systems – Patriot systems, which, frankly, we don’t have.” “In fact, if the Ukrainians asked for anything additional, they asked for air defense systems, Patriot systems, which, frankly, we do not have. But we cannot produce them fast enough. And one of the problems we face in Ukraine is that ammunition is being used up much faster than we can produce it,” Rubio emphasized.

It is unclear if Trump reversed the Pentagon order to halt some arms transfers to Ukraine, including Patriot Missiles. During Monday’s dinner with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump told reporters that he would “send some more weapons” to Ukraine. Patriot systems have been a crucial part of Ukraine’s air defenses. However, Russia has developed missiles to counter Patriot interceptors with increasing effectiveness

Read more …

“We’re gonna have to take a look” at the Ukrainian request, Trump added, noting that “it’s a shame that we have to spend so much money” on supporting Kiev.”

• Patriots ‘Very Expensive’ – Trump (RT)

US President Donald Trump has said that the Patriot air defense system, another unit of which Ukraine has reportedly asked for, is “very expensive.” He added that the request was under consideration, stopping short of revealing whether Washington would accommodate it or not. Trump has repeatedly criticized his predecessor, Joe Biden, for writing a blank check to Ukraine with respect to weapons deliveries. When asked by a reporter on Wednesday whether he was considering providing Ukraine with another Patriot unit, Trump replied that the air defense system is “very rare… [and] very expensive.” “We’re gonna have to take a look” at the Ukrainian request, Trump added, noting that “it’s a shame that we have to spend so much money” on supporting Kiev.

That same day, Germany’s n-tv media outlet quoted a spokesperson for US arms manufacturer Raytheon, which produces Patriots and accompanying missiles, as saying that it intends to ramp up monthly production of PAC2 GEM-T rockets by 150% by 2028 due to “unprecedented demand.” According to the publication, as of early 2024, around only 240 were being produced per year. Each Patriot missile is said to cost approximately $4 million. Earlier this week, Axios, citing anonymous sources, claimed that the US had promised to send more Patriot missiles to Ukraine, though the number would presumably be very limited. The report came shortly after the Pentagon announced a halt to weapons deliveries to Ukraine as part of a “capability review.”

However, on Monday, Trump appeared to go back on the military aid suspension. Commenting on the apparent reversal of the decision by the US president, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov criticized the conflicting statements coming out of Washington. Earlier this month, he suggested that the US apparently “simply cannot produce [Patriot] missiles in the necessary quantities.”

His remark seemed to be corroborated by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s assessment in late May, according to whom “we can’t make them fast enough.” Around the same time, Trump said that “Biden emptied out our whole country giving [Ukraine] weapons.” According to Germany’s Kiel Institute, the US has sent nearly $115 billion in military and financial aid to Kiev since the conflict escalated in 2022. Russia has repeatedly condemned Western arms shipments to Ukraine, arguing that they only serve to prolong the bloodshed without changing its course and increase the risk of broader escalation.

Read more …

They know about the corruption. But still another €100bn comes their way. What does that tell us?

• EU Could Hand Another €100bn To Ukraine – Bloomberg (RT)

European Union officials are weighing a proposal to provide Ukraine with another €100 billion ($117 billion) in grants and low-interest loans, Bloomberg reported on Tuesday, citing sources familiar with the matter. The plan involves establishing a dedicated fund within the bloc’s upcoming seven-year budget framework, the unnamed insiders told the outlet. Disbursement would begin in 2028 if the proposal is approved. The move would further shift the financial burden onto Western European taxpayers of what Moscow has condemned as a US-triggered NATO proxy war. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in April that officials in Brussels “view possible suspension of Ukraine assistance as confirmation of the EU’s strategic inviability” and are pushing for continued funding to protect their reputation.

Ukraine’s military and defense institutions have faced a string of corruption scandals during the conflict with Russia, including overpayments for rations and shady arms procurement contracts. This week, Ukrainian outlets reported that anti-corruption investigators searched a property belonging to former Defense Minister Aleksey Reznikov. Reznikov resigned in 2023 following allegations of financial misconduct in his department. The proposed fund is reportedly one of several avenues under consideration, with a final decision expected by July 16 or possibly later, according to Bloomberg. The report added that last month, the European Commission briefed EU finance ministers on Kiev’s intention to increase this year’s defense spending by $8.4 billion using domestic sources.

Ukrainian Prime Minister Denis Shmigal said in June that defense expenditures had risen 34% year-on-year during the first five months of 2025. Meanwhile, Finance Minister Sergey Marchenko warned in May that Kiev’s national debt is nearing $171 billion, approximately equivalent to the country’s GDP. Ukraine continues to rely heavily on external financial aid to sustain its national budget. Earlier this year, the government failed to restructure a portion of its sovereign debt issued in 2015 and declined to honor a $665 million repayment to private investors in early June. The country’s economy is also feeling the strain of a labor shortage, as millions have fled to Western nations offering them protection and social benefits. Many men of military age who remain in Ukraine have evaded conscription, which usually means avoiding formal employment and by extension, income taxes.

Read more …

“..the“bone-crushing” legislation spearheaded by hawkish Senator Lindsey Graham would impose a 500% tariff on countries buying oil, gas, uranium, and other goods from Russia.”

• Trump Ready To Back New Russia Sanctions Bill – Politico (RT)

US President Donald Trump is ready to sign a bill aimed at eliminating Russia’s trade under certain conditions, Politico reported on Wednesday, citing a senior administration official. If adopted, the “bone-crushing” legislation spearheaded by hawkish Senator Lindsey Graham would impose a 500% tariff on countries buying oil, gas, uranium, and other goods from Russia. Although the bill grants the president the power to exempt nations from the tariff for up to 180 days, Trump reportedly wants Congress to give him sole authority to decide on the sanctions. “The administration is not going to be micromanaged by the Congress on the president’s foreign policy. The bill needs a waiver authority that is complete,” an official told Politico. The source added that otherwise, “conceptually there’s an openness” to signing the legislation.

Graham said on Tuesday that the Senate would soon vote on the draft. “The Senate bill has a presidential waiver to give President Trump maximum leverage,” he wrote on X. According to The New York Times, the vote could take place as soon as this month. The push for tougher sanctions has gained momentum after Trump stepped up criticism of Russian President Vladimir Putin, as restarted negotiations between Moscow and Kiev have so far failed to produce a ceasefire. Moscow has insisted that any lasting settlement must address the “root causes” of the conflict, including NATO’s eastward expansion and Ukraine’s aspirations to join the US-led alliance, which Russia views as a threat to its national security.

“We don’t need a pause, which the regime in Kiev and its foreign handlers would like to use to regroup their forces, continue mobilization, and strengthen their military potential,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told Hungarian newspaper Magyar Nemzet on Monday. Putin has demanded that Ukraine recognize Russia’s new borders and adopt permanent neutrality with a legally limited army. Lavrov said this week that Moscow is working to arrange a third round of direct talks with Ukraine in Türkiye.

Read more …

They pretend to be ready for war, but they have no troops or weapons.

• Ukraine Diplomacy ‘Exhausted’ – German Chancellor (RT)

There are no viable diplomatic options remaining to settle the Ukraine conflict, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has claimed, doubling down on his policy of providing weapons to Kiev. Berlin has been the second largest arms supplier to Kiev since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022, surpassed only by the US. Russia has consistently denounced Western weapons deliveries, saying they do not change the overall course of the conflict and merely serve to prolong the bloodshed and risk further escalation. Speaking in the German parliament on Wednesday, Merz claimed that the “means of diplomacy are exhausted” regarding the conflict, but that he would aim to prevent a Russian victory.

“We will continue to assist Ukraine, even despite the resistance from the political left and the Russia-friendly right here in the house,” the chancellor said, apparently referring to the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party and the Left party. He denounced AfD co-chair Alice Weidel for not commenting on the latest Russian drone and missile attack on Ukraine, which, according to Merz, was the largest since the escalation of the conflict in 2022. Last week, German government spokesman Stefan Kornelius confirmed that “intensive discussions” were taking place with Washington regarding the possibility of Berlin purchasing air defense systems and munitions from US manufacturers and handing them over to Ukraine.

In May, the Germany Defense Ministry announced that it would provide €5 billion ($5.6 billion) to “finance the production of long-range weapon systems in Ukraine.”mKremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov condemned the decision, claiming that Germany is “competing with France for primacy in further provoking war.” The same month, Kiev agreed to direct talks with Russia following pressure from US President Donald Trump, marking the first such negotiations in three years. However, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov has accused some EU member states of seeking to undermine the negotiations and prolong the conflict. Speaking last month, Ryabkov cited Merz as an example, accusing him of providing weapons to Kiev and attempting to push Trump toward a more aggressive pro-Ukraine stance.

In late May, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov claimed that Berlin’s “direct involvement in the war is now obvious.” “Germany is sliding down the same slippery slope it already followed a couple of times in the last century – down toward its own collapse,” he warned. Around the same time, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova called into question the credibility of French President Emmanuel Macron’s statements in support of the Ukraine peace process.

Read more …

“This war will be long. And the United States – with Trump or without him – will remain our adversary. The outcome will shape not just the fate of Ukraine, but the future of Russia itself.”

• The West’s War On Russia Will Go Beyond Ukraine (Trenin)

The trademark style of the current US president, Donald Trump, is verbal spectacle. His statements – brash, contradictory, sometimes theatrical – should be monitored, but not overestimated. They are not inherently favorable or hostile to Russia. And we must remember: Trump is not the ‘king’ of America. The ‘Trump revolution’ that many anticipated at the beginning of the year appears to have given way to Trump’s own evolution – a drift toward accommodation with the American establishment. In that light, it’s time to assess the interim results of our ‘special diplomatic operation’. There have now been six presidential phone calls, several rounds of talks between foreign ministers and national security aides, and sustained contact at other levels.

The most obvious positive outcome is the restoration of dialogue between Russia and the United States – a process that had been severed under the Biden administration. Crucially, this revived dialogue extends beyond Ukraine. A range of potential areas for cooperation have been mapped out, from geopolitical stability to transportation and sport. These may not carry immediate strategic weight, but they lay the groundwork for future engagement. Under Trump, the dialogue is unlikely to break off again – though its tone and pace may shift.

One visible result of this diplomacy was the resumption of talks with the Ukrainian side in Istanbul. While these negotiations currently hold little political substance – and the recent prisoner exchanges occurred independently of them – they nonetheless reaffirm a core tenet of Russian diplomacy: we are ready for a political resolution to the conflict. Still, these are technical and tactical achievements. The strategic reality remains unchanged. It was never realistic to expect Trump to offer Russia a deal on Ukraine that met our security requirements. Nor for that matter would Russia accept one that compromised its long-term security interests. Likewise, any notion that Trump would ‘deliver’ Ukraine to the Kremlin, join Moscow in undermining the EU, or push for a new Yalta agreement with Russia and China was always fantasy.

So the page has turned. What comes next? Trump will almost certainly sign the new US sanctions bill into law – but he’ll try to preserve discretion in how those measures are applied. The sanctions will add friction to global trade, but they will not derail Russian policy. On the military front, Trump will deliver the remaining aid packages approved under Biden, and perhaps supplement them with modest contributions of his own. But going forward, it will be Western Europe – especially Germany – that supplies Ukraine, often by buying US-made systems and re-exporting them.

Meanwhile, the United States will continue to furnish Kiev with battlefield intelligence – particularly for deep strikes inside Russian territory. None of this suggests the conflict will end in 2025. Nor will it end when hostilities in Ukraine eventually wind down. That’s because the fight is not fundamentally about Ukraine. What we are witnessing is an indirect war between the West and Russia – part of a much broader global confrontation. The West is fighting to preserve its dominance. And Russia, in defending itself, is asserting its sovereign right to exist on its own terms. This war will be long. And the United States – with Trump or without him – will remain our adversary. The outcome will shape not just the fate of Ukraine, but the future of Russia itself.

Read more …

“The motion needs a two-thirds majority and support from an absolute majority of the European Parliament’s 720 members to pass—a threshold observers say is unlikely to be met.”

• ‘Time To Go’: Orban Demands Von Der Leyen’s Departure (RT)

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has called for the resignation of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, posting a parody image ahead of a scheduled no confidence vote in the European Parliament. The motion, set for Thursday, targets her handling of COVID-19 vaccine procurement. On Tuesday, Orban shared an image stylized as a Time magazine cover, depicting a red background and a retreating von der Leyen under the caption “time to go.” The image was a spoof on a Biden-themed cover of the magazine from 2024 which followed the then-US president’s announcement that he would withdraw from the election campaign.

Orban has long been one of von der Leyen’s harshest critics, accusing her of undermining EU institutions and interfering in the domestic affairs of member states. He has frequently clashed with Brussels over rule-of-law disputes and sanctions policy, and has claimed the bloc’s leadership has tried to isolate Hungary politically. Within the EU, von der Leyen has faced growing criticism, particularly over her conduct during the COVID-19 pandemic. Her refusal to release private texts exchanged with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla during vaccine procurement talks has fueled ongoing controversy. A European court ruled earlier this year that her office had failed to provide a legitimate justification for withholding the messages.

Critics from both the political left and right, as well as Eurosceptic factions, have accused her of centralizing power, bypassing traditional Commission procedures and parliamentary oversight, as well as overriding national sovereignty in sensitive matters. Thursday’s no confidence vote was initiated by Romanian MEP Gheorghe Piperea, who cited a pattern of “institutional overreach” in von der Leyen’s conduct. The motion needs a two-thirds majority and support from an absolute majority of the European Parliament’s 720 members to pass—a threshold observers say is unlikely to be met.

In response, von der Leyen has lashed out at her opponents, labeling them “conspiracy theorists” and “anti-vaxxers” backed by Russia. Speaking at a plenary session this week, she claimed some of her critics were acting “on behalf of their puppet masters in Russia.” Moscow has repeatedly accused von der Leyen of harboring Russophobic views. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov earlier this year referred to her as “Führer Ursula” and accused her of pushing militarization across the EU while deflecting attention from pandemic-era financial mismanagement. Kremlin officials have also criticized her support for Ukraine and her role in expanding sanctions targeting Russia, calling her one of the key drivers of the EU’s confrontation with Moscow.

Read more …

“..in NATO-EU Europe, the true measure of power now is the ability to spoil whatever sorry remnants of democracy are still standing. And in spite of very tough competition, von der Leyen is the worst, most corrupting spoiler of them all.”

“..The EU’s real core function is to extinguish democracy in Europe by shifting genuine power from nation-states with some, if already meagre, popular participation in political decision-making to an unelected bureaucracy..”

• How The Unelected Queen of the Union Plans To Keep Her Grip On Power (Amar)

Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission that runs the EU is finally facing a long overdue no-confidence vote. Its chances of success, all observers agree, are very small. And yet, this is an important moment. That’s because the single most powerful politician in the EU is not, for instance, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz or French President Emmanuel Macron (notwithstanding their own delusions of grandeur), but Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the EU Commission. Because in NATO-EU Europe, the true measure of power now is the ability to spoil whatever sorry remnants of democracy are still standing. And in spite of very tough competition, von der Leyen is the worst, most corrupting spoiler of them all.

This is due to three facts. The first is structural: The EU was designed not to be a ‘democracy’ – however flawed – but one big, entrenched, and growing ‘democracy deficit’. Its purpose has never been to shaft the US, even if American President Donald Trump can’t stop whining about that. The EU’s real core function is to extinguish democracy in Europe by shifting genuine power from nation-states with some, if already meagre, popular participation in political decision-making to an unelected bureaucracy, of which the Commission is the center and top. The second fact is a matter of individual character and hence responsibility: Ursula von der Leyen is the embodiment of an insatiable lust for personal, unaccountable power. She won’t admit it, of course, but her behavior speaks volumes: Von der Leyen does not see herself as a public servant but firmly believes that it is the public that must serve her.

Think of these two factors – the structural and the individual – if you wish, as broadly similar to what happened during the rise of Joseph Stalin in the former Soviet Union: Like the EU, the post-revolutionary Communist party was built to restrict political decision-making to a small and self-selecting group of true believers. And only those confessing the correct “values” were even offered a chance to join. Like von der Leyen, Stalin managed to turn this deliberately created “democracy deficit” to his own advantage by basing his personal despotism on it. If you think that analogy is far-fetched, consider that in both cases, the rise of the Soviet despot and that of the European Commission president, real power has been concentrated in an overbearing and invasive bureaucracy that, formally, should only be an executive organ. There is a reason why, if you take one tiny step back, “general secretary” sounds rather similar to “commission president.”

And then there is the third fact that has facilitated von der Leyen’s performance as NATO-EU’s top spoiler. In this respect, she certainly does not resemble Stalin at all, but rather one of the many Eastern European satraps of Cold War Eastern Europe. Like trusty Walter Ulbricht of early East Germany or Poland’s Boleslaw Bierut who suffered a heart attack when Khruschev made Stalin the fall guy, von der Leyen is a vassal leader, just working for another outside empire. So obviously, so shamelessly that even Politico has – rightly – labeled her the EU’s “American president.” The charges that her political opponents in the EU parliament have just used to initiate the current no-confidence vote are less fundamental – while still reflecting stunning misbehavior – and more specific, as they have to be.

In essence, they target von der Leyen’s – and the whole Commission’s – scandalous handling of the Covid-19 crisis (scandalous by the way from any angle, whether you approve or disapprove of vaccines); her subsequent and illegal refusal to provide key information on what she and the CEO of big pharma company Pfizer were up to during that period in messages that were private but should not have been; waste (to say the least) in the handling of a 650 billion-euro post-Corona crisis recovery fund; the misuse of a legal loophole to boost armaments spending via the EU; and last but not least, the weaponization of digital legislation to interfere in the recent Romanian, as well as German elections.

What all these transgressions have in common is not only that they may very well be criminal. They are also all variants of the same, fundamentally simple ruse: the manipulation or even fabrication of “emergencies” that are then exploited as cover for constantly escalating abuses of power. If there is one main principle of von der Leyen’s power grab, this is it. Again, Stalin knew a thing or two about that trick.In sum, the sponsors of the no-confidence vote conclude “that the Commission led by President Ursula von der Leyen no longer commands the confidence of Parliament to uphold the principles of transparency, accountability, and good governance essential to a democratic Union.” They call on the Commission “to resign due to repeated failures to ensure transparency and to its persistent disregard for democratic oversight and the rule of law within the Union.”

Read more …

“..on Tuesday, von der Leyen accused China of “de facto enabling Russia’s war economy,” adding that the EU “cannot accept this.”

• EU’s von der Leyen Issues Threat To China Over Russia (RT)

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has warned that ties between the EU and China could further deteriorate if Beijing refuses to condemn Russia over the Ukraine conflict. Speaking at a European Parliament session in Strasbourg on Tuesday, von der Leyen accused China of “de facto enabling Russia’s war economy,” adding that the EU “cannot accept this.” “How China continues to interact with Putin’s war will be a determining factor for EU-China relations going forward,” she stated. Von der Leyen called on Beijing to “unequivocally condemn Russia’s gross violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and internationally recognized borders.” In the same address, she accused China of engaging in unfair trade practices, such as “flooding global markets with cheap, subsidized goods” in an effort to “wipe out competitors.”

Beijing has consistently denied supplying weapons or otherwise supporting Russia in its conflict with Ukraine. “China is not a party to the Ukraine issue. China’s position on the Ukraine crisis is objective and consistent, that is, negotiation, ceasefire and peace,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning said earlier this month. “A prolonged Ukraine crisis serves no one’s interests. China supports a political settlement to the crisis as early as possible,” Mao added. China has also opposed “unilateral” sanctions on Russia and has offered to help mediate a ceasefire between Moscow and Kiev. In May, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping met in Moscow, pledging to deepen the countries’ “strategic partnership” and expand bilateral trade.

Read more …

“..the existence of an imminent risk of irreparable harm to a right protected by the Convention or its protocols has not been establishe..”

• European Court Rejects Le Pen’s Bid To Suspend Election Ban (RT)

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has rejected French right-wing veteran politician Marine Le Pen’s request to suspend the five-year ban on standing in elections, including the 2027 presidential race, which stems from an embezzlement conviction. “In any event, the existence of an imminent risk of irreparable harm to a right protected by the Convention or its protocols has not been established,” the court wrote in its press release on Wednesday. In March 2025, a French judge found the former leader of the biggest opposition party National Rally (RN) guilty of misusing public funds intended to pay for assistants to the RN members of the European Parliament.

Le Pen has denied any wrongdoing and appealed the verdict, which she calls politically motivated. Le Pen ran for president in 2017 and 2022, losing both times in a runoff to President Emmanuel Macron. The National Rally is currently the third-largest party in the National Assembly. On Wednesday, police raided the RN headquarters in Paris as part of an investigation into alleged campaign finance violations and fraud. RN leader Jordan Bardella denounced the searches as an attempt to “destabilize the party and drive it into financial ruin.” US President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance have publicly voiced support for Le Pen, which the French authorities dismissed as meddling in domestic affairs.

Read more …

The European Court of Human Rights rejects her request, and the French police sweeps in. The cradle of [modern, European] democracy.

• French Investigators Raid HQ of Biggest Opposition Party (RT)

French financial investigators raided the Paris headquarters of the right-wing National Rally (RN) party on Wednesday. Its leader accused the government of conducting a campaign of harassment. The early morning search targeted documents and communications related to the party’s political campaigning, according to RN President Jordan Bardella. The party is closely associated with former presidential candidate Marine Le Pen, who was previously barred from running in the 2027 race. Bardella criticized the search as “a new harassment campaign” and a blow to democratic principles. ”This display of force has only one purpose: to provide a spectacle for news channels, to rummage through the private correspondence of the leading opposition party, to seize all our internal documents,” he wrote on X.

“Nothing to do with justice, everything to do with politics.” Wednesday’s raid came roughly three months after a French court found senior RN figures, including Le Pen, guilty of embezzling European Union funds. The ruling imposed an immediate five-year ban from seeking public office, controversially offering no delay for appeal. The party has condemned the verdict as an undemocratic attempt to sideline its co-founder and former leader from the 2027 presidential race. Le Pen narrowly lost to French President Emmanuel Macron in the 2022 runoff election. The Paris prosecutor’s office said the search was part of an investigation into loans the RN received from private individuals. The party reportedly turned to private lending after being denied traditional bank financing, according to Le Parisien.

French campaign finance laws impose strict limits on party loans, including maximum values and repayment conditions. Investigators are reportedly searching for potential violations but have not filed any charges. Christian Charpy, head of the French campaign finance watchdog CNCCFP, previously suggested that some loans may have amounted to undeclared donations. The RN has grown in prominence in recent years and now holds the largest single faction in France’s parliament. During last year’s snap elections, mainstream parties coordinated to block the anti-immigration, Euroskeptic party from securing enough seats to form a government. President Macron has had to contend with a more challenging domestic political environment since losing his legislative majority in 2022.

Read more …

“This team has worked relentlessly from groundbreaking innovations like Community Notes, and, soon, X Money to bringing the most iconic voices and content to the platform..”

• Linda Yaccarino Steps Down As CEO Of X (ZH)

Linda Yaccarino announced on Wednesday that she’s stepping down as CEO of X, offering little in the way of an explanation. “After two incredible years, I’ve decided to step down as CEO of X. When @elonmusk and I first spoke of his vision for X, I knew it would be the opportunity of a lifetime to carry out the extraordinary mission of this company. I’m immensely grateful to him for entrusting me with the responsibility of protecting free speech, turning the company around, and transforming X into the Everything App. I’m incredibly proud of the X team – the historic business turn around we have accomplished together has been nothing short of remarkable.

We started with the critical early work necessary to prioritize the safety of our users—especially children, and to restore advertiser confidence. This team has worked relentlessly from groundbreaking innovations like Community Notes, and, soon, X Money to bringing the most iconic voices and content to the platform. Now, the best is yet to come as X enters a new chapter with @xai. X is truly a digital town square for all voices and the world’s most powerful culture signal. We couldn’t have achieved that without the support of our users, business partners, and the most innovative team in the world. I’ll be cheering you all on as you continue to change the world. As always, I’ll see you on X.”

According to the NY Times, which had an article queued up to publish 3 minutes after her tweet – and authored by Musk-hater Mike Isaac;”Yaccarino’s exit caps a tumultuous period at X, which has been remade in Mr. Musk’s image since he bought the platform for $44 billion in 2022. Since then, Mr. Musk has shed three quarters of the company’s employees, loosened speech restrictions on the platform and wielded X as a political megaphone. Advertisers to X were at one point spooked by the changes and the social media company’s ad business declined.

In March, Mr. Musk said he had sold X, which is a privately held company, to xAI, his artificial intelligence start-up, in an unusual arrangement that showed the financial maneuvering inside his business empire. The all-stock deal valued xAI at $80 billion and X at $33 billion, Mr. Musk said. Since then, xAI has been in talks to raise new financing that could value it at as much as $120 billion. The rest of the article essentially suggests Yaccarino’s job was partly to handle Musk, who has “frequently made her job more difficult, including using expletives to tell advertisers that he would not be changing his ways.”

Read more …

“I don’t believe that he can hide behind doctor-patient confidentiality because this is the president of the United States, and people expect the White House physician to be truthful and transparent about the president of the United States’ health.”

• Biden’s White House Doctor Invokes 5th Amendment (ZH)

After requesting to delay his testimony, Kevin O’Connor – former President Biden’s White House doctor, refused to answer questions during a deposition in front of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Wednesday, according to a statement from his legal counsel that cites doctor-patient privilege and constitutional rights against self-incrimination. “Earlier today, Dr. Kevin O’Connor asserted the physician-patient privilege, as well as his right under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in declining to answer questions from the staff of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform regarding his service as Physician to the President during the Biden Administration,” reads the statement.

“On the advice of his legal counsel, Dr. O’Connor refused to answer questions that invaded the well-established legal privilege that protects confidential matters between physicians and their patients. His assertion of his right under the Fifth Amendment to decline to answer questions, also on the advice of his lawyers, was made necessary by the unique circumstances of this deposition.” O’Connor appeared for the deposition after House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-KY) subpoenaed him last month to compel his testimony as part of the panel’s investigation into the massive coverup of Biden’s cognitive decline – as well as whether Biden was aware of documents signed using his “autopen” signature.

“The president is the most powerful person in the world. The American people have a right to know the health condition of the president, both physical and mental,” Comer said before the interview, adding “I don’t believe that he can hide behind doctor-patient confidentiality because this is the president of the United States, and people expect the White House physician to be truthful and transparent about the president of the United States’ health.” O’Connor’s lawyers had requested a postponement over the weekend – raising concerns over doctor-patient privilege, and asserting that the committee had declined to rule out any limitations as to the scope of the deposition. ‘Biden’ has strongly denied that he was not in a right state of mind while he was president, calling the claims “ridiculous and false.’

Read more …

“In the long ago days of the 1950s, or perhaps it was the 1960s, Mad Comics produced an issue in which everything worked for humans without their participation. Then one day the system broke, and no one knew how to repair the system. They all died.”

• Two Possible Fates Waiting in the Wings (Paul Craig Roberts)

I often wonder which of two possible fates waiting in the wings will be ours. Will Washington/Israeli hegemonic ambition, together with Russian/Chinese/Iranian denial, or perhaps avoidance, of reality, destroy us in nuclear war, or will the digital revolution and its bastard child–Artificial Intelligence–lock up humanity in endless tyranny? I read idealistic accounts of AI in which we all have an AI assistant that manages our daily schedules, our health, diet, weight, and what we eat and drink, manages our investments, protects us against fraudulent bills, keeps watch over our identity and bank account, and ensures all bills are paid, all the while greatly increasing our productivity in our jobs and delivering entertainment.

The propaganda makes people feel secure and comfortable, especially really busy people and elderly people. But in fact it makes them insecure and unaware of how insecure they are. All of their information is in one place where it can be hacked or erased along with their identity by an electromagnetic pulse (EMP). Technology’s true believers see technology in an unrealistic way. It is always an improvement in human existence. But that is not true. Initially technology improved human performance, but eventually it displaces human performance as AI and robotics are doing. In the long ago days of the 1950s, or perhaps it was the 1960s, Mad Comics produced an issue in which everything worked for humans without their participation. Then one day the system broke, and no one knew how to repair the system. They all died.

Already today, education is training students not to think for themselves, not to learn how to solve math, physics, chemical, biological, and other problems, but how to ask AI to do it for them. Students now hand in assignments written for them by AI. Students no longer need to know language or how to use it to write a theme. They just give the assignment to AI. Education today amounts to learning how to use AI. But what or who is AI? AI is the ability to peruse information in a data base much faster than a human and to arrive at a conclusion faster than a human can think. The accuracy of the AI conclusion depends on the accuracy off the information supplied to AI. In other words, the outcome depends on who controls the information base.

We already live with this problem. The information base consists of the official narratives. Censorship kept truthful information about the dangers of the Covid “vaccine” and truthful accounts of “Russiagate,” Ukraine conflict, and most other events off of social media and unable to find with a Google search. If you are outside the official narratives, you are not included in the information base. AI makes Orwell’s Big Brother universal and unchallengeable. For now the official explanations are in the hands of the American Establishment and their whore media. Perhaps in order to protect their own histories, cultures, and ways of thinking, other countries will develop their own AI system in order to escape being ruled by Washington’s data base. Otherwise, Washington’s official narratives will become every country’s official narratives.

What we have at this time is indoctrination disguised by the language of neutrality and presented as truthful information. Liberal-left ideologies, such as transgender theory, the alleged racism of white ethnicities, and Jewish and black victimization are default settings. But it is worse than this. Who controls the algorithm controls the menu not only of explanations but of what events actually happened. All countries are in danger of being subsumed into Washingtons’ explanations, just as they have been left powerless by being subsumed into the SWIFT bank clearing system and the US dollar as world money. Many will accept Washington’s free ride to the obliteration of their memory of themselves.

Read more …

“Big Pharma is so accustomed to totally controlling American health policy for so long that the Big Pharma executives believe that they, not the federal health agencies, have the right to control vaccination policy.”

“The only way to fix this is to remove money from politics. This would require Congress to vote against their political campaign contributors and leave Congress without a source of election funds..”

• American Doctor Organizations Are Shills for Big Pharma (Paul Craig Roberts)

Scientific research independent of Big Pharma money has proven conclusively that the Covid “vaccines” caused enormous health injuries and deaths. One producer of the vax withdrew it from use. Data show beyond all doubt that the vax is particularly deadly for young children whose immune system it destroys and pregnant women. Faced with the overwhelming evidence about which there is no doubt whatsoever, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy removed the CDC’s recommendation of the dangerous vax for kids and pregnant women. The vax is just as dangerous for everyone, but Kennedy left the recommendation in place for everyone else as it proved impossible to buck Big Pharma except in a minor way.

Nevertheless, Big Pharma sicced its shills –the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Public Health Association and four other groups– on Kennedy with a lawsuit filed against the US government. Big Pharma is so accustomed to totally controlling American health policy for so long that the Big Pharma executives believe that they, not the federal health agencies, have the right to control vaccination policy. Big Pharma is now attempting to use the federal judiciary to institutionalize their control over American health regulations.

This is a prime example of what happens when money takes over democracy. Political decisions are made not in the public interest, but in the interests of those who provide the campaign contributions. Federal agencies become shills for interest groups. The only way to fix this is to remove money from politics. This would require Congress to vote against their political campaign contributors and leave Congress without a source of election funds. Try to imagine politicians competing by debating values and policies in front of an audience instead of slinging mud and alleging scandals.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

IVM

Flash floods
https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1943117899012473302
https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1943080668277411944


MTG
https://twitter.com/NewsTreason/status/1943052568806199392

https://twitter.com/sheislaurenlee/status/1942982067815317630

Atoms

Orca
https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1943163270371647956

claw
https://twitter.com/gunsnrosesgirl3/status/1942990528649531419

Cub

 

 

Greece

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle July 9 2025

Jul 092025
 
 July 9, 2025  Posted by at 9:44 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,  66 Responses »


Pablo Picasso Coffee maker 1943

 

• Trump Wanted A Perfect War, A Headline Showstopper (Alastair Crooke)
• Trump Admits Ukraine Conflict Difficult To Tackle (RT)
• Trump Promises Zelensky Ten Missiles – Axios (RT)
• Trump Confirms Arms For Ukraine U-Turn Days After Pentagon Halts Delivery (ZH)
• Trump Isn’t Doing Anything Unprecedented (Victor Davis Hanson)
• Omniwar – Weaponization of Everything – Catherine Austin Fitts (USAW)
• Brennan, Comey Under Criminal Investigation for Trump–Russia Hoax (Margolis)
• Obama Judge Blocks Defunding of c in OBBB (Margolis)
• Supreme Court Reverses Judge’s Move Blocking Trump’s DOGE Executive Order (DS)
• Supreme Court Tells Judge to Fall in Line (von Spakovsky)
• Von der Leyen Hides Truth About Vaccine Purchases – Russian Envoy (Sp.)
• Von der Leyen Blames Russia For No-Confidence Motion (RT)
• Trump Admin Unveils National Farm Security Plan On Foreign Ownership (JTN)
• US Energy Generation Retirements Increase Blackout Risk by 100x in 2030 (ET)

 

 

FBI

Giuffre

Fitton

https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1942599948014346746

 

 

 

 

“His perfect war. Television drama at the highest level: War to create a headline. And the headline is ‘WE WON’. I’m in charge now and everybody is going to do what I tell them..”

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

“Depending on who you ask, the U.S. bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan was either a smashing success that severely crippled Tehran’s nuclear programme, or a flashy show whose results were less than advertised … In the grand scheme of things, all of this is just drama”. The big issue – second only to ‘what next in Iran’ and how they might respond – says Michael Wolff (who has written four books on Trump), is “how the MAGA is going to respond”: “And I think he [Trump] is genuinely worried, [Wolff emphasises]. And I think he should be worried. There are two fundamental things to this coalition – Immigration and War. Everything else is fungible and can be compromised. It’s not sure those two elements can be compromised”.

The signal from Hegseth (‘we are not at war with the Iranian people – just its nuclear programme’) clearly reflects a message being ‘walked back’ in the face of MAGA pushback: ‘Pay no attention. We’re not really doing war’ is what Hegseth was trying to say. So, what’s next? There are basically four things that can happen: First, the Iranians can say ‘okay, we surrender’, but that’s just not going to happen; the second option is protracted war between Iran and Israel with Israel continuing to be attacked in a way that it has never been attacked before. And thirdly there is attempted regime change – although this has never been successfully achieved by air assault alone. Historically, America’s regime changes have been accompanied by mass slaughter, years of instability, terrorism and chaos.

Lastly, there are those who warn that nuclear Armageddon is on the table with the aim of destroying Iran. But that would be a case of self-harm, since it likely would be Trump’s Armageddon too – at the midterm elections. “Let me explain”, says Wolff; “I have been making lots of calls – so I think I have a sense of the arc that got Trump to where we are [with the strikes on Iran]. Calls are one of the main ways I track what he is thinking (I use the word ‘thinking’ loosely)”. “I talk to people whom Trump has been speaking with on the phone. I mean all of Trump’s internal thinking is external; and it’s done in a series of his constant calls. And it’s pretty easy to follow – because he says the same thing to everybody. So, it’s this constant round of repetition …”.

“So, basically, when the Israelis attacked Iran, he got very excited about this – and his calls were all repetitions of one theme: Were they going to win? Is this a winner? Is this game-over? They [the Israelis] are so good! This really is a showstopper”. “So again, we’re in the land of performance. This is a stage and the day before we attacked Iran, his calls were constantly repeating: If we do this, it needs to be perfect. It needs to be a win. It has to look perfect. Nobody dies”. Trump keeps saying to interlocutors: “We go ‘in-boom-out’: Big Day. We want a big day. We want (wait for it, Wolff says) a perfect war”. And then, out of the blue, Trump announced a ceasefire, which Wolff suggests was ‘Trump concluding his perfect war’. And so, suddenly – with both Israel and Iran apparently co-operating with the staging of this ‘perfect war headline’ – “he gets annoyed that it doesn’t run perfectly”.

Wolff continues: “Trump, by then, had already stepped into the role that ‘this was his war’. His perfect war. Television drama at the highest level: War to create a headline. And the headline is ‘WE WON’. I’m in charge now and everybody is going to do what I tell them. What we saw subsequently was his frustration at the spoiling of an outstanding headline: They’re not doing what he tells them”. What is the broader ramification to this mico-episode? Well, Wolff for one believes Trump is unlikely to get sucked into a long complex war. Why? “Because Trump simply does not have the attention span for it. This is it. He’s done: In-boom-out”.

There is one fundamental point to be understood in Wolff’s analysis for its wider strategic import: Trump craves attention. He thinks in terms of generating headlines – each day, every day, but not necessarily the policies that flow from that headline. He seeks daily headline dominance, and for that he wants to define the headlines via a rhetorical posture – moulding ‘reality’ to give his own showstopping Trumpian ‘take’. Headlines then become, as it were, a sort of political dominance which can subsequently metamorphose into policy – or not.

Read more …

“It’s turned out to be tougher,” Trump acknowledged..”

• Trump Admits Ukraine Conflict Difficult To Tackle (RT)

US President Donald Trump has acknowledged that resolving the Ukraine conflict has proven to be more difficult than he expected. He also said he didn’t think his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, is serious about ending the hostilities. Since taking office in January, the Republican has repeatedly vowed to put an end to the conflict between Moscow and Kiev in short order. However, Trump has gradually conceded that the endeavor could take longer than his originally touted “24 hours.” Speaking to the press on Tuesday, the US president said he was “not happy with Putin,” while claiming, “he’s killing a lot of people,” both Russian and Ukrainian troops.

Trump asserted that up to 7,000 people are being killed in the conflict every week at this point. When asked by a reporter whether he planned to “act on that feeling,” Trump replied, “I wouldn’t be telling you,” adding that he wanted his next move to remain “a little surprise” for the time being. The US president cited America’s recent attack on Iran’s nuclear facility as an example of his strategy based on unpredictability. “It’s turned out to be tougher,” Trump acknowledged, referring to his attempts to settle the Ukraine conflict, adding that Washington has given Kiev the “best [military] equipment ever made.”

Read more …

Two of which may hit their intended target.

• Trump Promises Zelensky Ten Missiles – Axios (RT)

US President Donald Trump has promised to send more Patriot missiles to Ukraine, but the number will apparently be very limited, Axios has reported, citing sources briefed on a recent call between Trump and Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky. Last week, the Pentagon announced the suspension of some weapons shipments to Ukraine, including precision munitions and air defense interceptors, citing concerns over depleting US stockpiles. On Monday, however, Trump stated that Washington would continue sending “defensive weapons” to Kiev. Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell has also confirmed that, at the president’s direction, the Department of Defense would “send additional defensive weapons to Ukraine.”

Trump did not disclose exactly which weapons would be delivered or in what amount, but according to Axios, the US leader told Zelensky during a phone call on Friday that the US would immediately send ten Patriot missile interceptors. Each Patriot missile is said to cost approximately $4 million, and the US defense industry is currently believed to produce around 500 annually. US air defense protocols typically require at least two missiles to be shot to intercept a single incoming target. Trump also pledged to help Kiev find other ways to get munitions. Trump has reportedly been pressing Germany to contribute more of its own weapons to Kiev, including one of its Patriot batteries. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who is said to have personally ordered the recent pause, has reportedly identified available Patriot batteries in Germany and Greece that the US could finance and redirect to Ukraine.

It remains unclear when the promised missiles will be delivered or whether additional shipments will follow. The latest pledge, involving only ten interceptor missiles, comes amid a broader trend under Trump of reducing US military support for Ukraine. Unlike the administration of former US President Joe Biden, Trump has been seeking to negotiate a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine. His administration has resumed direct talks with Moscow and been seeking alternative avenues for resolving the conflict. Meanwhile, Moscow has criticized the conflicting statements coming out of Washington regarding weapons deliveries to Ukraine.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov pointed out that the US is continuing to deliver weapons, while noting that European countries have been particularly active in supplying arms to Kiev. He stressed that such actions do not promote peace and just “help prolong hostilities.” Russia had previously welcomed signs of declining Western military support for Ukraine, with Peskov stating that fewer foreign weapons could help speed a resolution to the conflict. At the same time, he cautioned that it was still too early to determine whether the trend will continue. Moscow has consistently maintained that foreign arms shipments to Ukraine only lead to further bloodshed without affecting the overall outcome of the conflict.

Read more …

It makes no sense if you want the war to stop.

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

Another drastic foreign policy U-turn by the Trump administration, after just a week ago some weapons shipments to Ukraine were halted – and now it’s back ON apparently… President Trump first unveiled Monday after last week’s ‘disappointing’ phone call with President Putin, for which the US leader was “very unhappy”, that he would send “more weapons” to Ukraine. “We’re gonna send some more weapons we have to them. They have to be able to defend themselves. They’re getting hit very hard now,” Trump said, alongside a US and Israeli delegation, on the day Prime Minister Netanyahu visited the White House. Last Thursday night saw what was likely a record aerial attack on Ukraine which lasted for seven hours. Trump has said the US would send “defensive weapons primarily.” He remarked: “So many people are dying in that mess.”

Ukraine’s President Zelensky has tallied that last week Russia launched around 1,270 drones and 39 missiles in total at Ukraine, doing serious damage in many places, including the capital area. The Ukrainian government reacted Tuesday by seeking clarify on the sudden policy shift from the White House: The ministry of defense in Kyiv said in a statement on Tuesday that it had not received official notification of the change in policy and it was “critically important” for Ukraine to maintain “stability, continuity and predictability” in the provision of arms, especially air defense systems. The statement added: “We are grateful to the United States for all its support and highly appreciate the efforts of American partners aimed at achieving genuine peace.”

Adding insult to injury for much of Trump’s base, which has long supported his efforts to disentangle America from Kiev – and stop sending the Ukrainians billions in taxpayers’ money – the Department of Defense is actually touting this move as in keeping with ‘America First’. “Our framework for POTUS to evaluate military shipments across the globe remains in effect and is integral to our America First defense priorities,” the Pentagon said in a new press release. White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told CBS News that in the context of the Russia-Ukraine war the “decision was made to put America’s interests first following” a Defense Department “review of our nation’s military support and assistance to other countries across the globe.”

What actually changed? It remains that the simplest way to wind down this tragic war is for Zelensky to agree to territorial concessions, but he won’t even so much as budge on recognizing Crimea, and it looks like Washington is certainly not trying to convince or pressure him at this point. Zelensky will continue gladly taking his arms handouts from Uncle Sam without willingness to make compromise at the negotiating table. The war, and horrific killing, will go on with no end in sight.

Read more …

“And as far as cages and detention centers, Obama created them. So, Trump just said, “I’m just following the precedent of Obama.”

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

I usually don’t give advice to President Donald Trump, who knows much more about politics, obviously, than most of us. But I think he could use maybe a suggestion on messaging. He’s getting attacked by the Left for autocratic use of presidential powers, he’s dictatorial. You’d almost forget that the Left and the Biden administration, in particular, through five criminal and civil courtrooms, fined him over $400 million, coordinated those legal harassments, and indicted him for 93 felonies. They tried to destroy, not just his candidacy, but his person, to bankrupt him and to jail him. You would’ve forgotten that 25 states tried to take Donald Trump off the ballot. Nobody had ever done that before. Nobody had ever impeached a president twice.

Nobody had ever tried a president, probably unconstitutionally, as a private citizen in the Senate, when he had already left office. No presidential candidate had been the subject of two ex-presidential assassination attempts. No ex-president ever had his home raided by the FBI. So, we’ve forgotten all this and we’re supposed to think that Donald Trump is acting extra-constitutionally. But Donald Trump, I think, could remind people that he’s just following the precedents that he inherited. I’ll give you a few examples. So, they’re saying he is deporting, deporting, deporting people. Well, former President Barack Obama deported more people in his tenure than any other prior president—2.5 million. And he focused on criminal aliens. He said so. Just like Donald Trump did. And as far as cages and detention centers, Obama created them. So, Trump just said, “I’m just following the precedent of Obama.”

They’re talking about extra powers of the president to harass people. Donald Trump had two members of his administration—Steve Bannon, in the first term, and Peter Navarro, his trade adviser—who were subpoenaed by Congress and they felt for no other reason but harassment in connection with Jan. 6. And they didn’t show up. And they tried to negotiate with Congress. And Congress jailed them. Former Attorney General Merrick Garland was also subpoenaed by Congress, remember? And he just refused and there were no consequences. Former Attorney General Eric Holder was subpoenaed by Congress. There was no—and he refused. And so, all Donald Trump should say, if anybody wants to be subpoenaed from the Biden administration, “We’re just following his example. We don’t really know what the rules are.”

He should also say that he didn’t really know what the rules were about using presidential power and bombing. He was in enemy airspace for about 30 minutes. And it was a successful strike to neutralize and put out of commission the Iranian nuclear infrastructure. Almost immediately, people said that he was tyrannical, he had violated the Constitution. And all he should have said: “I don’t know quite what the rules are. It’s ambiguous. So I just followed the example of Barack Obama.” In 2016, Barack Obama bombed seven different countries. He bombed—26,000 bombs he released. The last day he was in office, in 2017, he sent B-2 Spirit bombers all the way to Libya—the same planes that Donald Trump did—again, without congressional authorization. Donald Trump should just say, “The law is ambiguous, so I’m following the precedent set by Barack Obama.”

And so, what I’m trying to say is that whether it’s executive orders—and I could mention that Barack Obama issued about 260 executive orders. He got, at one point, so exasperated, he said, “I have a phone and I have a pen, and I’m going to bypass Congress.” So, whether it’s executive orders or the border, or the president’s executive powers as commander in chief, or the question of subpoenas and presidential counselors or Cabinet members, all he has to say is he’s doing nothing, nothing ahistorical or unprecedented. He came into office and he looked to prior precedent. And the prior precedent was established by former President Joe Biden and Barack Obama. And if there was criticism of them, he never heard about it. And he is just following in their illustrious tradition.

Read more …

“There are literally injections that are bioweapons, and this is the weaponization of our healthcare system.”

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

Catherine Austin Fitts (CAF), publisher of “The Solari Report,” is back with a new cutting-edge publication called “Omniwar.” Mankind is under attack from all angles, and it’s not simply to control us but to kill us too. CAF says, “Omniwar is the weaponization of everything. It’s the weaponization of all the different systems we use, including food, health and finance. . .. There are literally injections that are bioweapons, and this is the weaponization of our healthcare system. I do a screen for a mutual fund, and one of the funeral home companies is a stock, which has more than doubled or about doubled since we bought it. So, you’ve got a recent healthcare insurance stock going down 40%, while the funeral homes are going up significantly. People have been observing this because this is not the first insurance company to take a nosedive from the drop in life expectancy and acceleration of the deaths.”

The poison we are getting is being delivered to us on purpose. It is high tech, and it’s not just in the CV19 bioweapon injections. Fitts says, “We are ingesting these nanoparticles or nanobots. We have done interviews at Solari.com about the mysterious ingredients in the food. So, it’s in the injections, it’s in the spray and it’s in the food. This is one of the things I believe causes all this sickness. . .. This is all part of the great poisoning. I have subscribers who have been hip to this for more than a decade. They understand the great poisoning is happening. They are in a war, it’s an Omniwar and they started to take action on how they organized their health, food and finances. You know something, they are doing great. . . . I know it’s depressing. As Curtis Mayfield says, ‘It’s a New World Order. It’s a brand-new day. It’s a New World Order, and brother, you are the prey.’ It is not supportive of your social prestige knowing you are in a war and you are the prey. At the same time, once you understand, and you can get in the game, you can start to protect your health, finances and food, and what a difference it makes.”

CAF talks about many war fronts in “Omniwar.” She does a deep dive on the ever-increasing control grid. Writer David Hughs (PhD) describes the phenomenon of “Omniwar” as “a war in every conceivable domain by a transnational ruling class against the rest of humanity.” They uncover how evil forces are “targeting your brain.” CAF shows how humans are being reengineered with “synthetic biology.” CAF encourages people and shows them how freedom “starts with one person at a time.” These are just a few of the Omniwar fronts. CAF shows you how to fight back too with an “action check list.” In closing, CAF points out why she is still bullish on gold. CAF says, “One of the reasons I am bullish on gold is what the Trump Administration is going to do with Stablecoins. . .. they will have a lot of the big banks and other companies working on creating subsidiaries to issue Stablecoins.

This is very much like a CBDC (central bank digital currency) but more dangerous. . .. the first goal of Stablecoin is to get people not using the dollar on to the dollar. . . . I think there are going to be a lot of countries with big debt problems to switch to the dollar. The goal is to build a vast new market for Treasuries. There is going to be an explosion or tsunami of Stablecoin along with credit. That could be one of the biggest hyperinflationary events in the world. This could give a whole new meaning to ‘helicopter money’ because it’s going to be global. Think of the Iraqi pallets of cash. This is the Iraqi pallets of cash in digital form. We are just going to spread dollars all around the world. This could give another 10-15 years to the dollar as the reserve currency. . .. Real assets are going to shine. That means gold, and that means silver. . .. There is a big push to monetize gold.”

Read more …

“The CIA’s internal review torches John Brennan for prioritizing “narrative consistency over analytical soundness” when pushing to include the Steele dossier in the 2017 [ICA]..”

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

Former Obama CIA Director John Brennan and disgraced ex-FBI chief James Comey are now officially under criminal investigation for their roles in the Trump–Russia hoax. According to Justice Department sources who spoke with Fox News Digital, both men are being investigated for potential crimes—including allegedly lying to Congress—stemming from their involvement in one of the most dishonest political smear campaigns in modern history. The case was reportedly kicked into gear by CIA Director John Ratcliffe, who referred evidence of Brennan’s misconduct directly to FBI Director Kash Patel for potential prosecution. That referral has now escalated into a full-blown criminal probe—something that should have happened years ago.

For Americans who watched the Russia collusion narrative unravel in real time, this is long overdue accountability. Brennan and Comey weaponized their positions to wage a political vendetta against Donald Trump, and now, they may finally face justice for it. Sources confirmed to Fox News Digital that the referral was received and that a criminal investigation into John Brennan is now officially underway. While DOJ officials declined to go into specifics, the probe reportedly centers on Brennan’s apparent false statements to Congress—though it’s unclear if that’s the full extent of the investigation. The DOJ sources also confirmed that Comey is under investigation, but remained tight-lipped about the exact nature of the probe. Given Comey’s track record of political maneuvering and abuse of power, there’s no shortage of potential misconduct to examine.

What is clear, however, is that both men—once hailed by the media as guardians of democracy—are now facing the very kind of scrutiny they once weaponized against others. The full scope of the criminal investigations into Brennan and Comey is unclear, but two sources described the FBI’s view of the duo’s interactions as a “conspiracy,” which could open up a wide range of potential prosecutorial options. The Brennan investigation comes after Ratcliffe last week declassified a “lessons learned” review of the creation of the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA). The 2017 ICA alleged Russia sought to influence the 2016 presidential election to help then-candidate Donald Trump. But the review found that the process of the ICA’s creation was rushed with “procedural anomalies,” and that officials diverted from intelligence standards.

The review concluded that top intelligence officials broke with standard protocol when they insisted on including the discredited Steele Dossier in the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA)—a move that “ran counter to fundamental tradecraft principles and ultimately undermined the credibility of a key judgment.” The Steele dossier, of course, was nothing more than an opposition-research hit job packed with unverified and flat-out false claims about Donald Trump. It was funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC through Fusion GPS, and has since been thoroughly discredited. But that didn’t stop Obama-era political appointees from jamming it into the ICA anyway—something career CIA officials are now, for the first time, admitting was politically motivated.

Declassified records from that review confirmed that it was John Brennan who actively pushed for the dossier’s inclusion. Yet in a 2023 appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, Brennan claimed he didn’t believe the dossier belonged in the ICA. Ratcliffe was not surprised by the review’s findings, a source familiar told Fox News Digital, given the director’s long history of criticizing Brennan’s politicization of intelligence. But Ratcliffe was compelled to refer aspects of Brennan’s involvement to the FBI for review of possible criminality, the source said. The source was unable to share the sensitive details of Ratcliffe’s criminal referral to the FBI with Fox News Digital, but said that Brennan “violated the public’s trust and should be held accountable for it.”

The false statements portion of the probe stems from a newly declassified email sent to Brennan by the former deputy CIA director in December 2016. That message said that including the dossier in the ICA in any capacity jeopardized “the credibility of the entire paper.” The CIA’s internal review torches John Brennan for prioritizing “narrative consistency over analytical soundness” when pushing to include the Steele dossier in the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. Despite warnings from seasoned CIA officials who flagged serious flaws in the dossier, Brennan favored its alignment with preexisting anti-Trump theories and formally recommended its inclusion.

But when he testified before Congress in May 2023, Brennan told a very different story—claiming the CIA opposed including the dossier and treated it as separate from the main assessment. In other words, Brennan’s public testimony directly contradicts his own written position at the time. Credit goes to John Ratcliffe and Kash Patel for doing what others wouldn’t—taking real steps to hold Brennan and Comey accountable. While the media once hailed them as heroes, these men weaponized their power to target a sitting president. This isn’t just about the past—it’s about restoring integrity to institutions that were shamelessly politicized. It’s long overdue, but at last, accountability is on the table.

Read more …

”..Judge Indira Talwani, sitting on the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, decided that Congress—yes, Congress—doesn’t actually get to decide how taxpayer money is spent..”

• Obama Judge Blocks Defunding of Planned Parenthood in OBBB (Margolis)

It’s almost impossible to overstate the sheer audacity of what’s just happened in Massachusetts. In a move that defies both logic and the very foundation of our constitutional order, an Obama-appointed judge has swooped in to protect Planned Parenthood from the will of the American people as expressed through their elected representatives. Judge Indira Talwani, sitting on the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, decided that Congress—yes, Congress—doesn’t actually get to decide how taxpayer money is spent, at least not when it comes to the Left’s sacred cow. Let’s be clear: This wasn’t a rogue executive order or some bureaucratic sleight of hand. Congress passed a law. The people’s representatives, accountable to voters, made a decision to defund Planned Parenthood as part of the One Big, Beautiful Bill.

That’s how our system is supposed to work. If you don’t like it, you organize, you vote, you persuade your fellow citizens and change the law. That’s democracy. But apparently, that’s not good enough for the activist bench. Instead, Judge Talwani issued a temporary restraining order, telling the executive branch not to enforce the law. Not because the law was found unconstitutional or even legally questionable—no, the judge didn’t bother to offer any real legal reasoning at all. The ruling simply halted the will of Congress in its tracks, leaving Americans and even seasoned legal professionals scratching their heads. How does a judge order the executive branch to ignore a duly-enacted statute without first declaring that statute invalid? On what grounds?

This isn’t just a technicality. It’s a direct assault on the separation of powers and the legitimacy of our system. If judges can simply override Congress whenever they don’t like the outcome, what’s the point of elections? Why bother sending representatives to Washington if their decisions can be nullified on a whim by an unelected judge with a political axe to grind? Even those who despise Donald Trump and support abortion rights should be outraged. Every time a judge pulls a stunt like this, it chips away at the credibility of the courts and the very idea of self-government. If the courts can simply invent new rights for their political allies while ignoring the plain text of the law, we’re not living in a constitutional republic anymore—we’re living under the rule of lawyers.

“These radical leftwing Democrat rogue judges will not stop as they burn through the Constitution and defy the Supreme Court,” Mark Levin said, reacting to the news on X. “This Obama fraud has blocked the defunding of Planned Parenthood in the budget bill just passed by Congress and signed by the President. Under what authority does this judge, whose very job was created by Congress and whose jurisdiction was granted by Congress, have the power to do this? NONE!” The judiciary was never meant to be a tool of the Left, weaponized to override the will of the people. If courts can no longer be trusted to uphold the Constitution over ideology, then it’s time to consider serious consequences—up to and including impeachment. The American people deserve better, and the stakes are too high to let this stand.

Read more …

Lawfare articles galore today. Are all the courts closing for the summer holiday?

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

The Supreme Court Tuesday stayed a district judge’s injunction blocking President Donald Trump from carrying out a “critical transformation of the federal bureaucracy.” Trump signed Executive Order 14210 on Feb. 11, implementing the Department of Government Efficiency Workforce Optimization Initiative. On Feb. 26, Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought and Office of Personnel Management acting Director Charles Ezell sent a memorandum applying the order. The American Federation of Government Employees, the largest federal government employee union, and other unions filed suit to block the order, and U.S. District Judge Susan Illston issued a preliminary injunction blocking the order on May 22. The Supreme Court explained that Illston blocked the actions “based on [her] view” that the order and the memo “are unlawful.”

Yet the Supreme Court ruled that Trump’s administration “is likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful.” The Supreme Court expressed no opinion on the legality of any agency reduction in force and reorganization plan produced pursuant to the order and the memo. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an appointee of President Barack Obama, wrote a brief concurrence with the order. “I agree with [Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson] that the president cannot restructure federal agencies in a manner inconsistent with congressional mandates,” Sotomayor wrote. “Here, however, the relevant executive order directs agencies to plan reorganizations and reductions in force ‘consistent with applicable law,’ and the resulting joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and Office of Personnel Management reiterates as much.”

“The plans themselves are not before this court, at this stage, and we thus have no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law,” the justice added. “I join the court’s stay because it leaves the district court free to consider those questions in the first instance.” Many of the same groups that staffed and advised the Biden administration (which I expose in “The Woketopus: The Dark Money Cabal Manipulating the Federal Government”) have filed lawsuits to block Trump’s policies, choosing jurisdictions with more friendly judges in order to secure injunctions.

The Supreme Court has recently reined in federal judges. After activist groups sued the Trump administration to block various policies, judges issued temporary injunctions preventing the administration from acting against anyone, not just against the people who filed the lawsuit. In Trump v. CASA, the Supreme Court ruled that these nationwide injunctions violate the law that established the courts in the first place.

Last month, Massachusetts-based District Judge Brian Murphy openly defied the court. He had issued a temporary injunction on April 18, blocking the Trump administration from deporting illegal aliens to South Sudan. He issued a follow-up order on May 21, clarifying and enforcing the injunction. The Supreme Court struck down his April 18 order on June 23, but he issued another order that same day, stating that the May 21 order remained in effect. On Thursday, the court issued an order clarifying that the May 21 order “cannot now be used to enforce an injunction that our stay rendered unenforceable.” Even Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee, wrote of that opinion, “I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this court has stayed.”

The DOGE Order. Trump’s Feb. 11 executive order fleshed out how DOGE—a temporary federal initiative to root out waste, fraud, and abuse that will wrap up its activity by July 4, 2026—will help streamline the government. The order instructs the director of the Office of Management and Budget to submit a plan to reduce the size of the federal workforce, requiring that each agency “hire no more than one employee for every four employees that depart.” The order will not block the hiring freeze at the Internal Revenue Service and it will not apply to the military, law enforcement, and border enforcement agencies. According to the order, each federal agency will receive a DOGE team lead, who will help each agency draft a “data-driven plan” to ensure that new career hires “are in highest-need areas.” The DOGE team lead will have the authority to block agencies from filling any vacancies, unless the agency head disagrees.

Also, according to the order: “All offices that perform functions not mandated by statute or other law shall be prioritized” for reductions in force, “including all agency diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives,” among others. Trump has directed the federal government to minimize DEI efforts, as they encourage discrimination on the basis of skin color, urging people to judge others based on appearance rather than merit. The order also instructs the director of the Office of Personnel Management to tighten the requirements for federal employees, barring applicants who failed to comply with generally applicable legal obligations; those who lack appropriate citizenship status; those who refuse to follow nondisclosure agreements; and those involved in the theft or misuse of government resources or equipment. “By eliminating waste, bloat, and insularity, my administration will empower American families, workers, taxpayers, and our system of government itself,” the order states.

Read more …

“..Murphy is bound by the prior order and cannot “enforce an injunction that our stay rendered unenforceable.”

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

In polite but firm judicial language, the Supreme Court made it clear on July 3 that Massachusetts federal district court Judge Brian Murphy wouldn’t get away with dodging the stay the court had issued against him in an important immigration case. According to the court, Murphy is bound by the prior order and cannot “enforce an injunction that our stay rendered unenforceable.” Murphy’s misbehavior comes as no surprise given that he’s one of President Joe Biden’s “Midnight” judges. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., rushed him through the Senate during its lame-duck session after the 2024 election, with Murphy’s nomination barely confirmed on Dec. 2 by a 47-45 vote. Even Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, arguably the most liberal Republican in the Senate, voted against Murphy because he is so radical.

The case in question involved a preliminary injunction issued by Murphy preventing the removal of criminal illegal aliens to third-world countries—in this case, South Sudan. On June 23, the Supreme Court granted the U.S. Justice Department’s emergency request for a stay in Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. The court’s order, issued over the entirely predictable and banal dissent of Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, stayed Murphy’s April 18 injunction, “pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought.” Even a first-year law student would understand that meant that Murphy could no longer enforce his injunction or take any actions to stop the government from removing deportable illegal aliens to third countries. But apparently not Brian Murphy.

As the Justice Department wrote in a motion filed the very next day, Murphy issued an order just hours after the Supreme Court’s order, stating that his related ruling enforcing the injunction “remains in full force and effect … not withstanding todays[sic] stay of the Preliminary Injunction.” The “related ruling” was a second order Murphy issued on May 21 that clarified the April 18 injunction order and remedied what Murphy claimed were supposed “violations” of his April 18 injunction by the government in attempting to remove criminal aliens to South Sudan. Murphy claimed the Supreme Court’s stay applied to his April 18 order but didn’t apply to his May 21 order, and that the government could still not move any aliens to South Sudan.

The Justice Department’s motion called Murphy’s action an “unprecedented defiance of this Court’s authority.” This, the government continued, is a “lawless act of defiance that, once again, disrupts sensitive diplomatic relations and slams the brakes on the Executive’s lawful efforts to effectuate third-country removals.” When an appellate court stays an injunction, the DOJ pointed out, the injunction cannot be enforced because the court that issued it has been divested of its judicial authority to enforce that order. But Murphy simply ignored that and told the government it had to comply with his injunction. Murphy’s misconduct was the equivalent of the Wizard of Oz telling Dorothy, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!” In this case, the man behind the curtain was the Supreme Court.

In response to the Justice Department’s motion for clarification, the man behind the curtain (the Supreme Court) issued the July 3 order, reiterating that it meant what it had said and that Murphy’s power to enforce his injunction is null and void. The Justice Department also asked the Supreme Court to consider taking two other actions: • Directing Murphy “not to issue further injunctions in this case without first obtaining pre-clearance from this Court” or
•“ordering that the case be reassigned to a different judge.” Either action would have been appropriate given Murphy’s misconduct, but the court declined both. But that declination was based on the Supreme Court “‘assuming as we do’ that the District Court will now conform its order to our previous stay and cease enforcing the April 18 injunction through the May 21 remedial order.”

Based on that assumption, the court said that “we have no occasion to reach the Government’s other requests for relief.” In other words, the court is assuming that Murphy will now quit defying the Supreme Court. As one would expect, both Sotomayor and Jackson issued a defiant dissent—which the majority dismissed, despite its “provocative language,” since “a claim that a lower court has failed to give effect to an order of this Court is properly addressed here.” Interestingly, Kagan did not join that dissent, even though she had dissented from the court’s original grant of the stay. Instead, she concurred in this “clarification,” stating that while she would have denied the original request for the stay, she could “not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this Court has stayed.”

One final note on the substantive merits of this case. In issuing his injunction, Murphy misinterpreted the applicable immigration statute, ignoring language specifically giving the government the ability to “disregard” the request of an illegal alien to be returned to his native country when it is “impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible” or when it would be “prejudicial to the United States.” Making that determination remains totally within the discretion of the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and there is no provision for it to be second-guessed by a judicial ideologue. And who are the criminal aliens that Sotomayor and her cohorts are so intent on protecting in this case? They’re aliens convicted of homicide, armed robbery, assault, kidnapping, battery, larceny, drug trafficking, and sexual assault, including of children. Those are the new heroes of the Left.

Read more …

$35 billion. Most of it never used.

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

Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) CEO Kirill Dmitriev, who is also the Russian special presidential envoy for investment and economic cooperation with foreign countries, believes that European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is hiding the truth about the EU’s purchase of coronavirus vaccines. In late June, Financial Times reported that a number of members of the European Parliament were initiating a vote of no confidence in the head of the European Commission due to the scandal surrounding the purchase of coronavirus vaccines during the pandemic. On Monday, a debate on a vote of no confidence in the head of the European Commission was held at the plenary session of the EP in Strasbourg. The vote on this issue will take place on Thursday.

“Pfizergate is Real. Hidden Pfizer texts? Real. €4 billion in destroyed unnecessary vaccines? Real. The coverup? Also real. Just facts. @vonderleyen hides the truth,” Dmitriev said on X. Earlier, media reported that the entire European Commission would be forced to resign if a vote of no confidence was passed against von der Leyen. It was noted that at this stage, the vote was mainly “symbolic” in nature, since the majority of EU parliamentarians had already made it clear that they would not support the vote of no confidence. At the same time, the initiative with the vote itself, according to media reports, underscores the growing dissatisfaction with von der Leyen in Brussels after a series of “contradictory actions and scandals.”

The EU Court of Justice in Luxembourg previously ruled that the European Commission had committed violations in the procurement of coronavirus vaccines in 2020 and 2021 by blocking public access to information on drug prices, and also failing to prove the absence of a conflict of interest in making such purchases.

In 2021, the New York Times reported that von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla discussed the largest vaccine purchase contract in the history of the European Union in a text message exchange. Von der Leyen was already suspected of directly influencing the negotiation process; the scandal in the media was called “Pfizergate.” The total value of the deal could have reached 35 billion euros, and the 1.8 billion doses purchased significantly exceeded the needs of EU residents. Von der Leyen was called for the contents of the correspondence to be published, but the European Commission refused to make it public in June 2022.

https://twitter.com/AndersonAfDMdEP/status/1942509210505523627

Read more …

The unelected Ursula calls the dozens of elected MEPs who want the motion “conspiracy theorists” and “extremists”. AND: “..there is ample proof that many are supported by our enemies and by their puppet masters in Russia or elsewhere.”

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

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has dismissed efforts by members of the European Parliament to oust her, branding her critics “conspiracy theorists” and accusing them of acting on behalf of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Von der Leyen is facing a parliamentary motion of no-confidence in her presidency, which is scheduled for a vote on Thursday after being tabled by Romanian MEP Gheorghe Piperea. Addressing the parliament during a debate on Monday, von der Leyen said those backing the proposal were following “the oldest playbook of extremists” and were attempting to undermine public confidence in the EU with “false claims.” “There is no proof that they have any answers, but there is ample proof that many are supported by our enemies and by their puppet masters in Russia or elsewhere.”

“These are movements fueled by conspiracies, from anti-vaxxers to Putin apologists. And you only have to look at some of the signatories of this motion to understand what I mean.” In his remarks to parliament, Piperea accused the Commission of centralizing decision-making in a non-democratic fashion and of interfering in the internal affairs of member states. Russian officials have claimed that EU leaders are using fear tactics to shield themselves from criticism. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov dubbed von der Leyen, who is German, a “fuhrer” for her efforts to push a multi-billion euro militarization program on member states. Russia maintains that unlike Western states it does not interfere with other nations’ domestic affairs.

Von der Leyen urged “all the pro-Europeans, pro-democracy forces” in the chamber to support her agenda, arguing that unity was essential to uphold the EU’s foreign policy strength. Criticism of von der Leyen’s leadership has centered on her handling of the EU’s Covid-19 response during her first term, particularly the lack of transparency in finalizing a 2021 vaccine procurement deal with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla. Earlier this year, the European Court of Justice found her office at fault for failing to retain text messages exchanged with Bourla and for refusing to release them to journalists with adequate justification.

Piperea is a member of Romania’s AUR party, led by George Simion, who narrowly lost a presidential runoff this year to a pro-EU candidate. The election followed a scrapped first-round vote earlier in 2024, in which outsider Calin Georgescu emerged as the frontrunner. The country’s Constitutional Court annulled the results, citing government allegations of Russian interference. Critics of the EU claim the episode reflects a broader anti-democratic trend allegedly enabled by Brussels.

Read more …

Can we also stop Bill Gates fom buying farmland? That would help.

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

Senior Trump administration officials announced a plan Tuesday to protect U.S. farmland from Chinese ownership and other threats to American agricultural resources. “Every family, every home, every community depends upon what our farmers do, and they support and sustain us, not merely by keeping us materially fed, but by keeping us spiritually strong,” Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said at a press conference. “The farm’s produce is not just a commodity, it is a way of life that underpins America itself, and that’s exactly why it is under threat from criminals, from political adversaries, and from hostile regimes that understand our way of life as a profound and existential threat to themselves.” The new plan seeks to secure U.S. farmland from adversaries like China, ensure a strong supply chain, and protect American agricultural research security – especially after recent attempts by Chinese researchers to smuggle deadly plant pathogens into the United States.

In response to this vulnerability, Rollins said that she had terminated contracts or research arrangements between the U.S. Department of Agriculture and 70 scientists who are citizens from countries of concern, like China. Last month, two Chinese nationals working in a university laboratory in Michigan were charged for attempting to smuggle a fungus called Fusarium graminearum into the United States in 2024, Just the News reported. The fungus is classified in the scientific literature as a “potential agroterrorism weapon” because it affects wheat, barley, maize, and rice by causing “head blight,” according to the Justice Department. A Just the News investigation found that these scientists were working for researchers at the laboratory who were receiving funding from the federal government.

She also said that her department “canceled seven active agreements with entities in foreign countries of concern.” Rollins’ announcement follows years of growing concerns about Chinese ownership of U.S. farmland and the potential threats to national security, including to the food supply chain. Some lawmakers have also raised concerns about the proximity of Chinese-owned land to military bases and sensitive installations.

In recent years, foreign countries, including China, have increased their purchases of American land. In 2023 the federal government assessed that foreign parties held more than 43.4 million acres, of which 48% was forest land, 28% cropland, 21% pasture and other agricultural land, and 2% non-agricultural land. In response, several states passed legislation targeted at Chinese-owned farmland. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis championed a law banning citizens from foreign countries of corners—like China, Russia, and Iran—from owning farmland in the state.

Read more …

“The United States cannot afford to continue down the unstable and dangerous path of energy subtraction previous leaders pursued, forcing the closure of baseload power sources like coal and natural gas..”

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

The planned retirement of more than 100 gigawatts (GW) of power generation capacity by the end of the decade could increase the risk of blackouts in the United States by 100 times, the Department of Energy (DOE) said in a July 7 statement. “Allowing 104 GW of firm generation to retire by 2030—without timely replacement—could lead to significant outages when weather conditions do not accommodate wind and solar generation,” the DOE said. “Modeling shows annual outage hours could increase from single digits today to more than 800 hours per year. Such a surge would leave millions of households and businesses vulnerable. We must renew a focus on firm generation and continue to reverse radical green ideology in order to address this risk.”

Firm power generation refers to power that can be generated at all times and includes coal, natural gas, and nuclear. This is in contrast to intermittent power sources such as wind and solar, which are dependent on factors such as weather. The warning is part of the DOE’s report, titled “Evaluating the Reliability and Security of the United States Electric Grid,” which criticizes the “radical green agenda of past administrations” for existing generation retirements and delays in adding new firm power generation capacities, according to the statement. This will lead to a “growing mismatch” between electricity demand and supply, caused especially by demand from data center growth driven by artificial intelligence (AI), the DOE said in the statement.

If the current schedule of planned retirements and incremental power additions remains unchanged, the country’s electric grid will be “unable to meet expected demand for AI, data centers, manufacturing and industrialization while keeping the cost of living low for all Americans,” the agency said in the statement. Continuing on the present course will undermine the United States’ economic growth, leadership in new technologies, and national security, the DOE said. While the 104 GW in retirements are set to be replaced by 209 GW of new power generation by 2030, only 22 GW of these replacements are set to be firm generation, according to the department.

“The United States cannot afford to continue down the unstable and dangerous path of energy subtraction previous leaders pursued, forcing the closure of baseload power sources like coal and natural gas,” Secretary of Energy Chris Wright said in the statement. “In the coming years, America’s reindustrialization and the AI race will require a significantly larger supply of around-the-clock, reliable, and uninterrupted power. President [Donald] Trump’s administration is committed to advancing a strategy of energy addition, and supporting all forms of energy that are affordable, reliable, and secure.” The DOE report is a response to Trump’s April 8 executive order calling for strengthening the reliability and security of the United States’ power grid.

To ensure reliable electric generation in the country and meet the growing demand for electricity, the United States’ power grid “must utilize all available power generation resources, particularly those secure, redundant fuel supplies that are capable of extended operations,” the order states. The DOE issued its warning following a May report from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, which cautioned that parts of the United States could struggle to meet electricity demand this summer. The corporation’s report cited intermittent energy sources, such as solar and wind, as posing a potential risk to the reliability of the power supply. The DOE report on grid reliability came out on the same day that Trump signed an executive order directing his administration to end “market distorting subsidies for unreliable, foreign controlled energy sources.”

The order directs the Treasury secretary to terminate clean electricity production and investment tax credits granted to solar and wind facilities, the White House said in a July 7 fact sheet. It also directs the Interior secretary to revise rules to eliminate preferential treatment given to these facilities compared with dispatchable, firm power generation sources. “Unreliable wind and solar energy sources displace affordable, dispatchable energy, compromise America’s electric grid, and denigrate the beauty of our Nation’s natural landscape,” the fact sheet states. “Reliance on so-called ‘green’ subsidies threatens national security by making the United States dependent on supply chains controlled by foreign adversaries.”

Some renewable energy policies are already on the chopping block after Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law on July 4. The bill terminates multiple clean energy tax credits established under the Inflation Reduction Act signed by former President Joe Biden, with some cuts taking effect as early as this year. The electric vehicle tax credit is now scheduled to be terminated by the end of September. Tax credits for clean energy projects will only be available if the projects are operational by Dec. 31, 2027, or Jan. 1, 2028.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Andromeda

Kaieteur
https://twitter.com/gunsnrosesgirl3/status/1942473923058119043

Elon
https://twitter.com/ShawnRyanShow/status/1942260072966390073

Ruidoso
https://twitter.com/rawsalerts/status/1942718815483158872

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle May 15 2025

May 152025
 
 May 15, 2025  Posted by at 9:16 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , ,  41 Responses »


Kazemir Malevich Floor polishers 1912

 

• Why China Will Win The Arms Race (Wolfgang Münchau)
• Russian Delegation Will Be Waiting For Ukrainians In Istanbul – Kremlin (RT)
• Zelensky Claims Ban On Russia Talks Doesn’t Apply To Him (RT)
• Zelensky’s Regime Only Stable When At War – Former Senior UN Official (RT)
• Rubio and Witkoff Will Travel To Istanbul On Friday – Reuters (RT)
• Trump Envoy Kellogg Reveals NATO Troop Deployment Plans For Ukraine (RT)
• US Opposes Zelensky Attendance At NATO Summit (RT)
• The Unraveling of The Old World Order And The Role of Russia (Bordachev)
• Russia Doesn’t Need Western Approval To Shape Global History (Lukyanov)
• Trump Shocks the World – Again (Spencer)
• Qatar Commits To “Largest Order Of Jets In The History Of Boeing” (NYP)
• Every Anti-Trump Economic Narrative Is Collapsing (Margolis)
• Trump Economy Defies ‘Gloom And Doom’ Expectations (Whedon)
• Federal Judge Says Trump’s Invocation of Alien Enemies Act Was Legal (ET)
• Average Americans Poised for Double-Digit Tax Cuts In 2027 (ZH)
• Court Rules On Von Der Leyen’s Secret Covid Vaccine Deal Messages (RT)
• Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer Signed Oath to Conceal COVID Info (YN)
• A New False Tribunal Is In The Making (Stephen Karganovic)

 

 

 

 

Tulsi

Assange

1940

Alex

“Russia. Kremlin. Putin. 25 years”

Tucker Carlson interviews Ed Martin

 

 

 

 

“..a swarm of AI-powered drones..”

• Why China Will Win The Arms Race (Wolfgang Münchau)

When Donald Trump visits the Middle East this week, he will bump into some familiar people. Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Fink and Sam Altman will also be in Riyadh. I doubt they will spend much time talking about Gaza, or Iran. They are all there for the same reason: to talk about AI. The stock markets have currently put a high price on these tech companies. But AI is also commanding a high price from America’s foreign and security policy community: it will change the nature of warfare more profoundly than any other innovation we have experienced in our lifetimes. Ronald Reagan’s infamous Strategy Defence Initiative, also known as Star Wars, failed because the old technology could not deliver the precision that was needed. But AI could make it a reality and America’s concern is that China might get there first.

But America also worries that they are leading the charge with AI-powered drones. We think of drones as modern, but those used in the Russia-Ukraine war still need an operator. Imagine, then, if one side had AI-powered drones at their disposal? The West and Nato may be comfortable in their current — swiftly dating — military capabilities. But AI warfare is a completely new game. And China is already forging ahead in the two areas that will prove critical. The first is the supply of energy — which is vital to power large AI data centres. The West should be concerned by the sheer scale of the expansion of China’s energy capacity. China has a renewable capacity target of 2,461 gigawatts by 2030. The corresponding numbers for the EU and US are respectively 1,100 and 500 gigawatts.

For the Chinese, the heavy lifting will come from renewable sources, such as the world’s largest hydropower plant in Tibet, which will have an energy capacity roughly the size of Germany’s capacity today. Just from one single dam. This dam is not even included in China’s target number. AI is furiously energy-hungry. As the car industry has only recently found out, the electric car is not just an evolution — it is a different product. The same applies to anything reliant on AI. Germany’s Rheinmetall is a formidable producer of ammunition and tanks. They make the best tanks in the world. But they are old-school — the heavy-metal version of defence manufacturing. You don’t want to be in one of them when being attacked by a swarm of AI-powered drones.

And so, as China marches ahead, Europe’s absurd data protection regulations and AI regulation effectively criminalise the 21st century’s most important evolving business sector. The Financial Times reported that British soldiers were prevented from using signal jamming on the grounds that it violated GDPR. Europeans have, in general, no idea what damage they are inflicting upon themselves with their absurd data protection obsession. And no clue what it does to their security. In the gilded foreign policy salons of Europe’s capitals, you will not hear much about AI-drones, or satellite-based AI-missiles systems. It is as though AI has yet to be invented in the Western foreign policy universe.

China, meanwhile, has more energy than we do, puts serious money into AI, and is not regulating itself to death. Take 5G. While we Europeans struggle with it, the Chinese are already developing 6G — the technology which is needed to handle the communications for next generation manufacturing. This is the second critical area in which China is excelling: high-tech manufacturing. In the US and the UK, the prevailing view is that sophisticated countries should move into services and leave the shop-floor economy to upstarts like China. This is a story we have been telling ourselves for too long. And it is one that economists, in particular, don’t understand.

They think it is more efficient to let China do all the manufacturing, for the US to specialise in high tech and finance, and to let Europe be a museum. They are simultaneously oblivious to those voters who want real jobs, to the nature of 21st-century manufacturing, and to security concerns. The irony here is that the US understands the AI-service economy like no one else. And it still just about leads the world in research. But China has been able to catch up because all the new technology is open-source. As an anonymous employee at Google candidly admitted: “We have no moat, and neither does OpenAI.” Nor does the US. This is not a world of secret algorithms, or of industrial patents. The costs of entry are low — all you need is a bunch of desktop computers with a good graphics card. Anyone can join in. In the old world, the technology leadership meant that the US was years ahead of the competition. No more.

Read more …

They should have arrived as I write this. Wonder what they talk about 🙂

• Russian Delegation Will Be Waiting For Ukrainians In Istanbul – Kremlin (RT)

Moscow will be sending a delegation for direct talks with Ukraine in Istanbul on Thursday and expects Kiev to do the same, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said. On Sunday, Russian President Vladimir Putin offered to resume direct negotiations between Moscow and Kiev to find a lasting settlement to the conflict between the two countries. After his proposal was supported by US President Donald Trump, Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky, who had previously ruled out any talks with Moscow, also expressed his readiness. Kiev earlier stated that the only official Zelensky would talk to is Putin. The Russian president has so far made no indication that he is planning to travel to Istanbul.

When asked by journalists on Wednesday if the talks in Türkiye were still on the cards, Peskov replied by saying: “Indeed, the Russian delegation will be waiting for the Ukrainian delegation in Istanbul on Thursday, May 15, that is – tomorrow.” “I can confirm once again that everything that the president said in his statement on May 11… remains relevant,” he stressed. Peskov declined to reveal the lineup of the Russian delegation that will travel to Istanbul. It will be announced “when we receive instructions from the president. So far, there have been no such instructions,” he explained.

On Tuesday, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said that, during potential talks, Moscow wants to discuss “a sustainable settlement of the situation, first of all, by addressing the very roots of this conflict, resolving issues related to the denazification of the Kiev regime, ensuring recognition of the realities that have developed recently, including the entry of new territories into Russia.” Ryabkov refrained from making any forecasts on the outcome of discussions, but stressed that Moscow is committed to negotiating “seriously and responsibly.”

Read more …

“The Ukrainian Constitution bars elections during wartime and requires that presidential authority pass to the speaker of parliament if no legal successor is chosen..”

• Zelensky Claims Ban On Russia Talks Doesn’t Apply To Him (RT)

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has claimed that a law he signed banning negotiations with Russia does not apply to him personally, after calling for a direct meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Zelensky intends to travel to Türkiye later this week, where direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine are expected to resume for the first time since Kiev suspended talks in 2022. He has insisted that Putin must attend the talks in person to prove that Moscow has a genuine interest in peace. Speaking at a press conference on Tuesday, Zelensky rejected claims that his outreach contradicts Ukrainian law. A September 2022 decree, endorsed by Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council and signed by Zelensky, prohibits negotiations with Russia while Putin remains in office. The law was introduced as Kiev pursued a military victory in the conflict.

”It’s a Russian narrative that I cannot speak with Putin,” Zelensky said. “Nobody but me can conduct negotiations on sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, on our course.” Zelensky claimed in January that the ban was intended to prevent unauthorized negotiations by other Ukrainian officials, particularly to curb separatist influences and “shadow” negotiation channels. Russian officials have pointed to the law as evidence that Kiev is unwilling to engage diplomatically. The Ukrainian Constitution bars elections during wartime and requires that presidential authority pass to the speaker of parliament if no legal successor is chosen. Zelensky’s presidential term expired last year, yet he remains in power, dismissing opponents as Kremlin sympathizers for questioning his legitimacy.

Moscow has described Zelensky’s political status as an internal Ukrainian matter but cautioned that any treaties he signs could be challenged for lacking legitimacy. US President Donald Trump, whose administration has offered to broker a peace deal between Kiev and Moscow, has described Zelensky as “a dictator without elections.” The US has conducted multiple rounds of talks with Moscow and Kiev, promoting trust-building measures such as a 30-day moratorium on strikes against energy infrastructure. Russia says its forces adhered fully to the plan, while accusing Ukraine of violating the partial ceasefire multiple times. US officials have called direct talks the next logical step in the Ukraine peace process. Senior American negotiators will reportedly observe the meeting in Istanbul. Kiev has urged its Western supporters to impose additional sanctions on Russia, should Putin decline to attend. Moscow has yet to confirm its delegation.

Read more …

Interesting view.

“..should a peace accord be reached during the negotiations, “I don’t know how long the Zelensky regime will [last]. It may fall apart.”

• Zelensky’s Regime Only Stable When At War – Former Senior UN Official (RT)

Vladimir Zelensky’s regime enjoys relative stability only because of the conflict with Russia, and so may be reluctant to seal a peace agreement with Moscow, former director-general of the United Nations Office at Geneva, Sergey Ordzhonikidze, has told RT. The untrustworthiness of the Ukrainian leadership will loom large for the Russian delegation during an expected meeting in Istanbul, Türkiye, on Thursday, the veteran diplomat predicted on Tuesday. The talks were originally proposed last week by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who offered to resume direct negotiations between Moscow and Kiev without any preconditions to reach a lasting settlement to the Ukraine conflict.

Zelensky has expressed his readiness to engage in dialogue with the Russian side, but has insisted that it be preceded by an unconditional 30-day ceasefire – a demand Moscow has repeatedly rejected. Zelensky has also said that he would only come to the meeting in Istanbul if Putin attends in person. Ordzhonikidze told RT that should a peace accord be reached during the negotiations, “I don’t know how long the Zelensky regime will [last]. It may fall apart.” “He obviously will have many internal problems because… he has some Nazi, fascist organizations that would [convict] him of betrayal,” he predicted, claiming that “it’s not a stable regime in the sense that it can be stable only during war.” The seasoned Russian diplomat also predicted that once Western leaders see Zelensky as a liability, they will get rid of him without a second thought.

History shows that months and in some cases even years of “homework” have underpinned successful negotiations. While overnight breakthroughs have also happened, much is determined by the level of trust between the parties concerned, Ordzhonikidze stressed. Ukrainian authorities have a poor track record in this respect, he told RT, citing the 2014-2015 Minsk agreements, which were supposed to grant Donetsk and Lugansk regions special status within the Ukrainian state, but were never implemented. ”Obviously, we need a country that would act like a… guarantor of the… possible agreement, if any at all,” Ordzhonikidze stated, noting that even if some nation, most likely the US, assumes the role, there is not much room for optimism as to whether Kiev would honor any agreement.

Read more …

“The first direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine in more than three years..”

• Rubio and Witkoff Will Travel To Istanbul On Friday – Reuters (RT)

US President Donald Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff has said he and Secretary of State Marco Rubio will travel to Istanbul on Friday, according to Reuters. Earlier this week, Trump announced that US officials would take part in the upcoming talks on the Ukraine conflict. The first direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine in more than three years are set to take place in the Turkish city on May 15. On Sunday, Russian President Vladimir Putin offered to resume dialogue to find a lasting settlement to the ongoing conflict that would address its root causes. Witkoff made the remarks on Wednesday while speaking to reporters in Doha, where he and Rubio are accompanying Trump on a state visit to Qatar as part of a broader Middle East trip.

Trump said on Tuesday that Rubio and other US officials would join the talks in Istanbul. A White House spokesman later clarified to reporters that Rubio, Witkoff and US Special Envoy for Ukraine Keith Kellogg would attend the negotiations. Trump, who had previously suggested he might attend in person, told reporters aboard Air Force One en route to Qatar that his schedule would not allow it. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Moscow would be sending a delegation and expected Ukraine to do the same. Kiev stated previously that Vladimir Zelensky would only talk directly to the Russian president. On Wednesday evening, the Kremlin named its delegation for the talks, to be led by presidential aide Vladimir Medinsky, who also headed the Russian side during negotiations in Istanbul in 2022.

Read more …

Kellogg’s an fool. Dump him. “Russia has rejected the presence of NATO troops in Ukraine in any form..” And look at what Kellogg talks about: NATO troops in Ukraine. He’s like the anti-Witkoff.

• Trump Envoy Kellogg Reveals NATO Troop Deployment Plans For Ukraine (RT)

Washington is in talks with its European NATO allies about deploying military contingents to Ukraine as part of a possible post-conflict settlement, US President Donald Trump’s special envoy, Keith Kellogg, has said. A group of European NATO member states has for months been seeking to muster a force to be deployed to Ukraine as part of a so-called “coalition of the willing,” purportedly in a post-conflict peacekeeping role. Russia has repeatedly warned it would treat any foreign troops on Ukrainian soil as legitimate targets, saying such a move could escalate the conflict. Speaking to Fox Business on Tuesday, Kellogg said troops from France, Germany, the UK, and Poland could be part of what he described as a “resiliency force.” “This is a force referred to as the E3, but it’s actually now the E4 – when you include the Brits, the French, and the Germans, and in fact, the Poles as well,” he said.

Kellogg added the troops would be positioned west of the Dnieper River, placing them “outside the contact zone.” “And then to the east you have a peacekeeping force, and what it would look like with a third party involved with that. So, you can actually monitor a ceasefire; we have this thing pretty well planned out,” he said. The remarks come as preparations are underway for possible direct talks between Russia and Ukraine in Istanbul. Kellogg and Steve Witkoff, another senior envoy for US President Donald Trump, are reportedly expected to attend. Russian President Vladimir Putin on Sunday proposed conducting negotiations without preconditions in Türkiye on May 15. Vladimir Zelensky said he was ready to meet Putin on Thursday, but insisted that any talks should be preceded by the start of a 30-day ceasefire.

Moscow has repeatedly ruled out this suggestion, saying such a pause would give Kiev an opportunity to regroup militarily and renew hostilities. On Monday, the foreign ministers of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and the UK, along with the EU’s top diplomat Kaja Kallas, issued a joint statement after talks in London. They pledged “robust security guarantees for Ukraine,” including “exploring the creation of a coalition of air, land, and maritime reassurance forces that could help create confidence in any future peace and support the regeneration of Ukraine’s armed forces.” Russia has rejected the presence of NATO troops in Ukraine in any form. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said it would pose a direct threat to Russia. Security Council Secretary Sergey Shoigu has warned it could trigger World War III, potentially involving nuclear weapons.

Read more …

He has no business there at all.

• US Opposes Zelensky Attendance At NATO Summit (RT)

The US is against inviting Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky to the NATO summit in The Hague next month, Italy’s ANSA news agency reported on Wednesday, citing anonymous diplomatic sources. Kiev has long sought membership in the US-led military bloc – something Russia considers a fundamental threat to its national security. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly described the prevention of such a scenario as one of Moscow’s top objectives in the Ukraine conflict. Since assuming office in January, US President Donald Trump has on multiple occasions ruled out Ukraine’s accession to NATO in the foreseeable future. In its article, ANSA reported that “for now… a NATO-Ukraine Council at the level of leaders is not planned,” adding, however, that no final decision has been made yet.

According to the publication, Kiev could participate in some of the meetings on June 24-25, but only at the level of foreign and defense ministers. The Italian outlet reported that for the time being the only non-member states that have received invitations are Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. ANSA also reported that “at the moment, a very concise program is expected at the summit, in contrast to what has happened in recent years, to avoid possible friction with Donald Trump.” Zelensky joined NATO leaders for sessions of the NATO-Ukraine Council at the 2023 Vilnius Summit and the 2024 Washington Summit.

Also on Wednesday, Bloomberg quoted unnamed diplomats familiar with the matter as saying that membership for Ukraine will not be on the agenda during the upcoming gathering in the Netherlands, with the main focus expected to be on ramping up defense spending. The outlet similarly reported that the NATO summit in June will likely be shorter than the previous meetings.Speaking during a press conference last Friday, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte stated that “we never agreed that, as part of a peace deal, there would be guaranteed NATO membership for Ukraine.” He emphasized that Ukraine’s accession to the bloc had been agreed upon by its members, but “for the longer term, not for the peace negotiations ongoing at the moment.” Rutte noted, however, that NATO maintains close cooperation with Kiev with respect to military aid and personnel training.

Read more …

“Western Europe, once a central pillar of global diplomacy, appears to be in the final phase of its strategic decline – a region now better known for procedure than power.”

• The Unraveling of The Old World Order And The Role of Russia (Bordachev)

The day is not far off when the very notion of “international order” will lose its former meaning – just as happened with the once-theoretical concept of “multipolarity.” Originally conceived in the mid-20th century as a way to balance power among great states, multipolarity now bears little resemblance to what its originators had in mind. The same is increasingly true of international order. In recent years, it has become commonplace to say that the global balance of power is shifting and that previous leaders are no longer able to maintain their dominant positions. This much is obvious. No group of states today is capable of enforcing its vision of justice or order upon the rest of the world. Traditional international institutions are weakening, and their functions are being re-evaluated or hollowed out. Western Europe, once a central pillar of global diplomacy, appears to be in the final phase of its strategic decline – a region now better known for procedure than power.

But before we join the chorus, lamenting or celebrating the end of one era and the start of another, it is worth asking: what exactly is “international order”? Too often, this concept is treated as a given, when in fact it has always been a tool – one used primarily by states with both the means and the will to coerce others into accepting certain rules of the game. Historically, “international order” has been imposed by dominant powers capable of enforcing it. But today, emerging players outside the Western sphere – nations like China and India – may not be particularly interested in taking up that role. Why should they invest their resources in a vague, abstract idea that primarily served the interests of others?

The second traditional purpose of international order has been to prevent revolutionary upheaval. In the current strategic environment, this function is largely fulfilled not by institutions or diplomacy but by the simple fact of mutual nuclear deterrence. The handful of states with major nuclear capabilities – Russia, the United States, China, and a few others – are enough to keep general war at bay. No other powers are capable of truly challenging them in an existential way. For better or worse, that is what guarantees relative global stability.It is therefore naive to expect new great powers to be enthusiastic participants in building a new international order in the traditional sense. All past orders, including the current UN-centered one, emerged from intra-Western conflicts. Russia, while not a Western country in the cultural or institutional sense, played a decisive role in those conflicts – especially the Second World War – and was central to the global architecture that followed.

In fact, one could argue that the current international order, such as it is, was a product of Russia’s intervention in a Western civil war. It’s no coincidence that at the 1815 Congress of Vienna, Tsar Alexander I behaved not as one of many European leaders, but as a figure set apart – an “arbiter of Europe.” Russia has always seen itself this way: too large, too sovereign, and too independent to be just another node in someone else’s system. This is a key distinction. For Russia, participation in international order has never been an end in itself, but a means to preserve its own unique position in world affairs. That is something it has pursued with remarkable persistence for over two centuries.

Read more …

“..Russia has a far more productive engagement with many countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America than with most in Europe.”

• Russia Doesn’t Need Western Approval To Shape Global History (Lukyanov)

The 9th of May Victory Day celebrations in Moscow once again captured international attention – despite the many other global events vying for the headlines. This wasn’t simply about pageantry or military symbolism. The Red Square parade was, as always, a statement: a public expression of one country’s position in the evolving global environment. Whether critics will admit it or not, events like this provoke reactions – and that in itself signals relevance. Eighty years after the end of the Second World War, the memory of that conflict is being viewed through new lenses. It was, undeniably, a world war – its consequences reshaped the international order. The creation of the United Nations was its most formal legacy, but the broader historical impact extended far beyond. The war marked the beginning of the end for the colonial system.

From the late 1940s onward, decolonization accelerated rapidly. Within three decades, colonial empires had all but disappeared, and dozens of new states emerged across Africa, Asia, and elsewhere. Their paths varied, but they fundamentally changed the structure of global politics. Looking back from 2025, one could argue that this wave of decolonization – driven by the global South – was no less historically important than the Cold War or the bipolar superpower confrontation. Today, the role of the so-called “global majority” is expanding quickly. These nations may not dominate the international system, but they increasingly form a vibrant, influential environment in which all global actors must operate. The presence of guests from Asia, Africa, and Latin America at this year’s parade in Moscow was a symbolic confirmation of that shift.

It signaled that the world has definitively moved beyond the Cold War structure, which framed international life around a North Atlantic-centric axis. Equally important was the fact that this reconfiguration was highlighted in Moscow – through Russia’s own initiative. It reflected not just commemoration, but transformation. A similar event is expected in Beijing in September to mark the end of the war in the Pacific theater. Together, these ceremonies highlight how the geopolitical center of gravity is gradually shifting away from its traditional Western base. As time distances us from the largest war in human history, its meaning doesn’t diminish. On the contrary, it reappears in new forms. Like it or not, memory has become a political force. It increasingly defines which community a country belongs to. Each nation has its own version of the war – and that’s to be expected. This isn’t revisionism. It’s the natural result of different historical experiences shaped under different conditions.

There will never be a single unified narrative of the past, and attempts to impose one are not only unrealistic but dangerous. The focus should be on finding compatibility between differing interpretations, not enforcing uniformity. Using memory as a political weapon erodes the foundations of peaceful international coexistence. This issue is particularly relevant for the global majority, which may one day voice its own historical claims more loudly – especially against former colonial powers in the West. In this context, the growing divergence between Russia and Western Europe over the legacy of the Second World War cannot be ignored. Efforts to preserve and defend Russia’s interpretation of the conflict are vital – not to convince others, but for domestic coherence and national identity. Other countries will write their own histories, shaped by their own interests. That cannot be controlled from the outside. The real issue is whether differing historical narratives can coexist. And on this front, it turns out that Russia has a far more productive engagement with many countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America than with most in Europe.

Read more …

“Just two-months ago, Ahmad al-Sharaa remained designated as an al-Qaeda terrorist by the United States Government, there was a $10 million-dollar bounty on his head. Yesterday, as Syria’s interim President, Ammad al-Sharaa shook hands with President Donald Trump in Saudi Arabia.”

• Trump Shocks the World – Again (Spencer)

Trump has done it again. That much is clear. He has outmaneuvered and out-thought everyone else, and did what many others assumed to be impossible. But what exactly has he done? On Wednesday morning, during his trip to Saudi Arabia, Trump met with Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, who from 2017 until January of this year, was known as Abu Mohammad al-Julani. Al-Sharaa was the leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the “Syrian Liberation Group,” a Sunni jihad group that had been linked to al-Qaeda and was working to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. In January 2025, HTS finally attained its goal. Assad fled to Russia. Al-Julani took control in Damascus and announced that he was establishing a regime that would respect the rights of all Syrians. He insisted that he had broken with al-Qaeda years before, and to signify that he was a new man, he shed his nom de guerre and reverted to his birth name. He trimmed his beard, took off his fatigues, and donned a suit.

Yet almost immediately, al-Sharaa’s attempts to construct a new image for himself foundered upon harsh reality. His forces were involved in mass killings of members of the Alawite sect. Since Bashar Assad was an Alawite, this sect was associated with the old regime. As recently as March 7, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz declared that al-Sharaa was behind it: “Al-Julani took off his galabiya, put on a suit, and presented a moderate facade. Now, he has removed the mask, revealing his true face: a jihadist terrorist from the Al-Qaeda school, committing atrocities against the Alawite civilian population.” Al-Sharaa, however, condemned the killings and vowed to punish those responsible, even if they were his own men, saying: “Syria is a state of law. The law will take its course on all. We fought to defend the oppressed, and we won’t accept that any blood be shed unjustly, or goes without punishment or accountability, even among those closest to us.”

How since is al-Sharaa? Is he still a jihadist, practicing Muhammad’s dictum, “War is deceit”? Or does he genuinely wish to establish a regime in Syria that will ensure the rights of all people? Donald Trump is giving him a chance to put up or shut up. Trump made it clear throughout the 2024 presidential campaign: he was determined to end the cycle of endless wars and establish a new era of peace. He repeatedly made it clear that this would involve challenging what the foreign policy establishment has long held to be unquestionable truths, and finding new ways to reach accords with previously hostile entities based on common interests. In many ways, Trump’s meeting with al-Sharaa is as momentous, and could be more momentous, than his first-term overtures to Kim Jong Un. The two meetings come from the same wellsprings: Trump is attempting to break longstanding logjams and end the status quo that the foreign policy establishment, both inside the U.S. and elsewhere, had come to take for granted.

NBC News reported Wednesday that Trump announced: “We are currently exploring normalizing relations with Syria’s new government, as you know, beginning with my meeting with President Ahmed al-Sharaa.” Yet he is not proceeding without asking certain things of al-Sharaa as well. NBC reported that he “encouraged Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa to recognize Israel’s statehood.”Trump explained to al-Sharaa that he had “a tremendous opportunity to do something historic in his country.” The president “urged the Syrian leader to sign on to the Abraham Accords.” He “also advised Sharaa to tell foreign terrorists to leave Syria, deport Palestinian terrorists, help the U.S. prevent the resurgence of the Islamic State and assume responsibility for Islamic State detention centers in Syria’s northeast.” Trump declared that he wanted to give Syria “a chance at greatness.”

So Trump wants to make peace with old foes based on mutual economic interests. He is giving al-Sharaa a chance to demonstrate that he really is no longer a jihadi and wants to build a stable and prosperous Syria. It could happen. The global jihad, although it is ignored everywhere, continues nevertheless. It never goes away. Individuals and states, however, can and do put it aside for considerable periods in order to pursue other interests. A reminder of how difficult this will be, however, came in the fact that, as NBC noted, “Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was also present and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan joined by phone.” The presence of Erdogan on the phone was a reminder that al-Sharaa has been propped up by Turkish forces, and that many see his forces in Syria as a tool of Erdogan’s interests in restoring the Ottoman caliphate.

This is a matter Trump may well have to deal with before too long. Whether or not al-Sharaa is sincere in renouncing jihad, Erdogan seems to be moving in the opposite direction. Nevertheless, Trump’s attempt to create peace based on common interests and move beyond the present logjam is as welcome as it is audacious. Once again, Trump appears to be way ahead of everyone else, as he was when he established the Abraham Accords even as John Kerry was confidently telling the world that such a thing was impossible. The establishment will howl at Trump’s meeting; that’s only to be expected. The president, meanwhile, is moving ahead with astonishing vision, immense confidence, and considerable imagination. The peace and stability of the Middle East, and of the entire world, are riding upon his success.

Read more …

Orders: $200 billion. Qatar GDP: $200 billion. “Qatar and the US also signed a commitment to generating $1.2 trillion worth of economic exchange..”

• Qatar Commits To “Largest Order Of Jets In The History Of Boeing” (NYP)

President Trump announced Wednesday that the Qatari government had committed to the “largest order of jets in the history of Boeing” — touting the transaction despite trashing the American company earlier this week for its slowness in delivering a new Air Force One. Trump said the oil and gas-rich monarchy, which has offered to provide the US president with a luxury “palace on wings,” committed to spending $160 billion on the planes as part of a broader $243.5 billion economic pledge. “We’re going to see some of it in action tomorrow…. it’s going to be an air fair,” Trump said during a meeting with the country’s leaders shortly after he arrived in the ultramodern capital on the shores of the Persian Gulf. Wednesday evening, at a state dinner in Trump’s honor, the president said that the investments could ultimately generate $1.2 trillion in economic activity.

“Working together, we can help the entire region unlock its potential,” Trump told his host, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani. “You have unbelievable potential here, such great, such rich land, such beautiful, magnificent — it’s just a magnificent place, and you’re unlocking its potential.” Moments earlier, the emir had said Trump’s decision to visit Qatar on the first major overseas trip of his second term “was no mystery.” “Yes, the United States is a superpower, boosting the largest economy and military force in history,” al-Thani said. “Meanwhile, Qatar is one of the smallest countries with one of the smallest populations, and as the Americans in the room know, DC is almost 7,000 miles away from here, but my friends, small nations have their own superpowers, resilience, nimbleness, and we are a powerful agent for peace precisely because of our size.”

A White House fact sheet describing the new business deals said that “Boeing and GE Aerospace secured a landmark order from Qatar Airways, a $96 billion agreement to acquire up to 210 American-made Boeing 787 Dreamliner and 777X aircraft powered by GE Aerospace engines.” The release described the transaction as “Boeing’s largest-ever widebody order and largest-ever 787 order. This historic agreement will support 154,000 U.S. jobs annually, totaling over 1 million jobs in the United States during the course of production and delivery of this deal.” The reason for the discrepancy between the topline plane-sale figures cited by Trump and the fact sheet was not immediately clear. Trump hailed what he called a “very special relationship” with Qatar, even likening one royal to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, calling both men “tall handsome guys.”

Qatar, which hosts more than 10,000 US military forces at Al Udeid Air Base just outside Doha, has forged a close relationship with Trump dating to his first term, when American advisers helped broker a deal to end a Saudi-led blockade of the peninsular nation. Qatar has offered to give Trump a luxuriously upgraded Boeing 747-8 worth an estimated $400 million, drawing bipartisan pushback. That jet, currently parked in the US, won’t be presented during the visit, the White House says. Trump has repeatedly defended the proposed transaction, telling Fox News host Sean Hannity in an interview that aired Tuesday night: “We’re the United States of America – I believe that we should have the most impressive plane.” “Some people say, ‘Oh, you shouldn’t accept gifts for the country.’ My attitude is, why wouldn’t I accept a gift?” the president added. “We’re giving to everybody else, why wouldn’t I accept a gift? Because it’s going to be a couple of years, I think, before the Boeings are finished.”

On Monday, Trump told reporters at the White House that he was “very disappointed” in the timetable for the delivery of two US-made jets, currently set for 2027 and 2028. “They’re way behind,” he said. “They were way behind, another mess that I inherited from Biden, and it’s going to be a while before we get them.” Qatar and the US also signed a commitment to generating $1.2 trillion worth of economic exchange in the years to come, without specifying details. Massachusetts-based Raytheon will receive $1 billion from Doha for access to the company’s counter-drone capabilities, making Qatar the first in the world to obtain Raytheon’s Fixed Site – Low, Slow, Small Unmanned Aerial System Integrated Defeat System (FS-LIDS), dedicated to attacking unmanned aircraft.

Qatar will also pay San Diego-based General Atomics nearly $2 billion deal to acquire the company’s MQ-9B remotely piloted aircraft system. The two countries also outlined future potential security deals amounting to $38 billion, according to a White House readout.“These new agreements and instruments aim to drive the growth of the U.S.-Qatar bilateral commercial relationship, create thousands of well-paying jobs, and open new trade and investment opportunities for both countries over the coming decade and beyond,” the administration said. On Tuesday, Trump signed deals securing $600 billion worth of investments with Saudi Arabia — with more agreements expected when the president visits the UAE for the final stop of his trip.

Read more …

“The anti-Trump economic narratives haven’t just failed; they’ve completely collapsed.”

• Every Anti-Trump Economic Narrative Is Collapsing (Margolis)

Remember how the liberal media and Democrats warned that Donald Trump’s economic policies would bring about financial armageddon? How many times have they been proven wrong? I haven’t been keeping track, but they’ve been proven wrong once again. This shouldn’t surprise anyone. When Trump was president from 2017 to 2021, we experienced one of the strongest economies in our nation’s history until COVID hit. The liberal media spent four years trying to convince us that Barack Obama deserved credit for Trump’s economic success, and then it spent the last three years insisting that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris deserved credit for the post-COVID recovery. The media’s latest effort was to convince the public that Trump’s tariffs were going to cause prices to soar and send us into a recession. Even the liberal media has had to admit that that just ain’t happening.

“Prices climbed at an unexpectedly slow pace last month, offering a boost to President Donald Trump, whose aggressive trade policies have sparked fears of a resurgence in inflation,” Politico reported on Tuesday. “The Labor Department on Tuesday reported that prices rose at an annual rate of 2.3 percent, the smallest increase since early 2021. While price growth in so-called core sectors of the economy — which exclude volatile food and energy costs — remained elevated at 2.8 percent, April’s Consumer Price Index contained only scant evidence that Trump’s tariffs have meaningfully driven up the cost of living.” Even though tariff rates have fallen since the administration negotiated a temporary détente with China, Fed Governor Adriana Kugler said Monday that the administration’s new taxes on imports are still “pretty high” and that she expects inflation to rise and growth to slow soon.

So far, that hasn’t happened. Few economists had expected that overall inflation surged last month. But there was broad anticipation that Trump’s levies on Chinese imports, steel and aluminum and certain Canadian and Mexican products had caused prices for apparel, electronics and other consumer goods to spike. If anything, the opposite occurred: The cost of clothing and new cars — two areas that were highly exposed to Trump’s initial levies — both fell. Similarly, inflation hit its lowest level since 2021. It certainly pained CNN to report that. And remember that recession experts told us was totally happening this year? JP Morgan is no longer predicting that it will happen. Of course, Politico was not only disappointed that the bad predictions of the Trump economy didn’t pan out, but it also lamented how this will embolden Trump.

“The CPI report will likely bolster the administration’s claims that grim forecasts for the economy have been overblown,” the paper groaned. The report will also amplify Trump’s calls for Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell to lower interest rates. Powell and other Fed policymakers have warned that the rapid escalation of import costs may soon cause consumer prices to spike and that the central bank needs to keep inflation at bay.n And many economists still expect inflation to rebound in the coming months. Analysts at Citi say they expect the personal consumption expenditures index — the Fed’s preferred inflation gauge — to climb by 3 percent by the end of the year. While that is less than their previous forecast for 3.5 percent inflation, it’s still well above the Fed’s annual target of 2 percent. The anti-Trump economic narratives haven’t just failed; they’ve completely collapsed.

Read more …

Trump just announced a tariff deal offer from India. The big ones first, the rest will follow.

• Trump Economy Defies ‘Gloom And Doom’ Expectations (Whedon)

With April’s inflation report coming in below forecasts, the Trump economy appears to be defying analysts’ and politicians’ predictions of collapse in the wake of his “Liberation Day” tariffs and subsequent trade negotiations. As Trump adds more notches to his belt in deals with key trade partners, the stock market has rebounded to pre-tariff levels, even while many tariffs remain largely in place on major economies such as China and the UK. In April of this year, former Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said the developments of Trump’s tariffs point to “a loss of confidence in U.S. economic policy” and called the tariffs “the worst self-inflicted policy wound I’ve ever seen in my career inflicted on our economy […] they are “doing immense damage.” Trump, on April 2, announced his “Liberation Day” tariffs on nearly every nation, imposing a “reciprocal” rate calibrated to address the American trade deficit with each nation.

The tariffs far exceeded what analysts had expected, and the stock market was sent reeling for days. Trump himself reshared a video suggesting that he deliberately crashed the market to force an interest rate cut to allow the government to refinance its debt at a lower rate. Bond markets bucked at the move and Trump ultimately announced a 90-day pause on most tariffs to pursue trade agreements, though he left in place a 10% baseline and kept China’s above 100%. Markets gradually recovered, and major indices have since exceeded their April 1 closes. Boosting some of that movement have been trade deals with the United Kingdom and China, two of the biggest American trading partners. Both deals resulted in lower import tariffs on American goods and higher import tariffs on goods from those nations, marking net gains for the U.S. in Trump’s bid to rebalance trade.

Read together, multiple indicators suggest that the Trump economy defied expectations and that the trade policies did not adversely damage the nation’s overall economic health. If the trend continues, Trump will have fulfilled what politicians call “dinner table” issues for millions of Americans. Inflation fell to an annualized rate of 2.3% in April, down from the March figure of 2.4%. Analysts had expected it to hold steady. January’s inflation rate stood at 3.0%, and the figure has marked a steady decline since Trump took office. Inflation reached a high of 9.1% in July 2022 in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the issue was a leading factor in driving down President Joe Biden’s approval rating in subsequent years. Trump campaigned extensively on the issue, saying he would bring inflation down through energy production.

[..] After more than a month of negotiations, Trump confirmed last week that he had reached an agreement on trade with the United Kingdom, marking the first substantive deal since Liberation Day. “The agreement with the United Kingdom is a full and comprehensive one that will cement the relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom for many years to come,” Trump said on Truth Social ahead of the formal agreement. The agreement left in place the 10% reciprocal tariff and subjected imported vehicles from the UK to a 25% tariff after the first 100,000. In 2024, UK automakers only exported 106,000 cars to the United States. In turn, the UK lowered its tariff rates on U.S. goods from 5.1% to 1.8%. UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer made a phone cameo at the announcement, saying “there are no two countries that are closer than our two countries that now we take this into new and important territory by adding trade and the economy to the closeness of our relationship.”

The most aggressive — and widely reported — trade standoff came with China, as Trump left high tariffs in place even as he paused those on most other nations for 90 days. Boosting market sentiment, this week Beijing and Washington reached an agreement to substantially lower their tariffs, with the U.S. setting its rate at 30% for imported Chinese goods and the Chinese dropping theirs to 10%. “This initiative aligns with the expectations of producers and consumers in both countries and serves the interests of both nations as well as the common interests of the world,” the Chinese Commerce Ministry said in a statement republished by PBS. PBS added that “The ministry called the agreement an important step for the resolution of the two countries’ differences and said it lays the foundation for further cooperation.”

“The consensus from both delegations this weekend is neither side wants a decoupling,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said at the time. “And what had occurred with these very high tariffs … was an embargo, the equivalent of an embargo. And neither side wants that. We do want trade.” Trump on Tuesday signed an agreement with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and secured $600 billion in investment pledges during his trip to that nation. Another possible indicator of economic vibrancy is the pace of U.S. vacation travel. The American Automobile Association (AAA) this year expects a record 45.1 million Americans to travel for Memorial Day, according to a press release. The organization also predicted a 2% hike in air travel over the weekend.

Since January 2025, the U.S. economy has also steadily added jobs, including a gain of 143,000 in January and 177,000 in April. The unemployment rate has remained steady at 4.2%, with the Department of Labor reporting that the economy added 177,000 jobs in defiance of expectations. In March, the economy added 228,000 jobs. Bloomberg News reported that JPMorgan Chase & Co. on Tuesday dropped its recession call for 2025, saying “[t]he administration’s recent dialing down of some of the more draconian tariffs placed on China should reduce the risk that the US economy slips into recession this year.” JPMorgan’s Chief US Economist Michael Feroli was optimistic but guarded, saying “We believe recession risks are still elevated, but now below 50%.”

Read more …

21 days’ notice, in English and Spanish. For gang members?

• Federal Judge Says Trump’s Invocation of Alien Enemies Act Was Legal (ET)

A federal judge in Pennsylvania has ruled that President Donald Trump validly invoked the Alien Enemies Act in March as part of an effort to deport Venezuelan gang members. More specifically, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Haines held that the gang—Tren de Aragua (TdA)—was engaging in the type of “predatory incursion” that the Alien Enemies Act mentions. In an opinion issued on May 13, Haines noted that TdA has been designated a foreign terrorist organization. That designation, she said, “heavily supports the conclusions … that TdA is a cohesive group united by a common goal of causing significant disruption to the public safety of the United States.”Three other district court judges have ruled against the Trump administration, finding that a proclamation Trump issued in March misapplied the law. Each of those judges disagreed with Trump’s description of TdA as engaging in an invasion or predatory incursion.

Trump invoked the law in March, stating that TdA gang members had infiltrated the Venezuelan regime and invaded the United States, justifying their expedited removal. “Evidence irrefutably demonstrates that TdA has invaded the United States and continues to invade, attempt to invade, and threaten to invade the country; perpetrated irregular warfare within the country; and used drug trafficking as a weapon against our citizens,” Trump’s March 15 proclamation reads. In a federal court in New York City, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein disagreed. On May 6, he found that TdA members “do not seek to occupy territory, to oust American jurisdiction from any territory, or to ravage territory. “In April, the Supreme Court intervened twice in related cases, but without ruling on whether the administration had properly invoked the Alien Enemies Act.

Instead, it halted some deportations in a brief order on April 19, and told the administration on April 7 that it must provide suspected gang members with notice that they are subject to removal, as well as an opportunity to challenge their detention. It specified that “the notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief,” which is a legal avenue for challenging one’s detention. Haines also issued an order on May 13 that stated the administration had provided insufficient notice to detainees. She said that the administration couldn’t remove a Venezuelan national who had brought the lawsuit in Pennsylvania unless it provided 21 days’ notice, among other things. Her order also required that the notice be provided in English and Spanish.

Read more …

Too complex for senators and congress(wo)men.

• Average Americans Poised for Double-Digit Tax Cuts In 2027 (ZH)

A sweeping Republican tax overhaul proposal, estimated to deliver double-digit percentage reductions in tax bills for average-income Americans, is drawing mounting opposition in the Senate over its accompanying cuts to health care and clean energy programs – underscoring the internal divisions complicating Republican efforts to advance a unified economic agenda. According to a new analysis from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), households earning between $30,000 and $80,000 would see their federal taxes drop by approximately 15 percent in 2027 under the House GOP plan. Americans earning between $15,000 and $30,000 would see an even steeper 21 percent decline – at least initially. But those same low-income earners would see their tax bills rise sharply in later years unless extended, with increases of 12 percent in 2029 and 20 percent in 2030, the JCT found.

The report attributed some of those changes to proposed reforms of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), a benefit for low-income workers that Republicans argue is vulnerable to improper payments. While the report’s topline numbers have fueled Republican claims that the proposal is middle-class focused, Democrats seized on the overall distribution of tax cuts in dollar terms, Politico reports. Taxpayers earning more than $500,000 are slated to receive an aggregate cut of about $170 billion in 2027 – nearly triple the $59 billion going to households earning $30,000 to $80,000. The proposal has already provoked heated exchanges in the House Ways and Means Committee, where lawmakers debated the fairness and sustainability of the tax package. Democrats derided the bill as a boon to the wealthy, while Republicans pointed to new breaks for tips, overtime, and seniors as evidence of its broader appeal.

The report is not a complete picture of winners and losers under Republicans’ plans. It doesn’t include a potential deal among lawmakers to further increase the SALT cap, beyond a proposed $30,000 limit. The report also only looks at the tax side of Republican plans, and does not account for changes in spending programs, like Medicaid. -Politico. “It’s a trick,” said Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI). “You do it temporarily so you can get through the 2026 election” and “then these benefits for children and elders and workers disappear, while the tax benefits for the ultra-wealthy soar.” Yet beyond the debate over tax cuts, the House plan is facing stiff resistance in the Senate for how it proposes to offset some of the revenue losses: by slashing Medicaid and rolling back key clean energy incentives passed under the Biden administration.

A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate found that the House bill’s Medicaid reforms could result in 8.6 million people losing health care coverage, largely due to new work requirements, cost-sharing mandates, and restrictions on how states finance their Medicaid programs. Several Senate Republicans voiced concern over the health care implications, especially for rural areas. “These are working people in particular who are going to have to pay more,” said Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO), referring to new cost-sharing rules. He warned that changes to provider taxes – which states use to draw federal Medicaid dollars – could reduce coverage in his state and strain rural hospitals. “I continue to maintain my position we should not be cutting Medicaid benefits,” Hawley said. Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), said the proposed treatment of provider taxes “would be very harmful to Maine’s hospitals,” echoing concerns raised by other senators from rural and Medicaid-reliant states.

Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), also pointed to the disproportionate burden that Medicaid cuts would place on states like hers, calling the issue a key sticking point in ongoing Senate discussions. In addition to health care, some senate Republicans are also wary of the House’s aggressive plans to unwind tax credits for clean energy and hydrogen development, incentives championed in the Inflation Reduction Act and credited with bringing manufacturing investments and jobs to red and purple states alike. Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC), who faces a competitive reelection race next year, expressed concern over quickly ending climate initiatives – suggesting that the House language on energy tax rollbacks would need to be revised. “You can’t shock the markets by doing it all at once,” Tillis said of the proposed clean energy phaseouts. Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) also flagged potential impacts to her state’s clean hydrogen initiatives, saying she would review the House’s plan to eliminate the 45V hydrogen production credit, which could affect nearly $1 billion in planned federal support for the Appalachian Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub.

The House GOP plan is expected to pass narrowly along party lines, but Senate Republicans made clear this week that the legislation will require significant changes to win broader support in the upper chamber. “We are coordinating very closely with our House counterparts,” said Senate Minority Whip John Thune of South Dakota. “We know they have to get 218 votes… but it’s likely we’ll have a Senate substitute.” As Republican leaders try to reconcile competing priorities — delivering tax relief, restraining federal spending, and maintaining political support in swing states — the path forward for the legislation remains uncertain. “How we navigate this,” said Murkowski, “is something we’re all trying to wander through.”

Read more …

“The so-called “Pfizergate” decision comes as a major embarrassment for the EU chief..”

Like she cares. In reality, she’s now free to do it again.

• Court Rules On Von Der Leyen’s Secret Covid Vaccine Deal Messages (RT)

The European Commission wrongly denied the media access to secret text messages between its president, Ursula von der Leyen, and the CEO of pharma giant Pfizer, exchanged during negotiations of a multi-billion dollar Covid-19 vaccine deal, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled on Wednesday. The so-called “Pfizergate” decision comes as a major embarrassment for the EU chief, who has responsibility for transparency and rule of law issues in the bloc. The case centers on a 2021 interview von der Leyen gave to the NYT in which she claimed she had been negotiating a deal for 900 million COVID vaccine shots with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla via sms messages. The NYT subsequently filed an access request for the messages, to which the EC claimed the texts, which have never been released, were not in its possession.

The court ruled that the EC “cannot merely state that it does not hold the requested documents but must provide credible explanations enabling the public and the Court to understand why those documents cannot be found.” It also criticized the Commission for failing to justify why the texts were not retained and to clarify how they were deleted. In response, the EC said it recognized the need for greater transparency and promised to issue a new decision with more detailed reasoning. It did not, however, commit to releasing the messages in question. The ruling can be appealed to the European Court of Justice. A similar CJEU judgment last July found that the EC lacked transparency in how it negotiated vaccine contracts with Pfizer and AstraZeneca. The deals, signed in 2020 and 2021 and worth approximately €2.7 billion ($3 billion), were shielded from disclosure to European Parliament members on the grounds of protecting commercial interests.

https://twitter.com/DD_Geopolitics/status/1922564484838609364

Read more …

Can’t make Trudy look bad!

• Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer Signed Oath to Conceal COVID Info (YN)

Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer, Dr. Theresa Tam, and nearly 30 senior federal health officials signed a confidential oath during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, pledging not to release information that could “embarrass” the Trudeau cabinet, according to internal records obtained through Access to Information requests. The oath, revealed by Blacklock’s Reporter, was part of a broader secrecy policy within the Public Health Agency and other government departments including Health, Industry, Foreign Affairs, and National Defence. Internal communications from 2020 show that vaccine supply manager Alan Thom voiced concern about the widespread requirement for federal managers to sign non-disclosure agreements, noting, “at a certain point the Department of Public Works determined individual non-disclosure agreements were no longer needed… as we are all covered through our responsibilities as public servants.”

The confidentiality agreement emphasized that any “unauthorized disclosure of confidential information… may result in embarrassment, criticism or claims against Canada and may jeopardize Canada’s supplier relations and procurement processes.” Managers acknowledged their ongoing obligations under the Values And Ethics Code For The Public Sector, according to the documents. The oaths were signed shortly after the Trudeau administration secured billions in COVID-19 vaccine contracts with companies including Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Novavax, Johnson & Johnson, Medicago, and Sanofi. Dr. Tam, a longtime proponent of mass vaccination, oversaw public messaging during the rollout. The first mRNA vaccine to be approved in Canada was Pfizer’s BioNTech shot, authorized on December 9, 2020, followed closely by Moderna’s vaccine.

The approvals came after the Trudeau government granted vaccine manufacturers legal immunity from liability for adverse effects. Parliamentarians requesting to review those contracts were denied access. In response to growing reports of vaccine-related injuries, Canada launched its Vaccine Injury Support Program (VISP) in late 2020. As reported by LifeSiteNews, the program was created after legal protections were granted to pharmaceutical companies. A memo from Canada’s Department of Health now warns that VISP payouts are set to exceed the program’s original $75 million budget, prompting the federal government to allocate an additional $36 million. Despite dwindling public demand, the government continues to purchase new doses, even as its own statistics show widespread rejection of booster injections by Canadians. Compounding concerns, an inhalable mRNA vaccine—developed using fetal cell lines and funded by Ottawa—has now entered Phase 2 clinical trials.

Data from Statistics Canada also indicates that post-vaccine rollout, deaths attributed to COVID-19 and “unspecified causes” significantly increased, raising further questions about the long-term safety and effectiveness of the vaccine campaign. LifeSiteNews has compiled an extensive archive of research linking COVID mRNA injections to adverse events such as myocarditis, blood clots, and fertility issues. Additional findings highlight risks in children, while all currently available COVID shots have ties to abortion-derived fetal cell lines. With growing scrutiny over vaccine safety and government transparency, the revelation that Canada’s top public health officials signed agreements to avoid reputational harm to federal leadership adds another layer of controversy to the country’s pandemic response.

Oath

Read more …

“..European puppet leaders are planning to establish a “special tribunal” within the framework of the Council of Europe to judge Russia for “aggression” and other alleged crimes in Ukraine..”

• A New False Tribunal Is In The Making (Stephen Karganovic)

Kaja Kallas’ delusional and laughably ill-timed announcement, made the day after Russia’s 9 May Victory Day triumph in Moscow, that European puppet leaders are planning to establish a “special tribunal” within the framework of the Council of Europe to judge Russia for “aggression” and other alleged crimes in Ukraine jogs some memories from the Hague. ICTY, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, is located there, as the new Tribunal Kallas has mentioned will also be. This writer had spent some of the most interesting years of his life there. An enduring memory is former Serbian and Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, who was abducted by the vassal regime installed in his country after the October 2000 colour revolution and sent to the Hague to be put on trial. During his initial appearance in the courtroom, addressing the judges and Prosecutor Carla del Ponte, Milosevic referred to the court as a “false tribunal.”

That phrase stuck in my mind. Milosevic’s English was adequate, but it was not flawless. Hence the picturesque turn of phrase he used. Had he been more fluent in idiomatic English he would have called it a “phony” or “bogus” tribunal. Instead he translated what he meant to say directly from his native Serbian with a result that was more amusing than academically precise. But no harm was done. In fact, under the circumstances the glaringly unidiomatic locution made his profound point even stronger. Regrettably, Kaja Kallas has not disclosed technical details about the projected Tribunal which should be made available before the credibility of this venture can be properly assessed. There are several parameters that must be established before any such “court” can be taken seriously.

The first of these is a clear definition of the new judicial body’s mandate. It is not enough merely to say that it shall deal with war crimes and crimes against humanity arising from the conflict in the Ukraine since February 2022. Whose crimes will be the subject of the court’s investigation and ultimately judgment? Kallas’ rationale behind the creation of this court raises serious issues in that regard. She refers exclusively to “Russian crimes,” a reference also echoed by EU Commission President Ursula van den Leyen and EU Rule of Law Commissioner Michael McGrath. Has no one else been observed committing crimes in Ukraine during the period under consideration, or perhaps going back a bit further, to 2014? If there are any lingering doubts concerning this matter, which directly impacts the Tribunal’s objectivity, they were settled by the clarification on the European Commission posted on its website:

“The Tribunal will have the power to investigate, prosecute and try Russian political and military leaders, who bear the greatest responsibility for the crime of aggression against Ukraine.”

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Plandemic

Ed Dowd: If this is true in humans we have a potential gigantic demographic time bomb globally. Just halt the jabs and investigate.

https://twitter.com/NicHulscher/status/1922329204336541772

Florida

Party

Cats
https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1922379741539017148

Owl

Otomati

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle Victory Day 2025

May 092025
 
 May 9, 2025  Posted by at 9:50 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  54 Responses »


Samuel Peploe Paris-plage 1907

 

• Berlin Bans Soviet Flags On 80th Anniversary Of Nazi Defeat (RT)
• Vance Outlines Changed US Strategy On Ukraine (RT)
• Trump Calls For ‘Unconditional Ceasefire’ In Ukraine (RT)
• Ukraine Ready For Immediate Ceasefire – Zelensky (RT)
• Ukraine’s Debt Doubles In Three Years – Finance Minister (RT)
• Russia and China Will Never Forget WWII Victims – Putin (RT)
• Russia-China Ties Most Important Stabilizing Factor – Putin (Sp.)
• The West Is Dismantling The Foundations of 1945 (Lukyanov)
• Von der Leyen Has No Business Telling Vucic And Fico Where They Can Go (Borges)
• Kennedy Defends Casey Means’ Nomination For Surgeon General Amid Backlash (JTN)
• Some of Hegseth’s Passwords Exposed in Cyberattacks, Shown on Internet (Sp.)
• Western Canada Puts the Rest of Canada on Notice (David Solway)
• Trump’s Ultimate Troll Move Would Send DC Leftists Into Meltdown (Margolis)
• How Pollsters Rig the Numbers Against Trump (Victor Davis Hanson)
• Trump Urges GOP To Raise Taxes On The Wealthy To Fund Economic Agenda (ZH)
• Trump’s Unprecedented Trade Deal With Britain (Victoria Taft)

 

 

Leo

https://twitter.com/RussiaIsntEnemy/status/1920170584094486686


https://twitter.com/simpatico771/status/1920377564096254257

Casey Means

Patel

Alex

 

 

 

 

Deadly symbolic.

“..degrading to human dignity..” indeed.

• Berlin Bans Soviet Flags On 80th Anniversary Of Nazi Defeat (RT)

A Berlin court has upheld a ban on displaying Soviet flags and symbols at World War II memorials during the city’s events marking the defeat of Nazi Germany, citing concerns over public peace and the Ukraine conflict. Moscow, has decried the “degrading” and “discriminatory” prohibition. Earlier this week, Berlin police issued a ban on the demonstration of numerous Soviet-linked symbols during the May 8-9 events in the capital, including singing Soviet songs in public. An unidentified local association filed an appeal against the ban, arguing that it unfairly restricted freedom of assembly for their planned commemoration at a Soviet Memorial in Treptow. Berlin’s Administrative Court ruled on Wednesday that the police prohibition, which applies to Soviet flags, the Victory Banner, St. George’s ribbons, historical military uniforms, and even wartime songs, stands.

The symbols, according to the court, could be “interpreted as an expression of sympathy for the [Russian] war effort” against Ukraine and “endanger public peace”. The Russian embassy in Berlin strongly criticized the ban, saying it violated the rights of descendants of Soviet soldiers and concerned residents to honor the 80th anniversary of the defeat of Nazism. Up to 27 million Soviet citizens died in their efforts to defeat Nazism. “We deem the ban unjustified, discriminatory, and degrading to human dignity and view it as clear manifestations of historical revisionism and political opportunism,” the embassy statement read.

”We are convinced that on these significant days, everyone… should have the opportunity, regardless of the current political context, to honor the memory and pay tribute to the fallen Red Army soldiers and victims of Nazism in accordance with established long-standing traditions. Any attempts to prevent this deserve condemnation. We urgently demand that the relevant decision be repealed,” it stressed. In 2023, Berlin police prohibited both Russian and Soviet flags during Victory Day commemorations, and in 2024 authorities outlawed Russian and Soviet symbols, including the red Victory Banner and the letters “Z” and “V,” associated with the Russian campaign against Ukraine. In both cases, some people defied the ban by wearing Soviet military attire and displaying the prohibited flags.

Read more …

I’m still not sure that Vance did his homework. He says here: “We’ve tried to move beyond the obsession with the 30-day ceasefire..” But whose obsession is that? We know it’s not Russia’s, it took them all of 5 seconds to say Njet. So it’s probably just US and Ukraine. But since Russia must be part of any deal here, that is useless to think about, let alone obsess.

Russia doesn’t want that 30-day ceasefire because all sorts of things must be agreed first. ‘Demilitarization’ is a big one. But while Vance obsesses over the 30 days, Trump signs a minerals deal that promises Ukraine more weaponry.

“Certainly, the first peace offer that the Russians put on the table, our reaction to it was you’re asking for too much..” We don’t know the exact offer, but we do know that when Russia says ”no preconditions”, they mean the status of Crimea is not a (pre)condition, it is a fact. Sort of like ‘Demilitarization’. And Putin doesn’t care what Zelensky or Trump or Vance think. Some things are open to negotiation, others are not.

• Vance Outlines Changed US Strategy On Ukraine (RT)

Washington wants to move away from the “obsession” with a 30-day ceasefire proposed by Ukraine, US Vice President J.D. Vance has said. The US is more interested in shaping a durable peace agreement with Moscow, he told a Munich Leaders Meeting on Wednesday. Ukraine had floated a one-month ceasefire as a counter to Russia’s 72-hour truce proposal to mark the 80th anniversary of the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany. However, Moscow has rejected Kiev’s plan, arguing that Ukrainian troops, which have been on the backfoot for months, would use it to regroup and strengthen their military posture. Vance stressed that the US remains interested in a “long-term settlement” of the conflict rather than a short-term one.

“We’ve tried to move beyond the obsession with the 30-day ceasefire and more on the what would the long-term settlement look like? And we’ve tried to consistently advance the ball,” the vice president said. Vance also noted that the US has deemed Moscow’s initial negotiation proposals as excessive. “Certainly, the first peace offer that the Russians put on the table, our reaction to it was you’re asking for too much,” he said. “But this is how negotiations unfold.” Vance added that US President Donald Trump is prepared to abandon negotiations if there is no progress, urging Moscow and Kiev to engage in diplomacy. “We would like both the Russians and the Ukrainians to actually agree on some basic guidelines for sitting down and talking to one another.” Russia has repeatedly said it is open to talks with Kiev but noted that Ukraine has low credibility, especially when it comes to honoring ceasefire commitments.

Moscow’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has accused Ukraine of sabotaging earlier efforts on this front, including a US-brokered 30-day moratorium on strikes on energy infrastructure and a Moscow-backed Easter truce. In light of this, she noted that Russia would view Ukraine’s conduct during the 72-hour Victory Day ceasefire, which went into effect on Thursday, as a test of good faith. Moscow earlier described the initiative as a humanitarian gesture and a move to pave the way for direct peace talks with Ukraine without preconditions. Meanwhile, Trump appeared to support the three-day ceasefire, noting that it “doesn’t sound like much, but it’s a lot, if you know where we started from.”

Read more …

As long as he doesn’t confuse facts with conditions, no problem.

• Trump Calls For ‘Unconditional Ceasefire’ In Ukraine (RT)

US President Donald Trump expressed hope that Moscow and Kiev would soon agree on a month-long truce following his Thursday call with Vladimir Zelensky, amid a 72-hour Victory Day ceasefire that was unilaterally declared by Russia Starting at midnight on Thursday, Russian forces ceased hostilities and remained at previously occupied positions, only providing a “tit-for-tat reaction” to violations by Ukraine, according to the Defense Ministry in Moscow. Ukrainian troops reportedly carried out at least 488 attacks and attempted two incursions into Russia’s Kursk Region, according to the ministry. Zelensky, who had previously dismissed the Russian peace initiative as “manipulation” while Kiev intensified drone strikes on Russian territory, held a phone call with Trump later in the day.

After the call, he claimed that “Ukraine is ready for a complete ceasefire today, right from this moment,” but insisted that the truce should last for at least 30 days. “Talks with Russia/Ukraine continue,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social after the call. The US calls for, ideally, a 30-day unconditional ceasefire. Hopefully, an acceptable ceasefire will be observed, and both countries will be held accountable for respecting the sanctity of these direct negotiations. Trump warned that if a ceasefire is reached but “is not respected, the US and its partners will impose further sanctions.” Moscow has repeatedly stated its readiness to begin negotiations with Ukraine without any preconditions. In March, it agreed to a US-brokered 30-day partial ceasefire focused on halting strikes on energy infrastructure. However, according to the Russian military, Kiev violated the truce on numerous occasions.

When announcing the ceasefire last week, President Vladimir Putin described it as a humanitarian gesture to mark the 80th anniversary of the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany – and one that could also serve as a catalyst for “the start of direct negotiations with Kiev without preconditions.” While calling for a longer “unconditional ceasefire” on Thursday, Trump stressed that the truce “must ultimately build toward a Peace Agreement,” reiterating his commitment to secure a “lasting” peace between Russia and Ukraine. “It can all be done very quickly, and I will be available on a moment’s notice if my services are needed,” he added.

Read more …

Just not on Russia’s conditions. Who won that war again?

• Ukraine Ready For Immediate Ceasefire – Zelensky (RT)

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky has announced that Kiev is ready for a “complete ceasefire” without any preconditions. A truce could be implemented “from this very minute,” he stated in a message published on his official Telegram channel following talks with US President Donald Trump on Thursday. According to Zelensky, the discussions focused on ways to “bring a real and lasting ceasefire closer,” as well as the “situation on the front lines” and ongoing “diplomatic efforts.” He maintained that the truce should last for at least 30 days, claiming it would “create many opportunities for diplomacy.” “Ukraine is ready for a complete ceasefire today, right from this moment,” he said, adding that it should include “no missile strikes, drone attacks, or hundreds of assaults along the frontline.”

He called on Russia to give an “adequate” response to the offer and to “demonstrate their willingness to end the war.” Zelensky also urged Washington to support this initiative. His statement came amid a 72-hour Victory Day ceasefire unilaterally declared by Russia. President Vladimir Putin announced the truce last week, describing it as a humanitarian gesture to mark the 80th anniversary of the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany that could also serve as a catalyst for “the start of direct negotiations with Kiev without preconditions.” Zelensky dismissed the Russian initiative at the time as “a manipulation,” while Kiev intensified drone strikes on Russian territory ahead of the ceasefire’s scheduled start. On Thursday, the Russian Defense Ministry reported that Ukrainian forces had launched nearly 500 attacks since the ceasefire took effect.

The Russian military also repelled two attempted cross-border incursions by Ukrainian troops during the truce, according to data from the ministry. Kiev has repeatedly demanded an immediate 30-day ceasefire over the past few months. Moscow has opposed the initiative, arguing that Ukraine would use the time to regroup its troops and restock weapons inventories. Russia recently said that it is ready for direct talks with Ukraine “without preconditions,” and has advocated for a permanent resolution to the conflict that addresses the root causes. In March, it agreed to a US-brokered 30-day partial ceasefire focused on halting strikes on energy infrastructure. However, according to the Russian military, Kiev violated the truce on numerous occasions.

Read more …

“..we are talking about the fact that in the next 30 years… we will not pay these debts..”

• Ukraine’s Debt Doubles In Three Years – Finance Minister (RT)

Ukraine will be unable to repay its foreign creditors in the next 30 years, with public debt nearing 100% of GDP, Finance Minister Sergey Marchenko said on Thursday. He added, however, that Kiev intends to continue borrowing. Since the escalation of the conflict with Russia in 2022, Ukraine has received billions in military, financial, and humanitarian aid and loans from the US, the EU and other donors. Kiev’s mounting state debt, which is approaching 7.1 trillion hryvnas ($171 billion), has raised concerns about the country’s fiscal stability and its capacity to meet future obligations. According to Marchenko, before 2022, Ukraine’s debt-to-GDP ratio “was quite safe” at 55%, however, the country is now approaching 100%. The minister downplayed the situation, stating that the public debt was “not a problem” as the funds that Kiev received from foreign creditors came on preferential terms.

“That is, we are talking about the fact that in the next 30 years… we will not pay these debts,” Marchenko said. “In any scenario… we need additional sources of funding…we will not be able to hold the situation together on our own, whether there is war… or peace,” he added. The minister went on to suggest that Kiev’s western backers could decide to service Ukraine’s external debts from their own budgets. For the time being, interest generated by Russian central bank assets frozen in the West due to sanctions has been used to service Kiev’s debt. In April, Japan agreed to issue a loan of about $3 billion, to be repaid from Moscow’s money. Also last month, Ukraine received the third tranche of €1 billion from the EU, secured by proceeds from the frozen funds.

Russia has vehemently opposed the move, labeling it “theft” and threatening retaliation. The US, Ukraine’s largest donor, has moved to recoup its financial aid to Ukraine by signing a natural resources deal with Kiev. The agreement grants the US preferential access to Ukrainian mineral resources without providing security guarantees. The deputy head of the Russian Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev, has commented that the US essentially “forced the Kiev regime to pay for American aid,” with “the national wealth of a vanishing country.” Ukraine also faces a potential default on nearly $600 million in payments due in May for GDP-linked securities. Negotiations with hedge funds for restructuring the debt have so far been unsuccessful.

Read more …

“..a “no limits” partnership where there are “no forbidden zones.”

• Russia and China Will Never Forget WWII Victims – Putin (RT)

Moscow and Beijing remain staunch defenders of the historic truth and remember the countless people their countries lost during World War II, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said during talks with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping. Xi is among the more than two dozen world leaders who are expected to attend the events in Moscow commemorating the 80th anniversary of the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany. The Chinese president is also poised to hold negotiations with Russian officials. During a meeting on Thursday, Putin thanked his “dear friend” Xi for the visit and for joining him in celebrating a “sacred holiday for Russia.” “The sacrifices that both our nations made should never be forgotten. The Soviet Union gave 27 million lives, laid them on the altar of the Fatherland and on the altar of Victory.

And 37 million lives were lost in China’s war for its freedom and independence. Under the leadership of the Communist Party, this victory was achieved,” he said. Putin highlighted the significance of the triumph over fascism, adding that Russia and China “defend historical truth and the memory of the war and fight against current manifestations of neo-Nazism and militarism.” The Russian leader also thanked Xi for inviting him to his country’s celebrations of its victory over Imperial Japan in WWII. “I will be glad to come back to friendly China on an official visit,” he said.

In echoing remarks, Xi emphasized shared historical memory and the strategic alignment between Beijing and Moscow. “The Chinese and Russian peoples, at the cost of heavy losses, achieved a great victory” and made an “indelible historic contribution to global peace and the progress of humanity,” he noted.Russia and China have long enjoyed close ties, with the two countries describing their relations as a “no limits” partnership where there are “no forbidden zones.” Beijing has also consistently refused to support Western sanctions against Moscow over the Ukraine conflict.

Read more …

Hard to beat.

• Russia-China Ties Most Important Stabilizing Factor – Putin (Sp.)

Ties between Russia and China are the most important stabilizing factor in the international arena, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday. “In the context of a difficult geopolitical situation and global uncertainty, the Russian-Chinese foreign policy nexus is the most important stabilizing factor in the international arena,” Putin said at the expanded-format talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping in the Kremlin. The cooperation of the two nations will continue to develop for the benefit of the Chinese and Russian peoples, he added. Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the conclusion of agreements on the promotion and mutual protection of investments between Russia and China.

“Today we will sign updated intergovernmental agreements on the promotion and mutual protection of investments, which, I am sure, will have a positive impact on the formation of a more favorable business environment and will give a serious impetus to the development of our economic cooperation,” Putin said. Russia has become the world’s top importer of Chinese cars, the president said, adding that Russia is also ready to expand the range of Russian agricultural products to China. “For our part, we intend to continue to create comfortable conditions for the activities of companies from China in Russia,” the president said. Additionally, Putin said that Russia and China intend to further modernize the transport infrastructure. Putin also proposed to review in detail practical aspects of China-Russia cooperation.

“Mr. Xi Jinping, dear friend, distinguished colleagues, today at the expanded talks with the participation of delegations, we will review in detail the practical aspects of our cooperation in various areas. Traditionally, the chairmen of the five intergovernmental commissions from both sides will report on the work of the five intergovernmental commissions, and our foreign ministers will discuss cooperation in the global arena,” Putin said at the beginning of the expanded talks. The Russian leader also said that he and Xi Jinping held an in-depth, meaningful exchange of views and outlined plans for future work during the narrow-format talks earlier in the day. “The governments of our countries are working effectively. Systematic measures are being taken that will increase the level of financial and technical independence of our cooperation,” Putin added.

Read more …

“This isn’t about nostalgia – it’s about remembering what was at stake and why that memory mattered. Without a renewed commitment to these principles, no amount of military hardware or technical measures will ensure lasting global stability.”

• The West Is Dismantling The Foundations of 1945 (Lukyanov)

Eighty years is a long time. Over such a span, the world changes almost beyond recognition, and events that once felt close fade into legend. Yet while history may become distant, its imprint remains. The Second World War created a political order that shaped global affairs for decades – an order many assumed was permanent. But today, the world is shifting rapidly and irreversibly. The events of the first half of the 20th century are no less significant, but their role in contemporary politics is no longer the same. The war’s outcome, culminating in the defeat of Nazism, defined the modern world order. In many ways, it was seen as a near-perfect struggle: a battle against an unquestionably aggressive and criminal regime that forced nations with deep-seated ideological differences to set aside their disputes.

The Allied powers – divided by political systems and long-standing mistrust – found themselves united by necessity. None of them entered this alliance out of pure goodwill; pre-war diplomacy was focused on self-preservation and maneuvering to deflect the worst consequences elsewhere. Yet when the existential threat became clear, those ideological rifts were temporarily bridged. It was precisely because of this that the post-war order proved so resilient. This framework weathered the storms of the Cold War and even lingered into the early 21st century, despite major shifts in the global balance of power. What helped hold it together was a shared moral and ideological narrative: the war was seen as a fight against absolute evil, a rare moment when the divisions between the Allies seemed secondary to their common cause. This consensus – centered around the defeat of Nazism and symbolized by milestones like the Nuremberg Trials – gave moral legitimacy to the post-war order.

But in the 21st century, that shared narrative has started to fray. As it weakens, so too does the stability of the world order it helped create. One key reason lies in Europe’s own internal transformations. In the post-Cold War era, Eastern European countries – long vocal about their dual suffering under both Nazi and Soviet regimes – have pushed a revisionist interpretation of the war. These nations increasingly define themselves as victims of “two totalitarianisms,” seeking to place the Soviet Union alongside Nazi Germany as a perpetrator of wartime crimes. This framing undermines the established consensus, which had placed the Holocaust at the moral center of the conflict and recognized European nations’ own complicity in allowing it to happen.

The growing influence of Eastern European perspectives has had a ripple effect. It has allowed Western Europe to quietly dilute its own wartime guilt, redistributing blame and reshaping collective memory. The result? An erosion of the political and moral foundations established in 1945. Ironically, this revisionism – while often framed as a push for greater historical “balance” – weakens the very liberal world order that Western powers claim to uphold. After all, institutions like the United Nations, a pillar of that order, were built on the moral and legal framework forged by the Allies’ victory. The Soviet Union’s enormous wartime contribution, and its political weight, were integral to this architecture. As the consensus around these truths crumbles, so too do the norms and structures that arose from them.

A second, subtler factor has also contributed to the unraveling. Over eight decades, the global political map has been redrawn. The end of colonialism brought dozens of new states into existence, and today’s United Nations has nearly double the membership it did at its founding. While the Second World War undeniably affected nearly every corner of humanity, many of the soldiers from the so-called Global South fought under the banners of their colonial rulers. For them, the war’s meaning was often less about defeating fascism and more about the contradictions of fighting for freedom abroad while being denied it at home.

This perspective reshapes historical memory. For example, movements seeking independence from Britain or France sometimes viewed the Axis powers not as allies, but as leverage points – symbols of the cracks in the colonial system. Thus, while the war remains significant globally, its interpretation varies. In Asia, Africa, and parts of Latin America, the milestones of the 20th century look different from those commonly accepted in the Northern Hemisphere. Unlike Europe, these regions aren’t pushing outright historical revisionism, but their priorities and narratives diverge from the Euro-Atlantic view. None of this erases the war’s importance. The Second World War remains a foundational event in international politics.

The decades of relative peace that followed were built on a clear understanding: such devastation must never be repeated. A combination of legal norms, diplomatic frameworks, and nuclear deterrence worked to uphold that principle. The Cold War, while dangerous, was defined by its avoidance of direct superpower conflict. Its success in averting World War III was no small achievement. But today, that post-war toolkit is in crisis. The institutions and agreements that once guaranteed stability are fraying. To prevent a complete breakdown, we must look back to the ideological and moral consensus that once united the world’s major powers. This isn’t about nostalgia – it’s about remembering what was at stake and why that memory mattered. Without a renewed commitment to these principles, no amount of military hardware or technical measures will ensure lasting global stability.

Read more …

“..that day when Nigel Farage, in the European Parliament, looked then Commission President Herman van Rompuy in the eye and asked him: “Who the hell do you think you are?”

• Von der Leyen Has No Business Telling Vucic And Fico Where They Can Go (Borges)

Come May 9th, Serbian president Aleksandar Vucic and Slovak prime minister Robert Fico will stride into Moscow’s Red Square for the Victory Day parade, marking 80 years since the defeat of Hitler’s Germany and of the final destruction of the odious creed of Nazism. Their decision, a bold assertion of sovereign prerogative, has drawn the EU’s wrath. Threats of sanctions, diplomatic ostracism, and new obstacles for Serbia’s future membership of the Union have predictably followed; as always, the EU mandarinate has no qualms about showing just how hostile to national democracy it is. The episode really brings to mind that day when Nigel Farage, in the European Parliament, looked then Commission President Herman van Rompuy in the eye and asked him: “Who the hell do you think you are?”

The EU’s reaction to Vucic and Fico’s sovereign decision is a study in arrogance. Kaja Kallas, the bloc’s foreign policy czar, warned that attending Moscow’s parade would carry “consequences”, threatening to stall Serbia’s EU membership and scolding Slovakia, a member state, for daring to chart its own course. Estonian diplomat Jonatan Vseviov called the event a “test of alignment,” as if sovereign nations must genuflect to Brussels’ edicts or face punishment. This is not partnership; it is diktat. The EU, which in 2022 urged members to boycott Russian-hosted events, now brandishes that stance as a whip. Fico, defiant, declared that “No one dictates my travel,” while Vucic stressed that he would “proudly represent Serbia” in the event. Their resolve is a rebuke to a bloc that persistently—and intolerably—mistakes coercion for unity.

Brussels’ threats only bolster the argument for Vucic and Fico’s presence. You don’t need to be a Russophile to remember that, whatever their faults and despite the crimes of the post-1945 division of Europe, the Russians were ultimately on the good side of World War Two. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact notwithstanding, they did storm the Berlin Reichstag. It is morally repugnant that, 80 years after the liberation of Auschwitz and so many other death camps, Brussels is trying to prevent European leaders from paying their fair tribute to the more than 20 million Russians who, alongside millions of British, Commonwealth, and American servicemen, fought and fell in the battle against Nazism. For Serbia and Slovakia, attending is an act of historical gratitude to those who saved both nations from genocidal occupation, not a statement on contemporary geopolitics. The EU’s attempt to paint participation as a betrayal ignores this context, weaponising history to enforce conformity. It is also an act of arrogance wholly out of touch with the spirit of the times, even more absurd at a time when the Russian and American presidents are sharing envoys in an effort to return peace to a much bloodied Ukraine.

The EU’s conduct reveals its true face: that of a prison of nations, stifling the autonomy of members and aspirants alike. Slovakia, despite its EU membership, is lectured to as if foreign policy were Brussels’ domain, not the inalienable right of the Slovak people. Serbia, a candidate for over a decade, faces ultimatums to abandon its independent stance, with accession talks hostage to compliance. This is no union of equals but a bureaucratic empire, demanding ideological lockstep over sovereignty. The bloc’s pressure on Serbia mirrors its treatment of Hungary’s Viktor Orban, whose pragmatic diplomacy has been studiously vilified by the Commission’s propaganda machine. The EU’s “solidarity” is a sham, a one-way demand that silences dissent and belittles smaller states’ histories, preferences, and aspirations. Indeed, after this, why would Serbia want to join at all? Why would anyone?

It is no different for the other European nations still exposed to Brussels’ whims. Consider the consequences if Fico had not stood his ground. What nation worthy of the name could accept the institutionalisation of the principle that it is not their national, elected representatives, but a class of foreign, unelected imperial functionaries, who is to decide on our foreign policy, where our leaders go or don’t, or how to vote at the United Nations Security Council? Could anyone accept an EU in which, say, Meloni is bullied for daring to visit Washington against the desires of Mrs. Kallas? What believer in national sovereignty could accept that Mr. Orbán, for instance, is prevented from flying to Israel—or from inviting the Israeli Prime Minister to Budapest—simply because of the EU mandarinate’s known hostility for that country?

Fico
https://twitter.com/DD_Geopolitics/status/1920344805902856593
https://twitter.com/MyLordBebo/status/1920434001728164184

Read more …

Not everyone agrees.

• Kennedy Defends Casey Means’ Nomination For Surgeon General Amid Backlash (JTN)

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Thursday defended Casey Means’ nomination for surgeon general on social media, after the nomination faced serious backlash. President Donald Trump nominated Means for the post after withdrawing Janette Nesheiwat’s nomination over allegations she inflated her credentials by claiming she had a degree from the University of Arkansas School of Medicine, when she actually graduated from a medical school in the Caribbean instead and did her residency in Arkansas. Means has largely been criticized over her reputation as a “wellness influencer” and her lack of experience in public health administration. Means graduated from Stanford medical school, but dropped out of her surgical residency as a head and neck surgeon in her fifth year to practice functional medicine instead.

Kennedy claimed that the backlash over Means’ nomination “reveal[s] just how far off course our healthcare conversations have veered,” and that she was the perfect replacement because she left the traditional medical system, not in spite of it. “Casey has excelled in every endeavor she has undertaken,” Kennedy wrote on X. “She had the courage to leave traditional medicine because she realized her patients weren’t getting better. The attacks that Casey is unqualified because she left the medical system completely miss the point of what we are trying to accomplish with [Make America Healthy Again]. “Her leadership has inspired many doctors to reform the system and forge a new path away from sick care, which fills corporate coffers, and toward health care, which enriches all of us,” he added.

Kennedy also applauded Means’ background as a “stand out” at Stanford, her achievement of creating a business and writing a New York Times best-selling book, which he credits as helping to inspire his Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement. “This ability of Casey’s to inspire Americans to rethink our healthcare system is also an existential threat to the status quo interests, which profit from sickness,” he said. “Every day, I wake up emboldened to drive change because I know the support of MAHA moms has my back. Casey has played an integral role in galvanizing these moms. “Casey will help me ensure American children will be less medicated and better-fed — and significantly healthier — during the next four years. She will be the best Surgeon General in American history,” he concluded. Means will still need to be confirmed by the United States Senate.

Latypova

Read more …

it’s piling up. What’s behind that?

• Some of Hegseth’s Passwords Exposed in Cyberattacks, Shown on Internet (Sp.)

A number of passwords that Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth used to register for various websites have been compromised in cyberattacks and are available online, the New York Times reported. The report said this raises new questions about Hegseth’s use of personal devices to share military information. According to the report, the US secretary of defense probably did not use the exposed passwords for sensitive accounts, but did use at least one password multiple times for personal email accounts. It said at least one of the passwords was a simple combination of letters followed by numbers, possibly representing initials and a date. The same password was exposed in two separate personal email account breaches in 2017 and 2018.

According to cybersecurity experts, as Hegseth’s phone number is easily found online, it could be a potential target for hackers and foreign intelligence agencies. On March 24, Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic editor-in-chief, revealed in an article that he was accidentally added by then-National Security Advisor Mike Waltz to a private chat on the Signal app regarding impending strikes on the Houthis in Yemen. According to Goldberg, the chat included senior officials such as Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance. Goldberg presented screenshots of the correspondence, in which the Pentagon chief, several hours before the start of the operation, reports on the types of aircraft and targets, which, according to the journalist, could threaten servicemen if leaked.

Read more …

“..a vote for the Carney Liberals is a vote for Western secession—a vote for the breakup of Canada as we know it.”

• Western Canada Puts the Rest of Canada on Notice (David Solway)

Though diehard loyalists will disagree, it is now time for Western Canada, in particular Alberta, to get its revolutionary act together. There is no longer any doubt that Canada is a broken, dysfunctional country, a disjointed collection of ten semi-independent provinces and three sparsely populated northern territories, superposed upon a chasm-wide divide between the East-Central “Laurentian” elite of bankers, Crown corporations, government agencies, media Jacobins and powerful political families on one side and the agricultural and energy-producing, partially rural-based, Texan-like, hardworking and self-reliant prairie West on the other. The West was never fully integrated into the Confederation as an equal partner, being consistently exploited by the Upper Canadian Anglo-Presbyterians, Québécois grandees, and their descendants who still rule the upper tier of Canadian politics.

In his 1954 book “Social Credit and Federal Power in Canada,” political scientist James Mallory described the Prairie additions to the nation as “provinces in the Roman sense.” The Prairie provinces were regions dominated by the administrative center in the East to whom they owed fealty and paid tribute. Similarly, in his recent C2C essay on Alberta’s future, University of Calgary professor Barry Cooper explains: “Ottawa acted as a new Rome on the Rideau.” The Western provinces “existed to strengthen and benefit Laurentian Canada by analogy with Roman Italy, and to enrich its leading citizens.” It is appropriate in this connection to recall the policy recommendations of Clifford Sifton, a cabinet member in Wilfrid Laurier’s Liberal government from 1896 to 1905.

As J.W. Dafoe writes in his biography, “CLIFFORD SIFTON in Relation to HIS TIMES,” Sifton was responsible for immigration to the Prairie, what he called the Last Best West, and defended the “stalwart peasants in sheep-skin coats” who were turning some of the most difficult areas of the West into productive farms. Yet he plainly had a change of heart, unless his real intentions were covert. In a speech to Parliament, quoted by the Alberta Prosperity Project, Sifton said: “We desire, and all Canadian Patriots desire, that the great trade of the prairies shall go to enrich our people to the East, to build up our factories and our places of work.” The fact is not in dispute. In the immortal words of the late, Liberal “rainmaker” Keith Davey, “Screw the West. We’ll take the rest,”—which makes neither economic nor practical sense.

In any event, Alberta and the Prairie West, Canada’s food and energy breadbasket, have gotten a raw deal from the central establishment since their inception as part of the Dominion. Tensions are now about to reach a boiling point. No demon that was ever foaled is or was as perilous for Canadian unity as Mark Carney, except perhaps for Pierre Elliott Trudeau, whose 1980 National Energy Program (NEP), as noted, critically depressed Alberta’s economy. Carney is demonstrably bad news for the prairie West, and the spirit of independence is now circulating in Alberta and Saskatchewan. As Preston Manning, one of Canada’s most influential public figures and a force for good, wrote, “Voters, particularly in central and Atlantic Canada, need to recognize that a vote for the Carney Liberals is a vote for Western secession—a vote for the breakup of Canada as we know it.” Unfortunately, it’s rather too late now. The people have misspoken.

Carney’s plans are well known, as touched on above: caps on oil and gas emissions, a phased-in fossil fuel ban, a hidden tax on heavy industry, no more pipelines (Bill C-69), increased investment in failed renewables, a continued Tanker Ban, and more. He makes this clear in his 500-page globalist manual for national destruction, “Values.” A meme making the rounds these days has to do with Justin Trudeau rhetorically asking the country: “Miss me now?” Of course, Trudeau was merely Carney’s stooge, a wavy-haired soyboy the country took to its bosom. His non-telegenic master is now in full control, his aura as a cosmopolitan banker proving irresistible to the average Canadian voter. As things now stand, and as they have stood since the incorporation of Alberta and Saskatchewan into the Confederation in 1905, the federal state will persist in feeding parasitically off the West while paradoxically hampering the very infrastructure that supports it.

Read more …

Let’s bring back Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. He knows a thing or two.

• Trump’s Ultimate Troll Move Would Send DC Leftists Into Meltdown (Margolis)

Last week, I wrote about how Trump’s pick of Mike Waltz for UN ambassador was the ultimate trolling of the left. I even suggested that Trump could up the ante by nominating Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn to replace Waltz. Flynn, a seasoned intel veteran, was one of the earliest and most high-profile victims of the Democrats’ Russia hoax. Whether Trump goes that route remains to be seen, but it would be a power play.And it looks like Flynn is on board. During an interview on “The Benny Show,” with Benny Johnson, Flynn declared he’s prepared to return to the role of national security advisor under President Trump—if called upon. Flynn, who briefly held the post at the start of Trump’s first term before being railroaded by the Deep State, left little doubt about his willingness to serve again.

“I am ready to serve,” Flynn said, referencing a post he made on social media that stirred speculation about his return. “The first question—yes. The second question—no,” he added, confirming that while he hasn’t been contacted yet by Trump directly, his hat is firmly in the ring. “I’ve been watching everything, listening, and observing intensely,” Flynn explained. “We are in a place where we cannot afford to have, as Trump likes to say, unforced errors. We cannot afford to drop a glass ball right now.” Flynn emphasized that despite not being in government anymore, he has never stopped serving the country. “I’m serving now, Benny. I serve in just a different way… I’ve been engaging people in government. I’m still out doing stuff,” he said. “That’s my message to every American: How are you serving this country?”

With his extensive military and intelligence background, Flynn made clear he hasn’t retreated from public life. “I didn’t go off into the sunset and go, ‘Woe is me,’” he said. “I know we have great leaders out there… There are a lot of people who have reached out to me to help get their name put forward for some position in the government, and I’ve done that.” Flynn also didn’t mince words about the fear he believes his return would generate among entrenched bureaucrats and the media. “Yeah, is there a group of people in the Deep State that fear me? You’re dam* right they do. They fear me for a good reason,” he said. “The mainstream media—they would blow a gasket.”

When asked directly if he had any breaking news to share, Flynn reiterated his commitment to rejoin the fight: “I would say to you, Benny, that I am ready. I am ready to come out of that glass, that is for sure.” Flynn noted that while President Trump is already doing “wonderful things,” the ideological battle in America is far from over. “We are still in a massive, massive ideological war going on in this country,” he warned. “There aren’t going to be any friendlies if we get to another election and we lose the majority in the House of Representatives—never mind the next presidential election.”

Flynn
https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1920196536555782325

Read more …

“..they were deliberately not counting people who surveyed that they were Trump voters in 2024. That was half the country.”

• How Pollsters Rig the Numbers Against Trump (Victor Davis Hanson)

We’ve touched on polls before, but I don’t think I’ve seen anything quite as egregious in pollsters’ bias as recently when they apparently or supposedly or purportedly surveyed the first 100 days of President Donald Trump and the public reaction. Almost immediately headlines blared, “Worst First 100 Days in History.” “Trump Drops From 52 to 42.”Everybody was confounded because the economic news was pretty good. Job growth was just spectacular. Over 170,000 jobs. Inflation was down. Energy prices were down. Corporate profits were up. There was a movement on the trade question. Ukraine still—there was no bad news except the controversy and chaos of a counterrevolution. So, what were the pollsters trying to tell us? Or were they trying to manipulate us? And I think it’s the latter.

Larry Kudlow, for example, the Fox, former Fox Business—I think he still is at Fox. He pointed out that when he examined The New York Times and The Washington Post polls, they were deliberately not counting people who surveyed that they were Trump voters in 2024. That was half the country. They were only polling about a third. Think of that. A third of the people that said they voted for Trump they polled. Not half. So, of course, their results were going to be disputed or suspect. But here’s another thing. There were analyses after each of the 2016, the 2020, and the 2024 elections about the accuracy of polls, post facto, of the election. And we learned that they were way off in 2016. They said they had learned their lessons. They were way off in 2020. They said they learned their lesson. And they were way off in 2024.

And why are they way off? Because liberal pollsters—and that’s the majority of people who do these surveys—believe that if they create artificial leads for their Democratic candidates, it creates greater fundraising and momentum. Kind of the herd mentality. “Oh, Trump is down by six. I don’t wanna vote for him. Then he won’t win.” That’s the type of thing that they want to create. I’ll give you one example. The most egregious. The most egregious of all these polls was the NPR/PBS/Marist poll. They have Donald Trump just very unpopular after 100 days. Very unpopular. This is the now-defunded Corporation for Public Broadcasting, that umbrella organization from which this poll was funded and conducted.

Do we remember that poll? It was the one poll that came out the night before the 2024 election. They said that then-Vice President Kamala Harris would win by four points. And they said it was beyond the margin of error. And one of the pollsters said, “It’s her race to lose.” She lost by a point and a half. They were five and a half points. Did they apologize? No. Here they are again. And David Plouffe, one of the directors of the Harris campaign, just recently came out and said, “Well, we had all these inside polls we never disclosed. But not one of them—not one of them—had Harris ever ahead of Trump.” Inside polls don’t lie because you pay somebody to tell you the truth. Nothing will get you fired and lose income quicker than to lie about a poll so that your candidate will be happy and rely on your false information. People don’t pay for that kind of stuff.

So, in other words, they knew the whole time—the Harris campaign—that 15 of those 20 polls, 19 polls that all had Harris winning the election, they were all false. Of course, they never said anything. And so, here’s my point. If you look at the polls that were the most accurate—Mark Penn was very accurate. He’s a Democratic pollster. But especially, the Rasmussen poll and the Insider Advantage and the Trafalgar poll. They joined together and they had a 100-day survey. Rasmussen—each day of the 100-day period that he’s issued a poll. And guess what? They have Trump ahead by anywhere from two to three points after 100 days. And they were the most accurate.

And yet, what do these news outlets say that Trump—it’s a disaster. That he’s polling—no. He’s polling very well. Things are going very well. The pollsters that indicate that people support him are the only pollsters that have any reputation after this decade-long polling disaster in which their prejudices, their biases, and their hatred of Donald Trump affected their results. And they were effectively in league with the Democratic candidate to create momentum rather than to adhere to a spirit of professionalism and honor.

Read more …

According to some, Trump and Musk run a government for billionaires.

• Trump Urges GOP To Raise Taxes On The Wealthy To Fund Economic Agenda (ZH)

President Donald Trump is urging Republican lawmakers to raise taxes on some of the wealthiest Americans as part of his sweeping new economic package – a move that US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick says he’s ‘in favor’ of doing. According to individuals familiar with the discussions, Trump is pushing for the creation of a new 39.6 percent tax bracket for individuals earning at least $2.5 million annually or couples making $5 million. The current top rate stands at 37 percent. If enacted, the measure would restore the top marginal rate to its pre-2017 level, effectively rolling back a key piece of President Trump’s own first-term tax cuts. According to Bloomberg, Trump made his case in a phone call Wednesday with House Speaker Mike Johnson, where he also reiterated support for ending the carried interest tax break – a longstanding benefit claimed by private equity and venture capital managers, one source said.

Representative Jason Smith, the Missouri Republican who chairs the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, is expected to meet with President Trump on Friday. A congressional aide said Smith plans to assure the president that the forthcoming tax bill ‘will deliver on the president’s priorities,’ according to the aide. While the proposal’s full contours remain under negotiation, it is not yet clear whether it would include an expansion of the existing small business income exemption under the individual tax code. The push to raise the top rate comes as House Republicans face mounting fiscal pressure in drafting what President Trump has labeled the “one big beautiful bill” — a multi-trillion-dollar package aimed at extending the 2017 tax cuts while enacting a range of new promises, including eliminating taxes on tips and overtime pay.

To finance the plan, GOP leaders have struggled to find consensus on cuts to entitlement programs such as Medicaid, prompting President Trump to float alternatives. Despite concerns that taxing high earners could harm Republicans politically or drive wealth abroad, President Trump has increasingly suggested such a move might be necessary. Raising taxes goes against long-standing Republican orthodoxy. Trump’s willingness to propose a tax hike for millionaires demonstrates how much he has remade the GOP in his own populist image. Top Republicans have balked at other proposals that would raise levies on affluent households. -Bloomberg “Anytime the president asks for something, we will consider it,” said Representative Kevin Hern of Oklahoma, a member of the House tax-writing committee. He confirmed that both the new top rate and carried interest repeal are “under discussion” but emphasized that “there is no agreement yet.”

In the Senate, the reaction has been more measured. Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, told conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt on Thursday that he’s “not excited” about the tax hike but acknowledged that “there are a number of people in both the House and the Senate who are.” “If the president weighs in in favor of it,” Crapo added, “then that’s going to be a big factor that we have to take into consideration.” As Republicans weigh how to advance President Trump’s second-term tax ambitions, the question of who pays — and how much — is shaping up to be a defining test of the president’s enduring sway over the party’s economic direction.

Read more …

US carmakers are complaining about conditions for the “first 100,000 U.K. made cars coming to America”. As for US beef, let RFK tell us what’s in it.

• Trump’s Unprecedented Trade Deal With Britain (Victoria Taft)

The first of the cascade of trade and tariff deals expected under the new Trump administration was announced in the Oval Office on Thursday. The “unprecedented” deal was the first time in decades that American producers will have freer and “streamlined customs” access to the U.K. markets. The announcement allows the sale of U.S. beef into the U.K. for the first time in decades and ensures an increase in the purchase of Boeing commercial jetliners. Flanked by Vice President J.D. Vance and on a conference call with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, President Donald Trump announced an agreement “worth billions of dollars” with the U.K. that reconfigures tariff prices on goods, expands the market for American farmers and ranchers, and added a phalanx of Boeing jetliners to that nation’s commercial fleet. The Trump White House called it “a breakthrough” and “a good deal.”

The “unprecedented” deal not only includes U.S. tariffs but also a reduction in tariffs by the U.K. The deal introduces a reset of the baseline framework for trade, which will create a $5 billion in exports opportunities for American farmers, ranchers, and other producers can sell into the U.K. That includes beef. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said that the beef deal with “exponentially” increase the amount of beef that ranchers sell. The U.K. has effectively cut off U.S. beef supply for nearly 40 years due to added hormones and completely cut off U.S.-produced beef 20 years ago due to BSE or mad cow disease concerns. In another win for farmers, Rollins announced that ethanol tariffs were brought to zero percent from an initial 19% announced. In a statement, the president said, “The U.K. will reduce or eliminate numerous non-tariff barriers that unfairly discriminated against American products.”

Remarkably, the two countries also announced the creation of a “trading zone” between them. The initial deal also raises about $6 billion in revenue from the 10% tariffs imposed by the U.S. on U.K. imported products and creates a supply chain between the two countries for pharmaceuticals and plane parts. Trump initially announced a 25% tariff on many British products, and under this deal he reduced some of those to 10%, including adjustments to tariffs on steel and aluminum. He also reduced tariffs from 25% to 10% on the first 100,000 U.K. made cars coming to America. Some of America’s most beloved luxury cars come from the U.K., including Rolls-Royce, Aston Martin, Rover, McLaren, Bentley, Lotus, MG, and Jaguar. In addition to opening markets for American farmers and ranchers, Trump announced an increase in the number of jetliners that would be purchased by British companies, without naming them.

British airlines already had 18 Boeing planes on order before the announced deal. The new deal alludes to a $10 billion order, but doesn’t specify which U.K. airlines would be taking delivery. Simple Flying reports that “there are only two UK airlines that could be in the running for placing such a big Boeing order.” “In October 2023, frequent flyer site Head For Points wrote that IAG, the parent company of British Airways, Iberia, and others, had been in contact with both Airbus and Boeing about further wide-body purchases to replace its older Boeing 777s,” the publication reported. It should be noted that the U.K. companies previously had a stake in Airbus, which is the rival to Boeing’s commercial business, but divested from the airline in 2006. Airbus is owned by several other European countries. Trump noted that the announcement of the deal on Thursday fell on the 80th anniversary of Victory Day for World War II.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has recently said that Trump has done an extraordinary job of creating leverage where there was none before. “President Trump creates what I would call strategic uncertainty in the negotiations,” he told Fox Business. “Nobody’s better at creating this leverage than President Trump,” he said. There’s no one better “at giving himself maximum leverage.” The United States has had near-zero tariffs with the United Kingdom before Trump came along, and now Britain has opened up its markets to American farmers, ranchers, and airplanes more than ever before. As Trump put it Thursday at the announcement in the Oval Office, “It can’t be understated… how important this deal is and what this means to American farmers and ranchers.”

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Shavo
https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1920341642009096680

99

Mama bear

Underground

https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1920159970655391818

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle May 8 2025

May 082025
 
 May 8, 2025  Posted by at 8:00 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  54 Responses »


Edouard Vuillard The two sisters 1899

 

• Russia’s 72-hour ‘Victory Day’ Truce Begins (RT)
• Trump Warns of ‘Decisions’ on Russia-Ukraine Talks (RT)
• Von der Leyen Calls On EU To Speed Up Ukrainian Entry (RT)
• EU Parliament Head Threatens To Sue von der Leyen (Sp.)
• ‘Absolute Insanity’ – Hungary Slams EU Plan To Halt Russian Energy Imports (RT)
• Slovakia’s Fico Calls EU’s Refusal of Russian Fuel ‘Economic Suicide’ (Sp.)
• New German Chancellor Tells US To ‘Stay Out’ of Berlin’s Affairs (RT)
• Who der Leyen: EU’s Major, Unfixable Problem With Its Foreign Policy (Marsden)
• Proof That Polls Showing Trump Underwater Are Bogus (Margolis)
• President Trump’s Most Loyal Supporters: Hispanics (Victor Davis Hanson)
• Yemen – US Concedes Maritime Defeat (MoA)
• Canadian PM Asks Trump To Rein In His Taunts (RT)
• Trump Administration Asks for Help in Uncovering Big Tech Censorship (Stepman)
• Confirming Trump’s Court Nominees ‘Priority’ for Judiciary Committee (DS)
• Pete Hegseth: Today’s Decisions and Tomorrow’s Military (Zito)
• Pakistan Closes Airspace For 48 Hours, Authorizes Response To Indian Attack (ZH)
• The Russia-Ukraine Lesson India Must Learn From Its Pakistan Standoff (Suchkov)
• ‘Prince Andrew Was F*ing Underage Girls’ – James O’ Keefe (ZH)

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1920144368599552162

https://twitter.com/DD_Geopolitics/status/1919787566317908125

https://twitter.com/BRICSinfo/status/1919770832135491818
https://twitter.com/BellaVLiberman/status/1919896141505737188
https://twitter.com/SMO_VZ/status/1919902855655293265

https://twitter.com/DD_Geopolitics/status/1919745461730078828

https://twitter.com/SMO_VZ/status/1920032150537056657

Ritter

Bondi

https://twitter.com/ricwe123/status/1919814308180926622

 

 

 

 

Predictable: Putin declares a truce. Zelensky refuses. Ukraine violates the truce terms. Ukraine and the entire western press claim Russia itself broke the truce.

• Russia’s 72-hour ‘Victory Day’ Truce Begins (RT)

A 72-hour ceasefire proposed by Russian President Vladimir Putin has officially come into effect, with Russian forces halting offensive operations from midnight on Thursday, despite a surge in Ukrainian drone attacks in the hours before the truce. The pause in fighting, set to last until midnight on May 10–11, is described as a humanitarian gesture marking the 80th anniversary of the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany. The Kremlin says the ceasefire also aims to create space for direct peace talks with Ukraine, without preconditions. ”Yes, this is an initiative by the Russian side, by President Putin. It remains in force,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed on Wednesday, stressing that Moscow is committed to honoring the truce despite Ukraine’s record-breaking drone assault ahead of its start.

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has refused to back the ceasefire, denouncing it as an “attempt at manipulation” and accusing Russia of using humanitarian overtures for tactical advantage. Instead of pausing hostilities, Kiev intensified its drone campaign, with high-ranking Russian diplomat Rodion Miroshnik stating that Ukrainian UAV strikes over the past week caused a record number of civilian casualties — 15 killed and 142 injured. Earlier in the week, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova accused Zelensky of engaging in “classic terrorist behavior” by threatening civilians in Russia while soliciting additional funding from Western donors.

Peskov condemned the continued attacks, accusing the “Kiev regime” of revealing “its essence and inclination toward terrorist actions.” He noted that Russian special services and the military are taking all necessary measures to ensure Victory Day events proceed safely across the country. Despite calls from some lawmakers for an “asymmetrical” response to the drone strikes, the Kremlin has reiterated its position: “All instructions have been given, there are no new elements here,” Peskov said when asked about potential retaliation during the ceasefire window. Victory Day, celebrated on May 9, commemorates the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945 and remains one of the most significant public holidays in Russia.

Read more …

Vance and Trump may claim that Russia asks for too much, but this didn’t start today. The situation is the culmination of three years of fighting. Which itself was the culmination of over 10 years of mostly violent ‘provocations’. Now, Russia wants to stop these provocations once and for all. Incorporating Crimea and the 4 regions into Russia is part of that. In the first peace talks 3 years ago Russia never talked about land. Only when it became clear the talks were fake, did it become an issue. And now there’s no going back. Russia can’t give away parts of its own territory.

Vance should do his homework.

• Trump Warns of ‘Decisions’ on Russia-Ukraine Talks (RT)

President Donald Trump has expressed displeasure over the pace of the US-brokered negotiations with Russia and Ukraine regarding the current conflict, stating that decisions need to be reached soon. According to US Vice President J.D. Vance, Washington currently considers Russia’s demands for ending the conflict unacceptable. “The Russians are asking for a certain set of requirements, a certain set of concessions, in order to end the conflict. We think they’re asking for too much,” he said at a Munich Leaders Meeting in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday. Trump was asked to comment on Vance’s statement in a press briefing in the White House later in the day. “It’s possible that he’s right,” the US president replied. “I’m not happy about it,” Trump said.

Senior figures in the current US administration, including the president himself, have stated that Washington may have to step back from trying to mediate talks over the Ukraine conflict if sufficient progress is not made. “At some point in time, it either has to be something that can happen or we all need to move on. That’ll be a decision the president will have to make,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Fox News last week. Washington has reportedly prepared a fresh set of economic sanctions targeting Russia’s energy and banking sectors, as potential leverage in the talks.

Moscow has repeatedly declared that it remains open to peace talks with Kiev. Last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin has announced a 72-hour ceasefire around the upcoming Victory Day celebrations. Ukraine rejected the initiative, demanded an unconditional 30-day truce and increased UAV and missile attacks on Russia. Despite this, the ceasefire offer is still on the table, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said. Russia’s demands for ending the conflict have remained stable: Ukraine must demilitarize, denazify, abandon ambitions to join NATO, stay neutral and remain free of nuclear weapons. In addition, Kiev needs to recognize the Russian regions of Crimea, Kherson and Zaporozhye as well as the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, Moscow has stated.

Read more …

Either she goes, or the EU is finished. And she won’t go voluntarily.

• Von der Leyen Calls On EU To Speed Up Ukrainian Entry (RT)

Ukraine EU accession talks should be launched in 2025, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stressed on Wednesday. She argued that such a step would enhance Kiev’s negotiating position against Moscow while also opening the door for more investments in the country’s military industry. Kiev has repeatedly expressed its desire to join the EU. However, Ukraine’s “immediate” accession has been consistently opposed by several member states. Hungary has voiced concerns over corruption, the treatment of ethnic minorities, and economic competition, particularly in agriculture. Other EU nations, including Slovakia, France, and Germany, have also expressed reservations, emphasizing that Kiev must meet existing reform benchmarks before talks proceed. Speaking at a Europe Day event on May 7, von der Leyen said that the EU’s current task is to “help Ukraine stand strong, defy Putin’s intimidations.”

“Today, I would like to focus on how we can do so, and on three priorities for our action. First, support Ukraine’s defense. Second, complete the phase-out of Russian fossil fuels. And third, accelerate Ukraine’s accession path to our Union.” She added that Brussels is “working hard with Ukraine to open the first cluster of accession talks, and to open all clusters in 2025.” While Russia has consistently rejected the idea of Ukraine joining NATO, its position on EU accession has been more restrained. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has stated that the country has a “sovereign right” to join the bloc, provided that it remains a matter of economic integration and not military alignment.

At the same time, Russian officials have increasingly warned that the EU is losing its purely civilian character. Peskov has accused the bloc of actively working to prolong the Ukraine conflict by repeatedly expressing its intention to keep supporting Kiev in its desire to “continue the war.” He has also criticized Brussels for undermining peace efforts by consistently portraying Russia as the bloc’s primary adversary. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had previously also stated that the EU was “becoming militarized at a record pace,” and claimed there was now “very little difference” between the EU and NATO.

Read more …

“..adoption of the Commission’s plan without a proper legal basis would end up “putting at risk democratic legitimacy by undermining Parliament’s legislative and scrutiny functions..”

• EU Parliament Head Threatens To Sue von der Leyen (Sp.)

The European Parliament has warned the European Commission (EC) that it could take it to court if it bypasses EU lawmakers to create a €150 billion ($170 billion) loan program to boost defense spending across the bloc. In March, EC head Ursula von der Leyen unveiled a plan to raise €800 billion to expand military potential across the EU in response to what she described as “a threat coming from Russia” – a claim rejected by Moscow. To raise the money, the Commission used Article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which allows member states in emergencies to approve proposals from the executive branch in Brussels without going through the usual process.

On Monday, European Parliament President Roberta Metsola sent a letter to von der Leyen, urging her to change the legal basis for the initiative, threatening to sue the EC if it fails to comply. The adoption of the Commission’s plan without a proper legal basis would end up “putting at risk democratic legitimacy by undermining Parliament’s legislative and scrutiny functions,” the letter read. The EC “will always be available to explain why Article 122 has been chosen as the appropriate legal basis,” its spokesman Thomas Regnier told Euronews. “[Western] Europe faces an unprecedented security threat.

As stated by President von der Leyen in her Political Guidelines, Article 122 will only be used in exceptional circumstances, as the ones we are currently living in,” Regnier stated. The €150 billion loan program is seen by the Commission as a cornerstone of its ‘Readiness 2030’ proposal to invest over €800 billion into defense across the bloc by the end of the decade when – as Brussels claims – Russia would be in a position to attack an EU-member country. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly rejected allegations that Moscow harbors aggressive intentions toward EU countries, calling it “nonsense” designed to alarm Western Europeans and legitimize major increases in defense budgets.

Read more …

“..uphold the right to source energy from where it reliably arrives and where it arrives at a low cost.”

• ‘Absolute Insanity’ – Hungary Slams EU Plan To Halt Russian Energy Imports (RT)

The European Commission’s plan to completely phase out Russian fuel imports violates the sovereignty of EU member states by depriving them of the right to choose their energy sources, according to Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto. Brussels has outlined plans to end the bloc’s energy reliance on Moscow by completely eliminating imports of oil, gas, and nuclear fuel in the coming years. Hungary obtains over 80% of its gas from Russia via pipeline, with LNG playing a supplementary role. Budapest has continued to strengthen its energy ties with Moscow despite the sanctions introduced by the EU in the wake of the Ukraine conflict.

“The forced, artificially ideological-based exclusion of natural gas, crude oil, and nuclear fuel originating from Russia will lead to severe price increases in Europe, seriously harming the sovereignty of European countries, and cause major difficulties for European companies,” Szijjarto said in a video he shared on his Facebook page on Tuesday, adding that “what was announced is absolute insanity.” “Everyone in Brussels has lost their common sense,” the foreign minister exclaimed, emphasizing that Budapest would not allow the European Commission (EC) to violate Hungary’s sovereignty and would “uphold the right to source energy from where it reliably arrives and where it arrives at a low cost.” Earlier in the day, the EC published a “roadmap” outlining its ambitious strategy to end reliance on Russian energy by the end of 2027.

The bloc’s executive branch said it would propose legislation in June requiring all member states to draft “national plans” to terminate their imports of Russian gas, nuclear fuel, and oil. Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico also criticized the plan, calling the proposal “economic suicide.” He added that Slovakia would push for changes in the legislative process. Brussels announced its intention to wean EU members off Russian energy shortly after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022. Supplies of US liquefied natural gas (LNG) have since replaced much of the cheaper pipeline gas previously delivered by Russia. Although Russian pipeline gas supplies to the EU have plummeted, the bloc has been increasing its imports of LNG from the sanction-hit nation. Last year, Russia still accounted for around 19% of the EU’s total gas and LNG supply, according to the EC.

Read more …

“This is an economic suicide: to come to the point where [there is] no gas, no oil, no nuclear fuel, nothing [from Russia] just because some new iron curtain is being set up..”

Several EU countries denied Orban and Fico permission to use their airspace to go to Moscow tomorrow. EU countries!

• Slovakia’s Fico Calls EU’s Refusal of Russian Fuel ‘Economic Suicide’ (Sp.)

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico said on Wednesday that the European Union’s desire to completely abandon Russian energy resources was economic suicide. On Tuesday, the European Commission presented the REPowerEU roadmap for ending Russian energy imports. It proposed a halt to all remaining Russian gas contracts by the end of 2027, as well as restrictions on imports of enriched uranium from Russia. “This is an economic suicide: to come to the point where [there is] no gas, no oil, no nuclear fuel, nothing [from Russia] just because some new iron curtain is being set up between the Western world and perhaps Russia and other countries,” Fico told a news conference.

The European Union’s desire to reject Russian energy resources is an “extremely dangerous game,” the prime minister said, adding that Slovakia would work to draw the European Commission’s attention to the risks associated with the decision. Earlier in the week, Fico said that by insisting on cutting off energy supplies from the east, the EU was creating conditions for further gas price hikes for political reasons. Slovak National Council Deputy Speaker Tibor Gaspar had previously told RIA Novosti that Bratislava was interested in further purchases of Russian energy resources, and this was due, among other things, to the orientation of capacities towards Russian raw materials.

Read more …

Double tongue: “Ten million AfD voters, you cannot ban them..” And then do it anyway…

• New German Chancellor Tells US To ‘Stay Out’ of Berlin’s Affairs (RT)

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has told the US government to “stay out” of his nation’s domestic politics. It comes after Trump administration officials slammed the designation of Germany’s second-largest party, Alternative for Germany (AfD), as an “extremist” organization. Following the move last week by Berlin’s domestic intelligence agency, the BfV, US Vice President J.D. Vance said the “German establishment” had “rebuilt” the Berlin Wall. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in turn, declared that the EU’s largest economy has become “a tyranny in disguise” and called upon the German authorities to change course. Merz, who was elected chancellor only after failing his first confirmation vote in parliament, told the broadcaster ZDF on Tuesday that “absurd observations” were emanating from Washington regarding the treatment of the right-wing party AfD by German authorities.

The chancellor stressed he “would like to encourage the American government… to largely stay out of” German domestic politics. The 69-year-old politician noted that he “did not interfere in the American election campaign” last year, which ended with Trump winning a second term in the White House. He also expressed his belief that US politicians should not support AfD because they “can clearly distinguish between extremist parties and parties of the political center.” Merz said he is planning a phone call with Trump on Thursday, with their first face-to-face meeting set for the NATO summit in the Hague on June 24 and 25.

When asked about the possibility of AfD being outlawed in Germany altogether, the chancellor said the German government needed to show restraint on the issue. “Ten million AfD voters, you cannot ban them,” Merz argued. He said the ruling CDU/CSU alliance should instead focus on addressing the causes pushing people to vote for the right-wing party. AfD demands tighter immigration and asylum laws and opposes the “woke agenda.” It achieved its best ever result in February’s election, clinching 20.8% of the vote and finishing second after CDU/CSU, which got 28.5%. The party filed a lawsuit on Monday challenging the BfV’s decision to classify it an “extremist” organization.

Read more …

“Her unity-at-any-cost talk really just means that dissent from countries that disagree is quashed. And those dissenters are typically those with ideological views and approaches similar to Trump’s..”

• Who der Leyen: EU’s Major, Unfixable Problem With Its Foreign Policy (Marsden)

This one stings. When asked how the EU might dodge US President Donald Trump’s tariff hammer, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent replied, “My observation… goes all the way back to [former US Secretary of State] Henry Kissinger’s statement: ‘When I call Europe, who do I call?’ So, we’re negotiating with a lot of different interests.” Translation: You can’t sit with us until you stop fighting at your own lunch table. Sure, the continent is tripping over its own policies and tumbling down an economic staircase, but at least everyone’s falling in sync. Brussels tightens the “unity” straitjacket, and they all cheer, or risk getting whacked back into line. Unity is the brand. Unity is the product. Unity is the hashtag. “Only together can we address the grave challenges we face,” unelected European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in January 2024.

“It is thanks to all this that in the last five years, Europe has weathered the fiercest storm in our economic history. And we overcame an unprecedented energy crisis. We did this together, and we can do it again. And we have the political will. Because when Europe is united, it gets things done,” she said in an address earlier this year at the Davos World Economic Forum, explaining how solidarity will help the EU weather the problems created by its own policies. “The EU’s strength lies in its unity, including when confronted with major health crises. European solidarity, in sharing medical supplies, treating patients or helping repatriate citizens, and in the reconstruction of our economies, helped us to protect our citizens together and overcome the most difficult phases of the pandemic,” she said in 2023 about the Covid fiasco, during which she brokered a non-transparent deal for jabs with her pal, the CEO of Pfizer, via text messages that have since vanished.

Contracts which ultimately left EU member states on the hook even after they had no use for the jabs. “This 4th Ukraine meeting was another demonstration of European unity,” Queen Ursula posted a month ago on social media. Of course it was. What isn’t? Even just this week, in evoking fires in Israel and EU assistance, she wrote on social media that it was “EU solidarity in action.” Unity and solidarity are important to the EU in the same way that the concept of family is important to evoke every time two toddlers want to poke each other’s eyes out with crayons. As in, “you’re supposed to be brothers, so play nice!” All that helps to paper over the unfortunate history of family infighting and battlefield beatdowns. Enter Scott Bessent, politely suggesting that he’s not impressed by the EU’s unity thirst traps.

And that hits deep. It’s like telling someone that what they think is their very best feature is really their worst. Say, for example, you really love your own butt, have been spending years in the gym doing every kind of squat, lunges, hip thrusts, and you’re so proud of your butt – and then one day, someone you’re interested in is like, “You know, you should really work on those glutes more.” That’s exactly what Bessent’s comment is when he says that the problem with the EU is their lack of unity.

Nothing the US can do about it, he implies – just a little friendly feedback. Back to the gym, Brussels. And Queen Ursula must be fuming since she talks like it’s her best feature and she already spends all day and night obsessing over it. How is she possibly supposed to do more when she’s already maxed out on her unity obsession? Which is all superficial by the way. Her unity-at-any-cost talk really just means that dissent from countries that disagree is quashed. And those dissenters are typically those with ideological views and approaches similar to Trump’s that place their own country’s interests above those dictated by a supranational institution of global governance.

Read more …

“..while Trump’s critics continue to spin, exaggerate, or dismiss his rhetoric, voters are seeing something entirely different: results.”

• Proof That Polls Showing Trump Underwater Are Bogus (Margolis)

While the corporate media keeps pushing the narrative that Donald Trump’s approval ratings are sinking, we’ve seen this act before. Remember 2024? Pollsters swore up and down that Kamala Harris was going to win in a landslide. But anyone who scrutinized the data knew those numbers were bogus. Now that Trump is back in office, the same game is playing out. The media’s obsession with tearing him down hasn’t faded one bit. So we’re flooded with polls from the same discredited pollsters who got 2024 so wrong — polls that claim Trump is “underwater” while simultaneously showing broad public approval of how he’s handling the issues that matter. Case in point: even CNN’s Harry Enten was forced to admit on Wednesday that Trump’s law-and-order message is hitting home with voters in a way Joe Biden never could, and the numbers back it up.

“It speaks to one of Trump’s best issues, right? The idea of Alcatraz — you think law and order, you think Donald Trump,” Enten said, driving home a point that’s almost too obvious to require analysis. On CNN, of all places, Enten presented data showing Trump with a positive net approval rating on crime, something that eluded Biden for his entire presidency. “Look at that,” Enten said. “At plus two points, far better than Joe Biden who was so far underwater. My goodness, he was setting records at minus 26 points. You rarely ever see it.” Yes, you read that correctly — while Biden sank to historic lows, Trump is now in positive territory. Not only that, but Trump’s crime approval is stronger now in his second term than it was during his first.

“We compared Donald Trump’s first term to now his second term,” Enten explained. “We see that Donald Trump’s net approval rating on handling crime is far better now at plus two points… than back in March of 2024 in which he was underwater at minus 13 points.” That’s a stunning 15-point improvement. In typical fashion, Trump’s messaging — often mocked by the media as outlandish or theatrical — is connecting with voters. Enten referenced Trump’s remarks about Alcatraz, saying, “Yes, I know it’s late-night fodder for a lot of different folks, but what it actually speaks to is Donald Trump focusing the American people’s attention on an issue in which they actually do like what he’s doing.”

Even more telling? The American public’s concern about crime is decreasing under Trump’s leadership. “It was 53% last year and look at where we are now. We’re at 47%,” Enten noted. “It’s the first time in about five years in which the percentage of Americans who worry a great deal about crime has actually dropped under the 50% mark.” That kind of drop isn’t just statistically significant; it’s politically potent. Enten emphasized that crime is one of just two issues where public concern declined by five points or more from 2024 to 2025, and it happened among both Democrats and Republicans.

So while Trump’s critics continue to spin, exaggerate, or dismiss his rhetoric, voters are seeing something entirely different: results. “I think Donald Trump is gonna continue on this law and order issue,” Enten concluded, “because the bottom line is, it is working for him.”Just as it was obvious during the campaign that Trump’s support far exceeded what the polls claimed, it’s clear now that his approval ratings are higher than what those same discredited pollsters were pushing last year.

Read more …

“Gulf of Arabia” and “Arabian Gulf” are predominately used in Middle Eastern countries.”

• Trump To Announce US Will Call The Persian Gulf The Arabian Gulf (JTN)

President Trump is reportedly planning to announce the U.S. will refer to the Persian Gulf as the Arabian Gulf or the Gulf of Arabia during his trip to Saudi Arabia next week. Two U.S. officials told the Associated Press of Trump’s plan on condition of anonymity, according to a report Wednesday. The White House and the National Security Council didn’t immediately respond to the wire service’s requests for comment. Iran has claimed it has historic ties to the gulf that is off its southern coast, while Arab nations have pushed for a change to the geographic name of the body of water. The U.S. military has unilaterally referred to the Persian Gulf as the Arabian Gulf in statements and images it releases for years. The Persian Gulf name has been widely used since the 16th century, but “Gulf of Arabia” and “Arabian Gulf” are predominately used in Middle Eastern countries.

The government of Iran, previously called Persia, in 2012 threatened to file a lawsuit against Google for its decision to not label the body of water at all on its maps. In the U.S., Google Maps labels the body of water as the Persian Gulf (Arabian Gulf), while Apple Maps only says the Persian Gulf. Iran’s foreign minister took issue with the possible renaming of the gulf. “[P]olitically motivated attempts to alter the historically established name of the Persian Gulf are indicative of hostile intent toward Iran and its people, and are firmly condemned,” Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi wrote in a post on X on Wednesday. “Such biased actions are an affront to all Iranians, regardless of their background or place of residence.

Read more …

“..they have a more realistic, as all immigrant communities do, a realistic appraisal of what’s important and what’s peripheral. And right now, the Democratic Party is peripheral to the Hispanic community in general.”

• President Trump’s Most Loyal Supporters: Hispanics (Victor Davis Hanson)

At the end of President Donald Trump’s first 100 days, there were a number of polls that came out. Most of them were liberal and most of them were negative. And as we have mentioned in the past, some of them who have a much more reliable history—such as the Rasmussen poll, the Insider Advantage poll, the Trafalgar poll—they all had Donald Trump, at the end of 100 days, with either roughly 50-50 approval ratings or even slightly above that, 48-46, 50-49. But my point is, in one of the daily Rasmussen polls, they had an astonishing figure, that they broke down Donald Trump’s support by ethnic category. And there were 39% of black Americans that expressed support for Donald Trump. That’s an astonishing number. Given that 95% of the news coverage, according to the Media Research Center, has been negative.

And yet here is a traditional Democratic constituency where 4 out of 10 people like what’s been going on. But even more astonishing is the ethnic constituency that expressed the highest approval of Donald Trump’s first 100 days was the Hispanic community. In fact, far above the so-called white community. How can that be possible? The Democratic Party had told us that closing the border and stopping the illegal entry of 10 to 12 million illegal aliens during the Biden administration—that was deeply unpopular to the Hispanic community. And then, the deportations of illegal aliens like Kilmar Abrego Garcia, for example, or Eduardo Flores-Ruiz that was in Judge Hannah Dugan’s courtroom, whom she tried to hide. He was the assaulter of three people, including women. This was supposed to be deeply unpopular. But it actually has the opposite effect.

And why would that be? The reason is that when 12 million people come in illegally and they gravitate to certain constituencies or enclaves, they usually feel more at home with fellow Spanish-speaking Americans. And where is that? That is along the Rio Grande Valley. That is in Texas. That is in parts of New Mexico. That is in the San Joaquin Valley. What am I getting at? What I’m getting at is that a group of elites in the Biden administration, for particular political purposes—and I’ll be frank here—I think they did want people to come in, both to serve as future constituents under the lax rules and protocols of early and mail-in voting, and also to grow the government and have more constituencies on welfare. But in any case, the price, the cost, the toll fell most heavily on Hispanic communities. These were the ones that were trying to get competitive Advanced Placement programs in their schools.

And suddenly they have English as a Second Language programs again. They were the ones at dialysis clinics, at emergency rooms that were swarmed with people who in some cases had never been to a doctor. And so, they bore the greatest brunt of it. They were in cities where the Biden administration flew people in at night from Mexico and then dispersed them in Hispanic communities. And so they were very angry. And why would so-called white people poll much more negatively against Trump’s first 100 days than Hispanics? It’s because the white elite had created an agenda under the Biden and Obama administration that was elitist. By that I mean—let’s face it—Sen. Bernie Sanders had to take out the word “millionaires” from his usual castigation of millionaires and billionaires. And it wasn’t just because he’s a millionaire now.

That is the trademark of the professional bicoastal classes. And they’re interested in issues that are not existential—at least not everyday existential. By that I mean global warming, the Green New Deal, transgendered men in women’s sports, international organizations—the U.N. But they’re not interested in what the Hispanic working classes are interested in. And that’s affordable gasoline, affordable power bills, good-paying jobs, schools that allow their children to be competitively educated, safety in their neighborhoods. And the idea that they should have some natural antipathy for illegal aliens just because they share the same language and maybe ethnic background—they don’t.

They’re just like anybody else that’s trying to make a living and has been ignored and shunned by the grandees of the Democratic Party. And so, they’re expressing support for an administration that is trying to get affordable energy prices, that is damning the high rise in crime, that is seeking to close the border and secure it, that is calling to account the elite universities that gouge the federal government. All of that appeals to people who have to work with their muscles. And many of the Hispanic community, they’re contractors or small business people. Many of them are professionals. But they have a more realistic, as all immigrant communities do, a realistic appraisal of what’s important and what’s peripheral. And right now, the Democratic Party is peripheral to the Hispanic community in general.

Read more …

“Houthi officials and supporters swiftly portrayed the deal as a major victory for the militia and a failure for Mr. Trump, spreading a social media hashtag that read “Yemen defeats America.”

• Yemen – US Concedes Maritime Defeat (MoA)

Just two days ago I stated that the U.S. had lost its war against Ansar Allah in Yemen: The Houthi can not be defeated. Soon a U.S. ship will get hit. From there the war could easily escalate into a war against Iran. There is a good chance that the U.S. would lose it. It is high time for the Trump administration to pull back from its Yemen campaign. Last night Trump conceded that the campaign was lost. He order the U.S. fleet to retreat:
“Trump Says the U.S. Will Cease Strikes on Houthi Militants (archived) – NY Times, May 6 2025″. It was unclear whether the Houthis were going to stop impeding international shipping, which was the objective of the American bombing campaign. The United States and Houthis in Yemen reached a deal to halt American airstrikes against the group after the Iranian-backed militants agreed to cease attacks against American vessels in the Red Sea, President Trump and Omani mediators said Tuesday.
…
“They just don’t want to fight,” Mr. Trump said. “And we will honor that and we will stop the bombings. They have capitulated, but more importantly, we will take their word. They say they will not be blowing up ships anymore.” But despite his claim of success, it remained unclear whether the United States had achieved its objective of stopping the Houthis from impeding international shipping after a costly seven-week bombing campaign.” There is nothing ‘unclear’ about the objective which the U.S. has obviously not achieved. The Houthi will continue to attack Israel related shipping as well as the Zionist entity itself: “The Houthis themselves stopped short of declaring a full cease-fire, saying that they would continue to fight Israel. And Houthi officials and supporters swiftly portrayed the deal as a major victory for the militia and a failure for Mr. Trump, spreading a social media hashtag that read “Yemen defeats America.”

The U.S. Navy has long run out of military targets in Yemen. Its ships have emptied their magazines. They can not replenish at sea and need to go to a friendly harbor that has the appropriate equipment (Crete, Bahrain).
“Three F-18 Fighter Jets And Some 20+ Reaper Drones Were Lost During Fighting The Houthi:“
“A Navy fighter jet failed to land on an aircraft carrier and plummeted into the Red Sea on Tuesday, marking the fourth major mishap involving the vessel and the third loss of a fighter jet deployed with it since the warship left home last year … The latest incident, reported earlier by CNN, followed the loss of another jet, an F/A-18E, in an accident aboard the Truman last week in which the aircraft tumbled overboard after sailors aboard lost control of it while towing it in the ship’s hangar bay. A third fighter jet from the Truman was shot down accidentally over the Red Sea in December by another Navy warship, the USS Gettysburg, in an incident that triggered concerns about communication among warships and fighter jets in the region.

The Truman also was involved in a collision in the Mediterranean Sea in February, prompting the service to fire its commanding officer, Navy Capt. Dave Snowden. The U.S. Navy has spent over a billion dollar on ammunition on Yemen. It lost more than half a billion in flying equipment and managed to achieve nil. Others will take note of that record. The U.S. could have made this deal a month ago:

“A senior leader of Ansar Allah, commonly known as the Houthis, told Drop Site News that if the U.S. ends its campaign of air strikes against Yemen, Houthi forces will commit to halting all attacks on U.S. ships in the region. “We do not consider ourselves at war with the American people,” said Mohammed al-Bukhaiti, a member of Ansar Allah’s political bureau and a longtime spokesperson for the Houthis. “If the U.S. stops targeting Yemen, we will cease our military operations against it.” Oman was, as usual, moderating talks between the U.S. and the Houthi. Iran was helpful in that it pressed for a deal. Trump claims that Ansar Allah will stop shooting at U.S. shipping. There was no civilian U.S. shipping in the Red Sea in the first place:

There are fewer than 200 U.S. commercial vessels. Only about 80 are engaged in global trade. The small U.S. commercial fleet compares to 5,500 active Chinese-flagged vessels. U.S. military shipping in the area is of no interests for the Houthi unless it is used to attack them. How much other shipping in the area will revive to its previous levels remains to be seen: Shipping volumes in the Red Sea continue to be depressed, currently around 50% lower than 2023 figures, according to data from SEB, a Swedish bank.

“The prospect of a ceasefire agreement and enhanced security suggests a likely resurgence in commercial shipping operations in the region,” shipping analysts at SEB suggested in a note to clients this morning, arguing that car carrier and container markets are projected to experience the most significant rebalancing. There is a lot of ambiguity as the Houthi will continue to target Israel related ships. Some might be owned by Israeli entities but are sailing under some other countries flag. Other ships may be held up or fired at because they carry goods designated for Israel. Until the war on Gaza ends, and the Houthi campaign stops, international insurance companies are likely to ask for higher premiums for any ship that wants to sail through the Red Sea. It will take months of quietness before insurance premiums and traffic through the Red Sea will come back to a normal level. Egyptian income losses from a lack of Suez Canal crossings will continue.

Read more …

“When you get rid of that artificially drawn line… when you look at that beautiful formation when it’s together, I’m a very artistic person,” Trump said, recalling his real estate developer background.”

• Canadian PM Asks Trump To Rein In His Taunts (RT)

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has claimed he asked US President Donald Trump to stop taunting his country as the 51st state during their first meeting at the White House on Tuesday. Trump has repeatedly floated the idea of acquiring Canada and described its border with the US as “artificial.” During the meeting with Carney in the Oval Office, Trump reiterated that sentiment and said that a union between Canada and the US would be a “wonderful marriage” and could bring “tremendous” benefits. “When you get rid of that artificially drawn line… when you look at that beautiful formation when it’s together, I’m a very artistic person,” Trump said, recalling his real estate developer background.

Carney interjected by stating that “there are some places that are never for sale,” likening Canada to the Oval Office and Buckingham Palace. “Having met with the owners of Canada over the course of the campaign the last several months, it’s not for sale, it won’t be for sale, ever,” the PM said, adding that the two nations could nevertheless work toward building a strong partnership together. Speaking to reporters after the meeting, Carney said he had asked Trump to stop using the term 51st state and described the comments as “not useful.” At the same time, he acknowledged that Trump is the US president and “he’ll say what he wants to say.” The meeting came days after Carney’s election victory, in which his Liberal Party secured a fourth consecutive term. Carney centered his campaign on attacking Trump over tariffs and his insistence on acquiring Canada.

At the beginning of their meeting, Trump congratulated the new prime minister and joked, “I think I was probably the greatest thing that happened to him.” Despite ongoing tensions over tariffs, which Trump said would stay in place regardless of what Carney said, both sides ultimately described the talks as positive. “Regardless of anything, we’re going to be friends with Canada,” the US president told reporters. Meanwhile, Carney called the discussions “wide-ranging” and “very constructive” and stated that trade negotiations would continue, including during the upcoming G7 summit in Canada’s Alberta province.

Read more …

Google runs an ad monopoly. A judge has confirmed as much. So yes, demonetized and shadow banned Right here, right this site.

Start there. Stop writing reports, do something. Then take it from there.

• Trump Administration Asks for Help in Uncovering Big Tech Censorship (Stepman)

The Trump administration has vowed to root out Big Tech censorship that was openly practiced under former President Joe Biden. In 2021, Biden administration press secretary Jen Psaki—now a host for MSNBC—admitted that the government coordinated with Big Tech to weed out “misinformation” on social media platforms. “We are in regular touch with these social media platforms, and those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff, but also members of our COVID-19 team,” Psaki said at a 2021 press conference. “We’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation.” Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has since said that the Biden administration pressured Facebook to censor Americans.

“Basically, these people from the Biden administration would call up our team and, like, scream at them and curse,” Zuckerberg told podcast host Joe Rogan in January. “It just got to this point where we were like, ‘No, we’re not gonna, we’re not gonna take down things that are true. That’s ridiculous.’” While government coordination with Big Tech companies to censor Americans may be gone under President Donald Trump, the censorship problem remains. In early February, the Federal Trade Commission launched an investigation into Big Tech. FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson announced that the agency would be looking into attempts by tech companies to censor on their platforms. “Big Tech censorship is not just un-American, it is potentially illegal. The FTC wants your help to investigate these potential violations of the law,” he wrote.

Big Tech companies should not be “bullying their users,” Ferguson said, “this inquiry will help the FTC better understand how these firms may have violated the law by silencing and intimidating Americans for speaking their minds.” Ferguson asked for public cooperation “from anyone who has been a victim of tech censorship (banning, demonetization, shadow banning, etc.), from employees of tech platforms, or from anyone else who can shed light on these practices and the ways in which they may violate the law.” The FTC said in a statement that the agency is interested in “understanding how consumers—including by potentially unfair or deceptive acts or practices, or potentially unfair methods of competition—have been harmed by the policies of tech firms.”

The FTC directed Americans with a complaint about Big Tech censorship to submit a comment to the agency by May 21. Heritage Action for America created a portal to direct a comment to the agency that can be accessed here. Once the comment period is over the comments will be posted at Regulations.gov. Heritage Action included some helpful tips for what to include in a comment to the FTC.
What platform censored you?
• How were you censored? (E.g., Labeled as misinformation? Content removed? Shadow banned? Demonetized? etc…)
• What was the impact on you, your family, employees, friends, or followers/clients?
• Did the platform tell you about their action to censor you? And did they provide a reasonable and specific explanation?
• Did the platform give you the option to appeal the censorship? What was the result?

Last week, Trump made an additional move to quash the censorship of Americans. He proposed in his budget request eliminating the disinformation offices and programs at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. “CISA was more focused on cooperating with Big Tech to target free speech than our nation’s critical systems,” the White House said in an “Ending Weaponization of the Federal Government” fact sheet, adding the agency’s disinformation offices “functioned as a hub in the Censorship Industrial Complex.”

Read more …

“..it’s important to move to fill those vacancies while there’s a Senate that is still going to be cooperative and not trying to put up the roadblocks..”

• Confirming Trump’s Court Nominees ‘Priority’ for Judiciary Committee (DS)

Confirming President Donald Trump’s federal court nominees will be a “priority” for the Senate Judiciary Committee, says Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, a member of that panel. “It’s certainly going to be a big priority for the Judiciary Committee,” Lee told The Daily Signal in a phone interview, “particularly once we get … a number of sub-Cabinet-level nominees processed.” “I do see that occupying more of the Judiciary Committee’s time over the next little while, and once those get through the pipeline, it will start occupying more time than it has on the Senate floor,” Lee continued. “This part of the process is just starting.” On Sunday night, Trump told The Daily Signal he would nominate federal judges “rapidly” and “try to get very good ones.” He subsequently nominated five judges Tuesday night, in addition to the one he nominated Thursday night.

Because Republicans were unable to retake control of the Senate in 2022, Trump will have less ability to reshape the federal judiciary than he did in his first term. Then-Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., pushed through 139 judges nominated by President Joe Biden, the third-highest total in U.S. history. That leaves Trump with just 46 current court vacancies, compared with 123 at the start of his first term. Still, Lee says, judicial appointments will be an ongoing effort over the next four years, “as it is with any administration where the president’s party is the same party that is the majority of the Senate.” The Utah senator praised Trump’s first-term judicial nominations and said he expects to see high-caliber judges nominated again.

“We will be very fortunate if the same standards for judicial nominees are followed during this second Trump administration,” Lee said. “I know of no reason to believe that they won’t be. If that’s the case, we’ll be in really good shape.” Trump had historically high court vacancies to fill in his first term and has historically low vacancies in his second, but each of those vacancies is still critical, said Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network. “Every one of those is crucially important, and it’s important to move to fill those vacancies while there’s a Senate that is still going to be cooperative and not trying to put up the roadblocks,” Severino told The Daily Signal. “If the Senate ever switched hands, that would certainly be the case.” Confirming Trump’s Court Nominees Will Be ‘Priority’ for Judiciary Committee, Sen. Lee Says.

Read more …

“When President Trump called me to take this job, he told me first—he told me two things. The first was, ‘Pete, you’re going to have to be tough as s— —tough.’ Boy, he was not kidding on that one.”

• Pete Hegseth: Today’s Decisions and Tomorrow’s Military (Zito)

Maj. Gen. David Hill was standing a few feet from where the Black Hawk helicopter en route from the Defense Department would soon be landing, at the lush green fields of the Army War College. Hill is the commandant of the prestigious military institution and had been preparing for days for something rare around here: a visit from the secretary of defense. “I’ve been here for four years as the commandant of the Army War College. This is the first opportunity we’ve had to host the secretary of defense,” Hill said with a broad smile, adding, “It is pretty cool.” Hill said that having Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth come to rural Pennsylvania is important because of the history of the Carlisle Barracks, where the campus is located. “This is a really special place,” he said. “It’s a 268-year-old military encampment that predates our nation, and it’s been an integral part of our Army and our nation’s history since 1757. And since 1951, the United States Army War College has been housed here.”

Its mission is to preserve peace through intelligent preparation to repel aggression. At peak load, the student body is about 2,000. Its signature is a 10-month resident graduate degree program that certifies students in the highest level of joint professional military education. This year’s officer class drew not just U.S. military leaders from all branches and intelligence services—Hill said there are also military leaders attending from 77 different countries. “There are 31 European nations represented here, as well as most of the Indo-Pacific nations represented, such as India, Japan, Australia, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia. There’s a half-dozen from the African continent and a similar number from South America and Central America. Ukraine is here, and we have an officer from Israel and Lebanon here,” Hill explained.

When Hegseth was minutes away, Hill left to greet the defense secretary and his team. As Hill walked away, he said, “Today is going to be a big day.” The handshake between Hill and Hegseth was warm. They motorcaded through the Claremont Gate and toward the Wheelock Bandstand, where 800 seats were set up outside for the defense secretary’s speech. The overflow crowd exceeded 1,000, leaving several hundred standing in the grass as Hegseth took to the podium just in front of the old bandstand. Whoever was running the sound turned up the volume for AC/DC entrance music. The senior military officers in attendance approved. “Who dialed up ‘Thunderstruck’? I didn’t choose it, but I like it. Please take your seats. It might have to become SOP,” Hegseth said as everyone in attendance, a sea of camouflage and uniforms, laughed. Hegseth was in his element: confident, assured, and far from Washington, D.C.

Hegseth was there to mark the first 100 days of the Trump administration and share what he has accomplished at the Department of Defense. He bluntly acknowledged it had been bumpy in the wake of a series of leaks that have resulted in resignations and firings, not to mention unsubstantiated rumors that President Donald Trump is about to fire him. “When President Trump called me to take this job, he told me first—he told me two things. The first was, ‘Pete, you’re going to have to be tough as s— —tough.’ Boy, he was not kidding on that one. This job requires a steel spine, and that’s fine,” he said. For the next 28 minutes, he discussed a policy blueprint and vision that this White House sees for the military. Afterward, in the same room where Army War College graduate and former five-star Gen. and President Dwight D. Eisenhower once gave a talk, Hegseth sat down with the Washington Examiner.

He spoke about his recent controversies, his mission to reshape the military, the robust growth each service branch has seen since Trump took office, and how faith has kept him grounded. Dressed in a navy-blue suit, with a crisp red, white, and blue pocket square, and dark socks with green Army warriors, Hegseth said coming here and being able to articulate the department’s focus at a hundred days while looking out at a group of men and women who are the future leaders of our formations meant a lot to him. Hegseth said he spoke to those in attendance about restoring the warrior ethos, rebuilding the military, and reestablishing deterrence. He said that these men and women were on board despite having come up in a military filled with a woke quota mindset.

Read more …

Someone stop this. It has to be Xi, right?

• Pakistan Closes Airspace For 48 Hours, Authorizes Response To Indian Attack (ZH)

Though aerial fighting between the nuclear-armed rivals does not appear to be sustained and ongoing at this point, Pakistan has closed its airspace for nearly all flights on Wednesday, in the aftermath of the Indian cross-border strikes which killed at least 26 people – including a 3-year-old girl – and wounded at least 46 other people, Pakistani authorities say based on the latest revised death toll. International carriers have also canceled flights to the region, and access to social media, including X, was temporarily blocked in Pakistan amid the assault. Heavy shelling is being reported along the Line of Control (LOC) separating the historic enemy nations.

The true casualty toll could be higher, as a Pakistani militant chief targeted in the attacks on ‘terror camps’ said 10 of his relatives, including five children, were killed. The Islamist group Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) was one of the groups targeted, and its leader Masood Azhar said his older sister, brother-in-law, his nephew and niece are among the dead. Pakistan says that civilians were harmed and targeted that mosques were hit across six locations in its territory, and so has the right to respond to aggression. Indian has said it attack nine terror sites, but has been careful to stipulate these were non-military locations, and is now seeking de-escalation. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has ordered his armed forces to prepare a plan for “self-defense” with “corresponding actions” in order “avenge the loss of innocent Pakistani lives”.

The order was issued after an emergency National Security Commitee (NSC) meeting on Wednesday. “Pakistan reserves the right to respond, in self-defense, at a time, place, and manner of its choosing to avenge the loss of innocent Pakistani lives and blatant violation of its sovereignty,” the NSC readout said. “The Armed Forces of Pakistan have duly been authorized to undertake corresponding actions in this regard.” Pakistan’s Government Security Committee has charged that India has “ignited an inferno in the region”. These do indeed seem to be fighting words.What India has dubbed ‘Operation Sindoor’ is intended to be limited, Indian leaders have said, but it’s highly questionable whether it was a ‘success’ – given that India lost at least one or possibly up to five fighter jets.

Read more …

“Why do you keep shooting? Business is done differently now.”

• The Russia-Ukraine Lesson India Must Learn From Its Pakistan Standoff (Suchkov)

There is plenty to say about the chaos unfolding in Washington these days, but the sudden military escalation between India and Pakistan shifts our attention elsewhere – and provides some useful lessons. Since the start of Russia’s military operation against Ukraine, India’s official stance has generally aligned with Moscow’s interests. Yet it has consistently stressed the importance of peace. While many in India’s political and media elite – especially the pro-Western crowd – have criticized Russia, their views have been shaped by alignment with the West, not by deeper national principles. India’s official line, however, has always been dressed in polished diplomatic language, designed to project wisdom and balance. Early in the conflict, India’s Ambassador to the UN, Ruchira Kamboj, said: “India has consistently called for an immediate cessation of hostilities and an end to violence.”

Fast forward to 2024, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi added: “The conflict in Ukraine is a matter of deep concern for all of us. India firmly believes that no problem can be solved on the battlefield. We support dialogue and diplomacy for early restoration of peace and stability.” And of course, External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar offered a soundbite which was repeated endlessly in international forums: “Wars are not the way to settle disputes.” The consistent refrain at countless conferences about “peace in Europe” boiled down to this: Russia was old-fashioned, clinging to outdated great power logic. The world had moved on, they insisted. And inevitably, some “public intellectual” would spice things up with a quote from Chanakya, Confucius, or even the Pope – advising Russia on how real diplomacy should look today.

It was all reminiscent of a famous scene in Aleksei Balabanov’s 2005 movie Dead Man’s Bluff, where a bandit from the polished 2000s lectures his 1990s Russian counterparts: “Why do you keep shooting? Business is done differently now.” It wasn’t just the Indians who pushed this line. The Chinese, Brazilians, Turks (yes, them too), and other so-called “rising powers” repeated similar mantras. Now, let’s be clear: no one should gloat. War is a terrifying and extreme manifestation of unresolved contradictions. However, to pontificate about “wisdom” and peace as if it’s a fresh insight is banal – and, frankly, vulgar.

Because when real danger arrives – when an enemy or existential threat targets your home – there is no high-minded choice left. States, like individuals, take up arms and fight for victory in order to restore peace. That’s not bloodlust; it’s the basic logic of international relations, from ancient kingdoms to today’s global order. You can deny it, but you can’t make it disappear. Western propaganda’s greatest success over the past three years was convincing much of the world that Russia’s offensive was a “war of choice” rather than a “war of necessity” – which it was. Many in the so-called rising powers naively believed that every conflict offers a choice, and that they themselves would never resort to arms. But history teaches otherwise.

When survival and national security are truly at stake, even the most idealistic states will – without even realizing it – abandon their slogans and do whatever is necessary. That, too, is a timeless law of international life. As the Bible reminds us: “While people are saying, ‘Peace and safety,’ destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape” (1 Thessalonians 5:3). What should Russia do now? Stay the course – finish what we started. And be prepared for new challenges on other fronts. At the same time, we should follow diplomatic protocol and call on India and Pakistan to resolve their crisis peacefully. We can even offer to host peace talks, if needed. Because while the reality of conflict remains unchanged, so too must our commitment: Victory first. Peace second.

Happy World War Two Victory Day – to us, and to peace.

Read more …

O’Keefe said a few days ago he was scared and would go dark ahead of this report. It’s clear why.

John Bryan, the unwilling “witnesss”, is the worst douche I’ve seen in a while.

• ‘Prince Andrew Was F*ing Underage Girls’ – James O’ Keefe (ZH)

An American businessman close to the royal family (not for long) was caught on undercover footage with damning claims about Prince Andrew’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. John Bryan, a trusted advisor to the Duke of York, claims that Prince Andrew lied to him about his involvement with minors, according to the footage, obtained by O’Keefe Media Group (OMG). “I knew he [Prince Andrew] saw him [Jeffrey Epstein],” said Bryan, “But he lied to me that he was such a close friend,” revealed Bryan, referring to Prince Andrew’s personal relationship with Epstein. More via OMG;

After Prince Andrew’s 2019 BBC interview, where he denied knowing Virginia Giuffre and famously claimed he was physically incapable of sweating, Bryan says he was quietly brought into “Royal Lodge,” Andrew’s private residence, to provide “crisis” management advice. In a previous interview with the New York Post, Bryan revealed “They [the British Royal Family] brought me in to help him [Andrew].” Bryan told the publication, “Andrew was so distressed, he wasn’t able to focus for more than 40 minutes.”

According to previous reporting by The Daily Mail, Bryan also admitted to crafting a five-page PR strategy titled the “House of Kroy,” advising Andrew to publicly express sympathy for victims of Jeffrey Epstein while maintaining his own innocence. At the time, Bryan publicly supported the Prince, stating, “I believe Prince Andrew is innocent.” “I did a big thing in The Daily Mail saying that I believed Andrew,” Bryan recounted to our undercover OMG journalist, adding, “And then I found out he was lying. I was so pissed.” When asked what Andrew had lied about, Bryan didn’t mince words: “That he was fucking underage girls. That’s not cool.” O’Keefe Media Group has reached out to both the Royal Family and John Bryan for comment regarding Bryan’s admissions.”

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Butler

Happy

Opera
https://twitter.com/Ducnghia16/status/1920073056439161292

Alpaca

Robot

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle April 9 2025

Apr 092025
 
 April 9, 2025  Posted by at 10:02 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , ,  54 Responses »


Salvador Dali Christ of Saint John of the Cross 1951

 

• Trump Assassination ‘Justified’ For Half of Left-Leaning Americans (RT)
• Trump Slaps ‘Proud’ China With 104% Tariffs (RT)
• White House Lacks Financial Literacy – ‘Tariffs’ Show (MoA)
• Don’t Like Trump’s Plan for the Economy? Let’s Hear Yours (Victor Davis Hanson)
• US Chamber of Commerce Considers Block on Trump’s New Import Tariffs (Sp.)
• EU Commission Eyeing 25% Tariffs on US Goods (Sp.)
• Von der Leyen Endorses Meloni As Main Tariff Negotiator (Sp.)
• The Tariff Issue (Paul Craig Roberts)
• President Trump Bestows Great Honor on Nation of Japan (CTH)
• Musk Wants Trump To Cancel Tariffs – WaPo (RT)
• Billionaires Slam Trump Tariffs (RT)
• Officials Quietly Drafting Plan To Cushion Trump Tariff Fallout – Bloomberg (RT)
• Apple Staged Emergency iPhone Airlift From India (RT)
• More Than 900k “Biden-App”Migrants Told to ‘Self-Deport’ (NYP)
• USAID Operations Rebooted in Several Crisis Zones (Sp.)
• Judge Boasberg Scraps Trump Hearing On Deportations After Scotus Ruling (JTN)
• Legal Experts Sound Alarm On Judge Blocking Trump’s Deportations (DC)

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/itscarterhughes/status/1909334208536846529

MAGA
https://twitter.com/gaborgurbacs/status/1909348105675211192

Bessent

GOAT
https://twitter.com/iam_smx/status/1909347460960653353

Rubio

Bondi

 

 

 

 

Won’t surprise too many people. And that’s not good at all.

• Trump Assassination ‘Justified’ For Half of Left-Leaning Americans (RT)

More than half of all left-leaning Americans believe there would be some justification for the assassination of US President Donald Trump, according to a new survey. The alarming finding was reported on Monday by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI). The organization monitors radical ideologies and examines what it refers to as “assassination culture” in America. The nonprofit conducted an opinion poll to assess whether American citizens would condone lethal attacks on Trump and his government efficiency tsar, Elon Musk. Among the 1,264 individuals surveyed, 31% and 38% expressed at least some justification for murdering Musk and Trump, respectively. The figures increased to 48% and 55% among respondents identifying as center or left-leaning. In the latter group, 9.1% would deem the assassination of Musk to be “completely justified,” while 13.2% said the same about Trump.

A majority of 57.6% indicated that attacking Tesla dealerships to protest Musk’s involvement with the Trump administration was at least somewhat acceptable. Commenting on the poll’s findings and claims that Democratic leaders have “incited” the situation, Musk branded the political organization “the party of violence.” He previously characterized arson attacks on Tesla-affiliated businesses in the US and abroad as “terrorism.” Last weekend, thousands of Americans marched in various cities to protest Trump’s policies and his support for Musk’s approach to reducing government spending. Critics have labeled the activities of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Musk, as an “illegal power grab” orchestrated by the president.

Trump barely escaped death during a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania last July, when a shooter opened fire at him, killing and injuring several supporters of the Republican candidate. The NCRI said its survey confirms broader “troubling trends” within US political culture, suggesting that the endorsement of violence is rooted in a particular far-left ideology. The institute also posits that this ideology fuels the online “memeification” of Luigi Mangione, the alleged murderer of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Some Americans view Mangione, against whom the Trump administration is seeking the death penalty, as a folk hero, arguing that his actions could be seen as justifiable vigilantism against a predatory corporate healthcare system.

Read more …

Went into effect at midnight.

• Trump Slaps ‘Proud’ China With 104% Tariffs (RT)

The US has hiked tariffs on all Chinese imports to a staggering 104%, escalating the ongoing trade conflict and wiping out another $1.5 trillion from US stock markets on Tuesday. China was originally set to face a 34% tariff increase on Wednesday, as part of President Donald Trump’s “reciprocal” measures targeting virtually all US trade partners. However, after Beijing responded with a proportional 34% duty of its own, the US president raised the blanket tariff to a total of 104%. “After all of the abuses they’ve perpetrated, China is attempting to impose additional unjustified tariffs,” Trump said at a National Republican Congressional Committee dinner in Washington on Tuesday. That’s why additional tariffs on Chinese goods are in place, effective midnight tonight at 104 percent. Until they make a deal with us, that’s what it’s going to be.

The White House published an amendment to the April 2 executive order in which Trump declared a national emergency over the US trade deficit and imposed a baseline tariff on all imports to the US. The administration said that nearly 70 countries had sought negotiations to mitigate the impact of the tariffs, as Trump pursues “tailored deals” with individual nations. The president went on to say that Beijing will have to “make a deal at some point,” claiming that “they just don’t know how to get it sorted because they’re proud people.” Until then, he added, China “will now pay a big number to our Treasury.” “Right now, China is paying a 104 percent tariff, think of it… Now, it sounds ridiculous, but they charged us for many items 100 percent, 125 percent,” Trump said. “They’ve ripped us off left and right. But now it’s our turn to do the ripping.”

Beijing previously condemned the escalating trade war as a form of “blackmail” and “economic bullying.” A spokesperson for the Commerce Ministry said on Tuesday that “China will fight till the end if the US side is bent on going down the wrong path.” The latest escalation has had a significant impact on US and global stock markets. Major indices such as the S&P 500, Dow Jones, and Nasdaq suffered further declines after a brief surge earlier this week, wiping out an estimated $1.5 trillion from US markets on Tuesday. Trump acknowledged that the fallout from his move was “somewhat explosive,” but defended his strategy, claiming that “sometimes you have to mix it up a little bit.” He insisted that the tariffs are necessary to address trade “abuses” and to promote domestic manufacturing, adding that the US is already generating $2 billion a day from the tariffs.


Read more …

A good fried pointed to this Moon of Alabama piece from a few days ago. It gives the impression that the Trump team is being sloppy with the tariffs. The only thing is, they say their numbers come “including Currency Manipulation and Trade barriers”. And those are not very clearly defined. But the impression of sloppy is still not a good thing.

• White House Lacks Financial Literacy – ‘Tariffs’ Show (MoA)

‘The foundation of American economic prosperity is a society empowered with the knowledge and tools to make informed financial decisions to achieve the American Dream. … ‘ I welcome that message. Teaching financial literacy must start at the top. The members of the Trump administration obviously lack the knowledge and tools to make informed financial decisions. It is the only possible explanation for how they came up with these numbers:

China does not have a 67% tariff on U.S. goods (it’s 7.3%). The EU does not have a 39% tariff on U.S. goods (it’s 5.2%). The numbers are bollocks. So where do they come from? The official explanation from the U.S. Trade Representative is here. Its baloney:

“James Surowiecki @JamesSurowiecki – 0:22 UTC · Apr 3, 2025 “Just figured out where these fake tariff rates come from. They didn’t actually calculate tariff rates + non-tariff barriers, as they say they did. Instead, for every country, they just took our trade deficit with that country and divided it by the country’s exports to us. So we have a $17.9 billion trade deficit with Indonesia. Its exports to us are $28 billion. $17.9/$28 = 64%, which Trump claims is the tariff rate Indonesia charges us. What extraordinary nonsense this is.
…
Even given that it’s Trump, I cannot believe they said “We’ll just divide the trade deficit by imports and tell people that’s the tariff rate.” And then they decided to set our tariffs by just cutting that totally made-up rate in half! This is so dumb and deceptive. .. it’s actually worse than I thought: in calculating the tariff rate, Trump’s people only used the trade deficit in goods. So even though we run a trade surplus in services with the world, those exports don’t count as far as Trump is concerned.”

The last point is a major one, for China, but especially for the EU :

“EU-US trade in goods and services reached an impressive €1.6 trillion in 2023. This means that every day, €4.4 billion worth of goods and services cross the Atlantic between the EU and the US. … The total bilateral trade in goods reached €851 billion in 2023. The EU exported €503 billion of goods to the US market, while importing €347 billion; this resulted in a goods trade surplus of €157 billion for the EU. Total bilateral trade in services between the EU and the US was worth €746 billion in 2023. The EU exported €319 billion of services to the US, while importing €427 billion from the US; this resulted in a services trade deficit of €109 billion for the EU. …EU-US goods and services trade is balanced: the difference between EU exports to the US and US exports to the EU stood at €48 billion in 2023; the equivalent of just 3% of the total trade between the EU and the US.”

Despite that Trump has decreed a 20% on all goods from the EU. The natural countermeasure from the EU will be to put a 20+% tariff on all import of U.S. services. Trump also decreed a minimum 10% tariff on imports from every country. Products made by the penguins of the uninhabited Heard and McDonald Islands in the Antarctic will now come with a 10% surcharge.”

There is really no economic reasoning behind these numbers. “Arnaud Bertrand @RnaudBertrand – 4:16 AM · Apr 3, 2025 “To illustrate just how nonsensically these tariffs were calculated, take the example of Lesotho, one of the poorest countries in Africa with just $2.4 billion in annual GDP, which is being struck with a 50% tariff rate under the Trump plan, the highest rate among all countries on the list…. As a matter of fact Lesotho, as a member of the Southern African Customs Union (SACU), applies the common external tariff structure established by this regional trade bloc. … So since the tariffs charged by these 5 countries on U.S. products are exactly the same, they must all be struck with a 50% tariff rate by the U.S., right? Not at all: South Africa is getting 30%, Namibia 21%, Botswana 37% and Eswatini just 10%, the lowest rate possible among all countries.

Looking at Lesotho specifically, every year the U.S. imports approximately $236 million in goods from Lesotho (primarily diamonds, textiles and apparel) while exporting only about $7 million worth of goods to Lesotho (https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/LSO/Year/2022/TradeFlow/EXPIMP/Partner/by-country). Why do they export so little? Again this is an extremely poor country where 56.2% of the population lives with less than $3.65 a day (https://databankfiles.worldbank.org/public/…), i.e. $1,300 a year. They simply can’t afford U.S. products, no-one is going to buy an iPhone or a Tesla on that sort of income… The way the tariffs are ACTUALLY calculated appears to be based on a simplistic and economically senseless formula: you take the trade deficit the U.S. has with a country, divide it by that country’s exports to the U.S and declare this – falsely – “the tariff they charge on the U.S.”

And then as Trump did in his speech last night, you magnanimously declare that you’ll only “reciprocate” by charging half that “tariff” on them. As such, for Lesotho, the calculation goes like this: ($236M – $7M)/$235M = 97%. That’s the “tariff” Lesotho is deemed to charge this U.S. and half of that, i.e. roughly 50% is what the U.S. “reciprocates” with. It’s extremely easy to see why this makes no sense at all. ”

Lesotho has a comparative advantage over the U.S. as it can dig up and sell diamonds. But it lacks the purchasing power to buy U.S. goods and services. The calculations by the Trump administration ignore those basic facts. No tariffs were by the way introduced against Belarus, Russia and North Korea. This because of sanction, the U.S. has allegedly no trade relation with them. (Other than buying enriched Uranium for its nuclear power stations?) Did the Trump administration anticipate how this nonsense will explode in its face? It is Smoot-Hawley writ large.

Read more …

“If you don’t believe that what Donald Trump is trying to do on debt, budget, workforce, trade, then come up with a better agenda. And show why it will work and why his will fail..”

• Don’t Like Trump’s Plan for the Economy? Let’s Hear Yours (Victor Davis Hanson)

Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. I’d like to talk about the economy and politics very quickly. Whether you like it or I like it or whether the administration likes it or whether the Congress or the American people like it, the success or failure of President Donald Trump will hinge on the status of the economy. It will overshadow the miraculous achievement on the border, where he went from a rate of about 2 million people a year to almost zero illegal immigration. It will even outrank the question of peace and stability in Ukraine or the Middle East. It’ll outrank everything. So, here’s my question. There is now outrage, hysteria over the last 24 hours to 48 hours that Donald Trump has outlined his tariff program to bring down the nearly $1 trillion trade deficit, and the stock market has taken hits.

So, here’s my question, though, when Sen. Cory Booker stands up for 25 hours, does he give an alternate agenda on the economy? Does Rep. Nancy Pelosi talk about the economy? She used to. Does The Wall Street Journal, when they criticize Donald Trump, why don’t they get a columnist and say, “These are the 10 points that are preferable in addressing our economic challenges”? Now, what are our economic challenges? Well, the first is debt. We owe $37 trillion. We’re paying $3 billion a day in interest. We’re running a $1.7 trillion deficit. So, if you were on the left and you were part of the machine that borrowed $7 trillion under President Joe Biden, created these huge new programs, why don’t you make an argument? Just say, “I believe in modern monetary theory. I believe, if we can just get down to 1% or 2% interest, you can service any debt because the bondholders, they’re wealthy anyway. So, that’s what we’ve been doing. And I don’t—I believe money’s a construct. It’s just an idea. So, there is no such thing as, you know, red or blue ink—any of that. So, just keep spending. There’s no problem—$37, $40 trillion.” Say that.

Or, if you’re on the right, say, “I prefer to look at the debt in a different way. If you’re going to cut, why select particular fraud, waste, and abuse areas? Why not just go across the board and treat everybody the same with a 4% or 5% or 10% cut?” Or, if you don’t believe in cutting government to reduce the debt, then say, “Let’s just go completely laissez-faire and let’s grow the economy so it’s growing at 4% or 5% gross domestic product. And it will solve the problem.” Or, if you’re in the middle and you’re an independent, why don’t you just say, “We had three balanced budgets. We were reducing the debt because former House Speaker Newt Gingrich controlled taxes and former President Bill Clinton controlled spending. And he was able to find an incentive plan to increase revenue and Bill Clinton decreased spending. OK? Why not we go back and follow their model?”

But the problem is none of these areas—right, center, and left—nobody in these disciplines is offering any alternative agenda. It’s just attack Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump. Let’s go to trades. So, we have, again, about a trillion-dollar trade deficit. We haven’t had balanced trade for 50 years. Our opponents, challengers, allies, whatever you want to call them, feel that protected tariffs in China, in India, in Europe, in South Korea, in Japan have been very conducive to their economic miracle—postwar miracles. And they feel that there must be some wisdom in them because they continue to perpetuate them. They have not run deficits for a half-century. They’re not, in terms of GDP, debt, quite like we are. So, maybe you can argue that tariffs are just an American problem. An obsession. And they don’t really matter. Or you can say that we should have reciprocal tariffs based on each one. But tell us what you want to do.

Why don’t you just say that if you—and I have read this from scholars as diverse as the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute. This is just a construct, trade deficits, they don’t matter. Because the people, if they run up a surplus, they buy our bonds or they invest, and it’s a circular process—just say that. Or, if you believe that trade deficits matter, then you say, “Well, the answer is not through tariffs. It’s through greater productivity. And here’s how I want to do it.” But again, there’s nothing. And then we get, finally, into foreign investment. Donald Trump is bragging, I think justifiably so, that he may have $3 to $5 trillion in foreign investment. Nobody says a word about it. Nobody says this many trillion dollars will result in this many new jobs created. No, they just kind of ignore it. So, give us a reason why. Just say, “You know, the new massive amounts of foreign aid will have no effect on either our trade deficit or our budget deficit. It’s just a construct that Trump says.”

Or say that it will but it won’t nullify the pernicious effects of tariffs. But what I’m getting at, in conclusion, is what if Cory Booker had said, “I’m going to speak for 25 hours on why Donald Trump’s trade, debt, and federal workforce investment are all wrong. And here’s da, da, da, da”? Or what if House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said, “Here is our contract for America on the economy. The economy”? No one is giving any alternatives. No one is talking in any way that they have an antithetical and a better plan than Donald Trump. So, what we’re left with is just naysaying, nihilism, criticism. And the American people are confused. If you don’t believe that what Donald Trump is trying to do on debt, budget, workforce, trade, then come up with a better agenda. And show why it will work and why his will fail. But don’t just scream and yell and cause all hysteria and go to street theater because that’s no answer. It only amplifies the problem.

Read more …

Guess they can try.. But so could anyone.

• US Chamber of Commerce Considers Block on Trump’s New Import Tariffs (Sp.)

The US Chamber of Commerce, the country’s most powerful corporate lobby, is considering filing a lawsuit against the administration of US President Donald Trump to block the entry of new import tariffs into force, the Fortune magazine reported, citing sources familiar with the discussions of the lawsuit. The Chamber of Commerce may claim that Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs was illegal. According to the publication, some of the organization’s largest members are calling for the lawsuit. Sources also say that other organizations might join the lawsuit. The head of the US Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) Elon Musk personally asked US President Donald Trump to reconsider new US tariffs on imports from a number of countries, the Washington Post reported, citing two sources.

According to the publication, over the weekend, when Elon Musk unleashed a stream of messages on social media criticizing one of the White House’s top advisers, trade aide Peter Navarro, for Trump’s aggressive tariff plan, he personally approached the president. The attempt, however, has not yet been successful: Trump on Monday threatened to add new 50% tariffs on imports from China on top of those already announced if Beijing did not abandon its retaliatory measures, the newspaper said. On Sunday, Musk announced his support for the creation of a free trade area with the EU, despite President Trump’s previously imposed trade tariffs against the union. The US President signed an executive order on April 2 introducing “reciprocal” tariffs on imports from other countries, calling it a “liberation.” The basic minimum rate will be 10%, and 20% for goods from the European Union. The US President promised budget revenue from tariffs of $6-$7 trillion.

Read more …

They have no idea what to do, zero consensus.. And all 27 of them will have to agree.

• EU Commission Eyeing 25% Tariffs on US Goods (Sp.)

The European Commission is proposing to impose reciprocal tariffs of up to 25% on a number of goods from the United States, in particular on clothing, yachts, fruit juices, nuts and diamonds, the RMF FM radio reported. Bourbon was excluded from the preliminary list after protests from France and Italy, which feared that the United States would impose 200% duties on wine, prosecco and champagne, the report said on Monday. EU countries are expected to vote on this proposal on Wednesday, the report added. However, the commission is still counting on negotiations with Washington, and it has proposed reciprocal zero tariffs on industrial products, including cars, the report read.

At the same time, French Minister Delegate for Europe Benjamin Haddad said that Paris is in favor of a tough response to the US tariffs and will support the European Commission’s decision to impose 25% tariffs on some US imports. On April 2, US President Donald Trump announced reciprocal tariffs on imports from other countries. For the UK the baseline rate of 10% was set. However for each country the tariff will be calibrated and will be half of what they charge companies importing US goods. Trump said this will be a “declaration of economic independence” for the United States. The EU is subject to 20% tariffs.

Read more …

Ursula von der Leyen is afraid of the White House.

• Von der Leyen Endorses Meloni As Main Tariff Negotiator (Sp.)

As the White House prepares to receive the Italian PM on April 17, Ursula von der Leyen believes Giorgia Meloni is the only EU leader who can facilitate dialogue with Trump, the WP reports, citing Italian officials. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen supports the upcoming visit of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni to Washington and believes that she is the one who is capable of facilitating dialogue between the European Union and US President Donald Trump, The Washington Post newspaper reported, citing an Italian official. On Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said that Trump would receive Meloni in Washington on April 17.

“Von der Leyen is telling [Meloni] that if there’s one leader more in contact with the US, who’s capable of facilitating the conversation between the EU – not just Italy – and Trump, that’s her,” the official was quoted as saying by the newspaper on Tuesday. Von der Leyen was in favor of Meloni’s trip to Washington, the report added.

Read more …

“..returning to tariffs as the source of government revenues and abandoning the income tax. This is consistent with correct economics and with freedom. Such a change would be possibly the most important reform in American history.”

• The Tariff Issue (Paul Craig Roberts)

The tariff controversy is being colored in the most scary ways possible, because the Democrats, media, and ruling establishment want rid of Trump. It is also important to understand that tariffs are not the only way to limit imports. There are other means, such as quotas. Quotas on imports into the US of Japanese cars were part of the US auto producers bailout negotiated in the final year of the Carter administration. I will attempt to put the issue in a correct perspective. It is not Trump’s intention, at least at the present time, to institutionalize a tariff regime. Trump is using tariffs as a threat to secure agreements that he thinks are in America’s interests. So far 50 countries have, according to reports, agreed to remove their tariffs on US goods. The countries responding aggressively seem to be China and our European allies.

I explained yesterday how Trump could better have gone about his task. Nevertheless, as the Commerce Secretary said, Trump’s tariffs are not expected to extend beyond a few weeks or a few months of negotiation. During this time there could be supply disruptions. Apparently, Trump is aware and has released an 11-page appendix that exempts all sorts of imported items that US producers require to continue their operations. Whatever disruption does occur, should be small compared to the Covid lockdown supply disruption, the basic cause of the current inflation. The Covid disruption was pointless and counterproductive. The tariff disruption, if there is one, is the cost of establishing a fair and uniform trading system. So, Trump is not being arbitrary or on a rampage to destroy international trade. Tariff negotiations, especially with so many countries and products can go on for years.

Trump might think that he only has two years to get anything done before the Democrats steal the midterm elections and bring his renewal of America to a halt. President Trump has spoken of tariffs in a wider and much more important context. Over most of American history until the First World War, tariff revenues were the source of government revenues. An income tax was unconstitutional and a violation of freedom. The definition of a free person is a person who owns his own labor. A slave does not own his own labor, and a serf only owns part of his labor. A person required to pay an income tax does not own that part of his labor that he must provide to government in order to avoid imprisonment. The difference between a medieval serf and an American taxpayer is the serf paid the tax in kind as hours worked, and the American pays the tax in money as a percentage of his income.

Classical economists, real economists unlike the faux ones of today, understood that factors of production–labor and capital–should not be taxed, because the supply of both to the economy is reduced by taxation. Supply-side economics is based on this principle. Thus, its emphasis on lowering the marginal rates of taxation. Reducing the supply of factors of production, reduces the economic growth rate and the national income. The century that the US economy has labored under income tax has costs us substantially in lost income. The classical economists said that taxation should fall on consumption not on factors of production. Traditionally, imported items are finished goods–German cars, French wines and perfumes. High priced goods are for the wealthy, so tariffs fall on the rich. The working class does not indulge in Porsche cars and Clicquot champagne. However, for about 30 years much of our imports have consisted of the offshored production of US firms.

When Apple, for example, brings its products made in China to the US to be marketed, they come in as imports and worsen the US trade deficit. Instead of beating up on China, Trump should call the US corporations that offshore their production for US markets to a White House conference and point out to them the consequences of their policy: the shrinkage of the American middle class, the loss of tax base, decaying infrastructure, and loss population of America’s former manufacturing cities, the pressure on city and state pension systems, the pressure of lower ratings on municipal bonds. Trump should ask the executives if they went too far in maximizing profits that benefitted a relatively few at the expense of the many, and what they think they should do about it. Capitalism ceases to serve the general interest when it separates Americans from the incomes associated with the production of the goods and services that they consume.

Trump has spoken of returning to tariffs as the source of government revenues and abandoning the income tax. This is consistent with correct economics and with freedom. Such a change would be possibly the most important reform in American history. It would be a difficult reform to achieve, because ideological, not economic, considerations intervene. Taxing the rich became the agenda of mass democracy. Taxing the rich was not seen as punishing a person for being successful. A successful person was portrayed as having become rich by exploiting labor. As fortunes were “stolen” by exploiting labor or resulted from government preference or legal privilege, income taxation was perceived as an instrument of justice. It is certainly perceived that way today by the liberal/left and the Democrat Party.

As an income tax is emotionally satisfying to the liberal/left, we are stuck with slower economic growth and less national income. It is disturbing that the liberal/left agenda has made American politics so highly partisan. What we see today is literal hatred of Trump, Republicans, conservatives, and white heterosexuals by the liberal/left. Hatred makes democracy dysfunctional. Politics cannot function as each side is intent on destroying any achievement by the other side. As democracy ceases to function, dictatorship becomes the means of governance. The liberal/left’s agenda to remake America by destroying its roots and recasting it into a different kind of society means the death of democracy and the rise of dictatorship. This is our real problem.

Read more …

“Prime Minister Abe knew what President Trump was trying to achieve. In turn, President Trump knew Abe would remain a fierce Japan-first trade competitor to the America-first program..”

• President Trump Bestows Great Honor on Nation of Japan (CTH)

The decades long relationship between former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and President Donald Trump permeates through a recent announcement that Japan will be the first nation to enter the new era of trade negotiations with the United States. Shinzo Abe was assassinated in July 2022, as he traveled throughout Japan gaining support for increased national military development. As businessmen and later politicians Donald Trump and Shinzo Abe (RIP) had a decades long friendship grounded in mutual respect and competition. To understand the dynamic of President Trump giving the nation of Japan the position as the first nation to enter new trade negotiations, a high honor, is to understand the business relationship between the U.S and Japan in the post-World War II (40 yr) period between 1950 and 1990. The formative years for both Japanese industry and President Trump’s business empire.

For Europe the U.S. gave them money through the Marshall Plan, a process of one-way tariffs which helped them rebuild their nations. For Japan we gave them W Edwards Demming, an industrial engineer and extraordinarily brilliant mind in the processes of efficiency and industrial production. In essence, to generate the reindustrialization of both economies, we gave the EU a fish (money), but we taught Japan how to fish; how to be create and build exceptional industry. In the decades that followed, the EU rebuilt their capitalistic industrial base from the trade and tariff money we permitted them to exploit. The EU rebuilt from their historic systems, upgrading to newer industrial technology. Japan, however, learned deeper more technical skills from the Demming process of industrial capacity building, a critically strong excellence in quality manufacturing and attention to specific details in all processes.

It did not take long before the results of quality in design and Japanese manufacturing surfaced in the sector of automobiles, and later consumer electronics. The U.S. auto industry was slow to adapt to the Japanese quality focus and began losing market share to Toyota, Datsun, Nissan and Honda. Throughout this period, President Trump and Shinzo Abe were on opposite sides of the industrial competition. Trump railing about Japan, and later aggregate Asia exploiting our generosity; Abe smiling and joking with his friend that despite Trump’s grievances, tomorrow Eric will be purchasing 1,500 Sony televisions for his next Hotel. And so it went…. The friendship grew, the competition was intense but incredibly respectful, and both Shinzo Abe and Donald Trump became men of great influence whose partnership in competition was always visible.

Prime Minister Abe knew what President Trump was trying to achieve. In turn, President Trump knew Abe would remain a fierce Japan-first trade competitor to the America-first program. Tremendous respect and mutual admiration underpinned their geopolitical efforts. No single picture better exemplified the nature of Trump and Abe as the G7 summit picture taken in Canada as the ripple effects of Trump’s first-term trade and tariff program against China (mostly) started to hit the global economy. As China started to feel the pressure from President Trump forming new ASEAN partnerships, China started pulling back from ordering heavy industrial goods from Europe. The EU, specifically the German economy, felt the lessening of Chinese manufacturing via diminished orders. However, a respectful Japan positioned their trade agreements for benefit, but also for benefit of American workers.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe knew there was nothing to fear from President Trump’s global trade reset. Unless, that is, you were a nation taking unfair advantage of the generosity provided by America. It makes total sense in the big picture for President Trump to honor the legacy of Shinzo Abe, and the respectful connections to Japan by granting them the first position in the schedule of the global trade reset. Total sense.

Read more …

Musk’s private war with Navarro doesn’t define his relationship with Trump.

• Musk Wants Trump To Cancel Tariffs – WaPo (RT)

Elon Musk has made direct appeals to US President Donald Trump, urging him to reconsider his decision to impose steep tariffs on American trade partners, the Washington Post reported on Tuesday. According to the outlet, many business and tech leaders who supported Trump’s candidacy have also criticized the move, calling it overly aggressive. Trump unveiled sweeping new tariffs on global imports last week, including a 34% duty on Chinese goods. In response, Beijing pledged to retaliate with a matching 34% tariff on American exports – prompting Trump to threaten an additional new 50% tariff. Over the weekend, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Musk – who serves as Trump’s government efficiency czar – fired off a series of social media posts criticizing White House trade adviser Peter Navarro, a central architect of the president’s aggressive tariff strategy.

“A PhD in Econ from Harvard is a bad thing, not a good thing,” Musk wrote. Musk also reportedly reached out to Trump personally. The attempted intervention has so far failed to yield results, two people familiar with the matter told the Washington Post. As the head of Tesla, Musk has long viewed tariffs as harmful to the company’s goals, given that both the US and China serve as major manufacturing bases and key markets. Many business leaders who supported Trump’s candidacy were also frustrated by their inability to influence the policy and suggested that a basic 10% rate combined with negotiations with other countries would have been sufficient, according to the Post.

People close to Musk reportedly made direct appeals to allies within the Trump administration, including Vice President J.D. Vance and Musk himself, advocating for what they saw as more rational, pro-free-trade policies. One of Musk’s associates, investor Joe Lonsdale, posted on X that he had recently urged “friends in the administration” to reconsider, warning that tariffs would harm American companies more than Chinese ones. Over the weekend, a group of business leaders began organizing an informal coalition to lobby members of the Trump administration for more moderate trade policies, one person familiar with the effort told the Post. Trump has defended his actions, stating that “sometimes you have to take medicine to fix something,” and promised that jobs and investment would return to the United States, making it “wealthy like never before.”

Read more …

They’re the big losers.

• Billionaires Slam Trump Tariffs (RT)

A host of American financiers and billionaire investors have criticized President Donald Trump over the sweeping tariffs he announced last week, calling the measures “poorly advised” and warning of serious consequences for the US economy. On April 2, Trump imposed a minimum 10% tariff on all imports and introduced “reciprocal” duties ranging from 11% to 50% on dozens of countries he accused of maintaining unfair trade imbalances. China responded with a reciprocal tariff of 34% on US imports, while a number of other nations signaled willingness to negotiate with Washington but threatened countermeasures if talks fail. Global markets have reacted sharply, with major indexes in the US, Europe, and Asia falling for three straight days.

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon slammed the tariffs in his annual letter to shareholders, warning they “will probably increase inflation” and the risk of recession, with the negative effects difficult to reverse. Ken Langone, billionaire co-founder of retailer Home Depot, criticized the tariffs as too high and rushed. In an interview with the Financial Times published on Monday, he described the additional 34% tariff on China – on top of the existing 20% – as “too aggressive, too soon,” and called the 46% levy on Vietnam “bullshit.” “I don’t understand the goddamn formula,” Langone said, urging a more measured approach, such as a 10% across-the-board tariff with waivers negotiated on a case-by-case basis. He added that he expects Trump to eventually pursue talks with trade partners because “right now, what everybody’s terrified of is a tariff war.”

Hedge fund investor Stanley Druckenmiller, a close mentor to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, posted a brief statement on X on Sunday: “I do not support tariffs exceeding 10%.” Billionaire investor Bill Ackman called the tariffs an “economic nuclear war” in a post on X. He called for a 10% flat tariff for “the privilege” of access to the US market but suggested pausing the reciprocal duties for 90 days to allow private negotiations. He lambasted Trump for relying on advisers for economic calculations, which he labeled incompetent. “The global economy is being taken down because of bad math,” he wrote.

Even tech mogul Elon Musk, Trump’s government efficiency czar, joined the criticism. He posted a series of comments on social media targeting White House trade adviser Peter Navarro, a key architect of the tariff plan, saying he “ain’t built sh*t” with the policy. Musk’s brother, Tesla board member Kimbal Musk, also condemned the tariffs, calling them a “structural, permanent tax on the American consumer.” Treasury Secretary Bessent said on Monday that Washington is open to “meaningful negotiations” in the coming weeks with trade partners, but only those who have responded “positively” to Trump’s tariffs. He criticized China for its response levies, accusing Beijing of “choosing to isolate itself by retaliating and doubling down on previous negative behavior.” China, in turn, described the new US tariffs as “economic bullying” and warned they could destabilize the entire global trade system.

Read more …

“..any tax proposals or initiatives Bessent may pursue would be aligned with “his full support for President Trump’s America First Economic Agenda.”

• Officials Quietly Drafting Plan To Cushion Trump Tariff Fallout – Bloomberg (RT)

US officials are exploring ways to mitigate the potentially harmful effects of the sweeping tariffs announced by President Donald Trump, Bloomberg reported on Tuesday, citing sources in Washington. The talks are reportedly being held without Trump’s knowledge and reflect internal unease over his shift in trade policy. Last week, Trump imposed a minimum 10% tariff on all imports and introduced “reciprocal” duties ranging from 11% to 50% on dozens of countries he accused of maintaining unfair trade imbalances. The new measures included an additional 34% duty on imports from China, on top of an existing 20% rate implemented earlier, and a 20% levy on goods from the EU, among others.

On Monday, Trump threatened to slap a further 50% tariff on all Chinese imports unless Beijing reverses the 34% hike it announced in response to the new US levies. A number of other countries have slammed Trump’s tariffs over the past few days and vowed to implement countermeasures. According to Bloomberg, Trump administration officials fear that retaliatory tariffs will damage US exports, hurting American firms trying to sell goods abroad. Sources said discussions are underway about a potential exporter tax credit, which would serve as a subsidy for US firms selling products and services overseas. The credit, which would require congressional approval, could be issued at the end of the year.

Officials are also reportedly weighing a credit for importers to shield US companies from rising costs when sourcing goods from countries affected by Trump’s tariffs. These measures would aim to soften the economic blow to both exporters and importers once the tariffs take full effect. Sources told Bloomberg that neither Trump nor Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has been formally briefed on the deliberations, and the proposals have yet to receive full backing from the administration’s economic team. A Treasury spokesperson confirmed the discussions but stressed that any talk of “specific provisions” are “still early.” The spokesperson added that any tax proposals or initiatives Bessent may pursue would be aligned with “his full support for President Trump’s America First Economic Agenda.” The White House declined to comment on the report.

Trump’s tariffs and the threat of retaliation have raised fears of a global trade war. Several investment banks have raised their recession risk forecasts for both the US and global economies over the past week. Stock markets have been rattled, with major indexes in the US, Europe, and Asia all trading lower the past three days. Despite the criticism, Trump has defended the tariffs as essential to correcting trade imbalances. On Monday, he claimed on social media that the measures were working and delivering significant economic benefits to the US.

Read more …

$3,000 for an iPhone? Make a deal with India.

• Apple Staged Emergency iPhone Airlift From India (RT)

Apple transported five planeloads of iPhones and other devices from India to the US within a three-day period in late March, according to a report by the Times of India, quoting unnamed senior officials. The move was reportedly made to evade a new 10% reciprocal tariff introduced by US President Donald Trump, which came into effect on April 5. The company’s factories in India, China, and other key locations have shipped their products to the US in anticipation of higher tariffs, a source was quoted as saying in the report. The existing stock, which was imported at lower rates, will protect the company from higher costs for a while, until new shipments are made under the new tariffs, a source told the paper.

Although production has been partly shifted to Vietnam and India, the majority of iPhones are still manufactured in China. However, these countries are now facing tariffs as well, with Vietnam and India being hit with tariffs of 46% and 26%, respectively. Chinese products currently face a 34% import tax in the US. Apple is analyzing how different tariff structures across manufacturing locations will affect its supply chain, according to market watchers. Apple sells more than 220 million iPhones a year; its biggest markets include the US, China, and Europe, according to market data.

The cheapest iPhone 16 model was launched in the US at $799. This could now rise by 43% to $1,142. if Apple passes on the burden to consumers, Reuters said, citing calculations based on projections from analysts at Rosenblatt Securities. Apple currently does not plan to increase retail prices anywhere in the world, the Times of India added. Earlier today, a Wall Street Journal report said Apple is ramping up efforts to export more iPhones from India to the US in an attempt to mitigate the effects of the high tariffs on Chinese products imposed by Trump.

Read more …

The welcoming app to facilitate the entry of illegals.

• More Than 900k “Biden-App”Migrants Told to ‘Self-Deport’ (NYP)

The Department of Homeland Security is urging nearly 1 million asylum seekers who entered the US through the CBP One app to “immediately” begin to “self-deport.” “Canceling these paroles is a promise kept to the American people to secure our borders and protect national security,” a DHS spokesperson said, following anecdotal reports from migrants that they had been told to return to their countries of origin. The CBP One smartphone app launched in January 2023 and through December 2024 was used to admit more than 936,500 people claiming persecution in their homelands, according to DHS data. Users were granted permission to live and work for two years in the US as they awaited the outcome of often backlogged local immigration proceedings. “Formal termination notices have been issued, and affected aliens are urged to voluntarily self-deport using the CBP Home App. Those who refuse will be found, removed, and permanently barred from reentry,” the DHS spokesperson said.

President Joe Biden’s administration launched the app to tamp down record-high illegal border crossings, but congressional Republicans accused Biden of illegally exceeding the traditional “parole” authority, which they said could not be granted categorically. The Trump DHS spokesperson said: “The Biden Administration abused the parole authority to allow millions of illegal aliens into the US which further fueled the worst border crisis in US history.” Precise data about the number of people impacted by the move are unclear for a variety of reasons — including the fact that some may have already been granted asylum, while others may be shielded by additional legal protections. The CBP One app was launched with a goal of facilitating the orderly movement of would-be illegal border crossers into the US from northern Mexico. Although geared to nationalities such as Haitians and Venezuelans flocking to the southwest border, Mexicans and citizens of other countries could participate.

Migrants who entered the US as part of programs for Afghan and Ukrainian citizens are not impacted by the latest announcement, according to DHS. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem also is revoking parole for 532,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans who flew to the US at their own expense with a financial sponsor — effective April 24. Additionally, the Trump administration is moving to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 600,000 Venezuelans and about 500,000 Haitians — though that effort is paused by litigation. TPS grants 18-month reprieves for residents of designated countries and can apply to all residents of a particular nationality living within the US at the time of the protection’s declaration.

Illegal US-Mexico border crossings have plummeted since Trump took office in January with pledges to launch the largest mass deportation campaign in American history. That drive initially has focused on migrants accused of committing crimes — with Trump coercing their home countries to accept deportation flights, while sending some to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and others to a mega-prison in El Salvador.

Read more …

If you can keep out the politics, their infrastructure may be useful…

• USAID Operations Rebooted in Several Crisis Zones (Sp.)

US President Donald Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) chief Elon Musk have repeatedly accused USAID of fraud, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the agency had long “strayed from its original mission.” At least 6 previously terminated USAID programs are being revived for emergency food assistance funding in Lebanon, Syria, Somalia, Jordan, Iraq, and Ecuador, Reuters reported. The move reportedly followed pressure from inside the administration and from Congress. US president Donald had previously frozen foreign aid and dismissed hundreds of USAID employees as part of DOGE-led efforts to slash federal programs and departments with little oversight, with Elon Musk calling labelling the agency a “criminal organization.” By bankrolling so-called civil society groups, USAID has long functioned as a covert enabler of American influence, sowing unrest and paving the way for regime change while packaging it all as “promoting democracy.”

Read more …

Turns out, he’s not (more powerful than) the president after all…

• Judge Boasberg Scraps Trump Hearing On Deportations After Scotus Ruling (JTN)

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg on Tuesday canceled a deportation hearing for the Trump administration after the Supreme Court ruled the U.S. could continue to carry out deportations under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. The hearing was to determine whether Boasberg would change the temporary restraining order he issued last month to block those deportations into a longer preliminary injunction, according to ABC News. On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Trump administration could use the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport suspected gang members of Tren de Aragua. The ruling overturns Boasberg’s March 15 order that temporarily blocked deportations under the wartime act, by granting the Trump administration’s request to vacate temporary restraining orders Boasberg placed on the order.

Miller

Read more …

“..his job isn’t to create policy—that duty belongs to the Executive Branch and Congress,” he said. “Instead, Judge Boasberg was charged with applying the relevant law to the facts of the case..”

• Legal Experts Sound Alarm On Judge Blocking Trump’s Deportations (DC)

As U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg continues to be a thorn in the side of the Trump administration’s effort to deport gangbangers, legal experts have begun to raise questions about his handling of the case. The Barack Obama-appointed judge in March blocked President Donald Trump from using wartime authorities to send suspected Tren de Aragua gangbangers to a mega-prison in El Salvador, prompting incredible pushback from the president himself. As the challenge to the deportations play out in court, some legal experts have argued Boasberg should recuse himself from the case entirely, while others say he appears to be “making policy from the bench.” Critics have pointed to the fact that Boasberg’s daughter, Katharine Boasberg, works for an organization whose founder openly celebrated her father’s decision to halt the deportations.

“Under Canon 3 (C) (1) of the ‘Code of Conduct for United States Judges’ it states that judges must disqualify themselves from a case ‘in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned,’” Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said to the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Given that his daughter works directly for an organization that supports illegal aliens, opposes deportation of aliens, and has voiced its support for Boasberg’s action in this very case, the impartiality of his judgment is obviously open to be reasonably questioned.” “He should have recused himself given his immediate family’s involvement in advocacy for illegal immigration,” Spakovsky continued.

The debate began on March 15, when Trump officially invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a seldom-used wartime authority, to expeditiously arrest and deport Tren de Aragua gang members. Boasberg quickly issued a temporary block on the flights and ordered any deportation flights in the air to turn around. However, three planes carrying 238 suspected and confirmed Tren de Aragua gangbangers and 23 MS-13 gang members managed to land at the El Salvador International airport. The Trump administration immediately ripped Boasberg for the decision. “Tonight, a DC trial judge supported Tren de Aragua terrorists over the safety of Americans,” Attorney General Pam Bondi stated after Boasberg’s order. “This order disregards well-established authority regarding President Trump’s power, and it puts the public and law enforcement at risk.”

In a court filing the following Monday, the Justice Department appealed the order and called for Boasberg to be reassigned. The administration further ripped the judge for “highly unusual and improper procedures” and accused the court of a “hasty public inquiry” into sensitive national security matters involving a criminal syndicate. “If a President doesn’t have the right to throw murderers, and other criminals, out of our Country because a Radical Left Lunatic Judge wants to assume the role of President, then our Country is in very big trouble, and destined to fail!” Trump posted on Truth Social. Questions over possible conflicts of interest arose after Boasberg’s family connections to a liberal organization surfaced. His daughter, Katharine, works for Partners in Justice, a nonprofit group based in New York City that provides client advocates to public defenders.

The group removed her biography from its website after Boasberg was assigned to the Alien Enemies Act case, according to the New York Post, but an archive of the page was saved. Before landing at Partners for Justice, Katharine worked at the Center for Justice Innovation, a left-wing organization that advocates for “racial justice” in the court system. Emily Galvin-Almanza, the founder and executive director of Partners in Justice, said Boasberg’s decision to block the wartime deportations was done “rightly” and she previously took to social media to rip the Laken Riley Act, a law mandating federal immigration authorities detain illegal migrants who commit theft-related crimes. The Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges makes clear that judges must recuse themselves from a case “in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” including instances when a child of a judge is “known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.”

However, there is debate over whether Boasberg fits this description. “Generally the employment of an adult child of a judge does not mandate recusal, even if the adult child is employed by a law firm representing a party in the case,” Richard Painter, a law professor for the University of Minnesota, said to the Daily Caller News Foundation. “However, if the adult child is at all involved in the representation of a party, recusal of the judge is generally required.” “Although nonprofits that don’t provide legal representation do not represent parties, I would apply the same rule,” Painter continued. “The involvement of an adult child’s employee in a matter is not sufficient grounds for recusal, but the involvement of the adult child herself is.”

Appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama in 2011, Boasberg has since presided over a number of high-profile court cases over the years, including those involving the Trump administration. In addition to the Alien Enemies Act case, the 62-year-old judge is also ruling over a lawsuit challenging top government officials’ use of Signal to discuss sensitive military operations in Yemen. Boasberg ripped the administration for allowing the deportation flights on March 15 to continue on to their destination in El Salvador, ostensibly in defiance of his order, and has demanded the DOJ answer a litany of questions regarding the flights. The administration has pointed out the judge’s written order didn’t get released until after the flights were already over international waters. While hesitant to declare whether Boasberg has any conflicts of interest in the deportation case, Matt O’Brien, a former immigration judge, questioned the immense scope of his ruling.

“The real problem with Judge Boasberg’s ruling isn’t any kind of bias. Rather, it is that, in this particular case, he rendered a decision which appears to have been intended to effectuate a specific policy outcome,” O’Brien, who now serves as Director of Investigations for the Immigration Reform Law Institute, said to the Daily Caller News Foundation. “However, his job isn’t to create policy—that duty belongs to the Executive Branch and Congress,” he said. “Instead, Judge Boasberg was charged with applying the relevant law to the facts of the case. Rather than doing his job he engaged in judicial activism (making policy from the bench).” Similar to O’Brien, the administration and other Republicans have voiced consternation over the level of authority a single district court judge is able to wield over an entire administrative branch of government.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, a top ally of the president, introduced legislation in March that calls for limiting federal court orders to parties directly before the court. If passed and signed into law, such a move would essentially squash universal injunctions and rein in the scope of judicial activism. The desire to see such reforms in the judiciary appears to be quite high within the GOP. Grassley’s bill, which was very recently introduced, already touts more than 20 co-sponsors in the upper chamber. “And by engaging in such behavior, Judge Boasberg intruded upon powers that the Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act very clearly assigned to the Executive Branch,” O’Brien said. “That upends our system of checks and balances and throws the whole machinery of government off kilter.”

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Jesus

85 million

Cancer
https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1909374230585635102

DMSO

Pasta

3D cube
https://twitter.com/gunsnrosesgirl3/status/1909527032414757129

Capy

Ripley

Puddle

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle March 5 2025

Mar 052025
 
 March 5, 2025  Posted by at 10:45 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  64 Responses »


Gustave Courbet The desperate man (self portrait) 1852

 

• Common Sense Revolution: Trump Outlines Sweeping Vision For Next 4 Years (JTN)
• Trump’s Big Speech Proves To Be Optics Nightmare For Democrats (JTN)
• Half of Democrat Voters Are Tired Of Far-Left Politics (ZH)
• Did Palantir Give Trump & Vance the Real Ukraine Intel? (Sp.)
• Musk Offers Zelensky To Give Up Power, Leave Ukraine (TASS)
• Zelensky Reverses Hardline Position On Peace Talks (RT)
• Musk Wants ‘Actions, Not Words’ From Zelensky (RT)
• Musk Says All Government Agencies ‘Cooperating With DOGE’ (ET)
• NATO Could Collapse Like a Balloon With a Slow Leak (Sp.)
• Reality Confronts The Euro Ruling-Strata (Alastair Crooke)
• Kaja Kallas Is Ill-Equipped To Take Stock Of EU Foreign Policy (Proud)
• Eating Crow (Stephen Karganovic)
• The Apocalyptic Trump Choice Facing The EU (Lukyanov)
• EU’s von der Leyen Unveils $840bn Rearmament Plan (RT)
• EU Spent More Money On Russian Energy Than Ukraine Aid Last Year (ZH)
• Sanctions Have To Go, Kremlin Tells Trump (ZH)
• Putin Agrees To Mediate US/Iran Nuke Talks After Trump Request (ZH)
• Government Advisor Warns UK is Heading For Civil War (MN)

 

 

 

 

FBI

Vance


https://twitter.com/i/status/1896754941575983386

Kari Lake

Fentanyl

Sachs
https://twitter.com/i/status/1896608908430672272

Sachs

Ursula

 

 

 

 

Common sense indeed. That’s all that’s needed. But the Democrats have lost it, and now they barely exist anymore. Watching bits of Trump’s speech last night, that’s what I was thinking: they’re gone, they’re around only in name. They took the knee to support BLM as it burnt down US cities unpunished. They insisted males must have access to girls’ dressing rooms. But countless Americans are (grand-) parents of young girls, and they want no part of that. Yesterday, their perhaps main point appeared to be that the world’s richest man is stealing granny’s pension and Medicare. Stick a fork in them and turn them over; they’re done. But that leaves Trump with no resistance; not sure that’s a good thing. And since we stopped last year with one Dem candidate who was too demented, followed by one who was too unpopular, it’s not clear at all what future they have, if any.

• Common Sense Revolution: Trump Outlines Sweeping Vision For Next 4 Years (JTN)

President Donald Trump on Tuesday evening delivered an optimistic speech outlining his vision for the next years, alternating between a pugilistic and jovial tone as he showed to Democrats that he would not back off of his core campaign promises and invited them to participate in his efforts to reshape the nation. “I return to this chamber tonight to report that America’s momentum is back. Our spirit is back. Our pride is back. Our confidence is back, and the American Dream is surging bigger and better than ever before,” he began. “The American dream is unstoppable, and our country is on the verge of a comeback, the likes of which the world has never witnessed and perhaps will never witness, again, never been anything like it.”

Focusing on a “common sense revolution” that he framed part as a global movement, he highlighted his early efforts to rebuild the American economy and declared that “among my very highest priorities is to rescue our economy and get dramatic and immediate relief to working families.” To that end, he pointed to his administration’s plan to reduce egg prices, bolster American energy production, encourage auto-manufacturing in the U.S., and revitalize the shipbuilding industry through a dedicated White House office. Though not technically a State of the Union address, the speech served a similar function and Trump used the opportunity to deliver a number of partisan blows to his opponents while attempting to win them over on key points.

“This is my fifth such speech to Congress, and once again, I look at the Democrats in front of me, and I realize there is absolutely nothing I can say to make them happy or to make them stand or smile or applaud, nothing I can do,” he said. “I could find a cure to the most devastating disease, a disease that would wipe out entire nations or announce the answers to the greatest economy in history, or the stoppage of crime to the lowest levels ever recorded. And these people sitting right here will not clap, will not stand, and certainly will not cheer for these astronomical achievements,” he went on. “So Democrats sitting before me for just this one night, why not join us in celebrating so many incredible wins for America, for the good of our nation, let’s work together and let’s truly make America great again.”

Prior to the speech, reports had suggested that Democrats would take a more subdued approach to protesting Trump’s remarks. But such reports were disproven as raucous jeering from the conference prompted repeated admonishment from House Speaker Mike Johnson, who ultimately ordered the removal of Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, from the chamber. The opposition’s frequent refusal to stand or applaud throughout the speech, moreover, attracted considerable online attention, especially as Trump highlighted the death of Laken Riley and the presence of a 13-year-old child with cancer. Riley’s death served as the keynote of Trump’s discussion on illegal immigration as the first law he signed upon returning to office bore her name.

“Last year, I told Laken’s grieving parents that we would ensure would not have died in vain. That’s why the very first bill I signed into law as your 47th president mandates the detention of all dangerous criminal aliens who threaten public safety, very strong, powerful act,” he said. Much of the speech saw Trump urge Congress to pass his legislative priorities, including a call for a balanced budget, making interest payments on car loans tax deductible if the vehicle was made in America, and banning child sex changes. Trump used much of speech to Congress to highlight his efforts to fight inflation, bolster energy production, and strengthen the U.S. economy, outlining his overall plan and touting his early accomplishments.

“Among my very highest priorities is to rescue our economy and get dramatic and immediate relief to working families. As you know, we inherited from the last administration an economic catastrophe and an inflation nightmare,” he declared. “Their policies drove up energy prices, pushed up grocery costs and drove the necessities of life out of reach for millions and millions of Americans, if not never had anything like it.” “We suffered the worst inflation in 48 years, but perhaps even in the history of our country, they’re not sure. As President, I’m fighting every day to reverse this damage and make America affordable again,” he declared. “Joe Biden especially let the price of eggs get out of control. The egg prices out of control, and we’re working hard to get it back down. Secretary, do a good job on that. You inherited a total mess from the previous administration.” Trump further pointed to his efforts to construct a national gas pipeline, encourage foreign investment, and to cut government waste.

Read more …

It’s very sad, too.

• Trump’s Big Speech Proves To Be Optics Nightmare For Democrats (JTN)

President Donald Trump’s joint address to Congress on Tuesday night proved to be an optics nightmare for Democrats as one of their own was booted from the House chamber by the sergeant at arms and social media lit up over liberal lawmakers’ refusal to stand for a boy with cancer being made a member of the Secret Service. House Speaker Mike Johnson had Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, removed from the House chamber during Trump’s joint address for disrupting the speech. Johnson banged the speaker’s gavel as Democrats disrupted Trump’s speech, before instructing them to follow decorum and ordering Green’s removal.

“Members are directed to uphold and maintain decorum in the House and to cease any further disruptions,” Johnson said. “That’s your warning. Members are engaging in willful and continuing breach of decorum, and the chair is prepared to direct the sergeant at arms to restore order to the joint session. Mr. Green, take your seat. Take your seat, sir. Take your seat. Finding that members continue to engage in willful and concerted disruption of proper decorum, the chair now directs the sergeant at arms to restore order. Remove this gentleman from the chamber.” Shortly after Johnson’s order to remove Green from the chamber, Trump said, “This is my fifth such speech to Congress, and once again, I look at the Democrats in front of me, and I realize there is absolutely nothing I can say to make them happy or to make them stand or smile or applaud, nothing I can do.

“I could find a cure to the most devastating disease, a disease that would wipe out entire nations or announce the answers to the greatest economy in history, or the stoppage of crime to the lowest levels ever recorded. And these people sitting right here will not clap, will not stand, and certainly will not cheer for these astronomical achievements. They won’t do it, no matter what — five times I’ve been up here, it’s very sad, and it just shouldn’t be this way,” he continued. “So Democrats sitting before me for just this one night, why not join us in celebrating so many incredible wins for America, for the good of our nation, let’s work together and let’s truly make America great again.” Trump also pointed out a 13-year-old boy in the gallery who is battling cancer and has been made an honorary police officer. The president said that he was making the child an agent of the Secret Service.

“Joining us in the gallery tonight is a young man who truly loves our police. His name is DJ Daniel, he is 13 years old, and he has always dreamed of becoming a police officer,” Trump said. “But in 2018, DJ was diagnosed with brain cancer, the doctors gave him five months at most to live. That was more than six years ago. Since that time, DJ and his dad have been on a quest to make his dream come true, and DJ has been sworn in as an honorary law enforcement officer, actually a number of times. The police love him, the police departments love him. “And tonight, DJ, we’re going to do you the biggest honor of them all. I am asking our new Secret Service Director, Sean Curran, to officially make you an agent of the United States Secret Service. Thank you, DJ. DJ’s doctors believe his cancer likely came from a chemical he was exposed to when he was younger. Since 1975, rates of child cancer have increased by more than 40%.”

Wile Republicans gave DJ a standing ovation, only about a dozen Democrats joined them. The rest sat without recognizing the boy. Former Arizona Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Wright (R) reacted to the Democrats’ reaction in post on X on Tuesday, writing, “The congressional democrats are horrible human beings. They couldn’t even stand to applaud newly sworn in Secret Service Agent DJ, a child battling cancer!!” A brief clip that Wright reposted on X showed the majority of Democrats remaining seated while Republicans gave DJ a standing ovation. During Trump’s address, some Democrats in the chamber held up circular black signs with white lettering that had statements such as “Protect Veterans,” “False,” “Save Medicaid,” and “Musk Steals.” Near the start of the speech, Democrats started booing Trump, before being drowned out by Republicans chanting, “USA!”

As Trump entered the House chamber for his address, Rep. Melanie Stansbury, D-N.M., held up a sign next to the president that read, “This is NOT Normal.” White House Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowich posted a thread on X on Tuesday of several occasions in Trump’s speech that Democrats didn’t clap for.

Read more …

“..if the polls are correct then nearly half of Democrats are burnt out on the wacky Manson Family behavior of their activist counterparts..”

• Half of Democrat Voters Are Tired Of Far-Left Politics (ZH)

Can Democrats learn to admit when they’re wrong? It might depend on the variety of Democrat. Woke activists have proven time after time that they will double down on every incorrect position because they don’t care at all about being right; they only care about winning and destroying anyone who stands in their way. But this is psychopathic behavior that should be common only among the fringes of ideological debate. Are all Democrats woke and crazy, or do a lot of them go along with the extremist mob because they’re too afraid to speak against their own side? Or, perhaps a lot of people that lean to the left of the political spectrum have a habit of blindly following the lemmings in front of them, even if it means going off a cliff in the end.

Whether it was psychopathy, cowardice or trend chasing, millions of US voters thought it was a good idea to jump on the woke bandwagon and support authoritarianism, collectivism and moral relativism for at least a solid four years. No moderation was allowed. No nuance was discussed. No centrist ideals entertained. During the Biden Administration and the Kamala Harris campaign ESG, CRT, DEI, LGBT and Net Zero were the message and the madness. It was everywhere and there was no escape. Not surprisingly, the zealotry of the political left created massive blowback that they just could not comprehend. Using billions in government funds from agencies like USAID to saturate the culture with race communism and trans cultism did not help them in the long run. In fact, most of the population became fed up and angry. The Democratic Party fully embraced the woke militants and ended up alienating half of their own voter base.

After the Democratic Party’s well-publicized setbacks during the November elections, a recent national poll indicates 45% of Democrats want their party to go moderate and move away from the terminally woke. That’s up 11 points from 2021. Only 31% of respondents in a Quinnipiac University survey conducted last month had a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party, with 57% seeing the party in an unfavorable light. Polls also show that Democrats in congress hit an all-time-low approval rating last month as the party is finding it increasingly difficult to counter Donald Trump’s government accountability message. To oppose government audits suggests they have something to hide. Democrat politicians have come out publicly in recent weeks to admit that overt “wokeism” is ruining the party. Senator Mark Warner, a Virginia Democrat, asserts:

“I think the Democrats’ brand is really bad, and I think this was an election based on culture. And the Democrats’ failure to connect on a cultural basis with a wide swath of Americans is hugely problematic…” “I think the majority of the party realizes that the ideological purity of some of the groups is a recipe for disaster and that, candidly, the attack on over-the-top wokeism was a valid attack.” In other words, Get Woke – Go Broke. It took several years and a severe beat down in the elections to draw out even a modicum of awareness from leftists and it’s unlikely that they will abandon identity politics in the near term. But, if the polls are correct then nearly half of Democrats are burnt out on the wacky Manson Family behavior of their activist counterparts. This means that without dramatic changes, the Dems will not be winning any elections anytime soon.

Read more …

“Palantir Turns Ukraine Into an AI War Lab.”

• Did Palantir Give Trump & Vance the Real Ukraine Intel? (Sp.)

While Volodymyr Zelensky brazenly questioned JD Vance’s knowledge of Ukraine in the White House slapdown, Donald Trump and his veep may have already exposed all his corrupt schemes. Time Magazine boasted that tech giant Palantir Technologies embedded its state-of-the-art analytics AI software into Ukraine’s government operations in June 2022. More than half a dozen Ukrainian agencies, including its Ministries of Defense, Digital Transformation, Economy, and Education, now rely on Palantir. The company has access to virtually all Ukraine’s data, from real-time satellite and drone footage to financial and economic records, according to the media. Beyond its military AI solutions, Palantir is also tasked with “rooting out corruption” in Ukraine – effectively making it the Zelensky regime’s invisible watchdog.

Founded in 2003, Palantir was backed by the CIA’s venture arm, In-Q-Tel, and worked on US-NATO operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. What’s more, billionaire Peter Thiel, Palantir’s co-founder, has been a loyal Trump ally since 2016. Thiel mentored JD Vance since 2011, backed his Narya Capital, and donated $10 million to his Senate campaign in 2021. With Palantir’s insider access, it likely holds intel on Ukraine’s corruption, misuse of US funds, forced conscriptions, and more – intel Thiel could have shared with Trump and Vance. Rumors suggest Palantir’s AI may have been used by Elon Musk’s DOGE team, hinting that Kiev’s schemes could already be exposed, much like USAID’s murky dealings.

Read more …

At least it makes sense. But I don’t have the feeling it’s his decision.

• Musk Offers Zelensky To Give Up Power, Leave Ukraine (TASS)

The leader of the Kiev regime, Vladimir Zelensky, should resign and leave Ukraine, US entrepreneur and Head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) Elon Musk said. “As distasteful as it is, Zelensky should be offered some kind of amnesty in a neutral country in exchange for a peaceful transition back to democracy in Ukraine,” Musk wrote on his X social media page. On February 28, Vladimir Zelensky visited the White House for a meeting with US President Donald Trump. Their televised exchange, with reporters present, devolved into a shouting match, with Trump reprimanding that Zelensky was ungrateful to the United States for the support provided to Kiev, and Vice President JD Vance pointing out that Zelensky showed a disrespectful attitude towards the US. The press conference following their meeting was canceled. Trump posted a statement on the Truth Social network asserting that Zelensky disrespected the US and displayed reluctance to seek a peaceful resolution to the Ukraine conflict.

Read more …

He’ll say anything he’s told to say.

• Zelensky Reverses Hardline Position On Peace Talks (RT)

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky has said that Kiev is ready to engage in peace negotiations with Russia, to be brokered by US President Donald Trump. The statement comes after the White House reportedly stopped all military aid to Kiev following a disastrous meeting in the Oval Office between the two leaders, for which US officials have demanded Zelensky apologize. Zelensky made a concession-filled post on X on Tuesday, saying his public feud with Trump in the Oval Office was “regrettable.” “We are ready to work fast to end the war,” Zelensky wrote. He has frequently said in the past that Ukraine would fight as long as necessary and that peace talks could only happen on Ukraine’s terms. He proposed the release of prisoners and establishing “truces” on both the air and sea fronts, echoing suggestions by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron in a meeting with him in London on Sunday.

The French-UK plan envisages a temporary, month-long “truce in the air, on the seas, and on energy infrastructure.” Moscow has repeatedly ruled out a temporary ceasefire with Kiev, insisting on a permanent, legally binding peace deal that addresses the root causes of the conflict. On Monday, Trump reportedly ordered a temporary halt to all US military aid to Ukraine, aiming to pressure Zelensky into negotiations to end the conflict with Russia. An unnamed senior administration official told Fox News that military assistance would stay suspended until the Ukrainian leadership demonstrates a genuine commitment to peace talks. “Ukraine is ready to come to the negotiating table as soon as possible to bring lasting peace closer,” Zelensky continued on X, offering his appreciation for Washington’s support. “My team and I stand ready to work under President Trump’s strong leadership to get a peace that lasts,” he added.

“’Ready’ is good, it is positive,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov reacted to the statement. During the Friday meeting, Trump accused Zelensky of ingratitude and “gambling with World War III” by refusing to work towards a halt to hostilities. On Sunday, Zelensky told reporters that “an agreement to end the war is still very, very far away, and no one has started all these steps yet.” Trump condemned his statement on social media, promising that “America will not put up with it for much longer.” Russian President Vladimir Putin has indicated Moscow’s readiness to resolve the Ukraine conflict through peaceful means. He emphasized Russia’s aim of establishing an international system that ensures a balanced and mutual consideration of interests, creating a long-term, indivisible European and global security framework.

Additionally, Zelensky highlighted his willingness to swiftly finalize a minerals deal with the US, viewing it as a step toward “toward greater security and solid security guarantees.” Trump has declined to provide specific promises on security, such as admitting Ukraine to NATO or contributing American troops to a future peacekeeping mission. He has also argued that Kiev’s ambition to join NATO was “probably the reason this whole thing started.” Moscow has welcomed Trump’s NATO comments, with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov saying the US president is “the first and only” major Western leader to publicly name NATO expansion and Ukraine’s desire to join the bloc as a key cause of the ongoing conflict.

Read more …

“The Kremlin also said that Kiev must renounce its claims to Crimea and four other regions that have voted to become part of Russia.”

• Musk Wants ‘Actions, Not Words’ From Zelensky (RT)

Words alone would not be enough to restore trust in Kiev, Elon Musk has said in a response to Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky’s announcement that he was ready to sign a deal with the US on rare-earth minerals and agree to a ceasefire with Moscow. “Actions, not words, are what matter. Let’s see what actions take place,” the billionaire and top adviser to US President Donald Trump wrote on X on Tuesday. Zelensky had earlier expressed his regret that last Friday’s meeting in Washington “did not go the way it was supposed to.” The US and Ukraine were supposed to sign a rare-earths deal during Zelensky’s visit to the White House. The signing was abruptly canceled following a heated argument in the Oval Office, during which Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance accused Zelensky of not being grateful for American aid to Kiev.

Trump later claimed that his guest was acting disrespectfully and did not want to achieve peace with Russia. On Tuesday, Zelensky said that Kiev was ready to sign the minerals agreement at “any time and in any convenient format.” He stated that Ukraine was also ready for a prisoner exchange and a truce, with a “ban on missiles, long-ranged drones, bombs on energy, and other civilian infrastructure.” He thanked Trump, the US Congress, and the American people but stopped short of formally apologizing for the Friday incident. Following a shouting match in the White House, Trump told reporters that Zelensky would need to be ready for peace with Russia if he wanted to be welcomed back.

Fox News cited a senior US official on Monday as saying that Zelensky should issue a public apology if he wants to sign the minerals deal. Later reports said, however, that Trump was planning to announce the agreement during his address to Congress on Tuesday evening. Moscow welcomed Zelensky’s overtures as a “positive” development. “It is good that he [Zelensky] is ready [to go back to the talks with the US],” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told journalist Pavel Zarubin from the TV channel Rossiya-1 on Tuesday. Moscow has insisted that peace should be made on its terms, including the transformation of Ukraine into a neutral country. The Kremlin also said that Kiev must renounce its claims to Crimea and four other regions that have voted to become part of Russia.

Read more …

“I think that email perhaps was misinterpreted as a performance review, but, actually, it was a pulse check review…”

• Musk Says All Government Agencies ‘Cooperating With DOGE’ (ET)

Adviser to President Donald Trump, Elon Musk, said Saturday that some federal agencies will respond on behalf of employees to an email asking what federal workers did in the past week and that all agencies are cooperating with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which was created last month to cut waste, fraud, and excess spending. “All federal government departments are cooperating with DOGE,” he wrote. For the Departments of State, Defense Department, and “a few others, the supervisors are gathering the weekly accomplishments on behalf of individual contributors,” Musk wrote on his social media platform, X. Over the weekend, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) sent out a second round of emails to multiple agencies asking all federal employees to list five things they accomplished that week.

Earlier on Saturday, Musk said in a separate X post that responding to the email “is mandatory for the executive branch” and that “anyone working on classified or other sensitive matters is still required to respond if they receive the email, but can simply reply that their work is sensitive.” An email that was sent to Defense Department civilian employees, seen by The Epoch Times, provided guidance to the “what you did last week” email and said employees must respond to it within 48 hours. “A response to this email satisfies all OPM requirements for the past two weeks,” the email to Pentagon employees added. Musk, with Trump’s backing, has pressed for the emails as a means to hold workers accountable and as a “pulse check” to make sure all federal employees on the payroll actually exist.

The emails are part of broader efforts by Musk and DOGE to downsize the federal government and reduce spending. Musk and Trump have said that the organization is needed to find and eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. Democratic lawmakers and labor unions have criticized DOGE, saying that widespread cuts could hamper crucial government functions and services. Musk and DOGE have been targeted by multiple lawsuits seeking to block them from accessing government systems and confidential data. The suits allege that Musk and DOGE are violating the Constitution by wielding the kind of vast power that only comes from agencies created through the Congress or appointments made with confirmation by the Senate. At the first Trump Cabinet meeting held last week, Musk explained the role that DOGE will play. He also addressed the mass emails that were sent to federal employees.

“I think that email perhaps was misinterpreted as a performance review, but, actually, it was a pulse check review,” Musk said, adding that “this is not a high bar.” “What we are trying to get to the bottom of is we think there are a number of people on the government payroll who are dead, which is probably why they can’t respond,” he said. Shortly before the first round of emails were sent out last month, Trump had called on Musk to “get more aggressive” with spending cuts and reform to the government. After they were sent out, Trump told reporters in the White House, alongside French President Emmanuel Macron, that those who do not answer the email are at risk of termination.

Musk is not a Cabinet-level official and has been listed as a presidential adviser to Trump with a special government employee status. The Trump administration has given conflicting statements on the exact role that Musk plays within DOGE or whether he actually heads it. In court papers last month, a senior White House official said that Musk is not in charge of DOGE, nor an employee of the department. Trump later said that Musk is effectively leading the organization.

Read more …

“NATO has been ‘unified’ for the past 40 years in letting the US foot the bill and supply the manpower for Europe’s defense..”

• NATO Could Collapse Like a Balloon With a Slow Leak (Sp.)

Former Supreme Allied Commander Admiral James Stavridis earlier warned that the end of NATO could be “days away.” Before entering office, then-President-elect Donald Trump vowed to consider withdrawing the US from NATO. However, the US won’t leave the alliance abruptly, Come Carpentier de Gourdon, a geopolitical analyst and the convener of the editorial board of World Affairs journal, told Sputnik.The US may “gradually starve NATO of funds and other resources by repatriating most of the US personnel from bases in Europe, for instance,” which would prod European states to maintain the alliance at their costs, Gourdon said.

Washington may also push NATO members to raise their defense budgets to 5% which “would probably put an unacceptable burden on those states,” he went on. “In that situation, NATO would become moribund and many of its countries would look for alternative arrangements,” the analyst concluded. It looks like US President Donald Trump has decided NATO’s “free ride is over,” Michael Shannon, political commentator and Newsmax columnist, said in an interview with Sputnik. “NATO has been ‘unified’ for the past 40 years in letting the US foot the bill and supply the manpower for Europe’s defense,” he noted.

The alliance “can pay its fair share in troops, money and equipment or it can watch the US leave them to their feckless fate. US taxpayers get nothing from this arrangement while EU taxpayers get everything,” Shannon stressed. It’s unclear if the US will formally withdraw from NATO, but one can see “a major cutback in NATO spending and a drawdown of US manpower in the EU,” according to the analyst. “When that happens and the other NATO members fail to shoulder their own burden, I can see NATO slowly collapsing like a balloon with a slow leak,” the commentator pointed out.

Read more …

‘Through the tear in the fantasy bubble, they see their own demise..’

• Reality Confronts The Euro Ruling-Strata (Alastair Crooke)

They (the Euro-élites) don’t have a chance: “If Trump imposes this tariff [25%], the U.S. will be in a serious trade conflict with the EU”, the Norwegian Prime Minister threatens. And what if Brussels does retaliate? “They can try, but they can’t”, Trump responded. Von der Leyen has, however, already promised that she will retaliate. Nonetheless, the combined suite of the Anglo administrative forces is still unlikely to compel Trump to put U.S. military troops on the ground in Ukraine to protect European interests (and investments!). The reality is that every European NATO member – to varying degrees of self-embarrassment – admits publicly now that none of them want to participate in securing Ukraine without having U.S. military troops provide ‘backstop’ to those European forces.

This is a palpably obvious scheme to inveigle Trump into continuing the Ukraine war – as is Macron and Starmer’s dangling of the mineral deal to try to trick Trump to recommit to the Ukraine war. Trump plainly sees through these ploys. The fly in the ointment, however, is that Zelensky seemingly fears a ceasefire, more than he fears losing further ground on the battlefield. He too, seems to need the war to continue (to preserve continuing in power, possibly). Trump calling time on the Ukraine war that has been lost has seemingly caused European elites to enter some form of cognitive dissonance. Of course, it has been clear for some time that Ukraine would not retake its 1991 borders, nor force Russia into a negotiating position weak enough for the West to be able to dictate its own cessation terms. As Adam Collingwood writes:

“Trump has torn a huge rip in the interface layer of the fantasy bubble … the governing élite [in the wake of Trump’s pivot] can see not just an electoral setback, but rather a literal catastrophe. A defeat in war, with [Europe] left largely defenceless; a de-industrialising economy; crumbling public services and infrastructure; large fiscal deficits; stagnating living standards; social and ethnic disharmony – and a powerful populist insurgency led by enemies just as grave as Trump and Putin in the Manichean struggle against vestiges of liberal times – and strategically sandwiched between two leaders that both despise and disdain them …”. “In other words, through the tear in the fantasy bubble, Europe’s elites see their own demise …”. “Anybody who could see reality knew that things would only get worse on the war front from autumn 2023, but from their fantasy bubble, our élites couldn’t see it. Vladimir Putin, like the ‘Deplorables’ and ‘Gammons’ at home, was an atavistic daemon who would inevitably be slain on the inexorable march to liberal progressive utopia”.

Many in the Euro ruling-strata clearly are furious. Yet what can Britain or Germany actually do? It has quickly become clear that European states do not have the military capacity to intervene in Ukraine in any concerted manner. But more than anything, as Conor Gallagher points out, it is the European economy, circling the drain – largely as a result of the war against Russia – that is dragging reality to the forefront. The new German Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has shown himself to be the most implacable European leader advocating both military expansion and youth conscription – in what amounts to an European resistance model mounted to confront Trump’s pivot to Russia. Yet Merz’s winning CDU/CSU achieved only 28% of votes cast, whilst losing significant voter share. Hardly an outstanding mandate for confronting both Russia – and America – together!

“I am communicating closely with a lot of prime ministers, and heads of EU states and for me it is an absolute priority to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible, so that we achieve independence from the U.S., step by step”, Friedrich Merz said. Second place in the German election was taken by the Alternative for Germany (AfD) with 20% of the national vote. The party was the top vote getter in the 25-45 year-old demographic. It supports good relations with Russia, an end to the Ukraine war, and it wants to work with Team Trump, too. Yet AfD absurdly is outcast under the ‘firewall rules’. As a ‘populist’ party with a strong youth vote, it becomes automatically relegated to the ‘wrong side’ of the EU firewall. Merz has already refused to share power with them, leaving the CDU as pig-in-the-middle, squeezed between the failing SPD, which lost the most voter share, and the AfD and Der Linke, another firewall outcast, which, like AfD, gained voter share, especially among the under-45s.

The rub here – and it is a big one – is that the AfD and the Left Party, Der Linke (8.8%), which was the top vote getter in the 18-24 demographic, are both anti-war. Together these two have more than one third of the votes in parliament – a blocking minority for many important votes, especially for constitutional changes. This will be a big headache for Merz, as Wolfgang Münchau explains: “For one thing, the new Chancellor had wanted to travel to the NATO summit this June, with a strong commitment to higher defence spending. And even though the Left Party and the AfD hate each other in every other respect, they agree that they won’t give Merz the money to strengthen the Bundeswehr. More important, though, is the fact that they won’t support a reform to the constitutional fiscal rules (the debt brake) that Merz and the SPD are desperate for”.

Read more …

“No one voted for Kallas to occupy her office in Brussels. While Zelensky has only been unelected since May of 2024, Kallas will only ever be an unelected apparatchik.”

• Kaja Kallas Is Ill-Equipped To Take Stock Of EU Foreign Policy (Proud)

Now that Zelensky has been battered by Trump and abandoned by Starmer, he can fall back of Europe’s leading diplomat, Kaja Kallas. God help us all. The earth is still shaking from President Trump and Vice President Vance’s tag team annihilation of Volodymir Zelensky at the White House. The 27 February meeting between Trump and Keir Starmer was a more convivial affair, with the British Prime Minister quiet on Ukraine while promoting the idea of much prized trade talks with America. That was the first signal of the UK getting real about its foreign policy disaster in Ukraine and recognising that it needs trade with America far more than it needs the huge cost of propping up an unwinnable war. This leaves Zelensky’s fate in the hands of the European Union. And with Kaja Kallas, the current EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the omens aren’t promising.

Kallas’ problem is threefold. First, she is not diplomatic. If the biggest foreign policy challenge in Kallas’ in-tray right now is the war in Ukraine, then her ingrained hatred of Russia makes her a singularly bad choice as Europe’s lead diplomat. Her worldview is carved out of her experience growing up in the Soviet Union the child of a woman who was deported to Siberia in 1949. She looks at Russia through a shattered lens of Estonia’s suffering during the so-called communist terror after the end of World War II. How she sees events in Ukraine today is simply a continuum of the folklore of her life. Russia is the hated enemy, and, at some point, Russia will return to conquer Estonia once more. In her statements before war in Ukraine started, Kallas reaffirmed her view that Estonia could be the next country that Russia invades. As a NATO country, I have never seen any evidence that Russia has a plan to do this.

Kallas has called for NATO troops to be deployed to Ukraine, to ensure Russia’s total defeat. She has suggested that Russia be broken up into a series of smaller states. She once implied that Ukraine should inflict more civilian casualties on Russian citizens, to balance the number of casualties in Ukraine. Even as President Trump has said that NATO membership for Ukraine is unrealistic, she has continued to push for this to be kept on the table, despite it having been a redline for Russia for nineteen years. Almost everything that she says is rooted in her unshakeable belief that defeating Russia is vital for the world to become a safer place. The world is full of extremists, of course. However, she claims to be the leading diplomat of Europe. She seems singularly ill-suited to that role. But will nonetheless still support Zelensky, I’m sure.

Which ushers in her second problem, the absence of a democratic mandate. Countries that are sceptical about the European project often express concerns about the lack of democratic accountability of EU institutions. No one voted for Kallas to occupy her office in Brussels. While Zelensky has only been unelected since May of 2024, Kallas will only ever be an unelected apparatchik.

Read more …

“You should have never started it. You could have made a deal.”

• Eating Crow (Stephen Karganovic)

For those unfamiliar with this colourful American idiom, “eating crow” means “to undergo the humiliation of having to retract a statement or admit an error.” It is a rough equivalent of the Biblical practice of putting on a sackcloth and covering oneself with ashes. Something of the sort has indeed happened with two major collective West narratives, the war in Ukraine and the “genocide” Xinjiang. The Ukraine narrative maintained that the conflict that started in February 2022 was an unprovoked act of “Russian aggression.” The equally bogus Xinjiang narrative rested on the groundless premise that the Chinese government was conducting an extermination campaign targeting the Uyghurs, a Turkic Muslim ethnicity, in its Northwestern province of Xinjiang.

Both assertions have now been debunked as completely false. That was accomplished in part by those who were aggressively promoting those narratives. The one misrepresenting the conflict in Ukraine imploded with a huge bang, whilst the Xinjiang genocide fabrication did so with a whimper. But it hardly matters; they are both effectively dead now. The key ground of the Russian aggression claim was debunked recently by its most prominent promoters. In pursuing dialogue with Russia as a means of settling the conflict in Ukraine, the new Trump administration, in the face of fierce vested interest and deep state resistance and however grudgingly, has finally made an important admission. It is that the operational premise of the hostility to Russia which at several junctures had brought the world to the brink of war was in fact false.

That is the plain meaning of President Donald Trump’s remark, addressed to the Ukrainian leadership with reference to responsibility for the war: “You should have never started it. You could have made a deal.” As if on cue, administration officials are also changing their tune. The President’s adviser and special envoy Steve Witkoff articulated Washington’s new position in no uncertain terms: “The war didn’t need to happen. It was provoked.” But who provoked it? The key takeaway from Witkoff’s remarks concerns the genesis of the conflict, although what he said may strike informed people as merely conceding the obvious: “It doesn’t necessarily mean it was provoked by the Russians. There were all kinds of conversations back then about Ukraine joining NATO. The president has spoken about this — that didn’t need to happen. It basically became a threat to the Russians, and so we have to deal with that fact.”

There is an immense difference between “unprovoked full scale aggression,” which was the party line until a few days ago, and the new position consisting of the explicit recognition that Russia’s military operation was provoked, because it occurred in response to a threat. The acid test of Trump administration’s commitment to the revised view of the conflict was the way it would vote in the UN on the resolution proposed by Ukraine, regurgitating the three-year “Russian unprovoked aggression” propaganda claims. Refreshingly, this time round the U.S. joined Russia to vote against it.

The lie concerning the Chinese “genocide” in Xinxiang has now also been laid bare and once more the truth has been affirmed by the most authoritative source, the original slanderers themselves.It should be recalled that Great Britain not only spearheaded the charge that China was committing genocide in Xinxiang but had also made its facilities available in 2021 to an NGO specifically set up for the purpose of conducting a kangaroo court trial in order to give the charge a veneer of legitimacy. The veneer was rather short lived, as it turned out, because Dr. Alena Douhan, the UN Human Rights Rapporteur, evidently intrigued by the Xinxiang genocide frenzy, actually took the trouble to go there and check for herself. In her findings she reported that no evidence of genocide was detected and asked that sanctions based on the unfounded allegation be removed.

Easier said than done because the Xinxiang controversy has nothing to do with verifiable human rights abuses, much less the crime of genocide, and everything to do with the Chinese province’s pivotal position on the Great Chessboard. Quite simply, as we had stated before, “Xinjiang happens to be the most convenient land route corridor which China’s Belt and Road Initiative must inevitably take if it is to be viable. Accordingly, make Xinjiang a sufficiently hazardous place and for all practical purposes B&R trade goes up in smoke. Chinese products cannot reach their foreign destinations, and neither can the products of foreign partners be reliably delivered to the Chinese market.”

Read more …

“They have pushed Washington to find a resolution to the Ukraine conflict that aligns with European interests. But the now-public rupture between Zelensky and Trump has stripped them of that opportunity..”

• The Apocalyptic Trump Choice Facing The EU (Lukyanov)

Friday night’s dramatic events at the White House, featuring Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky, have placed Western Europe in an extremely difficult position. Many of the region’s leaders, who range from moderate to intense skeptics of US President Donald Trump, have nonetheless attempted to preserve the traditional transatlantic alliance. They have pushed Washington to find a resolution to the Ukraine conflict that aligns with European interests. But the now-public rupture between Zelensky and Trump has stripped them of that opportunity. Whether by design or by accident, Zelensky has forced the United States to clarify its stance: Washington is a mediator, not a combatant, and its priority is ending escalation, not taking sides.

This marks a stark departure from the previous position, in which the US led a Western coalition against Russia in defense of Ukraine. The message is clear – American support for Kiev is not a matter of principle but merely a tool in a broader geopolitical game. The EU has loudly declared that it will never abandon Ukraine. But in reality, it lacks the resources to replace the United States as Kiev’s primary backer. At the same time, reversing course is not so simple. The price of trying to defeat Russia is too high, and the economic toll too severe, but a sudden shift in policy would force Western European leaders to answer for their past decisions. In an EU already grappling with internal unrest, such a reversal would hand ammunition to the political opponents of the bloc’s leaders.

Another key reason Western Europe remains on this path is its post-Cold War reliance on moral arguments as a political tool – both internally and in its dealings with external partners. Unlike traditional powers, the EU is not a state. Where sovereign nations can pivot and adjust policies with relative ease, a bloc of more than two dozen countries inevitably gets bogged down in bureaucracy. Decisions are slow, coordination is imperfect, and mechanisms often fail to function as intended. For years, Brussels attempted to turn this structural weakness into an ideological strength. The EU, despite its complexity, was supposed to represent a new form of cooperative politics – a model for the world to follow. But it is now clear that this model has failed.

At best, it may survive within Western Europe’s culturally homogeneous core, though even that is uncertain. The world has moved on, and the inefficiencies remain. This makes the dream of an independent, self-sufficient “Europe” – one capable of acting without American oversight – an impossibility. Western Europe may attempt to endure the turbulence of another Trump presidency, just as it did during his first term. But this is not just about Trump. The shift in US policy is part of a deeper political realignment, one that ensures there will be no return to the golden age of the 1990s and early 2000s.

More importantly, Ukraine has become the catalyst for these changes. The EU does not have the luxury of waiting things out. Its leaders must decide – quickly – how to respond. Most likely, they will attempt to maintain the appearance of unity with Washington while adapting to new US policies. This will be painful, especially in economic terms. Unlike in the past, modern America acts solely in its own interests, with little regard for the needs of its European allies. One indicator of Western Europe’s shifting posture may be the upcoming visit of German Chancellor Friedrich Merz to Washington. At present, Merz presents himself as a hardliner. But if history is any guide, he may soon shift positions, aligning more closely with Washington’s new direction.

Read more …

Maybe if they had a reserve currency…

• EU’s von der Leyen Unveils $840bn Rearmament Plan (RT)

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has proposed that member states spend about $840 billion on defense to strengthen their military self-sufficiency – an amount more than double total EU defense expenditure in 2024. In a statement on Tuesday, the EU chief cited the “most dangerous of times” and the “grave” threats facing the bloc as reasons to assume greater responsibility for its own security. “We are in an era of rearmament,” von der Leyen declared, adding that she had sent a letter outlining her ‘ReArm Europe Plan’ to member state leaders ahead of the European Council meeting later this week. “ReArm Europe could mobilize close to €800 billion ($840 billion) for a safe and resilient Europe,” she said. “This is a moment for Europe. And we are ready to step up.”

Official data shows the bloc’s total defense spending reached an estimated $344 billion last year, marking an increase of more than 30% since 2021. The new plan includes $158 billion in loans available to member states to invest in what von der Leyen described as “pan-European capability domains,” including air and missile defense, artillery systems, missiles and ammunition, drones, and anti-drone technology. It will also address other needs, from cybersecurity to military mobility. The proposed five-part strategy is also designed to address the “short-term urgency” of supporting Ukraine, the EU chief said. Von der Leyen did not specify a detailed timeline, but emphasized that defense spending must increase “urgently now but also over a longer period over this decade.” Her announcement came just hours after news agencies reported on Monday that US President Donald Trump had ordered a pause on military aid to Ukraine.

Trump has repeatedly accused Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky of refusing to negotiate peace with Russia and exploiting US support for his own gain. Following Zelensky’s public clash with Trump and US Vice President J.D. Vance on Friday, the US president said America would no longer tolerate the Ukrainian leader’s attitude. The EU has historically depended significantly on the US for its security, primarily through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). However, the Trump administration has recently signaled a major policy shift, urging European nations to take the lead in their own defense, as well as Kiev’s. Last month, Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth said that Washington intended to refocus its military priorities on countering China, warning the EU not to assume that American forces would remain in the region indefinitely.

Trump has previously warned that under his leadership the US would not defend NATO countries that fail to meet their financial commitments. He has floated the idea of raising mandatory defense spending by members to 5% of GDP, though none – including the US – currently meet that threshold. His push for increased defense spending has drawn mixed reactions, with some EU officials questioning its economic feasibility. European officials have occasionally raised concerns that Trump could pull the US out of the organization. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksandr Grushko recently warned that NATO appears to be preparing for war with Moscow, arguing that its current course poses a threat both to Russia and to overall security architecture.

Read more …

Trump talked about this report.

• EU Spent More Money On Russian Energy Than Ukraine Aid Last Year (ZH)

A new report reveals that the anti-Russia, pro-Ukraine EU – spent more money on Russian oil and gas in 2024 than they did on military aid to Ukraine. According to the report by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), the EU spent approximately $23 billion on Russian fossil fuels vs. $19.6 billion on military and financial aid to Ukraine. Meanwhile, China purchased at least $82 billion of Russian energy, India spent $51 billion, and Turkey spent $36 billion. In total, Russia raked in $254 billion on energy exports. “Since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, Europe has made significant progress in terms of energy independence. Imports of Russian oil and gas have decreased substantially, with gas imports dropping from 45% in 2021 to 18% in 2024,” said EU MP Thomas Pellerin-Carlin in response to the report.

“However, a quarter of Russia’s fossil fuel export revenues still come from Europe,” he continued. And despite EU efforts to reduce Russian dependence, member nations spent 7 billion euros ($7.3 billion) on Russian natural gas in the third year of the Ukraine war – an increase of 9% vs. 2023. According to CREA, increased sanctions on Russia could reduce the Kremlin’s fossil fuel revenues by $51 billion euros ($53.3 billion). “Due to insufficient sanctions and loopholes, Russia has earned over 825 billion euros ($862.9 billion) from fossil fuel exports since the start of their invasion of Ukraine,” according to Isaac Levi, CREA’s Europe-Russia Energy policy analyst. As American Greatness’ Eric Lendrum notes further, Overall, Russia’s oil exports have decreased by just 8% since the start of the war in 2022, despite overwhelming condemnation and sanctions from most Western nations.

Since the war began in February of 2022, Russia has made nearly $1 trillion in oil exports alone. One major reason for Russian exports remaining strong is that, even after numerous sanctions, the average price of Russian oil is still cheaper than other sources such as the Middle East. Another reason why Europe has remained dependent on Russian energy is the anti-energy policies of the previous Biden Administration. After the start of the war, many European countries prepared to abandon Russian energy in favor of American exports. However, Biden’s White House soon banned liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports in the name of combatting so-called “global warming,” thus forcing Europe back to the Russian energy market. President Donald Trump rescinded the LNG export bans with an executive order on his first day back in office.

Read more …

“If the United States has really decided to suspend military aid to Ukraine, it may coerce the Kiev regime to engage in a peace process..”

• Sanctions Have To Go, Kremlin Tells Trump (ZH)

Russia has informed the Trump administration on Tuesday that any normalization of relations with the United States must be accompanied by the lifting of sanctions against Moscow. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov responded to Monday reports saying Trump has ordered options be drawn up to potentially give Russia sanctions relief amid ongoing direct talks to prepare for peace negotiations to end the Ukraine war. “It is probably too early to say anything. We have not heard any official statements, but in any case, our attitude towards sanctions is well known, we consider them illegal,” Peskov said. “And, of course, if we talk about normalizing bilateral relations, they need to be freed from this negative burden of so-called sanctions.”

Several waves of sanctions have been slapped on Russia both by the prior Biden administration and the European Union, targeting especially banking, energy, and defense sectors – as well as many measures against Putin and his top officials, as well as Russian oligarchs. Given the dramatic and rapid moves coming out of the White House, this moment could be the best opportunity for Russia to get its wish of sanctions relief, though this is less likely to come from the European side. Monday saw the White House announce a pause in all US defense aid to Ukraine, amid ongoing pressure to ensure Zelensky signs Trump’s controversial minerals deal. Putin’s office has of course responded favorable to this unexpected development, with Russian media reporting the following new words, per TASS:

“If the United States has really decided to suspend military aid to Ukraine, it may coerce the Kiev regime to engage in a peace process, Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said. …The order came into effect in the early hours of Tuesday. A Pentagon official told TASS that the US Armed Forces had suspended supplies of military aid to Ukraine. According to him, the move concerns all US military equipment that has not yet reached Ukraine, including weapons transported by aircraft and vessels or waiting to be shipped from transit zones in Poland. “Undoubtedly, we have yet to figure out the details but if it’s true, then this is a decision that really can push the Kiev regime towards a peace process,” the Russian presidential spokesman noted. ”

That decision came the same day Reuters reported “The White House has asked the State and Treasury departments to draft a list of sanctions that could be eased for US officials to discuss with Russian representatives in the coming days as part of the administration’s broad talks with Moscow on improving diplomatic and economic relations, the sources said.” These developments will likely accelerate the US-Russia talks and process of bettering ties, which could lead to actual economic cooperation down the line. Washington has also likely perceived by now that its anti-Russian sanctions have by and large not worked, or backfired. In many ways they have only strengthened Moscow’s relations and trade with leading BRICS nations like China and India, as well as Iran. Meanwhile, the below archived clip is subject of a lot of commentary this week, given where things now stand…

Read more …

Trump is fast.

• Putin Agrees To Mediate US/Iran Nuke Talks After Trump Request (ZH)

A very unexpected and unlikely development and plan is being widely reported Tuesday: Russian President Vladimir Putin has agreed to help the Trump White House broker talks with Iran on curtailing the country’s nuclear program. Trump reportedly relayed the request for Putin to play a direct role in new negotiations with Iran during their February phone call. The topic was further broached and more details were discussed during the US-Russia Riyadh talks which followed, reports Bloomberg on Tuesday. Neither the Iranian nor US governments have publicly commented on the Bloomberg report specifically, which was based on anonymous sourcing. But Russian state media did quickly acknowledge that Moscow stands ready to help the US and Iran resolve their issues through talks.

A TASS headline issued almost simultaneous to the Bloomberg report says as follows: “Moscow believes that Washington and Tehran should settle all their differences through talks and is ready to contribute to this, Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov told Bloomberg. “Russia believes that the United States and Iran should resolve all problems through negotiations,” he said, adding that Moscow “is ready to do everything in its power to achieve this.” This response from Peskov appears to support the Bloomberg report. This response marks something unexpectedly positive given that both Russia and Iran are heavily sanctioned by the United States – measures put in place under the Biden administration. Biden officials had castigated the Iranians as part of the axis attacking Ukraine, given that Iranian-supplied suicide drones have been heavily relied upon by Russian forces throughout the more than three-year long conflict.

Iran has only offered very vague comments, with a foreign ministry spokesman saying Monday it is “natural” for countries to offer to help negotiations along in the cause of diplomacy. “It’s possible that many parties will show good will and readiness to help with various problems,” the spokesman stated. “From this perspective, it’s natural that countries will present an offer of help if it’s needed.” Previously Tehran leaders, including the Ayatollah himself, expressed that at this point it’s somewhat futile to engage in direct talks with Washington – given Iran in good faith entered into the 2015 JCPOA nuclear deal with Obama, but then Trump unilaterally pulled out in 2018. The Ayatollah said in recent comments this means there’s no way to know if a future US administration will honor prior commitments and deals.

There’s also the greater complication of the standoff with Israel. Iran’s missile sites are at the ‘ready’ amid constant fears of an Israeli preemptive attack on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear facilities. Trump has been seen as giving Israel free reign to attack if it sees itself as under threat by Iran or its proxies in the region.

Read more …

It’s not just Britain.

• Government Advisor Warns UK is Heading For Civil War (MN)

A top academic and government advisor warns that the UK will experience a civil war within the next five years caused by the “destruction of legitimacy” brought about by the government’s failure to secure the border. Professor David Betz made the comments during a podcast appearance with journalist and author Louise Perry. Betz teaches at Kings College London and has advised or worked with the UK MOD and GCHQ as well as being a Senior Fellow of the Foreign Policy Research Institute. The professor, who describes himself as a “classic member of the establishment,” told Perry that British society is now “explosively configured” to suffer mass unrest. He said the fallout began with the fracture of the social contract after the political establishment in the UK tried to subvert the Brexit vote.

Subsequent years have brought about a “destruction of legitimacy” as a result of successive governments’ open border policy and their inability to protect children from grooming gangs, in addition to a two-tier justice system presided over by a highly-politicised judiciary. “If you want to create domestic turmoil in a society, then what the British government has been doing is almost textbook exactly what you would do,” said the professor. Betz said that the situation is now “too far gone” and that a national eruption which will outstrip last summer’s riots is likely to happen within half a decade. Writing on his Substack, Paul Embery outlined some of the other arguments Betz made during the podcast that led the professor to make his fateful prediction.

“Betz contends that we now live in a deeply fractured nation and one that has much less connection to those aspects of its history which previously made it content and well governed. The nefarious activities of certain individuals and groups serve to exacerbate and magnify our divisions. So, can a society in which such realities are playing out be said to be destined for civil war? Well, here comes the interesting bit. Betz explains that highly-heterogenous societies (those comprised of many different social, cultural and ethnic groups) in which there is no single dominant cohort are not especially prone to civil war. That is because no group has enough power or status to co-ordinate a widespread revolt. Similarly, highly-homogenous, or ‘unfactionated’, societies are not particularly vulnerable on account of the fact that it is generally easy to arrive at consensus positions.

The danger area, Betz asserts, is in the middle – societies that are becoming more heterogenous and in which a previously dominant social majority fears that it is losing its place. In such societies, a nativist sentiment manifests in a narrative of what Betz calls ‘downgrading’ and ‘displacement’ – the most powerful causes of civil conflict. Throw in long-term structural economic decline and the apparent inability of the government to offer ‘bread and circuses’, and the sense of dispossession deepens. He also addressed the phenomenon of ‘asymmetric multiculturalism’ in which ‘in-group preference, ethnic pride, and group solidarity – notably in voting – are acceptable for all groups except whites, for whom such things are considered to represent supremacist attitudes that are anathematic to social order’. This ‘provides an argument for revolt on the part of the white majority (or large minority) that is rooted in stirring language of justice’.”

On the surface, the United Kingdom would seem like the least likely country to be susceptible to mass civil disorder, but thanks to years of societal malaise and mass immigration, it unfortunately feels like we’re on the brink of experiencing just that.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/i/status/1896823198953726216

 

 

Measles
https://twitter.com/i/status/1896720120871002449

 

 

Scofield

 

 

Snoot rubs
https://twitter.com/i/status/1896681968177132008

 

 

Mama horse
https://twitter.com/i/status/1896971400591880684

 

 

Concrete wood

 

 

Lion

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle November 7 2024

Nov 072024
 
 November 7, 2024  Posted by at 9:45 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  114 Responses »


Edouard Manet Berthe Morisot with a bouquet of violets 1872

 

• A Good Morning in America (Paul Craig Roberts)
• If The Election Outcome Is As I Expected .. (Bill Ackman)
• Trump’s Win Is A Victory For The Non-Brainwashed Americans (Marsden)
• Trump Has Sweeping Plans for His 2nd Administration (ET)
• Musk Reveals Plans For Trump Government (RT)
• The US Should Establish A Strategic Bitcoin Reserve (Corva)
• Trump Comeback Also Engineered A Significant Exodus From Democrat Party (JTN)
• The Thrill is Gone (Turley)
• DOJ Moving To Wind Down Trump Criminal Cases (NBC)
• Rachel Maddow Threatens Musk Over ‘Russia Ties’ (RT)
• 84-year-old Pelosi Projected To Win Reelection (RT)
• Trump to Seek ‘Pragmatic’ Deals, No Budget Money to Sustain Ukraine (Sp.)
• Dave Smith: Will Trump Be Able To End The War In Ukraine? (ZH)
• Biden To Speed Up Arms Deliveries To Ukraine – Media (RT)
• Von der Leyen To Prepare EU For War – Defense Commission Nominee (RT)
• How British Media Is Turning On Zelensky. And Why (Jay)
• German Government Has Collapsed (RT)

 

 

 

 

Jennings

Joe AI
https://twitter.com/i/status/1854068685930991952

Speech
https://twitter.com/i/status/1854087148552528041

JD
https://twitter.com/i/status/1854073924893757731

Tucker RFK

Wallace
https://twitter.com/i/status/1854048711547957374

Tucker Elon
https://twitter.com/i/status/1854017145119932876

Epstein

UK

Decency

Right to Exist
https://twitter.com/i/status/1853940077849641147

 

 

 

 

 

 

“America now has a chance for renewal if Trump doesn’t blow it in forgiving his enemies, who still intend to destroy him.”

• A Good Morning in America (Paul Craig Roberts)

I awoke this morning to Donald Trump’s victory. Apparently, the election was not close enough for the Democrats and media to steal it as they did in 2020. Trump’s victory is not only a defeat for Democrats but also a defeat for the ruling elite that pulls the strings of both political parties and a defeat for the American media that serves as an enforcer for the official narratives that serve the agendas of the elite. Trump’s victory is also a victory for the American people who love their country and respect the Constitution. It is their victory over the left-wing intellectuals and university law schools who have been working diligently to overturn the First and Fourth Amendments that are in the way of their revolutionary intentions that are clearly anti-American.

Trump’s determination and strength are rare. Trump was attacked viciously from day one of his first term. Hillary Clinton, the CIA, and the FBI fabricated a “Russian dossier” that alleged that Trump aided by “Russian interference in the election” stole the election from Hillary Clinton. Women were produced to make sexual allegations. The ruling elite made two attempts to impeach Trump. When Trump’s term expired, false claims buttressed by concocted allegations of mishandling national security documents and instigating an “insurrection” were turned into indictments. Democrat prosecutors and judges weaponized law to pursue the former president. The FBI staged a raid on Trump’s home. The corrupt American media poured lie upon lie.

Trump stood up to all of this. The people stayed with him, and he regained the office that had been stolen from him by utterly corrupt people. Trump seems to have won all sectors of the electorate except for college educated white liberal-left women, the most brainwashed and indoctrinated element in American society. I pity any man who marries one of them. America now has a chance for renewal if Trump doesn’t blow it in forgiving his enemies, who still intend to destroy him. The Democrat Party is no longer a political party. It is an ideological party with ideological agendas. It sees itself as a revolutionary force and has no intention of political comprise. If Trump repeats the mistakes of his first term, his victory will be pissed away.

Read more …

X thread.

“If, however, you have been active on @X for the last year, you have known the truth days, weeks and often months before the facts appear in the MSM..”

• If The Election Outcome Is As I Expected .. (Bill Ackman)

If the election outcome is as I expected, it should cause the large minority of the country who supported @KamalaHarris and predicted her victory to begin to question their sources of truth. Half the country has believed that @X is filled with mis- and disinformation, and that they could only therefore rely on The NY Times, MSNBC, CNN and other mainstream media for their news. And they did. If, however, you have been active on @X for the last year, you have known the truth days, weeks and often months before the facts appear in the MSM. The MSM excerpted, clipped and cut to defame @realDonaldTrump while claiming that @JoeBiden was fit as a fiddle. Then when Biden’s polls collapsed, @KamalaHarris was anointed the candidate and her hagiography was written with glowing acclaim from the press. But this could not hold as she ducked the media and held fast to the teleprompter.

Citizen journalists with their phone cameras in hand captured the real Kamala forcing her to defend her record and her plans in more media appearances. It did not go well and the public demanded to learn more so @KamalaHarris had to risk more unscripted media. The doom loop was underway with perhaps 60 Minutes as one of the more dramatic examples, even after CBS tried to save her, most glaringly by excerpting one answer to replace a word salad response to another. But the citizen journalists on @X quickly caught and outed this fraud and demanded a transcript. As many who supported Kamala began to realize that they have been misled, they became open to Trump as an alternative, but they didn’t want to rely on the media to understand him because they did not want to be misled again.

They wanted to hear the candidate in his own words and that is where @lexfridman and@joeroganhq long form podcasts came to the rescue. When Kamala was offered the same opportunities to explain herself, she rejected them. And the voting public could only draw a negative inference. When the story of this election is written, I expect it will be as much about how half of America woke up to the reality that they have been manipulated by the media. This should lead to an abandonment by many of the MSM as their primary source of information. It will push more people to @X, to podcasts and other empirical sources, and it will lead to a more informed public. The other outcome I hope happens is the implosion of the Democratic Party. The Party lied to the American people about the cognitive health and fitness of the president.

It prevented, threatened, litigated and otherwise eliminated the ability of other candidates for the primary to compete, to get on ballots, and to even participate in a debate. The Party and the administration used lawfare in an attempt to imprison, bankrupt or otherwise kill off Trump as a candidate. These acts are collectively grave threats to our democracy. With the highest irony in order to hide these acts, the Party accused the opposition candidate of being the grave threat to democracy. The Democratic Party proved itself to be fundamentally undemocratic. It needs a complete reboot. The leadership should be thrown out and those responsible should apologize to the American people. Honest Abe said it best: You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

Read more …

“Are we done yet with the anti-Trump fake news now that the majority of voters see through it? Probably not, huh?”

• Trump’s Win Is A Victory For The Non-Brainwashed Americans (Marsden)

Blowout alert! I guess average Americans don’t like being infantilized. At least Trump trusted them to be able to take a joke, unlike his opponents. So when’s Liz Cheney’s date with the firing squad already? Are we done yet with the anti-Trump fake news now that the majority of voters see through it? Probably not, huh? With the exception of those in a handful of states, Americans united to send former US President Donald Trump back to the White House and handed him carte blanche with Republican control of the Senate and likely the House as well. Not bad for a guy the establishment tried to brand as the reincarnation of Hitler. Did Hitler also have giant Israeli flags at his Madison Square Garden rally? Or hang out at the Jewish wall in Israel or with Hebrew-inscribed tablets in a yarmulke? That should have been the Democrats’ first sign that their branding attempt was off.

Yet, just like the fitting title of the upcoming Harris biography co-authored by Chelsea Clinton: She Persisted. Maybe next time, instead of persisting with their idiocy, they’ll come up with an actual agenda and a candidate who addresses questions and issues on point rather than punting them in favor of talking points and platitudes that leave voters guessing as to what to even expect if ever elected – beyond the usual establishment status quo, which, of course, sucks. Just ask the overwhelming majority of Americans who say that the country is headed in the wrong direction. Presumably, the Democrats figured that they could make a whole campaign about abortion rights – against a guy who, frankly, doesn’t actually seem too interested in the topic, which was recently re-opened by the courts.

It’s telling that, according to CNN exit polls, Harris won the female vote by five points less than Biden did in 2020 and three points less than even Hillary Clinton did against Trump in 2016, when abortion wasn’t even an issue. Certain categories of voters really capture the story of this election. The first is white women with college degrees, 11% more of whom voted for Harris than for Biden in 2020. Institutional establishment brainwashing and virtue signaling apparently works more effectively on well-formatted brains, female or otherwise. The message from the party hacks and their celebrity surrogates was that abortion was really all that should matter to women, reducing them to one-dimensional caricatures of actual human beings. But it turns out that many more women than they figured don’t like being talked down to and treated as little more than a walking uterus – even by other women.

Which would explain why white women with no degree voted overwhelmingly for Trump by 25 points over Harris, and even voters of color with no degree, generally considered a lock by Democrats, still voted by 14 points less for Harris than for Biden four years ago. The youngest voters, aged 18-29, who you’d figure would be most directly affected by reproductive rights issues, either as women themselves or their white-knighting male counterparts who were constantly told by Democrats that they had to cast their vote primarily in support of the reproductive rights of the women in their life, actually ended up shifting their vote to Trump by 11 points compared to 2020.

The bottom line is that women living real lives with a multitude of concerns and interests don’t like being paternalized, which is what the Democrats constantly do. Just because it’s a woman and her surrogates who are doing the talking down to them, doesn’t make it any more appealing. It just makes you a useful idiot of the patriarchal establishment – the same one that’s trying to emotionally manipulate women’s electoral choices to maintain the status quo that disadvantages women in every other possible way that actually matters to all of their lives, from cost of living to foreign wars in which their sons are sent to die and other countries’ sons are subjected to the same. All so Uncle Sam can turn a profit. It’s the guy you keep calling a misogynist who wants to take him on.

Read more …

“..the United States has 20 to 25 million illegal immigrants in the country. “What do we do with them? I think the first thing that we do is we start with the criminal migrants.”

• Trump Has Sweeping Plans for His 2nd Administration (ET)

Immigration Since 2015, Trump has made curbing illegal immigration a cornerstone of his campaigns. As president, he built or reconstructed about 400 miles of border barrier along the U.S.–Mexico border and implemented a number of rules curbing illegal migration into the country. During the campaign, Trump often said that he would initiate the largest “mass deportation” effort in U.S. history if elected. Recently, he also warned Mexico that he would impose a 25 percent tariff targeting the country if it fails to curb illegal immigration and that he would raise that tariff if Mexico doesn’t comply. Also, he’s suggested more enhanced screenings for immigrants, ending birthright citizenship—which may require a constitutional amendment—and reimposing certain policies enacted during his first term such as the “remain in Mexico” protocol.

Tom Homan, a former acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) who is expected to join the new administration, told media outlets last year that the scale of deportations depends on what resources are available. During a “60 Minutes” interview in October, Homan was asked about whether families would be separated. Homan responded, “Families can be deported together.” Vice President-elect JD Vance said in his debate with Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz on Oct. 1 that deporting criminals would be a second Trump administration’s initial focus. “You’ve got to reimplement Donald Trump’s border policies, build the wall, reimplement deportations,” Vance said, adding that the United States has 20 to 25 million illegal immigrants in the country. “What do we do with them? I think the first thing that we do is we start with the criminal migrants.”

Taxes and Regulations Throughout the 2024 campaign, Trump has promised to curb federal regulations that he said would limit the creation of new U.S. jobs. He also has pledged to keep intact a 2017 tax cut that he supported and signed while in office. His team has also proposed a further round of individual and corporate tax cuts beyond those initiated in his first term. Trump has pledged to reduce the corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 15 percent for companies that make their products in the United States. In a bid to win Nevada, Trump earlier this year pledged to end the taxation of tips and overtime wages to aid some service workers and waiters. He has pledged not to tax or cut Social Security benefits. Trump also has said that as president, he would pressure the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates but wouldn’t make any demands on the central bank. Some of his proposals would require congressional action. As of Wednesday morning, the GOP is projected to retake the Senate, but the picture around the House is murkier.

Tariffs In multiple campaign stops this year, Trump floated the idea of a 10 percent or more tariff on all goods imported into the United States, which he said would eliminate the country’s trade deficit. He has also said he should have the authority to set higher tariffs on countries that have put tariffs on U.S. imports. He has threatened to impose a 200 percent tariff on some imported cars, saying he is determined in particular to keep cars from Mexico from coming into the country. Trump has targeted China in particular. He proposes phasing out Chinese imports of goods such as electronics, steel, and pharmaceuticals over four years. He seeks to prohibit Chinese companies from owning U.S. real estate and infrastructure in the energy and tech sectors. “To me, the most beautiful word in the dictionary is ‘tariffs,’” Trump said in an interview with John Micklethwait, editor-in-chief of Bloomberg News, in October. “It’s my favorite word.”

He added at the time, “You see these empty, old, beautiful steel mills and factories that are empty and falling down,” referring to facilities that used to make goods in the United States. “We’re going to bring the companies back. We’re going to lower taxes for companies that are going to make their products in the USA. And we’re going to protect those companies with strong tariffs,” Trump said. Micklethwait said that some economists have projected that the former president’s economic policies, including tariffs, could add trillions to the U.S. deficit. But Trump said that a number of countries, including “allies” have “taken advantage of us, more so than our enemies. ”

More Drilling The former president said that he wants to cut federal regulations on drilling for oil and natural gas, a move that he says would lower energy costs and inflation. In multiple instances, Trump said he would reauthorize drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, which was suspended under the Biden administration. Meanwhile, he would pull the United States out of the Paris Climate Accords, a worldwide plan that claims to reduce carbon emissions. Trump also said he would roll back some federal policies around electric vehicles. In his campaign, Trump has often said that gas prices were much lower under his administration than they have been under the Biden administration. He has suggested that prices would again fall when he takes office.

“When I left office … gasoline had reached $1.87 a gallon. We actually had many months where it was lower than that,” Trump told reporters over the summer. “But we hit $1.87, which was a perfect place, an absolutely beautiful number.” According to AAA, the average price for a gallon of regular gasoline stands at around $3.10. The highest recorded average price for a gallon was on June 14, 2022, when it reached $5.01, AAA figures show. The federal Energy Information Administration’s data show that the average annual price for a gallon of gasoline did not exceed $3 under the first Trump administration.

Social Policies Trump has pledged to require U.S. colleges and universities to “defend American tradition and Western civilization” and to purge them of diversity and inclusion programs, which he and Republicans have said are leftist in nature. He said he would direct the Justice Department to pursue civil rights cases against schools that engage in racial discrimination. At K–12 schools, Trump would support programs allowing parents to use public funds for private or religious instruction. Trump also wants to abolish the federal Department of Education and leave states in control of schooling.

Regarding abortion, Trump has said that a federal ban on abortion is not needed and that the issue should be resolved by states. He’s also said he backs rules that advance in vitro fertilization, birth control, and prenatal care. In campaign events and interviews, Trump has been critical of schools allowing transgender individuals to compete in women’s sports, saying that he would impose a ban on such practices. “It’s a man playing in the game,” Trump said at an October town hall event. “Look at what’s happened in swimming. Look at the records that are being broken.”

https://twitter.com/i/status/1854087029753053640

Read more …

A lot of public “servants” have good reason to be nervous.

• Musk Reveals Plans For Trump Government (RT)

Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has said he will seek to improve government efficiency by reducing the number of federal agencies if he is given a role in Donald Trump’s administration. Musk, a Trump supporter, made the remarks during an appearance on Tucker Carlson’s online show, broadcast from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate on Tuesday. Despite initially proclaiming political neutrality, Musk officially endorsed Trump after an assassination attempt on the president-elect in July. Trump promised the Tesla CEO that he would establish a special “government efficiency” commission, dubbed the DOGE, to be headed by the billionaire if he wins the election. Speaking with Carlson, the tech billionaire said that he would like to help Trump make the US government more efficient.

“I’d be happy to help improve government efficiency,” Musk said. “We’ve got a gigantic government bureaucracy, we’ve got overregulation, we’ve got agencies that have overlapping responsibilities… this translates into real costs to people, they’re hidden costs but they are very substantial.” Musk has invested millions of dollars in supporting Trump. According to media reports, he donated at least $118 million to the Republican’s political action committee, a group that focused on voter outreach. Speaking at a Trump rally last month, Musk pledged to help the Republican slash US annual budget spending by “at least $2 trillion” as part of a review of federal agencies that he would carry out if Trump returns to the White House. “Your tax money is being wasted and the Department of Government Efficiency is going to fix that,” Musk stated. The tech billionaire has repeatedly sounded the alarm over the US debt, warning just last week that the country is spiraling toward bankruptcy and will quickly go bust if Washington doesn’t curb its spending.

Read more …

“We embrace change in the United States. We can tell the world that we’re aware of Bitcoin’s numerous positive attributes and that we want to use them to our advantage..”

• The US Should Establish A Strategic Bitcoin Reserve (Corva)

Yesterday, the Bitcoin Policy Institute (BPI) released a 53-page report on the pros of the United States establishing a strategic bitcoin reserve (SBR). As Bitcoin Magazine’s Frank Corva details below, the authors of the report touched on four key benefits of holding bitcoin as a strategic reserve asset:

• Economic and monetary stability – bitcoin is a hedge against currency debasement and debt instability

• Geopolitical competition – the US could gain a strategic advantage over other countries that are contemplating starting a bitcoin reserve and can reinforce the US’ influence over global financial standards

• Energy and climate – Bitcoin mining can be leveraged to accelerate the movement toward renewable energy

• Financial inclusion and human rights – the US can promote both the concepts of individual freedom and financial inclusion for both US citizens and those abroad

While I agree that the US’ establishing an SBR would have these benefits, I also think it would send a certain message loud and clear: We embrace change in the United States. We can tell the world that we’re aware of Bitcoin’s numerous positive attributes and that we want to use them to our advantage. In doing so, we can shift the narrative around Bitcoin from something to be feared and controlled to something that should be embraced and utilized, and we can stand behind a tool that can be used to increase the financial buoyancy of both people and institutions around the globe instead of standing in its way.

Read more …

Following the example of Tulsi, RFK et al. They made it look acceptable.

• Trump Comeback Also Engineered A Significant Exodus From Democrat Party (JTN)

Donald Trump pulled off the most improbable comeback in American political history Tuesday night, securing a likely return trip to the White House by beating back a relentless tide of media, Big Tech and Democrat opposition that stretched from the courthouse to the social media sphere Trump was poised to become only the second American president to secure non-consecutive terms but he did so against far greater odds than Grover Cleveland a century earlier after being impeached and acquitted twice, indicted four times, facing two assassination attempts and enduring an avalanche of lawfare unparalleled in the nation’s history. But even more consequential than his personal journey to President-Elect 47, Trump engineered a once-in-a-generation political realignment, one more deep and pervasive than his 2016 shocker as he peeled away long-rooted constituencies from the Democrat Party.

The electoral movement may soon be known as D-Exit, the American equivalent of Great Britain’s Brexit departure from the European Union as black males, Hispanic voters and young voters showed up more strongly from Trump and less fervently for Harris compared to Joe Biden or Barack Obama. Arabs and Muslims also underperformed for Harris. The shifts were small but compelling, crumbling a coalition born in the Kennedy-Johnson era and key to the Obama-Biden dynasty that dominated 12 of the last 16 years. The shifts toward Trump were jarring for Democrats. Trump cut the Democrat margin of victory in half in one of America’s darkest blue states, New York, and by two thirds in Democrat-stronghold Illinois. He won Florida – scene of the 2020 hanging election – by 15 points, all but erasing the Sunshine State as a battleground.

He won Georgia and North Carolina and was poised to take Arizona and Nevada. Pennsylvania was called for Trump and Wisconsin and Michigan were leaning strongly in his direction. He won a Senate majority and was in decent position to keep the U.S. House, which would make Washington an all red town in 2025. Perhaps most painful of all to blue America, Trump was in a position to win the popular vote, something Democrats have long used as a cudgel to delegitimize earlier GOP victories, including Trump’s in 2016. Mark Penn, the strategist behind the Clinton dynasty, succinctly described D-Exit early Wednesday morning. “The Trump edge is turning into a Trump trifecta. It looks like despite a good effort in a short period of time, Harris is falling short especially with young people and turnout in core urban areas. Black and especially Latino voters showed some shifts,” he noted on X.

“Trump has brought home with working class and created a new coalition of governing but the country remains divided and whoever wins must remember it’s time to genuinely reach out to the many moderate voters looking for the right leadership,” he added. Trump did it by talking directly to constituencies Republicans often ignored in the past, and that Democrats long took for granted. He did it by inviting recovering Democrats or stubborn independents to his big stage: Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Elon Musk, ex-Rep and presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard and podcaster extraordinaire Joe Rogan to name a few. He went to places like the Bronx and Manhattan’s Madison Square Garden in New York to signal he wanted to be all Americans’ president. And when Democrats talked about ethereal ideological terms like ESG, CRT, and DEI, Trump talked about the kitchen table, the grocery cart and the gas tank. He warned of energy poverty, recognizing some were having a hard time to pay utility bills.

He made the EV revolution a debate about exporting jobs to China and the liberal transgender movement a debate about the safety and dignity of women’s sports and the sanctity of parents’ rights. Democrats did a historic switcheroo atop the ticket, subbing a younger female Harris for an aging Biden. But they didn’t change the debate. Trump chose the issues of insecurity, inflation and insanity and Democrats offered few specifics to counter. In the end, Trump’s prior record of economic growth in his first term seemed preferrable to Harris’ vagaries. Trump’s optimism that the nation’s woes could be solved was more appealing than Harris’ dark insistence that fascism, extremism and Hitler-like characters would destroy democracy.

Read more …

“Smith’s prosecutions ended with the 270th Electoral College vote secured around 2 a.m. Wednesday.”

• The Thrill is Gone (Turley)

After years of thrill-kill prosecutions, the thrill is gone for lawfare warriors. Election Day’s greatest losers may be special counsel Jack Smith, New York Attorney General Letitia James and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Donald Trump’s victory was the largest jury verdict that some of us anticipated for years of unrelenting weaponization of the legal system. Smith’s prosecutions ended with the 270th Electoral College vote secured around 2 a.m. Wednesday. His unrelenting efforts to convict Trump and then, when prevented from holding a trial, to release damaging material before the election have collapsed with the blue wall in the Midwest. Trump has said he plans to fire Smith on Day 1. That means the end of both the January 6 and the classified documents cases. That leaves James and Bragg as residue of long-forgotten lawfare battles, but even there Trump’s prospects look good.

James was able to secure a fellow lawfare warrior in Justice Arthur Engoron, who imposed a grotesque $455 million in fines and interest. That ruling is pending an appeal that is expected to be a partial or even total victory for Trump. Unlike Engoron, the appellate judges expressed great skepticism in September over the size of the penalty and even the use of this law. Trump faced half a billion dollars in penalty in a case where no one lost a dime, and the alleged victim banks wanted more business with Trump and his company. Separately, there is a hearing scheduled in front of Judge Juan Merchan for Nov. 11 on the “hush money” case involving Stormy Daniels, and a possible sentencing on Nov. 26. If Merchan seeks to jail Trump, it is unlikely to be carried out, as Trump appeals the case and the many alleged errors committed by the judge.

Merchan made an utter mess of a case that should never have been filed, let alone tried. Even commentators like CNN’s senior legal analyst, Elie Honig, have denounced the case as selective prosecution and unfounded. The case should result in a conditional discharge with no jail time if Merchan can resist the temptation to unjustly punish Trump, a level of restraint that has largely proven difficult for him in the case. Merchan created layers of appealable errors in the case. Putting those alleged errors aside, any sentencing to jail would create its own constitutional conflict with Trump’s performance of his federal duties. The question is whether the election will bring a moment of sobriety for New Yorkers who have spent years in a full rage-driven celebration of lawfare.

Read more …

Turley gets it. NBC not so much.

• DOJ Moving To Wind Down Trump Criminal Cases (NBC)

Justice Department officials have been evaluating how to wind down the two federal criminal cases against President-elect Donald Trump before he takes office to comply with long-standing department policy that a sitting president can’t be prosecuted, two people familiar with the matter tell NBC News. The latest discussions stand in contrast with the pre-election legal posture of special counsel Jack Smith, who in recent weeks took significant steps in the election interference case against Trump without regard to the electoral calendar. But the sources say DOJ officials have come to grips with the fact that no trial is possible anytime soon in either the Jan. 6 case or the classified documents matter — both of which are mired in legal issues that would likely prompt an appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, even if Trump had lost the election.

Now that Trump will become president again, DOJ officials see no room to pursue either criminal case against him — and no point in continuing to litigate them in the weeks before he takes office, the people said. “Sensible, inevitable and unfortunate,” said former federal prosecutor Chuck Rosenberg, an NBC News contributor. How Trump’s legal jeopardy has unfolded over the past year, in terms of both the criminal charges and his sweeping election victory, is unprecedented. The sources said it will be up to Smith to decide exactly how to unwind the charges and many questions remain unanswered. Could the prosecutions resume after Trump leaves office or would they be time-barred? What happens to the evidence? What about the two other defendants charged with helping Trump hide classified documents? Will the special counsel write a report, as special counsels usually do?

At the same time, Trump’s legal team is weighing its own next steps for how to resolve the outstanding federal cases in his favor now that he is the projected winner of the election. The ultimate goal is to get all the federal and state cases wiped out completely — the strategic call is how best to accomplish that task, according to a person familiar with the discussions. If the Trump side, for example, moved again in court to dismiss the charges in Washington related to election interference, then the Justice Department could use its legal response to explain its position on not moving forward with that case. Trump’s New York criminal case presents different challenges with a felony conviction and sentencing hearing scheduled for Nov. 26. The immediate goal of Trump’s legal team is to get that postponed indefinitely or otherwise dismissed.

The Georgia election interference case against Trump remains tied up on appeals over ethical issues surrounding the district attorney. “The American people have re-elected President Trump with an overwhelming mandate to Make America Great Again,” Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung said in a statement. “It is now abundantly clear that Americans want an immediate end to the weaponization of our justice system, so we can, as President Trump said in his historic speech last night, unify our country and work together for the betterment of our nation.” The DOJ’s thinking on Trump’s federal cases flows from a 2000 memo by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which affirmed a Watergate-era conclusion that a prosecution of a sitting president would “unduly interfere in a direct or formal sense with the conduct of the presidency.”

“In light of the effect that an indictment would have on the operations of the executive branch, ‘an impeachment proceeding is the only appropriate way to deal with a President while in office,’” the memo concluded, quoting the earlier conclusion. The practical reality of Trump’s electoral victory Tuesday is that he is unlikely ever to face legal consequences in relation to the serious federal criminal charges brought against him by career Justice Department prosecutors working with career FBI agents. Some commentators have said the charges were arguably more serious than the conduct in the Watergate scandal that cost Richard Nixon the presidency and left him banished from politics. In the case accusing Trump of conspiring to illegally overturn the 2020 election, he is charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights.

In the classified documents case, he is charged with willful retention of national defense information, conspiracy to obstruct justice, lying to investigators and withholding documents in a federal investigation. “The idea that you could win an election to avoid justice just cuts so deeply against my expectations for our legal system and for our politics too,” said Joyce Vance, a former U.S. attorney and NBC News contributor. “But the voters have spoken, and that’s where we are.” She added that it has never been a foregone conclusion that Trump would be convicted — that would be up to a jury. “What bothers me so deeply is that he’s avoided the quintessential part of American justice — letting a jury decide, based on the evidence.”

Read more …

“Rachel Maddow is a crazy person,” Musk said, describing her as “frothing-at-the-mouth crazy fascist, basically, sort of pretending to be a liberal.”

• Rachel Maddow Threatens Musk Over ‘Russia Ties’ (RT)

Elon Musk can’t possibly keep his US government contracts because of his alleged secret contacts with “America’s worst enemy,” MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow has said. The Wall Street Journal claimed last week that Musk had communicated with Russian President Vladimir Putin and withheld the services of his Starlink network to Ukraine’s military. Both Musk and Moscow have dismissed the report as fake news. Maddow, however, proceeded as if the Journal’s reporting was a proven fact in her election day show on Tuesday evening. “You really can’t have the head of a company that is the primary rocket launcher for the defense department and NASA, you can’t have the head of that company in secret communications with America’s worst enemy while America’s enemy is actively waging a war against one of our allies, especially once you learn that he’s using his businesses to help the other side, to help Russia in that war,” Maddow said.

“Now that we know what we know about Elon Musk, this election – regardless of who wins – has produced a national security problem,” she continued, arguing that it will likely produce “tons of drama.” “So, buckle up. Even if [Donald] Trump doesn’t win, the Defense Department and NASA are gonna need a new arrangement for all their rockets and for all the multi-billion-dollar contracts Elon Musk’s companies have with the US government,” Maddow said. Either the government will have to get out of those contracts, or Musk’s companies “will have to unwind from him.” Musk has denied the Journal’s claims, pointing out that Starlink was “the BACKBONE of Ukrainian military communications at the front lines, because everything else has been blown up or jammed by Russia.” The founder of SpaceX and owner of X (formerly Twitter) addressed Maddow’s comments shortly afterward, speaking to journalist Tucker Carlson in a livestream from Mar-a-Lago.

“Rachel Maddow is a crazy person,” Musk said, describing her as “frothing-at-the-mouth crazy fascist, basically, sort of pretending to be a liberal.” Asked how much pressure he has been under because of his support for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, Musk resorted to a joke. “Well, apart from multiple Democrats saying they want to put me in jail, take away government contracts from my companies, nationalize my companies, deport me as an illegal, and have me arrested for apparently being Putin’s best friend, nothing besides those things,” he said. Meanwhile, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that the Journal’s claims were untrue, “most likely linked” to Musk’s support for Trump, and should not be taken seriously. While the official count of votes in the US presidential election is still pending, Trump has secured the needed 270 electoral votes, according to multiple media organizations.

Read more …

“..while promoting her latest book this August, Pelosi called it her “goal in life” for Trump to “never step in the White House again.”

• 84-year-old Pelosi Projected To Win Reelection (RT)

Former US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi could return to Congress next year for a landmark 20th term, The Hill reported on Wednesday, citing voting projections. Congressional elections are being held along with the race for the White House, with 34 of 100 seats in the Senate and all 435 in the House of Representatives up for grabs. According to the report, the 84-year-old Democrat is expected to win reelection to the House in California’s 11th Congressional District, which includes most of San Francisco. The report came after 50% of the votes were counted, with Pelosi securing over 80%. First elected to Congress in 1987, Pelosi became the first woman to serve as House speaker, a role she held twice. She has also been the longest-serving leader in the Democratic Party’s history in Congress.

Pelosi publicly encouraged incumbent President Joe Biden to drop his reelection plans, which led to him quitting the race as the Democratic candidate and being replaced by Vice President Kamala Harris. Reports of Pelosi’s win come as the final votes are being counted in the presidential race. While the official results of the election have yet to be announced, Trump has already secured wins in key battleground states and passed the threshold of 270 electoral college votes required to take the White House, according to media projections. Pelosi is among the fiercest critics of Trump. She has called him a “snake-oil salesman” and “the creature from the Black Lagoon,” and led Democratic efforts during impeachment proceedings against Trump in his previous term in office. Speaking to reporters while promoting her latest book this August, Pelosi called it her “goal in life” for Trump to “never step in the White House again.”

Trump railed against Pelosi in his campaign’s closing speech on Tuesday, recalling her efforts to impeach him. He said Pelosi is an “evil, sick, crazy, horrible human being” and “trouble for our country,” adding that he wanted to call her the “B-word.” In an interview on Fox News last month, he called Pelosi America’s “enemy from within.” According to the latest media reports, the Republicans have won control of the Senate for the first time in four years. It is still unclear which party will control the House of Representatives, as there are too many races that have yet to be called.

Read more …

“..the Biden administration and its European acolytes fueling NATO’s proxy war “are history.”

• Trump to Seek ‘Pragmatic’ Deals, No Budget Money to Sustain Ukraine (Sp.)

Throughout his election campaign, Donald Trump consistently expressed his reluctance to continue funding the Zelensky regime in Ukraine. Following his declaration of victory in the US presidential race, Trump addressed his supporters in a celebratory speech, promising to “stop wars” across the globe. As the 47th US president, Donald Trump will not guarantee the US budget “to keep Ukraine afloat,” strategic analyst Paolo Raffone told Sputnik. He conjectured that the Biden administration and its European acolytes fueling NATO’s proxy war “are history.” “Trump does not see any advantage for the US to continue spending enormous budgets and political capital in Ukraine. If a deal with Russia and Ukraine cannot be reached, it is possible that Trump will push for a ‘frozen conflict policy’ as a sort of damage control… Europeans will have to cover those costs. It will probably be the end of the EU,” the director of the CIPI Foundation in Brussels speculated.

On the foreign policy front, the Republican is likely to display openness to “pragmatic” solutions with allies and foes to achieve “maximum advantage” for the US, he surmised, adding: “I expect a great bargaining in which Trump will keep the centrality of the US as the ‘indispensable interlocutor’ in bilateral relations, also within the framework of multipolarity. Probably, there will be much less hysteria about Russia, Iran, China. The probable objective is ‘rebalancing the interchange’ with all these countries. They may not become friends, but deals are possible in mutual interest.” In his pursuit of a national interest agenda, Trump may redefine America’s contributions to NATO, emphasizing that US protection for Europe “is not a free ride,” Raffone noted. “Trump will guarantee the Europeans the military shield, but each European state will have to contribute much more to NATO. The previous US administrations asked to raise European military expenditure above 2% GDP. Such a target will probably be insufficient during the new Trump administration,” said Raffone.

It is difficult for Trump to “accept any idea of European strategic autonomy,” emphasized the pundit. He supposed that a new Trump administration would brandish “a combination of trade, tariffs, security levy to force the Europeans to increase their military budgets and buy more American.” “European energy and technology dependency is a fact… Europe must find space for compromise to deal with not only the US, but also with Russia, China and the Middle East. The current ideological positions in the EU Commission, Paris and Berlin are not encouraging,” stressed the pundit. Looking ahead to the US elections of 2028, none of the “old guard” will be running, conjectured Raffone, suggesting that “new forces will emerge during the current Trump term.” “The Trump administration will probably be a transition time. The outcome will be visible in US politics over the next decade. Currently, the two US parties live a populist momentum. Time will tell if politics will arise again in the US,” he concluded.

Read more …

“..if he listens to Tucker Carlson, and ‘Bobby’ Kennedy, and Vivek Ramaswamy, and all the smart people around him – then yes, he could negotiate an end to that war.”

• Dave Smith: Will Trump Be Able To End The War In Ukraine? (ZH)

At a recent pre-election speaking and podcast event, comedian and Libertarian political commentator Dave Smith expressed his view that it is very realistic that the next President Donald Trump could successfully negotiate an end to the Ukraine war. Smith’s view is optimistic, as he articulated that he believes Trump’s expressed desire to end wars in Ukraine and Gaza is genuine. But Smith also laid out that much depends on who Trump puts around him in top national security positions. Below is the hard-hitting segment featuring the prominent commentator addressing the question: will Trump be able to end the war in Ukraine? Below are Dave Smith’s words from the segment on Trump and Ukraine below …

“Why the hell are we even expanding our military alliance to Ukraine? And listen, Donald Trump always says that the war ‘never would have happened if I was president, and I would negotiate an end to this.’ And I gotta say I think he’s right about that. I don’t think the war would have happened if he was president – I think he will negotiate an end to it. I don’t think he’s right that Hamas wouldn’t have attacked Israel if he was president – that seems kind of ridiculous to me. But he’s right: the Ukraine war could be over tomorrow if American wanted to negotiated a peace to it. Vladimir Putin has been trying to the entire time… Well the question becomes who does Donald Trump put around him? If Donald Trump puts Mike Pompeo, aka Liz Cheney’s pick for Defense Secretary… if he puts John Bolton, aka Hillary Clinton’s pick for national security adviser – then maybe not, maybe it doesn’t happen. But if he listens to Tucker Carlson, and ‘Bobby’ Kennedy, and Vivek Ramaswamy, and all the smart people around him – then yes, he could negotiate an end to that war.”

Indeed, the question ultimately becomes: will Trump really keep the ‘swamp’ out of his administration this time around? We hope so.

Read more …

“Politico described the plan as “the only option” to maintain the flow of weapons to Ukraine, although its sources acknowledged “immense” challenges..”

• Biden To Speed Up Arms Deliveries To Ukraine – Media (RT)

The White House intends to expedite up to $9 billion in new military aid in a last-ditch effort to bolster Ukraine against Russia, before President-elect Donald Trump takes office in January, according to sources within the outgoing administration. The plan is driven by concerns that Trump, who has criticized President Joe Biden’s generous support for Kiev, may halt or significantly reduce US taxpayer-funded aid, as reported by sources speaking to Reuters and Politico on Wednesday. “The administration plans to push forward… to put Ukraine in the strongest position possible,” a senior official told Reuters on condition of anonymity. Politico described the plan as “the only option” to maintain the flow of weapons to Ukraine, although its sources acknowledged “immense” challenges. US officials worry that even if Biden approves new aid, it could take the Pentagon months to actually deliver munitions and equipment to Ukraine, and the next commander-in-chief could halt shipments at any time.

It remains unclear whether the US military would be willing to draw more deeply from its stockpiles – risking its own readiness – to expedite the deliveries. Since February 2022, the US Congress has approved more than $174 billion to support Ukraine in its conflict with Russia. The latest tranche of $61 billion was delayed for several months amid a standoff between Republicans and the White House. Of that package, only $4.3 billion remains, along with another $2 billion allocated for new contracts with the US arms industry. With $2.8 billion in previously announced shipments, the White House has just over $9 billion available for emergency supplies to Kiev. Trump’s victory will not change Washington’s antagonistic stance towards Moscow, but will make it more difficult for Kiev to access American taxpayers’ money, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said on Wednesday.

“As a dyed-in-the-wool businessman, he hates wasting money on all sorts of freeloaders and tagalongs: On wacko allies, misguided grandiose charity projects, and insatiable international organizations,” Medvedev wrote in a Telegram post. “The only question is, how much will Trump be forced to fork out on the war? He’s stubborn, but the system is more powerful.” Trump has said that Ukraine cannot win against Russia militarily and has criticized Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky as “the greatest salesman in history,” who secures billions every time he visits Washington without getting any closer to victory. Trump claimed on the campaign trail that he could end the Ukraine conflict in 24 hours if reelected. In his victory speech, Trump reiterated: “I’m not going to start a war. I’m going to stop wars.”

Read more …

“..the EU has already spent nearly €120 billion ($128.8 billion) on supporting Ukraine, with another €74 billion pledged but yet to be allocated..”

• Von der Leyen To Prepare EU For War – Defense Commission Nominee (RT)

A top priority for the next European Commission will be making Europe self-reliant and ready for war, as the US is likely to focus on China in the coming decades, said Andrius Kubilius, the nominee for the EU’s new top defense post. Kubilius made this statement at his confirmation hearing in Brussels on Wednesday, after he was nominated to become the first-ever EU Commissioner for Defense and Space. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen designated the former Lithuanian prime minister for the position in September. The new Commission is expected to take office by December 1. “Defense is one of the top priorities for the next Commission,” Kubilius told MEPs. “Von der Leyen’s mission letter tasks me with helping Europe prepare for the most extreme military contingencies, which means preparing for the possibility of Russian aggression.”

While it is difficult to predict the policies of the upcoming administration of US President-elect Donald Trump, “we can anticipate that in the coming decades, the U.S. is likely to increase its focus on the strategic challenge posed by China,” Kubilius said. This shift “necessitates a more self-reliant European defense structure,” he added. “Adversaries and strategic rivals are rapidly outpacing us,” with Russia and China far ahead in defense spending, Kubilius noted. He claimed that Russia will spend more on defense than all of the bloc’s 27 states combined, in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP). In the meantime, the best defense strategy for the EU would be to continue funding Ukraine, he stated.

Since 2022, the EU has already spent nearly €120 billion ($128.8 billion) on supporting Ukraine, with another €74 billion pledged but yet to be allocated, according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy. As emphasized by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, the best investment in European security is investing in the security of Ukraine. Officials in Brussels are waiting for the US election results to determine their next steps in supporting Ukraine, Deutsche Welle reported earlier this week. During his reelection campaign, Trump has repeatedly suggested he would curtail funding for Kiev and focus on domestic American issues. The outgoing Biden administration intends to fast-track billions in military aid to Ukraine to reinforce Kiev’s military before Trump takes office in January, Reuters and Politico reported on Wednesday, citing anonymous sources.

Read more …

“Kursk is the ultimate meat grinder for Ukraine soldiers. No one comes back alive.”

• How British Media Is Turning On Zelensky. And Why (Jay)

It’s a little-known fact that the two British media giants, The Economist and The Financial Times, enjoy a very cosy relationship with the European Commission, so much so that one could almost imagine them all being one family. Each does its own bidding for one another and each assists one another with its aspirations, its viewpoint. And it’s fake news. And so, when you read in The Economist that the war is not going at all well for Ukraine and its hapless president you can more or less assume that this is the interpretation also of the very highest echelons of the EU. Since the war started, Ukraine’s president has had the full support of western media, which has agreed to go along with the fake news racket which his people organize; curtailing the freedom of western journalists, blocking them from getting hard news stories, data, statistics but above all taking them by the hand and leading them to the stories which they want reported.

This game reached epic proportions in recent months as a parody of journalism reached its apex when the war turned on Zelensky in the summer of this year. Journalists didn’t report on it in such a way. Many stayed in Kiev and other large cities and were so desperate for a story which wouldn’t upset their hosts that they peddled the same one over and over again of the conscripts being bundled into the backs of vans. It was literally all they could do to keep active. But this business model of late appears to have run aground. Both the Economist and the BBC have each reported on the frontlines and really told it how it is: bleak. No one can turn a blind eye any more to the advancement of Russian forces. The capture of Selydove might be played down by the Kiez media machine whose list of hilarious fake news stories is too long to publish; but Pokrovsk, which is the next target for Russian forces, will be a considerable victory which might topple the entire confidence of Zelensky and his cabal of advisors and sycophants.

Pokrovsk is a town which is a transport hub, which supplies thousands of Ukrainian troops. If it is taken, it would effectively mean the mass surrender of most of them, or their hasty retreat as they won’t be able to eat or replenish their ammunition stocks. This itself will have a devastating blow on Ukrainian troops’ morale and we might well see a domino effect which accelerates Russia’s advance from a kilometer or two in a day to scores. How will western media report the fall of this city? If The Economist and BBC reports are anything to go by, with some zeal one would imagine. It’s as though big media, in particular British, is anxious to stay on the right side of history when things start to fall down and emerge from the dust as wise old men with that “I told you so” sparkle in their eyes. It’s also about collective guilt. Western Media has blood on its hands as the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers sent to the “meat grinder” is partly attributed to the support U.S. and UK media gave Zelensky.

What we are witnessing now from Zelensky is a panic mode which is accelerating at the same pace. His so-called “victory plan” hasn’t been taken seriously by any western leaders and he looks stupid now, alienated. His recent outburst about Biden leaking to the press about the ludicrous idea of using U.S.-made Tomahawk missiles might have been a defining moment which history writers obsess over then they write his eulogy. For now, the panic isn’t really even about the battlefield, although it must be hard for Zelensky to read the dispatches each day of the losses in Kursk which could be considered Ukraine’s own Battle of the Bulge where German troops fought hard at the end of WWII against larger, bigger numbers of allied soldiers in the Ardennes and ultimately lost. In many ways Kursk was a trap which Zelensky set for himself, as the failure to capture the nuclear power plant pales into insignificance compared to the losses of men. Kursk is the ultimate meat grinder for Ukraine soldiers. No one comes back alive.

The real panic for Zelensky is now about his own political credibility. He is only thinking now how to survive the inevitable loss to Russia and stay a president. He knows only too well that if a quick ceasefire happens under Trump’s leadership, the Martial Law status of the country will be cancelled and presidential elections will be obligatory. Under Harris, the pain will only be drawn out longer, but with even more lost ground, lost bargaining leverage as she will force Putin to shift gear with his advance and head for Kiev. The irony of The Economist piece and its timing is that it prepares the ground for a massive blame game which starts with those who have been doing it like pros for decades – The European Commission – and amateurs who have just started to learn how it works, like Zelensky. The Economist is just warming up.

Read more …

Economy is breaking down.

• German Government Has Collapsed (RT)

Germany’s ‘traffic-light’ coalition has fallen apart, leaving Olaf Scholz at the helm of a minority government consisting solely of his Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Greens. This follows the Chancellor’s dismissal of Free Democratic Party (FDP) leader Christian Lindner from the position of Finance Minister. After failed crisis talks on Wednesday night, the Chancellor dismissed the Free Democratic Party (FDP) leader Christian Lindner from the position of Finance Minister. In response, the FDP’s parliamentary group leader, Christian Durr, announced that the party is withdrawing all its ministers from Scholz’s government, formally ending the three-way coalition. The Greens expressed regret over this development but stated they wish to remain part of a minority government, emphasizing the need for the EU – and Germany in particular – to demonstrate its capacity for action following Donald Trump’s election as US President.

“I want to say for us that this feels wrong and not right tonight – almost tragic on a day like this, when Germany must show unity and the ability to act in Europe,” said Vice Chancellor and Economy Minister Robert Habeck in a joint press statement with Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock on Wednesday night. “This is not a good day for Germany and also not a good day for Europe,” Baerbock added. Finance Minister Christian Lindner was fired after he reportedly proposed early elections when the leaders of the three coalition parties once again failed to find common ground on how to address the multibillion-euro deficit in next year’s budget. “All too often, Minister Lindner has blocked laws in an inappropriate manner,” Scholz stated, accusing Lindner of refusing to ease spending rules which among other things would allow for more aid to Ukraine.

Lindner, in turn, accused the Chancellor of ignoring the real “economic concerns” of the German people. “Olaf Scholz has long failed to recognize the need for a new economic awakening in our country,” Lindner said. Scholz said he now wants to reach out to opposition leader Friedrich Merz of the Christian Democrats to offer him the “opportunity” to collaborate with his government, adding that in light of the US elections, this is “perhaps more urgent than ever.” Meanwhile, the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) opposition party welcomed the coalition’s collapse as a long-overdue “liberation” for Germany.

“After months of gridlock and countless self-centered therapy sessions, we now urgently need a fundamental political fresh start to lead the economy and the country as a whole out of the severe crisis into which it has been plunged by the ideology-driven policies of the SPD, Greens, and FDP,” said AfD parliamentary leaders Alice Weidel and Tino Chrupalla in a statement on X. Scholz announced that the Bundestag will hold a vote of confidence on January 15. According to the German constitution, if the Chancellor fails to secure sufficient support, he may formally request the President to dissolve the 733-seat lower house and call new elections within 60 days. This could push Germany’s parliamentary elections from next fall to March 2025.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Fishing

 

 

Mature tree

 

 

Flow hive
https://twitter.com/i/status/1854145206733373820

 

 

Slow motion fluid

 

 

Mesh

 

 

Hair
https://twitter.com/i/status/1854109578490782018

 

 

Pnut

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle October 8 2024

Oct 082024
 
 October 8, 2024  Posted by at 9:00 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,  79 Responses »


Paul Henry Altan Lough, Donegal 1933-34

 

• Like a Prayer (Jim Kunstler)
• ‘If He Loses I’m F**ked’: Musk And Tucker Carlson’s Must-Watch Interview (ZH)
• We Are in Need of Renaissance People (Victor Davis Hanson)
• Where is America’s Co-President, Dr. Jill? (AmG)
• Jack Smith’s October Surprise Was Not That Surprising (Turley)
• Supreme Court Rejects Musk’s Case Against Jack Smith Over Trump Tweets (ET)
• Top EU Court Rules Against Meta In Use of Personal Data for Ads (ET)
• German Industrial Orders Collapse (RT)
• The Lack of a Two-State Solution Most Threatens Israel (Jeffrey Sachs)
• Perfidy in Tehran (Alastair Crooke)
• West Aims To ‘Bring Russians To Their Knees’ – Slovak Prime Minister Fico (RT)
• UK and US Helped Ukraine Plan ‘New Chernobyl’ – Russian Intel Chief (RT)
• Georgia Supreme Court Reinstates State’s Abortion Law (ET)
• Trial Date Set In Von der Leyen Covid-19 Vaccine Scandal – FT (RT)
• US Children’s Diets Are Now “Over 70%” Ultra-Processed Foods (ZH)

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/i/status/1843035872922566982

 

 

RFK

 

 

??

 

 

70 days

 

 

US Musk
https://twitter.com/i/status/1842920925504884820

 

 

Debanked

 

 

NC

 

 

FEMA

 

 

Tucker

 

 

Eugenics?!

 

 

Greenwald/Sachs

 

 

 

 

“So, yes, Hillary. You lose total control. Totally. For now and forever, amen.”

• Like a Prayer (Jim Kunstler)

Why exactly Hillary Clinton would be dumb enough to come out on every news channel and Internet site on Gawd’s green earth to declare the end of free speech throughout Western Civ might remain one of those abiding mysteries of history. Bad timing doesn’t begin to explain it. What does explain it is the psychotic desperation of her party now that the days to election dwindle down and the pathetic figure they “nominated” stumbles from one campaign blunder to the next, and the whole sick crew behind her entertains dark visions of courtrooms and prison cells — including, by the way, her cohort in nation-wrecking Barack Obama, who could be liable to charges such as conspiracy to commit sedition, or even a higher crime, if the election goes the wrong way for him. You might suppose they are fighting for their very lives without being accused of exaggeration.

In the event of Hurricane Helena and other churning contingencies of the season, Mr. Trump is not only looking more presidential, he is apparently being regarded as something close to an actual acting president in the eerie absence of “Joe Biden,” who looks more and more like one of those three-hundred-dollar Home Depot animatronic ghouls Americans are planting in the front yard this season of the walking dead, along with the giant inflated jack-o-lanterns, beckoning skeletons, and plastic tombstones. In other words, it looks like the people are going to vote Mr. Trump back into office, since he is the only thing the least bit presidential on offer in 2024. Even the Covid-addled, the many new demoralized Woke drop-outs, and the beaten-down male youth of America are leaning his way now and it scares the Democrats down to their livers and lights.

Accordingly, I received notice late Sunday from an informant in commercial aviation, with connections to military aviation, that a massive deployment of aircraft is preparing logistics for a major operation set to go down in about a week, probably in the Middle East. I can’t guarantee you that it is for real, but it was a real warning message, at least, from a serious person, and you know that something could be up. . . some humdinger of an October Surprise, like a big fat world war. What else have they got now? Jack Smith’s lame-ass attempt to beef-up an “insurrection” charge against Mr. Trump in Judge Chutkan’s abject facsimile of a federal court? Everything else has been fail, fail, fail all year long . . . the head-cases with rifles. . . all the other court cases contrived by Merrick Garland, Andrew Weissmann, Norm Eisen, and Mary McCord. . . the ineffectual bleatings of The New York Times’s editorial board? They’re plumb out of tricks and they know it. So, yes, Hillary. You lose total control. Totally. For now and forever, amen.

Read more …

Strong pairing. Full interview at the bottom.

• ‘If He Loses I’m F**ked’: Musk And Tucker Carlson’s Must-Watch Interview (ZH)

Tucker Carlson sat down with Elon Musk for an extensive interview this week, where they covered a broad spectrum of topics that ranged from political endorsements and disaster relief efforts to social issues and technological advancements. Musk offered his perspective on current events – including his enthusiastic support for Donald Trump, his concerns about democracy, and his criticisms of government decisions affecting his businesses like Starlink. Musk also shared his views on broader societal trends, such as the declining birthrate in Europe and the influence of religion in modern society. Musk also shared his thoughts on the impact of technology in everyday life, including artificial intelligence and the intersection of big tech and global politics. “If Trump loses, I really fear for what’s going to be left of democracy in America,” said Musk, suggesting that immigration policies have been manipulated to bolster Democratic voter bases, potentially undermining the fairness of elections.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1843387882666635539

Musk also suggested that if Trump loses, “I’m fucked.”

Musk discusses the use of Starlink to aid victims of Hurricane Helene, criticizing the Federal Communications Commission’s decision to cancel a contract that Starlink had won previously. According to Musk, “The FCC pulled the rug under us after a political decision,” suggesting that the decision was influenced by partisan politics rather than practical considerations.

Musk warns that if Trump doesn’t win in November, it will be the end for genuine democratic elections in the United States. He argues that certain policies favor a demographic shift intended to secure a permanent Democratic majority. “If Trump doesn’t win this election, it’s the last election we’re going to have.”

The pair then discussed the Epstein client list, with Musk slamming the lack of accountability for high-profile individuals implicated in Epstein’s scandals – and predicting that if Trump wins, the Epstein client list “is going to become public.” “It’s strange that there has been no significant action against those on the list,” Musk remarked.

Musk then touched on vaccines, slamming the push for repeated COVID-19 jabs and the morality of forcing people to take them. He questions the efficacy and safety of continually administering boosters, especially without substantial data to support long-term health impacts.

Musk criticizes policies that he perceives as effectively decriminalizing certain behaviors, linking them to rising crime rates in cities like San Francisco. He specifically slams laws that reduce penalties for theft under $1,000, arguing that they hurt small businesses and encourage lawlessness. He also slammed California Governor Gavin Newsom, whose policies he says are ineffective and detrimental to the state’s economic and social health. Musk predicts that these policies, if not revised, might lead to significant long-term problems for California.

The conversation turns to Europe’s declining birthrate, with Musk expressing concerns about demographic trends and their implications for Europe’s future. He emphasizes the need for policies that encourage family formation and higher birth rates to sustain economic and cultural vitality. Musk emphasized the importance of religion in society, arguing that it provides a necessary moral framework and sense of community. He warns against the loss of religious adherence, suggesting it could lead to a breakdown in societal cohesion.

Full interview

Read more …

Elon Musk the Renaissance man.

“Modern society’s focus on credentials has created a two-tiered system, where multi-talented individuals are criticized, and elites oversee a dependent underclass.”

• We Are in Need of Renaissance People (Victor Davis Hanson)

[..] Benjamin Franklin may best approximate the model of the Florentine Renaissance holistic brilliance—journalist, publisher, printer, author, politician, diplomat, inventor, scientist, and philosopher. Franklin’s life was one of perpetual motion and achievement. In one lifetime, he helped to draft the Constitution, invented everything from the lightning rod to bifocals, founded the American postal service, and successfully won over European countries to the nascent American cause. Theodore Roosevelt—president, historian, essayist, conservationist, naturalist combat veteran, battle leader, explorer, and cowboy—exemplified the idea of an American president as the master at almost everything else. The history of our own contemporary Renaissance people often suggests that they are not fully appreciated until after their deaths—especially in the post-World War II era. Why?

We have created a sophisticated modern society that is so compartmentalized by “professionals” and the credentialed that those who excel simultaneously in several disciplines are often castigated for “amateurism,” “spreading themselves too thinly,” “not staying in their lanes,” or not being degreed with the proper prerequisite letters—BA, BS, MA, PhD, MD, JD, or MBA—in the various fields that they master. But specialization is the enemy of genius, as is the tyranny of credentialism. Because the Renaissance figure is not perfect in every discipline he masters, we damn him for too much breadth and not enough depth—a dabbler rather than an expert—failing to realize that his successes in most genres he masters and redefines is precisely because he brings a vast corpus of unique insights and experience to his work that narrower specialists lack.

The Greek poet Archilochus first delineated the contrast between the fox who “knows many things” and the hedgehog who “knows one—one big thing.” We have become a nation of elite hedgehogs, whose narrow expertise is not enriched by awareness of or interest in the wider human experience. Renaissance people often live controversial lives and receive 360-degree incoming criticism, not surprising given the many fields in which they upstage specialists and question experts—and the sometimes overweening nature of their personalities that feel no reason to place boundaries and lanes on their geniuses and behavior or to temper their exuberances. The best American example of the current age is the controversial Elon Musk, a truly Renaissance figure who has revolutionized at least half a dozen entire fields. No one prior had broken the Big Three auto monopoly of GM, Ford, and Chrysler.

Musk did just that. He exploded all three companies’ dominance with his successful creation of the first viable electric vehicle, Tesla, whose comfort, drivability, reliability, safety, and power rivaled or exceeded the models of all his competitors. His spin-off battery storage and solar panel companies allowed thousands of families to go off the grid and stay self-sufficient in power usage. Musk’s revolutionary Starlink internet system—a mere five years old—provides global online service to over 100 countries. Through its some 7,000 satellites, Starlink brings internet service to remote residents far more effectively and cheaply than do their own governments. When natural disasters overwhelm utilities or war disrupts the normality of peace, all look to Musk to restore online reconnections to the outside world.

Musk, almost singlehandedly, transformed the U.S. space program from a NASA 60-year-old government monopoly to an arena of fervent private-public competition. His Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) created a rocket and spacecraft program that has kept the U.S. preeminent in space exploration and reliable satellite launches. When NASA and old aerospace companies falter, the government looks to Musk to bail them out. Musk, at great personal cost, radically transformed the old Twitter—poorly managed, censorious of ideas and expressions not deemed progressive, and mired in scandal for partnering with the FBI to silence news deemed possibly injurious to Democratic candidates and left-wing campaigns. His new X replacement is an unfettered platform for free expression. And the more the left abhors their loss of the monopolistic old Twitter’s ideological clearing house, and vows to flee X and start their own new left-wing, censorious Twitters, the more they stay on X.

Musk’s newest companies have now entered the convoluted, little-understood, radically competitive, and dangerous field of artificial intelligence (OpenAI) and the emerging discipline of bonding the natural brain to the electronic online world (Neuralink). To the degree Musk is successful, America will lead these areas of intense international rivalry that involve the gravest issues of national security and survival.

Read more …

“Supposedly she thought the public would be delighted to know that an unelected community college teacher would be discussing international affairs with elected world leaders.”

• Where is America’s Co-President, Dr. Jill? (AmG)

Public officials, both elected and unelected, curiously are rarely held accountable for their actions, as are the rest of us. Harvey Weinstein goes to prison, while Bill Clinton goes on his merry way. That’s just one example of many, yet the lack of accountability has gotten to the point of absurdity. And now we have deceit that has massive consequences for everyone. Since January 2021, when he took office until his forced departure from the 2024 race on July 21 after his disastrous debate performance on June 27, the aggressively stage-managed presidency of Joe Biden has been exposed as a fraud. This elderly man with failing physical and mental facilities has been foisted upon America as the purported “leader of the free world” who is “fit to serve,” is “sharp as a tack,” and “runs circles around those half his age.” As we now know, Biden was nowhere near the “unrivaled statesman” who was in “command of the facts” and “performed masterfully” at important cabinet meetings and international summits.

This is what was being hidden from the public for nearly three years by the U.S. government, its enablers in the legacy media, Biden’s inner circle of advisors, and most vigorously of all by the nation’s First Lady Jill Biden. Long claiming to be her husband’s fiercest advocate, Jill Biden had the opportunity and influence to assume the role of a caring wife and confidant to Joe, making sure his health would not worsen given the extreme demands of the American presidency. Jill could have also shown the world what a dedicated spouse looks like, how a devoted wife and mother shows strength and resilience in troubling times as her husband’s age-related condition becomes visible to the world, and how we should treat our elderly loved ones with respect and dignity. This awful and truly evil person, however, has put on a disgraceful display of naked conceit and unchecked personal entitlement throughout Joe Biden’s entire presidential term.

As Joe’s condition worsened, Jill’s shameless quest to be in charge of the Biden White House exposed her as an opportunistic parasite who routinely lied to the country about the real state of Joe’s infirmity while she lived the high life on the taxpayer’s dime. Insisting that she be referred to as “Dr. Biden,” an honorific issued from her 2007 Ed.D doctorate in education she received from the University of Delaware, a school conveniently located in the state where Joe Biden was currently a five-time-elected Senator, Jill has displayed a notable eagerness to supplant Joe as the public face of his administration. One of the most notorious examples is the picture she posted on social media in 2021, showing her pouring over paperwork on Air Force One with the caption “Prepping for the G7.” Supposedly she thought the public would be delighted to know that an unelected community college teacher would be discussing international affairs with elected world leaders.

Jill Biden repeatedly made speeches and appearances at numerous functions in place of her husband, the president of the United States, inserting herself as a proxy president and speaking on behalf of America’s commander-in-chief. This was not only inappropriate and deceptive, but it was also an important element of the massive cover-up of Joe’s rapidly deteriorating mental and physical health, a conspiracy that included his vice president, the anointed replacement for Joe once it was apparent he couldn’t win in November. This is in addition to other members of his cabinet who should have invoked the 25th Amendment to move him out the door years ago. This is in addition to other Democrat power brokers like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and so many others who perpetuated this hoax on all Americans, Democrats, Independents, and Republicans alike.

Read more …

Trump should have had the chance to file his appeal first. But Jack couldn’t wait. He wants the whole shebang before the election. So does the judge.

• Jack Smith’s October Surprise Was Not That Surprising (Turley)

“The most stupendous and atrocious fraud.” Those words from federal prosecutors could have been ripped from the filing this week of Special Counsel Jack Smith defending his prosecution of former President Donald Trump. Yet they were actually from a Justice Department filing 184 years ago, just days from the 1840 presidential election. Democratic President Martin Van Buren was struggling for reelection against Whig William Henry Harrison, and his Justice Department waited until just before voters went to the polls to allege that Whig Party officials had paid Pennsylvanians to travel to New York to vote for Whig candidates two years earlier. It was considered by many to be the first “October Surprise,” the last-minute pre-election scandal or major event intended to sway voters.

To avoid such allegations of political manipulation of cases, the Justice Department has long followed a policy against making potentially influential filings within 60 or 90 days of an election. One section of the Justice Department manual states “Federal prosecutors… may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election.” Jack Smith, however, has long dismissed such considerations. For years, Smith has been unrelenting in his demands for a trial before the election. He has even demanded that Donald Trump be barred from standard appellate options in order to expedite his trial. Smith never fully explained the necessity of holding a trial before the election beyond suggesting that voters should see the trial and the results — assaulting the very premise of the Justice Department’s rule against such actions just before elections.

After the Supreme Court rendered parts of his indictment against Trump presumptively unconstitutional, Smith made clear that he was prepared to prosecute Trump up to the very day of his inauguration. True to his reputation and record, Smith refused to drop the main allegations against Trump to avoid official decisions or acts that the court found to be protected in Trump v. United States. Instead, he stripped out some prior evidence linked to Trump’s presidency, including witnesses serving in the White House. Yet the same underlying allegations remain. Smith just repeatedly uses references to Trump as acting as “a private citizen.” It is like a customer complaining that he did not order a Coke and the waiter pouring it into a Mountain Dew bottle and saying, “Done!”

Smith even refused to drop the obstruction of official proceedings, despite another recent Supreme Court decision (Fischer v. United States) rendering that charge presumptively invalid. Smith is making his case not to Judge Tanya Chutkan, but to America’s voters. Chutkan has consistently ruled with Smith to help him expedite the case. She permitted his hastened “rocket docket” despite declaring that she would not consider the election schedule as a factor in the pace of filings or even of the trial itself.

For critics, Judge Chutkan has proven far too motivated in the case. Indeed, many thought that she should have recused herself given her statement from a sentencing hearing of a Jan. 6 rioter in 2022. Chutkan said that the rioters “were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man — not to the Constitution.” She added then “[i]t’s a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.” That “one person” was then brought to her courtroom for trial by Smith. In their latest move, Chutkan and Smith used the Supreme Court decision to file a type of preemptive defense — an excuse to lay out the allegations against Trump in a 165-page filing filled with damaging accounts and testimonials against Trump, just weeks ahead of the election.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1843351487025463654

Read more …

“..a court “found probable cause to search the account for evidence of criminal offenses..”

• Supreme Court Rejects Musk’s Case Against Jack Smith Over Trump Tweets (ET)

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up a challenge filed by Elon Musk’s X platform to rulings that forced it to turn over data on former President Donald Trump’s X account to special counsel Jack Smith. In 2023, Smith obtained a warrant for Trump’s Twitter account as part of federal prosecutors’ 2020 election case against the former president. Trump had frequently used the account during the 2016 presidential campaign and during his first administration. The high court on Monday rendered its decision without any comment. There were no noted dissents. The Musk-owned platform had initially refused to comply with a nondisclosure order and was fined $350,000 by a judge in August 2023, records show. At the time, the court had rejected X’s claim that it should not have been held in contempt or sanctioned. Smith’s team repeatedly mentioned Trump’s posts on Twitter in the first indictment, which was unsealed last year.

A revised indictment was brought against Trump by Smith in September after the Supreme Court separately ruled in July that presidents should be declared broadly immune from prosecution for their official acts and duties. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all the charges in the case. Prosecutors obtained the search warrant on Jan. 17, 2023, directing Twitter to produce information on Trump’s account after a court “found probable cause to search the account for evidence of criminal offenses,” according to last year’s court ruling. The government also obtained a nondisclosure agreement that had prohibited Twitter from disclosing the search warrant, the filing says.In its appeal to the Supreme Court in May, X argued that Smith’s team carried out an “unprecedented end-run around executive privilege” by obtaining a “nondisclosure order preventing Twitter from notifying former President Trump of a warrant for private communications that he sent and received during his presidency.”

“Although Twitter had provided these communications to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the government informed Twitter and the district court that it ‘did not want to obtain data from NARA, as it would require notification [to the former President] pursuant to the Presidential Records Act,’” the petition said. In trying to bolster its case before the Supreme Court, X had said its petition was designed to allow the court to uphold the First Amendment. “The potential consequences are far-reaching,” the company said. “Twitter alone annually receives thousands of nondisclosure orders attached to demands for user information. Indeed, the D.C. Circuit agreed that this issue is likely to recur for Twitter. Other platforms, too, receive thousands of requests for user information—many with nondisclosure orders.” Lawyers for Smith’s team dismissed X’s arguments, telling the Supreme Court that the social media platform cannot assert any privilege over the records in question.

“The First Amendment did not justify petitioner’s refusal to comply” with the special counsel’s warrant “before litigating its separate challenge to the nondisclosure order,” the government wrote, adding that X is trying to assert a “right to immediate resolution of its First Amendment claim to interests.”

Read more …

“..the GDPR, specifically the data minimization rule, which requires companies to limit the amount of personal data collected and stored to what is strictly necessary.”

• Top EU Court Rules Against Meta In Use of Personal Data for Ads (ET)

In a landmark decision, the top court in the European Union has ruled that Facebook parent company Meta cannot use personal data gathered from its own platforms or from external sources for targeted advertising without adhering to strict limits and restrictions under the bloc’s privacy laws. The ruling, hailed as a victory by privacy advocates, was issued on Oct. 4 by the Court of Justice of the European Union. The decision was a response to a lawsuit brought by Austrian activist Max Schrems, who has long campaigned for stricter enforcement of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation. Schrems had accused Facebook of processing his sensitive personal data to serve him with targeted ads in violation of the GDPR, specifically the data minimization rule, which requires companies to limit the amount of personal data collected and stored to what is strictly necessary.

The court sided with Schrems, stating that Meta’s data practices violated GDPR principles. Meta, according to the court, aggregated and processed vast amounts of user data for advertising purposes without appropriate restrictions on time or the type of data involved. The judges wrote in their ruling that the relevant provisions of the GDPR “must be interpreted as meaning that the principle of data minimisation provided for therein precludes any personal data obtained by a controller, such as the operator of an online social network platform, from the data subject or third parties and collected either on or outside that platform, from being aggregated, analysed and processed for the purposes of targeted advertising without restriction as to time and without distinction as to type of data.” The court’s decision highlighted that Meta cannot process user data indefinitely, as it had been doing—even data from users who consent to personalized ads.

Katharina Raabe-Stuppnig, Schrems’s lawyer, expressed satisfaction with the ruling, while emphasizing the wider implications of the decision for the online advertising industry. She noted that other companies operating without stringent data deletion practices will also be affected. “Meta has basically been building a huge data pool on users for 20 years now, and it is growing every day,” she said in a statement. “However, EU law requires ‘data minimisation.’ Following this ruling, only a small part of Meta’s data pool will be allowed to be used for advertising—even when users consent to ads. This ruling also applies to any other online advertisement company, that does not have stringent data deletion practices.” In response to the court’s decision, Meta issued a statement saying it was reviewing the judgment while reaffirming its stated commitment to privacy.

“Everyone using Facebook has access to a wide range of settings and tools that allow people to manage how we use their information,” the company said in the statement, adding that it “takes privacy very seriously.” The ruling is the latest setback for Meta in Europe. The tech giant has faced numerous legal and regulatory challenges there in recent years, and has been at the center of multiple investigations, particularly regarding compliance with the GDPR. The EU’s focus extends beyond data privacy to concerns about how digital platforms’ algorithms and system designs affect behavior. Meta’s recommender systems, which power its advertising-driven business model, are under scrutiny for potentially fostering addictive behaviors, particularly in minors.

Read more …

The initial phases.

• German Industrial Orders Collapse (RT)

New orders for German-made industrial goods suffered their sharpest drop so far this year in August, the latest provisional data from the statistics bureau Destatis showed on Monday. Factory orders in manufacturing were down 5.8% in August from the previous month, and down 3.9% year-on-year. The figures defied analyst forecasts of a 1.9% decline. Destatis attributed the severity of the month-on-month slump mainly to the high-base effect of the previous month, when large orders were placed in what is classified as ‘other vehicle construction’ (manufacture of aircraft, ships, trains, military vehicles). Excluding this segment, incoming orders were only down 3.4%.

Orders for capital goods and intermediate goods fell by 8.6% and 2.2%, respectively, in August compared to July, while incoming orders for consumer goods dropped 0.9%, according to Destatis. The capital goods sector includes a wide range of industries, from aerospace and defense to construction and engineering. Intermediate goods are classified as those used as inputs in the production of other goods.The breakdown of the origin of new orders shows an increase from outside the Eurozone of 3.4%, whereas orders from Eurozone countries fell 10.5%. Domestic orders were down 10.9%. Germany’s industrial output shrank in July, driven mainly by weak activity in the automotive sector, Destatis said in a separate release on Sunday.

Production declined in most manufacturing segments in July, with the automotive industry posting an 8.1% month-on-month drop. Economists polled by Reuters suggested that there will be no speedy recovery for Europe’s largest economy, and that it could contract again in the third quarter, thus putting the country back into recession. German GDP declined -0.1% in the second quarter.After a recession in Germany in 2023, the European Commission expects the country’s economy to stagnate this year. Persistent inflation, high energy prices, and weak foreign demand have been cited as the reasons for the slowdown.

Read more …

“The whole point of Netanyahu’s politics for decades has been to prevent the emergence of a Palestinian state using any argument at hand.”

• The Lack of a Two-State Solution Most Threatens Israel (Jeffrey Sachs)

Israel rejects the two-state solution because it claims that a sovereign state of Palestine would profoundly endanger Israel’s national security. In fact, it is the lack of a two-state solution that endangers Israel. Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian lands, its continuing apartheid rule over millions of Palestinians, and its extreme violence to defend that rule, all put Israel’s survival in jeopardy, as Israel faces dire threats from global diplomatic isolation and the ongoing war, including the war’s massive economic, social, and financial costs. There are three basic reasons for Israel’s opposition to the two-state solution, reflecting a variety of ideologies and interests in Israeli society. The first, and most mainstream, is Israel’s claim that Palestinians and the Arab world cannot live alongside it and only wish to destroy it. The second is the belief among Israel’s rapidly growing religious-nationalist population that God promised the Jews all of the land from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean, including all of Palestine.

We recently wrote about that ideology, pointing out that it is roughly 2,600 years out of step with today’s realities. The third is straightforward material gain. With its ongoing occupation, Israel aims to profit from control over the region’s freshwater resources, coastal zones, offshore natural gas deposits, tourist destinations, and land for settlements. These various motives are jumbled together in Israel’s continued intransigence. Yet taken individually or as a package, they fail to justify Israel’s opposition to the two-state solution, certainly not from the perspective of international law and justice, but not even with regard to Israel’s own security or narrow economic interests. Consider Israel’s claim about national security, as was recently repeated by PM Benjamin Netanyahu at the United Nations on September 27th. Netanyahu accused the Palestinian Authority, and specifically President Mahmoud Abbas, of waging “unremitting diplomatic warfare against Israel’s right to exist and against Israel’s right to defend itself.”

After Netanyahu’s speech, Ayman Safadi, Jordan’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, standing beside Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Mustafa replied to Netanyahu in a press conference: “All of us in the Arab world here, want a peace in which Israel lives in peace and security, accepted, normalized with all Arab countries in the context of ending the occupation, withdrawing from Arab territory, allowing for the emergence of an independent, sovereign Palestinian state on the June 4, 1967 lines with East Jerusalem as its capital.”Minister Safadi was speaking on behalf of the 57 members of the Muslim-Arab committee, who are all willing “to guarantee Israel’s security” in the context of a two-state solution. Minister Safadi, alongside the Palestinian Prime Minister, articulated the region’s peace proposal, an alternative to Netanyahu’s endless wars. Earlier this year, the Bahrain Declaration in May 2024 of the 33rd Regular Session of the Council of the League of Arab States, on behalf of the 22 member states, re-iterated:

“We call on the international community to assume its responsibilities to follow-up efforts to advance the peace process to achieve a just and comprehensive peace based on the two-state solution, which embodies an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital on the lines of the fourth of June 1967, able to live in security and peace alongside Israel in accordance with the resolutions of international legitimacy and established references, including the Arab Peace Initiative.” The many Arab and Islamic statements for peace, including those of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), in which Iran is a repeated signatory, trace back to the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative of Beirut—where Arab countries first proposed the region’s readiness to establish relations with Israel in the context of the two-state solution. The initiative declared that peace is based on Israel’s withdrawal from the Palestinian, Syrian, and Lebanese occupied territories.

Israel claims that even if the Arab states and Iran want peace, Hamas does not, and therefore threatens Israel. There are two crucial points here. First, Hamas accepted the two-state solution, already 7 years ago, in their 2017 Charter. “Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.” This year again, Hamas proposed to disarm in exchange for Palestinian statehood on the 1967 borders. Israel, in turn, assassinated the Hamas political chief and cease-fire negotiator, Ismail Haniyeh.

Second, Hamas is very far from being a stand-alone actor. Hamas depends on funds and arms from the outside, notably from Iran. Implementation of the two-state solution under UN Security Council auspices would include the disarmament of non-state actors and mutual security arrangements for Israel and Palestine, in line with international law and the recent ICJ ruling, which Iran voted in favor of at UN General Assembly. The giveaway that Hamas is an excuse, not a deep cause, of Israel’s intransigence is that Netanyahu has tactically if quietly supported Hamas over the years in a divide and conquer strategy. Netanyahu’s ruse has been to prevent the unity of different Palestinian political factions in order to forestall the Palestinian Authority from developing a national plan to forge a Palestinian state. The whole point of Netanyahu’s politics for decades has been to prevent the emergence of a Palestinian state using any argument at hand.

Read more …

“Having no real culture of its own, the western professional class views religion as outdated and sees history as dangerous..”

• Perfidy in Tehran (Alastair Crooke)

John Kerry, just last week at the World Economic Forum, so clearly blurting out the truth: “Our First Amendment stands as a major block to our ability to be able to hammer [disinformation] out of existence”. Translated: Governing is all about narrative control. Kerry articulates the ‘International Order’s’ solution to the unwelcome phenomenon of an uncontrolled populism and of a potential leader who speaks for the people: Simply, ‘freedom to speak’ is unacceptable to the prescriptions agreed by the ‘inter-agency’ – the institutionalised distillation of the ‘International Order’. Eric Weinstein calls this The Unburdening: The first Amendment; gender; merit; sovereignty; privacy; ethics; investigative journalism; borders; freedom … the Constitution? Gone? Today’s reality unhinged narration is that Iran’s launch on Tuesday of 200 ballistic missiles – of which 181 reached Israel – were overwhelmingly intercepted by Israel’s Iron Dome and Arrow missile defence systems, and with no deaths to show for the assault.

It was “defeated and ineffective”, Biden pronounced. Will Schryver however, a technical engineer and security commentator, writes: “I don’t understand how anyone who has seen the many video clips of the Iranian missile strikes on Israel cannot recognize and acknowledge that it was a stunning demonstration of Iranian capabilities. Iran’s ballistic missiles smashed through U.S./Israeli air defences and delivered several large-warhead strikes to Israeli military targets”. The effect and the substance then lies in ‘proven capacity’ – the capacity to select other targets, the capacity to do more. It was in fact a restrained demonstrative exercise, not a full attack. But the message has been erased from sight.

How is it that the U.S. Administration refuses to look truth in the eye and acknowledge what occurred, and prefers instead to ask the entire world, who saw the videos of missiles impacting in Israel, to ‘move along’ – as the authorities advise, pretending that there was ‘nothing substantive to see here’. Was ‘the affair’ just a nuisance to system governance and ‘consensus’, as Kerry so branded free speech? It seems so. The structural problem, essayist Aurelien writes is not simply that the western professional class holds to an ideology – one that is the opposite to how ordinary people experience the world. That certainly is one aspect. But the bigger problem lies rather, with a technocratic conception of politics that is not ‘about’ anything. It is not really politics at all (as Tony Blair once said), but is nihilistic and absent of moral considerations.

Having no real culture of its own, the western professional class views religion as outdated and sees history as dangerous since it contains components that can be misused by ‘extremists’. It prefers therefore not to know history. This produces the mixture of the conviction of superiority, yet deep insecurity, which typifies western leadership. The ignorance and fear of events and ideas that fall outside the confines of their rigid zeitgeist, they perceive, almost invariably, as innately inimical to their interests. And rather than seek to discuss and understand, that which is outside their capabilities, they use disparagement and character assassination instead to remove the nuisance.

Read more …

“Everyone thinks that through Ukraine we will bring the Russians to their knees, but this Russophobia does not work. It turns out that this problem cannot be solved militarily..”

• West Aims To ‘Bring Russians To Their Knees’ – Slovak Prime Minister Fico (RT)

The West is deliberately fueling the Ukraine conflict because its ultimate goal is to weaken Russia, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has said. In an interview with Slovak broadcaster STVR on Sunday, Fico expressed concern over the EU’s increasing involvement in the ongoing hostilities between Moscow and Kiev, arguing that the conflict cannot be resolved on the battlefield.“There is a military conflict in a neighboring country where Slavs are killing each other, and Europe is significantly supporting this killing, which I just don’t understand,” Fico said. He added that the fighting “continues only because it is being strongly supported by the West.” “The sooner it ends, the better it will be,” he added, arguing that Western efforts to use the conflict to inflict a defeat on Russia will fail.

“Everyone thinks that through Ukraine we will bring the Russians to their knees, but this Russophobia does not work. It turns out that this problem cannot be solved militarily,” Fico stated. Fico, a longtime critic of Western military aid to Kiev, promised to block Ukraine from joining NATO, as allowing the country to join the US-led military bloc could prepare the way for a world war, he warned. After winning the parliamentary election last year, Fico’s Smer-SD party halted deliveries of weapons to Ukraine and called for a diplomatic resolution of the conflict. He promised to restore trade and political ties with Moscow once the fighting ends, arguing that “the EU needs Russia, and Russia needs the EU.” Moscow has warned against Western aid to Kiev, saying no amount of foreign support will change the outcome of the conflict.

Read more …

”Had they been able to carry it out, Europe would have faced an environmental and humanitarian disaster comparable to Chernobyl..”

• UK and US Helped Ukraine Plan ‘New Chernobyl’ – Russian Intel Chief (RT)

British and American spies helped Ukraine develop plans for blowing up the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant, which would have plunged Europe into another radiation nightmare, the head of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), Sergey Naryshkin, has said. Ukrainian troops crossed into Russia’s Kursk Region in August, but were stopped short of the nuclear plant in Kurchatov. Speaking at a meeting of intelligence and security principals of post-Soviet states in Astana last week, Naryshkin revealed the West’s disturbing plan for the facility. “According to intelligence obtained by the SVR, the planned terrorist attack included taking and mining the Kursk NPP,” he said, according to remarks made public on Monday. ”Had they been able to carry it out, Europe would have faced an environmental and humanitarian disaster comparable to Chernobyl,” Naryshkin added.

A 1986 accident at the Chernobyl NPP caused one of its reactors to explode and catch fire, forcing the evacuation of the town of Pripyat and the creation of a 30km exclusion zone on the border between present-day Ukraine and Belarus. Radioactive fallout from the blaze was carried by the wind all the way to Scotland. According to Naryshkin, British and American intelligence have provided Ukraine with information that allowed it to attack Russian civilian infrastructure, including high-resolution satellite imagery of border regions. Ukrainian artillery used this information to carry out strikes with rockets and drones. ”Available intelligence indicates that Western intelligence agencies, primarily the British MI6, have systematically prepared Ukrainian sabotage and reconnaissance groups to organize provocations at a number of nuclear power plants in Russia,” the SVR head claimed, alleging that the British spies and their Ukrainian counterparts were “developing an operation to blow up power lines connecting nuclear power plants with the Russian national energy grid.”

The Zaporozhye NPP in Energodar has been a target of Ukrainian attacks since mid-2022. Europe’s largest nuclear power plant eventually had to shut down due to the hazards, which included drones, rockets, loss of water for its cooling systems and even an amphibious assault by Ukrainian commandos in October 2022. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) observers deployed on site have repeatedly acknowledged attacks on the ZNPP, but have refused to identify who is responsible. Russia has described the attacks as an attempt at “nuclear blackmail,” while Ukraine has alleged that Moscow is shelling the plant to defame Kiev.

Read more …

“..the ban on abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected will go back into effect as the case proceeds..”

• Georgia Supreme Court Reinstates State’s Abortion Law (ET)

A judge’s ruling striking down Georgia’s abortion ban was stayed on Oct. 7 by the Georgia Supreme Court. The stay means the ban on abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected will go back into effect as the case proceeds. Six justices granted a request by Georgia officials to reinstate the law after a county judge on Sept. 30 concluded that the law violates the right of women in the state to have an abortion.Georgia’s Constitution gives residents liberty, and that liberty includes the right of a woman to “control what happens to and within her body,” Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney said in his ruling.In a one-page order from the Georgia Supreme Court, a majority of justices said they were staying McBurney’s ruling as of 5 p.m. on Oct. 7. The majority did not explain their reasoning. The law states that abortion is not authorized if the heartbeat of an unborn child has been detected.

Exceptions include cases in which doctors determine a medical emergency exists and, in some instances, incest or rape.The Georgia Supreme Court order does not impact the block of a provision that would provide abortion-related health records to district attorneys.According to the high court, Justice Nels S.D. Peterson was disqualified from considering the state’s emergency request to intervene, and Justice Andrew A. Pinson did not participate.In an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, Justice John J. Ellington said the state had not provided sufficient arguments to prompt a stay, particularly in light of how groups suing over the law met the burden of establishing that the law violates Georgia’s Constitution.

“Fundamentally, the state should not be in the business of enforcing laws that have been determined to violate fundamental rights guaranteed to millions of individuals under the Georgia Constitution,” he wrote. “The ’status quo’ that should be maintained is the state of the law before the challenged laws took effect. Accordingly, I dissent.”

Read more …

This is about her talks with Bourla on WhatsApp, because those don’t need to be preserved. Billions of dollars involved.

• Trial Date Set In Von der Leyen Covid-19 Vaccine Scandal – FT (RT)

The European Court of Justice will hear a case on November 15 concerning European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen’s handling of Covid-19 vaccine procurement, the Financial Times has said, citing anonymous sources. A panel of 15 judges will reportedly consider whether she illegally withheld private text messages she supposedly exchanged with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla. At the height of the pandemic, the commission advocated collectively purchasing billions of shots and distributing them among EU member states struggling to contain Covid-19. In 2020 and 2021, Brussels struck deals with vaccine manufacturers to the tune of approximately €2.7 billion ($2.95 billion). It is believed that Von der Leyen played a key role in organizing the procurement, with critics claiming the negotiations were not transparent enough.

In its article on Monday, the Financial Times noted that the EU court’s Grand Chamber, which is reportedly going to weigh the evidence, usually deals with complex or particularly important cases. Back in January 2023, the New York Times sued the European Commission after the latter claimed not to have Von der Leyen’s alleged text messages, which the US newspaper had asked for as part of a freedom of information request. According to the outlet, Bourla confirmed that he and Von der Leyen had indeed exchanged private messages, and that the European Commission president had told him she was personally involved in negotiating the vaccine purchase contracts. While the NYT has insisted on the publication of the purported communications, Von der Leyen claims that she deleted most of the exchange with Bourla.

Next month, the EU court is expected to ask the commission’s representatives whether the messages at the heart of the case ever existed, and if so, whether and why they were later destroyed, FT reported on Monday. In a separate case in mid-July, the EU’s general court ruled that the Commission had concealed details of multibillion-euro Covid vaccine deals with Pfizer and AstraZeneca without a legitimate reason. In 2021, a group of MEPs requested access to the relevant documents to make sure that the public interest had been protected and the members of the EU negotiating team had no conflict of interest. The Commission only agreed to release a redacted version and refused to reveal the identities of the negotiating team’s members. The lawmakers subsequently took the issue to court.

Read more …

Just how insane is this?

• US Children’s Diets Are Now “Over 70%” Ultra-Processed Foods (ZH)

It looks like the “Make America Healthy Again” movement could be showing up right on time… At least according to one registered dietitian nutritionist in Los Angeles, who recently took to Fox News to lay out the risks from ultra-processed foods in the American diet. Ilana Muhlstein said on Fox news that America’s diet is 60% ultra-processed, but that kids consume even more than that. “With children, it’s actually over 70%. That is really wild when you think about it,” she said. “What we eat defines how our cells work, how our organs work, and we’re seeing a strong decline in mental health and well-being.” And a recent BMJ study found that 60% of Americans’ daily calories come from ultra-processed foods (UPFs), which are linked to 32 poor health outcomes, including mental, respiratory, cardiovascular, and metabolic issues like cancer, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes, according to Fox.

Muhlstein added: “We’re actually seeing that this next generation might be the first generation to … have a shorter lifespan than their parents due to nutrition and lifestyle factors.” A nutritious diet boosts children’s mental well-being, behavior, and academic performance, says Muhlstein, a nutritionist and instructor of “Raising Balanced Eaters.” While cutting ultra-processed foods entirely is unrealistic, Muhlstein advocates for reversing the typical 70/30 ratio of processed to whole foods, recommending an “80/20 rule”—80% whole foods like eggs, fish, and vegetables, and 20% indulgent foods like chips and ice cream.

For healthier options, Muhlstein suggests swapping ketchup for marinara sauce on chicken nuggets and fries, opting for chicken strips over mechanically processed nuggets, and choosing hamburgers over nitrite-laden hot dogs. Each small change reduces the overall level of food processing. The nutritionist warns that poor eating habits won’t resolve on their own and encourages exposing kids to diverse flavors and textures early on. The Fox News report says that sitting down for family meals—without screens—can reduce the risk of eating disorders and promote a healthy relationship with food. Just three to five family meals a week can make a positive difference, fostering better eating habits and family connection.

Read more …

 

 


 

 

https://twitter.com/i/status/1842968057888534683

 

 

Blind dog
https://twitter.com/i/status/1843528351614677117

 

 

Lynx

 

 

Thermochromic

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle July 19 2024

Jul 192024
 
 July 19, 2024  Posted by at 9:01 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  72 Responses »


Vincent van Gogh The red tree house 1890

 

• Trump Vows To Fight For Unity In First Speech Since Assassination Attempt (RT)
• ‘A Different Donald Trump’ Beams As Rivals Become ‘Converts’ (RCP)
• Providence And President Trump (Newt Gingrich)
• Secret Service Whistleblowers Emerge Following Trump Assassination Attempt (ZH)
• US Democrats Postpone Biden Nomination Process (RT)
• US Republicans Urge Harris To Announce VP Choice (RT)
• Marco Rubio Suggests Biden Resign as President if He Drops Out of Race (Sp.)
• Obama Privately Saying Biden Should ‘Seriously Consider’ Quitting – WaPo (RT)
• Pelosi Urges Biden to Pull Out From Presidential Race (Sp.)
• Biden Accuses Musk Of Trying To ‘Buy The Election’ (RT)
• Musk Trolls Biden Over Donations Plea (RT)
• Von der Leyen Secures Second Term At EU Helm (RT)
• Von der Leyen Commission Loses Covid Vaccine Case (RT)
• Von der Leyen Commission Loses Covid Vaccine Case (RT)

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/i/status/1814118673776316916
https://twitter.com/i/status/1814121692249067777

 

 

Gods hand

 

 

Rogan Trump
https://twitter.com/i/status/1813655504344015132

 

 

Tucker Trump
https://twitter.com/i/status/1814101953774792982

Tucker RNC
https://twitter.com/i/status/1814098702245515725

 

 

 

 

Tucker Boot
https://twitter.com/i/status/1814067146047078436

 

 

 

 

“I’m not supposed to be here tonight,” Trump said, recalling the details of the assassination attempt, as the audience began chanting, “Yes you are!”

• Trump Vows To Fight For Unity In First Speech Since Assassination Attempt (RT)

Former US President Donald Trump laid out the case to “Make America Great Once Again” in a speech accepting his nomination at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee.Thursday’s address was Trump’s first public appearance since last Saturday’s rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, where he narrowly escaped an assassination attempt. The former president took the stage on the final day of the RNC to share his vision for the future of the United States, in a speech he completely rewrote following the shooting. “I’m not supposed to be here tonight,” Trump said, recalling the details of the assassination attempt, as the audience began chanting, “Yes you are!”

“I stand before you this evening with a message of confidence, strength and hope. Four months from now, we will have an incredible victory, and we will begin the four greatest years in the history of our country,” Trump told his supporters.We rise together, or we fall apart. I am running to be president for all of America, not half of America, because there is no victory in winning for half of America.Trump had initially prepared “an extremely tough speech… all about the corrupt” administration of President Joe Biden, but “threw it away” after the assassination attempt. The former president indeed went more than 40 minutes before first referring to “the current administration” in his RNC speech, and has not mentioned his Democratic opponent by name. Trump concluded his lengthy speech with a vow to “very quickly make America great again.”

“We will save this country. We will restore the Republic, and we will usher in the rich and wonderful tomorrows that our people so truly deserve,” he stated. Trump’s running mate, Ohio Senator J.D. Vance, addressed the RNC the night before, officially accepting the vice-presidential nomination. During the half-hour speech, the lawmaker and Marine Corps veteran criticized Biden for backing trade deals that “destroyed” American manufacturing jobs and supporting the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, promising that a second Trump administration would only send American troops to war when absolutely necessary.

Read more …

“Remember the birdcage? Trump had one delivered to her hotel room the day after dubbing her “Birdbrain.”

• ‘A Different Donald Trump’ Beams As Rivals Become ‘Converts’ (RCP)

Republicans always seem to come home. Some sooner than others. Vivek Ramaswamy never really ran against him. Ron DeSantis threw his weight behind him within an hour of dropping out of the primary. But Nikki Haley, the last woman standing, she took her time. The endorsement took three full months to arrive. Donald Trump didn’t mind. The former president did not need her support to lock down a third consecutive nomination. He may not need it to return to the White House either. But as Haley walked onstage at the Republican National Convention Tuesday, Trump beamed. He listened with a bandaged ear from a box overlooking the arena to his last rival, the member of his cabinet who went astray, bending the knee in prime time. “If there is one thing Donald Trump loves more than a Day One supporter,” Hogan Gidley, who served as a Trump White House aide, told RealClearPolitics, “it is a convert.”

Yet, if there is one thing Trump has notably not done this week, it is gloat. He has said comparatively little since the attempt on his life Saturday, exuding a gracious silence – perhaps even a magnanimous stoicism. A source who spoke with the former president at length the day after he dodged an assassin’s bullet reported talking to “a different Donald Trump, but in the best way possible.” Granted anonymity to speak freely, this individual, who has worked closely with Trump for nearly a decade, described a “weirdly counterintuitive” phenomenon whereby “he almost dies, he miraculously survives, and it becomes even less about him.” Perhaps that explains the last-minute invitation to Nikki Haley. She was not originally slated to speak at the RNC, but after the assassination attempt, the Trump campaign asked her to come speak. It was simultaneously an attempt at party and national unity, an overture made more remarkable considering the sheer bitterness of their rivalry. Remember the birdcage? Trump had one delivered to her hotel room the day after dubbing her “Birdbrain.” It only got worse from that moment on.

Haley had been the rare member of the Trump administration to leave the White House on good terms with the former president – and with her reputation intact. Her decision to challenge him was, therefore, seen by Trump and his loyalists as nothing short of a betrayal. And Trump held nothing back. He ridiculed her looks, suggested that there was something awry in her marriage, and dispatched his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., to repeatedly call her “a warmonger.” Haley countered by calling him “unhinged,” calling for cognitive tests for all candidates while suggesting he had lost a step, and characterized a third Trump nomination as “suicide for our country.” But all now seems forgiven, or at least forgotten. At this convention, things just feel altered, said Republican pollster Frank Luntz. “And it feels different, which means people are hearing something different,” he told RCP. “That hasn’t happened for years.” What changed among the Republican faithful? “Their hero was almost taken away from them,” he replied, an occurrence that “humanized Trump and humbled his supporters.”

Read more …

“The concepts of divine intervention and providence have a long record in American history.”

• Providence And President Trump (Newt Gingrich)

I have known President Donald Trump for 30 years. Callista and I consider him a dear friend. Watching him get shot at his rally in Butler, Pa. was stunning and horrifying. President Trump’s reaction to being shot was immediately iconic. He stood up with blood running down his face, raised his fist, and said “fight, fight, fight,” and then “USA.” It was a tremendous vision of courage and power. It struck home all around the world. Within minutes images began to circulate on the internet tying President Trump’s courage to the courage of other historic figures and moments. There is even a Japanese anime about President Trump’s heroic reaction. When it was clear the President was going to be alright, Callista and I were deeply relieved. For me, that emotion was then immediately replaced by fury.

This assassination attempt was the result of the left’s nine-year effort to demonize our friend, President Trump. I had to take some time to get my emotions under control before going on Fox with Sean Hannity to talk about the event. During that cooling off period, my old friend Ambassador Randy Evans called to say that his Pastor, Michael Youssef, had told him it was a providential event. President Trump had turned to look up at a big sign behind him. The shooter took aim at his head while he was looking to one side. When the President turned back to look at the audience the bullet missed his head by less than an inch and hit his ear. If President Trump had not turned at exactly the right moment, he would have almost certainly been killed. When I told Hannity that I really believed President Trump’s survival was providential, that term went around the world.

The concepts of divine intervention and providence have a long record in American history. When young George Washington went west with Maj. Gen. Edward Braddock’s British army in the French and Indian War, they were ambushed on July 9, 1755. Braddock was wounded when the battle began. The Army began to panic and fall apart. Washington, then-23 years old, took control and rallied the British troops saving them from annihilation. Washington wrote his brother, “by the All-powerful Dispensations of Providence, I have been protected beyond all human probability or expectation; for I had four Bullets through my Coat, and two Horses shot under me; yet escaped unhurt, altho[ugh] Death was leveling my Companions on every side of me.”

Washington’s belief in providence was further expressed in his farewell address to the troops after the success of the Revolutionary War: “The singular interpositions of Providence in our feeble condition were such, as could scarcely escape the attention of the most unobserving.” When President Ronald Reagan met with Pope John Paul II to determine how to defeat the spread of communism, one of the unifying facts was that both had been shot in assassination attempts. Coming to grips with why God had spared them – and finding a common mission in defeating the Soviet Empire – were inextricably intertwined. Callista and I talked about this our documentaries “Ronald Reagan: Rendezvous with Destiny” and “Nine Days that Changed the World.” President Trump now joins the list of historic figures who have been saved from almost certain death. When President Trump came to the Republican National Convention, I could tell that he was already calmer, more deliberative, and grateful to be alive.

There was a humility and gratitude in his attitude that showed the act of having been spared had a deep impact. Virtually anyone who had been within a half-inch of being killed would have a deep and sobering reaction. “But for God, I would have been dead,” is a legitimate sentiment. President Trump’s courage and determination after having been shot has created new level of affection – and a new intensity of support – among those who believe in him. He was always the champion of a movement rather than a traditional candidate. Now he has become a symbol of courage, defiance, and determination. Neither America – nor President Trump – will ever be the same after Saturday’s nights assassination attempt. We are on the edge of a new stage in American history. The combined sense of gratitude, awe, and historic challenge make this convention different from any of the nine others I have attended. The next few days will be remarkable.

Read more …

“What actions did the USSS take to remove or cover President Trump after a threat was known or detected?”

• Secret Service Whistleblowers Emerge Following Trump Assassination Attempt (ZH)

US Secret Service whistleblowers have approached the House Judiciary Committee, claiming that there were limited resources to cover former President Donald Trump last weekend due to the North Atlantic Treato Organization (NATO) summit in Washington DC, as well as first lady Jill Biden’s campaign rally in Pittsburgh, PA. Chairman Jim Jordan has demanded answers FBI Director Christopher Wray, according to the Daily Caller. “Whistleblowers have disclosed to the Committee that the USSS led two briefings regarding the July 13 campaign rally on July 8, 2024, with the Western Pennsylvania Fusion Center (WPFC) and other stakeholders, to discuss the upcoming, unrelated visits by President Trump and First Lady Dr. Jill Biden,” reads a Thursday letter from Jordan to Wray.

“The USSS Special Agent in Charge Tim Burke reportedly told law enforcement partners that the USSS had limited resources that week because the agency was covering the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit in Washington, D.C. FBI personnel were present at those briefings. While the Committee recognizes that the FBI is one of many agencies represented in the WPFC, it is the lead federal investigative arm and a key source of intelligence on potential threats for special events in its area of responsibility,” he continued. “The Committee has several unanswered questions about the failures that led to the attempted assassination of a president—the first in over forty years—as well as the FBI’s ability to conduct a rapid, transparent, and thorough investigation in the wake of its recent scandals. Accordingly, to ensure that the Committee can effectively evaluate these matters during your testimony on July 24, 2024.”

Jordan seeks the following information from Wray:
• How many agents, analysts, and support personnel has the FBI dedicated to the investigation?
• Was there coordination between the FBI, USSS, and the WPFC prior to President Trump’s event on July 13?
• How many buildings had to be secured inside and outside of the security perimeter for President Trump’s event on July 13?
• Why was the roof of the AGR International building left unsecured?
• How much time elapsed between identifying the shooter as a potential threat and the attempted assassination?
• How much time elapsed between the local police officer encountering the shooter on the sloped roof and the attempted assassination?
• Has the FBI interviewed the local police officer who encountered the shooter?
• What does the FBI’s evaluation of the shooter’s phone and digital activity show about his actions and movements in the days and hours leading up to the attempted assassination?
• Was the security posture at President Trump’s event limited due to resource constraints with the NATO Summit and/or First Lady Dr. Jill Biden’s event in Pittsburgh?
• Is the FBI’s investigation limited to the shooter and his motivations or does it include the security failures that led to the attempted assassination?
• How did communications breakdowns between various law enforcement entities affect the ability of local law enforcement and USSS to identify the shooter as a potential threat and mitigate the threat before he took action?
• What actions did the USSS take to remove or cover President Trump after a threat was known or detected?

Read more …

Indefinitely.

• US Democrats Postpone Biden Nomination Process (RT)

The US Democratic Party has significantly delayed its candidate nomination process for the 2024 presidential election. A virtual roll call to nominate President Joe Biden as the Democrats’ 2024 candidate which was scheduled for the coming week will now happen sometime in August, the party has announced. The Democratic National Committee was supposed to meet on Friday and finalize the rules for the procedure, first proposed in May to ensure ballot access. In recent days, however, some party members have objected to “rushing” the process before the convention. “None of this will be rushed,” said Leah Daughtry and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, leaders of the DNC rules committee, in a letter seen by CBS News. Sent to 186 members of the committee on Wednesday, the letter confirms that “no voting will begin before August 1,” but notes that the virtual roll call will still happen before the in-person Democratic National Convention starts on August 19.

Meeting state ballot deadlines and avoiding potential lawsuits “is the driving reason for conducting a virtual voting process,” the letter added. The roll call is a traditional procedure by which state delegations deliver primary votes to the nominee at the convention. The Republicans did so on Monday, arranging for former President Donald Trump’s children to announce the Florida votes that officially made him the party’s pick in November. Dozens of House Democrats had circulated a draft letter earlier this week opposing the virtual vote, arguing that it would stifle debate, undermine morale and party unity, and foreclose any changes to the ticket “at the worst possible time.” At least 21 congressional Democrats have publicly called on Biden to drop out of the race, citing his abysmal performance in the June 27 debate with Trump, advanced age, and possible neurological issues.

Senior party figures like Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have urged Biden to step down in private, according to the New York Times. About 70% of Democrats in a recent poll backed Biden’s exit. After the president retreated to his Delaware home with a Covid diagnosis, Axios reported he might drop out as early as this weekend. Campaign spokesman TJ Ducklo sought to dismiss the rumors on Thursday, however. “Joe Biden is his party’s nominee. He’s the President of the United States. He’s running for reelection. Baseless conjecture from anonymous sources isn’t a scoop,” Ducklo said on X (formerly Twitter). Most polls currently show Trump winning the election against Biden, but also against Vice President Kamala Harris, should she get bumped to the top of the ticket.

Read more …

“a group of Democrat megadonors were “dangling money to members of Congress” willing to publicly call on Biden to step aside..”

• US Republicans Urge Harris To Announce VP Choice (RT)

There can be no vice presidential debate until the Democrats decide who will be on their ticket, the Republican campaign said on Wednesday, in a thinly veiled reference to calls for US President Joe Biden to step down. The Republican Party formally nominated former President Donald Trump on Monday, while he announced Ohio Senator J.D. Vance as his running mate. Vice President Kamala Harris reached out to Vance with an offer to debate, to be hosted by CBS News. “We don’t know who the Democrat nominee for Vice President is going to be, so we can’t lock in a date before their convention,” Trump campaign senior adviser Brian Hughes said in a statement on Wednesday evening. “To do so would be unfair to Gavin Newsom, JB Pritzker, Gretchen Whitmer, or whoever Kamala Harris picks as her running mate.”

The governors of California, Illinois, and Michigan, respectively, have been floated as possible replacements for Harris should Biden withdraw from the ticket. Many Democrats have been clamoring for the 81-year-old to do so since his disastrous showing in the June 27 debate against Trump. California Congressman Adam Schiff, formerly a key player in the House Intelligence Committee, was the latest to urge Biden to “pass the torch.” While Biden has refused to drop out of the race – or resign from the presidency – in a recorded interview aired on Wednesday, he revealed the circumstances under which he might do so. “If I had some medical condition that emerged,” this might make him reconsider, Biden told BET. He insisted he is still fit for the job, however.

Speculation about ousting Biden from the ticket was temporarily relegated from the headlines by the attempted assassination of Trump on Saturday. The Republican candidate narrowly escaped death at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. The US Secret Service has yet to give a satisfactory explanation of how a shooter was able to get into position to open fire on the stage, killing one rallygoer and seriously injuring two more. However, efforts by some Democrats to oust the president have apparently continued, with the New York Times claiming on Wednesday that a group of Democrat megadonors were “dangling money to members of Congress” willing to publicly call on Biden to step aside. Harris has proposed three dates for the VP debates: July 23, August 12, and August 13. The Democrats are scheduled to hold their convention in Chicago on August 19, but want to nominate Biden via a ‘virtual roll call’ before then.

Read more …

“The question is, if he’s not going to be their nominee because he’s not up to it, how can he be our president for the next six months?”

• Marco Rubio Suggests Biden Resign as President if He Drops Out of Race (Sp.)

US Senator Marco Rubio suggested that President Joe Biden should resign if he drops out of the 2024 election race amid mounting pressure on him to step down, Politico reported on Thursday. Rubio made the comment while talking to reporters at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee following the news that Biden had been diagnosed with COVID-19, the report said. “The question is, if he’s not going to be their nominee because he’s not up to it, how can he be our president for the next six months?” the report quoted Rubio as saying. “If there’s something wrong with you that doesn’t allow you to run for president, how can you still be there as president? If they’re going to remove him as a nominee, they’ve got to remove him as president, and that’s really bad for our country.” Rubio also noted that he is worried about who is actually running the United States if the Democrats knew about Biden’s cognitive decline and deliberately hid this fact from the public.

“They knew Joe Biden — I don’t mean this to be cruel, but they knew the condition that he was in, and they deliberately hid it from the world. And it makes you wonder who’s running our country. That’s what I worry about,” the senator said. At the same time, Rubio said he does not see how the Democratic Party could bypass Vice President Kamala Harris if Biden withdraws from the race. Numerous Democrats have called on Biden to end his campaign and step aside for an alternative nominee, following a dismal debate performance against Republican nominee Donald Trump last month. The Biden campaign has said that they are not planning for a scenario in which Biden is not the Democratic presidential candidate.

Read more …

Biden is now toxic.

• Obama Privately Saying Biden Should ‘Seriously Consider’ Quitting – WaPo (RT)

Former US President Barack Obama is privately telling Democrats that President Joe Biden’s path to reelection has “greatly diminished,” and that the 81-year-old should “seriously consider” ending his campaign, the Washington Post has reported. Amid a party-wide effort to convince Biden to drop out of the race, Obama had largely stayed on the sidelines. Other than posting a message of support when the president flubbed his debate with Donald Trump last month, Obama has not weighed in on Biden’s apparent cognitive decline, even though he reportedly chose not to stop his friend, actor George Clooney, from penning an op-ed calling on Biden to quit earlier this month. In private, however, Obama “has been deeply engaged in conversations about the future of Biden’s campaign,” the Washington Post reported on Thursday, citing “multiple people briefed on his thinking.”

These conversations have reportedly included former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who along with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer told Biden this weekend that he cannot hope to beat Trump in November, according to CNN and ABC News. “In some conversations, Obama… has told people he is concerned that the polls are moving away from Biden, that former president Donald Trump’s electoral path is expanding and that donors are abandoning the president,” the Washington Post claimed. Obama spoke to Biden in the days after last month’s debate, as Biden insisted he was “not going anywhere.” However, Biden continued to fumble during subsequent appearances – at one point calling Vice President Kamala Harris “Vice President Trump” – and “Obama’s concerns about Biden’s candidacy have only grown deeper,” the Post claimed.

While a spokesperson for Obama declined to comment on the report, the article is being treated by pundits as a de-facto public statement by the former president. “This does not show up by accident,” Fox News commentator and former White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany said on Thursday. “He has green-lighted, in my opinion as someone who has worked in press, his aides to share this with the Washington Post.” Biden is currently in quarantine in his Delaware home, after testing positive for Covid-19 on Wednesday. With public events off the table for the coming days, Biden’s friends and allies believe that he will withdraw his candidacy as early as this weekend, Axios reported on Thursday.

Read more …

“..While she does not wish to call on Biden to resign, Pelosi will do everything she can to make this happen..”

• Pelosi Urges Biden to Pull Out From Presidential Race (Sp.)

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has urged US President Joe Biden to make a decision to give up his bid for reelection, the Politico website reported, citing sources. Media previously reported that US Democratic House representatives are hoping that Pelosi will convince US President Joe Biden to withdraw as the Democratic presidential nominee. Pelosi reportedly talked with Biden last week, saying that some Democrat lawmakers will only become louder in their complaints about the president’s alleged political weakness, according to Politico. The former speaker also asked Biden to make a decision about stepping down in the near future. Per one of Pelosi’s allies, she could potentially go public with the demands for Biden to resign his candidacy. While she does not wish to call on Biden to resign, Pelosi will do everything she can to make this happen, this person said.

On June 27, Biden, 81, appeared confused and incoherent throughout his first debate with Trump, 78, reinforcing rather than alleviating ongoing concerns about his cognitive abilities. His poor performance has led some Democratic politicians and donors to call for his removal as a candidate. There have been growing calls among Democrats to nominate another candidate to replace Biden after his failure in the debate. Theoretically, the party will have such an opportunity at its convention in August, but in practice, it will be difficult to remove the primaries-winning candidate from the race if he does not refuse to participate. So far, Biden is saying he intends to stay in the race.

Read more …

“Fake Gnus”.

• Biden Accuses Musk Of Trying To ‘Buy The Election’ (RT)

Joe Biden has accused Elon Musk “and his rich buddies” of trying to “buy” the US presidential election, following claims that the billionaire is planning to make major contributions to a group that supports Republican frontrunner Donald Trump. “I am sick,” a post on Biden’s personal social media account said on Wednesday, in an apparent reference to his positive Covid-19 test announced the same day. In a reply, the US president continued the sentence: “of Elon Musk and his rich buddies trying to buy this election.” The post called on Americans to pitch in to Biden’s campaign through ActBlue, the Democratic donation platform. The fundraising platform has been in the spotlight because Thomas Crooks, the man who tried to assassinate Trump at a rally on Saturday, made a small donation to it when he was 17.

Reacting to Biden’s pitch, Musk said: “I’m living rent-free in his head.” Biden has faced allegations that he secured his Democratic nomination in 2020 thanks to an “elite conspiracy.” Critics have claimed that powerful party operators, wealthy donors, and the media coalesced around his candidacy to undercut progressive Senator Bernie Sanders, who was leading in the primary race. As broad sections of the Democratic establishment pressure Biden to drop out of this year’s race, citing his mental state and concerns that he will be unable to beat Trump again, the president is posing as an anti-elite crusader.

“I’m getting so frustrated by the elites – now I’m not talking about you guys – the elites in the party, ‘Oh, they know so much more.’ Any of these guys that don’t think I should run, run against me. Announce for president, challenge me at the convention,” Biden told MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe’ program last week in an audio-only phone call. Biden came under increased scrutiny after a disastrous debate against Trump last month, in which he often appeared absent-minded and sounded incoherent, adding fuel to the perception that he is mentally incapable to hold office for four more years.

Musk is openly supportive of some conservative policies, such as increased border security and opposition to “wokism.” This week he declared that he would move his businesses from California to Texas, after a law prohibited teachers in the Golden State to inform parents if their children identify as transgender at schools. Media have reported that Musk plans to donate around $45 million a month to a new super political action committee (PAC) backing Trump. He reacted to the claim by posting a “fake gnus” meme on social media.

Read more …

Zuckerberg-funded group the Center for Tech and Civic Life gave out $420 million to election offices in 2020.

• Musk Trolls Biden Over Donations Plea (RT)

Elon Musk has ridiculed US President Joe Biden for appealing to supporters for donations by casting the billionaire as part of a ballot-fixing elite. The plea published on Wednesday on Biden’s personal X (formerly Twitter) account said the president was “sick of Elon Musk and his rich buddies trying to buy this election.” When he was shown a screenshot of the post, the entrepreneur responded: “I’m living rent-free in his head,” adding some emojis. He also shared a meme praising him as a “f**king legend” for buying Twitter and backing Donald Trump “during the erosion of the republic.” Biden’s reelection bid was undermined in late July by his poor performance in a debate with Trump, the Republican nominee. The Democrat has blamed the debacle on tiredness and being “overprepared.” He has rejected calls from inside the party to drop out of the race.

”I’m getting so frustrated by the elites – now I’m not talking about you guys – the elites in the party, ‘Oh, they know so much more.’ Any of these guys that don’t think I should run, run against me. Announce for president, challenge me at the convention,” Biden told MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe’ program last week via telephone. The president has described ‘Morning Joe’ as his favorite show on American television. Co-host Joe Scarborough was among the Biden backers who urged him to end his reelection bid following the disastrous debate. But the media heavyweight later made another U-turn and now supports Biden’s candidacy again. Earlier this week, the US media claimed that Musk was going to donate $45 million a month to a new pro-Trump super political action committee (PAC). He declined to comment on the claim directly, but posted a “fake gnus” meme in response to the coverage.

Read more …

That will be expensive: “..turning the EU into a “defense union” with a “single defense market.”

• Von der Leyen Secures Second Term At EU Helm (RT)

Ursula von der Leyen has been reelected for a second term as European Commission president, following a vote at the European Parliament on Thursday. The German politician secured a majority of the vote, with 401 out of 707 MEPs in favor of appointing her for another five years at the helm of the bloc. A total of 284 MEPs voted against the move, while 15 abstained. In her nearly hour-long speech at a plenary session ahead of the vote, von der Leyen pledged to fight for a democratic and “strong” Europe, promising to make housing, competitiveness, and defense the priorities for her new term. She also focused on plans to boost bloc-wide defense capabilities and outlined her aim of turning the EU into a “defense union” with a “single defense market.”

The climate agenda and environmental protection, which were at the heart of von der Leyen’s bid for a first term in 2019, will also be among the focal points, she said. The newly-reelected commissioner has also vowed that the bloc will continue “to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes,” and signaled that Kiev’s bid to join the bloc may be realized during her tenure. Regarding domestic EU policy, von der Leyen has pledged to overhaul the bloc’s common budget and make it more efficient, as well as supporting small and medium-sized businesses and protecting farmers across the bloc. In addition, she has proposed the creation of a ‘European Democracy Shield,’ while aiming to increase cooperation between member-states on tackling cyber threats and foreign interference.

Analysts say her address aimed to appeal to MPs across the political spectrum, as they reflected the suggestions expressed by the main parliamentary groups. “We are in a period of deep anxiety and uncertainty for Europeans [but] I am convinced that Europe, a strong Europe, can rise to the challenge… I am convinced that this version of Europe since the end of World War II, with all its imperfections and inequalities, is still the best version of Europe in history,” von der Leyen stated.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1813887120081035311

Read more …

To reward her MIC sponsors.

• Von der Leyen Planning To Turn EU Into ‘Defense Union’ (RT)

Ursula von der Leyen has said she plans to turn the EU into a “defense union,” should she secure a second term as European Commission president. The German’s vision for the 27-nation bloc includes creating a single defense market. In a speech ahead of a vote on her position in the European Parliament on Thursday, von der Leyen stated that “Russia is still on the offensive in eastern Ukraine” and claimed that Moscow is “banking on Europe and the West going soft.” She pledged that “Europe will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes,” warning that “for the very first time our liberty is at stake.”

“We must do everything we can to protect our citizens, it is our duty. I do believe it is now time to build a veritable European union of defense,” von der Leyen added. Outlining her vision for the EU, the former German defense minister said the bloc must keep control of its security and armies within the hands of member states, while NATO will remain “the pillar of our collective defense architecture.” Her vision, however, entails a single market for defense, joint arms-related investment programs, and common defense projects such as an EU-wide air defense system. According to von der Leyen, the EU’s defense sector in its current form is too “dependent on foreign allies,” with “spending on defense too low and ineffective.”

Separately, she also pledged to boost cooperation on tackling cyber threats and foreign interference, and triple the number of European border and coast guards to 30,000. Von der Leyen further signaled that the EU under her leadership would welcome the addition of new members such as Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia and countries in the West Balkans. Russia has accused the West of prolonging the Ukraine conflict by continuing to send weapons to Kiev. Moscow has also rejected allegations that it is planning to attack EU countries as “horror stories” and “nonsense.” The European Parliament will decide later on Thursday whether to appoint von der Leyen for another five years at the helm of the bloc. While she is the only candidate for the post, she must still win a majority, or 361 votes out of 720, to hold on to her seat.

Read more …

She very actively tried to hide it. Unforgivable.

• Von der Leyen Commission Loses Covid Vaccine Case (RT)

The EU Commission concealed details of multibillion-euro Covid vaccine deals with pharma giants Pfizer and AstraZeneca without legitimate reason to do, the European Union’s second highest judicial body has found. The ruling by the bloc’s General Court covers purchase agreements struck by the EU Commission in 2020 and 2021, at the height of the pandemic, and worth “approximately €2.7 billion” ($2.95 billion), according to the court’s statement published on Wednesday. In 2021, MEPs requested access to the documents detailing the terms of the deals to make sure that the public interest was protected and the members of the EU negotiating team had no personal conflict of interest.

Brussels bosses only provided them with partial access to redacted documents and refused to reveal the identities of the negotiating team’s members. The Commission argued that was necessary to protect commercial interests and the decision-making process. The MEPs then brought the issue to the court. “The Commission did not give the public sufficiently wide access to the purchase agreements for COVID-19 vaccines,” the court said in its statement. “The Commission did not demonstrate that wider access to those clauses would actually undermine the commercial interests of those undertakings.”

The court also ruled that “the Commission did not take sufficient account of all the relevant circumstances in order to weigh up correctly the interests at issue, related to the absence of a conflict of interests and a risk that the right of privacy of the persons concerned might be infringed.” The ruling partly upheld two cases against Brussels and annulled the Commission’s decisions to withhold the data from the public, arguing that such decisions “contain irregularities.” Brussels promptly reacted to the judgement, which came just two days before a European Parliament vote on Ursula von der Leyen’s bid for a second term as the EU Commission head. She has controversially claimed she deleted key SMS messages between her and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, and will be the subject of a European Court of Justice ruling on the matter expected this year.

“In general, the Commission grants the widest possible public access to documents, in line with the principles of openness and transparency,” the court said in a statement, adding that it “only partially upheld the legal action on two points” and “confirmed that the Commission was entitled to provide only partial access.” Brussels also stated that it would “carefully study” the decision and that it “reserves its legal options.” The EU Commission can still appeal the decision to the European Court of Justice – the bloc’s highest judiciary body.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Kids

 

 

Serval Ice

 

 

Dog hole
https://twitter.com/i/status/1814031597957709884

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 Older Entries  Newer Entries